shanesaxon.org

Tag: biblicalstudies

  • Jesus the Great Philosopher by Jonathan Pennington

    Jesus, the Great Philosopher

    When you think of Jesus, what do you usually think of him as? Savior, Lord, prophet, king? These are all good answers, but in Jesus the Great Philosopher, Jonathan Pennington suggests a surprising alternative: philosopher. Pennington’s suggestion is not random, nor wishful thinking. Evidence from the early church suggests that it was common for early Christians to think of Jesus as a sage, and Christianity itself, as a whole-life philosophy that provided lasting and enduring answers to life’s biggest questions. He says, “Christianity is the true philosophy that through faith and the power of the Spirit enables people to see the world in a certain way and to live accordingly. It is the way to the truly Good Life” (7).

    Philosophy

    Pennington begins by describing the current philosophical situation in contrast with the ancient one. Today, what is commonly called philosophy, is what ancient thinkers referred to as “skills.” Doctorates in Philosophy today typically concern niche topics, but in ancient philosophy, thinkers reflected on the world and its structure to learn how to live in it. To live well in the world–to live virtuously–requires sustained philosophical reflection on the world.

    Though Pennington deeply admires the ancient philosophical traditions and uses them profitably to reflect on how to live in the world, his primary concern is to show that the Scripture and Jesus, himself, can only be understood well in light of these traditions.

    The Bible and Philosophy

    It’s often overlooked, but the Old Testament presents itself as ancient philosophy speaking into each of the four major philosophical areas. Metaphysics: It teaches that God is the sole creator of all that exists, that time is linear, and that the world is broken by sin and evil. Epistemology: Knowing is relational and to know is a way of coming to see the world in a particular way. Ethics: The biblical ethic is integrally related to the covenantal framework and promotes virtue: the “sensibilities, values, and habits” that a person ought to possess (47). Politics: Kingdom conduct is centered on the two great love commands that are necessary for human flourishing.

    Similarly, the teaching of the NT is philosophical. The gospels are written according to the standards of the ancient biography genre which was commonly used to commend a philosopher’s teaching and way of life. The gospels also cast Jesus using the techniques of ancient philosophy: aphorism, parable, and epitome.

    The same is seen in the rest of the NT. Metaphysics: Not only is all creation attributed to God, but Jesus is seen as the organizing and sustaining principle of creation. Epistemology: The NT contributes to our understanding by demonstrating that the only way to true knowledge of God is Jesus and his Holy Spirit. Ethics: The NT teaches an ethic that is fundamentally imitative rooted in God’s character and agentic, meaning that the person doing the actions matter. The only way to human flourishing, according to the NT, is pursuing a virtuous way of living.

    Emotions

    After Pennington establishes the necessity of philosophy and that the Bible self-consciously addresses philosophy, he focuses on two specific areas of philosophy that the Bible addresses that contribute to human flourishing. The first is our emotions.

    There are two primary views on emotions. Some people describe emotions as merely mental states, and others tend to describe emotions as merely physical states. These opposing approaches tend to result in differing methodologies for addressing the negative aspects of emotion. For instance, Plato taught that emotions ought to be restrained to preserve clear thinking. The Stoic school, however, taught that emotions could be trained to produce ataraxia (tranquility) and apatheia (emotional detachment). Aristotle improved upon the Stoics by showing that fortune also impacts flourishing.

    The Bible improves on each of these conceptions in a few ways. First, the God of the Bible is presented as emotional, and specifically, Jesus has emotions. So, emotional attachment is not commended. Instead, emotions should be trained and controlled, but not avoided. In fact, a key facet of the NT ethic is the command to educate our emotional life with the “knowledge and hope of God” (115). This occurs both positively (peace, patience, kindness, etc.) and negatively (Jesus consistently critiques the Pharisees for wrong emotions). Christians gather corporately to educate their emotions. And, individually we educate our emotions through reflection and prayer.

    Relationships

    The second issue in philosophy that Pennington considers is politeia. He does this under the heading of relationships because ultimately everything political is a matter of how relationships are ordered and structured.

    In the thought-world surrounding the NT, there was significant thought given to the importance of relationships. Two kinds of relationships tended to be elevated in importance. First, family relationships were seen as the fundamental building blocks of society. Second, Aristotle suggested that friendship was foundational to a virtuous society. This insight has been neglected in modern society.

    The entire message of the Bible can be fairly summarized as God’s entering into the world to reconcile and renew relationship between God and creation. The reconciliation of relationships starts with a family that becomes a society that establishes a kingdom. The kingdom is established by its king, God himself, which implies that every citizen should live in a certain way. Outwardly, the citizens of the kingdom, the church, “is an outward-directed, gracious political reality” (170). On an internal level, the citizens relate to each other according to “household codes” that promote flourishing within the household, marked not primarily by biological relationship, but on relationship to Jesus.

    Conclusion

    Pennington shows that ancient philosophers gave significant attention to topics like friendship, emotions and politics because they knew reflection on these topics was a path toward happiness. Today, everyone desires happiness, but the meaning derived from traditional sources like religion, home and country are disintegrating.

    Christianity, however, is a whole-life philosophy that is totally true because it is based in the revelation of Jesus. As the Scripture is examined, this claim is validated by its remarkably sophisticated portrait of the human desire and motivation for happiness, and the way that it provides hope for all those who are suffering. For the reader who has eyes to see, the Scripture demonstrates that, truly, Jesus is a philosopher worth following.

  • Notes on Come and See by Jonathan Pennington

    Three kinds of interpretation that are each mutually informing, but necessary. 

    1. Informational
    2. Theological
    3. Transformational

    Informational Reading: Understanding the words, sentences, stories and ideas of the Bible. 

    • Genre – Understanding the kind of book
    • Exegesis – Understanding the words themselves

    Theological Reading: Understanding how the ideas of Scripture can be grouped together into constructive suggestions

    • Canon – Putting individual pieces in the context of the book or books as a whole
    • Tradition – Reading with interpreters that came before 
    • Creed – Reading within the parameters of the church’s broadest faith statements

    Transformational Reading

    • Why: To love God and others
    • How: Habitually and Humbly
    • With Whom: The Holy Spirit enabling us

  • Five Views of Christ in the Old Testament ed by Gundry, et al.

    In one of the more intriguing and dramatic post-resurrection encounters, the gospel of Luke records Jesus meeting two disciples on the road to Emmaus. The disciples don’t recognize Jesus, and so they explain to him the incredible things that have happened in Jerusalem. Jesus, disappointed by their surprise, scolds them for failing to believe, and then beginning with Moses and the prophets, he “interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.”

    In Five Views of Christ in the Old Testament, in the Counterpoints. Bible and Theology series, five biblical scholars debate what Jesus must have said to Cleopas and his friend that day on the road to Emmaus. Did Jesus scold the disciples for failing to see the significance of OT passages and their relevance to his life and work (First Testament Approach)? Was he disappointed that they failed to see typological, messianic patterns in the OT (Redemption-Historical, Christological Approach)? Or, was he grieved by their failure to submit to the Spirit’s intent in the fuller sense of the OT (Christotelic Approach)?

    In other words, how does the Old Testament bear witness to Christ and are certain methods of interpretation more suitable to the task of revealing him? The answers to this question pertain not only to the nature of the biblical text, but also the nature of “reading” itself. So, each contributor articulated their view of the nature of Scripture, the steps interpreters must take to identify Christ’s relationship to the OT, and finally they illustrated their methodology in three test cases.

    • First Testament Approach – Goldingay: John Goldingay insists, emphatically, that Christ is not present in the Old Testament. For Goldingay, there is a sharp distinction between meaning and significance. Our priority as interpreters is to understand what the author intended the text to mean to the original audience (whether Goldingay means the original audience of the text as its been received canonically, or at some other stage in development he doesn’t say). What the text means is what we are attempting to discover as interpreters, but as Christians, we take that meaning and apply its significance to our lives. Through theological reflection and studying the meaning of the New Testament, there are ways that the significance of the Old Testament pertains to Christ, but nowhere is Christ present in the meaning of the OT. One of the essential difficulties with Goldingay’s position is the supposed difference between meaning and significance. As Dr. Pennington illustrates in Reading the Gospel Wisely, if two interpreters both read the command “thou shalt not steal,” but one thinks it applies to embezzling and the other to pick-pocketing have they missed the meaning or the significance? Furthermore, does the command to “not steal” mean that the original person that received this command shouldn’t steal? Or does it actually just mean that Moses received this command among nine other commands? Or does it mean that I, today, should not steal? Since words don’t merely mean, but they also do certain things attempting to rigidly distinguish significance from meaning only obscures the complexity of interpretation.
    • Christotelic Approach – Longman: Tremper Longman argues that the goal of the Old Testament is to reveal Christ. But, it would be naive to think that every Old Testament author fully understood God’s salvation-historical redemptive program as they were writing. Instead, interpreters should read the Old Testament according to each authors’ intent, and then read the Old Testament a second time in light of what we know about Jesus after the resurrection. The dynamic relationship between these two readings will reveal how Christ is present in the Old Testament, even if Christ is most clearly seen in the sensus plenior (fuller sense), of a particular text. Longman recognizes that biblical interpretation is more of an art than a science (86). But, he prioritize the historical-grammatical method in his view of interpretation. While undoubtedly, historical-grammatical tools of interpretation are necessary for any robust reading of a text, they are still a limited set of tools that will tend toward certain readings that prioritize historical and grammatical conclusions, rather than theological, literary, or anagogic. Also, as DeRouchie points out (113), Longman appears to suggest that a Christian can perform the “first reading” without knowledge of the resurrection and its impact on salvation history which seems just as naive as suggesting that an OT author could have written with the knowledge of the resurrection. So, while I appreciate that Longman recognizes the value of separate readings, his narrow focus on only two readings, and his prioritization of the historical-grammatical reading, limits the power of his methodology.
    • Reception-Centered Intertextual Approach – Dharamraj: Havilah Dharamraj advances the idea of a Common Reader, a term borrowed from linguistics, who has access to the public meaning (the corpus of meaning generated by a collection of texts) of the Old Testament and New Testament. From the public meaning, the Common Reader will select a Christocentric “icon” (a dominant theme) in an Old Testament text that relates to an “icon” in a New Testament text. Dharamraj then suggests that by reading these two texts in relationship with each other certain fruitful Christocentric aspects of the meaning of each text will arise. The advantage of Dharamraj’s approach is that it is open and conscious of the way that connections between texts generate meaning. All connections between texts highlight certain aspects of texts and minimize others. And, not all readers are aware of the ways that they are bringing their own preconceived notions about how texts relate to the interpretive process. The downside of Dharamraj’s approach is that it’s not a very good answer to the question of the book. Certainly, bringing disparate Old and New Testament texts together will be a fruitful way to uncover aspects of Christ’s presence in the Old Testament, but what interpretive tools does Dharamraj have to distinguish typology from predictive prophecy? Also, how does theological perspective influence the way the Common Reader groups texts, or should it? Certainly, awareness of the value of reception-centered intertextuality is essential for interpretation, but without theological conviction, it’s incomplete.
    • Redemption-historical, Christocentric Approach – Derouchie: – Jason DeRouchie argues that the unity that holds the Scripture together is God’s saving activity in the person of Jesus Christ. According to Derouchie, we should be attempting to read the Old Testament, today, with the same principles of interpretation as New Testament authors, and if we do, then we’ll discover how Old Testament authors intended for us to see Christ’s role in the Old Testament. Derouchie suggests that reading the Old Testament involves consideration of three contexts: the close context, the redemption-historical context, and the canonical content. He also advances seven principles for interpretation that will lead to seeing and celebrating Christ in the OT: predictive prophecy, redemptive-historical trajectories, continuities and discontinuities between covenants, typology, YHWH’s activity, ethical instruction that reflect’s Christ’s character, and the law of love. I appreciate the specificity of DeRouchie’s principles for seeing and celebrating Christ as he’s identified several clearly identifiable patterns in the OT that are literarily sensitive. In general, DeRouchie and interpreters of his ilk, tend to be more literarily sensitive than typical biblical interpreters who emphasize the role of authorial intent. DeRouchie’s principles rely on trajectories, themes, leitmotifs, and other literary qualities that often allude the grasp of more historically oriented scholars. On the other hand, as is typical of biblical scholars that emphasize typology and redemptive-historical trajectories, DeRouchie’s felt need to ground his interpretation in authorial intent leads to specious and motivated exegesis. For instance, DeRouchie argues that because Abraham is told to sacrifice Isaac as a “burnt offering” he must either be a sinner or substitute because of the stipulations of the law, and because Isaac isn’t presented as a sinner then he must be a vicarious substitute for the community. It’s also possible that “burnt offering” is being used here much more broadly, without the theological specificity added by the law code, and that DeRouchie is over-reading.
    • Premodern Approach – Craig Carter: Craig Carter summarizes premodern exegesis by identifying five ways that Christ was identified in the Old Testament: predictive prophecy, typology, the fourfold sense, Jesus’ recreation as the people of Israel, and prosopological exegesis. According to Carter, modern readers fundamentally misstep, listening for what human authors are saying in the biblical text rather than God who is the primary author of Scripture. In fact, God’s authorship of Scripture is the theological presupposition that should supplant the modern fixation with method. From this foundation, Carter provides four principles for reading: the Scripture is a unity; the literal meaning is the priority; the spiritual sense is real; and, there is a Christological control on meaning. Carter admits that Dharamraj is right that what he articulates isn’t a method (290): Carter suggest that de-centering method is a feature, not a bug, of premodern interpretation. But, attempting to interpret without method seems just as naive as suggesting that OT authors were aware of how their words would be fulfilled by Christ. Also, it’s hard to imagine that any premodern reader would be able to identify their own reading habits in Carter’s depiction which has been heavily shaped by modern and postmodern categories. On the other hand, he’s rightly suspicious of two modern tendencies: ignoring the role of theology in interpretation and assumed methodological naturalism.

    I found helpful aspects in almost all of the approaches. But, I was also frustrated while I read the book. Why should we assume that one particular approach to the Old Testament will be more or less correct than any other methodology? Especially, as Longman says, if biblical interpretation is more of an art than a science, than should we be articulating principles of interpretation? Or would it be better to develop dispositions, attitudes, techniques, perspectives, and habits of interpretation? Did the travelers on the road to Emmaus need lessons on biblical interpretation or did they need to have the eyes of their hearts opened to Jesus (Matthew 13)?

    For these reasons, my response to this book is that it helped me to think more critically about the methods and methodologies that I appreciate and use, and it motivates me to continue thinking harder about how to talk about the instincts and intuitions that drive my use of the Biblical text. Below are a list of principles, in no particular order, that I’d offer to answer the question: how do I find Christ in the OT?

    • The Old Testament is Christian Scripture meaning it’s God’s authoritative and binding words to me, and meaning that it does things that no other book can do like revealing the almighty God in Christ.
    • No interpreter can or should read the Old Testament Scripture without theological convictions so they must be examined and utilized while reading.
    • Meaning is generated by context, so interpreters must consider context as broadly and deeply as possible.
    • Close and careful reading honors the text because these are the primary disciplines that prevent a reader from exerting himself arbitrarily onto a text.
    • Biblical texts reward re-reading, especially re-reading in light of new and helpful questions.
    • Reading well requires mentorship, and mentors, because the aptitudes and attitudes of a good reader usually cannot be acquired in a depersonalized manner.
    • There is no virtue in rejecting methodology just as there is no virtue in privileging one methodology over another. The best readings arise from multiple, densely overlapping, and rich methodologies.