Hebrew Bible and Christian Scriptures

During the annual E.K. Bailey conference held at Truett Seminary this year on October 26-27, 2009, I had an opportunity to listen to the preaching of Dr. William Curtis. On Tuesday, I attended the luncheon in which he spoke of the exegetical approach he learned while in seminary that he continues to utilize even today. When reading the text, Dr. Curtis identifies the following: 1) Where is God in the text? 2) What is God saying or doing in the text? 3) Who are the characters in the Bible? 4) Where do I see myself in the text? In light of this approach, Dr. Curtis is always looking for tension in the text and how Christ is the solution.

Based on the aforementioned elements, I would classify Dr. Curtis’ exegetical method as synchronic. His focus on narrative criticism is obvious in the questions above, but also in the manner of his sermon form and delivery. His diligence of digging into the text in search of the Sitz im Leben would make even Herman Gunkel proud. It has also inspired me to exert more due diligence in my exegetical approach of Scripture.

“And now the end has come. So listen to my piece of advice: exegesis, exegesis, and yet more exegesis!” – Karl Barth, in his farewell to his students before his 1935 expulsion from Germany

Amy Frykholm, a frequent contributor Christian Century, tells us what is on her shelf. This time she treats us to a glimpse of Psalms by John Hermanson.  This collection of psalms and music is compelling. Her piece is well worth your time.

While reading Isaiah and Jeremiah, I can not help but place their message in our contemporary culture.  It is debated, but there is enough evidence to say that Christian morals had some say in the development of our nation.  But we have increasingly lost those morals do to our lack of fear for the Lord.  I do not want to be perceived wrongly, because I do not have a voice from God as was the case of Isaiah and Jeremiah.  But if our nation was based on Godly morals and then our nation turns its back on those morals (and God for that matter) are we deserving the same destruction that which Isaiah and Jeremiah wrote to Judah and Israel?  One might say that I am paranoid, and that this is a cheap trick to get our nation back to fearing God, but I assure you there is no trick.  I am just worried that history will repeat itself, as it tends to do so.

I have a problem.  When I go to a buffet restaurant I always put more on my plate than I am capable of eating.  I just can not help myself.  I look down on the buffet line and see the mountain of goodness.  Calories upon calories; fat upon fat.  As I stand there in front of the buffet line looking at the mounds of food, almost on queue my stomach begins to gripe.  As my eyes believe I can take it all in, my stomach knows there is no need for me to stand in front of a buffet line because it knows I am only coveting what I can not have. Ecclesiastes 6:9 speaks to this.  Even though all the riches in the world might be pleasing to the eye, the soul know that those riches are futile and gives those riches no worth.  But as convicting as that is, how often do I still desire what I do not need.  Not necessarily what I can not get, but what I do not need is the issue.  In this materialistic culture we live, people can not get enough things to make them happy.  I unfortunately admit this same desire, but the question remains: do I continue in my discipline  for Christ, or do I give in?

The first eight verses of this chapter are a bit confusing from a Christian perspective because it seems to put a lot of emphasis on the “Righteous Branch” as one who would bring Israel back to its land.  And it does seem to imply military power, “Judah will be saved” and “Israel will dwell securely” so I can understand from this the militarian idea of the Messiah from the part of the 1st century Jews.  But I wonder if this is more in line of eschatology rather than the “suffering servant”?  Because we as Christians understand Jesus’ first coming was of a suffering servant, which did not bring safety and security to Israel and Judah as it says they “will live on their own soil.”  But we do have imagery of a new Jerusalem coming down from heaven to replace the old.  In short, does Jeremiah 23:1-8 speak more to the rule of Christ from the new Jerusalem rather than speaking to Jesus the Christ of the 1st century?

In Jeremiah 1:10 God lays down the mission statement for the ministry of Jeremiah: “See, I have appointed you this day over the nations and over the kingdoms, to pluck up and to break down, to destroy and to overthrow, to build and to plant.”  I wonder how much of this instruction has to do with our own ministries?  Or, is this instruction dedicated for a select few? 

When I think of this instruction being done in actual practice, my mind turns to people such as Martin Luther who was willing to stand up against (perceived) evil within the church.  He broke down, destroyed and overthrew its authority while planting seeds for reform which our church traditions are built. 

My mind also turns to a more recent individual which was not only breaking down church traditions, but helped in  destroying (still in progress of course) and overthrowing racial barriers.  Martin Luther King Jr. would more than likely fall int this category of destorying the traditional teachings to plant seeds which our contemporary ideals are built.

But the question still stands, is this call for all ministers/pastors/priests/prophets to take as their personal call to break down “evil” traditions and build beliefs based on God’s will?  And if so, what should this look like on a micro level?

This imagery is one of the evils that God tells Jeremiah in 2:13 that the children of God have committed.

What is forsaken the fountain of living waters and/or hew for themselves cisterns?

The seraphim touched Isaiah’s lips with this and said “…your iniquity is taken away and your sin is forgiven.”

What is burning coal?

While completing Information Literacy Project 2, I came across a very interesting article by Walter Brueggemann.  In this article, Brueggemann uses Jeremiah 30:12-17 as a kind of case study to display the shift in critical method.  The text at hand is quoted below:

¹²“For thus says the LORD: Your hurt is incurable,
and your wound is grievous.
¹³There is none to uphold your cause,
no medicine for your wound,
no healing for you.
¹⁴ All your lovers have forgotten you;
they care nothing for you;
for I have dealt you the blow of an enemy,
the punishment of a merciless foe,
because your guilt is great,
because your sins are flagrant.
¹⁵ Why do you cry out over your hurt?
Your pain is incurable.
Because your guilt is great,
because your sins are flagrant,
I have done these things to you.
¹⁶ Therefore all who devour you shall be devoured,
and all your foes, every one of them, shall go into captivity;
those who plunder you shall be plundered,
and all who prey on you I will make a prey.
¹⁷ For I will restore health to you,
and your wounds I will heal,
declares the LORD,because they have called you an outcast:
‘It is Zion, for whom no one cares!’

This proves to be a remarkable passage in that it moves from Israel’s having an incurable hurt inflicted by God himself to God’s statement that “your wounds I will heal.”  Brueggemann moves to treat this oddity from the vantage point of “the newer literary criticism,” which finds the change in tone to be a purposeful move.  He pursues this line by upholding the importance of v 17b, which he takes as a causative statement.  ”Yahweh is moved to a wholly new action toward Israel by the contemptuous speech of the nations…”  This moves allows him to argue that the cause of Yahweh’s change of heart is two fold: First, Yahweh is working against the pride of the nations, who “seem to think they have put Israel in such a situation.”  Second, “Yahweh finds [his own speech about Israel] intolerable on the lips of anybody else, as the nations in ν 17.”  Both of these explanations make Yahweh’s new attitude dependent on the speech of the nations.  In all of this, it is the same God who first tears down and who then builds up, thereby allowing the text to be read as a unity.

Brueggemann explains the above treatment as a shift from the “older literary criticism,” which “follows the general practice of resolving any substantive incongruity in the text by positing a redactional move.”  This view argues that vv 16 -17 are a later addition to the original work of vv 12-15.

I must now say that I am glad to see such a shift taking place, for I believe that Brueggemann’s “newer literary criticism” does a better job of dealing with the text than the older alternative.  Indeed, I believe that the newer approach entails a greater respect for the biblical authors/redactors, for it takes them seriously in their final form rather than explaining away seeming incongruities in the text by positing later redaction.  Indeed, I question the very helpfulness of the latter approach.  After all, how am I helped in dealing with the final form of the text by cutting it into segments and theoretically assigning those elements to different time periods?  Though such an argument is interesting, I wonder how much it helps in actually understanding the text.  This is seen in the blindness of the older criticism to Brueggemann’s persuasive argument for intentional unity based on v 17.  Moreover, in its explaining away of the difficulty of the text, the older approach misses the layers of irony and the greater theological thrust.  Even more disturbing in my mind is the older approach’s tendency to treat the biblical author/redactors like novices doing a bad job of changing the meaning of older texts.  Brueggemann’s treatment allows that the text was always a whole.  Even if one wants to argue for redaction, though, this can be done with great respect for the intelligence of the redactor, a point which the older criticism seems to have missed.

All of this is to say that I am glad for the shift in method that is taking place.  As Brueggemann notes, “Texts may not be assessed any longer ‘from the outside,’ according to our critical control, but must be appreciated for their fullness, filled as they are with irony, subdety, incongruity.  Such fresh critical method opens up ways to observe something creative and interior about the character of God, a theological point mostly denied in the older “reasonable” method.”  Indeed, the newer method seems to be opening doors to allow the text to once again speak instead of being swallowed in theory.

Brueggemann’s article info:
Brueggemann, Walter. “The ‘Uncared For’ Now Cared For (Jer 30:12-17): A Methodological Consideration.” Journal of Biblical Literature 104 no. 3 (1985): 419-428.

1. Name the five Kings of Judah who reign during Jeremiah’s prophetic work:  Josiah, Jeoahaz, Jehoiakim, Jehoichin and Zedekiah

2. Father of Jeremiah: Hilkiah ( a priest at Anathot, a village 2-3 miles north of Jerusalem)

3. Jeremiah is also known as: The weeping prophet

4. Josiah begins his reign in Judah: 640 BC

5. Jeremiah is called to prophetic ministry: 626 BC

6. Book of the Law found: 622 BC

7. The first writing prophet: Jeremiah