Al Wolters on Hermeneutics and Zechariah’s Night Visions

Al Wolters, in his very nice article “Confessional Criticism and the Night Visions of Zechariah,” (From Renewing Biblical Interpretation in Zondervan’s Scripture and Hermeneutics Series) draws out an interesting hermeneutical proposal; i.e., that of noting the coexistence of “top-down” relationships in hermeneutics with “bottom-up” relationships.

Let me explain what Wolters means.  Starting at the bottom are the most basic levels of a text, upon which others levels of the interpretation is to be based.  At the bottom of the ladder is text criticism, as establishing what text is to be interpreted is the first step.  From there, he proceeds upwards to such areas as lexicography (determining the meaning of the words in the accepted text), syntax (how those words, now defined, stand in relationship to one another), and so forth.  Here is Wolters’ list:

9. Confessional Discernment
8. Redemptive-historical analysis / 7. Ideological Criticism
6. Historical analysis / 5. Synchronic literary analysis
4. Diachronic literary analysis
3. Syntax
2. Lexicography
1. Textual criticism

(Cited from pg. 108.)

While proceeding from the bottom up appears (at first glance) to be the most objective form of textual interpretation, Wolters explains how the matter is much more complicated than this.  There is a sense in which interpretation can proceed from the top-down as well.  He explains: “[I]t can be shown that interpretive judgments on one level often do ‘hang on’ decisions made on a higher level.  The hermeneutical traffic is not all one way” (pg. 108).

Wolters then offers some very fine examples, worth quoting at length:

The following are some examples, drawn from the illustrative material adduced above, of hermeneutical influence running downward: Consider the fact that commentators are now generally agreed that the מוצקות in the description of the menorah in Vision 5 (Zech. 4:2) means ‘sprouts’ (wick-niches) rather than ‘pipes.’  This is a change on level 2 (lexicography), but it depends on level 6 (historical analysis), informed by archaeological discoveries of actual lamps from biblical times.  Furthermore, the level 1 decision not to emend שבעה ושבעה in that same verse depends on level 6 evidence as well, as does the level 2 interpretation of אבן הראשה in 4:7 as ‘former brick.’  If I am right in my hypothesis that צנתרות in 4:12 does not mean ‘pipes’ but ‘oil-pressers’ (a level 2 hypothesis) then this becomes legitimate grounds for entertaining the textual emendation צהורות (a level 1 hypothesis).  Similarly, the judgment that Vision 4 does not fit the chiastic literary arrangement of the visions as a whole (level 5) has led Reddit and many others to propose that it belongs to a later redactional stage (level 4).  Also, the various efforts to make syntactical sense (level 3) of the difficult phrase אחר כבוד שלחני in 2:12 (English 2:8) has led interpreters to assign widely different lexical meanings to אחר and כבוד (level 2).

This widespread phenomenon of top-down influence also applies to the very highest levels.  [Phyllis] Trible’s judgment that the אשה אחת in Vision 7 (5:7) does not represent a personification of Wickedness (הרשעה) but rather an identification of woman in general with wickedness (a level 2 judgment), is clearly influenced by her feminist perspective (a level 7 matter).  Similarly, the historical judgment of many Christian commentators that the messianic title ‘Branch’ of 3:8 does not refer to the contemporary governor Zerubbabel (level 6), is just as clearly influenced by the redemptive-historical belief (level 8) that the promised Messiah is Jesus Christ.

Cited from pgs. 108-9.

This is fascinating stuff.  Is it really sufficient to know our syntax for interpretation?  Our lexicon?  Is it really sufficient to have our Redemptive-historical or ideological convictions in place?  Ultimately, a whole host of factors are involved in biblical interpretation that go far beyond word-studies or grammar.

Think of the egalitarian/complimentarian debate over woman’s roles in the church as addressed in Rom 16:1 (Phoebe as a servant/deacon) and Rom 16:7 (Junia as an apostle, or well known to the apostles).  Many argue that dikonos in 16:1 cannot mean that Phoebe is deacon since that would contradict 1 Tim 3:12.  (This is a debated interpretation of 1 Tim 3:12, of course.)  Likewise, it is argued, Junia cannot be a woman-apostle since that would undermine male headship and the words of 1 Tim 2:12.  (This too is a much debated inference among scholars.)  Note that in each of these cases, lexicon (Rom 16:1) and syntax (Rom 16:7), levels 2 and 3 respectively, are being determined by matters of levels 7 and 9.  This is not to weigh in one way or another on the debate, only to illustrate Wolters’ point.  To re-quote him, “The hermeneutical traffic is not all one way.”

But this is indeed the point.  Sytax and lexicon don’t simply carry the day.  Nor do confessional and ideological commitments, for that matter.  Biblical interpretation is a sophisticated and symbiotic enterprise.  Yes there is more ambiguity this way, but it strikes me that there is also a lot more fun to be had too!

Wolters’ approach to hermeneutics (in general) and Zechariah’s night visions (in particular) is a very thought provoking read.  If I get around to it, I’ll wrestle with where “Innerbiblical Exegesis” might fit into his levels.

______________
Andrew

T. F. Torrance: The Disturbing Divine Revelation

 

“…In all our response to God’s Word and formulation of divine Truth we are summoned to let God retain his own reality, majesty, and authority over against us.  In divine revelation we have to do with a Word of God which is what it is as Word of God in its own reality independent of our recognition of it, and we have to do with a Truth of God which is what it is as Truth of God before we come to know it to be true. ”

“That means that in all our response to God’s self-revelation as is mediated to us in space and time through the Holy Scriptures we must seek to understand and interpret it in accordance with its intrinsic requirements and under the constraint of the truth which bears upon our minds in and through it, and not in accordance with the requirements of thought which we bring to it or under the constraint of rigid habits of belief which we retain at the back of our minds irrespective of what we may experience beyond ourselves.”

“Divine revelation which commands a response of this kind is very disturbing, for it uproots us from the comfortable certainty of our preconceptions and calls in question the mechanisms we constantly develop in order to give a firmness to our evangelical beliefs in themselves as beliefs, rather than in the objective ground to which as beliefs they are properly correlated and in reference to which they are always open to revision” (p. 13-14).

Though I’m not in agreement with Torrance on every point in this book [Reality and Evangelical Theology (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1982)], he is challenging and thought-provoking, as you can tell from the above quote.

shane lems

Goldingay’s Commentary on the Psalms: A Methodological Critique

I’ve been working with John Goldingay’s 3-volume commentary set on the Psalms for a while now.  I haven’t read every part (and I’m not overly familiar with Goldingay’s other writings, though I know he’s some stripe of an open theist, which is a whole other subject), but I have read and utilized it enough to register a concern about his hermeneutical methodology, that is, the way he interprets the psalms.

I’ll give some examples of this in a second.  The main point of my critique is that he purposely removes the messianic bent from the Psalter.  He does not read the psalms in a christological way; in fact, he tries hard not to see Jesus in the Psalms.  Goldingay’s interpretation of the Psalter is exactly opposite of what you find in Geerhardus Vos’ excellent essay, “The Eschatology of the Psalter.”  Here are some quote from Goldingay to show his methodology.

From the introduction: “…[I do not] make the NT the filter or lens through which we read the Psalms.  A modern aspect to the commentary is that I want the Psalms to speak their own message and to let them address Christian thinking, theology, and spirituality, rather than being silenced by a certain way of reading the NT that fits modern Christian preferences.”

From his “Theological Implications” section of Psalm 8:

“It is…important for us to reflect on its inherent meaning and not simply read it through NT spectacles.  It does not look forward to a new age…. It does not refer to the Messiah.”

From the same section of his comments on Psalm 18:

“Psalm 18 offers no indication that it refers to something God will do in the future; it is not eschatological…it is not messianic.  It offers no indication that it points to Jesus of Nazareth; it is not christological.”

From the same section of his comments on Psalm 22:

[The Messiah is not] “the primary referent of the text.  It is not a prophecy.  The NT use of psalm ‘wrenches out of its setting.’”

Concerning Psalm 89, Goldingay says,

“…In the psalm itself there is no indication that the understanding of Yhwh’s reign is coming to be understood eschatologically or that the understanding of the human king’s reign is coming to be understood messianically.”

Similarly, when discussing the implications of Psalm 110, he writes,

“The text’s theological implications…do not lie in its application to Jesus; that is to ignore its meaning.  Its application to Jesus is part of NT study.”  He ends this little section on the implications of Ps 110 in an odd way, almost contradicting his earlier words: “Canonical interpretation must mean letting different parts of Scripture have their say, not silencing some by others that we prefer.”

You can even see his methodological approach when you look at the scripture index in the back of the volumes – there are just a few NT passages indexed (about half of a page – sometimes less than his Qumran references).

In my opinion, this is why Goldingay’s commentary on the Psalms is flat and uninspiring.  The commentary sections often seem like a textual discussion with some application tacked on the end.  And, as is consistent with his methodology, the application jumps over the cross to today’s context.  This leaves the reader with some mundane application and even odd points of meaning for today.  I’m not sure how one can, for example, comment on and apply the faithfulness of Yahweh without mentioning the work of Christ – the messianic work we already see glimmers of in the Psalter.

While this commentary set might be useful for some things (Hebrew notes, textual variants, ANE references, etc.), overall I don’t think they’re worth the seventy some dollars I put down for them.  I may sell them and use that cash to get something better.  For me, they do not cultivate that Christ centered apostolic hermeneutic for which I strive – in fact, this commentary set hinders it.  Along the same lines, one thing that has helped me here is Carson and Beale’s (editors) fine commentary on the NT’s use of the OT, along with Vos’ work I mentioned above.

shane lems

Hyper-Calvinism

I’ve bumped up against hyper-calvinism on and off for the past 15 years or so.  For a time I checked it out, dabbled with it, and thought about it.  Thankfully a wise pastor steered me away from its dangers.  What is hyper-calvinism?  I think of it as Calvinism on the steroids of rationalism; I also think of it as a belief system which limits the free grace of God.  J. G. Machen’s quote here is one that has really helped me understand God’s grace in a way that makes me thankful I’m not a hyper-calvinist.

 ”Salvation is as free for us as the air we breathe; God’s the dreadful cost, ours the gain.”

Bavinck is also helpful.

“Christ did not die for a few but for many, for a large multitude.  He gives his life as a ransom for many; he sheds his blood for many; he will make many righteous.  It is not a handful but many who by one man’s obedience will be made righteous [Rom. 5:19].  Scripture is not afraid that too many people will be saved.  Therefore based on that same consideration, it says that God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked and that he wants all humans to repent and be saved, that Christ is the expiation of and has given his life for the world, and that the gospel must be preached to all creatures” (Reformed Dogmatics III.465).

One more – John Murray on page 109 of Redemption Accomplished and Applied.

“The overtures of grace in the gospel addressed to all men without distinction [the universal call] are very real and we must maintain that doctrine with all its implications for God’s grace, on the one hand, and for man’s responsibility and privilege, on the other.”

Machen’s quote above is certainly worth memorizing and the others are worth pondering.  If you’re interested in this topic, I suggest getting The Pattern of Sound Doctrine and reading R. S. Clark’s chapter in it, which covers this very topic in an excellent way.

By the way, Machen’s line above was from chapter 6 of Christianity and Liberalism. 

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Models of the Church

Since one of my reading hobbies is ecclesiology I recently picked up and read the newest edition of Avery Dulles’ Models of the Church (New York: Doubleday, 2002).  In this book, Dulles summarizes and explains what he thinks are the five major models of ecclesiology in contemporary Christianity: Church as institution, church as mystical communion, church as sacrament, church as herald, and church as servant.  The updated book has a chapter on the church as community of disciples as well.

The book is very informative and well written.  Being a Reformation Christian, I knew from the get-go that I wouldn’t agree with everything in the book, as Dulles is a Roman Catholic theologian.  For example, he thinks that though all of the models have some benefits, his choice is the church as sacrament, which goes hard against my Protestant ecclesiology. 

Furthermore, I was disappointed that Dulles never interacted with any Reformation ecclesiology, aside from mentioning Lutheranism a few times.  He did mention Calvin in the beginning, but never came around to Reformed ecclesiology.  He used Barth and company to describe the church as herald, but I would have liked to see Dulles interact with Reformed/Presbyterian ecclesiology.  It seems to me that he made the mistake of lumping all Protestant ecclesiologies together, which is a pretty glaring error.  Certainly most mainline American Protestant ecclesiologies are far from confessional Reformed, Lutheran, or Anglican ecclesiology (just for a few examples)!

As I said, however, the book is worth reading.  Here is one quote I appreciated.

“…the Church of Jesus Christ is not perfectly realized anywhere on earth, and…any existing ecclesiastical body will be only deficiency the Church of Jesus Christ.  At the end of time, the Church will be ‘without spot or wrinkle;’ it will be the Bride fully adorned to meet her Husband.  But as yet the bodies that go by the name of ‘church’ all have their shortcomings and are to some extent vitiated by foreign elements” (p. 129).

If you’re an “ecclesiologist” you’ll want to get this book.  Even though I really didn’t find myself convinced by all of Dulles’ arguments and explanations, it was a helpful and enjoyable book to read.  Dulles does make some excellent points, and this should be on the shelves of those of you who are interested in the doctrine of the church. 

shane lems