Posts Tagged Hermeneutics
On the Historical-Critical Method
Posted by Craig Falvo in Debate/Discussion, Theology on December 20, 2010
The Historical-Critical Method of biblical interpretation is usually associated with liberal Christians. Carl Braaten disagrees:
The material content of theological statements about God derives from given texts and traditions of history. Inasmuch as Christian theology depends on historical sources, it is bound to use the critical methods of research common to historical science in general. The aim of the historical method is not only to establish facts, but also to search out their meanings in their original context.
…
The historical criticism of the biblical texts and sacred traditions on which Christianity is based has been feared by conservative Christians as the deconstruction of the foundations of faith. Actually, however, the historical method is an indispensable ally of Christian theology.
…
The historical-critical method is a tool which can be used by historians and believers from every school of thought. It is not essentially bound up with any particular set of presuppositions, nor do the results of its application favor any particular dogmatic position.
–Christian Dogmatics, p. 20
Incarnational Fulfillment of the Prophets – A Conversation (Repost)
Rob Reid and Paula Fether have burst unto the scene, or seen?, with a conversation concerning prophecies. He would:
“like to engage in a scholarly dialogue about whether in fact there are hundreds or any direct messianic prophecies in the “Old Testament” (ironically, such a term is pejorative on its face!). Thus, I would like anyone who holds similar beliefs to articulate exactly what was predicted and where in the Hebrew Bible and then argue for how exactly “hundreds” of these were fulfilled. I am eliciting a hermeneutical query. I have no intention on entertaining whether or not Jesus was/is the Messiah. I personally believe he was. However, that is not to say that he is found under every nook and cranny of Hebrew Bible texts.”
Paula self-identifies as one who believes that:
“Jesus is the Messiah predicted in the Old Testament, as proven by hundreds of fulfilled prophecies, his miracles, and his bodily resurrection from the dead.”
I cannot stay away from a good conversation – so I want to input a tiny part of the dialogue. I agree with the statement that Christ is the Messiah expected through the Hebrew Scriptures.
Usually, we think of prophecies as something which is foretold, something hidden in mystery, and shroud in secrecy; however, not once in the Gospel do we find the word προφητεία (prophecy) applied to the signs pointing to Christ as foretold by the Hebrew Prophets. This is our definition of them, and indeed, several times, such as the apocalyptic passages in the Hebrew Bible and the book of Revelation, words fall into our neat category; however, I believe that the early followers of Christ understood the overall sayings of the Prophets in a much different way. Further, if foretelling was acknowledged, it was generally in accordance with the people (apostate Israel) who challenged Christ (cf. Matthew 15.7). Additionally, Christ was encouraged from time to time to prophesy, therefore it is safe to say that the writers of the Gospels knew the word as they employed it in our sense. For them, it was not about foretelling, but retelling.
The Virgin Birth is a historical and vital sign that Christ is the Messiah promised by God. Indeed, it is the first sign mentioned in Matthew:
Now all this took place to fulfill what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet:
“BEHOLD, THE VIRGIN SHALL BE WITH CHILD AND SHALL BEAR A SON, AND THEY SHALL CALL HIS NAME IMMANUEL,” which translated means, “GOD WITH US.” (Mat 1:22-23 NASB)
While the word ‘prophesy’ was in use, this was never the phrase used to signal a completion of the words of the Prophets. The phrase which I wish to briefly examine is, ‘γέγονεν ἵνα πληρωθη (took place to fulfill).’ It signals the reader to a passage from the prophets which is about to be completed. Just as Herod did, they began to look for different connections between the here and now to the words of the prophets. This is different from a prophecy about what will happen. Literally, we could translate the phrase as ‘in order to complete.’ The event in the past serves not as a direct foretelling of the thing(s) to come, but as something more like a measuring tool. Isaiah was not prophesying about the Messiah, but his words found completion in the Messiah. It might be better said that events, instead of actual words, were the center of Messianic signatures.
Before we move further, we should note that the office of a Prophet was rarely used to tell the far distant future. Instead, the person acted as a messenger of God for that moment.
Then Amos replied to Amaziah, “I am not a prophet, nor am I the son of a prophet; for I am a herdsman and a grower of sycamore figs. (Amos 7:14)
In Hebrew, the word prophet is ‘נָבִיא’. If we remove the theological language, it would simply be spokesperson, not a fore-teller of things to come. Rarely in what is commonly identified as prophecies do we see an instance of something on the horizon. (Note, 1st Samuel 9.9 indicates an ancient shift between the role of seer and that of the office of prophet.) If you read the Twelve Prophets, they deal primarily with the abuses of Israel and Judah to the covenant, calling for justice for this group or that group, while attempting to at once turn away the wrath of God and warn of the wrath of God. Essentially, they – both men and women – brought a current message.
Let us examine another passage, this time with minimal influence of the Divine (By that, I mean the lack of miracles). In the second chapter of Matthew, we find two markers of the Messianic, both including dreams. First, the Magi and Herod, with a dream from God not to return. Second, we find a dream given to Joseph which drove him to Egypt:
Now when they had gone, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, “Get up! Take the Child and His mother and flee to Egypt, and remain there until I tell you; for Herod is going to search for the Child to destroy Him.” So Joseph got up and took the Child and His mother while it was still night, and left for Egypt. He remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet: “OUT OF EGYPT I CALLED MY SON.” (Mat 2:13-15 NASB)
While the matter may be semantics to some, I must force the difference. First, a prophecy, as used in apocalyptic writings is a foretelling wrapped in language meant to be hidden. We find here Messianic signs which are going to be used to judge the Messiah – yet, rarely if ever applied to Messianic Expectation writings.
The above marker comes from Hosea:
When Israel was a youth I loved him, And out of Egypt I called My son. (Hosea 11:1 NASB)
This is a passage written to rest squarely on Israel as a whole, much like the Servant’s Song found in Isaiah 53. It does not stand out as a prophecy or a cue to something hidden within the meaning, yet, Matthew felt compelled that indeed, this was a sure sign that this Jesus was the Messiah because of His family’s departure from Egypt. This refers to no one but Israel as the Son of God – and would not, unless relayed by Matthew, stand as anything remotely related to the coming Messiah.
It can be reasonably said that Israel did not always expect a Messiah. Further, we can see a progression through the prophets of the understanding of God’s justice, revealed by the prophets, and then the need of a Messianic figure to liberate Israel – not of spiritual bondage, but of physical bondage, and began to be fully recognized in the ‘inter-testamental’ period. Second, the Messianic figure would be one to establish God’s kingdom on earth, with Israel as the center. But again, this was not really seen in the Hebrew Prophets – until the coming of Christ.
Returning to the idea that statements about a personified Israel can be placed on Christ, we find the Servant’s Song in Isaiah 52:13-53:12 in which we read of the punishment for sins as a near destruction to the body of the Servant.
Throughout Isaiah we find the phrase עֶ֫בֶד (my servant) used in relation to historical figures, such as David, or even the prophet himself.
“But you, Israel, My servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, Descendant of Abraham My friend, You whom I have taken from the ends of the earth, And called from its remotest parts And said to you, ‘You are My servant, I have chosen you and not rejected you. (Isa 41:8-9 NASB)
The phrase – unless referring to the examples above – refers to the Israel of Isaiah’s time. Yet, we know that it was transferred to the body of the New Testament Jesus.
As a final example we read the mother’s appeal in Matthew 20.20-23:
Then the mother of the sons of Zebedee came to Jesus with her sons, bowing down and making a request of Him. And He said to her, “What do you wish?” She said to Him, “Command that in Your kingdom these two sons of mine may sit one on Your right and one on Your left.” But Jesus answered, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I am about to drink?” They said to Him, “We are able.” He said to them, “My cup you shall drink; but to sit on My right and on My left, this is not Mine to give, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by My Father.” (Mat 20:20-23 NAU)
Arguably, the question of canon faced not only the Church, at a later date, but the Jews as well. One of the discarded books by the Jews, and held in reservation by the early Church was the book of Great Wisdom (of Solomon). In it, we find a hint at the Messianic anticipation of the mother:
For though in the sight of men they were punished, their hope is full of immortality. Having been disciplined a little, they will receive great good, because God tested them and found them worthy of himself; like gold in the furnace he tried them, and like a sacrificial burnt offering he accepted them. In the time of their visitation they will shine forth, and will run like sparks through the stubble. They will govern nations and rule over peoples, and the Lord will reign over them for ever. Those who trust in him will understand truth, and the faithful will abide with him in love, because grace and mercy are upon his elect, and he watches over his holy ones. (Wis 3:4-9 RSV)
The reason I use this is to set the example – Messianic Expectation included not the idea that the Hebrew prophets foretold Christ in an apocalyptic manner with prophetic language, but that communities expected the Messianic figure to exemplify, to personify, the words of the Hebrew Prophets found in various writings considered sacred by the sects. In other words, the record of sacred writings was the mirror of the Messiah. If the Messiah could not be said to be the personification of rare and obscure passages of the prophets, then the person was a fraud.
Only later did certain segments become more prophetic in understanding, such as the Balaam’s star (Numbers 24.17-19) and Bar Kochba. It is worth mentioning that with the mention of the star in the East in Matthew, this was not connected to Balaam’s star. We know that apocalyptic communities later focused on the star in Numbers and connected to the Messiah – yet, we do not find this connection in the Gospels; however, do find it in pseudepigraphical writings of the period, including the Testament of the Patriarchs, which came to the final conclusion in the 2nd century after Christ.
And after this there shall arise for you a star from Jacob in peace. And a man shall arise from my posterity like the sun of righteousness, walking with the sons of men in gentleness and righteousness, and in him will be found no sin. And the heavens will be opened upon him to pour out the spirit as a blessing of the holy Father. And he will pour out the spirit of grace on you. This is the shoot of God most high; this is the fountain of life of all humanity. Then he will illumine the scepter of my kingdom, and from your root will arise the shoot, and through it will arise the rod of righteousness for the nations, to judge and to save all that call on the Lord. (Testament of Judah 24.1-6)
Further, we see it earlier in the Qumran Community,
And the star is the seeker of the Law who came to Damascus, because it was written A star has came forth out of Jacob and a scepter has risen out of Israel. The scepter stands for the prince of the congregation. At his coming he shall break down all the sons of Sheth. (Damascus Document 7.18-21)
A meditating time frame, we find the Targum Onkelos (c.110), which does connect Balaam’s Star to the Messiah,
I see him, but not now; I behold him, but not nigh. When a king shall arise out of Jakob, And the Meshiha be anointed from Israel, He will slay the princes of Moab, and reign over all the children of men; (Num 24:17)
I note that by it was during the period which saw the development of the Testament of Judah was finalized and the writing of the Targum Onkelos, Simon Bar Kochba (c132) was declared Messiah, nicknamed ‘son of the Star’ and led the Jewish people into final defeat against the Romans. For many of the later commentators, the star in Numbers is a key sign to Christ – yet, nothing of it is found in the Gospels.
The Gospel writers and the early apostolic communities in the Jesus Way began to see the entire corpus of sacred writings as pointing to Christ – not just segments of obscure language, and not in a foretelling sense, but all of the writings, especially of the prophets. For them, everything the prophets said could be said to be incarnated into the person of Christ. This is highlighted in the words of Christ,
“You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; (John 5:39 NASB)
Christ was not merely speaking of certain prophecies, but of the proto-canon – it all testified of Him. Further, we see from different authors ques connecting the life of Christ to the story of Israel – not the blatant ones, but ones such as
who, appearing in glory, were speaking of His departure (ἔξοδον exodus) which He was about to accomplish at Jerusalem. (Luke 9.:31 NASB)
οἳ ὀφθέντες ἐν δόξῃ ἔλεγον τὴν ἔξοδον αὐτοῦ, ἣν ἤμελλεν πληροῦν ἐν Ἰερουσαλήμ. (NA-27)
Here, we find Luke sees the soon death/departure as a sign of the Exodus – which should have brought to the mind of his readers the release from slavery after the Passover. (Also see the use of ‘ἐδόξαζον τὸν θεὸν’ as a queue by Luke to the Hebrew Scriptures.) For the primitive followers of the Messiah, they were not so concerned with ‘prophecies’ such as those of His returning (which are true prophecies) but of connecting His life and work to the collected writings of the prophets. They didn’t look for foretellings, but retellings. Comparing Him to Moses, Solomon, Jonah, and David was not unheard of in the Gospel. While they were the shadow of things to come, He was the archetype.
Finally, we take as evidence of this case, Jonah.
But He answered and said to them, “An evil and adulterous generation craves for a sign; and yet no sign will be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet; for just as JONAH WAS THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS IN THE BELLY OF THE SEA MONSTER, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. (Mat 12:39-40 NASB)
This is not a prophesy of the Messiah, and in no way was thought to point to the coming Messianic figure; however, Christ took history from the sacred writings, and applied it to Himself. No one can easily say that Jonah prophesied about Christ, yet his sign was completed, incarnated, in Christ. It is not that the Gospel writers and the primitive communities of believers backwards wrote the Messiah, but it was only through history that Christ was identified as the Messiah. As Luke recounts,
Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, and He said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem. (Luk 24:45-47 NASB)
Written where? In one specific passage? Not hardly, but written in the entire corpus of Scripture. It was not minute passages of prophetic material which pointed to Christ, but the entire recognized work. He did not fulfill prophecy, but completed the Hebrew Prophets.
I am sure I have left out a key to the argument somewhere, or perhaps made no argument at all, so feel free to bruise and crush me as you see fit. For those who would desire to see me torn apart and laid upon the altar of pseudo-academia, please remember I bruise easily and I’ve been known to cry if my feelings are hurt.
Cherry Picking the Bible
Posted by Craig Falvo in Other Posts on May 24, 2010
The other day, I posted about a internet “pastor” who says that the Letter to the Romans is a demonic book and should be burned. One of the main objections this individual had against Romans was Romans 13 and the role of Government.
Everyone must submit to governing authorities. For all authority comes from God, and those in positions of authority have been placed there by God. So anyone who rebels against authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and they will be punished. For the authorities do not strike fear in people who are doing right, but in those who are doing wrong. Would you like to live without fear of the authorities? Do what is right, and they will honor you. The authorities are God’s servants, sent for your good. But if you are doing wrong, of course you should be afraid, for they have the power to punish you. They are God’s servants, sent for the very purpose of punishing those who do what is wrong. So you must submit to them, not only to avoid punishment, but also to keep a clear conscience. Pay your taxes, too, for these same reasons. For government workers need to be paid. They are serving God in what they do. Give to everyone what you owe them: Pay your taxes and government fees to those who collect them, and give respect and honor to those who are in authority. (Romans 13:1-7, NLT)
So, in essence, we’re just going to rip out the parts of the Bible we don’t agree with. We’re going to cherry pick the Bible to get those verses that we agree with. But where does it end. I don’t know what guided me to this today, but as I was looking for a Bible quote for my monthly newsletter, I turned to Titus 3. This got me thinking, if we rip out Romans 13, then what other verses/books need to go? Obviously Titus 3:1 needs to go. It too tells us to be submissive to the government.
Remind the believers to submit to the government and its officers. They should be obedient, always ready to do what is good. (Titus 3:1, NLT)
Let’s get rid of that. Why don’t we also get rid of Judges, Samuel, Kings and Chronicles…as they all deal with God raising up rulers. Don’t like justice…well, your going to have a very empty Bible. Talk about absolute nonsense.
I cross-posted the original post here, and a commenter had this to say,
“First off, Romans is a letter…but that’s just me being nit-picky”
Actually, I wouldn’t call that being nitpicky at all. The very fact that it is a letter and NOT a book or, for that matter, a systematic theological tome that could be read apart from the rest of scripture as a singular truth, is in no small way how we are able to live in the tension created by the kinds of discrepancies that exist in all of scripture.
In fact, the gentleman you reference here is a prime example of how our presuppositions greatly influence our result. Not only does he, obviously, suppose that there is a single, and may I add quite limited, way to understand the Gospels and that he has received this singular comprehension, he also supposes that the other letters he lists are clearer expositions of this singular truth.
Curiously, I wonder why he insists repeatedly that Romans is a Book but “Corinthians, Thessolonians (sp), Galatians, Collosians (sp) and Ephesians” are letters. However, I do appreciate his cautions at the end related to how to safely burn the Book of Romans. Plus, he gives you the go ahead to burn the last chapter of Acts and the first of 1 Corinthians if needed because “sacrifices must be made”.
Indeed. Just some food for thought on this Monday morning.
Melito of Sardis: Mystery of the Passover
Posted by Joel in Melito of Sardis on April 2, 2010
This is a series of repost for Easter from Melito of Sardis.
What more can I add here?
Components of the Mystery of the Passover (46-71)
1. The Passover (46-47a)
46. Now that you have heard the explanation of the type and of that which corresponds to it, hear also what goes into making up the mystery. What is the passover? Indeed its name is derived from that event–”to celebrate the passover” (to paschein) is derived from “to suffer” (tou pathein). Therefore, learn who the sufferer is and who he is who suffers along with the sufferer.
47. Why indeed was the Lord present upon the earth? In order that having clothed himself with the one who suffers, he might lift him up to the heights of heaven .
2. The Creation and Fall of Man (47b-48)
In the beginning, when God made heaven and earth, and everything in them through his word, he himself formed man from the earth and shared with that form his own breath, he himself placed him in paradise, which was eastward in Eden, and there they lived most luxuriously.
Then by way of command God gave them this law: For your food you may eat from any tree, but you are not to eat from the tree of the one who knows good and evil. For on the day you eat from it, you most certainly will die.
48. But man, who is by nature capable of receiving good and evil as soil of the earth is capable of receiving seeds from both sides, welcomed the hostile and greedy counselor, and by having touched that tree transgressed the command, and disobeyed God. As a consequence, he was cast out into this world as a condemned man is cast into prison.
3. Consequences of the Fall (49-56)
49. And when he had fathered many children, and had grown very old, and had returned to the earth through having tasted of the tree, an inheritance was left behind by him for his children. Indeed, he left his children an inheritance–not of chastity but of unchastity, not of immortality but of corruptibility, not of honor but of dishonor, not of freedom but of slavery, not of sovereignty but of tyranny, not of life but of death, not of salvation but of destruction.
50. Extraordinary and terrifying indeed was the destruction of men upon the earth. For the following things happened to them: They were carried off as slaves by sin, the tyrant, and were led away into the regions of desire where they were totally engulfed by insatiable sensual pleasures–by adultery, by unchastity, by debauchery, by inordinate desires, by avarice, by murders, by bloodshed, by the tyranny of wickedness, by the tyranny of lawlessness.
51. For even a father of his own accord lifted up a dagger against his son; and a son used his hands against his father; and the impious person smote the breasts that nourished him; and brother murdered brother; and host wronged his guest; and friend assassinated friend; and one man cut the throat of another with his tyrannous right hand.
52. Therefore all men on the earth became either murderers, or parricides, or killers of their children. And yet a thing still more dreadful and extraordinary was to be found: A mother attacked the flesh which she gave birth to, a mother attacked those whom her breasts had nourished; and she buried in her belly the fruit of her belly. Indeed, the ill-starred mother became a dreadful tomb, when she devoured the child which she bore in her womb.
53. But in addition to this there were to be found among men many things still more monstrous and terrifying and brutal: father cohabits with his child, and son and with his mother, and brother with sister, and male with male, and each man lusting after the wife of his neighbor.
54. Because of these things sin exulted, which, because it was death’s collaborator, entered first into the souls of men, and prepared as food for him the bodies of the dead. In every soul sin left its mark, and those in whom it placed its mark were destined to die.
55. Therefore, all flesh fell under the power of sin, and every body under the dominion of death, for every soul was driven out from its house of flesh. Indeed, that which had been taken from the earth was dissolved again into earth, and that which had been given from God was locked up in Hades. And that beautiful ordered arrangement was dissolved, when the beautiful body was separated (from the soul).
56. Yes, man was divided up into parts by death. Yes, an extraordinary misfortune and captivity enveloped him: he was dragged away captive under the shadow of death, and the image of the Father remained there desolate. For this reason, therefore, the mystery of the passover has been completed in the body of the Lord.
Melito of Sardis: The Old Testament and the New Testament
Posted by Joel in Melito of Sardis on April 2, 2010
I am reposting Melito for Easter.
I have posted on Melito some before, and find myself returning to him for a bit especially his homily on the Passover. He provides us with an accurate manner in using the Old Testament, and it is an example that is well served for the past few millenia. He does not create something that is not there, no drench the Prophets with our Hope, but stands in the good Tradition of using the New Testament to read the Old. For a New Testament example of this, we need to turn no further, dig no deeper than the Epistle to the Hebrews.
Note, if you will, the powerful images that Melito presents us with.
Easter with Melito – Typology in the Old Testament concerning Christ
Posted by Joel in Melito of Sardis on April 2, 2010
This week, I am going back through my old posts on Melito of Sardis. So, here we go, a bit more from his Passover Homily.
Review: Encounter with the New Testament, An Interdisciplinary Approach
Posted by Joel in Book Review, Criticism on September 15, 2009
Thanks to Jason for this nifty free book.
Product Description
An exemplary text, Russell Pregeant’s Engaging the New Testament (1995) has provided a rich interdisciplinary New Testament introduction for upper-level and graduate students, incorporating a wide range of methods – literary, historical, psychological, theological, and social-scientific, and critically perceptive introductions to each of the New Testament writings.Encounter with the New Testament adapts and abridges the best features of that textbook for beginning undergraduate students – surveying approaches to biblical studies, and discussing historical and cultural backgrounds, the historical Jesus, and the rise of the resurrection faith with attention to extracanonical materials. The textbook includes charts, maps, illustrations, reading suggestions, and more.
About the Author
Russell Pregeant is Professor of Religion and Chaplain at Curry College, Milton, Massachusetts, and Lecturer in New Testament at Andover Newton Theological School. He is author of several books, including the Fortress textbook Engaging the New Testament (1995,) and Knowing Truth, Doing Good: Engaging New Testament Ethics.
Rarely ever do I have to make myself read a book related to the bible – yet, for the first section, I had to constantly force myself to pick it up, plow through it, and see if it would get any better. Fortunately, it did. The book is divided into four parts, one dealing with historical (higher) criticism of the New Testament in which the author takes us through the various accounts of how the Jesus Tradition expanded, as well as methods of that expansion. The remaining three deal with the Gospels-Acts, the Undisputed Letters of Paul, the Disputed Letters of Paul, and the General Letters.
Pregeant promises an interdisciplinary approach to biblical interpretation, and delivers it, except during the first section of the book. He is able to properly place such interpretations as feminist, Freudian, Jungian, the Existentialist interpretation popularized by Bultmann, as well as literary approaches, liberation theology, and narrative criticism. In discussing the various books which serve to make up the New Testament, the author uses the different interpretative methods at different times.
In presenting the New Testament books, the author presents points to look for in the book, reading summaries for each section and then a summary. From there, he employees various interpretive methods as mentioned above. This is a fault of the book. While this book is intended as a entry level device, the author has so broadened the field that he is able to only use just a few methods at a time, and they are random, as if the author is using certain methods to get certain points across. The author, however, does not hesitate in tackling the controversial points of each books, such as the charge of antisemitism found so easily in Matthew, or Paul’s approaches to homosexuality and women and associating the proper methods with these issues.
While the author is squarely centered in historical criticism, and relies on Bultmann’s method as his primary tool, once you move past the first section, the remainder of the book should be well received by all students of the New Testament, if for nothing else, in examining how others view, or attempt to answer, the New Testament. I would recommend this book for those who are unfamiliar with different methods of interpretations.






