A method of interpretation—a hermeneutic—is indispensable for understanding Scripture, constructing theology, and living the Christian life, but most contemporary hermeneutical systems fail to acknowledge the principles and practices of the biblical writers themselves.
Christians today cannot employ a truly biblical view of the Bible unless they understand why the prophets and apostles interpreted Scripture the way they did. To this end, Abner Chou proposes a "hermeneutic of obedience," in which believers learn to interpret Scripture the way the biblical authors did—including understanding the New Testament's use of the Old Testament. Chou first unfolds the "prophetic hermeneutic" of the Old Testament authors, and demonstrates the continuity of this approach with the "apostolic hermeneutic" of the New Testament authors.
A method of interpretation—a hermeneutic—is indispensable for understanding Scripture, constructing theology, and living the Christian life, but most contemporary hermeneutical systems fail to acknowledge the principles and practices of the biblical writers themselves.
Christians today cannot employ a truly biblical view of the Bible unless they understand why the prophets and apostles interpreted Scripture the way they did. To this end, Abner Chou proposes a "hermeneutic of obedience," in which believers learn to interpret Scripture the way the biblical authors did—including understanding the New Testament's use of the Old Testament. Chou first unfolds the "prophetic hermeneutic" of the Old Testament authors, and demonstrates the continuity of this approach with the "apostolic hermeneutic" of the New Testament authors.
The Hermeneutics of the Biblical Writers: Learning to Interpret Scripture from the Prophets and Apostles
256
The Hermeneutics of the Biblical Writers: Learning to Interpret Scripture from the Prophets and Apostles
256Paperback
-
SHIP THIS ITEMIn stock. Ships in 1-2 days.PICK UP IN STORE
Your local store may have stock of this item.
Available within 2 business hours
Related collections and offers
Overview
A method of interpretation—a hermeneutic—is indispensable for understanding Scripture, constructing theology, and living the Christian life, but most contemporary hermeneutical systems fail to acknowledge the principles and practices of the biblical writers themselves.
Christians today cannot employ a truly biblical view of the Bible unless they understand why the prophets and apostles interpreted Scripture the way they did. To this end, Abner Chou proposes a "hermeneutic of obedience," in which believers learn to interpret Scripture the way the biblical authors did—including understanding the New Testament's use of the Old Testament. Chou first unfolds the "prophetic hermeneutic" of the Old Testament authors, and demonstrates the continuity of this approach with the "apostolic hermeneutic" of the New Testament authors.
Product Details
| ISBN-13: | 9780825443244 |
|---|---|
| Publisher: | Kregel Publications |
| Publication date: | 02/23/2018 |
| Pages: | 256 |
| Product dimensions: | 6.00(w) x 9.00(h) x 0.42(d) |
About the Author
Read an Excerpt
CHAPTER 1
THE QUEST FOR AUTHORIAL LOGIC
Even when there is use of the Old Testament with no apparent interest in prophetic fulfillment, there appears to be a redemptive- historical rationale at work behind the scenes. — G. K. Beale
We may encounter the subject of hermeneutics in seminary, college, or a class at church. In the classroom, we learn hermeneutics deals with the essential principles by which we accurately understand the Scriptures. However, the topic is not just some academic subject. Its importance extends far beyond the classroom. Knowing God's Word is foundational for godly living (Ps. 1:2; 119:11; 2 Tim. 3:16–17; 2 Peter 1:3). Our thinking about hermeneutics does not just stay in the realm of academia but ultimately shapes how we live and whether or not we please God. What is at stake when we study hermeneutics? Simply put, it is our entire Christian life and ministry. Hermeneutics is not a negotiable issue; it is essential for the Christian walk. God puts a premium on "getting it right" (Neh. 8:8; 2 Tim. 2:15) and condemns those who twist the Scripture (2 Peter 3:16).
WHAT IS TRULY CHRISTIAN HERMENEUTICS?
So what comprises a "good hermeneutic?" We may be familiar with the terms "literal-grammatical-historical" hermeneutics or the notion of seeking the "author's intent" as opposed to our own meaning. The Scripture teaches that the Holy Spirit moved men to write his Word such that their words are the very message of God (2 Peter 1:20–21). Traditionally, we believe we ought to understand the ideas the (dual) author intended through the normal rules of language and the facts of history. This formulates the basis by which we evaluate right and wrong understandings of Scripture. Accuracy occurs when our reading of a text matches the (dual) author's ideas, and misinterpretation occurs when we misconstrue that intent. This demands examination of historical background, context, grammar, and individual words.
Conversely, how do we know our traditional definitions are correct? Several major works have philosophically defended the principles of literal-grammatical-historical hermeneutics. They show we are morally bound to understand the Scripture in light of God's intention. They make this case based upon linguistics, the nature of communication, and speech-act theory. These books rebut the postmodern frameworks of text-centered hermeneutics or reader response, which state any possible notion within the text or whatever the reader sees comprise legitimate meaning.
The philosophical approach is useful to engage these ideas. Nevertheless, hermeneutical philosophy still rests upon our theology which is based upon our understanding of Scripture. Thus, in the end, the Bible becomes foundational for our hermeneutic. That is fitting since the Scripture speaks to the subject. God demands accurate interpretation of his Word (e.g., Acts 17:11; 1 Tim. 4:13–15; 2 Tim. 2:15; 1 Peter 2:2). The Bible is concerned about hermeneutics.
So we ultimately should go back to the Bible to learn how to study it. Such an approach is not novel. In fact, evangelicals have traditionally used the doctrines of inspiration, inerrancy, and illumination to ground their understanding of hermeneutics. Reymond states, "the Scripture's doctrine of Scripture, espousing its own revelatory and inspired character, binds us to the grammatical/historical method of exegesis." Similarly, Zuck comments that in light of the human aspect of inspiration, "Each biblical writing — that is, each word, sentence, and book — was recorded in a written language and followed normal, grammatical meanings, including figurative language." The list of this type of argumentation goes on. Evangelicals have rightly stressed that biblical hermeneutics ultimately come from the Bible. God sets the rules for how his Word ought to be understood and that should comprise a "Christian hermeneutic."
However, in the process of formulating our hermeneutic from the Scripture, we run into a significant problem. It begins with the question of how our "Christian hermeneutic" precisely operates. We may know the principles and convictions, but how does that play out when we approach a text? We can put together all the word studies, historical backgrounds, and grammar but how does that actually produce the author's intent or meaning? Moreover, how do we connect our interpretation of our text with theology? How do we know which principle to draw from a text? How do we know whether an author intended a certain theological idea or not? What should we learn from the stories of Scripture? Is the point of David and Goliath that we can slay our own giants? If not, what is the real idea of that text and how do we know? We encounter a similar conundrum when we ask how to preach or teach Christ from the Old Testament. Should we read Christ into every text even if he is not in view in the original context? Once again, what is the bridge between what the text says and the theology it conveys? These questions show we not only seek to learn from the Scripture hermeneutical principles but also hermeneutical practice (i.e., how to apply those principles in our study of Scripture).
The Bible provides an answer to those questions as well. Conversely, this is where the problem arises. The way the biblical writers used the Scriptures may be a little more "troubling," particularly when we look at the New Testament's use of the Old. The apostles seem to read the Old Testament "creatively." For example, Paul seems to believe the rock in Israel's wilderness wanderings was Christ, when the Old Testament makes no mention of this (1 Cor. 10:4). Matthew applies an Old Testament text to the Messiah, even though it was originally about Israel (Hos. 11:1 in Matt. 2:15). That same gospel writer later claims Jeremiah prophesied about Judas, even though the quotation comes from Zechariah (Zech. 11:13, in Matt. 27:9). Paul uses an Old Testament text, which says that people are cursed for not keeping the law, to condemn those who actually keep the law (Gal. 3:10; cf. Deut. 27:26). Peter cites Psalm 109:8 to argue that the church should elect a new apostle to take Judas' place, when that psalm does not refer to Judas at all (Acts 1:20). In each of these instances, the apostles seem to ignore the original context of the Old Testament. These examples are just a minute sample of the problems within the New Testament's use of the Old. Do they indicate there is something more than a literal-grammatical-historical hermeneutic for our hermeneutic to be truly "Christian"?
ASKING THE RIGHT QUESTION
Thus, our desire to have a biblical hermeneutic has led us into quite a dilemma. Ironically, by studying the Bible to learn how to avoid misinterpretation, we seem to run into it. Should we do as the apostles say but not as they do?
We are not the first to go down this path. Scholars have wrestled with this question and have come up with a variety of solutions. Some argue since the apostles were inspired, we do not have the ability to repeat their hermeneutical methods. Others maintain the apostles had a new hermeneutic, which warrants a certain degree of freedom to reinterpret the Bible. They argue the New Testament writers illustrate we need to read the Scriptures in new ways and that such spiritualization and allegorization is a truly "Christian hermeneutic." Still others contend the apostles upheld the context of the Old Testament. They claim that if we examine the Old Testament further, this would be clear to us. Though there are various views, everyone agrees hermeneutical discussions inevitably arrive at the New Testament's use of the Old. The way the biblical writers used the Bible is the crux interpretum in fully answering how we have a Christian/biblical hermeneutic. It is an issue we cannot ignore. How can we genuinely claim to have a hermeneutic based upon the Scripture which ignores the Scriptures where the biblical writers interpreted previous revelation? A hermeneutic that does not take all Scripture into account is not a biblical hermeneutic.
Silva highlights even greater dangers in disregarding this matter:
If we refuse to pattern our exegesis after that of the apostles, we are in practice denying the authoritative character of their scriptural interpretation — and to do so is to strike at the very heart of the Christian faith.
Accordingly, if we really want a hermeneutic based upon all of God's Word, we must deal with this issue. The matter of the New Testament's use of the Old is not just an erudite academic discussion. Rather, it is at the core of who we are as interpreters of the Scripture. Do we learn how to understand Scripture from its writers or is there some reason why their hermeneutic is different than our own?
Responding to this issue is easier said than done. It involves a whole host of other matters including (but not limited to) textual criticism, literary theory (e.g., intertextuality, echoes), and the Greek translation of the Old Testament. It also includes historical backgrounds, in particular, the hermeneutical methodology of the apostles' contemporaries and second temple Jewish literature. Having all that in mind, one can proceed to do an exegetical analysis of both Old Testament and New Testament texts. The interpreter must understand the contexts of both texts and figure out how they precisely interact. On top of that, the exegete must think through a wide range of interpretative options, biblical theological implications, as well as systematic theological concerns. Dealing with all of these issues is dizzying. The New Testament's use of the Old is a complex puzzle to be sure.
However, while all the matters above carry great importance, they can sidetrack us from the matter at hand. More information does not always bring more clarity (cf. Eccl. 12:12). Rather, we need to ask the right question to obtain a useful answer. Beale's quote at the beginning of this chapter points us back to such a fundamental question: What was the author thinking? How did he reach his conclusion? That is the question we need to ask. All of the factors above revolve around that issue. Even more, this is the heart of the topic of the "New Testament's use of the Old." The very word use refers to the way the apostles thought about and applied the Old Testament. Thus, the author's logic is the essential matter.
A variety of scholars have affirmed this assertion. Discussing this matter from the vantage point of biblical theology, Hamilton states:
The biblical authors used biblical theology to interpret the Scriptures available to them and the events they experienced. For the believing community, the goal of biblical theology is simply to learn the practice of interpretation from the biblical authors so that we can interpret the Bible and life in this world the way they did.
On the literary level, Hays also acknowledges the author's rationale is the key question. He also acknowledges very little has been done to elucidate this idea:
Even those studies concerned with theological issues have little to say about Paul as interpreter of Scripture. This is a regrettable state of affairs, because the question of how Paul read Scripture is of great importance for grasping the logic and purpose of his arguments. Is there some method or hermeneutic that can account for Paul's exegesis?
Hays' quote calls on us to ask and answer the issue of the author's logic, which he observes we have often failed to do. Before we can call the apostles odd, reject their hermeneutic, or accept their hermeneutic, we need to understand what they actually did. Only then can we see if we should do as they do or as they say or, as I will argue, both.
THE QUEST FOR AUTHORIAL LOGIC
Asking the question of the author's rationale leads us to what I would like to term "the quest for authorial logic." Beale's quote at the opening of the chapter unveils this before us. In addressing what the apostles thought, he notes a "redemptive-historical rationale" working in the background. The quest for authorial logic concerns bringing the biblical writers' logic that is in the background to the foreground. It is our search to understand the underlying methodology and reasoning that guides their reading of Scripture. This quest is far from new or revolutionary. Even so, it is helpful to create a clear niche for this type of study, which is at the heart of the New Testament's use of the Old.
We should further articulate the nature of this endeavor. One may begin discussing the author's rationale by describing what the apostles thought. Some have described what the biblical writers thought about a variety of Old Testament passages or a variety of theological topics. Others talk about what the apostles thought relative to their interpretative presuppositions. These observations are important and the questions of "what" are vital. It is difficult to evaluate the logic of apostolic hermeneutics if we have not determined what they thought, or the key presuppositions involved in their conclusions.
However, the quest for authorial logic deals with more than this. Scholars want to know how the biblical writers derived their presuppositions, how they chose to use that presupposition with a given passage, and even how they chose to use a particular text in their argument. For instance, why did Matthew use Hosea 11:1 to prove his point when he could have equally cited Exodus 4:23 which has similar language? What makes Hosea 11:1 a better choice than another passage for Matthew's purpose? These questions are important, and to brush them off is to tacitly admit that the apostles are random. We need to think through these issues.
Consequently, this shows the quest for authorial logic should not just answer a "what" question but also the "how" question. This is a quest to know how or the process by which the biblical writers interpreted a text, derived presuppositions, associated them with certain texts, and came up with their assertions. This book intends to begin to answer the "how question" in regards to the New Testament's use of the Old.
AN INITIAL SUGGESTION: THE EXISTENCE OF THE PROPHETIC HERMENEUTIC
While it may appear completely counterintuitive, I suggest an investigation of the apostles' use of the Old Testament begins in the Old Testament itself. One can certainly see why one might begin in the New Testament in dealing with the New Testament's use of the Old. Since we are figuring out how the apostles used antecedent revelation, it is reasonable to pay attention to their claims, methods, and presuppositions. Nonetheless, we will inevitably end up in the Old Testament because the apostles point us in that direction. The apostles deal with prior revelation and so to grasp what they meant and thought, we need to understand the source. I suggest greater attention on the Old Testament may help us unlock the thoughts of the apostles.
This inkling is not without merit. Accepted methodology requires an investigation of the Old Testament. Scholars advise us to take heed of the interconnectedness and complexity of that part of the Bible. They frequently appeal to the idea observed by C. H. Dodd that quotations made by the New Testament writers actually point to entire contexts in the Old Testament. Based upon this, those investigating the New Testament's use of the Old pay attention to how a reference to the Old Testament provides a window into bigger theological ideas and themes. Those concepts — including corporate solidarity, exile, and God's plan — can often help explain how the apostles were thinking. Scholars acknowledge the Old Testament contributes to our understanding of the apostles.
We can take these observations a step further in our discussion of authorial logic. I propose the interconnectedness and intricacy of the Old Testament reveals something deeper about the prophets themselves: They had their own hermeneutic. Those familiar with the New Testament's use of the Old often refer to the "apostolic hermeneutic," a term discussing the New Testaments writers' interpretative methodology. Perhaps an Old Testament counterpart exists. One factor that supports this is how scholars have recognized the reality of intertextuality in the Old Testament. The word "intertextuality" is a key term in this book and, for my purposes, discusses how the biblical writers allude to other parts of Scripture. It specifically refers to how the inspired authors expounded upon previous revelation in their own writings. Such activity in the Old Testament argues for the existence of a "prophetic hermeneutic." The Old Testament writers themselves were exegetes and theologians who understood and correlated their texts with previous revelation. This formed intentional "networks of texts" in the first canon.
(Continues…)
Excerpted from "The Hermeneutics of the Biblical Writers"
by .
Copyright © 2018 Abner Chou.
Excerpted by permission of Kregel Publications.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.
Table of Contents
Preface 9
Abbreviations 11
Chapter 1 The Quest for Authorial Logic 13
Chapter 2 Groundwork for the Quest: Presuppositions and Method 25
Chapter 3 The Prophetic Hermeneutic: The Prophet as Exegete and Theologian 47
Chapter 4 The Prophetic Hermeneutic: Did the Prophets Speak Better than They Knew, or Better than We Give Them Credit For? 93
Chapter 5 The Apostolic Hermeneutic: Continuity with the Prophets 121
Chapter 6 The Apostolic Hermeneutic: The Theological Fabric of the New Testament 155
Chapter 7 The Christian Hermeneutic: Reading as They Read and Intended 199
Chapter 8 Scripture's Sophistication, First Theologians, and the Hermeneutics of Surrender 231
Bibliography 233