Hermeneutics

I hope its not a problem that I put another post up here. I certainly don’t want to dominate the discussions, but no one has added anything, so I thought I would raise another issue: Biblical hermeneutics. First of all, though, I wanted to recommend a web page with a lot of good looking articles on the topic: http://www.bible-researcher.com/links16.html

I was raised a dispensationalist, following a literal, historical, grammatical method of interpretation. However, several things have shaken my confidence in that method.

First off, in every Evangelical class on hermeneutics, the teacher takes an opportunity to talk about how the church fathers were nice guys and all, but that when it came to hermeneutics, they simply allegorized. This allegorization is understood to mean that when they read the text, the fathers simply found whatever they happened to be thinking about at the time, whether it was Jesus, Mary, baptism, or whatever they were thought might be good for lunch. However, I had a difficult time believing that we could dismiss the Patristic method interpretation that easily. Surely they must have had a reason.

The second thing that shook my confidence in a strict literal historical method of interpretation was how the New Testament writers were interpreting the Old Testament. Matthew found Christ in Hosea 11:1 (“Out of Egypt I called my son”), and said that it was a fulfillment of Hosea’s prophecy. But according to a strict litreal, historical reading of Hosea 11:1, this verse does not refer to Jesus and is not even a prophecy about a future event. Hosea is clearly talking about Israel as a nation and the historical event of the Exodus. Paul also talks about allegory in his treatment of Sarah and Hagar, even using the word (Galatians 4:24).

I was unsatisfied with the two basic explanations given for this by my teachers. Either Matthew and Paul were not actually doing anything remotely similar to what the church fathers were doing (even though it sure seemed like it), or the New Testament writers were inspired, so that they can interpret the Bible that way. But since we are not inspired, we can’t intrepret that way.

But it seemed to me that the NT writers and the church fathers were interpreting in the same way. In fact, when the church fathers allegorized, they referred to the apostle Paul as their teacher in interpretation. And as to the second excuse, it seemed to me that the church fathers were correct to view the apostles as their teachers in hermeneutics. I could not see why inspiration should make the apostles’ method of hermeneutics off limits to us.

The passage that has challenged me a great deal is Luke 24:44-47. There Jesus says that his career on earth and the plan for this age was foretold in the Old Testament, information like the fact that Jesus would be in the grave for three days, and that forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in his name to all the nations, beginning at Jerusalem. Now where is that info in the Old Testament, read according to a strict literal historical reading?

You cannot find it if you are restricted to the literal historical grammatical method of interpretation. So that fact sent me back to the church fathers to understand why they did what they did. The basic idea is that God works according to patterns, and an allegorical or typological (I don’t feel like there is a qualitative difference between the two of these concepts) way of reading texts is the only way to unify the Old and New Testaments. As a way of summing up, I find that the medieval four-fold meaning method of interpretation is the only thing that makes any sense.

This issue is so big and (to me) important that it would not be possible to say everything in a single post. However, let me recommend an article and a book. David Steinmetz of Duke wrote an article about the superiority of the medieval method of interpretation, and his article can be found online here: http://theologytoday.ptsem.edu/apr1980/v37-1-article2.htm

And Henri de Lubac wrote an incredible 4 volume tome called Medieval Exegesis. It is fantastic. I look forward to interaction on this.

Adam's condition and our destiny

Mark's original question follows;

I am always looking for the big picture in theology and I have a proposal. The thing is, it is complicated and difficult to get out in one breath. So I want to present a part, just two things. First of all, in what condition was Adam originally created, and how does our destiny in Christ relate to Adam’s original destiny that he did not reach because of sin.

In tradition theology, especially in the Catholic tradition, the fall of man is called a ‘felix culpa,’ that is, a fortunate fault. The idea is that whatever Adam could have had or become is nothing compared to what we will be in Christ. The grace of Christ has not simply returned us to the goodness of Eden, but has taken us much further. And therefore, yes, the fall in Genesis 3 was bad, but it was fortunate because it enabled God to be more gracious than would have been the case.

Well, I don’t like the felix culpa idea. And yet I do want to say that what we have in Christ is more than what Adam had. And yet I don’t want to completely differentiate Adam’s original destiny and our destiny in Christ. So here is what I propose. It is not new. Irenaeus had similar ideas, as well as much of pre-Nicene Christianity. Others have thought and said it too, but I think it makes good practical sense for today.

Adam and Eve, being in the image and likeness of God, were put in charge of all creation. However, their original condition was not perfect righteousness, holiness and knowledge. They were immature and young. God expected them to grow into the calling he had for them. God called them to rule over the whole earth, but he put them into a garden that God planted. The garden did not cover the whole earth, just a small part. Rather Adam was to begin the work in the garden of Eden, and by personal growth and by being fuitful and multiplying, he and his progeny were to extend the boundaries of the garden until they covered the whole earth.

Now sin ruined the situation, and we are all in a much worse spot than Adam originally was. But our destiny is the same. Our destiny in Christ is the same as Adam’s original destiny. But because we are all in sin, God had to do a great work of grace to bring us from the much further distance. So the fall was not fortuitous. It was an evil setback. But God’s grace is able to restore us. Now in Christ we do not return to Adam’s original state of immature innocence, but we are to grow by grace toward the same destiny that Adam was reaching for.

Now this prompts me to ask about the mechanics of personal growth in holiness and virtue. Is it possible to grow in holiness and wisdom without being or having been in sin? In other words, is it necessary, before one can be humble, to have once been proud? Or is it necessary for one to have been disobedient before one can learn to be obedient? My point is that Adam was not mature in virtue and holiness, but was expected to grow in them. And growth is possible without being in or having been in sin.

Jesus grew in wisdom and in stature (Luke 2:52), and he learned obedience by the things he suffered (Hebrews 5:8). But that does not mean he was foolish and disobedient before the grew in wisdom or learned obedience. With Adam it was the same. Immaturity is a in for those who should be further along than they are, such as the Hebrews who should already be teaching (Hebrews 5:11-12) or the Corinthians who should have been more spiritual.

So, our destiny and Adam’s destiny was to live in the image of God on earth, in fellowship with him and with each other on the New earth (Revelation 21-22). This has other implications and connections, but the starting point is important for any telling of a story, and so I want to get it right. I have Biblical and theological and historical documentation for a lot of this, but I didn’t want to get to complicated. Thanks for any feedback.