A Critique of Childs’ Canonical Method

Frequent readers of this blog will know that Andrew and I are in many ways appreciative of the canonical insights of former Yale OT professor Brevard Childs (d. 2007).  Childs has well emphasized that we should focus on the final form of the biblical text and therefore interpret Scripture in a canonical, holistic manner.  Childs didn’t totally reject the higher critical method, he simply focused on the biblical text as we have it.  Childs also taught that the post-apostolic Christian communities chose, shaped, modified, and redacted the NT texts.  Thus, since the 4th century or so, the church has had the NT canon in its “final form.”

One blog post cannot properly deal with a big discussion like this, but suffice it to say Childs’ methodology has a number of difficulties.  Michael Kruger does a nice job of pointing out certain problems in Childs’ canonical approach.  I’ve edited them to keep the post relatively brief.

“1) Childs is hard pressed to justify a sociological view of inspiration from the Scriptures themselves.  The variety of biblical texts on the subject [of inspiration] … give no indication that inspiration is a [post-apostolic] community affair, but rather view it as operative in key individuals and at key junctures in redemptive history.”

“2) There is also no indication that the early church viewed itself as bearing the same degree of inspiration as the apostles, or as having the authority to add, change, or modify the Scriptures (either OT or NT; i.e. Deut. 4:2, Rev. 22:18-10, Didache 4:13, Irenaeus Haer. 5:13.1).  The church understood its role as the preserver of inspired texts, not the editor of them.”

“3) If the canonical documents can be continually shaped by successive Christian communities, what is significant about the fourth-century community that gives it permanent normative status?  Why should that particular community be the point where the shape of the canon is ‘frozen?’ …If the canonical documents were revisable for the first four centuries of the Christian church, then there seems to be no reason offered by Childs for why the canonical documents would not be continually open to revision even up to the present day.  If so, then there can be no ‘final form’ of the canon from which Childs can do his biblical theology.”

“4) If the response to this problem is that the Christian community has the authority not only to shape, mold, and change the canonical documents, but also to decide when to stop the ‘canonical process’ and create a final canonical version, then it is difficult to avoid the implication that the church bears more authority than the canon itself.  Thus, [Childs’] canonical-criticism finds itself in a very similar place as the Roman Catholic model….  In the end, [Childs’] canonical-criticism approach provides us with another canon derivative from, and dependent upon, the Christian community and thus unable to genuinely rule over it as the ‘norma normans’ (the norms that norms).”

Kruger gives one more major critique of Childs’ approach, which I’ll post at a later time.  For the record, I’m not at all suggesting that we should stay away from Childs or those who share his methodology – many of his insights are helpful and penetrating.  Here I’m simply noting that his approach is not without its flaws.  His view of canon isn’t as canonical as it could be and those of us with a Reformed understanding of Scripture will certainly disagree with his views on the inspiration, historicity, authority, and inerrancy of Scripture.

Kruger’s entire discussion is found on pages 52-59 of Canon Revisited.

rev shane lems

Over-Interpretation and Redemptive History

In many ways, Peter Leithart’s commentary on 1 & 2 Kings is a helpful resource.  I’m glad I own it and will keep using it as I work through the Solomon narrative for a sermon series on which I’m working.

However, I’ve run across a few “red flags” that have made me question Leithart’s interpretive methods.  Time and again, his interpretation of different parts of these stories struck me as fanciful and far-fetched.  Here are a few examples of this over-interpretation from Leithart’s comments on the early Solomon stories.

First, concerning Solomon riding on a mule for his coronation (1 Kings 1:44):

“Mules are mixed-breed animals, and this perhaps points to Solomon’s kingdom including Jews and Gentiles.  As mixed-breed animals, further, mules are cherubic, reflecting the composite character of those creatures that draw the chariot of Yahweh (cherubim have four faces: ox, lion, eagle, human; Ezek. 1).  Adonijah attempted to capture the high ground by presenting himself as the “son of Yahweh,” traveling in a glory-chariot, but in the end David designates Solomon as son of Yahweh, riding on a cherubic animal just as his divine father does” (p. 32).

My response: the problem here is that the text neither states nor hints that Adonijah or David had these things in mind.  Further, I’m very hesitant to jump from a mule to a cherubim without clear textual warrant.  It is quite a stretch to view Solomon’s coronation parade as a son of Yahweh riding a cherubic animal.

Next, Leithart comments on David’s speech to Solomon and Solomon’s executions (1 Ki. 2):

“Solomon is a ‘New Joshua,’ who spends the early part of his reign wiping out the ‘Canaanites’ that remain in David’s kingdom, bringing ‘rest’ to the land, and building a sanctuary for Yahweh, recapitulating the sequence of events in Joshua. …Solomon’s execution of Joab is a cleansing sacrifices that saves Solomon from the consequences of Joab’s sins” (p. 36).

My response: The narrator does not commend Solomon for executing the enemies of the throne in 1 Kings 2.  In fact, there are clear textual notes that make the reader seriously wonder if Solomon did the right thing in executing these men (i.e. Joab may have been holding the horns of the altar when he was executed, and Shimei was executed even though he didn’t cross the brook Kidron as he promised not to do).  It’s not for nothing that some commentators say that Solomon was ruthless and callous in these executions.  I simply do not see textual warrant for comparing Solomon to Joshua in this way.  It sounds cool, but it’s not very accurate.

Another comment that makes me wary of Leithart’s interpretive method is the section on the court case of the two prostitutes and the living child (1 Ki. 3).  This is the famous case where Solomon wisely suggests cutting the child in two in order to determine which woman is the child’s true mother.  Here is one thing Leithart says about the story:

“[It] has an eerie resemblance to Passover.  The exchange of sons takes place at night, as does Passover (Exod. 12:29), and as at Passover one male child dies while another is delivered.  This suggests that the false mother is Egypt, a Pharaoh-like woman who smothers her own child and then seeks to toss Israelite children into the Nile.  Endowed with Yahweh’s wisdom, the king comes with a sword to kill, as the angel of Yahweh frees the sons of the Israelites, under threat from Pharaoh. …Through this test, Solomon discerns which woman is the true Israelite, the true daughter of Abraham, who, like Abraham gives up her child in faith to save him.”

My response: This is far too fanciful.  There are no hints in the text that the one prostitute had a Pharaoh-complex, nor is there any indication that Solomon is trying to find out which woman is the true Israelite.  What is more, we have no idea what kind of faith the one woman had; we only knew that she really loved her child (1 Ki. 3:26).  Again, it sounds cool, but it is speculative.

There are many more examples like this in Leithart’s commentary.  I wouldn’t call this a redemptive-historical commentary as some have called it – it is sort of redemptive-historical, but not really.  I hate to use the term allegorical, but that word did come to mind when I was working through these parts of this commentary.  For the record, I’m not saying one should avoid this commentary, but buyer beware of fanciful over-interpretation.  It is helpful in some ways, but I don’t highly recommend it.  Right now, I like these two commentaries better (which I’ll discuss here some other time): 1 & 2 Kings by I. Provan and 1 Kings by J. T. Walsh.

shane lems

Scripture, Scope, and Confessions

Here’s a great section from Michael Horton’s The Christian Faith.  It is found under the topic of Scripture – specifically the sufficiency, clarity, and scope of Scripture (p. 197).

“Like its sufficiency, the clarity of Scripture is inseparable from its scope.  If we come to the Bible looking for answers to our own questions that it does not address explicitly, treating it as an encyclopedia of general knowledge, we will draw from it conclusions that it does not intend.  For instance, if we seek from Scripture infallible information concerning the age of the earth, we will miss the point of the passages we are citing.  Passages of this kind require more interpretive skill than do the abundant and obvious declarations of the gospel.”

“The tragic fact that Rome has condemned as heretical the clear teaching of the gospel is the most decisive challenge to its claim to be the church’s infallible teacher of God’s Word.  The same must be said, also with great sorrow, for any Protestant body that strays from the clearest declarations of God’s grace in Jesus Christ.  If the gospel is not known and proclaimed in its purity and simplicity, it is the teacher rather than the text that is unclear.”

“The churches of the Reformation embrace ecumenical creeds and agree on specific confessions and catechisms.  However, they do this not because they think that Scripture is insufficient, difficult, or inconsistent and required an infallible interpreter.  Rather, they require communal subscription to these confessions precisely because they believe the Scriptures are so clear and consistent that their principle teachings can and should be summarized for the good of the whole community, children as well as adults.”

Michael Horton, The Christian Faith, p.197.

shane lems

Reading The Bible In And With The Church

  It is important to understand that Sola Scriptura for the Reformers did not mean that one should interpret Scripture alone, individualistically, and apart from the historic Christian church.  Along those lines, I appreciate these words of Kevin Vanhoozer in Is There A Meaning in This Text? 

“The church is the community dedicated to discovering the Bible’s meaning and to attesting its continuing significance.  It is, above all, the significance of Scripture that cannot be discerned apart from the receiving, believing community.  While biblical scholars can write commentaries about ‘what it meant,’ it takes the congregation – a living commentary – to display ‘what it means.’  The interpreting community does therefore have an important hermeneutic role, but…it is not that of producing but witnessing to meaning.”

“The church should be that community of readers whose hearts, minds, and imaginations are open to receive what is there in the text and who strive to embody it – the story, the promises, the commands, the law – in new contexts.”

“The testimony of the Spirit is not only to individuals but primarily to the church as a whole.  Yet the church is not the judge that arbitrates interpretive conflict so much as the permanent witness to Scripture’s meaning and significance.  …The Reformers had earlier likened the church to a schoolroom, in which believers become competent in the Christian way.  What Christians study in Scripture is God’s interpretation of reality, summed up in the story of Jesus Christ.  Christians, then, have a schoolroom (the church), a subject (the way of Jesus Christ), and a teacher (the Spirit).  And yes, there is a text in this class.”

Vanhoozer says it well: biblical interpretation is not a solo endeavor.  These paragraphs made me think of quite a few things – one of them being those Christians who never join a church or who do not regularly worship with the saints.  Do “solo” Christians set themselves up for misinterpretation of the Bible?  Quite likely that’s the case.  Can a “solo” Christian  practice and live out the true meaning of sola Scriptura?  I doubt it.  If a person willfully neglects the “schoolroom” of the historic Christian church, will his Christian learning and knowledge be deficient?  I believe they would.

The above quotes are from Kevin Vanhoozer, Is There A Meaning in This Text, p. 430.

shane lems

By Good and Necessary Consequence

Early on in the Westminster Confession of Faith  one reads, “The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture”(1:6).  This phrase basically means that Reformed doctrine and practice are not simply derived from a set of proof texts, but from a deeper and more exhaustive interaction with Scripture.  This interpretive method is quite essential to Reformed theology, as Ryan McGraw notes in his little booklet, By Good and Necessary Consequence.

“…The principle of good and necessary consequence as set forth in the Westminster Confession of Faith represents the result of the Reformed Protestant quest to justify the task of theology and to apply the Scriptures in a contemporary context for the edification of the church.  Reformed hermeneutics both built upon and amended medieval methods of biblical interpretation.  The medieval quadriga was replaced by an emphasis upon the literal and historical sense of the text with doctrinal, practical, and christological applications drawn from that sense by good and necessary consequence.  In large part, the entire Reformed tradition of doctrine and preaching hinges upon this point” (p. 28).

This is a good little book (around 80 pages) that helps explain how Reformed doctrine is derived from Scripture.  I’ve found it helpful in my context where very few people are familiar with Reformed theology.  Many Christians are familiar with proof texts but don’t understand other interpretive principles like Scripture interprets Scripture and this one, “by good and necessary consequence.”  Of course this has much to do with the doctrine of the Trinity, covenant theology, covenant baptism, the christological aspect of the Old Testament, and so forth.  It’s a pretty important topic.   Therefore, this book is a good resource that will help the reader understand and utilize this principle and also explain it to others who are unfamiliar with Reformed biblical interpretation.

Here’s the info: Ryan McGraw, By Good and Necessary Consequence (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2012).

shane lems