Artistry and Application in Luke 22:54-65: Applying Narrative Texts

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).

 

 

Advertisements

CRI Online Film Review: The Church without Claws? A Figurative Reading of the Film Black Panther

 

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.

My Attempt at a Leithartian Reading of Exodus 24:15

Tags

Figurative Exegesis, Peter Leithart, Typology of Moses and Joshua

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).

 

Eating Dry Bouillon or Reading the Gospels Wisely?

Tags

How to Read the Gospels, The Gospels and Biblical Theology

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.

Gospel Departures

Tags

Acts 20 sermon, Acts 20:1-12, Paul and Eutychus

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.

When Hope is Shipwrecked

Tags

Acts 27:39, Paul's Shipwreck

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.”

 

Authors, Texts, and Meanings: Hermeneutics Interview with Elliott E. Johnson, Part 2

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:

• The willed type of meaning
• The literary type meaning
• The text using words/grammar

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).

 

 

Authors, Texts, and Meanings: Hermeneutics Interview with Elliott E. Johnson, Part 1

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 will post the interview intermittently rather than in its entirety immediately.)

1. Dr. Johnson, thank you for taking time for this interview.  Explain where your love for hermeneutics and Bible exposition began.

I graduated from a program in engineering at Northwestern University with a sense of a call to ministry, but very little exposure to the Scripture.  In addition, I had grown up in a church denomination that was emotion driven, and in the years since its revivalistic beginnings, it had been in decline in spiritual fervor.  Was there any normative authority to maintain stability?  And this was combined with my own personal spiritual struggles.  Was there no one or nothing to help me?

At that point I began attending another church which impressed me with two characteristics:  living Biblical sermons and men and women who gave evidence in their lives of the presence of the Holy Spirit.  I began to grow as a Christian as I completed the program in engineering.  As I read the Bible on my own, more and more fresh ideas struck me in a small group Bible study.  Nonetheless, I had so many questions that weren’t yet answered.  As I arrived at graduation I came to two conclusions:

• I was called to some form of ministry, and
• I needed to learn the Bible

The next really big step came in the realization that I needed the combination of personal Bible study as well as study at the hands of others in classes or in commentaries.  The personal side of the study really exploded.  I suppose part of the influence came from the technical education.  Ideas like:

• It is more important to know how to find an answer than to have all the answers
• In order to grasp the meaning of a part of the design, that part must be seen as a component of the whole

These ideas and others directed my interest toward hermeneutics and exposition of biblical texts.  Hermeneutics considers the strategies for reaching valid conclusions about textual meanings.  While this study considers any text (general hermeneutics), more commonly the study is limited to biblical texts (sacred hermeneutics).  Yet it remains to ask, “And how does sacred hermeneutics differ from general hermeneutics?”

Exposition is the unfolding of the meanings of biblical texts, but the task is more completely accomplished when the component texts are recognized as parts of a whole text.  The metaphor of “unfolding” presents the image of a whole, a closed envelope that is opened portion by portion.  Then the whole is recognized as a combination of all the parts that have been unfolded.  At the outset, the whole was seen as a compact folded up whole.  Exposition is the unfolding.

These considerations grasped my imagination in the years that followed.  It has been an adventure that guided the development of my personal growth in Christ, as well as development of a ministry of Bible teaching.  If this is your calling, let’s talk about aspects of the journey along the road to becoming a bible expositor.

2. What do you mean by “meaning” and “exegesis” in the task of hermeneutics?

Two important terms need to be defined:  “meaning” and “exegesis.”

Meaning is the stuff hermeneutics is working with.  It is an abstract term and thus hard to get your mind around.  So here goes:  Meaning is what a person is conscious of or is in search of.  The Webster’s Third New International Dictionary defines the verb, to mean, and the noun, meaning.

The verb, mean, is to have in mind, as a purpose, intention;

Or, mean is to intend to convey, show, or indicate.

In both definitions, we use language.  Commonly language is used to think or to communicate.  Thus, hermeneutics limits the considerations to verbal meaning.

The noun, meaning, is related to the three basic components in verbal communication:  Author, Text, Interpretation.

The author defines verbal meaning; it is the thing one intends to convey by language.

The text determines and shares what is meant; it is the thing that is conveyed or signified by language—the purport.

The interpretation decodes the language to recognize what is meant; it is the sense in which something is understood.

So verbal meaning is what the author intended to communicate as he composed the text.

Exegesis is like exposition, but with a narrower focus.  Both terms refer to tasks of interpretation of a verbal text, and both terms refer to tasks of unfolding meanings which the author intended to communicate as he expressed it in the text.  The focus needs to be both in the particulars in the text and on the larger segments of literary composition as well as the text as a whole.  Exposition focuses on these larger segments while exegesis unfolds the component meanings of individual texts.  Such careful readings of texts are essential in biblical interpretation where individual statements of revelation are often critical to the message communicated.

 

When You Are Wronged – Psalm 26

Tags

Psalm 26, Turn the Other Cheek, Vindication

Today christianity.com posted my, “When You Are Wronged,” a brief look at Psalm 26. I am grateful for their ministry and graciousness toward me.

___________________________________________

Vindication is something we all desire, because injustices are committed toward us in this life. On a lesser scale it could be a simple spat between spouses in which the one accuses the other of moving an item, when the other has evidence of things being very different. On a larger scale it could be that family promises were not kept, or lies and cover-ups had the wrong person thrown out of school, found innocent a criminal who harmed your loved one, or cost you an unwarranted demotion at work.

In Psalm 26, one reads, “Vindicate Me, O Lord.” The word translated as “vindication” has judgmentat its core. David is praying, “Judge me, O Lord. Look at the wicked and me, see that I have lived a life of integrity and depended on you without wavering.” David’s prayer reveals three things:

1.      When you call for vindication, make sure integrity is your foundation (1-3).

The basis by which David cries for vindication makes no reference to the wrongdoing of anyone else. David starts (and he will end) in the mirror. “Lord, I have integrity; I am wholly dependent on you.”

The Hebrew terms behind “heart” and “mind” are words for “kidneys” and “heart.” In the Hebrew mind, the kidneys (or innards) were the organ driving us in the way we would describe the “heart” of emotions and motive, and the “heart” was more what we would describe as the place of thinking and will. David says in effect, “Look at my heart and mind with your all-penetrating eyes and see that I am whole and holy.”

Typically, when we pray for vindication, we act like children on the schoolyard who have been hurt and run to the teacher: “He hit me! Get him!” “She called me a bad name! Take her recess away! Do it in front of me so I can have the satisfaction of seeing her humbled!”

In that cry to the authority we want three things: Judgment that sets the scales right, vengeance against the enemy, and a public display that we are right. David wants a fourth thing: Judgment of the one requesting vindication. To make that call of vindication, you must know that you yourself are a person of integrity before God and not just correct in the current situation.

2.      When you claim your own justification, you should be prepared to meet strict standards of Divine evaluation (4-8).

David offers four areas of life for God to judge. First he offers truth (26:4). Men of falsehood (vanity) are not part of his company. Neither does he keep company with “hypocrites”—people who keep their activities covered so others cannot see what they are doing. David is saying that he keeps the 9^th Commandment’s prohibition against false witness.

Second, David offers righteousness (26:5). When evildoers gathered for their form of “worship” (for “assembly” is a cultic term related to worship), David had complete disdain for their dishonoring authority, murdering, adultery, and stealing. He keeps the 5^th-8^th and 10^th Commandments.

Third, David offers purity in worship (26:6). David thinks of integrity in terms of the 1^st through 4^thCommandments—those that deal with loving God with one’s whole heart, soul, strength, and mind. He understands that love for our neighbor flows from our love for God. You cannot be a person of integrity – wholeness before God, and not simply before men – if you treat everyone decently but do not acknowledge God’s standards for coming to God. No idolater or atheist could pray, “Vindicate me” to God and hope for anything short of his wrath for all eternity, for the judgment would reveal wickedness even in the motives of his service toward humanity.

Fourth, David offers himself as a devoted worshipper (26:8). David is a Sabbath-keeper who loves God! It is not the house of the Lord that David loves, but the resident of the house—God and his glory! “Measure me by this,” says David!

This poses a dilemma for all of us: Not one of us perfectly keeps the Commandments. We stand without hope of vindication before our enemies, because we cannot say, “Lord, get them but ignore me,” for this would not be just for a holy God.

What hope is there for we who need both vindication and the righteousness that God requires?

3.      When you cry out for separation, remember that it is the Lord’s grace that brings redemption (9-12).

God will sweep away the souls of sinners, including the bloodthirsty, who can be manipulated by bribes and have evil devices to carry out their schemes. They can threaten your life, but their own lives are at stake before the Almighty Judge and King.

David, even as one claiming to have absolute integrity, still knows that he will be found short and could be swept away into the torrents of eternal damnation. So he makes pleas to avoid the judgment of the wicked: “Redeem me and be gracious to me”

God is not under obligation to rescue David, and he ultimately cannot present his integrity as sufficient to avoid the wrath of a perfect God. So what is David’s hope? God, by your grace, redeem me! This is exactly what God does for us in Christ.

Christ comes in the perfect righteousness of God: Complete in truth, righteousness, purity in worship, and devotion in worship to God. God condemned Christ in place of our condemnation, crucifying him to his death on the Cross.

God offers us eternal life through Christ’s righteousness as the only one righteous enough to beat death, as demonstrated in his resurrection from the dead. God offers to redeem us by grace—a gift to us, not something we earn. We receive this gift by believing in Christ. When, therefore, we are in need of vindication, we keep trusting this same Christ.

Eric C. Redmond is Executive Pastoral Assistant and Bible Professor in Residence at New Canaan Baptist Church in Washington, DC. Follow him on Twitter @EricCRedmond

A Necessary Tweak of Greg’s Beale Thoughts on Exegesis of the Old Testament

Tags

Greg Beale on Interpretation of the Old Testament, Sensus Plenior

Recently WTSBOOKS interviewed Dr. Greg Beale in conjunction with the release of Beale’s Handbook on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. The interview asks Dr. Beale a few questions related to the interpretation of the text.

I appreciate Dr. Greg Beale’s grounding of interpretation in the inspiration of the words of the writers of Scripture. However, he conflates two ideas that should remain separate in order for us to interpret the text faithfully.

1.  Divine Inspiration – by which Beale means revelation, for he is speaking of the broadening of what the author and the Lord are saying through the speaker – and understanding the interpretation of what has been spoken are vastly different concepts. Even knowing that one is speaking, “Thus saith the Lord,” would not necessarily mean that the author would have known his words would go beyond the immediate historical context. One can see this if one appeals to a text like the death of the man of God in 1 Kings 13 rather than a more obviously prophetic passage like the construction of the Tabernacle Exodus 25. The passage on the man of God warned the generation reading 1 and 2 Kings of the authority of the word of the Lord even in the life of one called by God. One does not immediately think that this passage typifies Jesus always doing his Father’s will (cf. Jn. 8:28; 12:49; 14:10) and yet being brought to death by the word of the Lord (Jn. 17:4; cf. Isa. 53:10), does he? Yet with the Tabernacle passage, one has a textual clue that there is more to the instructions than simply earthly blueprints because there is a “pattern” involved (Ex 25:9, 40; cf. Heb. 8:5; 9:23; 10:1).

2.  “Context” for spoken words is different than for written words. That is, the words on a page are limited by all of the words around them. The additional, unexpressed mental thoughts of the author that were not communicated in the words do not matter to our task as exegetes, for as readers we have no access to them. We only have access to what is written on the page. If Beale, by intention, means more than “the author’s central idea in the narrow historical context and additional later revelation unknown but suspected by the author,” then I cannot know this, for this is all Beale’s words reveal to the readers of the interview. If he also means by intention, “the author’s effectual hope in the life of the believer and the purposes for which he wrote in response to a historical catalyst,” I cannot know this for it does not come through in the interview. It would be unfair (and illogical) to say that I missed Beale’s “central idea expressed in the text” because I missed Beale’s “effectual hope for the believer.” When E. D. Hirsch spoke of author’s intention, he meant “the author’s central idea in the narrow historical context as able to be discerned by willed verbal meaning and literary clues.” But Beale speaks of a different intention when he says “larger than even he understood,” for he is then speaking of “additional later revelation unknown but suspected on the basis of inspiration.” The two are not the same and should not be confused even though they both fly under a banner of “intention.”

3.  In his illustration of enjoying Bach, the listening student, when asked, “Does he like other composers like Vivaldi,” would have been correct to say, “I do not know, for Dr. Beale did not say anything about other composers, neither did he speak of enjoying classic compositions as a whole or of other composers while speaking of enjoying Bach.” The student has no clues in the context to indicate that Beale’s verbal meaning goes beyond “Bach” to “other composers.” No one could fault the student for not knowing Beale’s unexpressed idea(s).  However, imagine if the student were reading a paragraph by Dr. Beale that said, “Summer is great! I get uninterrupted time to enjoy my downloads of the Westminster Brass, London Symphony Orchestra, and Philadelphia Symphony Orchestra playing the great masters of history. Ah, there’s nothing I enjoy more in the summer than sitting on the patio, sipping lemonade, and listening to Bach. Listening to the grand symphonies of the Western musical canon rescues my mind from the torture of having to hear Carl Trueman play his rock music around the WTS campus.” Then if someone asked, “Does Dr. Beale also like Vivaldi, or only Bach,” the student could have said, “I suspect he does like Vivaldi, for he likes Bach and ‘the great masters.’” If Beale does not express his intention, it cannot be interpreted, even if it is in his head. He wants the intention in his head to be something that we access in the process of exegesis. However, we cannot because exegesis focuses on ideas expressed (which are limited by the words around them), not unexpressed mental ruminations (which could go on forever). The only ideas upon which we can do exegesis are those expressed by the words in the text, not unexpressed ideas. The resurrection of Christ in Psalm 16 is an expressed idea because “not see corruption” is something that could not refer to David (as Peter notes in Acts 2:29-31, of which Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. provides good exegesis). However, the equal access of Gentiles and Jews as fellow heirs in Christ is not an expressed idea in the Old Testament (Eph. 3:6). It cannot be gained by exegesis, even though it is the Lord’s express purpose (intention) throughout Old Testament Redemptive History to include the Gentiles in redemption with the Jews as one new man.

In the full interview, WTSBOOKS asks Beale,

You express your own position as situated “on the side of those who affirm that the NT uses the OT in line with the original contextual meaning.” (Handbook, p. 13). What do you mean when you speak of “original contextual meaning”? How does this differ—if at all—from strict adherence to a grammatical-historical approach?

If Beale’s answer to the interview questions means something other than, “One’s exegesis of the Old Testament text must factor in that – as the Old Testament authors understood – the spoken/written revelation, as divinely inspired, has thicker intentions that go beyond narrow historical context of the original speaking author, as illustrated by a modern example related to listening to ‘Bach,’” he did not adequately express that as his intended meaning so as to give us access to it.

It is not that intentions are “thicker” and need to be unpacked. Instead, the definitions of “intention” are many, and they need to be expressed. I would recommend Elliott E. Johnson’s Expository Hermeneutics for more on how the written paragraph is the smallest context of interpretation for willed verbal meaning in a text.