Some Proposals for Interpreting the Bible
Recently Andrew Perriman posted a comparison and contrast of his own
narrative-historical model of biblical interpretation that N. T. Wright’s Five
Act Play dramatic model and Craig Bartholomew and Michael Goheen’s slightly
revised version of that model (http://www.postost.net/lexicon/all-world-stage-narrative-historical-revision-wright-five-act-play-hermeneutic).
The chart below reflects those three models along with my own proposal. Below
the chart are my brief assessments of the strengths and weaknesses of each
followed by a more extended exposition of my own proposal.
Wright
|
Bartholomew and Goheen
|
Perriman
|
Wyatt
|
|
|
Prologue: Creation and Fall
|
Bookend 1 of biblical story: Creation/New Creation theme (Gen.1-2) –
Presence (Temple)
|
Act 1:
Creation
|
Act I: God
Establishes His Kingdom: Creation
|
Act 1: The people of God and the land
|
Act 1: Catastrophe (Gen.3-11) Theme of sin and Grace trumping sin –
presence forfeited
|
Act 2: Fall
|
Act 2: Rebellion
in the Kingdom: Fall
|
Act 2: The clash with pagan empire
|
Act 2: Covenant w/Israel
Covenant – Israel to bless the world (Gen.12- Mal.4)
|
Act 3: Israel
|
Act 3: The
King Chooses Israel: Redemption Initiated Scene
I A People for the King
Scene 2 A Land for His People |
Act 3: Jesus and the coming of the kingdom of God
|
Act 3: Christ
King/Covenant/Temple incarnate (Gospels)
|
Act 4: Jesus
|
Act 4: The
Coming of the King: Redemption Accomplished
|
Act 4: The people of God and the nations
|
Act 4: Covenant w/Church among the Nations (Acts-Rev.20)
|
Act 5: Church
|
Act 5:
Spreading the News of the King: The Mission of the Church Scene I From
Jerusalem to Rome
Scene 2 And into All the World |
Act 5: The people of God and global secularism
|
Bookend 2: Consummation – Creation/New Creation fulfilled (Rev.21-22)
|
|
Act 6: The Return of the King: Redemption Completed
|
Epilogue: Consummation
|
|
Notes
NTW
Strengths
-dramatic imagery is helpful
for thinking through the narrative quality of the biblical story and for
reframing discipleship in Act 5 as “improvisation”
Weaknesses
-treating all 5 acts as if they
are of the same linear, narrative quality (esp. Act 1 and 2)
-collapses Consummation into
Act 5
-history stops with Jesus
(Perriman)
Bartholomew and Goheen
Strengths
-inclusion
of intertestamental period doesn’t leave gaps in the narrative
-including
an Act 6 for Consummation/Eschatology
Weaknesses
-similar
to Wright in treating all Acts as if they are of same linear quality
-Kingdom is not an adequate
rubric for all that goes on in scripture (it is part of an adequate rubric but
not by itself)
-like Wright, history stops
with Jesus (Perriman)
Perriman
Strengths
-recognizes the qualitative
difference between Creation/Fall and Consummation and the intervening acts
-insistence that the
biblical narrative is about real, earthly communities struggling with
discipleship under different imperial overlords
-frames the story in terms
of material content not formal rubrics
Weaknesses
-devalues the Prologue and
Epilogue to “stage setting” which hosts the real story which begins with
Abraham
-plays off Creation/New
Creation theme against his Narrative-historical approach.
-not sure his limiting
Kingdom to a historical concept and role works.
Wyatt
I’ll unfold my approach in a little more detail since I
have not heretofore done that whereas the others above have.
I agree with Perriman that the first and last parts of
the story are qualitatively different from others and serve different purposes.
We don’t agree about the scope of material included or the purposes served
however. I see Gen.1-2 and Revelation 20-21 as set apart from the remainder of
scripture for two reasons.
-First, we
get clued into the embryonic and fulfilled pictures of God’s eternal purpose:
to have a world of creatures with who he can share his life in the temple of
his creation. I take the pictures of creation in Gen.1-2 as God building as
temple for his dwelling with his creatures and Rev.21-22 showing that new
creation as coterminous with the New Jerusalem which is God’s people shaped as
the Holy of Holies. Creation has become that temple!
-Second,
these are the only four chapters in the Bible untouched by sin.
This is why I call these beginning and ending parts of
the story bookends. They envelop the story with its ultimate meaning and big
picture that God is pursuing in all his deeds, even when the plot line gets
hijacked by sin and its multifarious repercussions and the need to deal with
that in order to reclaim and restore humanity and creation to their intended
purposes. Though the Creation/New Creation dynamic lies behind what is narrated
in Gen.3-Rev.20, it is muted to occasional explicit references (e. g.
Rom.8:18ff.) because the presenting need is to deal with sin. The bookends
anchor the story firmly within this Creation/New Creation dynamic though and
“sets the stage” in a sense in that the themes introduced and shown fulfilled
in them are our reading guides to the things to keep our eye on as we read to
stay with the central thrust.
What are
these themes: the big three, I think, are covenant, kingdom, and divine
presence. The temple imagery points to the divine presence which looms large in
both Gen.1-2 and Rev.21-22. Covenant and kingdom are auxiliary themes at both ends.
Implied in Gen.1-2 by the very nature of the situation. It is assumed that God
rules and God wants relationship with his creatures above all else. No need for
formal declarations of either kingdom or covenant. Both are also explicitly
present in Rev.21-22. There is no temple in the New Jerusalem because, as
mentioned earlier, the new city/creation is itself the temple.
Covenant,
kingdom, and temple bear the meanings of family, rule, and presence. The former
pair are the delivery system, as it were of the main thing, God’s presence with
his people.
I liken
this to a cord of three strands. Covenant and Kingdom wrap around the central
strand of presence. They are inextricably interwoven and intersect with each
other at numerous points. At some points in the narrative one may predominate
but at every point all three are at least tacitly present. The preservation and
nurture of God’s family (covenant), God’s reasserting his sovereign rule over a
recalcitrant world (kingdom), grounding God’s desire to move ever more deeply
into the life and experience of his people (presence).
With Gen.3
the great plot contradiction enters the picture. The Catastrophe of the Fall
breaks humanity’s relationship to God, rejects God’s parental rights, and
revolts against God’s rightful rule. Even though Gen.2-3 are part of the same
narrative (the J source), the breach it opens in in the divine human
relationship and God’s own heart is substantial enough to warrant breaking the
story at this point (Act 1 of the story proper). Another reason is that this is
the point where we experientially connect with the story. This is where we
realize that it is our story, this story of treachery and rebellion.
Now we
enter our own world and life experience. And the biblical story narrates God’s
response to our rejection. Covenant comes to the foreground now as God’s
strategy for reclamation and restoration (Act 2). Abraham’s family is promised
and equipped to be God’s agent in this endeavor. God will bless the world
through them. A series of covenants with this family, who now bears humanity’s
fate and destiny, move them through slavery in Egypt, becoming a nation at
Sinai, wandering in the wilderness, a united and divided kingdom, in exile, and
back home again under the heel of various foreign empires to a brief time of
relative independence to subjugation by Rome.
The
climactic and decisive moment in God’s reclamation and restoration plan comes
with the birth of Jesus of Nazareth, Messiah (Act 3). He is God’s covenant
renewed with faithless Israel, God’s rule (kingdom) in person as bearer of
God’s Spirit, and God’s Temple in his flesh. All three of our primary themes
converge and take on flesh in Jesus. God is now present with us as one of us as
Divine Parent (Father) and King, the Holy One of Israel.
This
regime change effected by Jesus, however, is like nothing any empire the world
had known practiced. It’s been called an upside-down kingdom. It was bound to
be that way, coming into a wrong-side up sin-riddled world. Jesus’ earthly
ministry was primarily about reconstituting God’s Abrahamic people as the
instrument through which he still intended to bless the world. Hints and
glimmers of blessings to the Gentiles are there, as a sort of preview of things
to come. But (re)gathering and reconstituting God’s people before the
cataclysmic war with Rome (70 a.d.) was his chief priority.
His death
fulfilled a life of undeviating love and loyalty to the Father. The Father
vindicated and valorized Jesus by raising him from the dead and installing him
as world ruler. He presently rules the world in a hidden (though real) fashion
with his people, churches, whose task in Perriman’s words is to be “faithful witness(es) to God’s future under the
particular historical conditions of eschatological crisis . . . (to be) a community that is
called to respond to an eschatological crisis—by which I mean a radical historical challenge to
its identity or even existence” (“Church as Eschatological Community,” Parts
1,2 at http://www.postost.net/2013/07/church-eschatological-community) serving as first-fruits and prototype of what God wants
human life to look like.
I think Perriman’s approach (the “historical” part of his
hermeneutic) is on target for helping us better understand the differentiated
unfolding of the history after the early church. Many of his blog posts spell
this out so I won’t belabor it here (though I would encourage everyone to
carefully read and consider his proposals).
At any rate, the church’s task in this unfolding history is
to begin here and now to live out the reality of the them and there given us
through Christ’s death and resurrection. Be a new creation people amid the
decaying old world that is passing away sensitive to the dynamics at work in
our time and place.
Act 4
leads to Consummation which is pictured in the last scenes of the vision of
Revelation in chs.21-22. This New Creation is Bookend 2 of the biblical story
picturing in finished form what Bookend 1, the creation stories, present in
embryonic form.
These
bookends preserve the big picture or grand purpose of what God has been working
on all along. They picture the largest context in which we are to read the rest
of the story. The bulk of the story, Gen.3-Rev.20, necessarily deal with God’s
way of dealing with the plot contradiction sin imposed on the story. But though
large in bulk, this part of the story is subordinate to and conditioned by the
way God does resolve this problem so as to reclaim and restore what was lost
and damaged for his larger purposes.
In
short, though I have some differences with Perriman, on the whole, I think his
proposals are most insightful and stimulating and offer us a genuinely helpful
way forward in reading the Bible.
Comments
Post a Comment