Fishbane on Aggadic Exegesis

I came across a few great quotes in Michael Fishbane’s Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (hereafter BIAI) on aggadic (i.e., non-halakhic) exegesis.  Fishbane notes how this type of exegesis is utilized by the OT writers as they pick up and re-employ earlier traditions.

After noting that aggadic exegesis not only has different concerns than does halakhic exegesis, there are also a different cause for – or purpose to – the exegesis.  In the case of halakhic exegesis, the concern is to make “pre-existent laws applicable or viable in new contexts” (BIAI, pg. 282).  With aggadic exegesis, however, things are different.  “[I]t may be said that the existence or perception of some lack in the traditum [original source text or tradition] is a significant condition for the rise of  legal exegesis. . . . In contrast to legal exegesis, fullnessis a significant condition for its [aggadic exegesis] emergence” (BIAI, pg. 282).

Here’s a few paragraphs of note:

Aggadic exegesis is thus not content to supplement gaps in the traditum, but characteristically draws forth latent and unsuspected meanings from it.  In this way, aggadic exegesis utilizes the potential fullness of received formulations and makes this potential actual.  For if inner-biblical legal exegesis particularly serves to fill a felt lack in the traditum, and to clarify for all practical or theoretical purposes the plain sense of a Scriptural dictum, inner-biblical aggadic exegesis, by contrast, gives particular emphasis to its sensus plenior, its fullness of potential meanings and applications.  Legal exegesis and aggadic exegesis thus illumine different facets of a text’s inherent possibilities: the one, legal exegesis, shows how a particular law can be clarified and reinterpreted qua law; while the other, aggadic exegesis, characteristically shows how a particular law (or topos, or theologoumenon) can transcend its original focus, and become the basis of a new configuration of meaning.

BIAI, pg. 283.

Regarding the re-use of traditions:

[I]t has been repeatedly contended by A. Robert and his followers that a style defined as procede anthologique ‘re-employs, literally or equivalently, words or formulas of earlier scriptures’, that is, that the earlier biblical texts are exegetically reused, or ‘reactualized’, in new contexts.  In some cases ‘the author preserves the literal meaning of his predecessor [texts] but applies it to another object’; in other instances, older terms are extended, transposed, or otherwise given new significance

BIAI, pgs. 286-87.

Finally, on typology:

Typological exegesis thus celebrates new historical events in so far as they can be correlated with older ones.  By this means it also reveals unexpected unity in historical experience and providential continuity in its new patterns and shapes.  Accordingly, the perception of typologies is not solely an exegetical activity, it is, at the same time, a religious activity of the first magnitude.  For if legal and other aggadic exegeses emphasize the verbal aspects of ongoing divine revelation, typological exegesis reveals its historical concreteness.  Typological exegesis is thus not a disclosure of the sensus plenior of the text, in the manner of other forms of inner-biblical exegesis.  It is rather a disclosure of the plenitude and mysterious workings of divine activity in history.

BIAI, pg. 352.

BIAI is really the gift that keeps on giving as quote upon quote, with no end in sight, could be lined up on this post!  Fishbane has a given a very detailed examination of the earliest hermeneutic used by the biblical writers.  Though the book does cost a pretty penny, it is still an  great resource!

______________
Andrew

God’s Calendar, God’s Time

God made time, God can change time.

1) The creation week was a liturgical, creational calendar that celebrated God the Maker and Sustainer.  Creation’s calendar said, “Six days of work then one day of rest.”  It was patterned after God the creator’s “week.”

2) The exodus event was a real sort of de-creation then re-creation (see Fretheim and Enns, for example).  Among other things, the calendar was “tweaked.”  There was a new first month: Abib (Ex 12.18, 13.4, etc.).  A huge redemptive event, a new creation of sorts, meant that Yahweh would “tweak” the creational calendar.  Now the Hebrews had their own unique calendar based on God’s re-creative work which was patterned into their very existence.  In other words, God stretched the creational calendar at the exodus.

3) The OT exodus event pointed to the NT exodus fulfillment: God’s eternal, “firstborn” Son, the true Israel, the true Passover Lamb, the true Bread of Heaven, etc. came to keep and complete (fulfill) all the OT signs, symbols, sacraments, ceremonies, and calendars.  His death meant blood covering God’s people, it meant justice was paid and people were released.  It meant a new creation – Jesus is the firstborn from the dead (Rev 1; cf Col 1).   No surprise: Jesus re-arranges the calendar that he made, tweaked, and now fulfilled.  The “newly created” people of God (the church) meet on the first day of the week (cf. Acts), the great day that Jesus set apart by defeating death and began making all things new.  This first day is patterned into the existence of the church.  The Creed says it too: “the first day he arose again from the dead.”  Everything is new: death is whipped, the new has come, and a new calendar and liturgy reflect this truth.   God is not only the Maker and Sustainer, but the Redeemer as well.  The Christian calendar is the liturgical way to say as much.

4) Finally, this New Exodus-Christian calendar begs for the end of itself: patterned into the Christian calendar is the end.  Every first day preaches that there will be a last day: Come, Lord Jesus, come quickly! On heaven’s calendar, each “day” is the great new Sabbath because of the completed work redemption.  The calendar we now have between Jesus’ “exodus” (his resurrection/ascension) and our “exodus” (his parousia) is a New Exodus Pilgrim calendar that we won’t need after this age.

God made time, God can change time!

Note: this was pieced together from the above commentaries/books (namely, the IVP OT Background Commentary, Enns, Exodus, Fretheim, Exodus, and several of Kline’s works, including God, Heaven, and Har Magedon) along with the Westminster Confession of Faith 21.7 and the Dictionary of Biblical Imagery.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Eisenbrauns Sale

I just received my BookNews email from Eisenbrauns.  I suppose some of you get it, so Andrew and/or I may not need to always pass these deals along, but let me just say that you do need to subscribe to this email book news if you are “in” OT (or NT) studies.  Here’s the link for the sale (*updated*), and from there you should also be able to sign up for their e-BookNews email.

Examples of the sale (Hendrikson stuff): BDB hardcover for 17.48, The Elements of Biblical Exegesis by Gorman for 8.48, Civilizations of the ANE 2 volumes ed. by Sasson for 84.98, and also a few others worth checking out – such as Sparks, Tenney, and Matthews.

Enjoy!

shane lems

sunnyside wa

The Cover Over (Pass Over)

Exodus 12.23 says this: For the LORD will pass through the land and strike down the Egyptians. But when he sees the blood on the top and sides of the doorframe, the LORD will pass over your home. He will not permit the Destroyer to enter and strike down your firstborn (NLT).

Meredith Kline wrote an excellent article on this “pass-over” event in JETS, 37/4 (December 1994), 497-510.  Kline argues that pasach in the context of Exodus 11-12 means “cover over” instead of “pass by.”  Look again at the above verse.  The first verb is abar (pass by/over), not pasach.  Now notice the middle: The LORD will ‘pass over.’ Here the verb is pasach.  It fits to read The Lord wil cover over your home. God is not the one striking down (though he is through his destroying angels as Psalm 78 notes); God is the one covering the door, not permitting the Destroyer to enter and kill.  Yahweh sees the blood then hovers over the door of the home, not allowing his Destroyer to come in with his sword of revenge.

In Kline’s words, “Pasach does not denote the taking of a detour but the establishing of a deterrent, not God’s bypassing of the house or hopping over the lintel but, on the contrary, his stationing himself squarely and immovably at the door.  What the imagery demands is a shielding action – not a separating or distancing of God from the house but an abiding divine Presence, a divine encamping like a guardian of the gate.”

Kline goes on to discuss many more things, including a similar meaning of pasach in Isaiah 31.5, ANE/Egyptian factors, and the context of Exodus 11-12 which contains the verb pasach.  He ends the article – as he always does – on what the text has to do with Jesus.  Jesus is the true Passover Lamb, the one whose blood shields us, who gives us his Spirit as an eternal covering and protection.

Be sure to read this article when you study the “Feast of Cover-Over”!

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Catechetical and Confessional Piety

As a pastor who “signs on” to the Three Forms of Unity (Heidelberg Catechism, Belgic Confession of Faith, and the Canons of Dort), I often hear other Christians say things like this to me:  “Well, that stuff worked back then, but all that doctrine stifles true Christian living.”  Or, “Our church used to use those things, but they are for the head, while biblical religion is for the heart.”  I’m sure many of you have either heard or thought some of the same things.

Of course, point well taken: rigid dogma has indeed resulted in cold Christian living, where true knowledge and true piety are split up.  However, the fault does not lie in the doctrines.  It is wrong to say that since some fifth and sixth (or tenth and eleventh!) generation Reformation Christians did not practice true piety, we should abandoned the Reformation confessions.  I would submit that the opposite is true: since some Reformation Christians do not practice what they preach, we better preach it better and more clearly!  Just to get the point across, let me say it another way: don’t blame our confessions for our lack of piety.

William Ames (1576-1633) is a good start to get “back into” the confessions, specifically the Heidelberg Catechism.  The level of orthodoxy and piety in this volume will sweep the reader away.  For example, in the first brief chapter Ames interprets Psalm 4.6-8 to explain man’s chief good (summum bonum) to be found “in God’s favor towards him.”  This is the solid comfort that Lord’s Day 1 hammers home.  Here are the five “lessons” he gives for this text, in relation to Lord’s Day 1.

Lesson One: The highest good ought to be considered and sought above all other things in our entire life.

Lesson Two: The highest good of people in this life cannot be obtained from earthly goods.

Lesson Three: Our true and highest good consists in the union and communion we have with God.

Lesson Four: The joy that believers gain from the communion that they have with God overcomes, by its own sweetness, all human delights and happiness.

Lesson Five: This joy and holy consolation convey a certain security to the consciences of the faithful.

Also, in a highly pastoral way,  Ames gives reasons and uses for each of these five lessons.  For example, he talks about this chief good of man to be a source of consolation, exhortation to the good, refutation of the world’s delights, admonition for our souls to look above, and as encouragement to us for our eternal future.

This is theology and piety at its finest: orthodoxy drips with piety, and piety drips with orthodoxy.   Reformation preaching and teaching would do well to strive for the balance.

Many thanks to the editors and translators of this new series (more to come!), and also to RHB for putting this out.

The above quotes taken from William Ames, A Sketch of the Christian’s Catechism trans. Todd M. Rester (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008).

shane lems

sunnyside wa