CBTS Logo

Brief survey of the history of hermeneutics – 2. Patristics

by | Mar 4, 2011 | Hermeneutics, Historical Theology

Brief survey of the history of hermeneutics – 1. Intro.

 Introduction: The Apostolic Fathers are those church leaders who wrote between A.D. 90 and 150.[1] Subsequent to that several other church leaders are identified as the Church Fathers. Two things happened in the era of the Apostolic Fathers: 1) the fathers continued the hermeneutical methodology of the New Testament and 2) they introduced a moral usage of Scripture or functional hermeneutic.[2] Dockery explains the moral use of Scripture as “…the readers appl[ying] the text to their own context and situation without attention to its original context and situation.”[3]

The moral use of Scripture approach was soon partially eclipsed, however, probably due to heretical views of the Old Testament. Gnostics denied continuity between the testaments, arguing that the God of the Old Testament was not the same as the God of the New Testament. Marcion (circa A.D. 85-160) argued on these lines. He was an early leader in the church at Rome. Excommunicated for heresy about A.D. 144, four years after he went to Rome, he rejected the entire Old Testament as Christian Scripture.[4] He believed that law and grace were incompatible and that the God of the Old Testament was not the same as the God of the New Testament.[5] The Old Testament was “not for Christians, but for Jews only.”[6] He insisted on interpreting the Old Testament literally, which, in fact, lead him to reject it altogether.[7] Marcion created his own canon, which  included Luke (except chapters 1 and 2, which he viewed as too Jewish) and Paul’s letters (except the Pastoral Epistles). Though Marcion accepted 10 of Paul’s letters, he edited them to “remove remnants of Judaism.”[8] Marcion’s 11 book canon is the earliest known. Just as much of the material in the epistles of the New Testament was occasional, brought on by circumstances experienced by the recipients of the New Testament books, so Marcion’s canon helped create an occasion for orthodox believers to declare themselves on the issue of the canon.[9] Both Gnosticism and Marcion forced the Apostolic Fathers to justify the Old Testament as Christian Scripture. The functional hermeneutic was eclipsed by a typological hermeneutic more in line with Christ and the New Testament authors.[10] Dockery says, “Soon a typological interpretation of the Old Testament became a standard way of expounding the Scriptures.”[11] In the discussion of Patristic hermeneutics below, we will see several examples of this method of interpretation which, by the way, is basically consistent with the New Testament’s use of the Old.

[1] Dockery, Biblical Interpretation, 48.

[2] Dockery, Biblical Interpretation, 45.

[3] Dockery, Biblical Interpretation, 45.

[4] Thiselton notes that upon excommunication “Marcion established his own “church.”” Thiselton, Hermeneutics, 94. The quotation marks are Thiselton’s.

[5] Patzia & Petrotta, PDBS, 76. Cf. Thiselton, Hermeneutics, 94.

[6] Thiselton, Hermeneutics, 94.

[7] Thiselton, Hermeneutics, 94.

[8] Thiselton, Hermeneutics, 94.

[9] Though this is not the whole story behind the formation of the New Testament canon.

[10] More on this later.

[11] Dockery, Biblical Interpretation, 48.

Brief survey of the history of hermeneutics – 1. Intro.

by | Mar 1, 2011 | Hermeneutics, Historical Theology

Introduction: Christian hermeneutics includes a study of those interpreters and schools of interpretation in the Christian theological tradition who, in fact, may not be Christian in the soteriological sense. This field of study usually starts with the second century A.D. and carries on into the present era. In our study of Christian hermeneutics, we will select some highlights along the historical continuum to introduce students to the main practitioners and interpretive schools. We will concentrate on the Apostolic Fathers/Patristics, the schools of Alexandria and Antioch, the four-fold method (quadriga) of the Middle Ages, the Renaissance and Reformation, the Reformed orthodox of the post-Reformation era, the Enlightenment, nineteenth-century Germany, Princeton Seminary prior to and including Geerhardus Vos, and briefly look at the end of the twentieth century. This will give us a wide-ranging look at the key players and key movements.

It is of interest to note that, at least in the past, historical Christian interpretive methods have received a highly negative assessment from conservative Evangelicals. Patristic methods, for example, have been down-played as models for us to emulate. In the words of C. S. Lewis, a sort of “chronological snobbery” seems to be part of the reason for this. The Middle Ages are viewed as casting a dark shadow over the church in terms of hermeneutical method (and just about everything else). Though all agree that the Reformers got back to the Bible, their immediate successors, the post-Reformation Protestant Scholastics, so the theory goes, supposedly left the Bible and substituted it with a neo-Aristotilian, Confessional/Dogmatic Scholasticism that utilized careless proof-texting, an ad nauseam hyper-syllogistic form of argumentation, and left the Christocentric hermeneutical emphasis of Calvin. Some even view the post-Reformation Protestant Scholastics as precursors of the rationalistic Enlightenment.[1]

This highly negative assessment of the history of Christian interpretive method has been challenged and is slowly being qualified and modified in our day.[2] Granted, no one is so naive to assert that all interpretive methods throughout the history of the church are equally valid or that there are no bad examples. What is being recognized, however, is that we have much to learn from the history of Christian hermeneutics and we need to sit humbly at the feet of those who have gone before us and carefully listen.

As will be noted below, the Enlightenment caused a revolution in hermeneutical theory. It sought to make hermeneutics an objective science and effectively took God out of the hermeneutical equation. The meaning of biblical texts was limited to what the interpreter thought the human author (or editors) intended. In the name of objectifying hermeneutics, a subjective principle was smuggled into Evangelicalism as a cure-all for interpretive conclusions. Human authorial intent became the goal and end-all of biblical interpretation. However, in order to determine human authorial intent, interpreters became dependent upon background sources, which are neither infallible, nor objective. Pre-Enlightenment/pre-critical interpreters did not limit the meaning of texts to the human author. Human authorial intent as the end-all of interpretation is a post-Enlightenment phenomenon and, in essence, has caused several generations of Evangelical interpreters to shun pre-critical hermeneutical practitioners as worthy examples of biblical interpretation. As Moises Silva says, “…the popular assumption [is] that the Christian church, through most of its history, has misread the Bible.”[3] Our brief survey will attempt to show that a more positive assessment is warranted.

[1] Cf. Richard C. Barcellos, The Family Tree of Reformed Biblical Theology: Geerhardus Vos and John Owen – Their Methods of and Contributions to the Articulation of Redemptive History (Owensboro, KY: RBAP, 2010), 53-107.

[2] See the relevant discussions in Dockery, Biblical Interpretation Then and Now, Moises Silva, “Has the Church Misread the Bible?,” Dennis E. Johnson, Him We Proclaim and Richard C. Barcellos, The Family Tree of Reformed Biblical Theology, specifically, 66-78.

[3] Silva, “Has the Church Misread the Bible?,” 33. Cf. 34-37 for Silva’s discussion of F. W. Farrar’s negative assessment of most of the church’s interpretive history. Cf. David C. Steinmetz, Calvin in Context (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), 95-109, for Steinmetz’s discussion of “Calvin and Isaiah” in the context of the history pre-critical exegesis. Steinmetz takes Farrar to task (esp. pp. 95 and 107).

Some thoughts on Christ as the first-born of all creation (Col. 1:15b)

by | Feb 10, 2011 | Biblical Theology, Hermeneutics, New Testament

Q: What does “the firstborn of all creation” mean?

 A1: Firstborn can refer either to the eldest child (i.e., first in a series or temporal priority) or a person of preeminent rank. Some think it can mean both at the same time. It is very difficult to envision Paul calling the Son “the eldest Son of all creation” or “the first in a series of the things created.” Psalm 89:27 points us in the proper direction – “I also shall make him My firstborn [Paul uses the same Greek word the LXX does], The highest of the kings of the earth.” This Psalm deals with the Davidic covenant and applies ultimately to the Lord Jesus in his mediatorial role as David’s royal son. It is of interest to note as well that ancient Israel is called both God’s son and firstborn in Exodus 4:22. The prophet Hosea alludes to this passage in 11:1 and Matthew quotes Hosea 11:1 in Matthew 2:15 attributing it to Christ. Also, in the context of Colossians 1, there are echoes of Israel’s redemption being applied to Christ’s redemption. For instance, just as the Israelites were in a dark and oppressive place, so sinners redeemed by Jesus were trapped in the domain of darkness; just as God liberated Israel from bondage, so Christ liberates sinners from bondage; just as God took the Israelites out of Egypt and gave them an inheritance – the Promised Land, so God takes sinners out of the bondage of sin and qualifies them for a future inheritance; just as God ruled over Israel, so God places believing sinners in the kingdom of His beloved Son to be ruled by Him. We could add to that just as Israel was given a memorial meal by God to remember their deliverance from bondage – the Passover, so the Church has been given a memorial meal by Christ – the Lord’s Supper; and just as Israel was given a memorial day by God – the Sabbath, so the Church has been given a memorial day by Christ – the Lord’s Day. What the Old Testament typified in Israel, finds its fulfillment in Jesus and His body – the Church.

 A2: The incarnate Son ranks above all creation.

 A3: Jesus Christ is Lord of all creation.

 A4: The incarnate Son cannot be the first of all created beings for v. 16 is a commentary on the term prwto,tokoj and makes that interpretation impossible (cf. also Jn. 1:3). There were other created beings prior to the incarnation. Also, the ontological Son was in existence prior to his incarnation as the pre-incarnate second Person of the Godhead.

 A5: Christ cannot be the first of all created beings just as he is not the first of all resurrected beings (cf. v. 18 and the fact that others rose from the dead temporally prior to His resurrection).

 A6: “We apprehend that the apostle selects the unusual word for a special reason. It seems to have been a prime term in the nomenclature of the Colossian errorists, and the apostle takes the epithet and gives it to Him to whom alone it rightfully belongs” (Eadie, Ephesians, 50).

Let’s discuss Eadie’s comments. Though this may be the case that Paul was borrowing the term from the Colossian errorists, I do not think it is the whole of the case. Obviously, Eadie does not either, due to the comments below. I think it better to assume Old Testament connections with the use of the term. The concept embodied by this term may even go back to creation. Adam was a proto prwto,tokoj and failed his commission. Israel was prwto,tokoj but failed as well. According to Psalm 89 (see Eadie’s comments below), the Messiah (a royal/Davidic person) would be prwto,tokoj. This ties Adam, Israel, Jesus and His church together and is another illustration of the Christo-climactic trajectory of Scripture.

 A7: “Still more, we find the term in the Messianic oracle of the 89th Psalm–“I will make him my first-born”–will invest him with royal dignity, and clothe him with pre-eminent splendor, so as that he shall tower in majesty above all his kingly compeers” (Eadie, Ephesians, 50).

 A8: “Moreover, when He is styled, as in the 18th verse, and in Rev. i.5, “the first-born of the dead,” the reference is not to mere time or priority, but to prerogative, for He is not simply the first who rose, “no more to return to corruption,” but his immortal primogeniture secures the resurrection of his people, and is at once the pledge and the pattern of it” (Eadie, Ephesians, 51).

 A9: “Now He is exalted to unbounded sovereignty, as “Lord of all,” rolling onwards the mighty and mysterious wheels of a universal providence, without halting or confusion; seated as His Father’s deputy on a throne of unbounded dominion, which to this world is its tribunal of judgment – wearing the name at which every knee bows, “of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth” – the acting President of the universe, and, therefore, “the First-born of every creature” (Eadie, Ephesians, 52).

Special thanks to John Eadie for his perceptive comments.

Thoughts on the Bible citing and alluding to the Bible

by | Feb 8, 2011 | Biblical Theology, Hermeneutics, New Testament, Old Testament

The Bible often cites itself and alludes to previous persons, events, or institutions. Why does it do this? It does this because it has one ultimate author, with a unified plan, worked-out in history, to glorify himself through his Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. It does this because this unified plan centering around what the Son of God does is God’s “plan A” from before the foundation of the world. All revelation is tethered around the skull-crushing seed of the woman (Gen. 3:15) who brings many sons to glory (Heb. 2:10). Persons, events, and institutions of the Old Testament are often typological of Christ, his sacrificial life of service unto death, and his body, the church. What God began in the Garden, God completes in the exalted Redeemer. Though Adam failed as God’s son in the Garden, and though Israel failed as God’s son in the Promised Land, the last and greater Adam and the faithful representative of Israel does not fail. He both obeys to procure righteousness leading to a state of exaltation and suffers the punishment due our sins. He erects a temple on the earth that is slowly spreading throughout the entire globe. He was God tabernacling among men who erected a temple of which both Jews and Gentiles are citizens and priests and kings. He did this as the heir to God’s covenantal promises to Abraham (Genesis 12, 15, 22), David (2 Samuel 7), and Israel (Jeremiah 31). Why does the New Testament refer to promises to Abraham, David, and Israel so often as being fulfilled in Christ? Because all revelation prior to the sufferings and glory of the Redeemer was preparatory and anticipatory. The New Testament reads the Old Testament similar to the way the Old Testament reads itself. What God does in space and time is often done in anticipation of something greater to come in the future. The Old Testament set the stage for a greater exodus, a greater temple, a greater Servant of the Lord (greater Israel), a greater David, and a greater heaven and earth. Christ (i.e., what he accomplishes, inaugurates, and brings to eschatological fruition) is the fulfillment of these greater expectations. Indeed, “for as many as are the promises of God, in Him they are yes…” (2 Corinthians 1:20). When we read, interpret, and explain the Bible, let us never forget its God-glorifying, unifying center – our Lord Jesus Christ. The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments testify of him (John 5:39).

Pin It on Pinterest