March 2009 – Page 4 – Christ the Truth

All interpretation is theological

GlenMarch 4, 2009Leave a comment

This is a repost of Theology - the end of the process??

Is “systematic theology... the end process of exegesis and biblical theology"?? Ben Myers writes brilliantly against such a conception. To imagine that a pure biblical scholar can dispassionately read off the meaning of the Bible through the use of objective interpretive tools is ludicrous. To imagine that then the systematic theologian comes to co-ordinate these propositions into a logically cogent order is similarly misguided. As Myers says 'It's theology all the way down.' Theological pre-suppositions and commitments necessarily guide and shape all Christian activity from exegesis to exposition to pastoral work, to evangelism to hospitality to everything.

And yet the idea that the Bible can be neutrally read is so tempting. We would love to conceive of revelation as propositions deposited in a handy compendium simply to be extracted and applied. Yet the Word is a Person. And His book is Personal (John 5:39). It's not something we judge with our double edged swords - the Word judges us. (Heb 4:12)

Now Jesus thought the Scriptures were absolutely clear. He never made excuses for theological error. He never gave even the slightest bit of latitude by conceding a certain obscurity to the Bible. He never assumes that His theological opponents have just mis-applied an interpretive paradigm. If they get it wrong He assumes they've never read the Scriptures (e.g. Matt 21:16,42; Mark 2:25)! So the perspicuity of the Bible is not in dispute.

But Jesus tells the Pharisees why they get it wrong - "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God." (Matt 22:29) And, again, "You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life." (John 5:39-40) They are wrongly oriented to the Power of God and the One of Whom the Scriptures testify - Jesus. This is not simply a wrong orientation of the intepreter but of the interpretation. Scripture reading must be oriented by the Power of God to the Son of God. Within this paradigm - a paradigm which the Scriptures themselves give us - the Bible makes itself abundantly clear.

But this paradigm is an unashamedly and irreducibly theological one. It is the result of exegesis (e.g. studying the verses given above) but it is also the pre-supposition of such exegesis. Theology is not the end of the process from exegesis to biblical studies and then to the systematician!

And yet, I have often been in discussions regarding the Old Testament where theologians will claim an obvious meaning to the OT text which is one not oriented by the Power of God to the Son of God. They will claim that this first level meaning is the literal meaning - one that is simply read off the text by a process of sound exegesis. And then they claim that the second meaning (it's sensus plenior - usually the christocentric meaning) is achieved by going back to the text but this time applying some extrinsic theological commitments.

What do we say to this? Well hopefully we see that whatever 'level' of meaning we assign to the biblical text it is not an obvious, literal meaning to be read off the Scriptures like a bar-code! Whatever you think that first-level meaning to be, such a meaning is inextricably linked to a whole web of theological pre-suppositions. The step from first level to second is not a step from exegesis to a theological re-reading. It is to view the text first through one set of pre-suppositions and then through another.

And that changes the direction of the conversation doesn't it? Because then we all admit that 'I have theological pre-suppositions at every level of my interpretation.' And we all come clean and say 'Even the basic, first-level meaning assigned to an OT text comes from some quite developed theological pre-commitments - pre-commitments that would never be universally endorsed by every Christian interpreter, let alone every Jewish one!' And then we ask 'Well why begin with pre-suppositions which you know to be inadequate? Why begin with pre-suppositions that are anything short of 'the Power of God' and 'the Son of God'? And if this is so, then why on earth do we waste our time with a first-level paradigm that left even the post-incarnation Pharisees completely ignorant of the Word? In short, why don't we work out the implications of a biblical theology that is trinitarian all the way down? Why don't we, at all times, read the OT as inherently and irreducibly a trinitarian revelation of the Son?

Some cool things about Hebrew

GlenMarch 3, 2009September 5, 2014Leave a comment

I think bible teachers should spend some time learning biblical languages (see this post or this post). It might only take 40 hours, but still some time would be a good investment. But perhaps you need to be sold a little more so let me just list a few things that I very quickly found to be cool about learning Hebrew.

Each word has a root of three letters. The three form the one!
God (Elohim) is a plural noun that, wierdly enough, always takes a singular verb. The Plurality always works as a Unity.
Even the letters are cool. They all come from symbols with rich meanings. Dev's your man if you want to know more. But just think of the letter taw (pronounced tav). Its symbol is the cross. Now read Ezekiel 9 and realize that the 'mark' put on the foreheads of the faithful is simply the letter taw. Cool, huh?
Adam means the particular bloke Adam, a man and humanity. And the fall is the story of the particular bloke Adam disobeying the LORD. But then of course this is Man's fall. And Christ, the last Adam (the Greek never says 'second' Adam but 'eschatos Adam' - the last, eschatological Adam) not only works salvation for Himself but for Man.
Eretz means Land (usually promised land) but also earth. Inheriting Canaan is always a symbol of the whole world.
My favourite word is Nasa. It means: He lifts up, He carries, He forgives, He bears the weight of. And, for instance, the Prince of Ezekiel 40-48 is the Nasi - the One who forgives by carrying, bearing the weight and being lifted up.

And a thousand times seeing repetitions of words and phrases that you miss in translations. Words with really interesting double meanings (like 'eye' is the same word as 'fountain'). And sentence structures designed to highlight words and ideas that you just couldn't capture with a simple translation.

If you get the chance, have a dig into biblical languages. Raking slowly (excruciatingly slowly at times!) over the bible is never a waste of time!

Disagreeing with the translation 33

GlenMarch 3, 200933 Comments

My preaching theory: When preaching, it is best not to disagree with the translation people have in front of them.

It cultivates the sense that people can't read the bible for themselves. I know that personally I have held many difficult passages at arm's length merely under the suspicion that the underlying greek might be ambiguous. Maybe in some cases it is. But I found that when I knew no greek my first reaction to hard verses was generally: 'I bet it's not really saying this in the original.' It was a way of sheathing the sword of the Spirit.

My preaching practice: My sermons are littered with "That's not literally what it says in the Hebrew. In the Hebrew it really says..."

Hmmm. Maybe deep down I don't really believe my theory. Maybe I want people dependent on my magisterial interpretation. Maybe my proud desire to prove special knowledge simply wins out. Maybe I want to communicate excitement at the rich layers of nuance the Scriptures possess. And maybe sometimes you just have to see your theory as a rule of thumb because the translation sucks. I think for me probably all the above factors come into play.

Case in point: my sermon on Isaiah 2:6-22.

In verse 10 it literally says (I've gotta stop saying that in sermons, it bugs even me): "Go and hide in the rock"

Go is an imperative. The rock is a singular noun with a definite article - The Rock. 'The Rock' is a title for the LORD 6 times in Isaiah - a book in which, as my previous post has said, refuge in the LORD is all important. Verse 10 is different to verse 19. Verse 19 is a future indicative. In the future day of judgement many people will hide themselves in many caves and many rocks. But in verse 10 we have a command. Go, now, and hide yourself in the Rock.

Trouble is people had NIVs in front of them which says 'Go into the rocks...' And the first three conversations I had after the service began like this, "So what translation of the bible can we trust!?"

Hmmm. What do you think, should preachers disagree with translations? When? How?

Judgement and Salvation in Isaiah

GlenMarch 2, 2009Leave a comment

I've been preparing sermons from Isaiah recently. What's really striking me is the universal judgement pronounced by the LORD.

The book has rightly been called a tale of two cities and the remarkable thing is that both cities are Jerusalem. Jerusalem stands at the head of both old and new creation. The earthly Jerusalem has its earthly copy of the heavenly reality - the temple. And contemporary threats to earthly Jerusalem (from Assyria and Babylon) are the sign of universal judgement on this present evil age. But there is a heavenly Zion, eternal capital of the new heavens and new earth.

Hope is not found in avoiding the universal judgement. Hope is not found in belonging to some other earthly city or people. Humanity will be judged wholesale from the top down. Judgement will begin with the house of God (1 Pet 4:17) - meaning temple, meaning household (people), meaning Christ! The world will go down in flames. This is root and branch demolition.

So it's not:

salvation-judgement1