There has been a lot of talk about what Scripture is and how to interpret it over the past five years. Books such as Kenton Sparks’ God’s Words in Human Words and Sacred Word, Broken Word, Peter Enns’ Inspiration and Incarnation, Thom Stark’s The Human Faces of God, Christian Smith’s The Bible Made Impossible, Darrell Bock’s Do Historical Matters Matter to Faith? and N.T. Wright’s Scripture and the Authority of God have flooded my “More Items to Consider”section on Amazon. Not only this, there has been a lot of blogging about what exactly Scripture is as of late. Gregory Boyd argues that a hermeneutic of cruciformity needs to be our starting place for interpreting Scripture here. Peter Enns discusses Kenton Sparks new book here. Even eminent Arminian scholar, Roger Olson, praises Sparks’ book here. 
What do we do with the texts that seem like blunders to us? Whether it has to do with the issue of monotheism in the Old Testament, the historicity of the Exodus from Egypt, texts of genocide, the pastoral epistles, there clearly are biblical texts that cause us trouble.
If I understand correctly (I haven’t read either of Sparks’ books), Sparks argues that we need to interpret all of Scripture through the lens of Jesus himself. Since Jesus is the true revelation of God all other revelation is secondary to this. Boyd argues that a Christocentric hermeneutic is too broad, and that we need to look at the most defining act of the incarnate God, the crucifixion. Thus, Boyd argues we need to have a cruciform hermeneutic. What Boyd also argues is that where there is a depiction of God that doesn’t align with the crucified Jesus, then we essentially put it away and say that this is a fallen view of who God is, and not a true revelation of what or who God is. This also frees us up with historical inaccuracies, since this is the human and fallen side of Scripture when it factually errs. Others, such as Craig Bartholomew in his recent book, Hearing the Old Testament: Listening for God’s Address has argued that the christocentric and cruciform (although he doesn’t mention the cruciform hermeneutic, the one he proposes negates it) hermeneutical approaches fall short; what we need is a Trinitarian hermeneutic! Still others not comfortable with any of these approaches take Warfield’s approach.
There clearly are tensions in Scripture, strong ones. To ignore this is intellectual dishonesty or ignorance. Nevertheless, I do believe that Scripture is reliable for faith and practice. Even though it has received much criticism, Paul Copan’s Is God a Moral Monster? addresses many misunderstandings concerning the Old Testament. Not only this, but David Lamb’s book God Behaving Badly deals with ethical issues in the OT as well. But these books haven’t exhausted the issues concerning ethics and diversity in OT/NT thought. Nor have these books touched the issues of archeology and textual criticism (this isn’t to say there aren’t books that have).
What do you think? How do you interpret texts that seem to be blunders? What is your hermeneutic epistemology? How do you reconcile the God of the cross with the God who commands genocide (which isn’t to say they are two different God’s)?
July 6, 2012 at 6:49 pm
I tend to pray when I encounter those troubling parts (and I’m reading through the OT right now. Finished Judges about a month ago. Re-reading that book got me thinking through these very questions). I ask God for clarification, illumination, etc. Of course, there’s stuff in the NT that bothers me too. The parable of the wedding feast (the guy with the wrong clothes gets thrown out? Kinda harsh!) and some of the stuff in 1 and 2 Peter and 1-2 Thess. tend to grate. The literature you mentioned looks helpful. I might check them out.
July 6, 2012 at 8:36 pm
On a number of occasions I’ve recommended a book that profoundly changed how I see scripture, so I won’t do it again (lest some one accuse me of having shares in the printing company). Nevertheless, the reason it changed my view profoundly was because it allowed me to see both covenants in the same light.
In this post you raise the idea that some suggest we must see the OT through the lense of the cross, and ask what people think. I think it’s a bad metaphor. Any time we see anything through a ‘lense’ the image we see is a distortion, and not the thing itself. If we have a distorted view of the role of the Cross (distorted meaning theologically independant of the OT), or we can’t see the cross’s relationship to Israel, or we construct novel NT theologies out of poor, absent, or even myopic understands of doctrine – our lense is ‘hurting’ not helping.
I’d say most already do see it through one type of lense or another. I think the goal is to see both OT and NT in the same light (or at worse through a common lens whereby the NT view is informed by the OT, and the OT view is informed by the NT, but both profoundly effect each other and the unity of scripture as a whole is evident)
Jesus said the law and the prophets already all pointed to, and anticipated, Him [Luke 24:27,44][Rom 3:21][Matt 5:17], so it begs the question, why didn’t people see it? It also begs the question, why don’t we? If it is evident, why do we need a lense?
The reason my view point was so profoundly changed was not because I started using the lense of the Cross to see the OT, but because I abandoned all of the other baggage that went with it that stopped me from seeing The messiah where he was already. The effect it had, more or less, was to gain the ability to see scripture at face value, and believe the words plainly, and see unity of doctrine cover to cover. So what was the lens I abandoned?
In my case, I held the (fairly common) presupposition, that the substance of the new covenant was different then the old (fundamentally), therefore the NT suggests doctrine that differs from the old. This would be like the husband discarding one wife obtaining another. Now I hold the only difference is not one of substance, but degree and quality only, kind of like a husband discarding an old wife, perfecting her until she is like new, and remarrying her. When Jesus said he came to fulfill the law, He did not mean to complete it and then move on to something else, but He meant to complete it so that it would be allowed to realize its full potential.
My perspective of the role of the cross in the OT is the same as it always was – there is no atoning for sin without the shedding of blood [Lev 17:11], but what is different is that now when I read it I don’t see it as the Pharisees did, dead and irrevelant straining to see Christ, now I read it and see Him everywhere. I cannot read it and not see him.
But again, this experience was more the loosing of a lense, than the gaining of one.
July 6, 2012 at 10:45 pm
A Christ Conditioned hermeneutic that follows the pattern set out and exemplified by the NT author’s engagement of the text of scripture. TF Torrance calls this the ‘Depth Dimension’ of scripture, and seeks to retrieve the work of the patristics in constructive ways. Adam Nigh wrote about this kind of hermeneutic in our book, his chapter is chapter 3, and is a good one.
I think there is an inter-relationship here between understanding of an ontology of scripture, and then how this implicates one’s hermeneutic. So that if scripture is understood to be human inspired witness to its illumined reality, Christ; and that this kind of inscripturated witness is ordered within its relation to God’s triune speech, in Christ for us by the Spirit; then this will always shape our interpretive decisions starting in Genesis 1:1 all the way through Revelation. This does not get beyond the particularities of scripture’s situation,historically and occasionally, but it does see those particularities properly grounded in God’s antecedent life for us in Christ (so this is the relationship between God’s pre-destination, in Christ, and the election of God’s life in Christ which is its outworking in so called salvation history). I see this then reprioritizing the historical-critical and ethical questions, when dealing with scripture, in a way that makes the majors the major and the minors the minor in scripture. Meaning that all of the history of the OT and NT must be read through God’s life in Christ for us so that historical issues, ethical issues etc. cannot be read in abstraction from this life, God’s life; of which scripture finds its telos (purpose) and orientation, as does all of creation.
July 7, 2012 at 9:56 am
Daniel
I have been wrestling with how to understand Scripture for a while now. I admit that my strongest influence is probably the argument made by N.T. Wright (when Scripture and the Authority of God was titled The Last Word) along with a little of what Kevin Vanhoozer has written regarding speech-act theory (something I am beginning to understand). I favor Wright over Vanhoozer because I am a tad unnerved by the word “inerrancy,” especially after the whole debacle with Michael Licona. I agree with people like my friends Greg Monette and Michael Halcomb who argue that “inerrancy” puts the focus on the wrong point when we should be asking what it means to call Scripture “truthful.” I think that Wright does this which is why I have gained much from him (notice he does not fear historical-critical scholarship, nor do others like Craig A. Evans who also holds a high view of Scripture though he won’t use the word “inerrancy”).
I’ve been hesitant to embrace all of the arguments of Enns, Sparks, and Stark (haven’t read Stark) thus far, but I am listening to what they have to say since I think there is much to gain from them. I appreciated Inspiration and Incarnation, but I think Enns view may have moved a little further “left” (for lack of a better word) since he wrote that book. He has been very helpful to me in helping me think about these matters though, even if at the end of the day I don’t give as much credence to the arguments of some populist historical-critical scholarship.
Eventually I may read someone like Torrance because I’d like to hear a more “conservative” view that avoids the mistakes the “begging the question” approach I sense comes from the Warfield clan or the CSBI supporters (e.g., Piper, Geisler, etc.).
As someone with Pentecostal roots I look for language regarding the work of the Spirit through Scripture. I don’t like language about Scripture being “efficient” in and of itself because I do not think that we can say that anyone who comes with objective eyes has an equal opportunity at understanding Scripture, at least as it points to Christ (I don’t deny that a believer and a non-believer are on equal ground when asking how the Gospel of Luke relates to what we know of Graeco-Roman history of the time, but that is different from having Scripture function as the mouthpiece of God pointing toward Christ through the work of the Spirit). If Scripture points us to Christ it is because the Spirit used it to do so–is that something Barth would say?
July 7, 2012 at 11:35 am
Brian, that you seek to see the Holy spirit throughout scripture, is good. It means that you’re motivated to see new and old covenant doctrine in the same light ( which resonates with me). For example, how can one possibly understand [Num 11:25-26] without appealing He who was at Pentecost? Similarly, talk of ‘the angel of his presence’ in verses such as [Isa 63:7-14] seem as mere narrative without a similar sense.
But, I would also argue all of the actors in this play appear in both acts. Just as we can see the Holy Ghost in the old covenant, we can also see the person of Yehshua in christophanies, as well as the role of the redeemer prophetically and as the subscript to the Law. We can also see Israel and Judah and the covenant, as sheepfold, olive tree, and assembly in the new (though few try to see it like this).
The illumination of the text as God’s living word as an exercise in trusting the Holy Ghost is therefore an exercise of shedding ‘left’ and ‘right’, moreso than seeing through the lense of. That you seek language of the Spirit throughout Scripture suggests you’re willing to be surprised when you find it. This is good.
July 7, 2012 at 11:50 am
This may be old hat, but I tend to see the Scriptures as a continuing revelation. It may be that God in OT times treated us more like infants and his interactions were more straightforward, less nuanced. God may have dealt with the Hebrews at their cultural level. Christ and the NT ushered in a new interpretation of the Law, not that the Law is put aside but that it is “fulfilled”. This doesn’t satisfy all objections but it serves as a starting point for me.
July 8, 2012 at 12:45 pm
From my view, there’s an “incoherence” problem with this new hermeneutic. I do agree with the “progressive” revelation hermeneutic view though.
In the text there is an explanation for Joshua’s activities , our problem isn’t the text, our hermeneutics, Joshua or Yahweh, our problem is us because we do not believe the text in many cases and therefore the 1 consistent Divine narrative becomes incomprehensible and inconsistent to us and we’re stuck with these type hermeneutic hoop jumping exercises.
Joshua is a perfect example of this. Here we have theologians struggling to find a way to believe/teach Jesus is intrinsic good, but, the OT paradigm of Yahweh that Jesus Himself claimed to come out from and claimed to be becomes somewhat nonsense and Yahweh is at times evil “as shown by some scriptures” that Jesus validated as sacred . That’s a flawed hermeneutic, IMO. We’re not debating metaphor versus reality, we’re claiming Joshua text is evil and as such, should not be honored as canonical or valuable to believers.
Should we decide any text we don’t grasp is really nonsense, even when Jesus associated Himself with these very texts?
I say we should consider our own thinking nonsense at this point, be patient and ask for understanding.
Jesus validated all of the traditional Hebrew Bible in the NT, He allowed how these scriptures “cannot be broken”, He quoted from Deuteronomy a lot, especially to the devil in response to the temptations, He claimed to be the “I AM” of Exodus(same God commanding and leading Joshua in human avatar), He never spoke 1 word about any of the scriptures being corrupted by evil/thoughtless Jewish scribes, yet He didn’t have a problem accusing His foes of every other error and probably as important, Jesus is the greater Joshua theologically.
The name Jesus = Joshua, we just got Jesus via some linguistic hoops, ancient near easterners said “Yeshua” and that’s Joshua all over the OT text. Why would God name His Christ THAT if Joshua was not canonical, valid and have a Divine cause?
So, how does one explain Joshua and Jesus willingness to validate and associate with him? Genesis 6:1-4.
Studying Joshua, you will find evidence in every case where the Jews are commanded to wipe out a group, either nephilim, Anakim or Raphaim are present. All the groups are ID as having giants within to some extent( it isn’t made clear) , hybrid human/divine creatures in the text.
If it’s metaphor, let it be so , but, there those giants are everywhere Joshua goes, hybrid human/divine creatures implacably opposed to Yahweh and His people. Yahweh has to eliminate them or His people must die and no Messiah and no fulfillment of Genesis 3:15. That explains Joshua, IMO. It also explains the flood, which many consider OT nonsense, yet it is further discussed as valid in the NT. So are the Gen 6:1-4 “bene elohim”, Jude and II Peter.
If Joshua is not valid, neither is David and Goliath because Goliath also is a nephilim. What hero was David to kill a myth nephilim?
If Joshua is not valid, Rahab the harlot is not in Christ’s lineage as Luke stated. If Joshua is not valid, why does the NT show Jesus literally walking in Joshua’s footsteps crossing the Jordan?
My biased conclusion, Joshua is a valid narrative, we just need to understand God did that because He HAD to do that to save the Jews from extinction which would lead to Him failing to redeem His creation. He also had to allow Jesus to die on a cross for the same cause, IF God had any alternative, none of these things would have had to occur.
Our evil has a lot to do with this of course and IF the idea that “God will be all in all” in the restoration has universal application( I think it does), those massacred nephilim themselves are real thankful right now that they got their cans kicked like that so God’s providential Plan marched on to and through the cross.
Pingback: Theology Roundup — July 2012 « Cheese-Wearing Theology
February 16, 2013 at 6:47 pm
Have a look at this video by Michael W. Jones called “Comparing Yahweh with Jesus – The Same or Different”