I’m coming into this thread a bit late, and I was not at the conference, but preaching on the OT is an issue which does interest me.

There are a number of ways the OT is used in sermons, most of them do not (IMHO) do it justice. Narrative is a particular problem, and from the sounds of it, this may have been highlighted (perhaps inadvertently?) at the AIM conference. One of my complaints is that OT narrative is often treated as little more than an illustration for a point which, in the end, could more appropriately have been made from a NT passage.

[quote author="Matthew Williams"]If anyone is writing the first book for a new religious worldview, they ought not assume anything, and I think Genesis clearly heeds this principle. Indeed a book that begins with the idea that God (singular) created the world, and man as the rulers of the world under him, doesn’t give the impression it is assuming its readers are already fully abreast of its assumptions.

I’m not really comfortable with this, because I think there are many assumptions involved in any writing. The problem we face is that the original readers/hearers almost certainly shared a set of assumptions with the writer of the work. In some cases the assumptions may be corrected by the text, and in some cases the stories depend on knowledge not contained in the text, but there are underlying assumptions nonetheless.

The problem lies, for us, in identifying those assumptions. Sometimes they are self-evident: it is pretty clear that the author of Genesis assumes knowledge of how oaths were to operate, because they are spoken of but never defined. This may be trivial, but assumptions exist, nonetheless.

[quote author="Matthew Williams"]So it follows that if Genesis does not comment on the implications of a story, then the story – wait for it - may not in fact have specific implications for us today as a stand-alone story.

I agree with the latter part, although I do think it possible that stories do not need to “spell out” their moral (if they have one) for the readers to “get it.” It may well be that the original reader/hearer of the Genesis narratives would have understood implications inherent in the text which we miss today, and that these implications were appropriate for them to understand.

OTOH, as you imply, Genesis is not a series of discrete stories each with some moral to spin, it is an extended narrative (why I like Clines’ approach, for example, in The Theme of the Pentateuch). Addressing ourselves to individual pericopes puts us in danger of missing the broader significance within the overall story, and thus quite possibly what is the more significant meaning. I agree that a “verse-by-verse” approach is not always helpful (you may miss the forest for the trees). A better approach is, in many cases, to tackle larger narrative units. (This also applies to some poetic texts, such as much of Job, for example.)

The final point is that there is a real danger in drawing a specific moral from a text which the text itself does not specifically draw, and that danger is that we both miss the point the text actually is making and misappropriate the text--and so misinterpret the text.

[quote author="Michael Jensen"]Do texts have intentions? Or their authors? In which case, did the original authors (not to mention editors) of the OT intend for their texts to be read as Peter read them?

The authors of texts clearly have intentions, but our only access to the author’s intention is through the text, not independent of it. In many cases, the only access we have to the author is through the text. As such, we are forced to assume that the author has successfully encoded their intention in the text.

The situation is necessarily more complex with the Bible (depending on our understanding of the nature of inspiration). So when you ask “did the original authors (not to mention editors) of the OT intend for their texts to be read as Peter read them?” we need to determine the relationship between the human author(s)/editor(s) and the divine author of the work. Can their intentions differ? Can texts legitimately have more than one meaning (to which the answer is clearly “yes” in some cases when even the human author has employed deliberate ambiguity, but what if God intended the texts to be polyvalent)? What implications does this have for notions of univocality (Gordon, you know who I’m talking to!)?
[quote author="davidould"] As for OT authors intending their texts to be read as Peter (and others) read them; yes, I do believe that they did.

I’m afraid I disagree. The way some OT texts are used, I doubt their original (human) authors could have imagined them being used the way the NT does in a million years! Consider Paul’s use of Hagar and Sarah in Gal 4. OTOH, perhaps God was aware that the words were more versatile?
[quote author="Michael Jensen"]Some of the OT authors were even pagan: parts of Proverbs have been lifted directly from Egyptian collections of wisdom…

I realise this is off topic, but I think the best we could say here is “may have been lifted.” If you read Amenemope and the supposed parallel in Proverbs, they don’t strike me as close enough as to indicate direct borrowing of one by the other. Proverbial material of this sort probably had a wide circulation, and both texts may well be borrowing from widely distributed oral material, but I am unconvinced that there is a strong case for direct borrowing.

[quote author="davidould"][quote author="Gordon Cheng"]
Hmm, I’m not sure if this is right. It seems a bit vague. On the other hand, I hesitate to say that it’s wrong as there is an unassailable syllogistic circularity to the way you’ve set up your position here and in this discussion. Something like

a. Paul models correct exposition of the Old Testament.
b. He is expositing Deuteronomy 25:4, which is part of the OT
c. Therefore his exposition of Deut is correct and a model for our exposition.

Which as I say you can’t argue with as a piece of logic, but it assumes under a. what actually needs to be demonstrated.

Right, but ultimately a. is the focus of our discussion. Does the NT provide the authoritative exposition/explanation or is it just one with an alternate for the original OT readers? I’m going for the first.

Yes, I see that you are, but have you addressed the circularity issue or simply restated it?

Let me put it more clearly: No-one disputes in this forum, as far as I can see, that the NT explanation of a particular OT text is an authoritative explanation, even (sometimes) the authoritative explanation.

What you seem to be suggesting, however, is that it is the exclusively authoritative explanation. Why?

Enkidu wrote

Can texts legitimately have more than one meaning (to which the answer is clearly “yes” in some cases when even the human author has employed deliberate ambiguity, but what if God intended the texts to be polyvalent)? What implications does this have for notions of univocality (Gordon, you know who I’m talking to!)?

Yes, EJ, and it’s rather nice to find myself arguing the same view as you. Anyway, I’ve retreated a bit from my use of the ‘U’ word you’ll notice on the other thread.

[quote author="Enkidu Jones"] Consider Paul’s use of Hagar and Sarah in Gal 4. OTOH, perhaps God was aware that the words were more versatile?

But, I’d argue, Paul’s use of those two ladies is exactly the central issue of their place in the narrative.

Abraham is promised that he will have a child and we see his dillemma as to how that will work out.
Does he try and fulfill the promise himself (through Hagar) or does he unfailingly trust YHWH to fulfil (through Sarah)?

In which case Paul has summed up the issue perfectly - Hagar represents works, Abraham trying to work out the gospel promises in his own way, and Sarah is faith, Abraham trusting that God will grant this old lady a child.

[quote author="Gordon Cheng"]
Let me put it more clearly: No-one disputes in this forum, as far as I can see, that the NT explanation of a particular OT text is an authoritative explanation, even (sometimes) the authoritative explanation.

What you seem to be suggesting, however, is that it is the exclusively authoritative explanation. Why?

thanks Gordon, that clarifies the question.
I take the position that I take because I am convinced that the purpose of the OT is to present Christ to us. That becomes a rigid hermeneutic which the NT, I do believe, endorses.

The question before us is whether that would have been clear from the OT alone. I believe it is and I’m bold enough to suggest that sometimes it’s only our assumption that it’s not clear that actually prevents us from seeing the clarity.

Here’s another way that I’ve expressed it to a friend.
Luther quite rightly tells us that the OT is the cradle in which the baby Jesus lies. In which case ISTM that we’re often so good at setting out the carpenter’s plans for the cradle (and we do it well and rightly so) that we fail to see the imprint of the child in the mattress. Does that make sense?

The question before us is whether that would have been clear from the OT alone. I believe it is and I’m bold enough to suggest that sometimes it’s only our assumption that it’s not clear that actually prevents us from seeing the clarity.

hmmm.

The daftness of the disciples prior to the resurrection as they are portrayed in the gospels is interesting here. They managed to work out Jesus was the Christ: but the cross was an utter suprise to them… The OT wasn’t “clear” to them without their witnessing the cross and resurrection…

I happily stand corrected on the Proverbs/Egyptian sources thing, but I can’t respond with detail because I have leant several vital books on the subject out! The point stands, though: that “authorship” is a complex thing and so a simplistic “author’s intentions” kind of reading needs to be nuanced.

EJ - I agreed entirely about the polysemy! Watch that Cheng: he is a fundamentalist!

:-)

[quote author="michael jensen"]

The question before us is whether that would have been clear from the OT alone. I believe it is and I’m bold enough to suggest that sometimes it’s only our assumption that it’s not clear that actually prevents us from seeing the clarity.

hmmm.

The daftness of the disciples prior to the resurrection as they are portrayed in the gospels is interesting here. They managed to work out Jesus was the Christ: but the cross was an utter suprise to them… The OT wasn’t “clear” to them without their witnessing the cross and resurrection…

but the reason given is not that the OT was obscure but that they didn’t get it. Indeed, it required a spiritual awakening to grasp the truth.
Comparable (in a different) is the dialogue w/ the Pharisees, end of John 5. Moses wrote about Christ, the fault wasn’t in the writing it was in the fact that the Pharisees didn’t really believe Moses.

I happily stand corrected on the Proverbs/Egyptian sources thing, but I can’t respond with detail because I have leant several vital books on the subject out! The point stands, though: that “authorship” is a complex thing and so a simplistic “author’s intentions” kind of reading needs to be nuanced.

EJ - I agreed entirely about the polysemy! Watch that Cheng: he is a fundamentalist!

:-)

Well, when you get your books back I’ll still have none to respond to you with. ;-)

As for fundamentalism. I was having fun before doing anything mental long before Johnny Forsyth plagiarised me.

Thanks to all of you for your stimulating thoughts drawing me out on this. I am assured by people familiar with Kent’s commentaries that he does generally do excellent exposition (which I don’t find hard to believe), so I am anxious that my critique be of a particular method which seemed to be employed in one sermon by him, and not of his expositions in general. He is, of course, a wonderful brother, a godly man and an ally in the cause of expository preaching generally.

With that, I’ll address Michael first, then Enkidu.

Michael,

If I’ve understood you correctly, you are in fact drawing back to an assumption behind my question. (I admit like David I’m struggling to piece together exactly what you are saying from your ‘squibs’, so please clarify if I’ve got you wrong!)

I was originally asking whether (or rather, I guess, arguing against the idea that) reading NT paradigms back into OT stories counts as expository preaching.

But you seem to be questioning my assumption that expository preaching is in fact a desirable model for preaching on the OT, given the apostles don’t seem to adopt it, and suggest that what Kent does [Edit - I should have said ‘what Kent did on Genesis 19’] may in fact be closer to apostolic method (even if it isn’t expository).

And so something ‘closer to (your) position on OT hermeneutics’ is:

[quote author="Michael"]I should say rather “start with the gospel of God who raised Jesus from the dead”. By “start”, I mean, that is your presupposition. Otherwise, we wouldn’t read it at all and we would be like Marcion who cut it out of his canon! So we do actually come to the OT text with a piece of theological knowledge already in place… For the early Christians, the resurrection was the event that threw new light on the scriptures as well as working the other way around - ie the scriptures making sense of the resurrection.

Does having the gospel of the risen Christ as your presupposition mean your interpretation starts there? Or does it mean that your interpretation will thread through to be transformed there? In other words, are we presuming a foundation for OT exegesis (so that we are looking for Christ in its pages from the moment we start reading), or a goal for OT exegesis (so that we are looking to see what the OT said to the Jew, and then seek to understand how the Christ-event revolutionised/fulfilled/overturned it)?

Should we consider that the method of reading Christ back into the OT adopted by the apostles in the pages of the NT is in fact assuming first their prior work on exegeting the OT as Jews? They and the Jewish/God-fearing parts of their audiences would have already been familiar with the OT on its own terms (or at least rabbinic exegetical terms!). In other words, should the presupposition of the gospel be seen as step two in grasping the Old Testament, even for the apostles? Step one - exegete the OT as it was. Step two - see how the Christ-event was foreshadowed in the OT in ways they didn’t always fully grasp from the OT alone.

For us, it seems to me that going back to exposition of the OT on its own terms has the benefit of bringing us up to speed on God’s prior self-disclosure to Israel. Having that background we are more likely to correctly grasp the contribution of Christ to our apprehension of God and his activity in the world. I suspect a more accurate apprehension of the OT on a Jewish level will lead to a more accurate apprehension of both the Old and New Testaments on a Christological level.

For example (from personal experience), it was through coming to understand just what the OT does and doesn’t really say about resurrection (thanks to Tom Wright and Phillip Johnston) that I was able to grasp much better how Christ affects the OT in all sorts of areas, and what the apostles were saying about Christ when they speak of his resurrection.

P.S. Will I really “see you soon”? I hope so! ;-)

Enkidu,

I was hoping you might jump in, as I knew you’d pick up on any dubious assumptions I made!

You are quite right that I have overstated the idea that Genesis makes no assumptions at all. Nonetheless, as you acknowledge, it is not easy to access those assumptions. My problem is when we assume that our assumptions were the assumptions involved, and then preach the passage to teach the assumed assumption. ;-)

You express my original complaint perfectly (and with enviable brevity) when you say:

[quote author="Enkidu"]One of my complaints is that OT narrative is often treated as little more than an illustration for a point which, in the end, could more appropriately have been made from a NT passage.

Of course I would not complain if, preaching on the NT passage, the OT passage was used as an illustration (like a story from outside the bible). I am only complaining if that is given the appearance of an exposition of the OT narrative. So I take it we are agreed on the problem of OT preaching like that. I guess because the conference was billed as a demonstration of how to do expository preaching from Genesis, this approach bothered me more than it normally would - because I was considering it not just as a sermon, but as a potential model for my preaching.

[quote author="Enkidu"]Can texts legitimately have more than one meaning (to which the answer is clearly “yes” in some cases when even the human author has employed deliberate ambiguity, but what if God intended the texts to be polyvalent)?

I do think that biblical texts are polysemous, and this is true even within the OT, before Christ comes into the picture. Much prophetic writing takes place on several levels within Israel’s experience - later prophetic writing projecting forward the promises of God which present experience belied or did not provide fully satisfactory fulfillment (e.g. return from exile, a son of David on the throne, etc). I think this polysemy is based upon the nature of God, whose unchanging, sovereign and eternal character means his actions can be viewed thematically across time as well as chronologically within time.

Hmmm. That’s probably enough for now. Thoughts?

Matthew wrote

Does having the gospel of the risen Christ as your presupposition mean your interpretation starts there? Or does it mean that your interpretation will thread through to be transformed there? In other words, are we presuming a foundation for OT exegesis (so that we are looking for Christ in its pages from the moment we start reading), or a goal for OT exegesis (so that we are looking to see what the OT said to the Jew, and then seek to understand how the Christ-event revolutionised/fulfilled/overturned it)?

Why choose between these approaches? I would have thought the whole idea of reading and re-reading Scripture would be to pump the ideas into your systematic and biblical theology, turn the handle, see what comes out and start a (constructive) argument with the text and with others. So long as you trust God and exercise due humility before His Word, not allowing the various bits of Scripture to contradict each other, you’d be pretty right wouldn’t you?

David wrote

I take the position that I take because I am convinced that the purpose of the OT is to present Christ to us. That becomes a rigid hermeneutic which the NT, I do believe, endorses.

Here’s another way that I’ve expressed it to a friend.
Luther quite rightly tells us that the OT is the cradle in which the baby Jesus lies. In which case ISTM that we’re often so good at setting out the carpenter’s plans for the cradle (and we do it well and rightly so) that we fail to see the imprint of the child in the mattress. Does that make sense?

The quote from Luther is just great. I also like

“See how much [God] has been able to accomplish through me, though I did no more than pray and preach. The word did it all.  Had I wished, I might have started a conflagration at Worms. But while I sat still and drank beer with Philip and Amsdorf, God dealt the papacy a mighty blow”

But I don’t see that the point about the NT providing an exclusively authoritative interpretation has yet been established.

Michael wrote

The daftness of the disciples prior to the resurrection as they are portrayed in the gospels is interesting here. They managed to work out Jesus was the Christ: but the cross was an utter suprise to them… The OT wasn’t “clear” to them without their witnessing the cross and resurrection…

I agree with David that the Holy Spirit makes a difference here. However, didn’t Simeon spot the cross in Luke 2:35? And didn’t Jesus work it out? And didn’t the disciples understand pre-Pentecost as it was rightly explained to them, just after the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:44-47)?

I would be interested in thinking through why the Bible writers give us so much narrative, as opposed to a more univocal-looking set of propositions about God. Doesn’t narrative communicate more than the set of propositions that can be extracted from them?

Hi Gordon,

[quote author="Gordon Cheng"]Why choose between these approaches? I would have thought the whole idea of reading and re-reading Scripture would be to pump the ideas into your systematic and biblical theology, turn the handle, see what comes out and start a (constructive) argument with the text and with others. So long as you trust God and exercise due humility before His Word, not allowing the various bits of Scripture to contradict each other, you’d be pretty right wouldn’t you?

I guess that in some sense there is inevitably a reciprocal conversation going on between theology and exegesis, and yet I feel more comfortable thinking of theology as the metamorphosing product of exegesis - so that the text to theology direction forces changes, while the theology to text direction discovers problems. In other words, all biblical texts (in biblical theological context) have to be accomodated in a sound systematic theology, whether happily united or in seemingly impossible tension.

To that end, I prefer to just allow the various parts of scripture to logically contradict each other in my theological system. It’s not that I assume they actually do contradict one another. Rather, I assume that either they are two truths in tension of human logic that find unity in theologic or metalogic (however we may designate the kind of supralogic of an omniscient God), or that I have the understanding of one or other text wrong. I don’t want to ‘subject’ the exegesis of one text to another in order to avoid contradiction - because, well, who am I to choose which one should dominate? The problem with “not allowing the various bits to contradict each other”, for me, is that I end up choosing which bit is primary based on my theological tradition when it appears that texts don’t sit happily together.

So I prefer to try and keep most of the flow one-way, from text to exegesis to biblical theology to systematic theology. That’s why I am inclined to choose between the two approaches I outlined.

I understand that you were driving at the Article XX concept of “not expound(ing) one place of scripture that it be repgunant to another”. But I think this important principle can be overapplied to warrant forcing the scripture to testify neatly to our theological system. I guess I find the way described of thinking about it helps me keep reviewing my theology under the word. Am I creating major problems that haven’t occurred to me by thinking of it this way?

Cheers
Matt

[quote author="davidould"] But, I’d argue, Paul’s use of those two ladies is exactly the central issue of their place in the narrative.

Do you mean to say that the author and audience of Genesis would have understood that the story of Hagar allegorically represented the Sinai covenant, although she was the mother of Ishmael and the Sinai covenant was given through the seed of Sarah? I’m not convinced.
[quote author="davidould"]In which case Paul has summed up the issue perfectly - Hagar represents works, Abraham trying to work out the gospel promises in his own way, and Sarah is faith, Abraham trusting that God will grant this old lady a child.

The distinction you highlight is between works and grace, yet in Gal 4 Paul is highlighting the slavery vs. freedom disjunction. Have you perhaps introduced a shift in the focus away from Paul’s?
[quote author="davidould"]I take the position that I take because I am convinced that the purpose of the OT is to present Christ to us. That becomes a rigid hermeneutic which the NT, I do believe, endorses.

I think the validity of this statement depends very much on what you mean by “present.” Perhaps you could elaborate?
[quote author="davidould"]The question before us is whether that would have been clear from the OT alone.

There are clear instances where OT texts are given additional meanings to those found in their original context (e.g. Hos 11:1 as quoted in Matt 2:15). I believe the OT is incomplete--it anticipates and finds its fulfilment in Christ, but alone it retains some ambiguity about its fulfilment. Furthermore, there are, as has been noted above, instances where texts do have multiple meanings. As in the case of the Hosea text, the “original” meaning (that which would have been understood by the human author and his/her original audience) is quite distinct from a second meaning revealed in the NT. If the “newer” meaning in the OT was obscure in this instance, why not in other instances?
[quote author="Michael Jensen"]I happily stand corrected on the Proverbs/Egyptian sources thing, but I can’t respond with detail because I have leant several vital books on the subject out! The point stands, though: that “authorship” is a complex thing and so a simplistic “author’s intentions” kind of reading needs to be nuanced.

Quite a number of critical scholars do believe that Proverbs was dependant on Amen-em-ope, often to the point of emending the text of Proverbs 22-24 based on the supposed parallel. I agree that there are points of similarity, but I don’t think they are close enough to support a theory of direct dependance. I even think that שלשום should be read in Prov 22:20 as “thirty,” but I don’t think that comes from direct literary dependance.

In other words, if you want to stick to the idea that Proverbs borrows from Amen-em-ope, you’re not alone. I just think the case is frequently overstated.
[quote author="Matthew Williams"]I understand that you were driving at the Article XX concept of “not expound(ing) one place of scripture that it be repgunant to another”. But I think this important principle can be overapplied to warrant forcing the scripture to testify neatly to our theological system. I guess I find the way described of thinking about it helps me keep reviewing my theology under the word. Am I creating major problems that haven’t occurred to me by thinking of it this way?

I think you’ve highlighted a very real danger. By presupposing that Scripture cannot conflict with Scripture there is a danger in glossing over problems or concealing problems (whether they be with the text, with our theological system, with our hermeneutical system, with our linguistics, or whatever). Like Matthew I am not saying that I am actually claiming that the Bible is full of contradictions, just that I have seen too many difficult passages explained away with credulous exegesis to be satisfied that this is a good approach. When contradictions or other problems do crop up, perhaps the best solution is not the easiest or most “comfortable” within our theological framework.

I think many conservative readings of Ecclesiastes fall into exactly this trap (just a bit of a hobby-horse of mine upon which I shall not presently elaborate).

[quote author="Enkidu Jones"][quote author="davidould"] But, I’d argue, Paul’s use of those two ladies is exactly the central issue of their place in the narrative.

Do you mean to say that the author and audience of Genesis would have understood that the story of Hagar allegorically represented the Sinai covenant, although she was the mother of Ishmael and the Sinai covenant was given through the seed of Sarah? I’m not convinced.

[quote author="davidould"]In which case Paul has summed up the issue perfectly - Hagar represents works, Abraham trying to work out the gospel promises in his own way, and Sarah is faith, Abraham trusting that God will grant this old lady a child.

The distinction you highlight is between works and grace, yet in Gal 4 Paul is highlighting the slavery vs. freedom disjunction. Have you perhaps introduced a shift in the focus away from Paul’s?

no, because the slavery/freedom of galatians is a works/grace dichotomy. See, for example, how that’s worked out (with the same language) in 4:8-10.

[quote author="davidould"]I take the position that I take because I am convinced that the purpose of the OT is to present Christ to us. That becomes a rigid hermeneutic which the NT, I do believe, endorses.

I think the validity of this statement depends very much on what you mean by “present.” Perhaps you could elaborate?

I’m not entirely sure how to. It presents in that it’s thrust and purpose is the proclamation of Christ.

[quote author="davidould"]The question before us is whether that would have been clear from the OT alone.

There are clear instances where OT texts are given additional meanings to those found in their original context (e.g. Hos 11:1 as quoted in Matt 2:15). I believe the OT is incomplete--it anticipates and finds its fulfilment in Christ, but alone it retains some ambiguity about its fulfilment. Furthermore, there are, as has been noted above, instances where texts do have multiple meanings. As in the case of the Hosea text, the “original” meaning (that which would have been understood by the human author and his/her original audience) is quite distinct from a second meaning revealed in the NT. If the “newer” meaning in the OT was obscure in this instance, why not in other instances?

Because Matt 2:15 is expanding in a way that’s not contrary to what I’m saying. Hosea 11 expresses the frustration of God with the nation and asks how the matter will be restored.

Matthew shows us that Jesus is the true Israel. I’m not sure how this changes the thrust of Hosea.

now, given that you’re marking Biblical Theology,

actually, only Church History 1 exams… but there is a relevant section on hermeneutics in the early church!

I feel I am taking a bit of a beating because my position isn’t clear. But I don’t think I have too much of a worked out position: I am merely trying to point to the assumptions and presuppositions hidden in some of the approaches we commonly use.

Does having the gospel of the risen Christ as your presupposition mean your interpretation starts there? Or does it mean that your interpretation will thread through to be transformed there? In other words, are we presuming a foundation for OT exegesis (so that we are looking for Christ in its pages from the moment we start reading), or a goal for OT exegesis (so that we are looking to see what the OT said to the Jew, and then seek to understand how the Christ-event revolutionised/fulfilled/overturned it)?

Goal.

but the reason given is not that the OT was obscure but that they didn’t get it. Indeed, it required a spiritual awakening to grasp the truth.
Comparable (in a different) is the dialogue w/ the Pharisees, end of John 5. Moses wrote about Christ, the fault wasn’t in the writing it was in the fact that the Pharisees didn’t really believe Moses.

This is a great text to bring to bear on the issue David. Thanks - got me thinking.

The need for spiritual awakening (the “inner clarity” of the Scriptures) in the disciples is exactly the point: the OT needs to be read “spiritually” - with the illumination of the HS - because otherwise, it doesn’t point to Jesus at all. The Emmaus road episode is an interesting illustration of this after the event illumination…

BTW, just heard Philip Kern (NT lecturer at Moore with PhD on Galatians) refer to the Hagar/Sarah section of Galatians as an “allegory”!! ;-)

[quote author="michael jensen"]

now, given that you’re marking Biblical Theology,

actually, only Church History 1 exams… but there is a relevant section on hermeneutics in the early church!

I feel I am taking a bit of a beating because my position isn’t clear. But I don’t think I have too much of a worked out position: I am merely trying to point to the assumptions and presuppositions hidden in some of the approaches we commonly use.

oh Michael, I’ll put the whip away. No intention to beat you. But I was dug in when I saw you winding up your howitzers ;-)

Does having the gospel of the risen Christ as your presupposition mean your interpretation starts there? Or does it mean that your interpretation will thread through to be transformed there? In other words, are we presuming a foundation for OT exegesis (so that we are looking for Christ in its pages from the moment we start reading), or a goal for OT exegesis (so that we are looking to see what the OT said to the Jew, and then seek to understand how the Christ-event revolutionised/fulfilled/overturned it)?

Goal.

but the reason given is not that the OT was obscure but that they didn’t get it. Indeed, it required a spiritual awakening to grasp the truth.
Comparable (in a different) is the dialogue w/ the Pharisees, end of John 5. Moses wrote about Christ, the fault wasn’t in the writing it was in the fact that the Pharisees didn’t really believe Moses.

This is a great text to bring to bear on the issue David. Thanks - got me thinking.

The need for spiritual awakening (the “inner clarity” of the Scriptures) in the disciples is exactly the point: the OT needs to be read “spiritually” - with the illumination of the HS - because otherwise, it doesn’t point to Jesus at all. The Emmaus road episode is an interesting illustration of this after the event illumination…

right, and I’m really questioning whether there wasn’t (double negative, I know) such illumination in OT times.

BTW, just heard Philip Kern (NT lecturer at Moore with PhD on Galatians) refer to the Hagar/Sarah section of Galatians as an “allegory”!! ;-)

well then, you better add him to your Origen-lookalikes file ;-)

[quote author="Michael"]I feel I am taking a bit of a beating because my position isn’t clear. But I don’t think I have too much of a worked out position: I am merely trying to point to the assumptions and presuppositions hidden in some of the approaches we commonly use.

Gee, Michael, I was only trying to beat you into sharing the lit path out of the hermeneutical forest that I assumed was behind your goading. So actually you were making sure we realised how big the forest was?

Sorry - I’ll leave you alone then!

David - what’s the big deal about calling Hagar/Sarah an allegory? Doesn’t Paul? Galatians 4:24: “Now this is an allegory: these women are two covenants.” Sorry to be so stupid, but what’s the big deal?

[quote author="michael jensen"]

Does having the gospel of the risen Christ as your presupposition mean your interpretation starts there? Or does it mean that your interpretation will thread through to be transformed there? In other words, are we presuming a foundation for OT exegesis (so that we are looking for Christ in its pages from the moment we start reading), or a goal for OT exegesis (so that we are looking to see what the OT said to the Jew, and then seek to understand how the Christ-event revolutionised/fulfilled/overturned it)?

Goal.

Really? That style of reading is reserved for Dan Brown and John Grisham, surely? Not our favourite books, which are read with a great deal more thought, care, and backwards-forwards reflection.

Matthew wrote

So I prefer to try and keep most of the flow one-way, from text to exegesis to biblical theology to systematic theology. That’s why I am inclined to choose between the two approaches I outlined.

In an ideal world—free of sin, free of mental confusion—we might work it like that. Or, we might work it the other way, as our systematic theology would be perfect, and give us an unerring guide as to which of several interpretations of a verse we might prefer. But then again, we wouldn’t need to do any of that, as in an ideal world we’d be in heaven and see God face to face!

I also wonder what difference it makes to realise that we are not so much studying a text as studying God. A priori assumptions about method are at best risky. The creature studying the Creator is working with a unique situation.

I’m not expressing myself well here but I thought an initial response might be useful.