15 Wednesday Jul 2020
Preaching Source blog graciously published a small piece I wrote on the application of biblical narrative. The word count limitation does not allow for other items I include in my classroom lectures on application. However, I hope this small piece gets us thinking about individual narratives within the larger canonical narrative.
22 Tuesday Oct 2019
Tags
Biblical Exposition, Biblical Preaching, expository hermeneutics, expository listening, expository preaching, Love your enemies, Moody Bible Institute, Moody Theological Seminary, Sermon on the Mount
[43] “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ [44] But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, [45] so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. [46] For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? [47] And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? [48] You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
The Meaning of Matthew 5:43-48:
Jesus’ authoritative teaching on love for one’s enemies corrects the disciples’ practice from reciprocation of sinners to imitation of the Father.
Why do I say this is the author’s intended meaning of this passage?
First, “Jesus’ authoritative teaching” reflects “But I say to you” (44). The content of what he says takes up the most space and unifies the passage, so it is the Subject of the passage. That content concerns “love for one’s enemies.” Jesus gives an imperative on loving enemies (44b), with a reasoning related to sonship before the Father (45), and two examples of wrongly reciprocating love and greetings (46-47).
Second, “corrects” reflects the contrast between what the disciples have been taught and believe to be right and what Jesus now teaches. “Corrects” is what Jesus is doing within the entire passage. His “authoritative teaching” is correcting.
Third, “the disciples’ practice from reciprocation of sinners to imitation of the Father” concerns the remainder of the passage. There were some in the listening crowd who were returning love only to those who demonstrated love toward them, and not toward those who did not. Similarly, there were those in the crowd of listeners who greeted only their fellow Jewish brethren and ignored the Gentiles with their greetings. Those are practices of reciprocation: I will give to you only if and what you give to me. Reciprocation concerns justice, i.e., “I will give you what is fair, what is equal, what you are deserving based on your treatment of me or status in life, and no more.” Any “tax collector” and any “Gentile” – both for whom the first century Jewish people had great disdain – could reciprocate, and did so. So any Jewish listener in the crowd was not being righteous by reciprocating, but was acting no better than any thieving tax-collector or any other non-Jew.
However, Jesus intends for citizens of the kingdom of God to be like our heavenly Father—to imitate his works and not the practices of sinners. Unlike the listeners, tax collectors, and Gentiles, the Father does something vastly different than reciprocating. He gives the sun (and all of its benefits) to people who are evil before him. If he gave the sun as reciprocation, no one would get sunlight, heat, or all of the other benefits of the sun! In the same way, the Lord gives rain to people unrighteous in his sight in the same measure that he gives it to people who stand righteous before him. When it comes to sun and rain, the Lord does not give better treatment to his followers than he does to his haters.
What do such actions by the Father show? They show love toward the sinful; his love toward the good and just is assumed.
So then what is “perfect?” To be perfect is to show love – the Father’s love – to those underserving of your love rather than responding to people on the basis of what a just treatment of their behavior or status toward you would deserve. To do so is to be a son of the Heavenly Father (and to do otherwise is to be like a first century Jewish tax collector and Gentile). To be perfect, is to prioritize love over justice in your personal treatment of people.
So this is a passage that calls us to act with mercy and grace toward all. Go pour out sun and rain on those you deem undeserving of such love, even as the Father is doing for each of us this very moment. The cross of Christ and his resurrection from the dead provide the Son and the reign of God for us, in mercy, at the cost of justice poured out on Christ instead of us.
_________________________
I talk more on the above theory and method of interpretation employed above in Say It! Celebrating Expository Preaching in the African American Tradition (Moody 2020).
23 Tuesday Apr 2019
Tags
Aristotle's Poetics, Christian Review of Avengers, Christian Worldview, Dispensational Eschatology, Dispensational Rapture, Doctrine of Election, E. D. Hirsch Meaning and Significance, Hans Frei's Archetypes, Hermeneutics, Interpreting Movies, Literary Analysis, Moody Bible Institute, Movie Analysis Avengers, Thanos as god
I am looking forward to Avengers: Endgame with excitement. I am eager to see how the decade-long Avengers’ series comes to a close, including how the Avengers will defeat Thanos, return those killed by him, and exalt the heroics of Captain Marvel. I want to see how the Hulk redeems himself, if James Rhodes (War Machine) will regain the use of his legs, and how Wakanda will factor into the victory of the Avengers.
However, I am not looking forward to what I anticipate to be another movie explicitly directed against Christian belief and practice. That is, if the previous movie scoffs at Thanos’ election doctrine and practice, and the defeat of Thanos is the key to avenging the earth and the entire universe, then the Avengers will have to dispose of Thanos and his form of “mercy.” In short, the Avengers will have to dispose of “god.” In fact, I anticipate they will have to kill him.
It is sad that the writers of the Avengers’ series misunderstand the glory of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the love communicated by his salvation, and the richness of his mercy. God the Son partakes in human flesh because we lack innate righteousness and need his righteousness in order to enjoy God, not because we enjoy starving on an overpopulated planet.
I have attached my brief analysis of Avengers: Infinity War, offering my thoughts about the movie’s critique of the doctrine of election. The analysis helps explain why I anticipate further denigration of the Christian faith in this movie — a denigration far worse than the belittling of elect pilots and drivers being raptured out of cars and helicopters.
0002 Avengers Infinity War Analysis
#endgame
14 Saturday Jul 2018
Tags
#hermeneuitcs, Application of Biblical Narrative, Hermeneutics of Application, Peter's Denials of Jesus, The Art of Interpretation
(Duccio di Buoninsegna, Christ Accused by the Pharisees [scene 12], 1308-11)
[54] Then they seized him and led him away, bringing him into the high priest’s house, and Peter was following at a distance. [55] And when they had kindled a fire in the middle of the courtyard and sat down together, Peter sat down among them. [56] Then a servant girl, seeing him as he sat in the light and looking closely at him, said, “This man also was with him.” [57] But he denied it, saying, “Woman, I do not know him.” [58] And a little later someone else saw him and said, “You also are one of them.” But Peter said, “Man, I am not.” [59] And after an interval of about an hour still another insisted, saying, “Certainly this man also was with him, for he too is a Galilean.” [60] But Peter said, “Man, I do not know what you are talking about.” And immediately, while he was still speaking, the rooster crowed. [61] And the Lord turned and looked at Peter. And Peter remembered the saying of the Lord, how he had said to him, “Before the rooster crows today, you will deny me three times.” [62] And he went out and wept bitterly.
[63] Now the men who were holding Jesus in custody were mocking him as they beat him. [64] They also blindfolded him and kept asking him, “Prophesy! Who is it that struck you?” [65] And they said many other things against him, blaspheming him. (Luke 22:54–65, ESV)
In my undergraduate Hermeneutics course of the Spring 2018 semester, students diligently worked on the “art” of interpretation as much as the “science.” The art part involves discernment by the reader as much as it involves appreciation of the literary artistry of a writer. Artistically, Luke places the mocking and beating of Jesus immediately after the episode of Peter’s denial. One can discern that Luke intends for the reader to understand that Peter’s refusal to identify himself with Jesus as a follower allows the guards to beat and mock Jesus without hindrance.
What might have happened if Peter, instead, had followed Jesus closely, had anticipated a question about his identity with respect to Jesus, and had said, “I am a follower of Jesus, because he is the Christ. Now let me in the house with him, for I am ready to die for him!” Such a bold, unashamed response might have been so shocking to others that its story would have reverberated around the house. One of the guards might have asked, “Is there really someone who thinks this Jewish troublemaker is worth dying for? Does someone really believe he is the so-called ‘Messiah?’” Consider the responses to the unashamed Peter in Acts 4:17-31 and 5:17-42—that the Jewish leadership had to hear the Gospel and witness its power displayed through the Apostles because of their bold, unashamed testimony.
In addition to emphasizing the artistry of hermeneutics, the students spent much time thinking deeply about the right application of texts. I encouraged them to stay away from overemphasizing cognitive responses to passages – e.g., “remember,” “understand,” “know,” “stand in the truth of,” and the like – because, as believers, we are more than just our heads. If application is only for our heads (thinking) and not for our hearts (goals, motives, intentions, emotions, and affections), mouths (speech), hands and feet (actions and works), eyes and ears (as windows and receptors for our minds and souls), and our whole body (control of appetites, desires, and passions), then Christian practice will remain only a mental exercise, and not an exercise of our full embodiment for the glory of God in Christ. As I said to one student, “The world is not changed by thinking alone, even if ideas do have consequences. It is when ideas make practices that things are changed.”
In the Lukan passage before us, we concluded that one application of this passage might be for hearers of this passage to develop an anticipatory phrase (like my hypothetical phrase for Peter above)—one that is their own and that they can be prepared to say every time they are tempted to deny being a follower of Christ. Can you imagine what this will do for the Christian entering a spiritually-antagonistic university setting, or what it would do for the professional who is tempted to tone down his/her faith in the workplace for the sake of being accepted into or team or group of office friends, or for the sake of a promotion?
In contrast to the above application, I do not see an application of this passage related to forgiving those who have abandoned me (as Christ later forgave Peter). The subject of this passage is not, “The believer’s response to abandonment,” or “the imitation of Christ in the face of failure.” We are off the reservation if we see Christ looking at Peter and Peter subsequently weeping because of his shameful responses in the courtyard, and then tell our people, “Now go forgive those who abandoned you.” There is a disconnect between the subject of the passage and what we are drawing as an application of the passage. Yet application must derive from the subject, for we are applying the meaning of the passage—putting into practice what the passage talks about. At best, and without spite, Christ’s look is a reminder of his prophetic words about Peter’s failure; at worst the look is one of disappointment. Either way, the look invokes grief in Peter rather than a sense of relief from guilt. The idea of forgiveness does not enter this passage.
In order to make such an application (or rather, misapplication) of this passage, one must introduce into the story in Luke 22 Christ’s forgiveness of Peter in John 21 and the succeeding shameless preaching of Peter in the Acts narrative. However, our goal as preachers and teachers of the Scriptures is to tell our hearers what the passage in focus wants us to do in order to please the Lord, and our goal for ourselves as readers is the same (cf. Deut. 12:28; Pss. 119:105, 109-111; Acts 20:32; 2 Tim. 3:15-4:4; Heb. 5:14; Ja. 1:19-25). It is common practice for Christian preaching and teaching to punt the ball from one passage into another passage for application, especially when attempting to apply narrative literature. But we need to pretend we are going for it on 4 and 1 in every passage with right application from the verses in focus rather than immediately appealing elsewhere in Scripture for application.
Thus, sticking to the subject of Luke 22:54-65, I would suggest that you tell me to examine past episodes in which I have sought ease or comfort rather than accepting humiliation for naming the name of Christ. Tell me to look at those comfort points in order to see what sort of comforts are most attractive to me when people around me are hostile to Christ: Is it that I want acceptance among family members, inclusion in a group of popular students, no chance of having to be alone on my team as the “Jesus lover” or the object of scorn in my office, or no possibility of being the one who does not get the large-paying project on a contract because of my Christian ethical stance, etc…? Then tell me to confess my last failure to God, a spiritual mentor, a close Christian friend, and my small group, and to ask the latter three for prayer, wisdom, and loving inquiry into my faithfulness to stand for Christ going forward. Challenge me to pray for grace to be bold and courageous at the next temptation to deny Christ, and to visualize Jesus being beaten if I start moving toward the comfortable option(s) rather than the humiliating choice(s). Now you are telling me what to do in light of this passage. Or ask me how I felt the last time I acted as one ashamed of Jesus. Ask me if I want to wear those feelings again and again even as I watch people in need of Christ stand in jeopardy of his wrath (cf. John 3:36; Eph. 2:3). Ask me what feeling I would rather have (i.e., a sense of Jesus’ approval with my choice to follow him closely even if I will be beaten). Tell me that a way to ensure I have Jesus’ approval is to reply to a scoffer, “I gladly identify a myself as a Christian because I do believe Christ is the only Savior of the World.” Now remind me that all faithfulness is wholly of the grace of God.
Here is an outline of my very brief analysis of the structure and meaning of Luke 22:54-65:
Plot Goal, Conflict, and Resolution
Plot Goal
For Peter to move closer to Jesus in his arrest so as to be identified with him,
Plot Conflict
in conflict with Peter’s three-times denial of Christ –
Plot Resolution
is resolved as Peter weeps at the remembrance of the saying of Christ, and the guards are allowed to beat and blaspheme Jesus.
Full Plot Statement
The Plot of Luke 22:54-65 is for Peter to move closer to Jesus in his arrest so as to be identified with him in conflict with Peter’s three-time denial of being a follower of Christ is resolved as Peter weeps at the remembrance of the saying of Christ, and the guards are allowed to beat and blaspheme Jesus.
Meaning of 22:54 (Pre-Denial)
Subject: Peter’s denial of being a disciple of Christ
Complement: begins by following Jesus at a distance (rather than going with him into the house [i.e. the place of suffering]) and sitting with others in the courtyard at the fire. (Note: There might be a Psalm 1 echo here.)
Meaning of 22:55-57 (Denial 1)
Subject: Peter’s denial of being a disciple of Christ
Complement: continues as a servant girl rightly and closely identifies him with Jesus and he chooses denounce Jesus (in order to avoid either a) leaving the warmth of the fire, b) causing others at the fire to attack him or reveal him to the authorities in the house, or c) having to go into the house). (Note: The servant girl gave Peter an open door to speak of Christ when she identified him, but he used the opportunity to deny Christ rather than proclaim him. The next two persons who identify Peter give him those same opportunities. This thought also could contribute to further applications of this passage.)
Meaning of 22:58-60a (Denial 2)
Subject: Peter’s denial of being a disciple of Christ
Complement: continues as a man near the fire identifies him with Jesus and Peter chooses to denounce Jesus.
Meaning of 22:60b-62 (Denial 3)
Subject: Peter’s forceful denial of being a disciple of Christ
Complement: continues as another identifies him with Jesus with certainty based on his Galilean background and Peter chooses to denounce Jesus, and results in personal sorrow when Peter is confronted with his sinfulness by the Lord.
Meaning of 22:63-65
Subject: The guards’ mocking and beating of Jesus
Complement: follows Peter’s denial of being a disciple of Christ and weeping departure.
Meaning of Luke 22:54-65
Subject: Peter’s increasing denial of being a disciple of Christ in the courtyard,
Complement: despite being identified as a disciple with certainty, suffers defeat for Peter at the words of Christ, and suffers beating for Jesus at the hands of the guards.
The Application of the Meaning of Luke 22:54-65 (with the steps from “Meaning” to “Application” being skipped here):
A disciple’s rejection of being associated with Jesus for need of personal comfort harms both the disciple and the Gospel.
Historical Note
This is the Thursday immediately before Good Friday (22:66; 23:26).
15 Thursday Mar 2018
Posted in A Matter of Meaning, Interpretation, Theology of Media
I am grateful to Melanie Cogdill and CRI for posting “The Church without Claws? A Figurative Reading of the Film Black Panther.”
Lisa Robinson and Esau McCaulley previously made significant contributions to Gospel-thinking on the Black Panther movie.
15 Monday Feb 2016
I enjoy reading Peter Leithart on exegesis and hermeneutics, even though I often find slight disagreement with his readings. His writing is most lucid, and his thinking about passages of Scripture often challenges me to ponder deeper the assumptions I bring to the interpretive table.
At last year’s Center for Pastor Theologians conference, I remember Leithart speaking on Revelation 17 and saying that we cannot start with grammatical-historical analysis when approaching Scripture because of the unity of Scripture—that the Author knew the end from the beginning. He went on to say that the “fragmented Bible” is not the Bible of the church, and that we need to learn again to read the Bible as one book.
I am not ready to jettison grammatical-historical analysis as the third step – after prayer, and multiple readings of the text – in approaching Scripture—no more than I am ready to abandon it in reading Leithart, such that I understand by his words that he means we should read all Scripture in light of the whole story of Scripture, and that he does not mean that I should throw away my BHS, NA 28, or UBS 5. If I get rid of grammatical-historical analysis, “fragmented Bible” might become a Bible with missing books or pages rather than a way of speaking of atomistic reading or reading without Biblical Theology lenses.
I am developing a presentation on the relationship between Augustine’s Christology, his hermeneutics, and three of his tractates in John 16 and 19. The related research has led me into the figurative readings of Augustine and the fathers—readings similar to Leithart’s. I am gaining a greater appreciation of what Leithart is attempting to do in exegesis – so much so that I found myself attempting a Leithartian reading of Ex. 24:15 (the subject of another paper on which I am working).
The LXX of Ex. 24:13 reads, καὶ ἀναστὰς Μωυσῆς καὶ Ἰησοῦς ὁ παρεστηκὼς αὐτῷ ἀνέβησαν εἰς τὸ ὄρος τοῦ θεοῦ – “And arising, Moses and Joshua, his assistant, went up into the mountain of God” (or, the ESV – “So Moses rose with his assistant Joshua, and Moses went up into the mountain of God”). Similarly, two verses later, the ESV reads, “Then Moses went up on the mountain, and the cloud covered the mountain.” The ESV is reflective of the Hebrew text. However, the LXX reads, καὶ ἀνέβη Μωυσῆς καὶ Ἰησοῦς εἰς τὸ ὄρος, καὶ ἐκάλυψεν ἡ νεφέλη τὸ ὄρος – “And Moses and Joshua went up the mountain, and the cloud covered the mountain.”
I think the Spirit was doing something through the LXX writer/editor at this point so that the first century believers, reading the LXX of Ex. 24:15, would say, “And Moses and Jesus went up the mountain.” I also think their reading would be right.
Recommended Resource: Peter Leithart, Deep Exegesis (Baylor).
23 Friday May 2014
I just finished Jonathan Pennington’s, Reading the Gospels Wisely, (currently a steal at only $4.99 in the Kindle edition). I highly recommend this text for gaining a greater appreciation of the role the Gospels should play in one’s reading of the entirety of the canon. Pennington and I differ on our hermeneutical approaches to reading texts, but as a whole, his thesis is outstanding.
I was struck by one of the word pictures at the end of the book he uses to highlight the significance the Gospels should play in our corporate worship:
“A rediscovery of the central role of the Gospels in the church will affect our worship services and preaching…. [M]ost liturgical traditions maintain a special regard for readings and expositions from the Gospels…. But in general, the Gospels have tended to play a lesser role in much of American evangelicalism. There ‘the gospel’ has often been boiled down to ‘justification by faith,’ which is then fed to people in moralism-dusted bouillon cubes on a pilaf of pietism. If indeed the Gospels are significant in the ways I have argued in this chapter, this approach will not do if the church is to thrive. Both in our worship-service Scripture readings and in the content of our preaching, the Gospels themselves must play the dominant role. And when the Gospels are read and preached, they must not be used merely as springboards to other doctrinal ideas. Rather, honoring the narrative form of the Gospels, we must enter into the power and tension of the story and apply this to the lives of believers by focusing on the final Word, Jesus the Christ.”
Jonathan T. Pennington, Reading the Gospels Wisely: A Narrative and Theological Introduction (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 2012): 256; emphasis mine.
Think about the word picture. Endeavor to eat something vastly different. Get a copy of Pennington’s work.
_______________________
Related Resource: P. T. Smuts, Mark by the Book: A New Multidirectional Method for Understanding the Synoptic Gospels (P&R); I reviewed here.
14 Thursday Mar 2013
Christianity.com recently posted my article, “Gospel Departures,” based on Acts 20:1-12. The article is 700-900 words of an almost 5000-word sermon; each of the points is edited greatly. I could not include the third point of the sermon in the article. Many thanks to christianity.com for their kindness.
_______________________
So often, it is the case that when church leaders make moves from one ministry to another, they leave the way people vacate foreclosed home. Hearts are yanked out. Relationships are fractured. Huge informational and resource holes are left behind.
Sometimes, this kind of destruction seems almost intentional—as if the ministry leader had a singe of vengeance coming off his clothes. It is astounding that some who are in “gospel ministry” never seem to think of leaving in a positive way so that a grace-filled, gospel ministry is set up to prosper long after their departure.
Departures from the local church—God’s house—ought to be gospel departures. Acts 20 illustrates this very different approach to departing. Paul’s example is instructive for church leaders, who—if they must leave because of God’s clear calling—ought to leave in such a way that will make the ministry enjoyable for people being left behind as well as for those who will eventually serve in their place.
1. Gospel Departures should be an encouraging fellowship and elude fighting (20:1-6).
Realizing that this might be his last time seeing all of the disciples he made on the three missionary journeys, Paul makes the gospel version of a farewell tour. He calls together the disciples, encourages them (v.1), then he departs. He does the same all over Macedonia, “speaking many words of encouragement” (v.2). Comforting, exhorting, or strengthening the believers was very important at this point. Paul’s was focused on building, making sure the churches he planted were growing, healthy, strong, and hopeful in Christ. In this way he could be assured that they would continue in the gospel.
When a plot from the Jews comes up, Paul changes his travel plans so as to avoid a conflict with the Jews. The hostility of his enemies is growing fiercer in the Acts narrative. They are ready to do away with Paul. But rather than taking them head on, Paul goes back to Macedonia. Why? At that point, it was more important to make sure the gospel was firmly established in the churches than to battle his enemies. His goal was to have the gospel advance further so that Europe could eventually be reached.
Paul also had traveling with him men whom he could encourage (20:4). Dawson Trotman, founder of the Navigators, was fond of saying that this was Paul’s discipleship group. Paul poured into them so that these places would have an ongoing vibrant work when he was in Rome. He took time to just enjoy the Feast of Unleavened Bread with the people at Philippi before continuing his journey.
One of the things I have noticed by shepherding many public school teachers is that when their time of retirement comes, they often avoid a departing celebration. Instead, they say to their co-workers, “No thanks. I just want to get my stuff and go.” After 35 or more years on the job, they have become disgusted or wearied by their experiences or changes to their schools. So if they simply can leave, someone else can pick up their duties and train those who follow.
In switching Gospel ministries, whether leaving to run another small group, or no longer playing a lead role in a youth ministry, we cannot simply leave. We must take time to encourage those in whom we have invested our time—not magnifying ourselves, but emphasizing the importance of Christ’s death and of our resurrection hope, of our assurance before God in judgment and of the Holy Spirit’s sufficiency to give power to continue the ministry without us.
2. Gospel Departures should make the last Sunday(s) about life and the Word of God rather than death and worry (20:7-12).
Luke is particular to indicate that this long episode took place in Troas on “the first day of the week” (v.7). On this Sunday, Paul spoke at extreme length because he intended to depart the next day. He reasons and dialogues, prolonging his speech until midnight in order to get in as much gospel truth as he could before departing.
In the room, as Paul is preaching even longer than I have ever preached, there is a boy named Eutychus who is being overcome by the heat and haze of the oil lamps and the length of Paul’s discussion. So this small boy sits in a window, maybe to get some fresh air, and falls out of the window two stories (what Greeks called the third story) to his death.
This seems anything but “fortunate,” which is the meaning of Eutychus’s name. This is the last time this group will see Paul, and now stuck in their memory will be the tragic death of a child! For most, this tragic death would have brought ministry to a standstill. But for Paul this was an opportunity to display the power of the gospel.
In the same prophetic manner that Elijah threw himself onto the widow’s dead son in First Kings 17, Paul runs down from the second floor, throws himself on the boy, put his arms around him and says, “Don’t be alarmed. He is alive!” (v.10). Paul shows the resurrection power of Christ by raising this boy back to life. Rather than people being alarmed or worried about the events, they were greatly comforted.
Paul then was able to share a fellowship meal with the people of Troas. He also continuedpreaching until daybreak—five or six more hours! He gave great exposition of “the faith once delivered” so that the people of Troas would be firm in what they had been taught and believed. His last Sunday’s focus was the Word of God.
Often, a going away event for an office employee can turn into a “roast” in which jests and pranks are meant to lighten the occasion of departure. While the business world is an appropriate place for roasting, such is not always the case with the church. For Paul, and for us, final words ought not be jokes or trivialities, but weighty, Christ-centered dialogue with clear explanation of the goal of God in the gospel. As the people of God, let us endeavor to make all our departures from the local church gospel departures.
Eric C. Redmond is Executive Pastoral Assistant and Bible Professor in Residence at New Canaan Baptist Church in Washington, DC. He blogs at “A Man from Issachar.” You can follow him on Twitter @EricCRedmond.
22 Tuesday Jan 2013
Posted in A Matter of Meaning, Interpretation
The kind people at christianity.com posted my article, “When Hope is Shipwrecked,” concerning Acts 27:39ff.
_____________________________________
What happens to a dream deferred?
Does it dry up like a raisin in the sun?
Or fester like a sore—and then run?
Does it stink like rotten meat?
Or crust and sugar over—like a syrupy sweet?
Maybe it just sags like a heavy load.
Or does it explode?
~ Langston Hughes, “A Dream Deferred”
Many answers to Langston Hughes’s questions came during the Civil Rights movement. When a dream was deferred there were protest marches on one hand, and the Blank Panther Party on the other. For some it meant sit-ins at lunch counters; for others it meant starting riots in Watts. The delayed dream of equally accessible educational, social, occupational, and economic opportunities shriveled up for many in the post Jim-Crow generation of African Americans. However, for some it exploded.
No one likes coming to the edge of a new day only to have someone put up a sign that says, “Don’t call us; we’ll call you.” When struggles have been insurmountable and a ray of sunshine finally breaks through, if something steals that sunshine, you can expect the downtrodden to do every desperate, hope-recovering thing – from occupying Wall St. to turning on one’s own fellow soldiers in war.
There is another course the believer can take when earthly expectations go up and down – when your hope shipwrecks. It is a course that goes right through Calvary.
Paul is headed toward Rome. He has death threats behind him in Jerusalem, a trial before Caesar ahead of him, and raging seas between the two cities. After fourteen days out at sea, being blown 470 miles off course, and not seeing the sun or stars for a very long time, many of the passengers on Paul’s ship have lost hope of seeing land again. The travelers probably would have written last notes to their families if there had been any chance the letters would have been found. Something changes, however, in the last episode of their journey: Land is sighted!
So the passengers do what people with a new last hope do—they throw everything into this hope: They cut their anchors and they hoist the mainsail to catch the wind. If another storm wind or current comes, they have no way of slowing or steering the ship. No matter! For,when hope issighted, we will make eager plans even without full information (Acts 27:39-40). This is the nature of unredeemed hope: we act immediately on it because there seem to be no other answers.
When one feels hopeless, it is easy to put hope in something new and shiny without any research, prayer, or seeking of wisdom. The default button asks, “Well, what else do you want me to do? Do you want me to keep suffering?”
Acting quickly on the first sign of new hope without getting all information often lies blind unnecessary cosmetic surgery, lost of virginity, committing adultery with an co-worker, or taking stupid peer-pressure dares. “This is my last opportunity for love, or for acceptance,” someone says. Yet it simply is the first sign of a new hope that one can see.
All goes well at sea until the travelers strike a reef—literally “the place of two seas,” or a place where a sandbar built up between two currents (41). The bow of the ship is stuck in such a manner that it cannot be lodged free. The currents behind the ship are so strong that the rear of the storm-battered ship actually is being broken up (41). There is potential for the prisoners to use the ship’s demise as an opportunity to escape.
The soldiers decide that it would be better to say the prisoners were killed than that they escaped. So they intend to kill all of them, because when hope is shipwrecked, we make panic plans to save our hides (27:41-42).
Think about typical panic responses—the “What else am I going to do now?” response:
· Now that my grandkids’ father (or mother) has walked out;
· Now that I spent all my money trying to start this business and I have nothing to show for it;
· Now that I can’t make the team because I am injured;
· Now that my court case is lost;
· Now that my insurance (or unemployment) has run out.
One of the great things about having one’s trust in Jesus is that he has given the Holy Spirit as another Comforter to guide believers and assure them of their true hope. Everything is not the end of the world for us.
Paul finds favor in the sight of his centurion guard. Because of Paul, the centurion saves the whole crew. He stops and thinks long enough to come up with a plan contrary to that of the men under his command. Thus the original hope of getting safely to landis salvaged it is because someone makes rescue plans that focus on the Gospel (27:43-44).
In the narrative Paul represents the Gospel servant. The centurion’s hope might not be in Christ, but his actions do save the one to whom Christ said, “you will preach the Gospel in Rome” in Acts 23:11.
The Gospel and the sovereignty of God are visibly tied together in this passage as in all of Scripture. The Gospel depends upon Joseph going to Egypt so that God can save his family, to which Joseph says, “you meant it for evil, but God meant it for good!” The Gospel depends upon the Jews killing the Holy and Righteous One according to the foreknowledge of God, and then God raising him from the dead (Acts 2:23). The Gospel getting to Rome rests upon God’s faithfulness to his word to Paul, including that not one life will be lost and that only the ship will be destroyed (Acts 27:22-24). God’s good hand in the lives of those who have trusted Christ provides all the hope one needs when it seems that earthly hopes have been shipwrecked.
Eric C. Redmond is Executive Pastoral Assistant and Bible Professor in Residence at New Canaan Baptist Church in Washington, DC. He blogs at “A Man from Issachar.”
28 Wednesday Nov 2012
Posted in A Matter of Meaning, Bibliotheca, Interpretation
Tags
Biblical Exposition, expository hermeneutics, Hermeneutics, Meaning and Intention, Sacred Hermeneutics
Dr. Elliott E. Johnson is Senior Professor of Bible Exposition at Dallas Theological Seminary. He has given a career of study to biblical and philosophical hermeneutics and Bible Exposition. He has been a member of his church since the mid-1960’s, and there he has given himself to more than 40 years of discipling men, and training teachers to understand the Scriptures and teach it to others. Over two decades ago he authored Expository Hermeneutics: An Introduction (Zondervan), in order to explain the workings of the art and science of interpretation. He graciously has agreed to an interview related to current discussion in hermeneutics. (I am posting the interview intermittently rather than in its entirety immediately. You can read Part 1 here. Part 3 of the interview will ask, “In what sense is the Old Testament ‘messianic?’”)
_____________________________
3. You still seem to make great use of the theory, method, and distinctions made by E. D. Hirsch in his seminal work, Validity in Interpretation – a text that is 45 years old. However, evangelical theories of interpretation seemed to have expanded upon or altogether abandoned Hirsch’s ideas. Do you think Hirsch’s ideas are as important today as they were in 1967?
The proposal of E. D. Hirsch remains an essential source for two reasons:
First, his consideration of interpretation has been molded by the goal of validation. Validation seeks to weigh the merit of a given interpretation in distinction from other disparate interpretations. Disparity involves more than merely difference in interpretations, but two interpretations that are mutually incompatible. But both cannot be true at the same time. This theory of validation is predicated on a view of how language communicates meaning.
This approach to a hermeneutical goal is compatible with the literal tradition. This goal is thus shared with the Reformation and its proposal to interpretation of the Bible. A literal handling of the text is probably correct as distinct from an allegorical interpretation. Literal follows the norms of historical and grammatical interpretation.
Hirsch’s approach shares this goal, but pursues the task in a more comprehensive fashion. It is also compatible with the approach of Anthony Scalia in his Originalist – Textualist interpretation of the Constitution of the United States of America.
The second reason Hirsch is a necessary source is his view on how language communicates meaning. His view is theory driven and has probably influenced the evangelical world least. Few are willing to consider the philosophical reasoning.
At the outset, let’s consider Hirsch’s contentions: “Verbal meaning is a willed type” (Validity, 51). In his explanation, “the determining and sharability of verbal meaning resides in its being a type. The particular type that it is resides in the author’s determining will.”
To follow Hirsch’s contention concerning language and verbal meaning, one must understand the philosophical theory of type/token distinction in viewing reality. That theory sees language and reality in “the contrast between category and a member of that category. An individual or token is said to exemplify a type: it possesses the property that characterizes that type. In philosophy, this distinction is often in linguistic expressions . . .(language) but it can be applied also to objects, properties, and states of affairs (reality).” This view of linguistic expressions in relation to reality matches the biblical account in which God spoke and creation came into existence.
A Theory of Meaning – What is verbal meaning?
Hirsch offered an answer with a fresh perspective. “Verbal meaning is a willed type.” It is willed because an author intended to communicate a message by what he says. This message is a type-meaning because his view of language usage is conceived in a type/token pattern. The written text formed from what the author has in mind, takes the shape of the token with all the particular meanings. At the same time, the author has in mind the message he wants to communicate. That is the type of meaning. That awareness of the type of meaning, either consciously or intuitively, guides the writing of the token expressing the sequence of meanings in the text.
As an example, I want to talk to you about an apple tree in my yard, which has produced large, juicy delicious apples for as long as I can remember. The message talks about “my tree.” That’s the subject of the type-meaning. It is shared with other language speakers and determines what I want to talk about. The type of message may be “my tree is special.” What makes that tree special is the type of what I want to say about the tree. That is the complement of the message which is also shared by the language written in the text and is determined by what in particular I write in the text. The type of message is the identity of what the author wants to communicate.
This model introduced by Hirsch of a type/token pattern of meaning which an author entertains as he communicates, has appeared in other considerations of verbal meaning.
G. B. Caird speaks of the cognitive use of language and identifies three roles of language that correspond to type of meaning.
First, a language type involves a classification of what an author means, that can be arranged in a taxonomy of related meanings. This taxonomy involves a comparison of language meanings both in level of generality and in relation of common types of meaning at the same level. So an apple tree is a type of tree or a tree is a type of plant life. At the same time, tree can be compared to and distinguished from a bush, a vegetable or a flower. All these are tokens of a type of plant life and express the types of the same level of meaning.
While the classification and comparison can occur with words in reference to subject matter, texts can be classified and compared as literary genre. While the taxonomy is not precise, yet the cognitive use of language in textual types is still helpful in interpretation. Literary genre involves different types of compositions, identified by the convention used to communicate (as narrative-history, epistles, or hymns, etc.) while all genre do not include the same cognitive usage, they all include some cognitive usage.
Second, a type-message also involves a generalization. This sense of type-meaning as message, functions as a working hypothesis by which the interpreter seeks to make sense of every meaning in the token. The written text as a token is an instance and example of the type of meaning communicated in a message. The message is inferred from the reading of the text in answer to two questions:
What is the author talking about? (The subject of the text.)
What does he say about the subject? (The complement of the text.)
These questions are answered from the reading of the text in the context of the historical occasion and the historical audience to whom the message is addressed.
I want to complete the illustration of the central point Hirsch made before we proceed. I want you to know about my special tree. The tree is a real token-reference in my yard. Examining that tree for yourself is not to get to know my verbal meaning. That examination is certainly one way to get to know about the tree, but it is not to get to know my verbal meaning about my tree. That involves reading my token-text which communicates that my tree is special, which is a type-meaning. That meaning is shared because we both use the language skills we have developed. That shared meaning is determined by the language used – a tree is a living plant with an elongated single stem. That type meaning tree is not all that I have in mind, but still it is what I have in mind as I speak.
Of course, I can say more about what makes my tree special – a description of the size and taste of the apples, a report of my memories from past years, or reflect upon the beauty of the foliage, etc. This is what makes my tree special. The statements are still communicating at the type level rather than somehow giving access to all that I have in mind. Now what you know comes closer to what I have in mind, but language can never give expression to all the meanings I have in mind. Language is an essential, but limited vehicle of communication.
“An expression is a linguistic type and can be used over and over (many manuscripts can be classified as essays), whereas token of a type can be produced once (one manuscript), though it may be reproduced (copied.” (The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, 818, 819)
Thus, this type/token view of reality can be applied both to the use of language (as Hirsch does) and to the world of reality about which language speaks.
In a philosophy of language, three questions about communication must be considered. Since the answers vary, each answer is based on a theory.
Thus, there are three levels of meaning to be considered in interpretation of a literary unit:
All three levels of meanings are studied in hermeneutics, but when identifying the verbal meaning of a text, it is the level of the author’s willed type meaning. The shape of the author’s meaning is the message he willed to communicate. It is both specific in terms of words developing the text, yet the meaning is exemplary of a willed-type meaning.
The second level of meaning is the literary-type meaning. In the Bible, this concerns revelation authored by God, literary genre, and historical occasion authored by the human writers. The interpreter reads the text at the third level of the words, but as he reads, he is asking himself what broader categories does the writer and God intend to frame the message.
A theory of reference – To what and to whom does the text refer?
Informative and cognitive types of language intend to refer directly to the world about which it speaks or thinks. Performative types of statements speak about an author or an audience also in a direct fashion. In either case, the statements refer directly to the author or refer to an audience addressed. Further, performative type of statements refer to the performance intended.
A theory of truth – Is this text true?
We will adhere to a correspondence theory of truth. Within that theory, an informative or a cognitive message is true when the author’s intent as expressed in the text to inform or to reason corresponds to reality. The level of correspondence is not an issue when considering truthfulness since only God has a complete knowledge of reality to which the text has reference.
On the other hand, a performative intent is true, if the author who spoke performs the action to which he committed himself in the text. This is a promise which is true when the author keeps his word. In the Bible, these promises ultimately refer to God and keeping his Word may take generations before they are finally realized.
The other type of performative statement is law. Laws are not true in the sense that they correspond to reality and false when they do not. Rather God’s laws correspond to what is righteous, just, and good (Rom. 7:13). When mankind’s response under the claim of the law fails to correspond to what the law demands, mankind is truly exposed to be a sinner. They rebel against what is righteous, just, and good.
So how does language communicate meaning? It doesn’t communicate the meaning somehow existing in the world of reality to which it refers. If the author were to say, “This is a comfortable chair,” the reader would not need to have sat in the chair or even seen the chair to know what he meant. Nor would the reader need to have in mind all that the author had in mind.
Rather, the meaning is shared at the willed-type level of the language. “This” means that the author has a particular chair in mind. It may be one chair in distinction to others, but unless the author says more, it can’t be known whether “this” is used in a comparative fashion.
“Is” is a word of identification, which has reference to a particular chair.
“Comfortable” describes an experience found when someone sits down. The particular way that it is comfortable is not known from the language. But the reader shares an understanding at a type level, knowing the vocabulary and having had experiences of comfort when being seated.
“Chair” is also know at a type level in distinction to other pieces of furniture. As a type, it is distinct from a table, a bench, a stool, or a sofa, etc. And thus what is shared is determinate at that level of type. It is not a table, etc.
Thus the language is used by an author to communicate his willed type meaning.
Third, Hirsch’s model of interpretation is necessary because it is compatible with other theories of verbal meaning. The study of literary genre recognizes the meaning at a type level known by conventions of composition. In addition, speech-act theory speaks of different ways or types of language usage. One of the conventions of literary genre is language usage.
Thus Hirsch’s theory of communication and interpretation is necessary because it naturally incorporates valuable theories. Hirsch’s theory thus provides a comprehensive theory by which other theories can be included or disregarded.
Fourth, perhaps the most helpful role of Hirsch’s theory for biblical interpreters is that can naturally incorporate both divine and human authorship. To disregard the divine author, the meaning understood as communicated can be distorted. This seems to be the case in radical critical studies.
Nicolas Wolterstorff (Divine Discourse: Philosophical Reflection on the Claim that God Speaks) demonstrates that a type/token medium of language suits a dual authorship. However, his view of dual authorship is different that B. B. Warfield’s view of inspiration and revelation. We will adopt Warfield’s view featuring the miracle of inspiration which results in a text that has both divine and human authorship.
Wolterstorff posits the thesis that God speaks by adopting a human composition and sharing the meaning expressed by the human author. On the other hand, adopting the Warfield model of inspiration, the divine and human authorship share the meaning of the text at the type level of meaning. This could explain a shared authorship of the text.
Then, the divine author has in mind and fully intends all the particular meanings of the textual sense and in reference to the world of reality. On the other hand, the human author has in mind enough to compose the text, but may not have in mind all that God intends. The meaning of the text is recognized at the type level and may by exegesis share the meaning at the token level. The progress of revelation may provide a basis for the exegesis of God’s fully intended meaning (Gal. 3:16).
