Category Archives: Interpretation of Scripture

October 15, 2012 · 7:59 pm

Exploring the Gospel of John: 2

EXPLORING THE GOSPEL OF JOHN

By the Rev. Dr. Michael Petty [Fr. Michael Petty]

St. Peter’s Anglican Church

2006

John 2:1-12

A Wedding, As Sign and Glory

1. In John 1:43-51, Nathanael is amazed at Jesus’ knowledge of him:  knowledge that he interprets to be supernatural (1:49).  Jesus tells him,  “You will see greater things than these” (1:50) [and it appears that what happens here is intended.]

2. The time reference in 2:1 (“On the third day”) is a bit vague -–third day counting from when?  This could be a reference to Exodus 19:11, where God comes down on Mt. Sinai on “the third day” and reveals his glory.  In this Gospel, Jesus’ actions are often presented as being parallel to significant Old Testament events.  In light of 2:11, the connection with Exodus 19:11 seems to fit since, in Exodus 19, God reveals himself for the first time to his liberated people and, in 2.11, Jesus performs his first sign for his disciples.

3. The context of this first sign is important – a wedding.  The opportunity for the sign comes at a moment of crisis:  the wedding guests have exhausted the supply of wine.  Weddings were not simply private affairs but often involved an entire village and could last for several days.  Running out of wine would have exposed the groom to a loss of honor and this was a very serious matter, in a culture bound together by reciprocal obligations.   What for us might be a failure of planning would be, for this culture, a shaming of the guests, bringing dishonor upon the host.  This is no mere faux pax.

4. The text does not tell us why Jesus’ mother (this Gospel does not mention her name) brings this to the attention of Jesus.  Does she have some responsibility at the wedding or does she believe that he is capable of resolving the crisis?  Her instructions to the servants in 2:5 are open to either — or both — possibilities.  Certainly, her command shows her to be a model of belief – she trustfully places everything under her Son’s authority.

5. We are surprised at Jesus’ brusque response to Mary in 2:4.   It is not disrespectful but it is distancing and the phrase, “My hour has not yet come” explains the distance.  In this Gospel, Jesus’ “hour” is his glorification, which takes place in his Crucifixion and Resurrection (7:30; 8:20; 12:27-28; 13:1; 16:32; 17:1).   The point is that the heavenly Father dictates Jesus’ actions  — not human requests (not even the request of his mother).   As in the case of Lazarus’ illness and death in John 11, Jesus responds to situations but he responds in his own terms.  Mary’s instructions to the servants seem to indicate that she does not expect to control her Son.

6. Jesus says, in 2:4, that his “hour” has not yet come — yet in 2:7, he takes action to solve the wine dilemma.  Has something changed?  Has Jesus’ “hour” now come?  We should probably see Jesus’ actions, not as a delayed response to Mary’s request, but as a proleptic manifestation of his “hour”– here, the “hour” is prefigured.

7. The number and purpose of the water jars in 2:6 is significant:  Six is a number indicating insufficiency or incompleteness (thus, in Genesis 1, Creation takes place over seven days).  The jars hold water for the various rites of purification.  The fact that these jars are filled with water and then transformed into wine clearly carries with it both the notion of abundance and the notion of the transformation of the old.  Jesus will bring in abundance what the Jewish rites of purification now only hint at.  In the Old Testament, the abundance of wine (always associated with God’s goodness and generosity in Judaism) is associated with the Messianic time (Amos 9:13-14; Isaiah 25:6; Jeremiah 31:12: Joel 3:18).  This is a sign in advance of what Jesus “hour” will bring about, the abundant cleansing and restoration, which is the time of the Messiah, the pouring out of God’s generous gifts.   The theme of Jesus replacing various Jewish institutions and feasts is a significant one in this Gospel.  In 2:13-22, for example, we see how Jesus fulfills and replaces the Temple.  For John, Jesus gathers together all the various threads of Judaism into a unity and brings them to their fulfillment.

8.  One can read, on several levels, the response of the steward of the feast, to the miraculous wine in 2:10 (as one can read a great deal of this Gospel on several levels).  At one level, the text makes clear that Jesus had not only saved the bridegroom’s honor but has actually enhanced it.  The best wine is served at this wedding at a time when – how shall we say it? – the faculties of the guests are impaired. What generosity!  The best has come last!  On another level, this underscores the sequence of salvation:  The best has not come first (Moses) but has been saved for the end (Jesus).  Much of the Gospel of John is devoted to getting this sequence right.

9. The context of this sign is rich with symbolism -– a wedding.  The wedding is a favored image, describing Israel’s eschatological fulfillment.  One day, God will rejoice over Israel, as a bridegroom rejoices over his bride (Isaiah 62:4-5).  Jesus also uses the image of a wedding feast to depict the coming of the Messiah in Matthew 8:11, Matthew 22:1-14 and Luke 22:16-18.  Note the same imagery in Revelation 19, where we find the wedding feast of the Lamb.

10. This was the first of Jesus’ signs.  This is this Gospel’s technical term for Jesus’ deeds.  Not coincidently, the Gospel uses the same Greek word as the  Septuagint uses in Exodus 4:8, to designate the three actions that God authorizes Moses to perform, to convince Israel of his role.  The purpose of these signs is authorize or confirm belief in Moses’ vocation.

11. Jesus will perform six other signs in this gospel (making a perfect series of seven).  But these signs do not compel belief on the part of those who witness them.  This becomes clear in John 11, after Jesus raises Lazarus from the dead.  In John 11:45-53, some of the witnesses of this sign inform the authorities in Jerusalem.  Neither the witnesses nor the authorities appear to doubt what Jesus has done — but this only has the effect of moving them to plot Jesus’ death.  Signs apparently have three possible effects, all of which John portrays:   Signs can deepen belief (as they do here), they can be met with indifference or unbelief (as in 7:1-5), or they can arouse opposition.

12. Two texts from Luke provide some illumination to this passage.  In Luke 5:34, when asked why John’s disciples fast but his do not, Jesus says, “Can you make wedding guests fast while the bridegroom is with them?”  The bridegroom at the eschatological wedding is the Messiah and can one be expected to fast, when God’s salvation is being realized, in one’s presence?   In Luke 5:36-39, Jesus tells a parable about how new wine cannot be poured into old wine skins.  While some will not recognize it (5:39), the new wine surpasses the old -– the best has been kept until the last.

13. The meaning of this incident is not hidden but is rather made explicit in 2:11:  “This, the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee, and manifested his glory.”   The glory of Jesus is the glory of the Incarnate Word (1:14), a glory now glimpsed by the abundant replacement of water for purification by eschatological wine.  In a real sense, Jesus not only fulfills Old Testament expectations but also surpasses them.

John 2:13-22

“The Temple of His Body”

1. “The Passover of the Jews” (2:13) is [intended] not as a snipe at “the Jews” but has the function of distancing the reader of the Gospel from Passover, a feast that this Gospel understands Jesus to have fulfilled (see 19:31-37).

2. This event is recorded in all four gospels (Mark 11:15-17; Matthew 21:12-13; Luke 19:45-46).  John is unique in placing this event at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry rather than at the end, and his account is more detailed than those of the other three gospels.

3. One of our most significant decisions, with regard to this passage, is that of determining [toward] what Jesus’ actions in the Temple are aimed.  The presence of animals and birds in the Temple precincts was necessary, in order to fulfill the sacrifices appointed in Leviticus 1-8.   The presence of the money-changers was, likewise, necessary, in that the Temple precincts did not allow Roman coinage, which bore the image of the emperor, since the Jews understood it to violate the prohibition [against] making idols.  The money changers were a necessary presence, if Jews were to be able to buy sacrificial animals and to pay the Temple tax levied on all adult male Jews.  In light of these facts, it is difficult to see Jesus’ actions as aiming at a “cleansing of the Temple” from “commercial abuse.”

4. Jesus’ actions in the Temple appear to be “sign act,” a symbolic action familiar to the Old Testament prophets.  An example is Jeremiah 19 where, in order to announce God’s coming judgment on Israel, Jeremiah takes an earthenware jar and smashes it in public.  The smashing of the jar is a sign act, which promises what it enacts.  By interrupting the sale of sacrificial animals, Jesus is symbolically bringing the Temple’s existence to a halt and announcing its coming destruction/replacement.

5. What Jesus says in 2:16 echoes Zechariah 14:21:  “And there shall no longer be a trader in the house of the Lord of hosts on that day.”   In Zechariah 14, what is announced is a new order in which “the Lord will be king over all the earth” (14:9) and even Gentiles will go up to Jerusalem “to worship the King, the Lord of hosts” (14:17).  In this radically transformed situation, “every pot in Jerusalem and Judah shall be holy to the Lord of hosts” (14:21).  The traders in the Temple will no longer be necessary — because God’s presence in Jerusalem will be such as to render everything holy and so inaugurate a new pattern of worship.  As becomes clear, Jesus’ Death and Resurrection establishes this new order of worship.

6. 2:17 informs us that the disciples “remembered” this connection  [to] Psalm 69:9.  The remembering here, as 2:22 makes clear, occurs after Jesus’ Resurrection.  This is to say that the Resurrection renders the memory of the disciples into a coherent whole:  in the light of the resurrection, their memory of Jesus’ actions took on a new significance.  Psalm 69:9 (which John converts from the past to the future tense) identifies Jesus, not merely as one who detested the Temple and its sacrifices, but as one who saw their replacement/fulfillment by a new temple and a new sacrifice.  It is zeal for God’s real temple that will cause his death.

7. In 2:18, “the Jews” (which refers to the chief priests who have charge of the Temple) demand a sign, which will show that Jesus is authorized to do what he has done.  2:20 indicates that “the Jews” understand Jesus to be making a literal claim about the Temple as a building.  This is part of a pattern, in which someone understands Jesus in a literal/worldly way and so misunderstands his meaning completely (see 3:1-15).  Jesus is not talking about the Temple as a building but rather a temple of an entirely different order:  the Temple of his Crucified and Risen Body.  The presence of God will no longer be found in the Temple for, as Zechariah 14 clearly sees, this presence will come in a new way.  The notion of Jesus’ Crucified and Risen Body as the Temple of God has a deep impact on New Testament writings (1 Corinthians 3:16-17; 2 Corinthians 6:16; Ephesians 2:20-22; 1 Peter 2:4-5).

8. We see an indication of what this theology looks like as Hebrews 8-9 develops it.  Here, Jesus recapitulates, fulfills, and transcends the core of Judaism as Temple, sacrifice, and priesthood.  The point to grasp, about both John and Hebrews, is that we can understand Jesus only within the matrix of the Old Testament narrative.  John and Hebrews understand that Jesus transcends the core of Judaism [Temple, sacrifice, and priesthood] not because they are Jewish but, rather, Jesus transcends them God intended them to have a provisional value (note especially Hebrews 9:23-28).

9. To say that Christ’s Risen Body replaces the Temple is to say several things:  Just as Israel understood the Temple to be the locus of God’s presence in the world (not in the sense that God was confined to it but that, by covenant, God caused his Name to dwell there), so now the body of the risen Christ becomes the locus of God’s presence.  This is why there is no ‘promised land’ in the new covenant:  God’s temple is now co-extensive with creation (note Revelation 21:22-27).  This notion of Christ as the new Temple also serves as the foundation of Christian holiness.  If the Christian life is life “in Christ,” this means that we live all of life within the Temple and that there is no sacred/secular distinction (note Romans 12:1-2).  Thinking along these lines causes a radical re-thinking of the significance of human life, as becomes clear in 1 Corinthians 6:12-20.

Leave a comment

Filed under Interpretation of Scripture, The Gospel of John

Tagged as , , ,

October 15, 2012 · 7:58 pm

Exploring the Gospel of John: 3

EXPLORING THE GOSPEL OF JOHN

By the Rev. Dr. Michael Petty [Fr. Michael Petty]

St. Peter’s Anglican Church

2006

[Exploring the Gospel of John: 4]

John 3:1-21

A Conversation at Night

1. Initially, two things about this episode are worth noting: The first is that Nicodemus’ question provokes an extended discourse from Jesus, one during which Nicodemus seems to drop out of sight (around verse 13).  This odd feature may be due to the way in which Jesus is consistently portrayed in John:  On one hand, Jesus enters into a conversation with Nicodemus and yet, on the other hand, Jesus does not simply answer questions addressed to him; he exercises a kind of sovereignty, possessing the freedom to say what he thinks needs to be said.  Second, we do not know how this encounter turned out – things are left unresolved.  Nicodemus is mentioned again in 7:50, where he counsels leniency toward Jesus on the part of the Sanhedrin.  Later, in 19:38-42 Nicodemus reappears to assist in the preparation of Jesus’ body for burial.  These actions indicate the he remained sympathetic to Jesus but we do not know much beyond this.  This episode conveys an important truth: There were influential Jews who were in sympathy with Jesus and his ministry, even if they found parts of his message baffling.

2. The fact that Nicodemus comes to Jesus at night indicates awareness that open association with him by a man of Nicodemus’ standing could have negative consequences.  It is sometimes suggested that the fact that Nicodemus comes to Jesus under cover of darkness is symbolic of his own spiritual darkness.  This, while possible, seems a bit extreme. Nicodemus is being discrete.

3. In 3:2, Nicodemus makes a confession about Jesus’ identity:  “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him.” For Nicodemus, this is a tremendous admission, one made on the basis on 2:1-12 and 2:13-22.  And yet, readers of this gospel know that it is not enough.  Nicodemus is “on his way to Jesus” but has clearly not arrived yet.  For him, Jesus is a rabbi “come from God,” that is, sent and inspired by God.  Nicodemus clearly does not mean, “come from God,” in the sense of 1:14 or 3:17. Important as this confession is, it only approaches the truth.  Even if Nicodemus is placing Jesus in the same category as Moses (which, in light of Exodus 3:12, he seems to be) he is far from the mark.

4. Jesus’ response to Nicodemus is similar to his response to Mary in 2:4. It is, perhaps, even more icy.  Jesus seems to take no pleasure in this highly complimentary statement from an important and informed person (a Pharisee).  But Jesus is not being aloof or cold; he knows who he is and he wishes to bring Nicodemus to the truth. In John, Jesus seems to be impervious to both flattery and contempt (note Jesus’ response to Pilate in 19:11).

5. Jesus speak precisely the truth which he believes Nicodemus needs to hear, jarring as it is: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God “ (3:3).  This saying is quite close to Luke 18:17:  “Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.”  The two sayings would have struck a first-century audience as equally odd, given the low status of children.  The saying seems to be deliberately ambiguous, in that Jesus wants to draw on the dual meaning of the Greek word anothen, which can mean either “from above” or “again.”  Of course, this is a direct reference to 1:12-13, where the Word grants birth from God, which is a birth “from above” (because from God).  Nicodemus clearly interprets Jesus to be saying, “born again,” which he understands literally.  In John, people who understand Jesus literally only reveal their lack of comprehension.  This is particularly significant here because we are dealing with a learned person. This has nothing to do (it should be noted) with the literal interpretation of Scripture.  Those who understand Jesus literally reveal that they are still on an earthly plane.

6. In 3:5-6 Jesus changes his terminology and we move from being born from above/again in order to “see the kingdom of God,” to being born of water and the Spirit, so as to “enter the kingdom of God.”  This provides some clarification:   It certainly corrects Nicodemus’ mistaken impression that Jesus wants him to go back into the womb and re-emerge.  It is now clear that Jesus is talking about a rebirth effected by the Spirit and that rebirth is from above because the power, which effects it, is from God.  In line with the Old Testament, “water and the Spirit” should not be seen as two separable things but as functional equivalents.  This is certainly the case in Ezekiel 36: 25-27:  “I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleanness, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you…And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes . . . ”  Here, the cleansing by water and the giving of God’s Spirit refer to the one purifying action of God.  While there are nuances which can be traced, the point is quite clear:  One can only enter the kingdom of God by being purified by God.

7. The distinction drawn by v.6 between that which is born of flesh and that which is born of Spirit is not a distinction between the “material” and the “spiritual,” as if these were opposites.  The contrast, rather, is between that which is simply human (that which is flesh and no more) and that which has been effected by God (through his Spirit).  Entrance into the kingdom of God is not something and cannot be something that is effected by human efforts and agency.

8. This birth has a mysterious quality about it – it is real but that does not make it fully comprehensible.  Drawing upon the fact that the Greek word pneuma can mean both wind and spirit, Jesus makes it clear that there is an analogous relationship between wind and Spirit.  The wind’s origin and destiny are both mysterious but this does not mean that the wind is unreal.  The same is true of the Spirit, whose origin in God and whose work in human beings is not open to full analysis but who is not any less real for this fact.

9. Nicodemus’ second response to Jesus represents no real advance over his first one.  First he wondered how one could return to the womb and now, after Jesus has clarified what “birth” means, he can only ask “How can these things be?” (3:9).  His progress is all the less impressive because Jesus has already answered the question:  These things can be because they are brought about by God.  Jesus returns to Nicodemus’ original compliment in 3:2 and uses it to underline the depth of Nicodemus’ lack of comprehension:  “Are you a teacher of Israel and yet do not understand these things?” (3:10).

10. The purpose of this question is to point to an irony.  Nicodemus is a “teacher of Israel” and yet he seems to be unaware of this central aspect of the doctrine of God – the work of the Spirit and the Spirit’s relation to the kingdom of God.  This is all the more strange, in light of the reference to Ezekiel 36.  This gets at a key theological issue in John.  Nicodemus the Pharisee is criticized here, not for being Jewish, but for being unaware of something presented in Israel’s scriptures and for being unaware of a central fact about Israel’s God.  If Nicodemus has fumbled the analogies of birth and wind (“earthly things”) how can Jesus possibly take him to the knowledge of God (“heavenly things”)?

11. 3:13 is key to the theology of John.  The faith of John’s community is based on the most reliable witness of all:  God himself.  The claim of this gospel is that Jesus is uniquely qualified to be God’s witness and this is because he is from God:  “No one has ever seen God: the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known” (1:18). The only one who can truly make God known is the one who knows God face to face and this one is the Son.  Nicodemus has acknowledged that Jesus is a “teacher come from God” (3:2) and now Jesus clarifies and corrects this inadequate confession.  He has “descended” from heaven (the very presence of God) to enter the world.  Jesus’ ascent to heaven is not the elevation of a very righteous person to be with God but is his return to his origin. This only emphasizes how far a sympathetic and learned man like Nicodemus has yet to go before he arrives at the truth know by John’s community. Though the distance is great, there is hope because the Holy Spirit bridges the distance between the ascended Son and the world.

12. To explain the saving role played by the Son, there is a reference to in 3:14 to Numbers 21:9.  As the people of Israel travel through the wilderness they complain of the lack of food and water.  As punishment, God sends serpents to afflict them.  After intercession by Moses, God tells him to make a bronze serpent and to attach it to a pole.  When the bronze serpent is “lifted up” and gazed upon, those who see it are healed.  The Son’s being “lifted up” on the cross has an analogous function.  For John, Jesus’ being “lifted up” is a moment of glory — not of shame or defeat.

13. 3:16-21 is a theological reflection on the mission of the Son, which further develops the theme of what it means that Jesus the Son is “sent” from God.  The principle that Jesus reveals God has already been introduced (3:13).  Now it is deepened in 3:16.  The Son reveals the Father’s love for his alienated creation and, in fact, is the Father’s love.  This is an exact parallel to Romans 5:6-11.  The Son is the Father’s authorized agent of judgment, where “judgment” is understood in its Old Testament sense, of both the establishment of the conditions of salvation and the removal of the resistance against God.   The Son’s primary mission is to establish the conditions of salvation and this is what the discussion of being born anothen (3:3) and the lifting up of the bronze serpent (3:14) is driving at.  But the rejection of the Son has consequences — in that those who believe in the Son (and thus accept the conditions of salvation which he brings) are “not condemned” (3:18) but those who reject the Son are “condemned already” (3:18).  To not accept the first part of the Son’s mission is to place oneself in resistance against God and thus to face the second part of the Son’s mission.  God’s judgment is not based on arbitrary criteria but on whether a person has welcomed his own saving work in the Son and the Spirit.  To reject this is, by definition, to reject God’s salvation and to come under judgment.  As 3:19-21 makes clear, with respect to God’s own work in the Son and the Spirit, there is no room for neutrality; one either enters the light or draws back from it into darkness.

Leave a comment

Filed under Interpretation of Scripture, The Gospel of John

October 10, 2012 · 12:48 pm

Piercing The Veil: The Search for Meaning

The Search for Meaning:  Interpreting Scripture

Introduction:

From Detectives of Significance:  Sherlock Holmes, Umberto Eco, and the Search for Meaning, by Dr. Louis Markos,  Touchstone Journal, Sept/Oct 2012 issue:

The key thinkers of the Middle Ages valued stability and tradition in their daily lives, but that did not prevent them from setting forth on spiritual, philosophical, and aesthetic quests.

Like the Romantics after them, the Medievals sought to pierce the veil, to discover what lay behind the words, ideas, and images that made up their daily lives . . .

. . . . And that takes us back to the medieval ‘obsession’ with reading poetry in general, and the Bible, in particular, in terms of two or three or four levels of meaning.

 Such a system of reading seems forced and unnatural to us, a mere exercise in obfuscation, but it was not so to them.

 “Interpreting poetry allegorically,” argues Eco, “did not mean  imposing upon it some kind of arid and artificial system.  It meant seeking in it what was felt to be the highest possible pleasure, the pleasure of a revelation ‘per speculum in aenigmate.’ “

Eco borrow the phrase the Latin phrase from 1 Corinthians 13.12:

 ‘For now we see through a glass darkly, but then face to face:  now I know in part, but then shall I know even as also I am known.’

Perhaps no verse in the Bible better explains the impetus behind the medieval quest for higher truths and essenses.  What waits for us on the other side is not just answers, but also Meaning, Purpose, and Presence.

Patristic and Medieval Interpretation of the Four Senses:

From Holy Men and Women of the Middle Ages and Beyond, by Pope Benedict 16, 2012, Ignatius Press, page 31:

  1. Literal or Historical

  2. Allegorical or Christological

  3. Tropological or Moral

  4. Anagogical

The Four Layers of Meaning:  Interpreting Scripture

The Senses of Scripture:

“According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture:  the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral, and anagogical senses.  The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees in all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.”  [Catholic Catechism, 115]

“A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses:

‘The Letter speaks of deeds;  Allegory to faith;

The Moral how to act;  Anagogy our destiny.’ ”  [Catholic Catechsim, 117]

Terms and Definitions are from InterVarsity Press Handbook of Theological Terms, unless otherwise noted.

Note:  OT=Old Testament; NT=New Testament

Letter or Literal Sense [Historical]:

The meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis,  following the rules of sound interpretation:  “All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal.”  [Catholic Catechism: 115]

A strict adherence to the exact word or meaning, either in interpretation or translation, of the Biblical text. 

Attempts to understand the author’s intent by pursuing the most plain, obvious meaning of the text, as judged by the interpreter. 

In translation, the attempt is made to convey with utmost accuracy, through the words of another language, the actual meaning of the biblical text.

 

Spiritual Sense:  [Allegorical or Christological or Typological]:

Spiritual

An interest or concern for matters of the “spirit,” in contrast to the mere interest and focus on the material.  Christian spirituality, as expressed through participation in certain Christian practices, such as Bible study, prayer, worship, and so forth.

Allegory:

We can aquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.  [Catholic Catechism, 117]

Expression, by means of symbolic fictional figures and actions, of truths or generalizations about human existence; a symbolic representation. [Webster’s].

 A story in which the details correspond to or reveal a “hidden,” “higher,” or “deeper” meaning. 

Method of biblical interpretation [which] assumes that biblical stories should be interpreted by seeking the “spiritual” meaning to which the literal sense points.

Christology:

Christology is the study devoted to answering two questions:  Who is Jesus? [the question of his identity] and What is the nature and significance of what Jesus accomplished in the Incarnation? [the question of his work].

Typology:

Differing from a symbol or an allegory, a typology is a representation of an actual, historical reference.  According to Christian exegesis, biblical typology deals with the parallels between actual, historical [usually OT] figures or events in salvation history and their later, analogous fulfillment.  Often NT events and figures are typologically understood and interpreted according to an OT pattern [e.g., Creation and New Creation, Adam and Christ, the Exodus and NT concepts of Salvation.]  On this basis, typology became one of the four prevalent ways [together with the literal, the analogical, and the spiritual] of interpreting Scripture in the Middle Ages.

Moral Sense: [Tropological or Ethical]:

The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly.  As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction.” [Catholic Catechism, 117]

The area of philosophical and theological inquiry into what constitutes right and wrong, that is, morality, as well as what is the good and the good life.  Ethics seeks to provide insight, principles, or even a system or guidance in the quest of the good life or in acting rightly, in either general or specific situations of life. 

Broadly speaking, ethical systems are either deontological [seeking to guide behavior through establishment or discovery of what is intrinsically right and wrong] or teleological [seeking to guide behavior through an understanding of the outcomes or ends that ethical decisions and behavior bring about.]

Anagogical Sense:

Anagog:

[Greek: anagoge, “leading”].  We can view realities and events in terms of eternal signficiance, leading us toward our true homeland:  thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.  [Catholic Catechism, 117]

Greek:  a “climb” or “ascent” upward.  “Leading above” when by a visible act an invisible is declared.  A method of interpretation of literal statements or events, especially Scripture.  [Wikipedia]

Interpretation of a word, passage, or text, that finds beyond the literal, allegorical, and moral sense, a fourth and ultimate spiritual or mystic sense. [Webster’s]

Orients a person toward eternal life. [Holy Men and Women of the Middle Ages and Beyond, by Pope Benedict 16, 2012, Ignatius Press.]

Interpreting Scripture: Other Terms & Definitions:

Terms and Definitions are from InterVarsity Press Handbook of Theological Terms, unless otherwise noted.

 Analogy of Faith:

 A principle of interpretation that suggests that clearer passages of Scripture should be used to interpret more obscure or difficult passages. 

 For Augustine, the analogy of faith requires that Scripture never be interpreted in such way that it violates the church’s summary of Christian faith [i.e., The Apostle’s Creed]. 

For Luther, Christ is the analogy of faith, so that Scripture needs always to be interpreted as testifying to Christ.

For Calvin, the analogy of faith assumes that, because the Spirit oversaw its writing, Scripture and the Spirit together interpret other parts of Scripture.

Exegesis, Eisegesis:

Literally, “drawing meaning out of” and “reading meaning into,” respectively. 

 Exegesis is the process of seeking to understand what a text means or communicates on its own. 

Eisegesis is generally a derogatory term, used to designate the practice of imposing a preconceived or foreign meaning onto a text, even if that meaning could not have been originally intended at the time of its writing.

Hermeneutics:

The discipline that studies the principles and theories of how texts ought to be interpreted, particularly Sacred texts, such as the Scriptures. 

Hermeneutics also concerns itself with understanding the unique roles and relationships between the author, the text, and the original or subsequent readers.

[Note:  For emphasis, I added italics, bold-face, and other formatting. MBP]

  

Leave a comment

Filed under Four Levels of Meaning, Interpretation of Scripture, Words & Language

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,