Pages
-
Recent Posts
- My 2026 Society for Pentecostal Studies Proposal July 5, 2025
- Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28: Could It Be Satan? A Couple of Responses November 8, 2024
- Four Reading Tips for Graduate Students August 23, 2024
- Four Reasons I Embrace Online Instruction as a Theological Educator July 7, 2024
- Five Reasons Pentecostals Should Read Karl Barth July 6, 2024
Tag Cloud
- baptism in the Holy Spirit
- Bible
- Biblical hermeneutics
- Biblical Interpretation
- books
- Christ
- Christ Jesus
- Church
- creation
- David
- God
- Hermeneutics
- history
- Holy Spirit
- Humor
- Jesus
- Joshua
- Judges
- Kings
- Life
- Literary
- literary interpretation
- literature
- Lord
- Love
- Matthew
- Missions
- Old Testament
- pastor
- Paul
- Pentecostal
- Pentecostalism
- pneumatology
- Preaching
- Psalms
- Samuel
- Saul
- Sermon
- Society for Pentecostal Studies
- Spirit
- Theology
- translations
- Trinity Bible College
- women
- women in ministry
Archives
Categories
Meta
Who Do You Believe? Jean Valjean and the Amalekite
My wife and I went on a date (admittedly a rare occurrence with four children) to see Les Misérables. It was a wonderful (at times depressing) musical film adaptation of the classic book by Victor Hugo (which I have never read). One of the things which struck me was the sense in which we are beholden to the story delivered by Jean Valjean. He tells of his reason for the nineteen years imprisonment (stealing bread for his sister’s son) as an inclusio (in the opening scene just before his release and again at the end just before he dies).
The question is: Can we take Jean Valjean at his word? It is a literary technique to allow for ambiguity by keeping such significant claims in the mouth of the perpetrator. After all, don’t most criminals have some form of justification that is claimed? Should we believe this man who wants to assert his innocence? As it turns out, we are never shown the actual incident. There is no narrator who asserts this claim. Such things would actually validate the claims of Valjean, but as it stands (at least in the musical film adaptation…again…I haven’t read the book so I cannot say at all how it is presented by Victor Hugo) we are actually left to wonder if Valjean speaks the truth or not. I want to believe him (he is the “hero” of the tale), but struggle to do so (he is also the man in need of constant redemption).
This leads me to think of the account of Saul’s demise in 2 Sam. 1:1-16. In this account, we find an Amalekite who brings word to David that Saul is dead. He recounts a tale of Saul instructing to take his life so that the Philistines would not have the pleasure. As it stands, we might be bound to believe this account of the Amalekite (in fact, David does; vv. 14, 16). But the narrator in 1 Samuel 31:1-6 states that Saul tried to convince his own armor-bearer to finish him off, but in end falls on his sword to end his life to which the armor-bearer does likewise (vv.5-6).
So which account should we believe? The words of the narrator (1 Sam) or the character of the Amalekite (2 Sam)? I personally think it is normal that one would accept the words of the narrator over any character given that the narrator typically asserts some sense of omniscience in all accounts. This is the conundrum of literary stylizing. One cannot simply assume that all characters (particularly those painted in some way as untrustworthy–a criminal imprisoned for 19 years, an Amalekite) speak the truth. It is this ambiguity which actually helps to create a deeper sense of reality to the whole tale. We do not know the reality, but in the end it would not matter. In either case, we are led toward other matters more pressing: the redemption of Jean Valjean and the rise of David as king in the place of Saul and his sons.
Posted in Literary Reading
Tagged 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, David, Jean Valjean, Les Misérables, Narrator, Saul, Victor Hugo
Leave a comment
On Theological Interpretation and Authorial Intent
I offer the following several paragraphs from my M.Div.Honours thesis concerning an essential aspect of the nature of theological interpretation:
The primary intent of Scripture (i.e., the theological intent) is normative for a proper interpretation that regards authorial intent with due respect. If the theological meaning and significance were excluded from one’s interpretation this would suggest that the reading of Scripture is not to be read as Scripture, but simply as objectified artifact.Certainly the Scriptures can be read in this manner with some benefit, but it fails to grapple with original intent. This “original intent” does not pertain to any fabricated attempt to get behind the text to an undocumented “original” of the text, but understands the text to offer its own implied author and audience. The implied author and audience are suggestive for how one should read the text. Any other manner of reading the text may be helpful in other studies, but is not ultimately helpful for reading the text as Scripture and therefore theologically. [1]
The failure to read Scripture theologically may in fact explain much of the maelstrom of debate surrounding Gen 1, specifically concerning the use of yôm. A theological reading understands there is more to be interpreted than simply one term in relation to other terms or in relation to genre, but also recognizes the grounding of any reading within the overall cultural, sociological and conceptual worldview as the text has been preserved. The context and genre provide the means by which one should arrive at any proper theological interpretation. It would seem that many fail to understand the importance of the theological intent of a given passage. This, more often than not, leads one to inadequately interpret the theological meaning of the passage and thus the intended theological significance of the passage. “When it comes to the Bible, the energy necessary to ‘hear clearly’ may be considerable, especially given the Bible’s ‘remove’ from the listener’s own language, literary traditions, and culture.” [2] In fact, the “ability to ask the proper questions presupposes that we come to the text with the proper expectations, and this in turn presupposes that we make an effort to bridge the spatio-temporal gap by developing, as best we can, an ancient linguistic-literary-cultural competence.” [3]
(To read more: Go HERE)
_______
[1] Brevard S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress,1979), 72-76, 132-135; C. John Collins, Genesis 1-4: A Linguistic, Literary, and Theological Commentary (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2006), 36, 37.
[2] V. Phillips Long, “History and Hermeneutics: How Then Should We Read the Bible‘Historically’?,” in Foundations of Contemporary Interpretation: Six Volumes in One (ed., Moisés Silva;Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), 394.
[3] Long, “History and Hermeneutics,” in Foundations of Contemporary Interpretation, 394.
_______
Related articles
- Beyond the Historical Grammatical Malaise (rickwadholmjr.wordpress.com)
- Reading Scripture Together (rickwadholmjr.wordpress.com)
Beyond the Historical Grammatical Malaise
One of the things which has long bothered me about “historical-grammatical” (HG) methods of interpretation is the sense that it presupposes itself to offer a “scientific” approach to Scripture. While the methods of HG can not simply be ignored in the context we find ourselves in (nor should they be)…they simply can not be allowed to dominate our study and exposition of Scripture. What one needs is to be conformed into the image of Christ by the hearing of the Word. It is the making of the “virtuous reader” who is formed by this text through the enabling of the Spirit who inspired and now illuminates these words. Two particular things come to mind:
There must be humility in our hermeneutics that simply doesn’t seem present (or at least dominant) in the HG methods. It is the openness not simply to hear the text, but to be changed by the text, and by being changed to re-hear the text anew. This is not to be confused with the notion of unthinking embrace, but to genuinely take great care in hearing and therefore being transformed in that hearing. We are not to “check our brains at the door” of interpretation…we are to use all we have been given (knowledge, wisdom, experience) for the purpose of interpretation. In the giving of our whole selves to the Spirit we can then be remade (wholly) by that same Spirit.
Love must define our hermeneutic. This is another component that just seems lacking in the HG methodology. If our interpretation does not drive us to love God and neighbor more fully, than we are not interpreting in a manner befitting the revelation of Scripture. Too often the HG school of interpretation would have us believe that we must be “objective” (as in removed from the text), but we are subjects both confronted and embraced by the subject of the text as the living voice of the living God. This is a hermeneutics of relationality, not of scientific abstractions. Our affections are called to the obedience of Christ…to the sanctifying work of Christ’s Spirit in and through us by this Word. To interpret correctly is to respond correctly is to love correctly.
Related articles
- Reading Scripture Together (rickwadholmjr.wordpress.com)
Hearing Scripture Together
I’ve been doing a fair bit of reading about (and application of) theological interpretation over the last short while (see the brief bibliography below) and thought I’d share some thoughts over the next few weeks concerning some of my readings.
A thought that was particularly poignant by Joel Green (citing James McClendon) concerns the collapsing of time past, present and future for reading Scripture. The dichotomy postulated concerning the “then” and “now” of the Biblical text and its world does not belong properly to a theological reading of the text. The community of God which received the texts of Scripture is the same community which pertains to this day. We stand in continuity as the one people of God.
We do this in our practice of the sacrament of Eucharist. We partake of the supper (as it were) by the very hand of Christ Jesus who instructs us “take” and “eat”/”drink”. We obey along with the Church throughout the ages (past and yet to come) and across the globe. We do not simply receive it as individuals or individual congregations. We are in continuity as “One holy, catholic and apostolic Church” and our God is a God of the living (not the dead).
It is in this same vein that McClendon states: “The present Christian community is the primitive community and the eschatological community.” [Green 2011: p.16, original emphasis] The world of the Bible is “strange” and removed from us not so much by time, culture, language, but by our own hearing (i.e., obedience) to the voice of the Lord. Our difficulty with Scripture is not that we have to leap over generations and cultures back to the era of Scriptural revelation, but that we must “hear what the Spirit is saying to the church”. It is a matter of faithful and faith-filled hearing.
Brief Bibliography
Adam, A.K.M, Stephen E. Fowl, Kevin J. Vanhoozer, and Francis Watson, Reading Scripture with the Church: Toward a Hermeneutic for Theological Interpretation (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2006).
Briggs, Richard S., The Virtuous Reader: Old Testament Narrative and Interpretive Virtue (Studies in Theological Interpretation; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2010).
Briggs, Richard S. and Joel N. Lohr, eds., A Theological Introduction to the Pentateuch: Interpreting the Torah as Christian Scripture (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2012).
Green, Joel B., Practicing Theological Interpretation: Engaging Biblical Texts for Faith and Formation (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2011).
Martin, Lee Roy, The Unheard Voice of God: A Pentecostal Hearing of the Book of Judges (Blandford Forum, Dorset, UK : Deo Pub., 2008).
Seitz, Christopher R., The Character of Christian Scripture: The Significance of a Two-Testament Bible (Studies in Theological Interpretation; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2011).
Thomas, John Christopher, The Apocalypse: A Literary and Theological Commentary (Cleveland, TN: CPT Press, 2012).
Treier, Daniel J., Introducing Theological Interpretation of Scripture: Recovering a Christian Practice (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008).
Vanhoozer, Kevin J., Is There a Meaning in This Text?: The Bible, the Reader, and the Morality of Literary Knowledge (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1998).
Watson, Francis, Text, Church, and World: A Biblical Interpretation in Theological Perspective (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1994).
Posted in Theological Interpretation
Tagged Joel Green, reading scripture, sacrament of eucharist, stephen e fowl
3 Comments
Biblio-bloggers Unite
Perhaps one of the most enjoyable (and immediately applicable) sessions I attended at SBL in Chicago was the Biblio-bloggers session.
John Hobbins made an eloquent (as always) case for his presentation on the call for peer-review in biblio-blogging and for a great interaction from Biblical scholars in the online format. He sold me on it. 🙂
Joel Watts was sassy,self-promoting and name-dropping as always. See his book coming out in 2013 by Wipf and Stock shamelessly advertised throughout his presentation.
Continue reading
It Is About Time
High noon approaches. Sagebrush tumbles along the alleyway. The streets begin to empty. Two masters facing one another for the stroke of the hour. Which will take the day?
Of course, I’m talking about two indroductory Ugaritic texts being published in November. (How is that for melodramatic set-up??? 😉 ). The one being published by Zondervan (the leader in introductory accessible Biblical language publishing…in my opinion) and the other by Hendrickson (who masterfully reproduced Barth’s 14 volume Dogmatics for just under $100…thank you Hendrickson!). It has been well nigh impossible for students of Ugaritic to access the grammar without wading through dated materials (like that of Gordon) or overly technical materials (like Sivan and Bordreuil/Pardee)—both of the former of which I used extensively in my own course of study. At last there will be options for the neophyte student of Ugaritic.
Zondervan’s volume is written by Michael Williams. Basics of Ancient Ugaritic: A Concise Grammar, Workbook and Lexicon (144pp.) lists at $27.94 as a paperback on Amazon. It will likely offer what the other Basics (Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic) offer in this series. I have personally found the series to be accessible to beginning students with numerous aids for learning (pedagogical, digital, etc.) Zondervan has ruled the day in providing other companion resources (vocab cards, laminated paradigm sheets, etc.) to the language student…and done so at an affordable cost. Check out this great video on the text:
(Gotta love that it includes dry humor…by “taking the ‘ug’ out of Ugaritic”).
Hendrickson’s volume (An Introduction to Ugaritic) is written by John Huehnergard (who also wrote a grammar on Akkadian). I would think it promises to be an excellent resource (hardback retailing at $39.10 through Amazon and numbering 250pp.). It will offer a far more exhaustive introduction that the volume by Zondervan which is certainly in its favor so that perhaps it can continue to be used as somewhat of a reference grammar.
I look forward to checking out both volumes at this year’s SBL meeting Chicago next month. Just in time for the showdown!
Related articles
- An Introduction to Ugaritic, by John Huehnergard (zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com)
On Hebrew Poetry
For those who have spent any time studying Biblical Hebrew (BH) it becomes readily apparent that while BH prose is fairly simple to translate (as far as translation of other languages go), BH poetry is another matter altogether. The often confusing short punctiliar lines (at least sometimes neatly laid out by the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia editors even if one disagrees at various points with their reconstructions and arrangements) offer the beginning student of BH many migraines on a good day.
As someone who works to translate BH poetry on a weekly basis I still find it fairly difficult. At times though, the jarring nature of the Hebrew verse strikes my sensibilities like no English translation ever has…and I stumble to find adequate ways to express what I’m reading. Maybe I’m still a neophyte of BH, but it still often remains enigmatic (just try translating the book of Job sometime). BH poetry simply does not follow any perceivable set of rules (despite the over-simplifying system of Robert Lowth or the complex attempts at discerning syllabic concatenization by Michael O’Connor). And yet, BH poetry maintains a certain terse spirit that reverberates with my own spirit. It beckons to me, drawing me into its wild web of words and (at times) farcical phrase finagling.
You still don’t believe BH can be hazardous to one’s health? There is a story told of the Arabist, Paul Kraus (c. 1944), who set out to demonstrate that “the entire Hebrew Bible, once properly accented, could be demonstrated to have been written in verse….When he discovered two-thirds of the way through his analysis that the texts no longer bore out his thesis, he took his own life.” (Alter, The Art of Biblical Poetry, p.2) Now that’s an extreme reaction to Hebrew poetics! Yet it speaks to the issues of allowing the text (form and function) to say what it says, how it says it. To read against the text, is to fail to hear the text and to replace it with another (but that’s for another blog post).
So what’s my point? My point is: Keep at it! Don’t quit just because it is difficult or does not seem to make sense. Part of the beauty of poetic verse is that it resonates at a deeper level than simply the intellectual. It cannot easily be parsed (nor should it). It was intended to impact the senses with joy, sadness, fear, anger, love, passion, despair. It was not intended for analysis (and yields its gems only partially to those who mine it’s depths with such intent). So keep at it!
And while you are at it, I’ve compiled the following brief list of books which may prove helpful in the study of BH poetry:
Brief Biblical Hebrew Poetry Bibliography
Alter, Robert. The Art of Biblical Poetry. Revised and Updated; New York: Basic Books, 2011.
Berlin, Adele, and David Noel Freedman. The Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism. Revised and Expanded. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2008.
Chisholm, Robert B. From Exegesis to Exposition. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1998.
Fokkelman, J. P. Reading Biblical Poetry: An Introductory Guide. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001.
Futato, Mark D., and David M. Howard. Interpreting the Psalms: An Exegetical Handbook. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2007.
Kugel, James L. The Idea of Biblical Poetry: Parallelism and Its History. London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1981, 1998.
Longman, Tremper, III. How to Read the Psalms. Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1988.
Longman, Tremper, III, and Peter Enns , eds. Dictionary of the Old Testament: Wisdom, Poetry & Writings. IVP Bible Dictionary series. Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2008.
Ryken, Leland. Words of Delight: A Literary Introduction to the Bible. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1992.
Schökel, Luis Alonso. A Manual of Hebrew Poetics. Subsidia Biblica 11; Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 2000.
Watson, Wilfred G. Classical Hebrew Poetry: A Guide to Its Techniques. JSOTSup 26; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985.
Re-Thinking the Ten Commandments
So I’ve been rethinking the “ten commandments” (or, better, according to the Hebrew the “decalogue” or “ten words” עֲשֶׂ֖רֶת הַדְּבָרִֽים). There is often discussion in our western context that suggests that the Decalogue belongs in the public sphere (just think of all the legal debates about public buildings and grounds displaying the commandments). Further, they are regarded as universally true and, thus, considered to belong in the public sphere.
My contention is that they are neither universally apparent, nor do they belong to the public sphere. Now before anyone grabs stones to start throwing in my general direction, let me explain what I mean. The Decalogue (just as all of the commandments of the Torah or Pentateuch) belongs, first and foremost, to Israel as a people whom YHWH covenantally created and established. Secondarily, as those who profess faith in Christ, the Church (being grafted into Israel), is that people created and established by the God of Israel to be His people and for Him to be their God…indeed the God of all the nations. The Decalogue, therefore, belongs to a particular covenantal relationship and not simply to some universal truths or principles (just think of Sabbath, YHWH as the only God). This is not to suggest that the command to not murder should be a universally practice, but that in the context of the ten commandments it belongs to the nature of living as the people of the God who created heaven and earth and being made in His image and being in covenant with him.
Jay Marshall argues that a “first step toward discovering the contemporary relevance of the Decalogue…requires a recovery of covenant and community as central concepts of the church” (“Decalogue” pp.171-182 in DOT: Pent., [eds. T. Desmond Alexander and David W. Baker; Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2003], 181). The Decalogue cannot nor should it ever be diminished to a set of ten principles. It is the testimony of the Only God to redeem for Himself a people by His own Son who would live according to His Spirit.
Related articles
- Lawsuit asks to remove school’s Ten Commandments (foxnews.com)
I've Moved!
No, I haven’t moved away from Karlstad, MN, but I have moved my blog from wadholm.blogspot.com to rickwadholmjr.wordpress.com (apparently the plain old “wadholm” link was already reserved for someone else) . WordPress offers a far more user-friendly interface for both bloggers and commenters. As I already blog at two other wordpress blogs, I figured this was the logical move (thanks Brian Fulthorp for the push to just make the move 🙂 ). So don’t forget to change your RSS and email feeds to my new location…or not (if you are done following my blogging adventures and you want your chance for a clean break).
Posted in Uncategorized
6 Comments
Leviticus: A Literary Structure
What follows is a brief literary outline of the Book of Leviticus as I understand it:
A. Sacrifices/Offerings (ch.1-7)
B. Priestly Ordination (ch.8-10)
C. Clean/Unclean in daily life (ch.11-15)
D. Day of Atonement (ch.16) [1]
C’. Holiness in daily life (ch.17-20)
B’. Holy Orders (ch.21-22)
A’. Holy Observances (ch.23-25)
Conclusion: Blessings-Curses and Dedication (ch.26-27) [2]
I think the book offers a chiastic literary structure that demonstrates a literary unity overall and that places the Day of Atonement at the center.[3] Many refer to this book as being about “holiness”[4] (which it is), but holiness toward what end?
Toward the blessing of Yahweh’s presence with His people. As I stated in my earlier post, I believe that the intimate presence of Yahweh in relationship with His people is the point of Leviticus. Holiness is the means by which this is accomplished, but the aim is nearness in relationship. This is further clarified by the last two chapters which delineate the associated blessings-curses with faithfulness to Yahweh and the voluntary dedication of persons and properties to Yahweh. While all that precedes is commanded of Israel in their relationship with Yahweh, the final chapter speaks to what is voluntary in that relationship. The promised blessing in that relations was: “I will put my dwelling place among you, and I will not abhor you. I will walk among you and be your God, and you will be my people.”(Lev. 26:11-12 NIV)
________________________
[1] Leviticus 16 as the literary “center” of the book is also argued by Joel N. Lohr, “The Book of Leviticus” in A Theological Introduction to the Pentateuch: Interpreting the Torah as Christian Scripture (Eds., Richard S. Briggs and Joel N. Lohr; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2012), 87; and cited in that volume is the work of Wilfried Warning, Literary Artistry in Leviticus, Biblical Interpretation Series 35 (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 178.
[2] Admittedly, many scholars consider chapter 27 to be a sort of appendix. I have included it as part of the conclusion because of its voluntary nature for a people who have already covenanted relationship with their God, Yahweh.
[3] For several alternate and more complex chiastic proposals that do not describe the whole book, see Nobuyoshi Kiuchi, “Leviticus, Book of” in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch (Eds., T. Desmond Alexander and David W. Baker; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 524.
[4] Critical scholars even go so far as to refer to chapters 17-26 as a so-called “Holiness Code” which was codified at some other time than the book it has been included in and only later attached because of the emphasis throughout the whole work on “holiness.” One of the commentaries I am using is notably called “Holiness to the LORD: A Guide to the Exposition of the Book of Leviticus” by Allen P. Ross (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic 2002). It is because “holiness” is considered the watchword of this book of Scripture (which certainly seems pertinent), but I believe my point remains: holiness to what end?