Showing posts with label hermeneutics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label hermeneutics. Show all posts

Wednesday, March 18, 2015

Language for God in Patristic Tradition by Mark Sheridan – Book Review

When reading the Church Fathers, there are times when they are befuddling.  Why did they suddenly take this turn or that, which seemingly has nothing at all to do with the passage at hand?  Why did they go to such great lengths to explain themselves?  Many times we need a road map.  Mark Sheridan has provided just such a map, uncovering for the reader the mindset of the patristic writers in their wrestling and explanation of God’s self-revelation.  The author gleans primarily from Origen’s body of work to demonstrate how the Alexandrian father influenced exegesis for centuries afterward, even to today.

The author begins by examining the early writers as they wrestled with God's transcendence in communicating with mankind.  How could someone so completely “other” express himself in human terms?  Could a self-limiting language accurately convey the expanse of divine meaning?  What has been left unsaid that can only be extracted through the work of the Holy Spirit?  These questions are not those readily considered by the modern reader of Scripture, but to one such as John Chrysostom, this was paramount:
Chrysostom seems constantly to be concerned that his hearers will take the text too literally, and he frequently (several hundred times) introduces this distinction between God’s “considerateness” in formulating things in a human way and what is “a sense befitting God” (Sheridan, 41).
The literal meaning of a text was never in doubt, and we see the great care with which they mined the depths of Scripture in order to correctly expound the spiritual meaning and application.  Knowing their reverence for the Bible, we can understand how writers like Origen earned a reputation for overly spiritualizing in his commentaries and homilies.  We can readily admit that he overstepped the typology and figures the inspired writers used.

Alexandrian homileticians were not the only group to attempt to a spiritual extraction from their sacred text.  Philo, a Jew living at the time of Christ, was noteworthy in his use of allegory to explain the Hebrew Scriptures.  Also, a chapter is offered to the Greek and Latin philosophers who attempted the same rhetorical device to explain their concepts of divinity.  Perhaps this might be the weakest aspect of the book, since the intent is to explain biblical rather than pagan anthropomorphism, but it does lend an historical background to the patristic practice.

After this background information, Sheridan turns his attention to specific passages of the Hebrew Scriptures: first, by gathering patristic comments on Jesus’ and Paul’s use of Torah in teaching; second, by engaging three classic cases from the nation of Israel; and third, by reviewing the imprecatory portions of Psalms.  Each of these requires its own chapter to properly establish how the Fathers interacted with these in light of the New Testament.  These chapters of applying what has been presented in the prior chapters and developing the exegetical sense of the early church, especially as it relates to the Alexandrian school.  Lastly, we are offered a comparison of modern with patristic understanding of the problem texts mentioned in the previous chapters.

Overall, this book is worth the read and is not beyond most readers.  Preachers and teachers would do well to take up this work and learn how the Early Church addressed the Bible.  Plus there is bonus material.  As good as this book is, I found the appendix to be absolute gold.  Sheridan summarizes Christian hermeneutics during the first centuries of the church.  The three major points addressed are:
  1. Presuppositions about the Nature of the Text of the Scriptures
  2. Criteria for a Correct Interpretation
  3. Some Rules of Interpretation
This summary information from the Church Fathers is as applicable to today as it was 1700-1800 years ago and demonstrates that these early expositors were taking greatest care.  I dare say that if the modern Church took the same level of care in their attention to holy things, much exegetical nonsense would be avoided.


Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from IVP Academic.  I was not required to write a positive review.  The opinions I have expressed are my own.  I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255: “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”

Friday, April 25, 2014

Let's Not Miss the Point

Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead?  If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf?  Why are we in danger every hour?  I protest, brothers, by my pride in you, which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die every day!  What do I gain if, humanly speaking, I fought with beasts at Ephesus?  If the dead are not raised, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.”  Do not be deceived: “Bad company ruins good morals.”  Wake up from your drunken stupor, as is right, and do not go on sinning.  For some have no knowledge of God.  I say this to your shame.  (1 Cor 15:29-34)

This morning at Bible study, we were looking at this paragraph and discussing how portions of this passage have been misinterpreted, misused, and misapplied.

Baptizing for the dead.  The most plausible explanation of this practice seems to be that those under the tutelage of a believer in Corinth who had not yet been baptized, might do so out of respect for the disciple-maker if he or she suddenly died.  This makes sense in view of how the believers were honoring their teachers, even being baptized in their names (1 Cor 1:11-15).  As a descriptive text, one cannot condone the Latter-Day Saint (LDS or Mormon) prescriptive use.  Paul uses the doctrinal error in their baptismal practice to demonstrate the logical inconsistency of such a practice if there is no resurrection.

Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.  This quotation summarizes the Epicurean philosophy which sought pleasure in this life as its goal. Opposed to popular belief, Epicurus did not condone wonton living.  He wrote:
When we say…that pleasure is the end and aim, we do not mean the pleasures of the prodigal or the pleasures of sensuality, as we are understood to do by some through ignorance, prejudice or willful misrepresentation.  By pleasure we mean the absence of pain in the body and of trouble in the soul.*
Epicureanism rejected immortality and taught that even the soul, though immaterial, also died at the end of this life.  Paul’s use of the quote should have had a dramatic effect on the believers in Corinth.  The logical comparison to their resurrection-less doctrine was this common pagan philosophy that had the same view of life’s goal and end.

Bad company ruins good morals.  An often misused passage to keep children in line, this is actually from the play Thais by the dramatist Menander, addressing the affects of a bad philosophy or worldview on one’s conduct (i.e., your thoughts govern your beliefs which govern your actions).  For Christians bad doctrine leads away from a proper relation to Almighty God, rather than leading others to Him.  As Psalm 1 points out, we are not to take counsel or example from those who openly dishonor the Lord, but we are to turn to His word instead.†

Both the doctrine and practice of the believers in Corinth was sinful, but they were still believers, beloved of God for Christ’s sake.  For that reason, Paul admonished the church to wake up as there were within the assembly who were not properly instructed in the ways of the Lord.

Shame on them for being lax, and shame on us when we do the same today.


* Epicurus, “Letter to Menoeceus,” contained in Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers, Book X.
† For current examples of those in Christendom leading some away, I recommend the Random Apostasies and Heresies series put out by Glenn Chatfield.

Friday, November 22, 2013

If I Do X, Then God Will Do Y

Recently, I was reading in Jeremiah.  Judah had been so disobedient to God's warnings through the prophets that the ultimate punishment (Deut 28:36-44) must be brought against the nation.  After lowering the boom, he gives this promise:
For thus says the Lord, “When seventy years are completed for Babylon, I will visit you, and I will fulfill to you my promise and bring you back to this place.  For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans for wholeness and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope.  Then you will call upon me and come and pray to me, and I will hear you.  You will seek me and find me.  When you seek me with all your heart, I will be found by you,” declares the Lord, “and I will restore your fortunes and gather you from all the nations and all the places where I have driven you, declares the Lord, and I will bring you back to the place from which I sent you into exile.” (Jer 29:10-14)
Certainly a wonderful passage of God’s grace to Judah, but what is applicable for us today?  I ask because there are any number of comparisons that have been made over the years relating to:
    My country My local assembly My family Me
Do you notice a pattern?  The Bible is written for and about me.  Christians have a fascination for continually doing this with scripture texts.  I know because I have been guilty of the same.  Is there something wrong with wanting God's promises?  No.  We just need to understand that there are things he has promised that do not affect us directly.

In the passage above, God emphatically states that he will be thrusting his people from one physical location to another with the promise that, at the end of a specific period of time, they will be earnestly seeking the Lord.  Conversely, today’s believers will recognize sin in their nation/assembly/family/being with its consequence and then cry out to the Lord, claiming that he promised his presence if they would just pray more earnestly.

Do you see the difference between the text and this application?  In Jeremiah’s prophecy, God is setting the timing and conditions.  He is working on his people for their ultimate good.  In the contemporary setting, worshipers are attempting to demonstrate their fervor so that the Lord will accept them into his good favor.

One might say, “But the Lord has plans for me, a future and hope.  He says so here and elsewhere.”  True, he does have plans for us—to walk in good works he has prepared; and he  does promise the Christian a future and a hope—that of the resurrection and being with the Lord.  Notice that these are not given based on our level of desire, but his sure word of promise causes us to cast ourselves on him.

The message given through Jeremiah is one of certain hope and full assurance that he will not abandon his people forever.  This is something the prophets and apostles continually bring before us.  We cling to the Lord’s faithfulness and ability to bring it to pass.

Saturday, November 9, 2013

Scripture Is Not of Private Interpretation

There is no doubt that there are many figures of speech in Scripture, but it is also certain that not all the figures of speech or tropes are in veiled language.  Many in Scripture are very clear and can be treated and interpreted on their own terms or with the simple and natural meaning of the words.  But is there not such a thing as freedom in the interpretation of a particular passage of Scripture to the degree that seems good to each individual so that we may either retain the proper meaning of the words or through the use of a figure of speech depart from the simple, proper, and natural meaning of the words according to each person’s notions?

The answer is a categorical no!  For if this were the case, all dogmas and all articles of faith could be so completely overturned and bypassed that all assurance of faith would be snatched away from consciences.  Therefore it is necessary that there be a definite rule or analogy of interpretation as to which passages of Scripture are to be treated as figures of speech and which are to be taken in their simple, proper, natural, sure, and usual sense, so that the conscience can rest safely and securely in the interpretation which has been given.

Martin Chemnitz, The Lord’s Supper