Nielsen’s Nook

The introduction and first section of Osborne’s article in the IVP Dictionary of Paul and His Letters is concerned with “recent hermeneutical issues.” It is where Osborne defines foundational trajectories that will carry and influence the more practical sections of the article the follow. The scope of my interaction here is not to critique each of his interactions with the variety of interpretive traditions Osborne critiques, but to identify and briefly reflect upon some of the foundational elements of Osborne’s own thinking that seem to rise to the surface as he considers these other interpretive traditions. Osborne begins:

Classical hermeneutics has always identified the goal of interpretation as ascertaining the author’s intended meaning. Even in the Middle Ages, with the “four-fold sense” (literal, allegorical, tropological/moral, anagogical), scholars felt they were drawing out the meaning of the text (the “literal sense” on which the other senses were based). Recently, however, this approach has come under increasing attack, as attention has shifted from the author to the text (semiotic theory) and then to the reader (postmodern theories) as the locus of meaning.¹

Classical hermeneutics (CH) is a term that this writer wishes would be defined rather than assumed. From this opening paragraph, CH is clearer only by way of remotion. It is not obvious whether it includes the hermeneutic of the Middle Ages, which employed the so-called ‘four-fold sense’. However, CH is apparently other than (and over against?) the traditions Osborne considers in this section on “recent hermeneutical issues.”

I am encouraged to see Protestants considering interpretive traditions that precede the Reformation. However, it does not seem clear that Reformers saw their own hermeneutical methods as antithetical to the medieval tradition’s many senses of scripture. Nevertheless, the abuses of fanciful interpretations were surely something reformers sought to avoid.

Calvin may provide an interesting addition here. One of the greatest differences this writer sees between Calvin and his own Presbyterian and Reformed heritage is the interaction and employment of the patristics. Gamble observes that while Calvin rejects the allegory of Augustine, Origen, Jerome and other patristics, “he also maintained that there were many senses of Scripture.”²

At this point, I believe we have only clarified a bit of the scope Osborne may have had in mind with CH. If as Protestants the rubric of classical hermeneutic is going to truly be classical, i.e., connected to Christian interpretation throughout history, then it would seem to be necessary to make room for Calvin and Luther. Calvin rejects allegory while Luther employs it; both adhere to a multi-sense meaning of scripture.

If what is meant by classical hermeneutics is narrowly the notion that only the grammatical historical approach has been recognized by the church as legitimate, then we find that such a narrow scope on the definition becomes problematic. For such a narrow definition, seems to cut out those reformers who most certainly held that the meaning of the text was much larger than the so called “literal sense.” Luther, being an Augustinian monk, is known for his allegorical interpretations of scripture.

If the narrow scope is more representative of Osborne’s view then “classical hermeneutics” seems to not be so classical at all. It would not seem to account for patristic, medieval, or Reformation hermeneutics that all hold that the meaning of the text is multidimensional in its meaning.

---

¹ Grant R. Osborne, “Hermeneutics/Interpreting Paul,” in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, ed. Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin, and Daniel G. Reid (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 388.
² Richard C. Gamble, “Brevitas et Facilitas: Toward an Understanding of Calvin’s Hermeneutic,” Westminster Theological Journal 47, no. Spring (1985): 4.

Osborne, Grant R. “Hermeneutics/Interpreting Paul.” In Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, ed. Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin and Daniel G. Reid, 388-396. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1993.

I have some time off from preaching for a while, so I am diving into Paul, especially the book of Romans after spending much time in Genesis, Deuteronomy and the Psalms.� In trying to understand how first century apocalyptic elements may have featured in Paul’s writing, I came across this article by Osborne.� I found it engaging and insightful, while at the same time troublesome, such that I felt the need to work out some of the reflections I had here.� Perhaps readers of the Nook will have irenic insight for me also.

Osborne’s article, after brief introduction, falls plainly into three sections.� First, he addresses recent hermeneutical issues, establishing so called “Classical Hermeneutics” over against various interpretive theories and hermeneutical frameworks.� Second, the article briefly considers the rubric and specifics of the forms Paul uses in his epistolary writing.� Finally, Osborne marches through territory he names “Special Issues.”� Here Osborne touches on rhetorical criticism, Paul’s use of liturgical material, social codes impacting Paul, the center of Pauline theology, Paul’s theological development, Paul and sociology, narrative criticism, and the contextualization of the Pauline corpus.

In the coming posts, I will lay out some of the high points Osborne makes and attempt to interact meaningfully with them.

By way of personal confession, a place that I find myself struggling to be consistent with the Law of Love (i.e., the character of Christ being formed in me) is in demonstrating such compassion to those who are religiously quick to the kill, very narrow in their approach to their version of Christianity, and who tend to look down on others in bold judgment for not articulating their faith in an identical way. Some might call these kinds of people fundamentalists, describing more of a disposition than a movement. They do not kill with bombs and bullets but with rending words and icy stares. In my opinion, quite different than the Christ presented to us in the Scriptures.

Recently, what I found to be quite humbling is that we seem to find two prominent Apostles, the sons of Zebedee, James and John, being initially given the nickname “Boanerges” (Gk. transliteration = βοανεργες).¹ Lawrence Farley, in a commentary on Mark that I am going through for devotional purposes, suggested that perhaps the nickname “Sons of Thunder” refers to their “ability to thunder and react forcibly”. This may be exemplified in the Boanerges’ suggestion to Jesus to rain down fire from heaven on the Samaritans by whom they felt insulted (cf. Luke 9:52-54).²

Of course Jesus does not command such fire. The fire that had come from heaven, that which was Jesus’ baptism, was not first for the Samaritans out of judgment, but for the Apostles — even the Boanerges — as the promised baptism of the Holy Spirit, that comes convincing and converting sinners and building them up in holiness and comfort unto salvation in Christ. The fire from heaven is rooted first in the compassion of God for His lost sheep.

So why did this strike me so today? First, as I mentioned above, I am convicted at my own lack of compassion for those who may be the modern day derivative of the Boanerges, i.e., those in the Church who are themselves quick to call down fire on others. I am at once pierced to see that I have laid down my duty as a brother to lovingly encourage those who might need growth in grace in this manner of quickness towards Christ. I have neglected the obligation that I have, being united to these with whom I struggle because we are together united to the One Christ Jesus. I have put this aside to take up the desire to see fire called down from heaven because they do not love as I think they should, and perhaps as they ought as those professing the Name of Jesus.

The bitter irony is that while I sincerely believe my concern is correct in this case, I am reduced to the very thing that I despise. And so I am forced once again to confess my utter poverty before Christ and cry out for His magnitude to be shown forth in both myself and my adversaries. Forgive me brothers and sisters for my small, mundane capacity to love as Christ loves.

__________
¹ Boanerges is very difficult to translate because it is originally an Aramaic colloquial term, which has not been passed down clearly to us in the present day. The Bible interprets “Boanerges” as “Sons of Thunder”, which is sufficient for us, because we are interested in the teaching of the Bible.
² Farley, Lawrence. The Gospel of Mark : The Suffering Servant The Orthodox Bible Study Companion Series. (Ben Lomond, Calif.: Conciliar Press, 2004) p. 54.