It's a bit of a different outlook, to say the least...

My contention is that, if our theology really derives from the biblical text, we must reconsider our selective supernaturalism and recover a biblical theology of the unseen world. This is not to suggest that the best interpretation of a passage is always the most supernatural one. But the biblical writers and those to whom they wrote were predisposed to supernaturalism. To ignore that outlook or marginalize it will produce Bible interpretation that reflects our mind-set more than that of the biblical writers.—Michael Heiser, The Unseen Realm, 18 (emphasis original)

It's closed world, after all…

First, many Christians claim to believe in the supernatural but think (and live) like skeptics. We find talk of the supernatural world uncomfortable. This is typical of denominations and evangelical congregations outside the charismatic movement—in other words, those from a background like the one I grew up in.

There are two basic reasons why noncharismatics tend to close the door on the supernatural world. One is their suspicion that charismatic practices are detached from sound exegesis of Scripture. As a biblical scholar, it’s easy for me to agree with that suspicion—but over time it has widely degenerated into a closed-minded overreaction that is itself detached from the worldview of the biblical writers.—Michael Heiser, The Unseen Realm, 17

Hermeneutics? Or dogma?

The authority of Paul’s statements is derived not from his hermeneutics but from his apostolic inspiration. Today, we are obligated to use hermeneutical principles to validate our interpretations because we are not inspired. Paul’s authority derived from his apostolic status, but in our case whatever authority we have derives from the integrity of our method. Sound hermeneutical principles are essential to place necessary restrictions on us as interpreters because we do not have authority. If we were all inspired, we would not need hermeneutics. What makes the New Testament authors different from us is that they are inspired; we are not. Consequently, we should never conclude that we could reproduce their methodology; the authority of their message is vouchsafed from their inspiration no matter how sound their methodology may or may not be.—Walton and Walton, The Lost World of the Torah, 131

<idle musing>
OK. This is a bit much! I don't buy it. It sounds to me like an attempt to justify their version of hermeneutics as opposed to the style of hermeneutics used by the NT authors (and other interpreters at the time). Again: NO! I could go on, but I'll spare you…
</idle musing>

We intend to communicate

One of the strongest claims of the [relevance] theory is that humans, by producing utterances, have the intention to communicate, a claim that is important when considered from a literary background in which deconstruction has reigned supreme. Relevance theory also provides a theoretical underpinning for human strategies of communication and, in addition, for the miscommunication that frequently occurs.—Margaret Sim, A Relevant Way to Read, 117

<idle musing>
That's the end of this short little book. I hope you learned something—or at least were reminded of things you already knew.

Next up is a book a friend of mine gave me just prior to the Covid-19 outbreak. It sat on my bookshelf, but then a while ago, I read something somewhere that reminded me that I own the book. So, I picked it up and began to slowly read through it. I hope you enjoy it. The name of the book is —The Holy Longing, by Ronald Heiser.
</idle musing>

Why linguistics?

In biblical studies, as in many other areas of learning, language analysis has rarely thrived as an end in itself. For the most part, linguistics has served the needs of philology. Grammar has been formalized in order to read and interpret a text fluently and correctly. Special attention has been paid to irregular patterns and to rare and unexpected forms. The philologist encountering an odd phenomenon can consult a specialized grammar book and find an explanation of a puzzling form or construction, or the thrust of a peculiar idiom. By correctly identifying unusual language forms, the philologist can proceed with the business of interpreting the text. Grammar ministers to meaning, and this is as it should be. Ultimately all disciplines should serve to elucidate the literatures that we study by clearing out the channels of communication, removing the clutter of unknowns that block our understanding.—Edward Greenstein, in Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew, 29

It takes a village (church)

For the fathers, then, hermeneutics is not an objective science that can be practiced by any scholar within any context. Rather hermeneutics in Christ becomes a spiritual, communal, interpretive art. It can be safely, wisely and fruitfully exercised only by those whose minds and hearts have been soaked in and shaped by the gospel itself—within the Christian community's reflection, devotion and worship.—Christopher Hall, Reading Scripture with the Church Fathers, 195

<idle musing>
That completes our quick little trot through the fathers. I hope you enjoyed it and are stimulated to read the originals.

Monday I'll start excerpting from IVP's A History of Western Philosophy from 2018. I picked it up at AAR/SBL that year and it's been staring at me, daring me to pick it up and read it ever since. I finally did : )
</idle musing>

Yes, Virginia, there (still) is a metanarrative

The fathers insist that the narrative of the Bible is a continuous, deeply connected story from Genesis through Revelation. The Old Testament is not discontinuous with the New. Rather the themes presented in the Old Testament find their fulfillment in the narrative structure of the New Testament. Continuity and fulfillment characterize the entire story. Most importantly, the fathers insist that the biblical narrative reaches its culmination, its thematic climax, with the incarnation, crucifixion and resurrection of the Son of God. Indeed, the incarnational, soteriological and eschatological foci of the New Testament further clarify and deepen the Old Testament witness itself. We will read the Bible ineffectively and incorrectly, the fathers warn, if we fail to read its individual parts in the light of its overarching, unifying message.—Christopher Hall, Reading Scripture with the Church Fathers, 191

<idle musing>
I know I've used that blog title at least once before, but I like it. Especially because it is true. Our age likes to split the Bible into smaller sections and look at the theology of a book, or section of a book, or a section of the canon. The big projects of the early-to-mid-twentieth century, such as Eichrodt and van Rad with their huge, two volume theologies aren't being produced anymore. But you can buy any number of books with the title/subtitle/theme of "the theologies of the Bible." We've lost sight of the metanarrative.

Lewis was right (see yesterday's post), we do need the writers and books of the past to correct our blindness!
</idle musing>

Jerome's hermeneutics

Because he [Jerome] is convinced that the overarching biblical narrative is one piece, inspired by the guidance of the Holy Spirit and continually pointing to God’s culminating act in the incarnation and redemptive work of the Son, Jerome consistently looks for connections in the story, many of which are not immediately apparent. He, like other fathers, will force us to read the particular text in light of the whole gospel narrative within the context of the Christian community.

The danger of this approach, though, particularly for those fathers seeking an allegorical sense in the biblical text, is to discern a message in the text that only they can see. The danger of subjectivism is apparent.—Christopher Hall, Reading Scripture with the Church Fathers, 115

Ambrose and Augustine on hermeneutics

It is important to note that the comments of Ambrose and Augustine concerning the “literal” meaning of a biblical text were made in response to Christian interpreters who disregarded common literary devices such as metaphor and insisted on interpreting the Old Testament in an extremely wooden, often corporeal sense. Too many in Ambrose’s own congregation considered exegesis a “spontaneous, immediate, and unconsidered” exercise. Various “errors and absurdities” were the result. Ambrose did not ignore the literal sense of the text, “but in many cases called the spiritual sense what we would consider to be the figurative literal sense.” [De Margerie, Introduction to the History of Exegesis, 2:79]—Christopher Hall, Reading Scripture with the Church Fathers, 105

<idle musing>
The more things change, the more they remain the same, eh? I've often said that we could use more literary interpreters and fewer engineer ones. By that meaning those who understand the literary techniques versus the literalistic, blueprint approach to scripture that seems to be far too common. Or else people wax eloquent in the allegorical approach, an equally dangerous approach…
</idle musing>

Basil's hermeneutics

Basil here illustrates a fundamental patristic hermeneutical principle. The old must be read and interpreted in light of the new. The narrative of Scripture is a continuum progressing to a culmination in Christ. As the texts of the old covenant are watered by the revelation the new covenant brings, they themselves blossom even more fully.—Christopher Hall, Reading Scripture with the Church Fathers, 92

Which tradition?

Many conservative Protestant interpreters, though uncomfortable to find themselves slumbering with Enlightenment and postmodernist bedfellows, will fail to discern or acknowledge the necessity of studying the fathers. The deep-seated Protestant suspicion of tradition and its confidence in the ability of renewed reason alone to understand Scripture will lead many to shy away from investing time and energy in exploring patristic thought, believing it better to focus on the world of the Bible itself. The intervening centuries, some will assert, have largely been characterized by distortion and error, especially in the Roman Catholic and Orthodox worlds. To return to the fathers as a source of interpretation appears to necessitate a return to Rome or Constantinople. For some, radical reformers such as Menno Simons seem much closer to the truth in their call for a return to the pristine world of the early first-century Christian community.—Christopher Hall, Reading Scripture with the Church Fathers, 31

<idle musing>
While that is true, beware of going to the opposite extreme and unthinkingly embracing the traditions of the fathers. And, while we're at it, beware of unthinkingly embracing the faith tradition you are a part of, too, whether it be Reformed, Lutheran, Baptist, anabaptist, Brethren, Wesleyan, what have you. They all are now traditions! For that matter, the Enlightenment is a tradition, too. Think about that for a minute.
</idle musing>

Presuppositions

Postmodern hermeneutics has helped us to see that our cultural, historical and social environment affects and conditions what we see and understand of another’s text and world.

The danger of the postmodern corrective lies in its tendency to collapse ontology, epistemology and ethics into interpretation itself.—Christopher Hall, Reading Scripture with the Church Fathers, 29

A consistent hermeneutic

Now we return to the issue with which we began. When we try to understand what the Bible says, it is of utmost importance that we approach the text consistently. We cannot take individual passages or verses in isolation and apply whatever particular logical process is necessary to make them say what we want them to say or think they should say. This is true whether we are apologists trying to defend the Bible or anti-Christian critics attempting to defame it. Inconsistent interpretations are of no value, and their conclusions should not be seriously considered by anyone.— The Lost World of the Israelite Conquest, 253

<idle musing>
I agree 100 percent. It's an admirable goal and one to which we should all aspire. But after reading this book twice now, and looking at the reviews and interacting with the few comments left here, I have to think that there are some hermeneutical gymnastics going on.

As much as I wish I could find a logical, agreeable solution to ḥerem, I'm still left without one. And that's probably ok. Somethings just aren't understandable this side of paradise—I just wish I could choose which ones!
</idle musing>

Hermeneutics (Tozer for Tuesday)

Here is a good working rule to help you rightly understand Scripture: If you do not have more than one verse to support what you read, do not teach it. Because, if it is not found in more than one verse in the Bible, chances are it is not found there either, and what you think is a passage teaching a certain thing does not teach it at all.—A.W. Tozer, Living as a Christian, 169

We might be wrong!

I had marked this passage earlier, but forgot to post it. So, mentally rewind about 100 pages!

Many people today who misread the Bible do so as a result of failing to properly translate its ideas. As a result, some people view the Bible’s text as containing a record of God’s absolute ideals, which were dictated to ancient Israel in an effort to alter their thinking to become like modern people, or at least more like modern people than they already were. This is because we see modern ideas as being better than ancient ideas. While it is reasonable for us to prefer modern ideas (if for no other reason than simply because they are ours), it is not reasonable to project our ideas onto God and ascribe them to him simply because we prefer them. This is why, if we wish to treat the text as a source of authority, it is so important to make sure that we are careful and consistent in describing what it actually says, instead of intuitively describing what we think it should say. We must never appropriate divine authority for ourselves, and we must never assume that our ideals and perspectives correlate with God’s.— The Lost World of the Israelite Conquest, 23–24

<idle musing>
Indeed! And a very difficult ideal to maintain. We all bring our own presuppositions and experiences to the text. It's impossible not to! The nineteenth century's neutral interpreter of the facts doesn't exist and never has or will. Joe Friday's, "Just the facts, ma'am," is an illusion.

Of course, that doesn't mean we shouldn't try! It just means we should humbly acknowledge that we might be wrong. What a thought! But a little (better yet, a lot) of humility goes a long way. Hubris/pride always leads to a downfall.

Just an
<idle musing>

The hermeneutics of disagreement

Disagreement, says Stout, is limited precisely to the extent that we recognize it as disagreement at all. Absent a larger background of agreement, difference would show up as unintelligibility, not disagreement: “Our disagreements … to be, intelligible, require a background of truths taken for granted” (59, cf. 19-21, 43, et passim). To say “that another society has a moral language is to say that it has Views on at least some of the topics we denominate as moral” (69). It is this larger background of agreement that makes disagreement disagreement and simultaneously affords the promise of translation. Hermeneutical enrichment is a real possibility exactly to the extent that disagreement is parasitic upon a deeper agreement and does not—indeed, it apparently cannot—“go all the way down” (20). We inevitably understand something of those with whom we disagree. Articulating this something, finding its linguistic shape and expounding it, discloses the agreement and simultaneously points the way toward the mutually intelligible judgments that are translation in action.—One True Life: The Stoics and Early Christians as Rival Traditions, 241–42

Tozer for a Tuesday

[Speaking of those who force an interpretation and call it "rightly dividing the word of truth," he says} Rightly dividing the Word of Truth turns out to be anemic and usually bleeds to death in the hands of the man who holds it. Then he carries a dead text around with him and rams it down everybody’s throat. The carnal urge to “rightly divide” arises from intellectual pride. And that is What we call trying too hard.—A.W. Tozer, Living as a Christian, 33

<idle musing>
We all know people like that, don't we? : (

Lord, deliver me from being one of them!
</idle musing>

But what does the text say?

Contrary to Schreiner, Witherington, Moo, and others who maintain this guaranteed future reality, there is no indication within the context of Romans 8:30 that Paul writes from this future standpoint. Assurance alone is not a strong rationale for assuming Paul is writing about believers’ guarantee of glorification from a future perspective. I suggest that scholars take this view because their presupposed definition of δόξα [doxa] requires it: God’s people have clearly not yet been brought fully into the divine glory; therefore, the only explanation of the aorist is that, because it is so assured in the future, it can be spoken of as if it were a reality already in the present. This anticipatory interpretation, however, is unsupported.—Conformed to the Image of His Son, 236

Who's leading the show?

Rom 8:30 should first (not only) be read through a disciplined lens of biblical theology, in which we strive to let the text inform our system rather than (in an unhealthy way) our system inform the text. To be sure, it is not only impossible but undesirable to read any given text without a systematic framework. Yet our mindset must be one of self-consciously letting the text tinker with the framework rather than the framework with the text.—Dane Ortlund, Inaugurated Glorification: Revisiting Romans 8:30 JETS 57 (2014): 128 (emphasis original); cited in Conformed to the Image of His Son, 225

<idle musing>
But how often is it the other way around? Far too often we go to scripture seeking a proof text for our chosen position, rather than going there with an open mind. Yes, we all have frameworks (presuppositions), but they must be open to modification if we intend to grow spiritually (as well as intellectually and emotionally).

Back in the day, we used to call that inductive versus deductive reading. Not sure what they call it now, but the principle remains the same: Let the text dictate what you find, not the other way around.

To share a story: Many years ago, another person and I used to get together to sight-read in the Greek New Testament. One day, the person I was reading with said something to the effect that they were truly amazed because I let the text dictate how I translated and interpreted it. I asked them what they meant. They replied that they had been taught to go to the text with a firm idea and then find it there—and this person was seminary-trained! Yikes!

As the title of the post asked, "Who's leading the show?" I hope and pray you let God, through the Holy Spirit, direct what you find in any given text, not what your presuppositions/framework/theology dictates has to be there or can't be there.
</idle musing>

Hermeneutics count

God’s norms for creation are constant, but the articulation of these norms might need to change in order to address the actual historical situation that God’s people find themselves to be in.—J. Richard Middleton, A New Heaven and a New Earth, 101 n. 10