How To Start a Revival

Israel's Memory and the Rule of Faith

After a massive hiatus, I return to my ongoing discussion of Childs' canonical approach and it's implications for theological interpretation. The thread started an eternity ago here, where I outlined the overall structure of what I want to say. I'm still in stage 1: "The Authority of Scripture." Once this stage is finally finished, I'll move on to 2: "The Literal and Spiritual Sense of Scripture."

At the beginning of his career Childs worked as a form critic, which meant that his primary concern was identifying the unique ways in which Israel responded to its tradition and proclaimed its message. From this historical critical perspective Childs made the following statement about the theological function of Israel's traditions:

“Israel's memory ... serves a far more important role than merely providing illustrations from the past. It serves in making Israel noetically aware of a history which is ontologically a unity. There is only one redemptive history.”[*]

Childs seems to believe that this redemptive history finds its maturest expression in Irenaeus' rule of faith (Creation – Incarnation – New Creation). This rule functions as a boundary within which Christian exegesis can take place, as it sums up the true substance of Scripture. Yet the rule is not detached from the witness on which it is based, as if it were an external ideology imposed upon an innocent text. The very hermeneutical shape given to the text throughout its long canonical (kerygmatic) development adumbrates in complex ways the reality that would find its fullest expression in Irenaeus' rule. It would seem that for this reason Childs at times calls the canonical shape of the Bible itself a regula fidei.

[*] Memory and Tradition in Israel (London: SCM Press, 1961), 51.

The Talmud on "Costly Grace"

I subscribe to a weekly "eDrash," a commentary on the weekly Parasha along with a connection to a New Testament parallel. The group responsible for this call themselves "First Fruits of Zion" and believe that conversion to Christianity entails keeping the Mosaic Law, including the Oral Law. Fascinating!

I rarely have time to read their comments, but I found today's really interesting. It's a story from the Talmud and as a Christian I found it's message spot on. It illustrates the existential dimension of genuine faith. As Bonhoeffer says: "acquired knowledge cannot be divorced from the existence in which it is acquired." [*] Wanting to follow God's commandments is one thing, grasping what that actually means is another thing altogether. The difference amounts to the distinction between "cheap" and "costly" grace.

I've cut off the commentary's Christian application as I didn't find it relevant. Here's the rest:

Thought for the Week

Out of all countries, the Holy One, blessed be He, chose the land Israel, and from the land of Israel he selected the Temple, and from the Temple, He selected only the Holy of Holies. Similarly, out of all the nations God selected Israel, and from Israel, He selected the tribe of Levi, and of the Tribe of Levi, He chose Aaron. (Exodus Rabbah 37:4)

Commentary

You shall make holy garments for Aaron. (Exodus 28:2)

Once it happened, in the days of the Master, that a certain prominent Gentile, a high-ranking officer in the Roman government, was walking past a study hall in Jerusalem when he overheard the school children learning their Torah verses. The man stopped and listened for a little while. He heard the teacher reading from the Torah portion about the high priest’s special garments. He listened while the teacher read the words, "These are the garments which they shall make: a breastpiece and an ephod and a robe and a tunic of checkered work, a turban and a sash, and they shall make holy garments" (Exodus 28:4).

The Gentile did not know anything about the Bible or Judaism except what he had just heard. He stopped in and asked, "Who are these garments for?" The teacher told him, "For the high priest." The Gentile said to himself, "I will convert to Judaism so that I can become a high priest." He went to Rabbi Shammai, one of the leading sages of the Sanhedrin, and said, "I will allow you to make me into a proselyte on the condition that when I am Jewish you appoint me as high priest." Shammai was so infuriated by the man’s impertinence that he took a swing at him with a builder’s cubit and drove him away. Undeterred, the man went to Rabbi Hillel, Shammai's colleague and another leader of the Sanhedrin. He made Rabbi Hillel the same offer. Hillel accepted the terms and made him a proselyte. But he said to him, "Before a man can be made king, he has to learn about politics and government. Before you can be a high priest, you need to study the arts of governing over Israel from the Torah." The man studied Torah in preparation for becoming high priest, and as he studied, he realized that he did not qualify for the position. He could never be high priest. "Even the common Israelite cannot serve in the priesthood, but only the sons of Aaron; how much less am I eligible," he said. He went to Shammai and said, "If a stranger is not eligible to serve as high priest, why didn’t you just tell me that?" He went to Rabbi Hillel and said, "O gentle Hillel, may blessings rest on your head for bringing me under the wings of the Divine Presence of God. If not for you, I would not have become a believer."

[*] Dietrich Bonhoeffer The Cost of Discipleship (trans. R. H. Fuller; New York: Simon & Schuster, 1995), 51. Trans. of Nachfolge (München: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1937).

The Hamas Dilemma

“Palestine remains more an idea than a state, and the battle to control its destiny is waged in coffee shops and classrooms, hospitals and mosques, and, through the waning months of 2006 and into early 2007, in bloody street battles between Hamas and Fatah supporters. Memories die hard in this troubled terrain, and the relative calm initiated in February by a fragile agreement to pursue a unity government is unlikely to erase the chaos and the killing that immediately preceded the new détente. Many believe that attempts to forge a unity government and institute democratic rule are premature when the occupation remains a stubborn fact and Palestinians are experiencing a collective identity crisis.”

—from Richard A. Johnson’s “The Hamas Dilemma,”, The Walrus Magazine

An Ongoing Dialogue

My recent post Luke 24:13-35 and the Dogmatics/Exegesis Relation has generated a helpful conversation between myself, John Poirier and a certain Michael. Due to the length of the comments I haven't time to post today. I just thought I'd refer you to the conversation and invite you to jump in! Politness isn't required, just gnawing hunger for the truth ... or maybe for life ... and a bit of compassion for your fellow travellers.

Reading in a Revised Frame of Reference

In his brilliant essay "Christ in All the Scriptures?", R.W.L. Moberly asks, "What should a Christian be trying to do with the OT at this moment in history?" He is thinking of our postmodern context, a context which "does not wish to dispense with science or technology as such ... but that is rethinking their significance within the overall scheme of things" (91). Here are his suggestions for reading in a revised frame of reference:

1) Being a good historian should no longer be a prime requirement of biblical study but should should merely be one important ingredient among others needed in the pot to produce nourashing fare. This is not least because the content of Scripture has to do with moral and spiritual realities, which require moral and spiritual literacy if they are to be handled well. As Stephen Fowl and Gregory Jones have put it, in a groundbreaking study, "the interpretation of Scripture is a difficult task not because of the technical demands of biblical scholarship but because of the importance of character for wise readings." [*] The rationality that one needs is informed not just by the technical mastery of intellectual skills but also by the moral and spiritual disciplines of the church.

2) Christ must be not only the light to which we look but also the light by which we see. Israel's texts that speak of divine sovereignty and grace, human sin and repentence, and the calling of israel to covenant faithfulness should be come more luminous, for Jesus embodies (in various ways) that of which the texts speak. Faith in Christ can give believers conceptual and existential resources for truer understanding.

3) Biblical interpretation needs to be seen as revolving around context. This involves recognising that biblical texts have many contexts. There is a difference, for example, between the originating context and the literary context of preservation. When Gen. 1 is read in its historical context, it may well be the product of "priestly" Jews in Babylon responding to the disintegration of their kingdom. When Gen 1 is read as part of a canonical collection that includes the account of personified wisdom, present with God at creation, in Prov 8, a further set of intertextual resonances and possibilities is set up. When Ge 1 is read as part of the Christian Bible, with the retelling of creation in relation to God's Logos/Word, then further resonances are set up. When one adds to this the Pauline account of Jesus as the image of the invisible God, and then the broader context of extended Christian engagement with the meaning of creation and humanity in the light of Scripture as a whole, then the question of context for the opening verses of the Bible is rich indeed.

[*] Reading in Communion: Scripture and Ethics in Christian Life (London: SPCK, 1991), 49.

Luke 24:13-35 and the Dogmatics/Exegesis Relation

A while back I made the point that posing a dogmatics/exegesis dichotomy is not only impossible to implement in reality (i.e. we always assume a theology before we read; see also Ben Myers on this here), it is also theologically undesirable. This is because the object of theological interpretation is not ultimately the text but the reality to which it points: Jesus Christ. The Gospel of Jesus Christ cannot be found in any one text of the Bible, but rather represents the totality of the witness of Scripture, both Old and New Testaments. To turn the Bible itself into the Word of God is biblicism.

A certain Michael has asked me how this relates to the Emmaus road story (Luke 24:13-35). I'm glad for the question as thinking about it has helped confirm for me the truth that theological interpretation is and should always be a dialectic between dogmatics and exegesis, rather than a one-way street in either direction.

"Then beginning with Moses and all the prophets he interpreted to them the things about himself in all the scriptures."

Moberly [*] points out that the logic of Jesus' expounding the Scriptures to his puzzled disciples is that these Scriptures provide a context and a content for making sense of Jesus, when all that the disciples know about him already somehow has not "clicked"; Israel's Scriptures help one make sense of Jesus. This represents the move from exegesis to dogmatics. Yet these disciples are Jews who are already thoroughly familiar with these Scriptures, many of which they would know by heart. So, Moberly concludes, "presumably a further part of the logic of Jesus' exposition is that the disciples need to be able to read these Scriptures in a new way, in the light of all that had happened surrounding Jesus, so that they can see in these Scriptures what they had not seen before; Jesus helps one make sense of Israel's Scriptures. Thus a two-way dialectic between Jesus and Israel's Scriptures is envisaged, both being necessary for Christian understanding of the crucified and risen Lord" (80).

The key point here is that it is the risen Jesus himself, an extra-textual reality, who positions us to be able to understand the texts that at the same time point to him. How do we get to know the Jesus who interprets the Bible for us? There are many ways, but central is the community of the church, who has preserved the Gospel for us and communicates it to us in summary forms such as in creeds and theological summa. One can't, on theological grounds, remove dogmatics from the activity of exegesis.

[*] R. W. L. Moberly, "Christ in All the Scriptures? The Challenge of Reading the Old Testament as Christian Scripture" Journal of Theological Interpretation I.I (2007) 79-100.

The Most Amazing Sermon Series, ... ever (?)

I've finally finished listening to the greatest series of sermons I've ever heard. Every Sunday I would listen to a sermon by Tim Keller from Redeemer Presbyterian Church, downloaded from this page of the church website. Tim Keller is an intelligent, educated, passionate, articulate man who is driven by his vision of who the God of the Universe is and what this God is doing, especially in New York but ultimately in each and every neighbourhood of this planet. The entire sermon series revolves around Redeemer's core vision, which is as follows:

Redeemer's VisionTo build a great city for all people­—through a gospel movement that brings personal conversion, community formation, social justice and cultural renewal to New York and, through it, to the world.

So simple. You can watch a video introduction here.

I was first introduced to this series by a friend after I complained that I hadn't heard too many decent sermons based on the Old Testament. Most of this series is based on Isaiah, though being the systematic person that I am I went right to the beginning and started with sermon #1, the prodigal son. Even here I was impressed by how he could make such a well worn story come alive in such an existentially gripping way, bridging the gap between my personal faith and my place in the broader created world. The last sermon was again New Testament, this time the Wedding at Cana. I don't know how sound his exegesis was, but what he had to say was so beautiful that I just want to believe it!

So, if you want to do you soul and your neighbour a favour, listen to this sermon series, systematically, prayerfully, one after the other. Let Keller's words take up residence in your consciousness until you find yourself transformed and equipped to go out and do what it is we were saved for in the first place.

Now I've been tagged

I apologize for the scarcity of posts in the last few days. It's carnival time here in the Rheinland, which means that everything shuts down in order for people to dress up in kitsch clown costumes, get drunk and sleep with each other. My wife Ingrid has, for the first time in ages, managed to finish work while there's still an evening to speak of, so time's been spent doing husband-and-wife things and travelling. We drove to Luxembourg yesterday, but the constant rain and biting cold, combined with the fact that I wasn't dressed for the outing, combined to dampen my appreciation of what is probably a beautiful city.

I'm also grateful for comments on my Ghandi post. I will get back to you as soon as possible!

So anyway, I've been tagged by J.K. Gayle. What the logic behind this game is I'm not sure, but my geeky addiction to books somehow makes it seem fun. Here are the rules:

Pick up the nearest book of 123 pages or more.(No cheating!)

Find Page 123.

Find the first 5 sentences.

Post the next 3 sentences.

Tag 5 people.

Well, to my left is Gordon Wenham's Word Biblical Commentary of Genesis 1-15. So here's what it says:

On the traditional documentary hypothesis most of these editorial changes are ascribed to P, for the most obvious connections in 5:1-3 are with 1:1-2:4a, which is assigned to the P source. However, 5:29, pointing back to 3:17 and mentioning "the LORD" by name, has to be ascribed to J.

Boring! Oh well, one can't always have the most gripping books lying in one's vicinity.

And I'm supposed to tag 5 people, so here goes: Tim, Bob, Chris, Stephen and Stefan.