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

Apostolic Fathers: A Great Resource

This source is a gem.  The latest edition (3rd) of  the Greek/English text of the Apostolic Fathers (edited by M. W. Holmes) is a sturdy, easy to read primary source of early church theology and piety.  The Greek font is easy to read, and the English text on the opposing page quite closely matches it, verse by verse.  The binding is a nice tight hardcover w/bookmark, similar to the Greek UBS.  Holmes included biographical references for each text (early texts such as 1 and 2 Clement, Ignatius’ epistles’, Polycarp’s writings, the Didache, and so forth) as well as a brief description of each (intro, date, authorship, text, and so forth).

The translation is in modern language, and the apparatus has textual variants as well as OT/NT allusions and references.  This edition includes an index of modern authors, a thematic outline of each text, a subject index, and a scripture index (OT/NT, psuedepigrapha, deuterocanonical books, and apostolic fathers x-ref).

The texts of the apostolic fathers are helpful in a few ways.  1) They give us a window in to early church exegesis and hermeneutics.  2) They root the Christian church firmly in history, and show that people like us have been worshiping Christ very similarly for almost 2,000 years.  3) This book improves your Greek because it is very easy to compare the Greek/English text.  Also, for NT word studies, these texts show us extra-biblical (yet theological) uses of biblical Greek.   Concerning certain words, you’ll have to use Google Books (J.B. Lightfoot’s earlier similar work on the church fathers – and don’t forget BDAG!) to do deeper word studies, comparing church fathers to NT usage.

All in all, for under 30 bucks this is a great text to have.  In Lightfoot’s terms, these are real life stories and examples of real Christians trying to “keep the faith” to the best of their God given abilities.  “In this respect, surely they have something in common with believers and the church throughout history” (Apostolic Fathers, p. 16).

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Students of Scripture: Use Old Commentaries

I’ve been amazed at the depth of scholarship in many pre-1900 commentaries.  Since we live in a day where we sometimes think we’re smarter than those before us who had no laptops or cell phones (have these made us less intelligent?), I think it is necessary for us to encourage one another to read “old” stuff.

Since this blog is about reading theology/Bible, let me encourage you to utilize (among other sources) Google Books.  Below I’ve listed just a few of the pre-1900 commentators you’ll find on Google books (just type author name in “full text search”), with many of their English commentaries completely scanned online, free to read, study, and print.  Note: as with all commentaries, you have to read the following ones critically sometimes.  Some of the following are better than others.

B. F. Westcott (1825-1901) is the “Wescott” in the “Wescott and Hort” NT.  Go here for many of Wescott’s works.  His commentaries/writings include studies in the Gospels, John’s Gospel, Jesus’ resurrection, Sermons on the Cross, Paul and Justification, John’s Epistles, and so on.

August Tholuck (1799-1877) wrote many commentaries, including Romans, Sermons on the Passion, John’s Gospel, Hebrews, and the Psalms.

J. B. Lightfoot (1828-1889) wrote on the Apostolic Fathers, the Christian Ministry, Galatians, Philippians, John’s Gospel, Colossians, and more.

Frederic Godet (1812-1900) penned studies on the OT and NT, commentaries on Romans, Luke, John’s Gospel, and so forth.

Alfred Plummer (1841-1926) wrote on John’s Gospel, John’s Epistles, the Pastorals, Luke, the Church Fathers, and so forth.

C. Ellicott (1819-1905) wrote many commentaries, especially of Paul’s epistles. 

H. Ewald (1803-1875) was an OT scholar who wrote on the Psalms, Job, OT history, etc.

J. Bengal (18th century; a.k.a. Bengalius) was a NT scholar who wrote several pieces on Greek Grammar, as well as an interesting commentary on Revelation.

J. J. Griesbach (d. 1812) was a NT scholar whose did a lot with NT translation.

H. C. G. Moule (19th century) was also a NT teacher who wrote on Colossians Philemon, Philippians, and Ephesians.

D. Kimhi (way back – 12th century) was a Jewish OT scholar who commented on the Psalms and Zechariah.

E. W. Hengstenberg (1802-1869) wrote much on the OT and NT, including the messianic aspect of the OT, the Psalms, the Pentateuch, Revelation, Ecclesiastes, and so forth.

H. Meyer (19th century) was also an able Bible scholar.  His works include commentaries on Romans, Matthew, John’s Gospel, Corinthians (1 & 2), Philippians, and so forth. 

J. Eadie (d. 1855) wrote commentaries on Philippians, Ephesians, Isaiah’s prophecies, and so on.

F. Delitzsch and C. Keil (19th century) – the well known OT commentaries – are also on Google books.

S. R. Driver (1846-1914) was one of the editors of the original ICC series.  He wrote commentaries on Joel, Amos, Job, Daniel, Samuel, and so forth.  FYI: he is the “D” in BDB.

Patrick Fairbairn (d. 1874) wrote on typology, hermeneutics, as well as commentaries on the Psalms, Ezekiel, Peter, Jesus’ parables, and so forth.

Moses Stuart (1780-1852) has commentaries on Ecclesiastes, Proverbs, Hebrews, Daniel, Revelation, and a few more.

Finally, many of the old International Critical Commentaries (ICC) are not only on Google books, but also here (at the Internet Archive Search).

Also on Google books, as I mentioned before on this blog, you can read commentaries and sermons from the church fathers, including Cyril, Cyprian, Chrysostom, Augustine, Tertullian, and so forth.  And of course, Calvin, Luther, Bullinger, and other Reformation era commentators can be found there as well.

Please, take advantage of these excellent resources!  I’m sure you can add many to the above list, so feel free to note in the comments if you wish.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Paul, Luther, Introspection and the NPP

  Here are a few lines from the summary of a lecture that Krister Stendahl (an early and influential figure in the NPP) gave to the American Psychological Association in September, 1961.  To be fair, in the introduction, the publisher (the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion) noted that this essay, a summary of the lecture, is a “working paper” that was not prepared for major publication (see JSSR, Spring, 1962, pages 261-265).

“…Western interpreters have found the common denominator between Paul and the experiences of Western man, since Paul’s statements about ‘justification by faith’ have been hailed as the answer to the problems which face the honest man in his practice of introspection.”

“A fresh look at the Pauline writings themselves show, however, that Paul was equipped with a rather ‘robust’ conscience.  He was entirely satisfied with his moral achievements under the Law and there were no signs of frustration in his Jewish obedience.  The sin to him was that he had persecuted Christ and his church, and he had no doubt repented from that sin.  As a Christian he was not plagued by a retrospective or introspective conscience.  While he knew his ‘weakness’ he did not call it ’sin.’”

“The image of a Paul who struggled with his conscience and who, in introspection, suffered under the inability to satisfy the ultimate demands of God…is copied on the experiences of men like Augustine and Martin Luther.”

More: “It has always puzzled historians that no one in the early church seemed to ‘understand’ Paul….  We would venture to suggest that the West for centuries has wrongly surmised that the biblical writers were grappling with problems which are no doubt ours, but which never entered their consciousness….”

At least Stendahl is clear.  Everyone in the Western church has misread Paul.  The poor guy!  You’d think someone, even one person, would get Paul right before 1961! 

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

A. T. Lincoln: The Law and Jesus

Here’s a nice statement on biblical hermeneutics.

“This narrative’s [John 5.1-18] point of view is that, because of who he is, Jesus is not subject to the law but instead fulfills all that the law previously stood for.  The law, then, is to be judged in the light of Jesus and his mission and not the other way round” (A. T. Lincoln, Truth on Trial [Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2000], 235).

Note the italics, which I’ve added.  This is one of those great hermeneutical “rules:” the OT is to be read through the lens of the NT.   In the quote above, Lincoln applies this “rule” to a specific situation, namely Jesus and the law in John’s gospel.  This opens up a lot of texts in John!

shane

sunnyside wa