#hermenuetics

This is a fantastic bit of insight on Patristic exegesis from Beeley and Weedman: The Bible and Early Trinitarian Theology.

A few years ago I encountered something that, at the time, seemed problematic to my Protestant sensibilities: a sobering admission concerning the doctrine of Trinity’s presence in the Bible.

The historical-critical approach is correct in a crucial and far-reaching aspect: the doctrine of the Trinity is later than the biblical texts and to suggest that the biblical writers were consciously thinking in later creedal terms is in fact a major anachronistic mistake….to read the Trinity back into the Old or even into the New Testament as concomitant with the original sense of the text is highly problematic and smooths over the manifest differences in the movement of external historical development.[1]

The Trinity does not present himself[2] to us in the Holy Scriptures in the form of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.[3]

…we cannot simply proof text the linchpin doctrines of Nicene trinitarianism, such as eternal generation or the homoousion.[4]

The basic vocabulary of Trinitarian theology is not found on the surface of the text (person, nature, relation, threeness), and the conceptual elements of Trinitarianism are not gathered in one place and related to each other by Scripture itself…To call it less revealed than other doctrines is simply to admit, with calm confidence and equanimity [composure in a difficult situation], that it is not verbally formulated for us, and that some assembly is required.[5]

Obvious questions arise.

The doctrine of the Trinity (docTrinity) is “later than the biblical texts” and differs from the “original sense” of Scripture? The docTrinity, unlike the Gospel, is not even present as a basic creedal formulation “in the Holy Scriptures?”

We can’t “proof text the linchpin doctrines?” The docTrinity, as one of the most important doctrines of the Christian faith, is “less revealed than other doctrines” and “some assembly is required?” 

Needless to say, these admissions and questions threw me off balance. A good evangelical Protestant (especially a Baptist like me) is supposed to believe only what is in the Bible. The docTrinity isn’t in the Bible. Therefore, we shouldn’t believe it. Right?

Hold up!

This can’t be right. The orthodox church (including evangelicals) has embraced the docTrinity since at least 381. That’s almost 1700 years of Christian tradition. Doesn’t this fact alone give some warrant for embracing the docTrinity?

But what’s a good Protestant to do with these admissions that the docTrinity is not in Scripture? They press hard against Protestant sensibilities about believing only what is “in” the Bible (sola scriptura).

What’s needed here is an understanding of what such admissions affirm and negate, and a couple of definitions. First, the definitions.

What Is the Doctrine of the Trinity?

With this question I intend only to address to what the term “doctrine of the Trinity” refers. It is not my intention here to explain the concepts of the doctrine itself--its theology, grammar, logic, and philosophy.

A doctrine is simply this:

What the church of Jesus Christ believes, teaches and confesses on the basis of the word of God: this is Christian doctrine.[6]

The docTrinity, then, is what the church “believes, teaches and confesses on the basis of the word of God” about the Holy Trinity.

Doctrines of this sort, naturally, will involve a certain technical language and logic.

Importantly, doctrine: 

...is studied and performed in a community of faith. [It] is something that is learned, lived, sung, preached, and renewed through the dynamic interaction between God and his people.[7]

This above point is crucial. Doctrines are forged within the “community of faith.” In the case of the docTrinity, this community is the pro-Nicene era church[8].

This means that doctrine requires more than a so-called “plain reading” of Scripture by an individual Christian reading the Bible in isolation from what has come before. Tradition matters.

While the desire to allow Scripture ‘to speak for itself’ seems noble, the attempt to do so could easily divert our attention from the divine and human agents who have worked in the historic production, redaction, dissemination, canonization, and understanding of Scripture; such an approach to Scripture risks ‘de-peopling’ the pursuit of its meaning.[9]

What about Sola Scriptura?

The fact that doctrine is hashed out by the church and isn’t simply proof texted by a Bible study group requires us to correct the caricatured view some evangelicals have concerning sola scriptura (Scripture alone).

When the Reformers spoke of sola scriptura, they meant the Bible illuminated by the Spirit in the matrix of the church. Sola scriptura is not nuda scriptura (“the bare scripture”). The Protestant confessions are indebted to the ecumenical councils and patristic theologies in every respect. Thus the Reformers’ use of Scripture is more tantamount to suprema scriptura. This means that the Bible is our primary authority, but not our only authority.[10]

Sola scriptura, then, is not at odds with the contributions of the pro-Nicene era church to the docTrinity.

The docTrinity is developed, formed, and worked out within the “matrix of the church” (the first two ecumenical councils, for example). But its “basis [and primary authority] is the word of God.”

Tradition, doctrine, and sola scriptura are not mutually exclusive.

Negations and Affirmations

Now the question of what a good Trinitarian Protestant is to do with the startling admission that the docTrinity is not in the Bible can be answered.

The answer is this: understand clearly what is not being said (negated) and what is being said (affirmed) with this admission.

Negations: So when it’s conceded that the docTrinity is not in the Bible this concession is not saying that: (1) the doctrine has no basis in the Bible; (2) the doctrine was established outside the pro-Nicene era church by a rogue group of individuals.

(1) The early Christians who first articulated the docTrinity argued forcefully from Scripture that the docTrinity is needed to maintain the integrity of the Gospel and to properly worship and esteem God the Father, the Son of God, and the Holy Spirit.

Scripture was the basis of their arguments.

The major dogmatic endeavors [docTrinity] of the fourth and fifth centuries were concerned above all with establishing the correct interpretation of key biblical passages, to the point that theologians often structured their treatises around the exegesis of particular biblical texts.[11]

Additionally, the same scholars who readily concede that the docTrinity is not in the Bible also make the case that Scripture contains the building blocks,[12] pressure,[13] and seeds[14] for the docTrinity.

Even more importantly, the above argue that the docTrinity is the best explanation of the building blocks, pressures, and seeds found throughout the Old and New Testaments.[15]

(2) To concede that the docTrinity is not in the Bible is not to concede that its origin was the neurotic fixation of Constantine, his sons, or a cabal of over zealous bishops carried off by Greek philosophy.

The docTrinity is a doctrine, grounded in Scripture, that arose from over a hundred years of serious theological debate that sought to mature the church of Christ. 

...pro-Nicene theologians and others aimed to read, interpret, and teach the scriptures in a way that produced spiritual growth in Christ.[16]

Vital to this spiritual growth was the theological concern for proper worship of the Holy Trinity in the life and liturgy of the church. Politics and infighting were a footnote.

Affirmations: So when it’s conceded that the docTrinity is not in the Bible this concession is affirming that it is the technical language, logic, etc., of the doctrine as taught by the church that are not in the Bible.[17]

That’s it.

Big Finish

Given a proper understanding of sola scriptura and the church’s relationship to doctrine, this admission turns out to be hardly more than a ripple. It’s not a big deal.

Really, it’s simply a reminder that the church makes doctrine. This is what the church does.

[1] Rowe, C. Kavin, Biblical Pressure and Trinitarian Hermeneutics (Pro Ecclesia Vol. XI, No. 3) 297 & 310.

[2] I shy away from Trinitarian language that refers to the Trinity as “he.” To be honest, I can’t stand It. I prefer creedal and biblical language: One God the Father, the Son of God, and the Spirit of God. These three are the Holy Trinity.

[3] Swain, Scott, JETS 60:1, The Bible And The Trinity In Recent Thought: Review, Analysis, And Constructive Proposal.

[4] Stamps, Luke, Trinitarian Theology (edited by Keith Whitfield), Chapter 3.

[5] Sanders, Fred, The Triune God: New Studies in Dogmatics (Kindle Edition), Location 39-40.

[6] Pelikan, Jaroslav, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine), 1:1

[7] Bird, Michael, Evangelical Theology, 1.1

[8] By “pro-Nicene era church” I mean to refer to the catholic church (lowercase “c”), its ecumenical councils, and the patristic theology used to inform and write the councils’ doctrinal statements. Specifically, I have in mind the ecumenical process as it unfolded in the 4th century and culminated in the 381 Nicene-Constantinople Creed.

[9] Gordon, Joseph K., Divine Scripture in Human Understanding, 29.

[10] Bird, Michael, Evangelical Theology, 1.6.2.4

[11] Beeley, Christopher &  Weedham, Mark (editors), The Bible and Early Trinitarian Theology, 8.

[12] Attridge, Harold, The Bible and Early Trinitarian Theology: Chapter 3 Trinitarian Theology and the Fourth Gospel, 72.

[13] Row, C. Kavin, Biblical Pressure and Trinitarian Hermeneutics (Pro Ecclesia Vol. XI, No. 3), 311.

[14] Hurtado, L. W., God in New Testament Theology (Kindle Edition), Location 1035-1039.

[15] There so many examples that it would require another article or two to deal with just some of them. A quick example would be Hebrews 1:3. Christ is the radiance of the glory of God (the Father). Was God the Father ever without his glory? Was there ever a time that the Father’s glory wasn’t radiating. This text pressures us (especially in tandem with so many other texts) to see the Son as always being present with the Father. To say that the Son wasn’t always present with the Father is to say that the Father was without his glory.

[16] Beeley, Christopher &  Weedham, Mark (editors), The Bible and Early Trinitarian Theology, 11.

Most biblical Hermeneutics are based on Judaism, because that is where most of the text comes from.

That being said we should have a working knowledge of what theirs was like, so here is a brief overview:

Hebrew basis for Hermenuetics,

Peshat: the literal, direct meaning.

(also P'shat, פשט) is one of four classical methods of Jewish biblical exegesis used by rabbis and Jewish bible scholars in reading the Hebrew Bible, also known as theTanakh.

Peshat is part of a group of exegetical methods known together as Pardes. While Peshat is commonly defined as referring to the surface or literal meaning of a text,[1] numerous scholars and Rabbis have debated this for centuries, giving Peshat many uses and definitions.[2]

Remez: an allegorical significance; a hint of something deeper.

...Oral Law that was essentially an interpretation of the Written Law), peshaṭ was preferred. Other interpretive principles, however, could be used simultaneously in any given text: remez(meaning “hint,” in reference to typological or allegorical interpretations), derash (meaning “search,” in reference to biblical study according to the...

Derash: the homiletical, or practical application.

(or Derush) (Heb. דְּרָשׁ or דְּרוּשׁ from דָּרַשׁ, "to interpret"), a method of exposition of scriptural verses. In the Midrash the distinction between derash and the alternative method called *peshat is not clearly defined and in parallel passages the terms are sometimes interchangeable (cf. Gen. R. 10:7 with Tanh., Ḥukkat 1). Only in the Middle Ages, probably under the influence of Rashi's Bible commentary, did derash come to be used for homiletical exposition in contrast to peshat, the literal interpretation. Derashah (Heb. דְּרָשָׁה) is the equivalent of the word "sermon" today. Originally it was confined to a sermon on a theme which was based on a homiletical interpretation of Scripture.

Sod: the mystical or hidden meaning.

Exoteric and Esoteric in Sod[edit] Exoteric means that Scripture is read in the context of the Physical World, Human orientation and Human notions. The first three exegetical methods: Peshat-Simple, Remez-Hinted, and Drush-Homiletic belong to the exoteric "Nigleh-Revealed" part of Torah embodied in mainstream Rabbinic literature, such as the Talmud, Midrash and exoteric-type Jewish commentaries on the Bible. Esoteric means that the surface meaning of Scripture, as with esoteric texts in general, while it may also be true, is not the real truth to which Scripture refers. Instead the surface meaning hides/covers/conceals its real intention. The real truth is the secret hidden within the deceptive covering. The fourth level of exegesis: Sod-Secret belongs to the esoteric "Nistar-Hidden" interpretations of Scripture found alternatively in Jewish mysticism-Kabbalah or Jewish philosophy-Metaphysics. Religious adherents of Kabbalah and Rationalism fought over their alternative claims to know the esoteric meaning. In Medieval Jewish Rationalism, the hidden truth within Scripture was human-centredDivine transcendence philosophical depths. In Kabbalistic mysticism it was God's Persona-centred Divine immanence emanations. Therefore, both interpreted classic Rabbinic references to Pardes (legend), Maaseh Bereishit/Maaseh Merkabah (Talmudic passages about esotericism) and the connected 4-fold structure of PaRDeS exegesis differently.

I did a lot of copy paste here, however I think these references help to define it.

https://www.academia.edu/9639078/LARUELLES_QUANTUM_HERMENEUTICS

the inflection point of a wave is the seat of inflection, determining of particles.  the greatest contingency is in fact a declaimation of the field.  to note that laurelle is part of it, re-draws the boundaries.  the apparatus here, continues to measure the situation, leaving out itself. this is the answer of subject to zizek's questioning of barad: why not transcendence?  why not a subject?  this phenomenon is both the subject and the transcendence as 10) where the field of laruelle spits out deleuze, and can construct the field of everything except what is not deleuze in deleuze.

I AM STILL REELING BECAUSE OMG FLORIDA MAKE UP YOUR MIND