Ezra and Nehemiah tell the story of how God restored his broken people after they came back home from their exile to Babylon.
Ezra 9:9 sums up the major theme of these books: ‘Though we are slaves, our God has not deserted us in our bondage. He has shown us kindness in the sight of the kings of Persia: He has granted us new life to rebuild the house of our God and repair its ruins, and he has given us a wall of protection in Judah and Jerusalem.’
1. One Book
Although Ezra and Nehemiah are separated in our English Bibles, they were originally written as one long work, and are best read as one book. They also contain different ‘forms’ of literature – some personal memoirs, some lists, some family trees, some letters – but they’re one book and they tell one story.
2. Real Events
Ezra and Nehemiah tell of real events. A number of times, they record dates which we can check out with reasonable accuracy. Ezra begins in 539 BC, and Nehemiah ends in 433, about 100 years later.
After Jerusalem is torn down, about fifty years go by, Babylon slowly crumbles, and Persia takes over on the world scene (see 2 Chronicles 36:22-23; cf. Ezra 1:1), with Cyrus allowing subjugated peoples to return home.
Ezra 1-6 tells of a first wave of exiles who return and eventually rebuild the temple (in 516). More than fifty years go by (during which the events which are described in the book of Esther happen back in Persia) before Ezra the scribe comes on the scene, in 458 (not appearing until chapter 7 of the book which has his name on the cover). Then about twelve years later, in 445, Nehemiah comes from Persia to rebuild the walls of the city. The last date in Nehemiah is 433, bringing us pretty close to the end of the Old Testament period.
3. Restored People
Ezra and Nehemiah tell the story of a restored people. The books are sometimes used to illustrate lessons about leadership or building projects; and there may be ways in which they are models of leadership for us, in the priorities they set, and in how they go about things. But they have much more to tell us about the factors involved in the restoration of all of God’s people.
There are different dimensions to restoration. Ezra chapters 1-6 focus on the restored temple. But bricks and mortar are not enough, so in chapters 7-10 we see the people being brought under a restored rule. That brings us to the first part of Nehemiah, with its interest again in bricks and mortar: restoring the walls of the city, in the first seven chapters. And then, once again, the people can build a wall around their city, but they also need to build a wall around their lives: the new city requires a new society.
Hence:
The new temple (Ezra 1-6)
• Return of the exiles (Ezra 1-2)
• Rebuilding of the temple (Ezra 3-6)
The new rule (Ezra 7-10)
• Responsibility of the scribe (Ezra 7-8)
• Reformation of the people (Ezra 9-10)
The new city (Nehemiah 1-7)
• Resolve of the governor (Nehemiah 1-2)
• Reconstruction of the walls (Nehemiah 3-7)
The new society (Nehemiah 7-13)
• Renewal of the covenant (Nehemiah 8-10)
• Restoration of the nation (Nehemiah 11-13)
4. Sovereign God
Ezra and Nehemiah teach us that God is sovereign. While they were in exile, they were promised restoration: Jeremiah spoke about God making a new covenant with the people; Ezekiel had a vision of dry bones coming to life. But it would be God who would do it. He wants to do it because he is a faithful God, a merciful God, a covenant-keeping God. And he can do it because he is a sovereign God.
Saturday, 29 August 2009
Friday, 28 August 2009
Matthew Levering on Ezra and Nehemiah
Matthew Levering, Ezra & Nehemiah, Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible (Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2007).
Matthew Levering contributes the volume on Ezra and Nehemiah to the Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible, a series self-consciously devoted to theological reflection on the biblical text, written with ‘the conviction that dogma clarifies rather than obscures’ (‘Series Preface’, 13), and which has turned to theologians rather than biblical scholars, ‘chosen because of their knowledge of and expertise in using the Christian doctrinal tradition’ (‘Series Preface’, 14).
Levering hopes to give ‘a sense of the narrative flow’ of Ezra and Nehemiah, but notes that the commentary ‘makes no claim to be a historical or literary study of the books’ (21). The three distinguishing features of his commentary are:
(1) to employ the template of ‘holy people and holy land’ in reading Ezra-Nehemiah. This picks up an earlier co-written study: Michael Dauphinais and Matthew Levering, Holy People, Holy Land: A Theological Introduction to the Bible (Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2005 – a very helpful volume.
(2) to read Ezra-Nehemiah in the light of other canonical books, and
(3) to work with a view of history seen not merely as the linear progression of time, but as ‘the non-chronological relationships through which past, present, and future human beings share in different ways in the same realities’, such that ‘the story of Ezra and Nehemiah becomes our story even while remaining their story’ (23). This notion of participating in the history of Israel and the church receives extended treatment in his Participatory Biblical Exegesis: A Theology of Biblical Interpretation (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2008) – a hefty read, it has to be said.
Matthew Levering contributes the volume on Ezra and Nehemiah to the Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible, a series self-consciously devoted to theological reflection on the biblical text, written with ‘the conviction that dogma clarifies rather than obscures’ (‘Series Preface’, 13), and which has turned to theologians rather than biblical scholars, ‘chosen because of their knowledge of and expertise in using the Christian doctrinal tradition’ (‘Series Preface’, 14).
Levering hopes to give ‘a sense of the narrative flow’ of Ezra and Nehemiah, but notes that the commentary ‘makes no claim to be a historical or literary study of the books’ (21). The three distinguishing features of his commentary are:
(1) to employ the template of ‘holy people and holy land’ in reading Ezra-Nehemiah. This picks up an earlier co-written study: Michael Dauphinais and Matthew Levering, Holy People, Holy Land: A Theological Introduction to the Bible (Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2005 – a very helpful volume.
(2) to read Ezra-Nehemiah in the light of other canonical books, and
(3) to work with a view of history seen not merely as the linear progression of time, but as ‘the non-chronological relationships through which past, present, and future human beings share in different ways in the same realities’, such that ‘the story of Ezra and Nehemiah becomes our story even while remaining their story’ (23). This notion of participating in the history of Israel and the church receives extended treatment in his Participatory Biblical Exegesis: A Theology of Biblical Interpretation (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2008) – a hefty read, it has to be said.
Six of the Best 3: Books on Biblical Worldview Formation
This is the third in a series of ‘Six of the Best’ books in a particular area related to engaging with Scripture which are first posted on the website of the London Institute for Contemporary Christianity.
The first one profiled books for beginners on interpreting the Bible, and the second one looked at books on biblical themes. This one highlights biblical worldview formation.
The resources listed here discuss the significance of developing a Christian worldview based on Scripture. Although there are plenty of good treatments of worldview from a philosophical and theological perspective, this list is limited to those books which discuss the relationship between the Bible and worldview – particularly how a Christian worldview is shaped by an understanding of Scripture as one unfolding story of redemption. If you’re new to this area, begin with the books by Hardyman or Ryken; any of the others will do if you’re already off the starting blocks and want to think further.
Michael W. Goheen and Craig G. Bartholomew, Living at the Crossroads: An Introduction to Christian Worldview (London: SPCK, 2008).
A follow-up to their widely-acclaimed volume The Drama of Scripture: Finding Our Place in the Biblical Story (London: SPCK, 2006), this provides an excellent introduction to Christian worldview thinking based on the scriptural story of creation–sin–restoration, how it relates to the western story’s move from modernity to postmodernity, and how it applies to key areas of life such as education, economics, sport, and politics.
Julian Hardyman, Maximum Life: All for the Glory of God (Nottingham: IVP, 2009).
First published in 2006 as Glory Days, this is not a theoretical exploration of worldview as such, but provides an excellent semi-popular and shortish exploration of the ‘worldviewish’ notion that God is as concerned with our family, hobbies, and politics as much as he is concerned with our prayer life, Bible reading, and church attendance.
Philip Graham Ryken, What is the Christian Worldview?, Basics of the Reformed Faith Series (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing, 2006).
A short booklet, and a very useful way into the topic for those new to the area.
Brian J. Walsh and J. Richard Middleton, The Transforming Vision: Shaping a Christian World View (Downers Grove: IVP, 1984).
A classic and influential exposition of how a worldview informed by the biblical story of creation–fall–redemption challenges dualism – the separation of our lives into ‘sacred’ and ‘secular’ realms – with some reflection on the biblical worldview in action.
Michael E. Wittmer, Heaven is a Place on Earth: Why Everything You Do Matters to God (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004).
Similar to Hardyman (above) in its ‘whole-life’ emphasis; it takes its cue from the book of Genesis whilst also showing the reach and implications of the entire biblical story for a faith that encompasses all of life.
Al Wolters, Creation Regained: The Biblical Basis for a Reformational Worldview, 2nd edn. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005).
This was first published in 1985, and has been a very influential work outlining the creation–fall–redemption schema as the basis for a biblical worldview. The revised edition comes with a final chapter co-written with Michael Goheen which links Wolters’ approach to similar emphases in works by Lesslie Newbigin and N.T. Wright.
The first one profiled books for beginners on interpreting the Bible, and the second one looked at books on biblical themes. This one highlights biblical worldview formation.
The resources listed here discuss the significance of developing a Christian worldview based on Scripture. Although there are plenty of good treatments of worldview from a philosophical and theological perspective, this list is limited to those books which discuss the relationship between the Bible and worldview – particularly how a Christian worldview is shaped by an understanding of Scripture as one unfolding story of redemption. If you’re new to this area, begin with the books by Hardyman or Ryken; any of the others will do if you’re already off the starting blocks and want to think further.
Michael W. Goheen and Craig G. Bartholomew, Living at the Crossroads: An Introduction to Christian Worldview (London: SPCK, 2008).
A follow-up to their widely-acclaimed volume The Drama of Scripture: Finding Our Place in the Biblical Story (London: SPCK, 2006), this provides an excellent introduction to Christian worldview thinking based on the scriptural story of creation–sin–restoration, how it relates to the western story’s move from modernity to postmodernity, and how it applies to key areas of life such as education, economics, sport, and politics.
Julian Hardyman, Maximum Life: All for the Glory of God (Nottingham: IVP, 2009).
First published in 2006 as Glory Days, this is not a theoretical exploration of worldview as such, but provides an excellent semi-popular and shortish exploration of the ‘worldviewish’ notion that God is as concerned with our family, hobbies, and politics as much as he is concerned with our prayer life, Bible reading, and church attendance.
Philip Graham Ryken, What is the Christian Worldview?, Basics of the Reformed Faith Series (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing, 2006).
A short booklet, and a very useful way into the topic for those new to the area.
Brian J. Walsh and J. Richard Middleton, The Transforming Vision: Shaping a Christian World View (Downers Grove: IVP, 1984).
A classic and influential exposition of how a worldview informed by the biblical story of creation–fall–redemption challenges dualism – the separation of our lives into ‘sacred’ and ‘secular’ realms – with some reflection on the biblical worldview in action.
Michael E. Wittmer, Heaven is a Place on Earth: Why Everything You Do Matters to God (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004).
Similar to Hardyman (above) in its ‘whole-life’ emphasis; it takes its cue from the book of Genesis whilst also showing the reach and implications of the entire biblical story for a faith that encompasses all of life.
Al Wolters, Creation Regained: The Biblical Basis for a Reformational Worldview, 2nd edn. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005).
This was first published in 1985, and has been a very influential work outlining the creation–fall–redemption schema as the basis for a biblical worldview. The revised edition comes with a final chapter co-written with Michael Goheen which links Wolters’ approach to similar emphases in works by Lesslie Newbigin and N.T. Wright.
Wednesday, 26 August 2009
Michael Green and Nick Spencer on I’d Like to Believe, But…
Michael Green and Nick Spencer, I’d Like to Believe, But… (Nottingham: IVP, 2009, first published 2005), 122pp., ISBN 9781844743902.
IVP post the introduction online here. In it, Michael Green refers to research carried out by Nick Spencer when he worked at the London Institute for Contemporary Christianity, published in 2003 in Beyond Belief, looking at current beliefs of those in the mainstream population – those who don’t go to church, those who are unsure about God.
Michael Green notes that while some of their objections to Christian belief were ‘substantial and far-reaching’, many were also ‘disappointingly weak and confused’ (8), showing very little understanding of the Christian faith, but also demonstrating a spiritual hunger. Many of them were effectively saying, ‘I’d like to believe, but…’ Writing from the perspective that Christianity ‘makes sense of our questions, longings and our doubts’ (9), Michael Green tries to remove some of those ‘buts’, the characteristic difficulties in belief…
1. ‘You don’t need to go to church to be spiritual’
2. ‘The church is just too inflexible’
3. ‘Christians are such hypocrites’
4. ‘Religious people are too intolerant’
5. ‘You can’t trust what is in the Bible’
6. ‘Science has disproved Christianity’
7. ‘There’s just too much suffering in the world’
8. ‘There are too many religions in the world for them all to be true’
9. ‘There’s not enough proof for me to believe’
10. ‘Something 2,000 years old can’t be relevant to me today’
11. ‘If there is a God, why doesn’t he just send someone down?’
12. ‘That is all very well, but I’m not sure I believe in God’
IVP post the introduction online here. In it, Michael Green refers to research carried out by Nick Spencer when he worked at the London Institute for Contemporary Christianity, published in 2003 in Beyond Belief, looking at current beliefs of those in the mainstream population – those who don’t go to church, those who are unsure about God.
Michael Green notes that while some of their objections to Christian belief were ‘substantial and far-reaching’, many were also ‘disappointingly weak and confused’ (8), showing very little understanding of the Christian faith, but also demonstrating a spiritual hunger. Many of them were effectively saying, ‘I’d like to believe, but…’ Writing from the perspective that Christianity ‘makes sense of our questions, longings and our doubts’ (9), Michael Green tries to remove some of those ‘buts’, the characteristic difficulties in belief…
1. ‘You don’t need to go to church to be spiritual’
2. ‘The church is just too inflexible’
3. ‘Christians are such hypocrites’
4. ‘Religious people are too intolerant’
5. ‘You can’t trust what is in the Bible’
6. ‘Science has disproved Christianity’
7. ‘There’s just too much suffering in the world’
8. ‘There are too many religions in the world for them all to be true’
9. ‘There’s not enough proof for me to believe’
10. ‘Something 2,000 years old can’t be relevant to me today’
11. ‘If there is a God, why doesn’t he just send someone down?’
12. ‘That is all very well, but I’m not sure I believe in God’
Aspects of Theological Interpretation 6
[This is the sixth of twelve posts outlining a number of streams in the current interest in theological interpretation, paying particular attention to recent treatments. For earlier introductions to theological interpretation, see here, here, and here.]
#1 – Its uneasy relationship with historical criticism
#2 – Its disputed overlap with biblical theology
#3 – Its natural affinity with precritical interpretation
#4 – Its noteworthy exemplar in Karl Barth
#5 – Its relative comfort with multiple interpretations
#6. Its significant emphasis on the role of the community of faith
One of the features of theological interpretation is that interpretation of Scripture is most appropriately carried out by, and in the context of, the church.
[S.A. Cummins, ‘The Theological Interpretation of Scripture: Recent Contributions by Stephen E. Fowl, Christopher R. Seitz and Francis Watson’, Currents in Biblical Research 2, 2 (2004), 179-96, esp. 191-93; Joel B. Green, Seized by Truth: Reading the Bible as Scripture (Nashville: Abingdon, 2007), 66-79, 85-88; Daniel J. Treier, Introducing Theological Interpretation of Scripture: Recovering a Christian Practice (Nottingham: Apollos, 2008), 79-100; Charles M. Wood, The Formation of Christian Understanding: Theological Hermeneutics, 2nd edn. (Valley Forge: Trinity Press International, 1993), 20-29; David S. Yeago, ‘The Bible: The Spirit, the Church, and the Scriptures: Biblical Inspiration and Interpretation Revisited’, in James J. Buckley and David S. Yeago (eds.), Knowing the Triune God: The Work of the Spirit in the Practices of the Church (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 49-93. In addition, see (drawing on Paul Ricoeur) Lewis S. Mudge, Rethinking the Beloved Community: Ecclesiology, Hermeneutics, Social Theory (Lanham: University Press of America, 2001), esp. 143-87, and Simone Sinn, The Church as Participatory Community: On the Interrelationship of Hermeneutics, Ecclesiology and Ethics, Studies in Ecumenism, Reconciliation and Peace (Dublin: Columba, 2002).]
This is a particularly prominent feature in the work of Stephen Fowl, for whom what counts as a reading of Scripture has to be ‘communal judgments about whether such interpretations will issue forth in faithful life and worship that both retain Christians’ continuity with the faith and practice of previous generations and extend that faith into the very specific contexts in which contemporary Christians find themselves’ (Stephen E. Fowl, Engaging Scripture: A Model for Theological Interpretation, Challenges in Contemporary Theology [Oxford: Blackwell, 1998], 26).
[Cf. Stephen E. Fowl, ‘Introduction’, in Stephen E. Fowl (ed.), The Theological Interpretation of Scripture: Classic and Contemporary Readings, Blackwell Readings in Modern Theology (Oxford: Blackwell, 1997), xii-xxx, at xix: ‘By defining a theological interpretation of Scripture as a reading aimed at shaping and being shaped by a community’s faith and practice, I have at the same time indicated a location where such reading will be most at home. That is, theological interpretation of Scripture will take place primarily within the context of the church and synagogue, those communities that seek to order their common life in accord with their interpretation of Scripture.’]
Interpretation of Scripture ‘should shape and be shaped by the convictions, practices, and concerns of Christian communities as part of their ongoing struggle to live and worship faithfully before God’ (Fowl, Engaging Scripture, 62).
[Cf. also Stephen E. Fowl and L. Gregory Jones, Reading in Communion: Scripture and Ethics in Christian Life, Biblical Foundations in Theology (London: SPCK, 1991), in which the authors deal with readers as part of embodied Christian communities who read ‘ethically’, and listen to outsiders charitably. Demonstrating that particular understandings of ‘church’ shape one’s interpretation of Scripture, Matthew Levering (‘Ecclesial Exegesis and Ecclesial Authority: Childs, Fowl, and Aquinas’, The Thomist 69, 3 [2005], 407-67) seeks to augment the accounts of Childs and Fowl with reference to the theological exegesis of Aquinas, showing how Aquinas illumines the approaches of Childs and Fowl to ecclesial interpretation.]
Fowl has re-emphasised the point in a more recent essay:
‘The argument in a nutshell is that theology and ecclesiology should drive scriptural hermeneutics, not the other way around.’
[Stephen E. Fowl, ‘The Importance of a Multivoiced Literal Sense of Scripture: The Example of Thomas Aquinas’, in in A.K.M. Adam, Stephen E. Fowl, Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Francis Watson, Reading Scripture with the Church: Toward a Hermeneutic for Theological Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006), 35-50, here 37.]
A similar sentiment is expressed by Murray Rae:
‘Whatever else may be done outside the ecclesia with the various texts that comprise the Christian Bible, the reading of the Bible, as such, is essentially an ecclesial practice.’
[Murray A. Rae, History and Hermeneutics (London: T&T Clark, 2005) 131, his italics, and see 131-52.]
One of the entailments of this, according to Fowl is that interpretation by the community of faith may read Scripture in different ways at different times, recognising a ‘plurality of interpretive practices and results without necessarily granting epistemological priority to any one of these’ (Engaging Scripture, 10).
A.K.M. Adam likewise holds that the way forward will be along a path which allows for a plurality – though not a limitless number – of readings of a text, where ‘the legitimacy of an interpretation is determined by the body of readers evaluating it’ (Faithful Interpretation: Reading the Bible in a Postmodern World [Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006], 60). It is clear, however, that not just any reading will do:
‘The constraints upon textual interpretation do not derive from the nature of understanding, or of texts, or of language, or of communicative intent, or of truth, or of speech acts, but always only from the sundry collocations of circumstances within which we formulate interpretations and judgments… Communities of interpreters approve or discountenance proposed interpretations according to criteria that constitute the community.’
[Adam, Faithful Interpretation, 59, 129-30. See the discussion in 57-65 (‘Twisting to Destruction: A Memorandum on the Ethics of Interpretation’), and 81-103 (‘Integral and Differential Hermeneutics: The Significance of Interpretive Difference’), and 14-16. Adam illustrates these concerns with a discussion of alleged anti-semitism in Matthew (67-79, ‘Postmodern Criticism Applied: Matthew’s Readers, Power, and Ideology’), and he illustrates his differential hermeneutics (which allows for different interpretive outcomes rather than assuming a single, correct meaning) with an examination of the sign of Jonah logion in the gospels (125-39, ‘The Sign of Jonah: A Fish-Eye View’), where the history of interpretation does not show ‘a gradual progress toward the single meaning of the sign, but only the waxing and waning of interpretive trends’ (137).]
On such a view, we are to see interpretation as an exercise which takes place within a community of readers with different interests.
[Adam, Faithful Interpretation, 129-30, and see 59: ‘We approve or reject interpretations not on the basis of immutable laws, but on the basis of criteria that we share with particular groups of readers to whom we are accountable.’ Cf. also Rae, History and Hermeneutics, 140: ‘Good reading takes place… in humble recognition that one belongs within and is answerable to a community of readers extended through space and time.’]
Fowl’s position has been nuanced by others.
[See, e.g., Brian Brock, Singing the Ethos of God: On the Place of Christian Ethics in Scripture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 23-34; Jason Byassee, Praise Seeking Understanding: Reading the Psalms with Augustine, Radical Traditions (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 29-33; Cummins, ‘Theological Interpretation’, 191-93; Levering, ‘Ecclesial Exegesis’, 440-48; Daniel J. Treier, Virtue and the Voice of God: Toward Theology as Wisdom (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 106-13, 123-27; Introducing Theological Interpretation, 85-92; Donald Wood, ‘The Place of Theology in Theological Hermeneutics’, International Journal of Systematic Theology 4, 2 (2002), 156-71, esp. 162-65.]
Vanhoozer, for instance, is concerned that ecclesiology trumps canon, leaving little room for the church to be critiqued by the voice of God speaking in Scripture. Authority lies not in the interpretive practices of the community, but in the communicative practices of the canon.
[Kevin J. Vanhoozer, First Theology: God, Scripture and Hermeneutics (Leicester: Apollos, 2002), 275-308 (‘Body Piercing, the Natural Sense and the Task of Theological Interpretation: A Hermeneutical Homily on John 19:34’).]
Treier (Virtue, 126) also seeks to give more space to a normative role for Scripture in the community, that Scripture must stand in a place where it might, if necessary, critique the teaching and practice of the church.
Indeed, we may be grateful for the emphasis on readers and reading communities, but what standing, if any, do the texts have – beyond the standing granted to them by particular readers with particular interests? This is especially the case when those texts are understood as, in some way, the voice of God addressing the church, or understood as part of the canon of Scripture.
Others, too, are unhappy that Fowl underplays authorial intention, subordinating it to the authority of interpretive communities.
[E.g., Markus Bockmuehl, Seeing the Word: Refocusing New Testament Study, Studies in Theological Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006), 117, n. 20; Cummins, ‘Theological Interpretation’, 184.]
John Webster cautions against making Scripture captive to ‘the relatively self-enclosed worlds of readerly psyches and habit-forming communities’ (Word and Church: Essays in Christian Dogmatics [Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2001], 45).
Along similar lines, Brevard S. Childs (‘Toward Recovering Theological Exegesis’, Pro Ecclesia 6, 1 [1997], 16-26) notes that ‘traditional Christian exegesis understood its theological reflection to be responding to the coercion or pressure of the biblical text itself. It was not merely an exercise in seeking self-identity, or in bending an inherited authority to support a sectarian theological agenda’ (17).
It should be noted that Fowl does have criteria for ‘the character of Christian practical reasoning’: interpretations must not follow a consumerist model, must not be authoritarian, must operate with the goal of speaking to all Christians, and must be ecumenical in healing divisions among Christians (see Engaging Scripture, 196-206; cf. 62-96).
Leaving aside the validity and usefulness of these criteria (and the question of who gets to formulate them), Levering notes that ‘perhaps the key question… is from where, for Fowl, the ecclesial authority derives its authority’ (‘Ecclesial Exegesis’, 443). For his part, Levering is concerned that Fowl does not ‘give sufficient weight to the embeddedness of Scripture historically within particular sacramental modes of ecclesial authority’ and that his proposal ‘may not fully account for the cruciformity, and thus obedient receptivity, required for the Christian freedom of believers, a particular cruciform freedom that should characterize all Christian biblical interpretation’ (‘Ecclesial Exegesis’, 444).
Such authority, for Fowl, arises out of relationships and friendships, whereby Christians ‘grant to one another interpretive authority’ (Engaging Scripture, 157). Fowl’s subsequent work on Philippians has explored more fully this notion of friendship (Philippians, Two Horizons New Testament Commentary [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005]).
Levering counters, however, that ‘far from it being the state or the community of believers… who grants the Church interpretive authority, it is Christ who establishes the Church in human history’ (‘Ecclesial Exegesis’, 448).
Furthermore, the identity of the ‘community’ remains problematic. Is it the local church, or a collection of churches, or the ‘universal’ church? (Cf. Bockmuehl, Seeing the Word, 58).
Of course, opposition between ‘text’ and ‘community’ may finally be false, since both are shaped by God and part of the economy of salvation (cf. Levering, ‘Ecclesial Exegesis’, 451). Fowl has reflected on the differences between himself and Vanhoozer on this issue, as has Vanhoozer – although the latter remains concerned about what he sees as the dangers of pragmatism in Adam and Fowl.
[Stephen E. Fowl, ‘Further Thoughts on Theological Interpretation’, and Kevin J. Vanhoozer, ‘Four Theological Faces of Biblical Interpretation’, in Adam et al., Reading Scripture, 125-30 and 131-42.]
Some rapprochement between Vanhoozer and Fowl may be necessary in order to hold on to what they each affirm. Along such lines, a recent full-length study sets Fowl and Vanhoozer in dialogue, suggesting a more holistic conception of ‘meaning’, seeking to allow both for the necessity of authorial intention and the practices of the reading community.
[See D. Christopher Spinks, The Bible and the Crisis of Meaning: Debates on the Theological Interpretation of Scripture (London: T&T Clark, 2007).]
Despite differences of nuance, all involved in the wider discussion are concerned to promote interpretation as a communal practice that is related to virtue, with virtue becoming a way to think how the character of the interpreter influences reading of Scripture, paying special attention to the role of the church and the formation of its members (Treier, Introducing Theological Interpretation, 92-96). It should come as no surprise, then, that those who are interested in theological interpretation of Scripture appeal to the language of wisdom and virtue.
[Esp. David F. Ford, Christian Wisdom: Desiring God and Learning in Love, Cambridge Studies in Christian Doctrine (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007) and Treier, Virtue. Wisdom is also the key motif in David F. Ford and Graham Stanton (eds.), Reading Texts, Seeking Wisdom: Scripture and Theology (London: SCM, 2003).]
Theological interpretation aids in the cultivation of virtue which, in turn, aids in the practice of theological interpretation. There is an inevitable circularity here, as Fowl notes: ‘Christians will find that interpretations of scripture have already shaped convictions, practices, and dispositions which have, in turn, shaped the ways in which scripture is interpreted. Not only is it impossible to undo this process, it is not clear how one would ever know that one had done so’ (Engaging Scripture, 7).
Adam (Faithful Interpretation, 155-63 [‘Epilogue: Signifying Theology’], and ‘Poaching on Zion’) uses the notion of ‘signifying practices’ to describe what he thinks should be the concerns of theological interpretation and a biblical theology oriented to theological concerns. Signifying practices is a way of ‘understanding the relation of disciplined technical interpretation to theological, ethical, liturgical, and pastoral practice’, and reminds us that ‘all our interpretive discourses involve matters of practice’ (Faithful Interpretation, 18, 159).
#1 – Its uneasy relationship with historical criticism
#2 – Its disputed overlap with biblical theology
#3 – Its natural affinity with precritical interpretation
#4 – Its noteworthy exemplar in Karl Barth
#5 – Its relative comfort with multiple interpretations
#6. Its significant emphasis on the role of the community of faith
One of the features of theological interpretation is that interpretation of Scripture is most appropriately carried out by, and in the context of, the church.
[S.A. Cummins, ‘The Theological Interpretation of Scripture: Recent Contributions by Stephen E. Fowl, Christopher R. Seitz and Francis Watson’, Currents in Biblical Research 2, 2 (2004), 179-96, esp. 191-93; Joel B. Green, Seized by Truth: Reading the Bible as Scripture (Nashville: Abingdon, 2007), 66-79, 85-88; Daniel J. Treier, Introducing Theological Interpretation of Scripture: Recovering a Christian Practice (Nottingham: Apollos, 2008), 79-100; Charles M. Wood, The Formation of Christian Understanding: Theological Hermeneutics, 2nd edn. (Valley Forge: Trinity Press International, 1993), 20-29; David S. Yeago, ‘The Bible: The Spirit, the Church, and the Scriptures: Biblical Inspiration and Interpretation Revisited’, in James J. Buckley and David S. Yeago (eds.), Knowing the Triune God: The Work of the Spirit in the Practices of the Church (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 49-93. In addition, see (drawing on Paul Ricoeur) Lewis S. Mudge, Rethinking the Beloved Community: Ecclesiology, Hermeneutics, Social Theory (Lanham: University Press of America, 2001), esp. 143-87, and Simone Sinn, The Church as Participatory Community: On the Interrelationship of Hermeneutics, Ecclesiology and Ethics, Studies in Ecumenism, Reconciliation and Peace (Dublin: Columba, 2002).]
This is a particularly prominent feature in the work of Stephen Fowl, for whom what counts as a reading of Scripture has to be ‘communal judgments about whether such interpretations will issue forth in faithful life and worship that both retain Christians’ continuity with the faith and practice of previous generations and extend that faith into the very specific contexts in which contemporary Christians find themselves’ (Stephen E. Fowl, Engaging Scripture: A Model for Theological Interpretation, Challenges in Contemporary Theology [Oxford: Blackwell, 1998], 26).
[Cf. Stephen E. Fowl, ‘Introduction’, in Stephen E. Fowl (ed.), The Theological Interpretation of Scripture: Classic and Contemporary Readings, Blackwell Readings in Modern Theology (Oxford: Blackwell, 1997), xii-xxx, at xix: ‘By defining a theological interpretation of Scripture as a reading aimed at shaping and being shaped by a community’s faith and practice, I have at the same time indicated a location where such reading will be most at home. That is, theological interpretation of Scripture will take place primarily within the context of the church and synagogue, those communities that seek to order their common life in accord with their interpretation of Scripture.’]
Interpretation of Scripture ‘should shape and be shaped by the convictions, practices, and concerns of Christian communities as part of their ongoing struggle to live and worship faithfully before God’ (Fowl, Engaging Scripture, 62).
[Cf. also Stephen E. Fowl and L. Gregory Jones, Reading in Communion: Scripture and Ethics in Christian Life, Biblical Foundations in Theology (London: SPCK, 1991), in which the authors deal with readers as part of embodied Christian communities who read ‘ethically’, and listen to outsiders charitably. Demonstrating that particular understandings of ‘church’ shape one’s interpretation of Scripture, Matthew Levering (‘Ecclesial Exegesis and Ecclesial Authority: Childs, Fowl, and Aquinas’, The Thomist 69, 3 [2005], 407-67) seeks to augment the accounts of Childs and Fowl with reference to the theological exegesis of Aquinas, showing how Aquinas illumines the approaches of Childs and Fowl to ecclesial interpretation.]
Fowl has re-emphasised the point in a more recent essay:
‘The argument in a nutshell is that theology and ecclesiology should drive scriptural hermeneutics, not the other way around.’
[Stephen E. Fowl, ‘The Importance of a Multivoiced Literal Sense of Scripture: The Example of Thomas Aquinas’, in in A.K.M. Adam, Stephen E. Fowl, Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Francis Watson, Reading Scripture with the Church: Toward a Hermeneutic for Theological Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006), 35-50, here 37.]
A similar sentiment is expressed by Murray Rae:
‘Whatever else may be done outside the ecclesia with the various texts that comprise the Christian Bible, the reading of the Bible, as such, is essentially an ecclesial practice.’
[Murray A. Rae, History and Hermeneutics (London: T&T Clark, 2005) 131, his italics, and see 131-52.]
One of the entailments of this, according to Fowl is that interpretation by the community of faith may read Scripture in different ways at different times, recognising a ‘plurality of interpretive practices and results without necessarily granting epistemological priority to any one of these’ (Engaging Scripture, 10).
A.K.M. Adam likewise holds that the way forward will be along a path which allows for a plurality – though not a limitless number – of readings of a text, where ‘the legitimacy of an interpretation is determined by the body of readers evaluating it’ (Faithful Interpretation: Reading the Bible in a Postmodern World [Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006], 60). It is clear, however, that not just any reading will do:
‘The constraints upon textual interpretation do not derive from the nature of understanding, or of texts, or of language, or of communicative intent, or of truth, or of speech acts, but always only from the sundry collocations of circumstances within which we formulate interpretations and judgments… Communities of interpreters approve or discountenance proposed interpretations according to criteria that constitute the community.’
[Adam, Faithful Interpretation, 59, 129-30. See the discussion in 57-65 (‘Twisting to Destruction: A Memorandum on the Ethics of Interpretation’), and 81-103 (‘Integral and Differential Hermeneutics: The Significance of Interpretive Difference’), and 14-16. Adam illustrates these concerns with a discussion of alleged anti-semitism in Matthew (67-79, ‘Postmodern Criticism Applied: Matthew’s Readers, Power, and Ideology’), and he illustrates his differential hermeneutics (which allows for different interpretive outcomes rather than assuming a single, correct meaning) with an examination of the sign of Jonah logion in the gospels (125-39, ‘The Sign of Jonah: A Fish-Eye View’), where the history of interpretation does not show ‘a gradual progress toward the single meaning of the sign, but only the waxing and waning of interpretive trends’ (137).]
On such a view, we are to see interpretation as an exercise which takes place within a community of readers with different interests.
[Adam, Faithful Interpretation, 129-30, and see 59: ‘We approve or reject interpretations not on the basis of immutable laws, but on the basis of criteria that we share with particular groups of readers to whom we are accountable.’ Cf. also Rae, History and Hermeneutics, 140: ‘Good reading takes place… in humble recognition that one belongs within and is answerable to a community of readers extended through space and time.’]
Fowl’s position has been nuanced by others.
[See, e.g., Brian Brock, Singing the Ethos of God: On the Place of Christian Ethics in Scripture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 23-34; Jason Byassee, Praise Seeking Understanding: Reading the Psalms with Augustine, Radical Traditions (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 29-33; Cummins, ‘Theological Interpretation’, 191-93; Levering, ‘Ecclesial Exegesis’, 440-48; Daniel J. Treier, Virtue and the Voice of God: Toward Theology as Wisdom (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 106-13, 123-27; Introducing Theological Interpretation, 85-92; Donald Wood, ‘The Place of Theology in Theological Hermeneutics’, International Journal of Systematic Theology 4, 2 (2002), 156-71, esp. 162-65.]
Vanhoozer, for instance, is concerned that ecclesiology trumps canon, leaving little room for the church to be critiqued by the voice of God speaking in Scripture. Authority lies not in the interpretive practices of the community, but in the communicative practices of the canon.
[Kevin J. Vanhoozer, First Theology: God, Scripture and Hermeneutics (Leicester: Apollos, 2002), 275-308 (‘Body Piercing, the Natural Sense and the Task of Theological Interpretation: A Hermeneutical Homily on John 19:34’).]
Treier (Virtue, 126) also seeks to give more space to a normative role for Scripture in the community, that Scripture must stand in a place where it might, if necessary, critique the teaching and practice of the church.
Indeed, we may be grateful for the emphasis on readers and reading communities, but what standing, if any, do the texts have – beyond the standing granted to them by particular readers with particular interests? This is especially the case when those texts are understood as, in some way, the voice of God addressing the church, or understood as part of the canon of Scripture.
Others, too, are unhappy that Fowl underplays authorial intention, subordinating it to the authority of interpretive communities.
[E.g., Markus Bockmuehl, Seeing the Word: Refocusing New Testament Study, Studies in Theological Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006), 117, n. 20; Cummins, ‘Theological Interpretation’, 184.]
John Webster cautions against making Scripture captive to ‘the relatively self-enclosed worlds of readerly psyches and habit-forming communities’ (Word and Church: Essays in Christian Dogmatics [Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2001], 45).
Along similar lines, Brevard S. Childs (‘Toward Recovering Theological Exegesis’, Pro Ecclesia 6, 1 [1997], 16-26) notes that ‘traditional Christian exegesis understood its theological reflection to be responding to the coercion or pressure of the biblical text itself. It was not merely an exercise in seeking self-identity, or in bending an inherited authority to support a sectarian theological agenda’ (17).
It should be noted that Fowl does have criteria for ‘the character of Christian practical reasoning’: interpretations must not follow a consumerist model, must not be authoritarian, must operate with the goal of speaking to all Christians, and must be ecumenical in healing divisions among Christians (see Engaging Scripture, 196-206; cf. 62-96).
Leaving aside the validity and usefulness of these criteria (and the question of who gets to formulate them), Levering notes that ‘perhaps the key question… is from where, for Fowl, the ecclesial authority derives its authority’ (‘Ecclesial Exegesis’, 443). For his part, Levering is concerned that Fowl does not ‘give sufficient weight to the embeddedness of Scripture historically within particular sacramental modes of ecclesial authority’ and that his proposal ‘may not fully account for the cruciformity, and thus obedient receptivity, required for the Christian freedom of believers, a particular cruciform freedom that should characterize all Christian biblical interpretation’ (‘Ecclesial Exegesis’, 444).
Such authority, for Fowl, arises out of relationships and friendships, whereby Christians ‘grant to one another interpretive authority’ (Engaging Scripture, 157). Fowl’s subsequent work on Philippians has explored more fully this notion of friendship (Philippians, Two Horizons New Testament Commentary [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005]).
Levering counters, however, that ‘far from it being the state or the community of believers… who grants the Church interpretive authority, it is Christ who establishes the Church in human history’ (‘Ecclesial Exegesis’, 448).
Furthermore, the identity of the ‘community’ remains problematic. Is it the local church, or a collection of churches, or the ‘universal’ church? (Cf. Bockmuehl, Seeing the Word, 58).
Of course, opposition between ‘text’ and ‘community’ may finally be false, since both are shaped by God and part of the economy of salvation (cf. Levering, ‘Ecclesial Exegesis’, 451). Fowl has reflected on the differences between himself and Vanhoozer on this issue, as has Vanhoozer – although the latter remains concerned about what he sees as the dangers of pragmatism in Adam and Fowl.
[Stephen E. Fowl, ‘Further Thoughts on Theological Interpretation’, and Kevin J. Vanhoozer, ‘Four Theological Faces of Biblical Interpretation’, in Adam et al., Reading Scripture, 125-30 and 131-42.]
Some rapprochement between Vanhoozer and Fowl may be necessary in order to hold on to what they each affirm. Along such lines, a recent full-length study sets Fowl and Vanhoozer in dialogue, suggesting a more holistic conception of ‘meaning’, seeking to allow both for the necessity of authorial intention and the practices of the reading community.
[See D. Christopher Spinks, The Bible and the Crisis of Meaning: Debates on the Theological Interpretation of Scripture (London: T&T Clark, 2007).]
Despite differences of nuance, all involved in the wider discussion are concerned to promote interpretation as a communal practice that is related to virtue, with virtue becoming a way to think how the character of the interpreter influences reading of Scripture, paying special attention to the role of the church and the formation of its members (Treier, Introducing Theological Interpretation, 92-96). It should come as no surprise, then, that those who are interested in theological interpretation of Scripture appeal to the language of wisdom and virtue.
[Esp. David F. Ford, Christian Wisdom: Desiring God and Learning in Love, Cambridge Studies in Christian Doctrine (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007) and Treier, Virtue. Wisdom is also the key motif in David F. Ford and Graham Stanton (eds.), Reading Texts, Seeking Wisdom: Scripture and Theology (London: SCM, 2003).]
Theological interpretation aids in the cultivation of virtue which, in turn, aids in the practice of theological interpretation. There is an inevitable circularity here, as Fowl notes: ‘Christians will find that interpretations of scripture have already shaped convictions, practices, and dispositions which have, in turn, shaped the ways in which scripture is interpreted. Not only is it impossible to undo this process, it is not clear how one would ever know that one had done so’ (Engaging Scripture, 7).
Adam (Faithful Interpretation, 155-63 [‘Epilogue: Signifying Theology’], and ‘Poaching on Zion’) uses the notion of ‘signifying practices’ to describe what he thinks should be the concerns of theological interpretation and a biblical theology oriented to theological concerns. Signifying practices is a way of ‘understanding the relation of disciplined technical interpretation to theological, ethical, liturgical, and pastoral practice’, and reminds us that ‘all our interpretive discourses involve matters of practice’ (Faithful Interpretation, 18, 159).
Tuesday, 25 August 2009
Happy Birthday William Wilberforce
I’ve just seen that William Wilberforce was born on 24 August 1759, making yesterday the 250th anniversary of his birth. Happy Birthday, sir!
I did a brief spot on Wilberforce (the transcript of which is available here) in a church service on 25 March 2007, when we were marking the 200th anniversary of the passing of the Abolition Bill.
I did a brief spot on Wilberforce (the transcript of which is available here) in a church service on 25 March 2007, when we were marking the 200th anniversary of the passing of the Abolition Bill.
Monday, 24 August 2009
Word for the Week: Whole Life, Whole Bible (21/50) – The Loss That Comes with Exile: Exiled and Forsaken?
‘Word for the Week: Whole Life, Whole Bible’, from London Institute for Contemporary Christianity, is a series of fifty emails designed to look at the main milestones of the biblical story, seeking to show how whole-life discipleship is woven through Scripture as a whole, from beginning to end. Here is the twenty-first of the fifty emails, this one written by Margaret Killingray.
In the days of her affliction and wandering
Jerusalem remembers all the treasures
that were hers in days of old.
When her people fell into enemy hands,
there was no one to help her.
Her enemies looked at her
and laughed at her destruction…
‘Is it nothing to you, all you who pass by?
Look around and see.
Is any suffering like my suffering
that was inflicted on me,
that the LORD brought on me
in the day of his fierce anger?’
Lamentations 1:7, 12
At the heart of the Old Testament story – and arguably at the heart of all human life – is experience of loss. All of us have some understanding of what loss can mean, whether personal loss through death, broken relationships, theft or ill health, or the more extensive losses of war and destruction, flood and fire.
And this exile involved every kind of loss – the loss of men in battle, as well as all the casual and brutal deaths of executions, occupation and forced marches; the loss of routines and practices that provided daily security in familiar places; the knowledge that the land and city they loved, temple and palace, homes and fields, were a deserted wasteland; the loss of structures and liturgies that supported their communal faith and worship.
The LORD is righteous,
yet I rebelled against his command…
The LORD has done what he planned;
he has fulfilled his word,
which he decreed long ago.
He has overthrown you without pity…
I remember my affliction and my wandering,
the bitterness and the gall.
Lamentations 1:18, 2:17, 3:19
And, of course, loss brings the added anguish of questions about meaning and purpose; why has this happened? Why do the wicked and cruel get their way? Is this judgment or simply blind chance? Do we forgive or cry out for vengeance?
The prophets who had spoken God’s word to the people knew the truth – God had said over and over again, ‘If you obey me… If you return to me… then I will not destroy you’. The God of Abraham, Moses and David, their God, had at last lost patience and was willing to see Jerusalem destroyed, all his promises put on hold, and his people killed, or destitute and enslaved in a foreign land among foreign gods. And knowing that made the loss of exile even more bitter.
But, after the anguish of loss expressed in this powerful book, the writer of Lamentations ends with a prayer of humility and acceptance:
You, LORD, reign forever;
your throne endures from generation to generation.
Why do you always forget us?
Why do you forsake us so long?
Restore us to yourself, LORD, that we may return;
renew our days as of old
unless you have utterly rejected us
and are angry with us beyond measure.
Lamentations 5:19-22
Margaret Killingray
For further reflection and action:
1. Read through Psalm 137. How do you react to the last verse? Think about the difference between wanting to see the Babylonians called to account and judgment, and wanting to exact personal vengeance. How should this difference work out in social issues of law and justice, and in personal loss and hurt?
2. In Stainer’s musical meditation, Crucifixion, the words from Lamentations, ‘Is it nothing to you, all you who pass by?’ are used in an appeal by Jesus from the cross. Reflect on the view which understands that all the loss of exile and pain of judgment are taken into the self-giving ‘loss’ of Jesus’ death, and dealt with for ever in the resurrection.
In the days of her affliction and wandering
Jerusalem remembers all the treasures
that were hers in days of old.
When her people fell into enemy hands,
there was no one to help her.
Her enemies looked at her
and laughed at her destruction…
‘Is it nothing to you, all you who pass by?
Look around and see.
Is any suffering like my suffering
that was inflicted on me,
that the LORD brought on me
in the day of his fierce anger?’
Lamentations 1:7, 12
At the heart of the Old Testament story – and arguably at the heart of all human life – is experience of loss. All of us have some understanding of what loss can mean, whether personal loss through death, broken relationships, theft or ill health, or the more extensive losses of war and destruction, flood and fire.
And this exile involved every kind of loss – the loss of men in battle, as well as all the casual and brutal deaths of executions, occupation and forced marches; the loss of routines and practices that provided daily security in familiar places; the knowledge that the land and city they loved, temple and palace, homes and fields, were a deserted wasteland; the loss of structures and liturgies that supported their communal faith and worship.
The LORD is righteous,
yet I rebelled against his command…
The LORD has done what he planned;
he has fulfilled his word,
which he decreed long ago.
He has overthrown you without pity…
I remember my affliction and my wandering,
the bitterness and the gall.
Lamentations 1:18, 2:17, 3:19
And, of course, loss brings the added anguish of questions about meaning and purpose; why has this happened? Why do the wicked and cruel get their way? Is this judgment or simply blind chance? Do we forgive or cry out for vengeance?
The prophets who had spoken God’s word to the people knew the truth – God had said over and over again, ‘If you obey me… If you return to me… then I will not destroy you’. The God of Abraham, Moses and David, their God, had at last lost patience and was willing to see Jerusalem destroyed, all his promises put on hold, and his people killed, or destitute and enslaved in a foreign land among foreign gods. And knowing that made the loss of exile even more bitter.
But, after the anguish of loss expressed in this powerful book, the writer of Lamentations ends with a prayer of humility and acceptance:
You, LORD, reign forever;
your throne endures from generation to generation.
Why do you always forget us?
Why do you forsake us so long?
Restore us to yourself, LORD, that we may return;
renew our days as of old
unless you have utterly rejected us
and are angry with us beyond measure.
Lamentations 5:19-22
Margaret Killingray
For further reflection and action:
1. Read through Psalm 137. How do you react to the last verse? Think about the difference between wanting to see the Babylonians called to account and judgment, and wanting to exact personal vengeance. How should this difference work out in social issues of law and justice, and in personal loss and hurt?
2. In Stainer’s musical meditation, Crucifixion, the words from Lamentations, ‘Is it nothing to you, all you who pass by?’ are used in an appeal by Jesus from the cross. Reflect on the view which understands that all the loss of exile and pain of judgment are taken into the self-giving ‘loss’ of Jesus’ death, and dealt with for ever in the resurrection.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)