The Big Wide World of Authorial Intent and Allusion

In the book I’ve recently been reviewing here,  We Become What We Worship,  G. K. Beale argues forcefully that intertextual biblical allusions are always consistent to their historical and grammatical context (c.f. Beale’s The Erosion of Inerrancy in Evangelicalism, p.91-92, 105, etc.).  Perhaps in other words, the human authors of Scripture quoted other Scripture using the grammatical-historical method of interpretation.

This is a fascinating and fruitful area of study, one area which many have written about well.  One only needs to read E. D. Hirsch,  Richard Hays, Peter Enns, Kevin Vanhoozer, and so forth to get a variety of insights into the topic of interpretation, allusion, and authorial intent.

Vanhoozer charts out a nice path in Is There a Meaning in This Text?.  I’ll highlight a few of Vanhoozer’s comments below.

“…The ‘fuller meaning’ of Scripture – the meaning associated with divine authorship – emerges only at the level of the whole canon.”  Vanhoozer notes Pannenberg’s helpful emphasis that we only know the true meaning of an event at the end of history, when the whole is complete.  Of course we do not have this “end” yet, but in the canonical sense we do – Scripture is complete.  Or, as Vanhoozer implies from Pannenberg, “judgments about meaning always involve an implicit anticipation of the whole.”

Therefore, we cannot stop just at grammatical and contextual interpretation: “If we are reading the Bible as the Word of God…I suggest that the context that yields this maximal sense is the canon, taken as a unified communicative act.”  It is the canon “as a whole” that helps solve the problem of ‘fuller meaning.’  “That is, to say that the Bible has a ‘fuller meaning’ is to focus on the (divine) author’s intended meaning at the level of the canonical act.  Better said, the canon as a whole becomes the unified act for which the divine intention serves as the unifying principle.  The divine intention supervenes on the intention of the human authors.”  “The divine intention does not contravene the intention of the human author but rather supervenes on it” (pp 264-5, emphasis his).

These are some helpful considerations for the discussion of context, allusion, and interpretation.  To summarize Vanhoozer in my words, grammatical-historical interpretation must include more than simply the historical and grammatical “situatedness” of the text.  We also need to keep in mind the end result: Christ the fulfillment and “end” of the text.

I’ll end with some questions I’ve been asking while studying this topic.

1) Can the canonical context speak louder than the immediate context as we interpret texts?  Is this what fuller meaning is all about?

2) How much do we stake on possible allusions?  What are the pitfalls of being overly certain in this area?

3) Do we ultimately need to prove an allusion to make a biblical or theological point, or even to prove the unity of the Bible? [Note: there is a difference between allusion and citation/direct quote.]

4) Is our view of Scripture necessarily lower if we are hesitant to find an allusion and argue for authorial intent behind possible allusions?

5) Did the human authors of Scripture always know how their writing would be taken in later generations?  I.e. would Isaiah be angry with Paul for using some of his words as he did, or would Paul teach Isaiah, making Isaiah say “Oh, I get it now, that’s what I meant”?

shane lems

sunnyside wa

More on Beale’s “We Become What We Worship”

Chapters 4-9 of We Become What We Worship is the application of Beale’s thesis to previous and subsequent OT and NT texts that allude to or cite Isaiah 6.9-13.  By way of reminder (see earlier posts here and here), Beale exegetes and interprets Isaiah 6.9-13 as a reference to the punishment for Israel’s sin of idolatry.  His interpretation and thesis from this text is simply that a person becomes like whatever he/she worships.  He then goes to earlier and later texts that allude to or cite Isaiah 6.9-13.  In these allusions and citations, Beale finds his thesis/interpretation of Isaiah 6.9-13.

Rather than narrate out several observations, I’ll simply list a few to save time and space.

1) The careful reader will notice how many “possibles” and “probables” and “ifs” there are in this book.  This has to do again with methodology: how firm are allusions, and how do we interpret them?  On the one hand, it is good that Beale realizes his thesis is built on many “probables.”  On the other hand, the thesis, in my opinion, is weakened by so many “probables.”  For example, he submits out front that his thesis from Isaiah 6.9-13 is “hardly discernible” in Acts, yet he precedes to discuss Acts 7.46-52, 17.24-5, and 28.25-28 in light of his thesis, even though Isaiah 6.9-13 is cited only in Acts 28.25-28 (p. 184ff).  In my opinion, this was the weakest chapter of the book, especially when he drew in his temple emphasis from another work to cross-reference (better: cross-allude) to discuss his thesis.

2) I think Beale overstates his case.  Beale’s interpretation of Isaiah 6.9-13 seems like a hermeneutical Great White that swallows other concepts of idolatry.  Idolatry is a complex multi-threaded strand that runs through Scripture, which includes themes such as spiritual prostitution, witness, covenant curses, an external display of internal spiritual deadness, and so forth.  When Beale makes statements such as “Israel’s sin was essentially idol worship” and “Paul sees idolatry to be the essence of sin,” he leaves the reader wanting more biblical proof for such sweeping statements (p.36, 203).

3) Hand in hand with #2, the book subtitle (A Biblical Theology of Idolatry) is sort of misleading.  To be sure, Beale himself notes on page 16 that the book is not intended to be a comprehensive book on idolatry, but one aspect of it.  In the subsequent chapters (around 300 pages), he makes the reader think this is the predominant aspect that all of Scripture highlights and emphasizes.  Perhaps in other words, this is not really “Biblical Theology” as the reader might be familiar with in the likes of Geerhardus Vos.  I realize “Biblical Theology” is a broad term, so though there are some similarities with the Vosian type of BT, but this book is not that.   [Side note: speaking of Vos, see Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments for some alternative excellent insights into the nature of idolatry.)

I hate to be so negative about this work of Beale, especially since there are many brilliant biblical insights in this volume.  It is worth getting.  I’m simply exhorting the reader to read with care.   One should be quite careful of making too much of a possible allusion, since we simply don’t know what the author “had in mind” when he possibly used other Scripture (i.e. maybe his “hard drive” was so full of texts that he used them without specific contextual carry over).  I’m not sure what the payoff is for finding so many allusions; one can argue for the unity and clarity of Scripture without leaning so heavily on possible allusions.  One can also show from Scripture the thesis of this book without the allusions.  Still pondering this….

This book has also made me realize that there is a fine line between proof-texting the proper way to make a theological point and finding probable allusions to make a theological point: you err if you cross the line.  Perhaps this is where the BT department and the ST department need to get together and both realize the benefits and limits of each.  Many of the same dangers of proof-texting apply to using allusions.

If/when you read this book, we’d love to hear your comments!

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Beale’s Book On Idolatry: Reflections on Chs 1-3

The first three chapters of Beale’s We Become What We Worship are a cross-reference workout.  In these chapters, he explores his thesis using many relevant OT texts.  By way of reminder, his thesis is that idolaters resemble the idols they worship.  Let me note a few of my observations of the first three chapters (p. 1-127).  [For my earlier post on the intro of this book, go here.]

First, Beale’s thesis is right on.  Many texts in the OT show as much, specifically Ps 115.8: Those who make them [idols] become like them.  He uses other texts to support this thesis; it is sound and biblical.

Second, I’m still trying to figure out a few things that Beale is doing.  First of all, he uses Isaiah 6 (especially verses 9-13) not only as proof of his thesis, but also as a lens by which to approach all other relevant texts.  In his own words, “This passage (Isaiah 6) will be analyzed more fully than others in subsequent chapters because it lays out the principle of this book most clearly, and is often alluded to by later Old Testament and New Testament authors, and it also alludes to earlier passages in the Old Testament” (p. 36, cf. p. 64).

The meaning(s) of these verses is up for grabs among scholars, so when Beale goes against the scholarly flow and says 1) that it is all about idolatry, and 2) it is his hermeneutical lens for other texts, I had to pause.  The majority of scholars agree, as Beale writes, that this text is “a pronouncement of judgment because of covenant disloyalty in general.”  However, “there has been no suggestion that it may be a punishment tied specifically to the nation’s sin of idolatry” (p. 38).  This was my first slight pause in the chapter; I always balk when an interpreter goes against the major grain of the history of exegesis.

Furthermore, concerning the hermeneutical lens, I would say that Psalm 115.8 (or another similar text that is more perspicuous) should be a locus classicus (standard passage) for this thesis.  Also, since proving an allusion is, as Beale himself says in the intro, “a matter of guesswork…involving various degrees of possibility and probability…not an exact science but is a kind of art” (p. 25, 31), one would think he would base his thesis on a more probable and less debatable text.  I realize I may be stretching it here, but “right doctrine, wrong text” actually came to mind a few times!

One more thing: he goes from his thesis in Isaiah 6 to several passages in Deuteronomy to Exodus 32, and in his discussion of Moses’ “shining” or “horned appearance” he only mentions 2 Corinthians 3.7-16 twice – and that only in passing.  I was guessing Beale would use this NT passage in detail to help interpret the OT passage, but he does not.  That surprised me, knowing Beale’s excellent emphasis of the NT interpreting the OT.  I looked in the Scripture index and a few other places but didn’t see these verses mentioned elsewhere in the rest of the book.

Again: Beale’s thesis is right on.  Yet the first 127 pages left me scratching my head while agreeing with many conclusions he was making.  I’m really looking forward to the last half of the book.  More on this later.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

A Brief On Beale’s Intro in “We Become What We Worship”

I’m looking forward to Andrew’s next post, but since he and his wife are enjoying the presence of a new baby girl (congrats!!), I’ll attempt to fill his void with something he and I recently discussed: G. K. Beale and hermeneutics.  For now, I’ll do a small trek through Beale’s intro in We Become What We Worship (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2008).

In the intro, Beale basically lays his hermeneutical cards on the table for the reader to see.  Here’s my summary.

1) Scripture is divinely inspired – it is “all God’s Word.”

2) God’s “authorial intentions communicated through human authors are accessible to contemporary readers.”  We can’t exhaust them, but they can be sufficiently understood.

3) Scripture is organically progressive: Beale uses Vos’ metaphor of the OT as a seed and the NT as the plants growing and flowering from that seed.

4) He combines “grammatical-historical exegesis with canonical-contextual exegesis.”  This means that  he utilizes literary and historical context as well as other allusions in Scripture to the passage being studied for interpretation. Scripture interprets Scripture is included here, Beale affirms.  The allusion from one text echoed in other subsequent texts is sometimes called “intertextuality” in scholarly circles.

There are a few other helpful notes by Beale concerning his methodology, but I want to “camp out” very briefly on intertextuality.  Beale notes there are minimalists (those who are leery of seeing allusions or literary connections, and if they see them, they hesitate to find any interpretive significance to a possible allusion).  There are also maximalists: those who are quite open to finding, exploring, and using allusions and letting the allusions shape interpretation.

Of course there is a tightrope to walk here, and Beale makes note of it.  Here are some reasons for maximalists to be careful (I’m using Beale’s examples here).  1) Eisegesis – one could read too much into an allusion.  2) All proposed intertextual allusions/connections have “degrees of possibility and probability.” 3) “Weighing the evidence for recognizing allusions is not an exact science but is a kind of art.”  He later says it does involve some “guesswork.”  4) He again uses the terms “possible” and “probable” when discussion allusions.  That is, the interpreter cannot always be certain that there is an allusion.  5) If there is an allusion, we cannot be sure if the author of later Scripture was “unconscious of making the reference” or “not necessarily intending” the reader to catch it. 6) The interpreter has to guard against reader-response types of “multiple meanings” and also allegory.

So far, I fully concur.  Also, to note, Beale labels himself in the “maximalist camp.”  However, he does admit that he may tip towards eisegesis, for which the reader will have to forgive him.  He says he is aiming for objectivity while expressing his thesis (that idolaters resemble the idols they worship) from texts that he thinks prove it. “At times this thesis becomes a lens through which to see some passages in a way not otherwise seen.  Therefore, eisegesis may happen in this book, but I have tried to be aware of this pitfall and have tried to step around such dangers in order not to domesticate the evidence.”

Beale then urges the reader  – even if he/she disagrees with certain interpretations – to at least appreciate the general approach and be both loving and cautious while reading, as he attempted to be cautious while interpreting.

I still agree thus far, but a few times in the intro it felt as if Beale was not exercising as much caution as he emphasized (see list above).  Perhaps there is a[n] “[over]confident maximalist” and a “cautious maximalist.” The latter seems what Beale wants to be, while he admits he may slide into the former.

Interesting stuff.  Of course my verdict is still not in; I’ll continue through the book and write more later.  Let me end by saying the introduction was lively and stimulating, well worth the read, as Beale usually is.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

New Beale! Update: Two new ones by Beale

G. K. Beale’s new one is coming out next month!  Can’t wait!

From the IVP website: “Employing Isaiah 6 as his interpretive lens, Beale demonstrates that this understanding of idolatry permeates the whole canon, from Genesis to Revelation. Beale concludes with an application of the biblical notion of idolatry to the challenges of contemporary life.”

Here’s what Waltke wrote about it (click the pic for more reviews):

“We Become What We Worship is biblical theology at its best, weaving together Old and New Testament texts into a unified message. Beale’s work is original yet traditional, profound yet simple, exegetical yet ‘hyperexegetical,’ sometimes provocative yet always profitable, for the scholar yet for every serious Christian. His message that we resemble what we revere, either for ruin or for restoration, is convincing and convicting.”

—Bruce Waltke, professor of Old Testament, Reformed Theological Seminary

———————————-

Also, be sure to check this one out (Update):

From the website: “Due to recent popular challenges to evangelical doctrine, biblical inerrancy is a topic receiving an increasing amount of attention among theologians and other scholars. Here G. K. Beale attempts vigorously and even-handedly to examine the writings of one leading postmodernist, Peter Enns, whose writings challenge biblical authority. In support of inerrancy, Beale presents his own set of challenges to the postmodern suppositions of Enns and others.”

Enjoy!

shane lems

sunnyside wa

The Two Witnesses of Revelation 11

Just who are those two witnesses in Revelation 11? Who are those two “olive trees” and “lampstands that stand before the Lord of the earth?” Well, some say literally there will be two specific men/witnesses at the end of the age. Others say similarly that these are two prophets who prophesy during the rapture. On the allegorical side, some have suggested that these two are the Law and the Prophets, or something like that.

I agree with the commentators who say that the witnesses symbolize the church (Beale, Mounce, Hendriksen, etc). This is a good quote from Hendriksen: “These witnesses symbolize the church militant bearing testimony through its ministers and missionaries throughout the present dispensation [age].” (More Than Conquerors [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1940], 155). Or shorter, Bauckham: “Two individuals here represent the church in its faithful witness to the world” (The Theology of the Book of Revelation [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993], 84).

Beale gives excellent reasons why this interpretation fits well:

1) The witnesses are called ‘two lampstands,’ similar to Rev 1.20, where John explicitly calls the churches lampstands.

2) By comparing Rev 11.7 and Dan 7.21 (clearly John alludes to Daniel here), Daniel notes that persecution is aimed not at a few individuals, but corporate Israel.

3) In Rev 11.9-13, the entire world will see the defeat and resurrection of the witnesses – this means that the witnesses are visible throughout the earth – around the globe.

4) The two witnesses prophesy for 3.5 years, the same length of time other followers of Christ are oppressed (11.2, 12.6, 14; 13.6). Especially relevant is chapter 12, where the woman fled persecution for the same amount of time. Beale notes that the woman and the two witnesses signify the same thing: the corporate people of God, the church.

5) Elsewhere in Revelation, the entire community of believers is identified as the source of the testimony to/of Jesus (6.9, 12.11, 17; 19.10, 20.4).

6) Finally, note that the powers of Moses and Elijah (11.6, for example) are attributed to both of the witnesses, not split between them. “They are identical prophetic twins.”

Beale quotes taken from his commentary on Revelation (Grand Rapid: Eerdmans, 1999), 574-5.

See also Dennis Johnson, Triumph of the Lamb, (Phillipsburg: P&R, 2001), 170-1; he compares 11.7 and 13.7 to make the same point as the above named authors.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Water from Jesus’ “belly/womb?” – John 7.38

John 7.38 is one of those passages in Scripture over which scholars go back and forth; for example both Craig Keener and D.A. Carson write that it is “difficult” and end up coming down on different “sides.”  Do the waters of life flow from the believer’s “belly” (“heart” in NIV, ESV, etc) or Jesus’ “belly?”  Where does the period belong, after “the one who believes in me” or before it?  Which OT text(s) is Jesus referring to in verse 38?

I think Keener, A.T. Lincoln, and Joel Marcus are right here (even though Carson in his commentary and Fee in a journal article give some very helpful remarks while disagreeing with Keener, Lincoln, and Marcus).  The water of life flows from Jesus’ “belly.”  Here are the discussions that convinced me.

Lincoln brings us back to Ezek. 47.1-12, where eschatological rivers of life flow from the new temple.  Furthermore, writes Lincoln, Zech. 14 has to do with the Feast of Tabernacles/Sukkoth (which is happening during John 7-8) and the water and light of life symbols.  Still further back, Lincoln reminds us of Ex. 17 and Ps. 78, the OT recollections of water flowing from the rock during Israel’s wilderness years.  Finally, as extra-biblilcal (yet extremely helpful) proof, Lincoln notes that the Rabbinic descriptions of the Feast of Tabernacles associate the water from the rock in the wilderness to the water in the temple — water “rituals” that took place during the Feast of Tabernacles.  In summary and in Lincoln’s own words, “Jesus is now the rock, from whose womb come the waters of new life, the waters of the Spirit, the agent of new birth” (A.T. Lincoln, The Gospel of Saint John, [Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2005], 256-7).

Joel Marcus links John 7.38 to Is. 12.3, discusses the Hebrew, LXX, and Greek text a bit, as well as Rabbinic “midrash,” then concludes, “Do not read, ‘from the wells of salvation,’ but ‘from the belly of Jesus,’ for rivers of living water shall flow from his belly” (see Joel Marcus, “Rivers of Living Water from Jesus’ Belly” Journal of Biblical Literature, 117 [1998]: 330).

Finally, Craig Keener: “From this center [Jerusalem/temple] would flow the rivers of life to water the whole world; and in John, where Jesus’ body becomes the new temple (2.19-21), he becomes the shattered cornerstone from which flows the water of the river of life” (Craig Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary [Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2002], 730).

See also G.K. Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004), who agrees that “the ‘innermost being’ from which ‘flow rivers of living water’ is Jesus himself as the new ‘holy of holies’ and not the one who believes in Jesus” (p. 197).

shane

sunnyside wa

Yahweh, the Stormy Sea and Its End

G. K. Beale and Sean McDonough have some helpful notes on Revelation 21.1-4, specifically verse 4. After discussing some clear parallels between Rev. 21 and Isaiah, they focus on some of the imagery of the new heaven and new earth.  In Isaiah (25.8, 35.10, and 51.11) the prophet predicts “that ‘pain and grief and groaning’ will have ‘fled away.’”

Very helpfully, they also note how both Isaiah and John write about the sea that is gone in the new creation.  Isaiah uses language about Yahweh “drying up” the Red Sea (51.10); in the very next verse (51.11), Isaiah writes about the redeemed obtaining everlasting joy and living without sorrow and sighing.  John writes similarly, “the sea was no more” (Rev 21.1); there will be no more sorrow nor crying, etc. (Rev 21.4).

In other words, as Beale and McDonough note, the Exodus “event” and the New Creation “event” have huge parallels.  It is significant that Yahweh overcame/destroyed the chaotic sea and his Egyptian enemies which resulted in joy and peace for his people, Israel.  In the New Creation, the same can be said: there will be no more chaotic sea, there will be no more Pharaohs or Serpents.  All that is left is joy and peace, life and rest.

The above references and quotes are found in G. K. Beale and Sean McDonough, “Revelation” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament ed. G.K. Beale and D. A. Carson [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007], 1151. 

Of course, there are quite a few more allusions and references to be addressed, but this is a great start.  Thanks, Beale and McDonough!

shane

sunnyside wa

On the NT use of the OT

In the intro to the long awaited commentary of the NT use of the OT by our favorites, Beale and Carson, they list six questions they’ve asked the contributing scholars to answer while commenting on the NT books.  While all six are very good hermeneutical/exegetical questions to ask, I thought #2 was brilliant and most helpful as one considers the interpretation of Scripture.

“What is the OT context from which the quotation or allusion is drawn?  Even at its simplest, this question demands as much care with respect to the OT as the first question demands of the study of the NT.  [My note: the first question is, "What is the NT context of the (OT) citation or allusion?"]

“Sometimes energy must be expended simply to demonstrate that a very brief phrase really does come from a particular OT passage, and from nowhere else.  Yet sometimes this second question becomes even more complex.  Under the assumption that Mark’s Gospel picks up exodus themes (itself a disputed point), is it enough to go to the book of Exodus to examine those themes as they first unfold?  Or are such OT exodus themes, as picked up by Mark, filtered through Isaiah?  In that case, surely it is important to include reflection not only on the use of the OT in the NT but also on the use of the OT within the OT” (emphasis mine).

“Or again, how does the Genesis flood account (Gen. 6-9) get utilized in the rest of the OT and in earlier parts of the NT before it is picked up by 2 Peter?  Sometimes a NT author may have in mind the earlier OT reference but may be interpreting it through the later OT development of that earlier text, and if the lens of that later text is not analyzed, then the NT use may seem strange or may not properly be understood.”

See Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament ed. D.A. Carson and G. K. Beale (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), xxiv.

shane lems

sunnyside wa