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.
_______
Posted in Theological Interpretation | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

Beyond the Historical Grammatical Malaise

English: Icon of Jesus Christ

English: Icon of Jesus Christ (Photo credit: Wikipedia)


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.

Posted in Theological Interpretation | Tagged , , | 5 Comments

Hearing Scripture Together

A sower went out to sow

A sower went out to sow (Photo credit: Fergal of Claddagh)


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 , , , | 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

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

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!

Posted in Ugaritic | Tagged , | Leave a comment

On Hebrew Poetry

Psalm 1, Verse 1 and 2 in Biblia Hebraica Stut...
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 PoeticsSubsidia 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.

Posted in Hebrew, Hebrew Poetry | Tagged , | 1 Comment

Re-Thinking the Ten Commandments

The Ten Commandments, In SVG

The Ten Commandments, In SVG (Photo credit: Wikipedia)


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.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

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?
Posted in Chiasm, Holiness, Leviticus | Tagged , | 1 Comment

The Heart of Leviticus

The enigmatic book of Leviticus is not a first choice for the Church to read or study, yet I’ve been taking my congregation through it (verse-by-verse…believe it or not) for our Wednesday Bible study.  Last night we covered its theological center (or heart) which can be found in chapter 16.  Lev. 16 concerns itself with the holiest day in Judaism: the Day of Atonement (in our day referred to as Yom Kippur).  As we discussed this amazing chapter last night, we conversed about the point of this fasting day for atonement in light of everything leading up to this chapter (the sacrifices, the ordination of priests and a high priest, what is “clean/unclean and holy/common”).

So what is the point?  The point can be found in a commonly used term in the sixteenth chapter (Lev.16:7, 16, 17, 20, 23, 33; and many other places elsewhere in the Torah): the tent of meeting (Heb. אֹהֶל מוֹעֵֽד).  This “tent of meeting” (or “tabernacle”) was intended for one purpose: to be the place where Yahweh, the God of Israel, met with Israel.  The presence of Yahweh was always the point.  This is emphatically stated in the first verse of chapter sixteen which reads: “The LORD said to Moses: ‘Tell your brother Aaron not to come whenever he chooses into the Most Holy Place behind the curtain in front of the atonement cover on the ark, or else he will die, because I appear in the cloud over the atonement cover.'” (NIV)  Yahweh made a way for His presence to remain and for the revelation of His presence in the midst of His people (without them simply being destroyed by the need to be “clean” and “holy”).

We quickly become lost in the regulations about purity and sacrifices.  We tend to think that such matters were primarily (or even only) concerned with sin.  Not so.  That was not so.  The point was presence and relationship.[1]  Yahweh longs for relationship and makes a way back for a people of His choosing who will do what is necessary to live in His presence.

This is also the point of the gospel.  The point is not about overcoming sins or being forgiven of sins.  That is only initiatory to being received into God’s presence…to having God with us (e.g., Immanuel) and even in us.  God desires a people to Himself (Rev.21:3) and has made the way to have such immediacy even in the face of His absolute otherness.

Therefore, brothers and sisters, since we have confidence to enter the sanctuary by the blood of Jesus, by the fresh and living way that he inaugurated for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a sincere heart in the assurance that faith brings, because we have had our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed in pure water. And let us hold unwaveringly to the hope that we confess, for the one who made the promise is trustworthy. (Heb.10:19-23 NET)

__________________________________

[1] Gordon Wenham only includes the “presence of God” as one of the theological highlights of Leviticus, see his The Book of Leviticus (NICOT; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1979), 16-18; and John E. Hartley, Leviticus (WBC 4; Dallas: Word, 1992), lxiii-lxiv.

Posted in Hebrews, Leviticus, Revelation, sacrifices, Tabernacle, Tent of Meeting, Theology | 1 Comment