The cart before the horse?

Among scholars and students today, the field of biblical interpretation is divided into two distinct yet overlapping categories: exegesis and hermeneutics [...]

For our purposes at this point, the most important thing is that in our contemporary way of interpreting the Bible, we begin with exegesis and only then turn to hermeneutics [...] We move from the narrow to the broad. And our reason for this is that we believe starting with the broad would lead us to read our own theological ideas into the passage rather than reading the passages own meaning out of its context [...]

At this point, we have to recognize that the way we are trying to ensure accuracy in biblical interpretation is fundamentally different from the way the early church went about the same task. The Fathers had no qualms whatsoever about reading preconceived theological ideas into a given passages, as long as they got those ideas from elsewhere in the Bible.

pp.109-110, Don Fairbairn, Life in the Trinity)

Observing how this works in Irenaeus and Augustine:

[For Ireneaus] the key to interpreting the parables (which he finds obscure and therefore difficult) is clearer statements elsewhere in Scripture and not the context of the parables themselves. And [for] Augustine, notice that when there is ambiguity about a certain passage, one should first consult the rule of faith (which he describes as both the clearer passages of Scripture and the church's authoritative statements about it), and only if that fails should one consult the context of the passage[:]

"When words used literally cause ambiguity in Scripture, we must first determine whether we have mispunctuated or misconstrued them. When investigation reveals an uncertainty as to how a locution should be pointed or construed, the rule of faith should be consulted as it is found in the more open places of the Scriptures and in the authority of the Church... But if both meanings, or all of them, in the event that there are several, remain ambiguous after the faith has been consulted, then it is necessary to examine the context of the preceding and following parts surrounding the ambiguous place."

On Doc., bk. 3, chap.2

(pp.112-113, Don Fairbairn, Life in the Trinity)

The scarlet thread

In contrast to modern liberals (who might see no unifying theme in Scripture) and in partial contrast to modern conservatives (who tend to organize Scripture around concepts such as the covenant or the dispensations which have governed God's dealings with humanity), the church fathers tended to see the scarlet thread, the unifying theme of Scripture, as Christ. Again, this unifying theme places the emphasis in a rather different place than we do. We today start with ourselves and ask how God relates to us. The church fathers started with God, and especially with Christ, and asked how we participate in Christ. This is why virtually all of patristic thought saw theosis - humanity's becoming somehow a participant in the divine life - as the link between God and humanity.

(p. 115, Don Fairbairn, Life in the Trinity)

Promise v. covenant

I believe that this idea of promise is fundamental to the Old Testament and that it is even more foundational than the concept of covenant or the question of how God relates to humanity at different periods in redemptive history. The concept of promise places the focus on God, because God has made the promise, and the content of the promise is that God will send his own Son to us.

<

(pp. 121-122, Don Fairbairn, Life in the Trinity)

Some thoughts on Ecclesiastes

Major conclusion: everything is hebel

The major conclusion of the whole book is that everything is hebel ('vanity'/'vapour'/'meaningless') and a chasing after the wind.

To understand this conclusion it is helpful to keep in mind that:

1. When Paul says in Romans 8:20 that "creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it", the word for 'futility' is the same as the word used by the Septuagint to translate hebel.
2. Most interpreters find Genesis 1-3 to be the most significant biblical background to the book.
3. THEREFORE remember that hebel is not inherent to life, but a result of God's curse on the old creation.
4. THEREFORE hebel is overcome through Christ in new creation.

Qualification to the major conclusion: there is joy despite the hebel

Contrasting the negative major conclusion, is the qualification that often follows the statement that all is hebel, namely that it is "good and fitting to eat and drink and find enjoyment in all the toil". Some interpreters find this positive conclusion to be the major conclusion of the book, but this seems unlikely given the tone of the book as a whole and the reminders throughout that this joy is limited (simply to finding enjoyment in toil) and temporary (5:18).

Central theme: toil

The driving force behind the whole book is the question of 1:3, repeated several times later, "What does man gain by all the toil at which he toils under the sun?" As Webb points out, the word 'toil' and its cognates appears 24 times in the book. From Genesis we could answer this question without Ecclesiastes as follows:

1. Toil is good because it was part of the good creation
2. God curses toil and makes it hard and fruitless

As we have seen, this positive and negative teaching on work is echoed in Qoheleth's discoveries. What Qoheleth adds to Genesis is what it feels like to live in this reality.

Sub-themes: death and time

Qoheleth doesn't simply jump to Genesis and the curse to answer his central question. Instead he focuses on two things which make toil hebel, namely death and time. These themes appear throughout the book and serve as destroyers of all meaning and hope of lasting joy.

Christ in Ecclesiastes

Qoheleth is not a atheist, but if he is a believer in Christ he keeps it well hidden. He relies on experience and reason alone to reach his conclusions, and never draws upon scripture. He constantly refers to God, and clearly sees God as being sovereign over hebel. Much like Romans 1, we see the limits of natural theology in giving us a true, but partial understanding of God.

His limited knowledge of God offers him some kind of hope, but it is an extremely uncertain hope because he doesn't know the character of the God who has the power to save him from hebel. Just because God is able to reverse the hebel, will he? He reminds us to fear God, but never because that gives any assurance of something better.

I think Ecclesiastes can be read as a Wisdom literature version of Genesis 1-3, without the protoevangelium. Which I think poses a difficult question for Bible readers. We always read Biblical books in the context of the whole Bible, but can we accept an interpretation of a book Ecclesiastes, which reads it entirely as what Glen Scrivener describes as a photo-negative of the Gospel?

Describing sin

When most of us think of sin we probably have in mind a few specific actions that are particularly horrific. But the Bible's depiction of sin is quite a bit more sweeping than our idea. The main concept is conveyed by a Hebrew word (hata) that is used nearly six hundred times in the Old Testament and a Greek word (hamartano) used nearly three hundred times in the New Testament. Both of these words originally came from the sphere of archery and meant the same thing: "to miss a mark." The Bible makes clear that one can miss a mark by ignorance of what one is supposed to hit (see Lev 5:15-16), be deliberately aiming at a different target (see Is 1:4) or by aiming at the right standard but falling short of it (see 1 Sam 12:23). Another biblical word for sin ('abar in Hebrew or parabaino in Greek) conveys the idea of transgressing, crossing a boundary that God has established and forbidden us to cross. Adam and Eve's eating the forbidden fruit was a transgression, and for other examples, see Jeremiah 3418 and Daniel 9:11. It as if God has drawn a line in the sand and said, "Do not cross this," but people do. A third aspect of sin is rebelling against God's authority (pasa in Hebrew or apeitheo in Greek), and thereby breaking off the relationship God desired. Amos 1-4 contains repeated references to the ways Israel has rebelled against God. A fourth aspect of sin in the Bible is translated "iniquity," and the Hebrew word behind this ('awon) conveys the idea of twisting or distortion Sin is not wrong actions, it is a distortion or perversion of one's entire character. See Job 33:9 and Proverbs 12:8 for examples of this.

(pp. 98-99, Life in the Trinity, Douglas Fairbairn)

Very helpful summary.

1. missing the mark
2. transgression
3. rebellion
4. distortion