Critique of Vanhoozer's Hermeneutic

I have been wandering around Vanhoozer's Is There a Meaning in This Text? I found many of his presentations of postmodern and late modern philosophers helpful in the first half. But his "solutions" are, in my opinion, wishful thinking.

1. I would identify the book's fundamental rationale and hypothesis something like the following:

a. Alvin Plantinga says Christian philosophers need to get on with their own agendas (in other words, who cares what the philosophers of the first half of this book think, I'm going to ignore them and just tell you what I think), p. 199.

b. So here's what I (Vanhoozer) think: God designed words for communication between people, so you've got to listen to what a speaker is saying (esp. 205-206). Therefore, a Christian has to link the meaning of a text to the meaning the author intended.

Or as I would put it, you can't ignore the original meaning because, well, you just can't.

Thank you Vanhoozer for giving us yet another example of modernist evangelicals showing that they can swim in the waters of people doing deep thinking, well summarize and analyze what those others think only then to given the conclusion you started with in as sophisticated language as possible. ..more of the cop-out artistry I've come to expect from modernist evangelical scholars. 467 pages of rough sledding summarized in a circular argument.

2. Vanhoozer and sensus plenior
Here's the real rub: the New Testament authors often couldn't have cared less about the original meaning. This deconstructs Vanhoozer's fundamental claim. When we find the original meaning of Scripture, we find that the original meaning was not the emphasis of the biblical authors. At times they ignored it when they must certainly have known it. At other times their operative paradigms probably led them not to be aware of what the original meaning actually was.

On the one hand, Vanhoozer: "The divine intention does not contravene the intention of the human author but rather supervenes on it" (265). "[T]he Spirit is tied to the written Word as significance is tied to meaning... the role of the Spirit is to serve as the Spirit of significance and thus to apply meaning, not to change it" (265). In other words, the Holy Spirit is not allowed to make the words mean anything contrary to their original meaning (boy, I hope the Holy Spirit is reading all this so He doesn't disobey!)

So how close is Paul to the original meaning of the Hagar-Ishmael passages when he makes Hagar symbolize the literal Jerusalem on earth and Sarah symbolize the heavenly one (Gal. 4)? How close is Matthew to the original meaning of any passage when he sees Jesus growing up in the city of Nazareth as a fulfillment of more than one set of words in the Old Testament that had nothing to do with such a (at that time) non-existent village (Matt. 2:23). He seems to be building off of the similarity between the Hebrew word branch (nezer) in Isaiah 11:1 (which has nothing to do with a city). I think he is also playing of the words of the prophecy about Samson ("he will be called a Nazirite"), but this has nothing to do with Jesus, since he was not a Nazirite, as Samson was and it still has nothing to do with a village. In short, you could only see the fulfillment in Matthew 2:23 as highly interested in the original meaning of these if you, well, just have to and refuse actually to listen to the text itself.

Modernist evangelicals at this point apparently just have to, because ultimately it isn't really the text that's important to them but their idea of the text. And they will feel free (subconsciously) to twist the meaning of the text and shove their presuppositions down its throat to make sure their paradigm works. The best modernist evangelical cop-out I've heard on this one is relayed by Ben Witherington, maybe the village of Nazareth was founded by descendents of David who looked to the future coming of the "Branch," the Messiah. Ingenious! No one ever should accuse such modernist evangelicals of stupidity. Au contraire. The only way to prop up such a failed paradigm is to be a genius.

An example of a biblical author probably not knowing he is reading out of context but doing so paradigmatically is perhaps Matthew 2:23: "a virgin will conceive and bear a son." Matthew's paradigm may have led him to think this verse was literally in its first sense in reference to Jesus. But in the original context of Isaiah, this was a sign to Ahaz in the eighth century BC. If the sign didn't come until 700 years after, it wasn't much of a sign to Ahaz. It must originally have referred to (I think) an heir to the throne, probably a child of Ahaz (perhaps Hezekiah). With this example, Vanhoozer might argue for some supervening meaning, a somewhat allegorical one.

3. "The context that yields this maximal sense is the canon, taken as a unified communcations act" (265). But Vanhoozer's token canonical suggestion will fail just as Childs' did. Even the text of Scripture as a whole will need to be informed by later church history to take on a truly canonical, Christian sense. The canon is a product of the church and the properly canonical sense of Scripture must take into account the definitions, prioritizations, and significations of the consensus ecclesiae to get Vanhoozer where he is really trying to go.

Dialog?

Check out the Real Meal blog

My main blog is at Real Meal ministries. I post at least twice a week about a variety of topics centered on the Bible.

The Dating of Colossians

Anyone with a photographic memory with occasional interaction with me will remember that I have been flirting this last year with a dating of Colossians to a supposed imprisonment of Paul at Ephesus.

It occurred to me today why this is very unlikely. Colossians 1:23 proclaims that the gospel has been preached to every creature under heaven. Paul would not likely have said this until he reached Rome. Further, since Colossae was probably destroyed by an earthquake around 61, we seem to have a very narrow window for dating the book if we take Paul truly to be its author, since Paul would scarcely have reached Rome before 61.

Faith to Move Mountains?

Matthew 17:14-23 recounts the story of Jesus healing a boy with a Demon. The disciples try to cast the deomon out and can't, then they bring him to Jesus, he rebukes the demon, which comes out and the boy is healed.

The disciples then ask: "Why couldn't we drive it out?"

Jesus tells them it's because they have so little faith. "I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you."

Questions:

1) Jesus told his Disciples they didn’t have enough faith. What changed in your opinion between this story and the stories of Acts, where they apparently had the faith to do these things?

2) Is there a similar transition that is necessary in believers today that is not happening enough?

3) Jesus talked to inanimate objects--telling fevers to leave and fig trees to whiter... should we be talking to inanimate objects today as Christ-followers – or is that just for crazy people and TV preachers?

4) If Jesus was, in your opinion, doing things we are not to do, then what do you make of his frustration about the disciples lack of faith and his commands to do likewise?

5) If Jesus was, in your opinion, doing things we should do and even greater—then how should we go about it?

Toward a Missiological Reading of the Bible

In his book Unstoppable Force, Erwin McManus advocates a missiological reading of Scripture over against a mere theological reading. He writes:

A theological construct for interpretation finds success in the attainment of knowledge. The more you know, the more mature a Christian you are thought to be. And yet knowledge of the Bible does not guarantee application of the Bible. To know is not necessarily to do. When the construct applied to the Bible is missiological, you engage the Bible to discover the response required of your life. (p. 72)

McManus is definitely on to a strange phenomenon in our churches. We want to be entertained; we want to learn facts about the Bible; we want the preacher or teacher to feed us. But I wonder if we ever stop and ask ourselves, “What is it that the Bible wants to do to us?”

The title of this essay uses the word “missiological.” This is a word used primarily in the academic study of World Mission. Such a reading of the Bible typically involves highlighting biblical passages such as the Great Commission that explicitly focus on World Mission. I, however, want to borrow the word “missiological” and apply it in a more theological sense to an overarching approach to the Scriptures as a whole. I want to suggest that the aim of the Bible is to convert its hearers/readers to a new life in which God is honored and the good news is shared with the world. The biblical narrative thus is not merely about revealing facts about God and the ancient world, but about transforming and shaping a people who will impact the present and future. I am growing increasingly convinced that the future of the 21st century Church turns on its ability to rediscover its missional focus. If we want to reshape the Church from its current institutional morass into a missional movement, we need to elevate our use of the Bible from being merely a source of religious information into an invitation to a transformed life in which we embody God’s true purposes for our creation and existence.

Assumptions of a “missiological” Reading of Scripture

1) Christians need to be converted to this perspective. This necessitates a return to hearing the text as an invitation to a transforming community that exists for the sake of the world. This means that teaching and preaching in our churches can no longer focus on “self-help” topics such as “Ten Ways to Be a Better Parent,” “Four Ways to Achieve Success” or simple “moralizing” such as “Being Nice to Others.” I am convinced that we have raised entire generations in our churches who have never truly heard a biblical message on the Church as a Missional Community. We need to call Christians to a cause greater than their own piety or spiritual satisfaction.

2) The World remains vital. Too much of our God-talk focuses on heaven and securing our place there. Of course, the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ have opened up the future of God’s reign for all who believe. Yet, following Jesus Christ involves engaging the present world for Jesus Christ. This includes a passion for stewardship of the natural and animal kingdoms, working for justice and righteousness in society, and loving those around us in the name of Jesus Christ.

3) All people are lost. A missiological reading of the Bible takes seriously the biblical portrait of human sinfulness. We are not on some sentimental mission of justice to make nice people into even more well adjusted Christians. Instead we are on God’s mission to offer the good news of the possibility of true reconciliation and peace with our Creator. This is an invitation to a return to God’s original purposes in creating humanity in His Image.

4) The Old Testament focuses on God’s mission of preparing a missional community through whom all nations of the world will be blessed. Mission does not start with Jesus’ Great Commission in Mathew 28:16-20. It begins in Genesis. God created people to reflect his character to the world. When this original purpose was marred by sin, God calls Abraham to be the instrument of blessing for the world. With Abraham God creates a peculiar people who will form the national of Israel which will ultimately exist as the source of God’s true light to the world.

5) The New Testament announces the fulfillment of this Old Testament expectation with the coming of the embodiment of Israel, Jesus Christ. In the New Testament, the Church is sent out to the nations with a missional purpose. If the Old Testament helps us to understand the meaning of a holy community that exists for the world, the New Testament pushes us to see this holy community as an entity that engages and confronts the world with the news about Jesus Christ.

This is some of my current thinking. What am I missing here? What seems fuzzy?

Top 10 Theological Words in the Bible

Okay, Bible Forum groupies and contributors alike... I have a question for us. It's more of a personal question, but one that will come together and form the kind of rock soup that will taste good to me. Here goes:

WHAT IS ONE OF YOUR FAVORITE THEOLOGICAL WORDS IN THE BIBLE? What theological word in the Bible opens up and expands things in such a way that you just keep on returning to it in your own theological musings and in your writing?

What theological word found in the Bible helps you "encapsulate" or "summarize" in a way that floats your boat... (and tell us why it floats your boat)? I'm thinking we might develop a list together of our Top 10 Theological Words Found in the Bible (it will be my job to combine submissions and develop the actual top 10 list - my penance for asking this kind of question)

Let's do it this way too: ONE WORD PER PERSON. This is not YOUR TOP TEN... this is YOUR ONE CHOICE (which I know we'll all whine about because we have to narrow it down)... just choose the one that come to you first or most forcefully.

-David

What the Bible Says About Itself

From time to time I hear people say "I believe what the Bible says about itself."

I suspect this is said for a few reasons:

1) The Bible is not a very self-referential book. It doesn't say a whole lot about itself, so there is less territory to defend when making this statement.
2) It is a deflecting comment, since the Bible doesn't use many of the popular fundamentalists buzzwords when talking about itself, it doesn't require someone saying this statement to use them to box in their theology of the Bible.
3) This comment is held up as a mirror to the person asking what someone believes about the Bible. The quesitoner hears it as a confirmation about what they themselves read into what the Bible says about itself.

I wonder, however, if it would be helpful for us to develop a categorical list of what the bible indeed does say about itself. Because this answer is intentionally vague, I believe it would help to clarify its meaning for those using it as and answer as well of those asking the questions that bring it up.

So, what do you all think? What does the Bible say about itself?

-David Drury

P.S.: I am taking this answer at its face value, by the way. For this discussion I'm not wanting us to parse what "itself" means. For instance, I don't think those using this as an answer are saying that what the New Testament said about scripture should only be applied to the Hebrew Bible. They seem to imply that "The Bible" says things about "The Bible" in total.