I think I'm going to start a new category called classroom snippets. The title will make them easy to look for or skip over as desired. For former students, they might bring back memories. For prospective students and outsiders, they will give you a small snapshot of just one prof at IWU.
My choice today (don't worry... I'm not necessarily planning on doing this every day) is 1 Corinthians 10, very relevant of course to our recent discussion. We started by looking back at 9:24-27. We remembered that there were no chapter divisions when Paul wrote 1 Corinthians. I argued that, in my opinion, the section that begins at 9:1 goes through 10:13.
At the beginning of the course, I gave the students a choice of reading through Craig Blomberg's commentary (NIV Application Commentary) or mine in conjunction with the class. Blomberg of course is a Calvinist and writes of 9:27: "Paul says God will 'test' (dokimasei; v.13) believers' works and give out corresponding praise or censure... But neither one's salvation nor eternal status in heaven is at stake" (185).
But of course we continued to read into 1 Corinthians 10, where Paul compares believers to Israel on their journey to Canaan. The similarity to Hebrews 3 is striking and I suggested that the author of Hebrews drew the picture either from 1 Corinthians or from being around Paul himself and his preaching.
Here Paul likens passing through the Red Sea as baptism, the visible Christian initiatory rite. The most natural way of taking this imagery is thus that the people Paul is talking about are Christians. For eternal securitists in the class I suggested they might want to argue that these individuals were only baptized, not truly converted.
But of course Paul warns that most of these "baptized" Israelites of the story were struck down in the desert. The allegory Paul is constructing here is pretty clear. Some of the Israelites were idolatrous; some of the Corinthians are wanting to eat at idol's temples. Some of the Israelites were sexually immoral; some of the Corinthians are being sexually immoral. Some of the Israelities grumbled; some of the Corinthians were protesting Paul's apostleship.
We should hear an echo of 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 here: "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God... neither ... will inherit the kingdom of God." Paul is thus warning the Corinthians that some of their behavior is putting their inheritance in danger.
A snippet from one of my classes on Tuesday.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
These are very intelligent thoughts indeed and show Reformed theologians (in both the formal and informal sense of the word) doing what they should do, to connect the specifics of the biblical text to their overarching theological understanding. I do it; we all do it; we have to do it.
We differ on at least two points: 1) on what that overarching theology turns out to be and 2) the denial that what we are doing here is not unfolding biblical theology in the sense of a theology in the Bible but identifying a theology beyond the Bible that takes the entire Bible into account.
Thanks for sharing some very intelligent working out of theology vis-a-vis the text.
The "analogy of faith," which of course Wesley agreed with Calvin and others on, largely operates by way of a non-contextual paradigm. The words of the entire biblical text become a somewhat complex speech-act in which God is the sender and we are the receiver. Historical and contextual factors are taken into account to varied degrees as a part of that speech act. But because God is the overarching speaker, words must be harmonized on one level or another so that the words are not primarily read in terms of the question "What is the most likely meaning these words had given their original contexts."
Paul largely interprets the text this way as well, although he often harmonized in non-literal, non-contextual ways that most evangelical Bible teachers would flunk if their students tried them (e.g., allegory).
However, the books of the Bible themselves tell us that they were individually speech acts between Paul and individual ancient audiences (allowing that Paul believes the Spirit is speaking through him).
Here is where we run into a problem. Using the analogia fidei approach, we can finagle the words however we think we need to in order to make the text, the entire text yes, fit with whatever theological system we want it to fit together with.
But the contextual approach follows rules of specific historical and literary contexts. It is flexible to be sure (just look at the commentaries of those following a historical-critical approach), but not nearly as flexible as the analogy of faith approach. We have to judge meanings on the basis of what an audience in the first century could have understood rather than in terms of what we believe God had to have meant by the words.
Further, this approach claims that God was writing these meanings for all time, yet because we are inevitably the ones determining that universal meaning, we end up basically reading the words against our own context over and against all the other contexts of history.
OAW: Your hermeneutic is pursuit of how the message would have been understood by the receivers of the message and not by the ultimate sender of the message?
Ken: The most significant insight into the answer to this question is to understand the distinction. The words from Paul to first century Romans had a meaning. Were they written to the people Romans says they were written to? If so, they must have had relatively understandable meanings in relation to what words could mean according to Webster's AD58ish Greek Dictionary, whose entries were numbered (as all dictionaries) from the meaning most commonly used by people around the Mediterranean to the least commonly used meanings.
I am open to the possibility that at times God superintended these meanings with meanings that differed either in scope or even with completely different meanings that He meant to jump out at later listeners (a so called "sensus plenior"). But the distinction stands.
Now which makes more sense, that although the biblical writings say they were written to these ancient audiences, God really wasn't writing for them but for us? What if biblical revelation is incarnational revelation? True, but true in relation to the categories and at times situations of the original audiences?
OAW: in your understanding since we can't get back to the original understanding
Ken: I never said this. I am ultimately not a deconstructionist or even a radical reader-response critic. My caveats are merely an acknowledgement that those who are supposed to know the most about the original meaning are often at serious odds with each other about what that meaning is.
OAW: If God was writing these meanings for all times knowing that we would be the ones who would determine the universal meaning then how is it that God really had any intent that His meanings would be for all time?
The Protestant approach to Scripture has in general failed to arrive at a universal meaning for Scripture. It has rather resulted in over 25,000 different interpretive groups. You, for example, identify your tradition as the truly biblical one. Good luck convincing all the other groups that think they're the biblical ones. The thing that keeps you from starting a cult is the fact that, largely unreflectively, you bring certain canons of orthodoxy to your interpretation of the text. In other words, without even realizing it the consensus of the church guides your interpretations.
OAW: Do most of your students understand the difference between the Historical-Critical approach and the Historical-Grammatical approach?
I doubt they do, but the distinction is illustrated by two quotes I have written on the inside cover of my first Greek Bible. The first was written in college under the instruction of a well intentioned Wesleyan. It is by Melanchthon and as I remember goes something like this:
"Theology is nothing more than the application of the rules of grammar to the text of Scripture."
The second was entered in seminary, "Context is Everything."
Although my college professor was a very smart and godly man, he largely did not understand what it meant to read the words of the Bible in context.
OAW: Finally do you believe that the Holy Spirit was speaking through Paul?
Yes, but I believe the Scriptures themselves when they say He was speaking through Paul to Romans, Corinthians, etc. He spoke to them largely in their categories (three heavens, those under the earth, etc.). The Spirit has also guided the Church to certain common understandings of the words that Paul probably would not have fully understood (e.g., the Trinity), and still He speaks today to each of us as we have need and are "willing" to listen.
Ken,
Thanks for your patient and thorough answering of my questions.
At this point we are going to see another fork in the road in our understanding of Scripture.
Your answer to my first question indicates that your emphasis does fall on the receivers and not on the original intent of the sender. I would say to the contrary that it is original intent that we must be after and that original intent not only extends to what the writers meant but also what God means as being the ultimate original intender.
Now, if we are going to go inductively after the original intent of the sender (and I'm not a big fan of inductive approaches) then we must keep in mind diachronic and synchronic word studies -- particularly as to how any given author uses his words throughout the corpus of his texts.
Still, word studies leave me a little nervous because the meaning of words are seldom really known apart from their historical, linguistic, familial, and cultural contexts, nor even apart from their sentences, paragraphs and books.
I am sure that you'd agree that interpretation is as much as an art as it is a 'science' given all the variables that must be given due attention.
Now there is another principle though to pay attention to when we consider original intent and that is the intent of the ultimate original intender. Scripture itself tells us what the ultimate original intent of the ultimate original intender is. Hebrews 1:1-3 teaches that the ultimate original intent of the ultimate original intender is and was Christ. The revelation of the New Covenant is qualitatively superior to that given through the prophets. Moses, the greatest prophet was only a servant in God's house; Christ is 'a son over His own house' (Heb. 3:6). The Son speaks, as the prophets did, but speaks as the Son whose revelation is final (cmp. Lk. 24:27, John 5:39). I bring this up only to contend that when we read the Scripture we should be reading it with a view of finding Christ. Christ is the hermeneutical key that unlocks Scripture. Given this I would contend that our understanding of Scripture by God's warrant must be bent to the view of seeing Christ.
So, because of this I would say that God regularly superintended these meanings with meanings that differed either in scope or even with completely different meanings that He meant to jump out at later listeners. Peter seems to give credence to that in what he says of Paul's inspired writings in I Pt. 3:16.
Now we turn to a question you asked of me.
Now which makes more sense, that although the biblical writings say they were written to these ancient audiences, God really wasn't writing for them but for us? What if biblical revelation is incarnational revelation? True, but true in relation to the categories and at times situations of the original audiences?
Actually Scripture answers this question --at least as it applies to the ancient texts and ancient audiences of the Old Covenant. We learn from Scripture that it was written for us (us being inclusive of all who would live, in what Scripture styles 'the last day' or 'the end of the ages.') I would appeal to I Peter 1:10-12, and I Corinthians 10:11 here.
So, continuing to answer your question I think your horizon is to limited. Indeed, there were penultimate original audiences to whom the Scripture was written but ultimately the intended audience by the ultimate original intender is the Church. Now, to be sure, we must do honor to incarnational revelation but at the same time we must do honor to the idea of progressive revelation wherein the whole is greater then its parts.
I will pick up your last few comments in another post.
Thanks for your patience, intelligence, and willingness to dialogue.
OAW
Ken,
I must earnestly demur with your conclusions regarding the failure of the Protestant approach. Frankly, I'm surprised that you would use the standard of 'success' as the means by which you would judge the Protestant approach.
First, Roman Catholicism had and has the same problems. The only difference between RC and Protestantism in this regard is that RC provides a organizational unity that Protestantism doesn't. Certainly, nobody could argue with a straight face that one couldn't find as much interpretive variations within that organizational unity of RCism as one can find in Protestantism. Still, I will give you this... the shattering of the Church into a million interpretive shards should be an embarrassment to anyone who loves the truth.
Second, I assure you that there are not to many things I do unreflectively. But I appreciate your attempt to register my foolishness (in your view) with benign ignorance and not just bullheaded stupidity.
I fully admit that I exegete in the context of a Church consensus. Because that is so, and because I seek to not limit that consensus to the last 500 years or so I am often a gun without a holster. Naturally, I would insist that the consensus of the Church is shaped by authority of Scripture. It is the Scripture that shapes the Church's consensus and not the Church's consensus that shapes the Scripture.
It is encouraging to know that you're not a Deconstructionist or a follower of radical reader response theories.
OAW
Quick reminder of my position on rationality. I make the following distinctions:
1. What God "thinks" on His own time outside this universe. These matters are supra-rational because they are outside this universe. I have no point of reference to know such things literally. And to allow God sovereignty, I prefer to think that what we think of as God's nature is more accurately the chosen manifestation of His will for this universe.
2. Within this universe--special revelation, both pointing toward the supra-rational by way of analogy, which gives us God's chosen self-manifestation within this universe. Special revelation is generally more rational than irrational, but must still be affirmed ultimately on the basis of faith.
3. Common micro-reasoning, an element of Calvin's "common grace" if you would, allowing us to reason things like 2+2=4.
But our fallen limitations are more extensive than we realize, accentuated by the fact that we cannot recognize our points of unreflectivity because, well, we do not realize they exist.
Ultimately, all human knowledge (except for belief in existence itself) requires faith to one degree or another. This is the egocentric predicament. Biblical or theological truths have no way to by-pass this fundamental problem.
The image of God has not been fully distorted within man, hence we can fathom universals of beauty, justice, truth, BUT although the "concept" is universal, our interpretation or understanding of beauty, justice, truth is contextually bound and understood within many frameworks...historical time, culture, personal affinities/priorities, etc.....our perspective is still bound within our "world" reference system....yes, God can and has manifested himself by the power of the Holy Spirit in various times, through human vessels....Am I wrong to say that the East has understood that the Son and Holy Spirit proceeded through, or by the Father? There are those whose calls are specially formed to manifest his presence on this earth. They are the partakers of the divine nature....the question is; Is this partaking to be by man's will or by God's design? I believe that as with all these historical figures, the call is so compelling that there is no way of escape. The vessel is God's bond-servant. It is not by virtue attained by human effort, practice, and discipline. God's Spirit is not confined by our boxes. We usually recognize His work by those who have been "called".
On the other hand, moral development can be a product of man's discipline, habit and pattern of life. Men can do "good works" that make a difference in other lives, but the natural development of morality will never affect history in magnitude, but it does make a difference. Moral development is itself a product of man made in God's image...Those who are made not just in His image, but likeness are those who are "called".
Post a Comment