Stanley E. Porter and Beth Stovell, ed. Biblical Hermeneutics: Five Views. Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Academic, 2012.
I would like to thank Intervarsity Press for my review copy of this book.
As the title indicates, this view contains five views on biblical
hermeneutics, which pertains to how one should interpret the Bible.
Craig L. Blomberg defends a Historical-Critical/Grammatical approach,
which seeks to understand what the authors of biblical documents were
saying to their audience within their original historical context. F.
Scott Spencer advocates for a Literary/Postmodern view, one that looks
more at the final form of the text rather than the stages preceding the
text’s final form. This approach highlights such issues as the
portrayal of characters, plot, and the ways that a certain biblical text
could be read in dialogue with another biblical text. Merold
Westphal’s contribution to the book is an explanation of his
Philosophical/Theological view. Westphal discusses how we all have
different perspectives when reading a text, and he also stresses the
importance of uncovering, not just what the biblical texts meant within
their original historical contexts, but what they mean today. Echoing
Nicholas Wolterstorff, Westphal contends that God can use the biblical
texts to instruct the church, even if that instruction may depart from
the texts’ original meaning. Richard B. Gaffin, Jr. presents a
Redemptive/Historical View, which affirms that the entire Bible is about
redemption through Christ. And Robert W. Wall explains his Canonical
View, which highlights the importance of Christian community in
interpreting and applying biblical texts, while also stressing the
significance of the canon. Wall sees significance in the order of the
New Testament books, for example, and he believes that this, not only
the texts’ original meaning, can instruct Christians.
With the exception of Merold Westphal, these contributors employ
their approach to interpret Matthew 2:7-15, which contains a story about
Herod and the Magi, as well as Matthew’s seemingly odd interpretation
of Hosea 11:1. Matthew applies a passage about Israel’s Exodus from
Egypt to the child Jesus’ departure from Egypt after Mary and Joseph
took him there to escape from King Herod’s wrath. Craig L. Blomberg,
using his Historical-Critical/Grammatical method, states that Mary and
Joseph most likely fled to a Diaspora Jewish community in Egypt.
Blomberg also sees typology in Matthew’s use of Hosea 11:1: that, just
as Israel’s departure from Egypt preceded the Old Covenant at Mount
Sinai, so does Jesus’ departure from Egypt precede the New Covenant. F.
Scott Spencer, using his Literary/Postmodern approach, reads Matthew’s
story alongside the Exodus, noting that, whereas in the Exodus the
Israelites were leaving an oppressive regime in Egypt to go to Israel,
in Matthew 2 two Israelites are fleeing to Egypt to escape from an
oppressive ruler in Israel. Spencer also makes fun of the Magis’
supposed wisdom, contending that they should not have been so quick to
trust King Herod, since they should have known that Herod would have
opposed any new Messiah as a competitor for his throne. Spencer later
in the book says that Christians can critically dialogue with this
aspect of the plot to ask themselves to what extent their own devotion
to Jesus “resists and/or reinforces the powers that exist in our world”
(page 159). Richard B. Gaffin, Jr. attempts to argue that Matthew’s
interpretation of Hosea 11:1 is consistent with Hosea 11:1′s original
meaning, since the Book of Hosea was about Israel’s departure from
exile, to which Jesus’ Messiahship would be pertinent. And Robert W.
Wall uses typology to explain Matthew’s interpretation of Hosea 11:1,
contending that Jesus in Matthew was a liberator from sin, as the Exodus
was a liberation of the ancient Israelites from bondage. Wall also
addresses the possible significance of the Gospel of Matthew coming
before Mark’s Gospel, saying that Matthew connects the New Testament
with the Old Testament’s story and hopes.
On some level, there is overlap among the five approaches. Blomberg
seems to use a literary approach in his explanation of Matthew’s use of
Hosea 11:1. Spencer’s literary/postmodern method does not dismiss the
importance of authorial intent, plus Spencer’s interpretations of
Matthew 2:7-15 are arguably relevant to the history of first century
Palestine. And Westphal, Gaffin, and Wall do not say that the history
behind the text or the text’s original meaning is unimportant. One
might think that we do not have to choose just one approach to
interpreting the Bible, for all complement each other and yield valuable
insights.
It is in the second part of the book that the fissures among the
approaches are more apparent, however. In this part, the contributors
respond to one another. Blomberg questions Spencer’s claim that Matthew
and Hosea are in dialogue, saying that, while Matthew may be
interpreting Hosea, Hosea is not engaging in any dialogue with Matthew,
for the Book of Hosea and its concerns preceded the Gospel of Matthew
chronologically. Blomberg also disagrees with Wall’s implication that
the shape of the canon is somehow authoritative for Christians,
contending that we should look at each biblical book in itself (rather
than its place in the canon) to see what it means for Christians
authoritatively. Spencer highlights the limitations of the
historical-critical method, and Westphal questions whether Blomberg’s
Historical-Critical/Grammatical approach sufficiently demonstrates how
the biblical writings can be applied to Christians today, not just to
their original historical settings. Gaffin criticizes many
historical-critical approaches to the biblical texts because he believes
that they privilege human reasoning above God, and he disagrees with
Wall’s canonical approach because he thinks that it exalts the church’s
canon above Scripture itself.
A prominent concern in this book is how we can interpret the biblical
text without allowing it to mean anything we desire. Are there any
boundaries or limitations that should guide our interpretation of
biblical texts? Blomberg seems to think that we should stick with the
historical-critical method (or at least prioritize it) because otherwise
we have anarchy. Spencer tries to argue that the text itself can set
limits on what our interpretations can be. Unfortunately, while
Westphal makes interesting points about how something said to one group
may mean something different to another group, he did not appear to
offer firm criteria for how Christians are to apply the biblical
writings beyond their original contexts. And Wall emphasized the
importance of Christian community, but communities can interpret the
Bible in damaging ways, so I think that there should be standards of
biblical interpretation to which communities are subject.
In terms of my own impressions, I tend to side with Blomberg’s
approach, for I believe in trying to read the writings of the Hebrew
Bible on their own terms, rather than in light of later Christian
beliefs. I am not sure if I would go so far as to say that we’re in
complete interpretive anarchy if we depart from looking for the text’s
original, historical meaning, for I agree with Spencer that the text
itself can set limits, and that we can get useful things out of the
text, even if we are not entirely able to recover everything that the
author originally meant. And yet, I sympathize with Blomberg’s approach
because I am tired of how a number of conservative Christians act as if
their Westernized, Christocentric ways of reading the Hebrew Bible are
so obvious and authoritative. Do I believe that there is a way to be
faithful to the biblical writings’ historical, contextual meanings,
while also allowing the biblical writings to speak to subsequent
contexts, even to us today? That is a challenging question, but I do
not think that it is impossible to get insight, application, and
relevance from texts speaking to a different historical contexts. There
are some overlaps between people now and people then, and we can be
inspired by the moral deeds of people in the past, or we can learn from
their misdeeds.
While my sympathy is largely with Blomberg, I tend to believe that it
would make more sense for evangelicals to hold Gaffin’s
Redemptive/Historical view, since that presents the Bible as having a
unified Christian message, and also there are passages in the New
Testament about people in Old Testament times knowing something about
God’s plan. As Blomberg astutely notes in his response to Gaffin,
however, we are never told in the New Testament what or how much the Old
Testament figures knew about the coming Christ, nor are we told in the
New Testament that all of the Old Testament writings were about Christ.
I have to admit, though, that Spencer’s contribution to this book was
definitely my favorite. He showed how people can read the Bible in
rich ways. Spencer also seemed to be saying that the Gospel of Matthew
has political implications, that it is not just about Jesus rescuing
people from sin, but that it relates to societal issues as well.
Overall, I wish that all of the contributors went into more detail about
this particular topic. Gaffin, for example, argued that Matthew was
echoing Hosea’s theme of Israel being liberated from exile, but I wish
that he had gone into more detail about what liberation from exile meant
for Matthew.
Good book!