i

4 : ,?-.

CONTRIBUTORS

James I-3. Olthuis is Professor of Philosophical

A HERMENEUTICS OF
Theology at the Institute for Christian Studies, ULTIMACY:
Toronto, Ontario PERIL OR PROMISE?
Clark H. Pinnock is Professor of Systematic Theology
at McMaster Divinity College, Hamilton, Ontario
James H. Olthuis
Donald G. Bloesch is Professor of Theology at the
University of Dubuque Theological Seminary, with Donald G. Bloesch,
Dubuque, Iowa Clark H. Pinnock and
Gerald T. Sheppard
Gerald T. Sheppard is Professor of Old Testament
at Emmanuel College of the University of Toronto,
Toronto, Ontario

UNIVERSITY
PRESS OF
AMERICA

LANHAM/NEW YORK/LONDON
 Copyright 0 1987 by
University Press of America,@, Inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS
4720 Boston Way
Lanham, MD 20706

3 Henrietta Street
London WCZE 8LU England

All rights reserved

Printed in the United States of America
Foreword, Donald G. Bloesch /7
British Cataloging in Publication Information Available
Proposal for a hermeneutics
Co-published by arrangement with the of ultimacy, James H. Olthuis /ll
Institute for Christian Studies, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Cover/book design 8t typography: Willem Hart Peril with promise, Clark H. Pinnock 153
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Promise with peril, Donald G. Bloesch 161
Olthuis, James H
A hermeneutics of ultimacy.
A promising synthesis, Gerald T. Sheppard /70
(Christian studies today)
Bibliography: p.
1. Bible-Hermeneutics 2. Evangelicalism. Peril or promise: a reply, James H. Olthuis /76
I. Title. II. Series
BS476.054 1987 220.601 86-28071
ISBNO-8191-580(13 (alk paper)
ISBNO-8191-5801-I (pbk. : alk. paper)

All University Press of America books are produced on acid-free

paper which exceeds the minimum standards set by the National
Historical Publication and Records Commission.
 A hermeneutics ofultimacy 7

Foreword

Though a man had a precious and a rich jewel, yet if

he knew not the value thereof, nor wherefore it It is perhaps a healthy sign that in our day the Bible has become
a controversial book. Even the worst heresies at least have the
served, he were neither the better nor richer of a merit of arousing the faithful to a renewed interest in the Word of
straw. Even so though we read the scripture, and God by which they claim to live. The focus of attention today
babble of it ever so much, yet if we know not the use revolves about the method of interpreting Scripture, called
of it, and wherefme it was given, and what is therein hermeneutics. Even those who hold, as I do, that Scripture is self-
to be sought, it profits us nothing at all. It is not authenticating have to acknowledge that the text of Scripture
nevertheless needs to be expounded and related to the world of
enough, therefore, to read and talk of it only, but we meaning of our time.
must also desire God, day and night, instantly, to The hermeneutics debate initiated- by the “new hermeneutic”
open our eyes, and to make us understand and feel of Ebeling and Fuchs has only recently penetrated into evangelical
wherefore the scripture was given, that we may apply circles. Now that the historical investigation of Scripture is
the medicine of the scripture, every man to his own becoming more generally accepted, evangelicals are increasingly
entering into the dialogue on biblical interpretation.
sores. Unless we intend to be idle disputers, and James Olthuis’ essay, together with my response and that of
brawlers about vain words, ever gnawing upon the Clark Pinnock, were papers originally presented in June, 1981, at a
bitter bark without, and never attaining unto the conference in Toronto called “Interpreting an Authoritative Scrip-
sweet pith within; and persecuting one another in ture,” co-sponsored by the Institute for Christian Studies and
defending of wicked imaginations, and phantasies of Fuller Theological Seminary. Olthuis has enlarged his essay for
this book and’has composed a reply to his critics. We have also
our own invention. invited Gerald Sheppard, an active participant at the conference,
to write a response for inclusion in this volume. We believe these
William Tyndale papers are important because they show evangelicals wrestling
prefixed to the translation of the Pentateuch, 1530 with the basic issues of biblical interpretation raised by the later
Heidegger, Gadamer and the New Hermeneutic.
The current debate on hermeneutics revolves around a number
Thus one who knows how to use the Scriptures of issues, most of which are discussed in these papers. The first
properly, is in want of nothing for salvation, or for a has to do with the meaning of hermeneutics. It is now generally
holy life. agreed that hermeneutics is concerned not only with the under-
standing of the text in question but also with the meaning of
John Calvin “understanding” itself. There is a growing consensus that the aim
Commentary on II Timothy 3:16,1548 of hermeneutics is not simply the reconstruction of the historical
and literary background of a text but the translation of the
meaning of the text into the thought world of the modern age. It is
8 Donald Bloesch A hermeneutics of ultimacu 9

an attempt to fuse the horizons of the original authors and the con- light of a general or philosophical hermeneutic but instead must
temporary interpreters (Gadamer). Hermeneutic philosophers to- draw its principles of interpretation from revelation itself.
day speak of the need for a hermeneutical bridge that will span No discussion of biblical hermeneutics can afford to ignore the
the distance between the modern and ancient world views. meaning of revelation. Evangelical theology in the Reformation
A closely related question concerns the focus of hermeneutics. tradition has steadfastly maintained that revelation consists in
Is the biblical interpreter concerned most of all to gain a know- an objective propositional content that resides in Holy Scripture
ledge of authorial intention (the prevailing evangelical stance but is accessible to us only by the illumination of the Holy Spirit.
today), authorial motivation (Schleie,rmacher), the inner life of Some evangelical theologians (such as Carl Henry and Gordon
the author (Dilthey), authentic existence in the light of the text Clark) claim that the datum of revelation can be apprehended by
(Bultmann) or the disclosure of Being through the text (Hei- natural reason alone but that the illumination of the Spirit is
degger)? James Olthuis presents a fresh alternative in his concep- necessary for the corOmitment of faith in the object of this reve-
tion of the vision of the text, an approach which purportedly lation - Jesus Christ. This is also Pannenberg’s position. Existen-
gives greater significance to the revelation of God in biblical tialist theology generally maintains that revelation gives us not
history. conceptual knowledge of God and of his will and purpose but in-
In this same connection, we must ask: Is the criterion for stead a new self-understanding. All contributors to this sympo-
determining the truth of the text the inner disposition of the sium contend for a conceptual or propositional dimension to reve-
author, the modem cultural experience of a holistic humanity, the lation.
horizon of meaning entertained by the author or a fresh Word We must also consider whether the biblical symbols render
from God who enters into the hermeneutical circle from the beyond real knowledge of God and the self or only a “true awareness”
and reshapes our attitudes and presuppositions? This last is (Tillich). Paul Ricoeur concludes that the biblical symbols are
Barth’s position. equivocal rather than univocal, that is to say they contain a
The role of a preunderstanding is also important in this multiplicity of meanings. Their meanings are not absolute but
discussion. Drawing upon Heidegger and Gadamer, the new her- relative - depending on the culture and history in which they
meneutic theologians contend that one cannot rightly understand were written and in which they are interpreted. Do the symbols
the meaning of the text unless one already shares in this meaning point beyond themselves to an ineffable experience of the
to some extent. We cannot understand unless we are in the her- unconditional or Being-itself (as in mysticism), to a breakthrough
meneutical circle, which presupposes a preunderstanding of the into a higher level of consciousness (as in modern evolutionary
text. Tillich and Bultmann have said that we must come to the theology), or do they adequately convey the conceptual truth that
text with the tools of existentialist analysis. Karl Barth in God intends us to hear concerning his promises and commandments?
contrast has argued that we must come to the Bible laying aside Is our knowledge of God basically symbolic in the sense of
all overt presuppositions as much as possible and let the Bible intuitive, or is it not analogical - giving us a real but limited
speak for itself. When we do this, the living Word of God acting understanding of the being and purpose of God?
in the Bible corrects our preconceptions and places our broken un- Finally, we need to ask what are the limits of the historical
derstanding on a new foundation. investigation of Scripture. Is there a place for higher as well as
This brings us to the relation between biblical interpretation lower (textual) criticism? Does the investigation of the histori-
and philosophical understanding. Olthuis builds his hermeneutic cal background and linguistic history of the text support or subvert
partly on the basis of insights drawn from Dooyeweerd, the Dutch the claims of faith? Is it permissible to examine the historical
Calvinist philosopher, as well as modern existentialists (Hei- and cultural context of the text but impermissible to critique the
degger, Gadamer, Fuchs, Ebeling, Ricoeur).* Barth on the other message of the text in the light of modem experience (Sach-
hand maintains that philosophical concepts can only be tools for kritik)? Existentialist theologians make a real place of Sache
clarification in the hands of the theologian, not criteria for deter- (content) criticism whereas Barthians vigorously reject it. In
mining the adequacy of the hermeneutical enterprise. In Barth’s Barth’s view (which I share) the modern cultural experience must
view, biblical hermeneutics must not be constructed in the be critiqued in the light of Scripture and not vice versa.
10 Donald Bloesch 11

While acknowledging that all Scripture texts participate in

the relativity of history and the limitations of culture, we
Proposal for
contend as evangelicals that every text is at the same time his- a hermeneutics
torically and culturally transcendent in that what it witnesses to
is the living Word of God that enters into history and culture from of ultimacy
the beyond. This Word which we find present though hidden in
Scripture enables us to judge both the validity of historical and by James H. Olthtis
cultural norms and the authenticity of the church’s witness
throughout history. Historical and literary criticism have their
place in throwing light upon the historical and cultural back- The nature, structure, and function of biblical authority remain of
ground of the text, but they cannot procure for us the Word of God crucial importance to the Christian Church. If we do not believe
- the Christological significance of every text which cannot be in Jesus Christ according to the Scriptures, we cannot claim to be
fully known until it is personally or existentially appropriated. Christian. To be Christian means to hear the voice of God in the
I believe that the discussion in this book throws light on most words of Scripture and to bow before it in faith. To receive the
of these issues and should promote an interest among evangelicals Bible as revealing the Word of God and to submit oneself to the
in this ongoing debate in theology and biblical studies. It is a con- Word in faith is the crux of accepting biblical authority. All
troversy that directly concerns biblical authority and the role of Christians are one on this fundamental issue.
the Bible in the church’s proclamation. Can the discipline of her- But, as James Packer frankly states, “Biblical authority is an
meneutics enable us to reappropriate biblical authority for our empty notion unless we know how to determine what the Bible
time, or does it signify the eclipse of biblical authority in the means.“l And on that issue we are far from one. In fact, we are not
modern age? The answer to this question will probably not be de- even one in our understanding, confessing and conceptualizing of our
cided until the evangelical contribution begins to make an impact most fundamental agreements. We interpret Scripture in a variety
on the wider academic community. of ways and often with conflicting results. Moreover, we differ
widely on how we are to live out its authority in our daily lives.
Donald G. Bloesch If this essay helps us make a little more headway in sorting
out the issues involved in interpreting Scripture, I will be de-
* I grant that such scholars as Gadamer and Ricoeur have been cri- lighted. I intend to approach the issues in the context of the on-
tical of certain thrusts in existentialism, but they netmtheless re- going contemporary discussions in hermeneutics. My comments will
main within this general orientation. be largely methodological and philosophic in nature, first in
regard to scriptural authority and then in regard to interpretation
of Scripture.

Views of scriptural authority distinct from authority itself

In the Christian Church, we have different views of biblical
authority. That is the reality. What is also real is the ever-
present danger that we declare all those whose concepts of
biblical authority are not the same as ours to be heretics, infidels,
and hypocrites, or at the very least, underminers of biblical
authority. The danger is seductive because our submission to the
Scriptures as the Word of God never takes place apart from
concrete embodiment in a view of biblical authority through
which and in which we articulate our submission. The existential
surrender to the God of the Scriptures is always embedded in the
12 7ames Olthuis A hermeneutics of ultimacy 13

historical process: it happened here, at this time, in this com- tacit reliance on a conceptual systemP The conceptual systems
munity, through this particular vision of biblical authority. It is themselves are tacitly experienced as valid because we find that
in terms of the language and symbolism of a certain tradition that we are able to cope adequately with human experience using
the submission to God and the Word of God takes place. them.
Not only do we surrender to the Scriptures in terms of a In experiencing a conceptual system as valid, we also tacitly
culturally conditioned vision of life, including a doctrine of Scrip- experience our reliance on the ultimate which is the ground on
ture; we also need to express our basic submission to Scripture in which the system rests. It is our dependence on this ultimate
terms of a particular conception of what Scripture is if we wish to which makes comprehension possible. Any cognition of a particu-
communicate and perpetuate our submission. Indeed, we can be true _ lar thing occurs in a framework whose ultimate horizon is the
to ourselves and to our confession only from within a tradition and reality of this ultimate.
by being faithful to it. However, since conceptual systems are grounded in the ulti-
At the same time, the fact that our confession of biblical mate, they provide a narrower frame of reference than the
authority takes place in terms of a particular tradition ought to ultimate itself. This in turn means, as Polanyi has argued at
remind us that the particular way we confess submission to the length, that we can only know the ultimate tacitly and never
Scriptures is not simply the product of faith; it is also the through focal comprehension. We never have a cognitive know-
articulation of faith in interaction with the kinds of persons we ledge of the ultimate in the sense of comprehending an entity in
are, the conceptual frameworks in which we work, the kinds of the light of some framework. Our frameworks, in terms of which
communities and the historical times in which we live. That we make sense of the world, cannot legitimately and univocally be
reality, once accepted, brings a necessary distinction to the fore, extrapolated and employed to comprehend the ultimate.
and with the distinction a relativity, and with the relativity, Moreover, although from the structure of cognitive knowing it
humility. We need to distinguish our in-faith-acceptance of the is demonstrable that an ultimate horizon with its ultimate is
Scriptures from the way we conceptualize and articulate it. If we necessary, such demonstration falls short of establishing who or
acknowledge that both our conceptualizations and the tradition in what the ultimate is. In fact, as does happen, the ultimate could
terms of which we articulate our fundamental acceptance of the be No-thing, ultimate meaninglessness. None of this makes the
Scriptures are time-conditioned and subject to human fallibility, knowledge of the ultimate any less real in the experience of the
we will be able to be open to other confessions of biblical knower. It does point to the unique nature of such knowledge: this
authority. We will be enabled to relativize our own views of bibli- knowledge is revelation accepted in the surrender of faith.
cal authority without relativizing our acceptance of the Scrip- How is it revelation? The ultimate cognitive impotence of
tures as God’s Word for Life. humanity to comprehend the ultimate means that such knowledge
Practising what Paul Ricoeur has called a hermeneutics of of the ultimate is received as a gift - that is, as revelation. In
suspicion2 on our own views, we will be able to resist the temp- Gilkey’s words, revelation ‘I...is that definite mode of experience
tation to canonize our views about the canon and will be able to in which a particular answer to these ultimate questions that
honor and learn from other traditions. The avenues of commu- arise in relation to all secular life manifests itself, is received,
nication will remain open, and as brothers and sisters in Christ we and so ‘known’....Revelation so defined is universal in human
will struggle with each other humbly and respectfully in the existence.‘14 Since human powers of cognition are grounded in the
communion of love. ultimate and are ordered and directed towards the ultimate, such
manifestations or revelations of the ultimate can be received and
Conceptual systems and the ultimate recognized by humans only in faith.
In our day to day experience we make sense of reality by Wittgenstein also concludes that every thinker necessarily
integrating the various givens into wholes or gestalts in terms of a comes to an end point where he takes a final stand which can no
categorial framework. The perception of any reality requires longer be justified by a series of arguments. “If I have exhausted
working within and thus accepting a particular framework. As the justifications, I have reached bedrock, and my spade is turned.
Polanyi would explain it: focal awareness of data depends on Then I am inclined to say: ‘This is simply what I do.“15 In his last
14 lames Olthuis A hermeneutics of ultimacy 15

writing, On Certainty, he pursued the theme.6 Certain propo- justification.

sitions “lie apart from the route travelled by inquiry;” they are What I am saying amounts to this: in the final analysis,
“fixed...removed from traffic...so to speak shunted onto an unused when everything else is said and done, we do not accept the Bible
siding.” They give us “our way of looking at things;” they provide to be the Normative Guide for our lives, the Word of God, by
the “scaffolding of our thoughts.” They are the “hinges” which rational persuasion. Such fundamental acceptance does not come
“stay put” and on which our everyday propositions turn. from reasons, although it may come through reasons. At the same
Every thinker necessarily begins with some faith intuition time, our entrustment necessarily gives rise to reasons and a view
received as revelation: as I have learned from my colleague Hen- of authority which articulates its own reasons. Once we attest to
drik Hart,7 this is also the far-ranging conclusion which follows the Bible’s authority, we confess that its trustworthiness is
from Godel’s incompleteness theorem (in any formal system there accounted for and explained because it is the Word of God.
is always an element of its proof that is not itself provable in the However, even though the ultimate entrustment of ourselves
theory). Oxford mathematician Morris Kline discusses the to the God revealed in Jesus Christ and to the Scriptures of God is
implications of this theorem for the field of mathematics which not based on reasons, we must be careful not to call such entrusting
has long been and still is considered an area where ultimate, uni- in any sense “irrational.” To call it “irrational” would be to sug-
versally accepted proof is possible, and he concludes: “Appa- gest that there is another way to start, as if to begin with
rently the price of consistency is incompleteness.” Kline points out entrusting is contrary to the principles of human reasoning. But
that “mathematicians have been worshipping a golden calf - that is not the case. The need to begin with a given received in
rigorous, universally accepted proof, true in all possible worlds - faith, a revelation, is no restriction on human knowing. In fact,
in the belief that it was God. They now realize it was a false faith commitment is the very condition through which human
god? cognition reveals its intelligibility. As we have noted, the fact
that every thinker necessarily begins with some faith intuition as
Authority and evidence to what is ultimately trustworthy and real is one of the great
These recent explanations of the foundational role of faith discoveries of modem thought. The primary religious commitment
commitment in human cognition support my view that scriptural of faith is not to be described either as a “reasoned conclusion or an
authority is self-authenticating, worked in a person’s heart by unreasoned hunch.“9
the testimony of the Holy Spirit. In other words, I do not believe In the commitment of faith, basic beliefs are received as
that we accept the authority of the Bible at bottom because of or revelation. These basic beliefs of faith, organized and fit toge-
on account of the empirical evidence of Christian experience (J. ther in a worldview, provide us with ways of seeing things and of
Oliver Buswell, Jr.), nor moral value evidence (E. J. Carnell), nor structuring our experience which are prior to any concept-
historical evidence (John Warwick Montgomery and Clark ualization of it. They are the basic beliefs from which our ratio-
Pinnock), nor the rationality of Christian truth (Carl F. H. Henry nal judgments begin, founding our relations of inquiry into the
and Gordon Clark). actual. No vision or view of reality, including our view of the
This is not to say that there is no evidence for the authority Scriptures, is subject to proof in the sense that we can derive its
of the Bible or even that its authority cannot be inferred from such basic principles from a process of thought prior to them. The core
evidence. I believe, in fact, that there is such evidence, and of all affirmations which found and ground our living in the world are
the kinds mentioned. But I am not persuaded that we ultimately received as revelation and thus known as truth. Standing in them,
affirm scriptural authority on the basis of such evidence. We may dwelling in them, to adopt Polanyi’s phrase, is their final and
have reasons for so affirming. Such reasons certainly help bolster culminating validation.
our confession. But although the presenting of reasons plays a It is in the faith dimension (or as I shall term it later, the
necessary and constructive role, reasons can never serve as the “certitudinal” mode, or, as is becoming more common, the “ultima-
final basis and ground for faith in God and in the authority of cy” dimension) of human experience that answers to ultimate
Scripture. Final justification of ultimate faith - and faith in questions are received as revelation. To experience the dimension
Scripture is such an ultimate matter - is a unique kind of of ultimacy in our knowing and doing is to recognize that the
16 James Olthuis A hermeneutics of ultimacu 17

ultimate basis for our knowledge will be for us self-evident. For course, God’s gracious initiative occurs simultaneously in, through,
the ultimate to which we surrender is the ground for our lives, the and under all our human searching, hearing and reading of God’s
ground which requires no other ground, the ground of and for all Word in Scripture. Consequently, “first” is not to be read as chrono-
other grounds. This ground will, by the nature of the structural dy- logically first in an arithmetic series, but in the sense of
namics of human knowing, be experienced as self-evident or, as “fundamentally,” “ultimately.”
Calvin put it in reference to Scripture, “self-authenticating.“‘lO In the Spirit we are gifted with understanding and called to
That is to say, as we commit ourselves to the ultimate, the ulti- understanding. The gift and call belong together as two sides of
mate functions for us as its own evidence for ultimacy. If we accept the same coin. The gift is a constant call to understand anew what
the ultimate on the basis of some other ground, this ground is in Scripture means for us today. The gift of understanding needs to be
fact our final ground, our true ultimate, as Gilkey argues, our true properly accepted, appropriated and filled in if the Power of
“high’ god.ll The ultimate cannot be proven. If it is, it contra- Word and Spirit is to transform our lives. Working out our salva-
dicts its own intention to be Final. ion with fear and trembling includes the work of interpretation,
I am saying that our faith leads our cognitive knowing. At discerning the good and acceptable Will of God, for it is God that
the same time, our cognitive knowing provides the foundational works in us (cf. Phil. 2:12-13; Romans 12:2).
structure, by laying out the possibilities for faith. We are dealing Understanding the Scripture as the Canon for the new
with a two-directional process. Although our faith in the last creation is in principle a gift (Gabe) of the Spirit which calls us to
analysis is not dependent on our cognitive knowing (it is received interpretation as a task (Aufgabe). If that is true, exegetes bear
as a gift of revelation), and we do not in the last analysis entrust an impossible burden when they are mandated to determine whe-
ourselves to the ultimate on the basis of rational reasons, that ther or not Scripture bears the Authority of God, and inter-
does not mean that our faith has no reasons and is irrational. pretation is made too difficult. In fact, I think that the current
Moreover, since we exercise and confess our faith in terms of a crisis in biblical scholarship revolves around the suspicion that no
vision of life, a vision of life which we can rationally explain and amount of scientific-historical critique can decide the basic ques-
defend, rational argument has its place. Such argumentation can tion of scriptural authority.
even be the basis on which a person adopts a new worldview - Textual criticism is delivering a more accurate text. Philo-
provided, I suggest, that the underlying faith commitment with logical-gramma tical study is increasing our understanding of the
its core beliefs remains the same. Thus Christians may move from forms, syntax, and significance of language. Historical criticism
an ascetic withdrawal-from-culture worldview to a more has made us extremely sensitive to the Sib im Leben of language.
accommodating Christ-and-culture vision, from a nature-grace Literary source criticism has alerted us to the rhetorical, poetic,
Thomism to a Christ-transforms-culture worldview. and compositional devices employed. Form criticism has made us
However, since the core beliefs intrinsic to a vision of life are aware of the place of (oral) units of material in relation to earlier
received as revelation, rational argumentation can only be the life of a community. Redaction criticism has introduced us to final
means by which but not the ground on which a person accepts a writers who composed literary works on the basis of various
new faith. Rational argument may occasion a change of faith, and sources. But all this has not resulted in significant agreement in
may, in a fundamental way, urge the invalidity of a vision and its interpretation of the biblical text or on its status as Canon.
underlying faith. But in the end, such faith crises are resolved On the other hand, many in the Evangelical Church make
through conversion to a new faith which reaches far beyond ratio- interpretation too simple. They have shied away from herme-
nal demonstration and logical proof. neutic concerns, conveniently assuming, it would seem, that where-
as others “interpret” (that is, mishandle and dismantle) the Scrip-
Understanding as gift and call tures, they simply “read” (that is, rightly understand) the Scrip-
Our fundamental acceptance of the Scriptures as the autho- tures. The problem here is insufficient realization of the fact that
ritative speaking of God guides our interpretation of Scripture. readers of Scripture employ methods of human construction and
The Word-Spirit of God knows us first; .then we interpret God’s human fallibility. Not only that, but such readers have too often
Word in its meaning for our lives. In the historical process, of proceeded as if their view of the authority of Scripture were
 fames Olthuis A hermeneutics of ultimacy 19

identical with scriptural authority itself. When that is presu- useful for teaching the faith and for resetting the direction of our
med to be the case, any view which does not agree with theirs is lives, as the comprehensive equipment fitting us fully for all
ipsofacto unbiblical. branches of work (II Timothy 3:16 and 17). It is through
I have already emphasized the necessity of distinguishing experiencing it that scriptural authority takes on meaning as
views about scriptural authority from the authority itself. I have canonic direction for life. In that basic sense every view of
also pointed to the crucial nature of these views because it is authority needs to be “functional.”
through them that scriptural authority is either honored or To experience biblical authority, we need to know what the
obscured. The view functions as the lens, funnel, or filter through Bible says. What the Bible says becomes clear in human inter-
which biblical authority works itself out in our lives. Our view of pretation. Therefore, a high view of Scripture commits us to full
biblical authority, along with a number of other core beliefs about involvement in all matters of interpretation and to hermeneutics
who God is, who we are, where we are going, and what our task is, as the theory of interpretation. In what follows I state and
forms a vision of life which is the “spectacles” through which we explicate six theses as central to my developing hermeneutic.
make sense of life. The vision is a pattern of reciprocally related
beliefs which act as the integrative and interpretive framework Interpretration and mis-interpretation
for life. 1. Every text needs interpretation in order to be understood.
David Kelsey in his important book, The Uses of Scripture in Only when there is a breakdown in communication, which can
Recent Theology, makes a similar point in a somewhat different be caused by the intrusion of any of a host of factors, does
way. He talks of the “imaginative judgement” which provides a interpretation become problematic and demand special atten-
vision of scriptural normativity (he talks of the discrimen) for tion.
judging and shaping theological proposals.l2 He has drawn Evan- Interpretation is a fact of human life. We are always
gelical fire, I think rightly, because he concludes that Scripture interpreting, not just when reading books, but when looking at
cannot serve as a final court of appeal because of the many visions pictures, observing signs, or listening to music. We interpret a row
of scriptural authority. But we need to take more seriously than of books to be an indication of a library; a wedding-band signifies
we do the reality and importance of the plurality of such visions. that its bearer is married; a red light is a signal to stop. Most
Although the normativity of the Scriptures is not finally groun- often we pay little attention to the interpretive moment; it
ded in life in the church as Kelsey suggests, the Scriptures are happens more or less automatically in the pull and press of
experienced as normative in terms of the discrimen or vision ordinary life.
which does emerge in the church. No group, not even Evan- There are other facets of interpretation. We are motivated by
gelicals, may assume that their view is automatically the only a desire to learn and share in relation with others. Sometimes
biblical view of authority. interpretation leads to communion, to sharing the inner thoughts
The importance of all of this for interpretation ought to be and lives of other persons. Moreover, how much enthusiasm we
obvious. We have access to Scripture and refer to Scripture only in bring to interpreting depends largely on how much significance the
terms of our vision of what Scripture is and how it norms life. The event, person or subject matter has for us.
results of close exegetical study of the biblical text can be decisive It is only when there is a breakdown in communication that
only to members of the same tradition, operating with the same we give special attention to interpretation and mis-interpre-
vision, looking through the same “spectacles.” The center of tation. The row of books could mean a bookstore; the wedding-
gravity in theological circles needs to shift from a narrow concern band may be a decoy to avoid involvement; the light could be
with biblical passages and their backgrounds to a broader dis- stuck on red. There are countless situations of this kind: not clear-
cussion of the visions in terms of which the exegesis makes sense. ly hearing the phonemes, being unable to decipher handwriting,
Until that happens we will continue to be frustrated by our meeting strange words or puzzling word combinations, not wanting
exegetical disagreements. to hear or being unable to hear due to some emotional block. And
Any conception of biblical authority is validated to the we all know that such mis-interpretations take place with
degree that it empowers Christians to experience the Bible as frustrating regularity between people speaking the same
3n [arms Olthuis A hermeneutics of ultimacv 21

language, living under the same roof, in the same community, even toward an adequate and illuminating exegesis.
when they have the advantage of accompanying gestures, tonal
inflection, facial expression, and emotional fervor. Interpretation of Scripture
The more or less automatic way we interpret in the practice of On a first, basic level the Scriptures are most clear: Believe on
daily living, as well as the numerous breakdowns in commu- the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved to new life by the Word and
nication which we experience, have special meaning with ref- Spirit of God ! Work out your healing with fear and trembling
erence to the interpretation of written texts. In the first place, wherever you are placed, for the God who saves and empowers
since a text is a semantic objectification of subjective meaning in- you is the faithful God who made you and will never forsake you!
tention, a human being must read and interpret the text in order for There is one message; at the same time, the Scriptures are a collec-
its meaning to be unlocked. If one has acquired the ability to de- tion of books (bib&z) of varying literary forms written by various
code and the text is in a familiar language and script, such reading authors and editors, in specific languages, in historically diverse
can be relatively easy and straightforward. Little attention needs times of the past, in varied geographical contexts, in varied cultu-
to be paid to the syntax or words. The language is relatively ral settings and in response to a wide range of situations and needs.
clear. One can concentrate on the meaning of the discourse. And along with the textual complexity, there is in Scripture a
However, such free-flowing interpretation becomes difficult dynamic unfolding, recontextualizing and deepening of thematic
and jerky when the reader lacks familiarity with the subject content. The meaning spirals back and forth, contracting and
matter or is predisposed against the message of the text or expanding.
approaches the text with faulty expectations. Then, even though On the one hand, the clarity of the basic message of Scripture
the words are themselves familiar, reading becomes laborious, makes clear that its interpretation on a fundamental level is not a
frustrating and difficult. Mis-interpretation or fanciful exegesis technical matter reserved for experts, be they theologians, lingu-
- in biblical hermeneutics often called eisegesis - becomes a very ists, or philosophers. The fundamental interpretation is a pre-
real possibility. The more dense, complex, or allusive the text, theoretic act of listening and responding, open to all people. In-
the more complicated the process of interpretation. If, in addition, deed, countless generations of Christians have learned the art of
the text is written in an unfamiliar literary form, or if its author reading the Scriptures and have been daily nourished in their
hails from another culture and another time, interpretation is faith in so doing. Since, as we will soon discuss, the Bible is a
that much more difficult. If the text is written in a strange lan- faith-focused book, exegesis of Scripture is first and foremost an
guage, interpretation cannot, of course, begin until the text is activity of faith and not of reason, passion or science.
translated, no small feat of interpretation in itself. On the other hand, the complexity and diversity of the
There is a wide variety of extra-lingual features which often scriptural documents in form, style, language, and context, the
serve to obfuscate and hinder proper interpretation. Removing the development and recasting of their thematic content, and the
philological, syntactical and semantic hindrances no doubt helps traditions, worldviews, personal situations and prejudices which
interpretation. However, when the words are decoded and the we bring to our reading all complicate the interpretive act. For
syntax cleared up, the meaning may be even more unclear. Differ- these reasons the Scriptures require special attention before we
ing perspectives on life, emotional blockages, political alle- can hear and do their message today. For many of us they even
giances, socioeconomic conditions - all can function to open up or need to be translated into our native languages before we begin
close down proper interpretation. reading! Since the Bible is notsnly a book from another time and
Proper interpretation is an art to be learned and practised, a culture, but since the same host of factors which affect all our
complex conversation between interpreter and text in which the interpretive endeavors will also affect our exegesis of Scripture,
meaning-world of the text is elucidated for the enlargement of the we can be helped in our reading by experts. Scholars of all sorts
interpreter’s world. We can be greatly helped in these conver- and every stripe - historians, sociologists, linguists, ethicists,
sations by experts of many kinds. Hermeneutics - the theoretic psychologists, theologians, philosophers, hermeneutists - have
science which studies and explains the structural principles a contribution to make. Transposing and integrating such theoretic
involved in the art of interpretation - can be an invaluable help knowledge into our faith understanding, we can become more
22 lames Olthuis A hermeneutics of ultimacu 2.3

sensitive, highly tuned receivers of the Word of God clothed in world which the author has adopted and codified in the text
human language. provides a set of criteria in reference to which the meaning-
content of the text, its message or vision, can be understood. It is
Structural specificity of text not enough for proper interpretation, I am saying, to know the
2. Proper identification of text-kind is heuristically indis- subject matter treated in the text. What is crucial is knowledge
pensable to non-violation of the text. about the angle of vision which the text takes: how it goes about
Exposition of textual meaning begins with interpreting the what it is about. Thus, a political text can be about anything and
semantic symbols. That is a minimal and foundational necessity. everything. What qualifies it as a political text and not a psy-
But it is not sufficient for interpretation. For, although meaning is chological text or faith text is its political focus, in terms of
mediated by words, it is not contained in their form. Words are which everything is discussed.
symbols through which we open up (or obscure, as the case may be) Respect for the kind of text is crucial if one is not to do
the universe and our place in it. In their lingual meaning they violence to a text. Only when a text is read and judged in terms of
refer beyond themselves to (non-semantic) reality. In other words, the type and character of questions and concerns it sets out to
the meaning of a text, although presented in lingual discourse, is address as a specific kind of text, do we honor the integrity of the
not linguistically determinable. Ebeling, Gadamer and the new text. When the particular text-kind is ignored, when a novel is
hermeneutic have said it simply: we do not understand words; we read as a historical record, when a telephone book is taken to be a
understand through words.13 social registry, when a scientific text is taken to be a novel, there
There is, of course, some definite correlation between is no criterion (except one’s own desires) to guide the inter-
linguistic form and textual meaning. But one linguistic form, as, pretation. We need to determine, as Gadamer has stressed, the
for example, irony, can sponsor at least two different inter- kinds of questions the text sets out to answer. Without attention to
pretations.14 (For that matter, the same meaning can be repre- the structural qualification of a text, our questions run the risk not
sented by different linguistic forms; for example, “pants” and only of being inappropriate but of being illegitimate. Then we
“trousers,” “jacket” and “coat.“) violate the text by forcing it into our mold, not allowing it to
Correct interpretation requires some awareness of the context reveal itself in terms of its own intentionality or specificity.
or universe of discourse in which the linguistic discourse is meant. What asks to be heard - not what we wish to hear - has
References to the appropriate context are built into a text struc- priority. A first step in understanding is standing-under the text
turally. Paul Ricoeur calls them the extra-linguistic referents in a manner appropriate to the nature of the text.
which present the “world’ of the text. In interpretation there is no escape from identification of text-
All texts find their structural specificity as a “kind” of text in kind. The only question is whether we make such an identi-
the particular way of perceiving reality which their authors fication consciously or unconsciously. Whenever we begin to
adopted in writing the text. Texts which take the political interpret, we make some assumption as to the kind of text based on
vantage point are known as politically qualified texts; texts previous reading experience. This pre-judgment includes certain
which adopt the moral viewpoint are moral texts; and so on. expectations concerning the whole of the text and triggers in our
Although all texts are foundationally lingual (being lingual is minds a relevant reading strategy. Proper identification of text-
necessary to being text), texts are of different kinds (they bear kind is necessary for good interpretation because a text is a whole,
differing structural qualifications). Texts are classified according a totality. As Ricoeur has emphasized, it is “more than a linear
to kind, according to the mode-of-being-in-the-world, adopted by sequence of sentences. It is a cumulative, holistic process.“*5 No
their authors, that provides their over-riding or macro-purpose. sentence, paragraph or chapter has a separate footing, nor are
Awareness of structural specificity - how, or in what they separately understandable. The textual whole has a certain
structural way, a text approaches what it is about - clues an cast or flavor, with primary and subordinate topics, with central
interpreter into the universe of discourse, the form of life in which and peripheral sections, with crucial and supporting sentences.
the text is at home. Since each way of being in the world has its Interpreting any part of the text involves a presupposing of the
own unique concerns, locating the structural way of perceiving the text’s architecture as a whole and, reciprocally, in construing the
 James Olthuis A hermeneutics of ultimac~ 25

details we achieve a better sense of the whole. organized in a vision of life, integrate and lead our daily walk of
life. In this way, through its certitudinal qualification, the au-
Certitudinal texts thority of Scripture can have and does have a scope as large as
Identification of the text-kind of the Scriptures is indispensable if life itself.
we are to develop a method of Scriptural interpretation which Thus, for example, although Scripture is not as a whole a
does justice to the text. Scripture, it is rightly said, must be inter- political tract, an economic treatise or a moral homily, it does
preted according to its redemptive intention. That gives the full fundamentally speak to our political, economic, and moral life out
intent of the message of the Scripture. But it does not give the of and in terms of the ultimate horizon of faith. Even though
form. The form, of course, is a book, a collection of books that to- Scripture is not a theoretic discourse or a book of science, it does
gether compose the canonical text of the Scriptures. But it is a speak to the scientific endeavor insofar as every theoretic
~JXX$C kind of book with a proper nature of its own. conception and all scientific activity is grounded in and is an
In contrast to most other kinds of books, the Scriptures belong exposition of an ultimate commitment of faith.
to a class of books which have as their governing focus the ulti- The Scriptures are a classic example of a certitudinal text.
mate questions of life and death. These books, generally known as First we come to them aware of their pervasive and compelling
“sacred writings,” deal with every sort of issue, but always from concern to edify us in the faith, to provide access in the Spirit to
the viewpoint of ultimate certitude. Despite dissimilarity in lit- ultimate comfort, abiding hope and abundant healing; only then
erary genre, language, traditions, historical setting, sub-purposes, are we in the proper position to access the true intentions of the
etc., such books have one overriding kind of preoccupation: calling text as a single whole made up of an intriguing diversity of books.
to commitment, engendering faith, promoting hope, encouraging In this way we can find our way into the “world” of the text,
and exhorting certitude. Only when we approach sacred writings allowing it to claim us and reshape our worlds. We will be
with an awareness of their overriding concern for life-certitude empowered to hear the abiding message of Scripture as the
and ultimate healing are we able to do them justice. speaking of the same God in historically dissimilar traditions
Contemporary hermeneutics a la Gadamer tends to take all and in a variety of literary genres. Approaching the text in this
texts and all language to be this kind of fully opened-up oracular orientation - the faith orientation on certitude - we are attuned
revelation of the being of reality. Gadamer treats every text as a to Scripture, equipped to pick up its enduring and underlying
certitudinal, sacred text. On the other hand, structuralism, at message even as it comes in a variety of culturally-specific and
least in its pure form, seems the epitome of the opposite extreme, time-bound expressions. We are, I suggest, better able to discern
ignoring “language as disclosure, choice and actualization.“16 and follow the certitudinal “thread” - the abiding message -
Although Gadamer skates on thin ice when he views every text as which is woven in and through the rich, multi-textured tapestry.
oracle, it is true that some texts have that character. The We have become increasingly sensitive to the diversity of
Scriptures certainly do. literary genres in Scripture: parables need to be interpreted as
The Scriptures are “certitudinal” in qualification, that is, parables, narrative as narrative, wisdom literature as wisdom
their angle of perception is the certitudinal which can be literature, and so on. What we still need, in my view, is more
“phenomenologically described as an ultimate or grounding dimen- conscious awareness of the presence of a broader, over-arching, all-
sion or horizon to all meaningful human activities.“*7 It is by this encompassing “language-game” or form of life which charac-
dimension that we explicitly affirm or deny our relation to the terizes the Bible us a whole; the language game of certitude. It
Ultimate; we believe in or refuse to believe in God. All of us are was an overriding concern to generate and strengthen the certi-
creatures who seek certainty, search for final meaning, ultimate tudes of faith which guided authors, redactors and communities in
security and permanent bliss. Our believingentrusting-faith way the canonical process; awareness of that concern would help us
of being in the world (what I technically refer to as “certi- immensely, not only to better understand the involved process of
tudinal”) not only functions to open up and ground life in ultimate the re-contextualization of earlier meanings within the broader
certainty, it also integrates and guides life in terms of the ulti- tradition, but also to understand how a particular text calls us to
mate ground.I8 Faith supplies a basic set of core beliefs which, healing service in our time and culture.lg
26 James Olthuis A hermeneutics of ultimacy 27
Interpretation of a certitudinal text is a matter of encounter interpreter.20 Schleiermacher, the father of modern hermeneu-
and decision. We do not simply mine the text for its information. tics, pointed out that a person may have all the grammatical-
Rather, the text confronts us, and demands fundamental accep- historical insight required and still misunderstand the text. Since
tance in order to be rightly and fully understood. Certitudinal Bultmann, theological exegetes have had to come face to face
texts are par excellence “encounter” or “surrender” texts that press with the fact that the pre-understanding (Voroerstiinrlnis) of the
an ultimate claim as the truth for life and death. The central interpreter dramatically affects and often determines the inter-
message proclaimed asks for whole-hearted surrender, and so long pretation of the text. Presuppositionless or neutral exegesis is a
as that does not happen, the text’s salvific power to transform the figment of the imagination.
self-understanding of the interpreter is limited. “Anyone who Failure to be aware of one’s fore-havings, fore-seeings and
believes in the Son has eternal life, but anyone who refuses to fore-conceptions2* leads to self-delusion. By strict adherence to
believe in the Son will never see life: the anger of God stays on methodological procedures one can imagine acquiring an objective
him or her” (John 3:36). Strictly speaking, to resist God’s claim is interpretation free from all traces of subjectivity.22 Proponents of
to misunderstand the message. For if we really did understand, we objectivity forget, however, that an interpreter can exist only in
would see it as the truth and change our lives accordingly - we terms of a specific tradition with all its trappings and prejudices.
would believe in the Son. It is ironic that such positivistic efforts which decry any ideology
An open receptivity to the central claim of the biblical text exhibit the foremost feature of ideology: not being transparent to
puts us in a better position to understand the full text in depth and self.
detail. That explains why interpreting certitudinal texts is MethodicaZZy secured objectivity is, I suspect, an illusion. It
excruciatingly difficult, if not in the end impossible, when the is a remarkable feature of our times that more and more people are
interpreter does not embrace the thrust of the text. Basic disagree- realizing that the foundational error involved in such efforts, re-
ment with or deep-seated resistance to the text’s primary thrust is grettably endemic to modernity, is the acceptance of the
a very serious obstacle to its proper interpretation. On a most Cartesian/Kantian subject-object dualism. The Cartesian subject-
basic level the interpreter will be predisposed to skew the text. object split (“I am” over against the sense-perceivable world) has
(At the same time, since understanding non-certitudinal texts does denatured the interpretive process. In that framework one does
not depend so much on receptivity to the main message, we are not begin from a desire to bring self into the proper mode of
also able to explain why such texts are more accessible to a fair relation to a text with the purpose of dialogue, sharing, and
and adequate reading even when they find their ultimate base in communion. Rather, one begins with the observing consciousness as
a faith at odds with the fundamental commitment of the reader.) the supreme arbiter of reality to which all things, including
Although receptivity to the fundamental message greatly Scripture, must give account; the text is simply a passive object to
facilitates understanding, it certainly does not guarantee agreed- be mastered. As follows from the Cartesian split, mastery, con-
upon interpretations. We have already noted many of the factors trol, and exploitation describe the basic form of human engage-
which make exegesis an exceedingly complex and difficult affair. ment with the world. The subject-subject dialogue between an in-
Indeed, all the great world religions have a variety of competing terpreter and an author who has objectified her meaning in a text
exegetical traditions. All of us are guided in our reading by our is reduced to an operation of a presupposition-less, body-less, a-
own prejudices, and we wear the interpretative glasses of our historical mind who determines the meaning of a passive object
particular community. We are led, even tempted, to interpret a through rigorous application of procedures in accordance with the
text in a manner which justifies our own positions. But now we are rules of exegesis. The movement is one way: from subject to object.
beginning to consider thesis three. The problem is to get reliable knowledge, and the aim of
interpretation is to bring the world under rational control, the
No neutral exegesis measure of which control is its “objectivity.” The human person -
3. Presuppositionless exegesis and methodically secured objec- rather, this disembodied consciousness - stands at the center of
tivity are illusions. the world as its foundation and judge. Since the 17th century, wes-
Modern hermeneutics has turned attention from the text to the tern thinkers have too often believed that the methods of human
28 James 0Zfhui.s A hememufics of ulfimacy 29

subjectivity are the royal road to “objectivity.” Understanding Interpreters ask questions of the text from their own situatedness.
has been reduced to the acquisition of true propositions about the The answers of the text affect, question, and subtly change our
world of objects surrounding humankind. These root assumptions of being in the world. The next round of questions put by the inter-
modern thought have perverted interpretation. preters in answer to the text’s claims is consequently somewhat
But objectivity is a myth. The self-conscious ego of Descartes different - as are the answers and the implicit questions provid-
does not exist. In its splendid isolation it has been unmasked as an ed by the text.
impossible abstraction, a false cognito.23 In the process more and more hidden assumptions reveal
All thinkers are phenomenologically situated from the themselves and become explicit. If the answers of the text are at
beginning in a context in terms of which they tacitly make sense of variance with my vision of life, or pre-understanding, I am forced
life. Every interpreter starts at a certain place, at some time, in a to check my pre-understanding (at least to a degree and at least in
certain culture, with a vision of life and its received revelation as part). In this way I can be corrected and changed by the text.
to the origin and basis of life. Interpreters are not disembodied, Thus, in Bultmann’s words, pre-understanding “does not have to be
naked minds, but full-blooded persons whose thinking, inter- eliminated, but has to be raised to consciousness to be critically
preting, and acting reflect their emotional states, faith stances, examined in the course of understanding a text, to be gambled
politico-social conditions, etc. with; in short, this is required: to allow oneself to be questioned
The Cartesian mind is itself an invention of humankind, during one’s inquiry of the text and to listen to its claims.“24
explicating a faith in the autonomy of human reason and in Normative exegesis takes place when we are keenly aware of
reason’s capacity to achieve objective knowledge. No wonder that our pre-understandings or visions rather than when we try to hide
the historico-critical method is currently under attack, even from them. Then we are able to let the text speak in terms of the
within its own ranks. As a legacy of the Enlightenment enthrone- differences from and similarities with our own prejudices. With-
ment of Reason, it failed to take seriously the limitations and out such interaction interpreters easily, often unconsciously, trace
biases of the interpreter. (Evangelicals who tend to side with their own visions and beliefs onto the text and then read them
Betti and Hirsch in their debate with Gadamer do well to take “objectively” out of the text. Ironic and paradoxical as it may
more seriously that in the end, for Betti, it is the human operator, seem, the more aware we are of the fore-beliefs and fore-con-
as the autonomous subject, who decides when objective meaning ceptions of our own visions, the more we are able to do justice to the
has been ascertained.) Not only do methods based on the Carte- message of the text.
sian subject-object split neglect the subjective pre-understandings The importance of the hermeneutic circle, or, a term that
of the interpreter, they in fact violate the integrity of many texts seems more appropriate, the hermeneutic spiral (I imagine a
by reducing them to books of information and deposits of spiral coil), is hard to overstate. It is in any case unavoidable, in-
propositional truth which are to be mined for reliable knowledge. trinsic to the human predicament. However, modern hermeneutic
Openness to a text in the sense of submission to and respect for theory seems often to conceive of this spiral in overly psycho-
a text leading to encounter and dialogue have been alien to the logistic and subjectivistic terms.
scientistic tenor of modern thought. But it is pre-eminently with In the tradition of Schleiermacher and Betti it is mandatory
sacred texts that the direction of interpreter-to-text defeats the for interpretation that the interpreter live into the totality of an
whole purpose of the text, which is to call into question one’s author’s life and approximate the intellectual-spiritual stature
world, to reorder and renew it. of the author as closely as possible. This is to understand in-
terpretation in terms of the “interpreter’s own subjectivity
The hermeneutic spiral attempting to grasp the subjectivity of the author’s intentions or of
4. Interpretation is a dialogic process of hermeneutic spiral the original addressee’s reception of its meaning.“25
between interpreter (and his/her vision of life) and the text However, that psychological approach stumbles on the reali-
(and its implied vision). ty that the inner life of an author, particularly of another culture,
To talk of interpretation as dialogue and decision is to be context, and time, always in the end remains hidden and irretriev-
talking of a hcrmeneutic spiral between text and interpreter. able. Moreover, focus on the subjective inner experience of author
30 lames Olthuis A hermeneutics of ultimacy 31

or original readers ignores the fact that dialogue between persons through articulation and conceptualization in a vision of life. The
takes place as an exchange between visions of life. Such dialogue perceptions of a vision are the pre-understandings which guide our
is possible because worldviews of whatever time and of whatever interpretation. When a text challenges our pre-understandings,
origin share a common structure as responses to God’s universal, we may have to rethink our own vision or worldview. At times, we
constant and trans-temporal order which calls to life and makes may be so challenged that we give up our worldviews and the
for life. It is in terms of the dialogic confrontation of visions - faith in which they are rooted. That is conversion and the
competing answers to God’s common, ultimate and abiding calls to acceptance of a new ultimate. In that case, we, so to speak, re-
life - rather than in an empathetic re-experiencing of the inner enter the circle in a new way, i.e., with new purpose, direction and
life or cultural situation of the author that the strangeness of ultimate meaning.
another horizon may be overcome. It is in this kind of visionary
exchange that we are able to understand (the vision of) a text. Hermeneutical spiral and scriptural interpretation
Then, as Gadamer would say, a fusion of horizons takes place: Interpretation as the dialogic spiral between an interpreter’s
Horizonfverschmelzung. Or, as I would add, a clash of horizons vision and the text’s vision is of great importance for biblical
takes place. Understanding a text is not empathizing with the interpretation. For it is not Jeremiah’s view, Paul’s opinions or
author, but understanding its basic vision or fundamental message. the situations of Ruth and Rahab that we share. Nor is it neces-
Not only do many psychologize the hermeneutic spiral, but sary that we do, any more than we need to share David’s feelings
they get lost in it, as if that is all there is to reality. It is true and Mary’s emotions. But we can - and ought to - share their in-
that we experience reality in terms of a dialectic, spiral move- tegrating vision, their overarching perspective, their faith certi-
ment between self and world as macro-cosmic text. But the spiral tudes.
neither contains nor constitutes all of reality. Reality is bigger Focusing on a specific text of Scripture will further illustrate
than our experience of it. The spiral movement is the dynamic the realities as well as the complexities of the hermeneutic
process in and by which we experience and respond to Gods uni- spiral. Christians, looking for instruction in daily living, may
versal word for life and creation. Making the hermeneutic spiral turn to the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5:3842.
all there is to reality can lead, and often does, to a side-stepping
of the final question of whether or not the message or vision Do not resist one who is evil. But ifany onestrikes you on the
presented in the text is true or not. right cheek, turn to him the other also; and if any one would
The decisive question, said Heidegger, is not “to get out of the sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well;
circle but to come into it in the right way.‘t26 That is indeed the and if a y one forces you to go one mile, go with him two
important consideration. However, it is not that we have to miles. Give to him who begs from you, and do not rqfuse him
follow a certain procedure to get into the circle properly: everyone who would borrow from YOU
enters the circle in the same way. It is not that one needs to enter
the circle at the right place: any point in the circle is as good as The answer of the text to the initial queries for guidance gives rise
any other for entry. If the discussion with which I began is on the to various responses. “Isn’t that a rather high price to pay for fol-
right track, we enter the circle by accepting in terms of our lowing Christ?” “Impossible!” “Nonsensical, out-of-this-world
traditions certain basic beliefs as truth (personally appropriated idealism!” “I must be a bad Christian because I can’t do that!”
and articulated as the pre-understanding of a vision of life) in the The initial responses lead to re-readings of the text with revised
surrender of faith. When everything is said and done, it is by expectations and questions. Does the context modify the demands?
revelation received in faith that we enter the circle. What is the context? Who is Jesus really talking to? Are we to
The question then is not first of all, what are the proper pro- take his words literally ? Can anyone really be a Christian in
cedures, but, how do we enter in truth with the right and proper this world? And on and on.
revelation, i.e., a life-affirming revelation which offers freedom, A back and forth dialogue between the text and the inter-
dignity, hope and healing. For it is the received revelation preter ensues. Gradually the differences between the vision of the
which gives direction to our movement in the hermeneutic circle - interpreter and that of the text are worked through. The process
32 James Olthuis A hermeneutics of ultimacu 33
comes to (at least temporary) conclusion through a fusing of visions by their visions (or pre-understandings) of life, deeply affected
or horizons. Or a more fundamental clashing. Some conclude that by their emotional state and their socio-economic situation.
full Christian service means always turning the other cheek and
giving away possessions to anyone who asks. Some of these read- There are, it seems to me, three reciprocally relating levels in
ers, despite the difficulty, try to life accordingly; others find any act of interpretation. I will refer to them as the “semantic”
themselves unable to obey and develop tremendous guilt com- level, the “meaning” level, and the “decisional” leve1.2g In one
plexes; others may turn their backs on the Gospel because of its direction, attention to semantic symbols is foundational to the
impossible demands. Another group of readers judge that Jesus is determination of meaning and, likewise, discernment of meaning is
setting forth the ideal Christian ethic which holds only for the prior to any decision in response to that meaning. At the same
church and which need not and cannot be realized in the rest of time, in an opposite direction, we come to the text and are guided
the life or in this dispensation. Others take solace in the belief in our reading of the text by our pre-understandings (as decisions
that Jesus is only speaking metaphorically (The Nezu Jerusalem previously made). Such pre-understandings help us locate the
Bible, readers edition, appends a note that verse 40 is “deliber- meaning-world of the text which we in turn relate to the semantic
ately hyperbolic”). Yet another group concludes that Jesus is list- symbols of the text. The simultaneous interaction of these two di-
ing the kirui of radical actions that are demanded of those who rections - what could be called the “foundational” direction from
wholeheartedly seek first the kingdom of heaven and God’s right- semantic to decisional, and the “transcendental” direction from
eousness (Matt. 6:33), leaving it up to our responsibility in the decisional to semantic - witnesses to the fact that a hermeneutic
Spirit to do similar kinds of things today. spiral takes place not only between interpreter and text but also
On a broader front, the same hermeneutic complexity is illus- within the three levels of the interpretive act itself.
trated by the continuing controversy in New Testament scholar- Analogous to the foundational, lingual nature of a text, inter-
ship about the political content of Jesus’ life and preaching. Re- pretation is a lingually founded activity (level one). Without
cently Rosemary Ruether has argued that thinkers (such as S. G. attention to symbols, interpretation does not take place, just as
E. Brandon) who see Jesus as basically a nationalist, political revo- without symbols there is no text. Level one is the explanation of
lutionary as well as scholars (such as Martin Hengel and Oscar
the immanent lingual sense of the semantic text. What are the
Cullmann) who see Jesus’ messianism as basically eschatological possible meanings of the text? This level seems to receive the
and personal, having nothing to do with the actual socio-political emphasis in much of analytic philosophy and in schools of
unrest, skew the biblical message. Having adopted “the basic linguistics, including structuralism.
Greek dualism between the inward and the outward, the spiritual But a purely semantic elucidation remains suspended until the
and the social, time and eternity” as their vision, they see Jesus in symbols are related to their world of reference, the subject-matter
terms of this dualism. Brandon “reduces messianism to secular of the text. Level two is interpreting the lingual symbols in refe-
politics and Hengel and Cullmann spiritualize it.“27 If we reject rence to what they refer to extra-lingually. Depending on the par-
such as dualistic vision as Greek and consider a “holistic,” both- ticular mode of being in the world which the interpreter adopts to
and vision to be eminently biblical, Ruether suggests that we will decipher the extra-lingual reference, interpretive acts become
also recognize that the Jesus portrayed in Scripture was a prophet typical acts of, for example, political, economic, aesthetic, moral,
whose message calls for a spiritual-political liberation in this faith, or philosophical interpretation. It is when interpreters
world, liberation from all systems of domination. These examples assume the same mode of relation to the text that is incorporated
illustrate that not only is exegesis a hermeneutic spiral between in the text that proper interpretation can take place. In other
the vision of the interpreter and the vision implied in the text, words, understanding a text depends on sharing the same sphere of
but also that basic exegetical disagreements are more a result of meaning as that text. Thus, an economic text asks first of all to be
competing worldviews than a matter of textual detail.28 interpreted economically, a political text politically, and a
certitudinal (faith) text from the faith perspective of certitude.
Sense, reference, and decision When the reader’s way of relating to the text does not appro-
5. Interpretation is a three-level act of whole persons, guided priately match the prevailing perspective incorporated in the
34 fames Olthuis A hermeneufics of ultimacy 35
text, the text is violated and interpretation will be significantly Mosaic regulations concerning property, tithing or interest or the
distorted. all-things-in-common practice of the New Testament church in
While level one attends to the lingual symbols in the light of Acts 2, cannot properly be called the straightforward message of
and guided by the interpreter’s perception of a certain kind of Scripture, as if the Scriptures were a textbook in economics. What
extra-lingual referent, level two attends to the world of extra- the Scriptures do proclaim in and through their faith treatment of
lingual meaning in light of and guided by the lingual symbols. economic realities is that God is the Supreme Owner of all that is
While level one begins with individual words, sentences, and and that we are caretakers of creation, called to a stewardship of
paragraphs, construing the whole in terms of the details, level creation’s resources in loving service to neighbor and God. Not
two begins with an intuitive grasping of the text as a whole, explicit economic rules, but the abiding norms of stewardship,
recognizing the details in terms of the whole. Interpretation is caring for and sharing with the poor and needy are the biblical
the dialogic process of testing and validating the intuitive message. How in our day and age we are to work out these abiding
graspin of the whole - what Ricoeur following Hirsch calls “a norms in concrete economic measures is our challenge and res-
guess”3 f - in terms of the parts. Semantical investigation of ponsibility. Thus, a proper economic interpretation of Scriptures
what is said is foundational to determining what the text is is a certitudinal-economic interpretation in which the Scripture
about. At the same time, description of linguistic forms is in im- via its certitudinal focus fundamentally calls us to the norm of
portant respects affected by prior understanding of what the text stewardship in the area of economic life. That is, the Bible gives
is about. genera2 guidance and direction in a way that demands the
To understand a text the interpreter must apprehend and hearer’s specific response.
acknowledge the meaning-intentions embodied in the verbal
expressions. These intentions always hold together and are Level three: dialogue and decision
shaped in terms of one of the fundamental ways of being in the This demand for response brings us to the third level of the inter-
world. They belong together, cohere and make sense in terms of pretive act. Level three is the on-going dialogue in which, guided
one of these modes of being and its particular realm of discourse, by their own vision of life, interpreters engage the message of the
form of life, sphere of meaning or “language-game.” Sensitivity to text. Here interpretation demands that readers open themselves
the text’s underlying and pervasive sphere of meaning allows up to the text and face the claims of the text and its meaning for
readers to tune in to the wave length of the text. Tuning in to that their own lives. It means allowing the pre-conceptions and pre-
particular angle of approach incorporated in the text, interpreters understandings of our own visions to be critically tested and re-
are enabled to sort out the fundamental meaning of the text in viewed. Interpretation on this level is the on-going process of
terms of thaf mode of being. risking our own world-vision in encounter with the world disclosed
Although, as I have just noted, honoring the integrity of a in the text. It means being personally open to change, clarifi-
specific text calls for recognition of and attunement to the cation, cleansing, and renewal. It means decision. Either we
dominant mode or angle of vision presented in that text, it would allow ourselves to be corrected by the text and take appropriate
be wrong to conclude that it is illegitimate to interpret a text from action, or we are confirmed in our positions and leave, strength-
vantage points afforded by modes of reality other than the mode ened in conviction.
in which the text presents itself. But such interpretive endeavors The kinds of decisions, their significance and scope, will be
need to be continually mindful of the text’s dominant or qualifying largely set by the kinds of meaning-intentions which emerge in
focus. For example, an economic interpretation of Scripture must level two. An appropriate response to a theoretic argument will
acknowledge openly that economic matters in the Scriptures are be of the kind: let me think about it. How-to books on health
not addressed economically, i.e., from the economic angle of care, auto repair, home renovations, or playing the stock markets
vision, but always from the certitudinal-faith angle. The serve their guiding purpose when readers develop new capacities
economic teaching of the Scripture is embedded in discourse which or sharpen old abilities. Apt responses to a good story may range
bears a certitudinal focus and purpose. Consequently, for example, widely; but begin I with: ‘that’sa great story!” or “that reminds
the various economic policies described in Scripture, whether the me of a story.” Texts which offer insight into ourselves, our
36 lames Olfhuis A hermeneutics of ultimacy 37

institutions and our relations ask that in response we deepen our transparency of the self-consciousness. “Marx, Nietzsche, and
insight and change our actions. However, whatever the kind of Freud,” he says, “have taught us to unmask its tricks.“31
text, whatever the appropriate kind of response, or regardless of The point is that a vision of life is not the pure product of
the way the material is presented, indirectly and implicitly a faith. Often our emotional anxieties and hidden desires to main-
dialogue between worldviews is taking place. Such worldview to- tain our socio-economic positions of power lead us to adopt beliefs
the-roots dialogue often becomes explicit and direct when, for which legitimatize and justify these motivations rather than
whatever reasons and whatever the topic, the interpreter feels face and deal with them. We rationalize and construct ideologies
out of synch with the text. When the ultimate claims which are (“not being transparent-to-oneself...is the defining characteristic
implicit in the text confront the ultimate beliefs of the of “ideology”).32 In short, we are often induced to adopt a vision
interpreter, a fundamental sorting out becomes necessary. of life which hides us from ourselves by putting a good face on a
The implicit or indirect dialogue between worldviews which bad thing.
is an important reality in all interpretation is explicit and direct It is the critical hermeneutics33 of Habermas and the
in the interpretation of certitudinal texts. An appropriate res- Frankfurt school along with Paul Ricoeur that has been parti-
ponse to a certitudinal text is of the order of: Yes, I receive that as cularly perceptive at just this point. Gadamer, they say, is still
the Truth, and commit myself to live by it, or, No, I reject that as idealist in his inability and unwillingness to consider the extra-
False, and commit myself to fight against it. The fact that a linguistic factors such as economic-material conditions and other
Yes/No decision with far-reaching ramifications is the relevant unconscious motivations which lead to distorted communication,
kind of response to such texts makes clear that their inter- domination, half-lies, propaganda and repression.
pretation has an unusual feature. In reading certitudinal texts the We need to take more seriously that our Christian visions of
“decisional” level not only plays its leading role implicitly or as life can also be clouded by emotional anxieties and the illusions
a third subsequent phase or level, but the decisional is virtually they nourish. In this context such seriousness is crucial because
coalesced with the second “meaning” level of interpretation. distorted visions lead us to locate in the Scriptures what, in fact,
Especially in reading certitudinal texts, the dialogue, risk and are our own emotionally rooted illlusions and fears. If, for
encounter between worldviews which characterizes level three is example, racist, sexist, oppressive, escape-this-world, body-is-
already directly involved in level two interpretation. That is evil kind of beliefs become part of our vision, we will find
why, as we have noted earlier, an open receptivity to the justification for them in Scripture.
pervasive message of the text promotes proper interpretation and If healing breakthroughs are going to take place in the
a closed heart obstructs proper interpretation. Christian church on these issues, more exegesis of relevant texts is
All three levels - the semantic, meaning and decisional - not enough. We need exegesis which more forthrightly compares
are reciprocally operative in any interpretive act. And usually and confronts the basic visions involved; only in this way can
the focus at any one time is more on one level than on the others. hidden motivations be unearthed and addressed. Change in
Failure to give each level or phase its due results in unfinished or interpretation on basic matters does happen. Usually, it occurs as
inadequate interpretation. While explanation of the semantic the consequences of changes in one’s personal-societal life. Life
sense of the text is foundational to interpretation, it has become experiences begin to lead to questions about previous ways of
increasingly clear that interpreters are guided throughout the seeing reality. Out of the ensuing crisis comes a modified vision of
process by their pre-understandings or visions of life. life with its possibilities for revised exegesis.

Emotional anxiety and societal privilege Vision of text and authorial intention
The importance of pre-understanding has, since Bultmann, been 6. The message, thrust, vision or subject-matter of the text,
recognized. What has not been sufficiently taken into conside- and not authorial intention, is essential to proper inter-
ration, however, is that a vision of life is not as pure or as trans- pretation.
parent to its adherents as they often assume. Ricoeur judges that Some interpreters (Betti, Hirsch and, I judge, the majority of
modern hcrmeneutics is still too smug and self-assured about the evangelical interpreters34) stress the need to determine the
38 lames Olthuis A hermeneutics of ultimacu 39

objective meaning of a text through methodological efforts to undertaking, but historical-critical analysis, for all its value, has
make precise the original author’s intention. Redaction criticism often left us with a dismantled text and no agreed-upon meaning.
is one such method. Schleiermacher and Betti have emphasized All these ways can contribute to interpretation, but, in my
the need to re-experience, re-think and re-construct what the au- judgment, the aim of interpretation must center on the subject
thor had originally thought and felt. Others set out to determine matter, the what is said, of the text. The text must be primarily
the original situation or Sih im Leben which called forth the understood from within itself. The aim is not the so-called
original text. More recently, others tend toward sociocultural ana- objective reproduction of authorial meaning behind the text, but
lyses of the communities which were the first historical address- the delineation of the message or vision which is fixed in the text,
ees of the text. “in front of’ the text as Ricoeur expresses it.36 I like the way
No doubt all these ways can be most helpful and can easily be David Tracy puts it: ‘The author of interest for the interpreter of
recommended. Information about all these background matters the text’s meanings is not the author as reconstructed, for example,
helps, sometimes dramatically, in interpretation. But to hinge by psycho-historical methods. Rather the particular vision of
the validity of interpretation on whether or not the author’s the author on reality becomes the self-referent of the text
intention or original situation is captured is, I believe, a serious itself.“37 One can talk of an implied “author,” “that personal
mistake. To emphasize that the meaning of a text can be vision of the world codified in or referred to by the oeuvre of any
determined by “divination” (Dilthey: Einfiihlung) of the author’s particular author.” What I am saying is that texts have their
intention in an empathetic and imaginative reenactment of the own meaning which is no longer adequately described in terms of
inner life of the author seems to me highly psychologistic. Of the author’s original intention. The authorial intention and extra-
course, there is an intimate connection between the meaning of a textual determinants are important. How they are important
text and authorial intention. The text owes its origin to the au- remains a crucial question for continuing investigation. But they
thor. It is situated in a certain context. But after the text is cannot be the main focus of interpretation. Nor are they the key to
written, the text is distanced from its author and from its original interpretation. The key is the message, vision, or as Ricoeur calls
situation. These are, as Ricoeur puts it, “behind” the text. But it, the “world’ of the text. It is that “world,” that message,
they are not the text itself. A text has its own life. In written which is up front and which needs to shine through if there is to
discourse authorial intention and the meaning of the text do not be understanding of the text.
always continue to coincide. In terms of Scripture, sometimes the The fact that a written text may escape the limited horizon
canonical context invites a reading which is even against the of author and first readers is of supreme importance: it makes
original intent of an author or makes such an intent irrelevant to interpretation of a text from another time and culture possible. In
the claim of Scripture. A written text escapes, in important ways, distinction from spoken words, a written text has a semantic
the very limited horizon of its author.% autonomy from its context of origin which, in principle, makes
Ricoeur concludes that one need not know the authorial conversation possible across the centuries. Reading is the “‘reme-
intention in order to understand the text. I think he is right. dy’ by which the meaning of the text is ‘rescued from the estrange-
What the text says matters now much more than what the author ment and distantiation and put in a new proximity.“38 When we
meant to say. In fact, the author may have mis-spoken him/ further realize that the main key to interpreting a text is the
herself. It is a well-known phenomenon that authors are often “what” of the text rather than its inimitable and irretrievable
blind themselves to conceptual shifts or changes that have occur- “when,” “where,” or “how,” the possibility of overcoming the
red in their written texts. Moreover, how can one ever re-expe- distance through an appropriation of the “what” presented in the
rience or re-think the inner life of another person? Gadamer seems text is even more promising. That, of course, does not make
on target when he judges that if there is anything to such re- interpretation easy: the “what” always comes cloaked with a
enactment of inner meaning, it is in imagining oneself to be in the where, when and how. But it does make interpretation possible.
what the author’s thoughts are about, rather than to be in the And even though we are always struggling against distantiation,
thoughts of the author him/herself. the estrangement can be overcome in a fusion of horizons which is
Not only is inversion of the creation process a most hazardous the meeting of “worlds.”
40 fames Olthuis A herrneneutics of ultimacu 41

Centering attention on the message or “world” codified in the and original Sitz im Leben would, I believe, be fruitful. Many of
text is also of crucial importance because it makes clear that the the authors of Scriptures are anonymous, a redactor’s intent may
decisional or existential moment of interpretation (how do I res- differ from that of the original author, a book may have multiple
pond to the text?) follows upon an interpretation of the message of authors from different times. All that is in the end secondary to
the text. the vision or central thrust of the text.
A Heideggerian-Bultmannian hermeneutic tends to focus so Moreover, understanding the original situation of the text
exclusively on this existential moment that the meaning of the does not mean we have interpreted the text, if what needs
text is reduced to its meaning for me. The text is treated as a understanding is the message of the text. Since this vision is
jumping-off place from which one can go anywhere. What is fleshed out in a text written in a specific time, by specific authors,
crucial, then, is the decision, the event of revelation, e.g. Fuchs’ historical-critical investigations are invaluable. But their focus
Sprachereignis or Ebeling’s wortgeschehf?n,39 which transforms must be on illuminating the message of the text as given rather
my life. In the process the normative question of understanding than on determining the authenticity and historic@ of the text.
the message of the text correctly is shunted aside as being of For when all is said and done, it is the content of the message
secondary consequence. The critical point here is not that the of the Scripture that is crucial. In my view the critical challenge
decisional moment is unimportant. Without it, as we have is to investigate how all the individual pericopes, sections, books,
observed, interpretation remains unfinished. But when the deci- and testaments, in their diversity and plurality, contribute to,
sional moment, rather than the text, becomes the meaning to be expand, enrich, and embroider the single, central unified message
interpreted, the hermeneutic enterprise goes awry. of the Scriptures: new life in Christ for the whole cosmos.
Dwelling in this pre-understanding of the central thrust of
Scripture interpreting scripture Scripture, interpreters can trace the certitudinal thrust of a
In deciphering the message of the text, we need to search for an particular text in terms of its immediate context, in terms of a
interpretation which makes the text maximally coherent and specific book, and finally in terms of the place of the book in the
maximally consistent with itself. Gadamer talks of a “prejudice canon as a whole. In and through attending to details of time,
of perfection”40 in this context. We assume the unity or perfection place and purpose, the particular text’s abiding certitudinal
of a text when we first approach it. To do otherwise is to preclude message of exhortation, hope, judgment, promise, and surety be-
genuine understanding of the text before one has ever begun. The comes clearer. This reading is enriched by widening our horizons
whole is to be understood in light of its parts, and the parts in to the context of the whole book: each book arose in specific cir-
light of the whole. A provisional interpretation of parts needs to cumstances and was written to serve a specific certitudinal
be checked against global interpretation, and a provisional idea purpose. Since a specific certitudinal purpose guided the writers
of the global which emerges in reading the parts must also be in their selection and arrangement of materials, awareness of that
checked against the parts. purpose can enhance our understanding of the nuances which a
This is, of course, a hermeneutic circle of which exegetes of common biblical theme may exhibit in a particular text. Reading
Scripture have long been aware. The Reformers talked of the an entire biblical book in one sitting often helps to deepen our sense
Analogy of Scripture: Scripture should be interpreted by Scrip- of its dominant motifs. And constructing an outline of a book with
ture; the secondary and obscure needs to be interpreted in light of focus on the development of these key motifs can further enrich our
the primary and plain. Text and context are to be interpreted in sense both of the global meaning of the book and of the fit of the
dialectic interrelation. That, incidentally, by no means implies parts. When the Evangelists, for example, present differing
inattention to extra-textual materials. Such investigation is sequences of events, the question is not: Who made the error? but,
required, but for the purpose of arriving at a global understanding What certitudinal purpose was served by arranging the material
of the vision of the text which fits internally with all the givens in that way.7 Attending to the particular demands which their
of the text. writings were addressing, Richard Longenecker, to take a telling
A clearer focus in biblical studies on the elucidation of the example, has demonstrated that the different emphases of Paul,
“vision” of the text of Scripture rather than on authorial intention James and Hebrews on “faith’ need not be read as tensions or
42 James Olfhuis A hermeneutics of ultimacy 43

contradictions which either require us to harmonize or take conquest of Canaan. “It is the story of how Yahweh fulfilled His
sides.41 promise to give Israel possession of the land of rest. The whole
Such comparing of diverse scriptural portrayals of themes or book is carefuly constructed so that each episode develops this
events, tracing cross-references, and highlighting key words is central theme.“44
further enhanced by attention to the architectonic place of, each The writer of Kings, much to the chagrin of some modern
book in the canonic whole. The Pentateuchal “Torah of the priest” critics, says very little about Solomon’s extensive building
(see Jeremiah l&18 and Matthew 23%) formed the foundation program; rather, he chooses to deal with the building of just the
and touchstone of the Old Testament covena.ntal community. The temple - in profuse detail. Omri, who by all cultural accounts
Torah was God’s gift of guidance so that life had shape, purpose was a far more significant king than his son Ahab, is given but a
and perspective. The Torah is followed by the “word of the few verses. Ahab, by contrast, is described in a flourish of detail
prophet,” early and later, major and minor commentaries on the because in his reign the people of Israel hit a new low in
fractured life of the community, surprising new words of God in disobedience to Yahweh. While little information is given about
continuity with the Torah, calling to repentance, witnessing to Hezekiah’s extensive reforms, a half chapter is devoted to the
deliverance and God’sfaithfulness. And the prophetic books are healing of a boil on Hezekiah’s body because it was “a sign that
interspersed by the “counsel of the wise,” writings, rooted in the Yahweh recognized Hezekiah’s obedience.“45
Torah, praising God who makes and saves us, and instructing us The book of Kings is not a collection of royal biographies, nor
about the way to knowledge through engagement with the world a general, cultural history but a history focused on explaining to a
as created order.42 In the New Testament the Gospels are the people in exile that their sorry plight is the result of human
Good News of redemption and recreation in Jesus Christ which, disobedience. The people of Israel led by their Kings, not Yah-
fulfilling the Torah (cf. Luke 10:26), the writings, and the weh, had failed to keep the covenant. When we are guided by
prophets and writings relate to the Torah, Acts, Revelation and that focus on obedience/disobedience to Yahweh - what I refer to
the letters are books of exhortation (cf. Hebrews 13:22), instruc- structurally as the certitudinal focus - we are in possession of a
ting, warning, and encouraging the New Testament Church, pro- key which helps us better understand the selection and
claiming and witnessing to the growth of the Kingdom of God that presentation of materials. We also acquire a good start in
is already here and is still coming. understanding the discrepancies between Kings and Chronicles. In
The exegetical process is a spiral “round and round” move-ment contrast to the concern of Samuel-Kings to show that the exile
between a global or canonic understanding of the meaning of a text was punishment for breaking the Covenant, the Chronicler is
which guides attention to the particular text, and attention to the concerned to encourage the post-exilic community to new acts of
details and immediate context of the text as a test of the global obedience. Sin, he wants to make clear, always brings judgment,
meaning. In the on-going conversation the particular vision or while obedience yields peace and justice. To that purpose he
message of the text becomes clearer. makes David and Solomon nearly faultless and reshapes the
accounts of the reigns of many of the individual kings.&
Certitudinal history Talk of certitudinal history offers us, I suggest, a fundamental
History in the Scriptures is certitudinally qualified history. It is re-orientation away from and beyond the historylstoy?
no more or less historical than economic, political, or general reality/myth debate which polarizes much of biblical studies.
cultural histories. But just as these kinds of histories have their Biblical narratives are neither myth nor general, cultural
own distinct focus, as do histories of music and art, sport and history, but historical stories both written from and for a
recreation, certitudinal history is written with a distinct focus: specialized certitudinal purpose of engendering and exhorting
ultimate reali ties, ultimate questions and ultimate certainty. faith. Only when we do justice to the specialized purpose of the
Luke sets out to write a history of “all that Jesus began both to canonic texts are we able to honor them in their received form even
do and to teach” (Acts 1:l). 43 The book of Joshua is not just a as we engage in critical interpretation.
collection of isolated stories from the history of Israel. Nor is it a
biography of Joshua or a politico-military account of the
44 James Olthuis A hermeneutics of ultimacy 45
Certitudinal exegesis: a hermeneutics of ultimacy truths are to be read and understood as visionary, ultimate,
The crucial role that the certitudinal dynamics occupy in regard to certitudinal truths. The contrast in the Scriptures is between truth
Scriptural exegesis leads me to question whether either the histo- (as faithfulness) and lying (as instability, swerving from the
rice-critical methods of the higher critics or the traditional gram- truth) rather than between truth (as scientific precision) and
matical-historical method is adequate. Neither method, I would errancy (as limited or defective information). God promises in the
judge, has sufficiently in purview the distinctive structural focus Spirit of Christ (John 14:26) to be covenantally faithful and
which gives contours to biblical revelation. I am su gesting that invites us to listen to God’s voice in the Scriptures. We can count on
we would do well to talk of certitudinal exegesis, 48 an exegesis the Scriptures, for they record the Word of the faithful one. They
which, true to its object of investigation, is pastoral in intention will never lead us astray in connection with the ultimate questions
and is illumined by historical criticism and grammatical- of life. On that depth-level they are true and inerrant.
linguistic studies. The development of a hermeneutics of ultimacy Our exegetical task is greatly enhanced when we realize that
would, among other things, cause us to take more seriously the fact attention to the certitudinal focus enables us to zero in on the
that the focus of Scripture is neither primarily grammatical, his- abiding message of a text given to us in all its time-conditio-
torical, nor literary. A focus on the dynamics of certitude would nedness. What a biblical text proclaims, informs, celebrates,
also make clear that psychologistic, economistic, moralistic or narrates, etc., about the basic questions of life, the ultimates, is
intellectualistic readings of Scripture are inappropriate. abiding.
That does not mean that psychological or socio-economic We are in fact delivered from a kind of biblicism which seeks
insights offer no help in reading the Bible. Indeed, psychology, in a specific proof-text in order to live out the Gospel message in all
particular Jungian psychology with its attention to the subcon- the various areas of life. The biblical answers to the ultimate
scious dynamics of our inner life, can help us nourish an inner questions of life direct and guide us as we give concrete form to our
capacity which heightens our sensitivity to the biblical message. lives by attending to the creational dynamics of the various areas
Socioeconomic theories can alert us not only to the impact of of life. In this way, that is, via their focus on the ultimates of
changing socio-economic conditions on biblical revelation, but also life, the Scriptures exercise total and full authority with a range
to the role socio-economic location plays in our own biblical inter- as wide as creation. Envisioning from Scripture what God wants
pretation. Nor does a hermeneutics of certitude deny that the for our lives, we are empowered in the Spirit of God to re-envision
Bible is literature, has cognitive content and that it speaks to our that life-giving message in relevant specifics that make for
moral life. The point is that reading the Scripture as literature, healing and hope in our troubled times.
with its cognitive content and with its concern for the moral life Since the Scriptures make known to us that it is by the Word
without due and proper attention to its governing focus on the of God that the heavens and earth were made (Heb. 11:3), that it
certitude of faith is to ask Scripture to be what it is not. Scripture is by the “same Word” that they are still sustained (II Peter 3:7),
is not a moral handbook, a systematic treatise, a collection of and that it is the same Word that was made flesh for our
psychotherapeutic case-histories, a literary anthology, or a se- redemption (John 1:1,18), we know that in the Spirit of Christ we
ries of socio-political histories. can move surely and freely in God’s creation (II Cor. 5:17; Gal. 5:l).
Emphasis on the certitudinal would also make clear that the Revealing the possibility of new life in Jesus Christ, the
cognitive content of Scripture is certitudinally qualified. Scrip- Scriptures invite us to change our ways and participate anew as co-
ture is not a theoretic text filled with analytically qualified partners with God in caring for creation by responding to and
theoretic propositions. The lingual discourse of Scripture does unfolding the meaning of justice, mercy, stewardship, health,
have cognitive content, but the cognitive content is taken up, sub- clarity, fidelity, consistency - all of God’s creative Words of
sumed, and presented in terms of a certitudinal-faith focus on the Love - for creation and all its creatures. Knowing and trusting
ultimates. In contrast to the abstract, universalizing, structure- that God’s Word of Love holds dynamically for all of life, we are
describing character of theoretic (including theological) discourse, empowered in the Spirit to search out and apply it relevantly and
certitudinal discourse has a cumulative, telescopic, perspectival, creatively to life in our times in all its facets.
no if’s or but’s, encountering quality. In other words, Scriptural Because of the Fall into sin, we need the Spirit of God to
46 James Olfhuis A hermeneutics of ulfimacy 47

renew us and the “glasses” of Scripture to teach us how, in love emphasis - necessary and understandable - but in very diverse,
and by grace, to discern what God intended from the beginning. contrasting and even contradictory ways. In order to make more
The Bible is one, single, long, true story of the Covenantal Rule of credible our unity as the Body of Christ and to take steps toward
God - which has come and which is acoming - claiming huma- healing, new understanding and rapprochement, such wide-
nity and all of creation, promising shalom in Jesus Christ through ranging, cordial and open-hearted conversations are essential.
the Spirit. We are named and commissioned, sustained and groun- Moreover, despite differences in articulated perspectives, as our
ded in our identity and integrity as servant-heirs of God. We common allegiance to the God of the Scriptures in the Spirit of
learn who we are, where we are, what we need, where we are Christ becomes a felt experience, our motivation will increase to
headed, and what our calling is. reach out in unified efforts of witness and action towards healing,
The Scriptures are the story of redemption: the Word of God peace, and justice in our troubled world.
inscripturated in human words for our healing and instruction.
Translated into terminology germane to this essay, the Scriptures
are a redemptive rearticulation/republication of the Word of God NOTES
in certitudinal-lingual focus. Since the Bible speaks redemp-
tively in human words what God said from the beginning and 1. James Packer, “Hermeneutics and Biblical Authority,”
continues to say, the Bible’s central message is immediately rele- Therrzelios, 5 (1975), p. 3. Cf. also D. A. Carson, “Hermeneutics: A
vant to all of life in all times and places. It is when we honor the Brief Assessment of Some Recent Trends,” Themelios, 5 (1980), pp.
certitudinal focus in which the message comes and ask questions 12-20.
accordingly that we are able to experience its direct relevance. 2. Paul Ricoeur, Freud and Philosophy (New Haven: Yale
Then we are aided and abetted in using and experiencing the Bible University Press, 1970), p. 20-56.
as the Bible itself promises - as profitable for teaching, 3. Michael Polanyi, The Tacif Dimension (Garden City, N.Y.:
exhorting, comfort and encouragement.50 Doubleday, 1966). John V. Apczynski has explored these matters
In the last three paragraphs, I have sketched my own extensively in his analysis of human cognitional activity based on
understanding of a biblical vision of life and briefly related it to the epistemology of Michael Polanyi. Cf. his Doers of fti WorcI
our previous discussion. I have included it to give readers a more (Missoula, Montana: Scholars Press, 1977), esp. ch. 5, pp. 155-180.
concrete idea of the vision which orients and guides me in inter- For an ideal of religious knowledge based on Polanyi, see Jerry H.
preting the text of Scripture. I have not presented and do not in- Gill, The Possibility of Religious Knowledge (Grand Rapids:
tend to present a case for this particular understanding.51 What I Eerdmans, 1971).
have done - at least intended to do - is to argue the crucial 4. Langdon Gilkey, Naming the Whirlwind (Indianapolis:
importance of both the interpreter’s vision and the vision of the Bobbs-Merrill, 1969), pp. 426-427.
text in interpretation. 5. Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations, Sec-
tion 217 (Oxford: Blackwells, 1967).
Call to discussion 6. Ludwig Wittgenstein, On Certainty, 88, 210, 211, 343 (New
If my treatment of the hermeneutic dynatnics is at all on target, York: Harper Torchbooks, 1969), pp. 13e, 29e, 44e.
we are called to renewed comparison and discussion of our various 7. Cf. Hendrik Hart, “The Articulation of Belief: A Link
life perspectives or visions of life which are the glasses which between Rationality and Commitment,” in Rationality and the
frame and color what we read. An important part of such Calvinian Tradition, eds. H. Hart, J. van der Hoeven & N.
discussions will be the comparing of our various proposals about Wolterstorff (Lanham: University Press of America, 1983); Mi-
the nature of Scripture as a whole. For unless we seriously discuss chael Polanyi, Personal Knowledge (London: Routledge and
the nature of the scriptural text, the kinds of questions which are Kegan Paul, 1958); and Morris Kline, T/z Loss of Certainty
appropriate and inappropriate to it and the appropriate (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980).
perspective from which to ask our questions, we will continue to 8. Kline, op. cit., p. 316.
exegcte particular texts of Scripture not only with differences of 9. John Hick, Faith and Knowledge (Ithaca: Cornell Uni-
versity Press, 1957), p. 129.
48 James Olthuis A hermeneutics of ultimacu 49

10. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, I.VII, 5 delphia: Fortress Press, 1984) and Gerald T. Sheppard, “Canon-
(Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 19601, p. 80. ization: Hearing the Voice of the Same God in Historically Dis-
11. Gilkey, op. cit., pp. 441-444. Cf. also A. Whitehead, similar Traditions,” Interpretation 36/l (1982), pp. 21-33.
Modes of Thought (New York: Macmillan, 1938). “Upon the 20. One of the best introductions to modern hermeneutics is
presupposition of the evidence, all understanding rests....It still James M. Robinson’s essay, “Hermeneutic Since Barth,” in
follows that philosophy in any proper sense of the term, cannot be The Nezu Herrneneutic (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1964), eds. James
proved,” p. 67. Robinson and John B. Cobb. Anthony Thiselton’s The TWO
12. David H. Kelsey, The Uses of Scripture in Recent Horizons knowledgeably and clearly discusses biblical exegetical
TheoIogy (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975), esp. chaps. 8 and 9. concerns with special reference to Heidegger, Bultmann, Gadamer
Also the review by Carl F. H. Henry, “Theology and Biblical and Wittgenstein. Cf. also Carl Braaten, History and Heme-
Authority: A Review Article,” in Journul of the Evangelical neutics (Philadelphia: Westminster, 19661, Richard E. Palmer,
Theological Society, 19 (Fall, 1976), pp. 315-323. Hermeneutics (Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 19691,
13. Cf. Gerhard Ebeling, Word and Faith (London: SCM, Robert W. Funk, Language, Hermeneutic, and the Word of God
1963), p. 318 in H.-G. Gadamer, Truth and Method (London: Sheed (New York: Harper & Row, 1966), Paul Achtemeier, An Intro-
and Ward, 1975), p. 350. d u c t i o n t o t h e Nm Hemeneutic (Philadelphia:Westminster,
14. Cf. E. D. Hirsch, “Current Issues in Theory of 1969) and Walter Wink, The Bible in Human Transformation:
Interpretation,” in Journal of Religion, July, 1974, p. 303. Towads a Nm Paradigm for Biblical Study (Philadelphia:
15. Paul Ricoeur, Interpretation Theory: Discourse and the Fortress, 1973).
Surplus of Meaning (Fort Worth: Texas Christian University 21. Heidegger talked of the Vorhabe, Vorsicht and Vorpif
Press, 1976), p. 76. which make up what Bultmann called Vorverstkzdnis. Cf.
16. Cf. Josef Bleicher, Contemporary Hemeneutics (Boston: Heidegger, Being and Time #32 (New York: Harper and Row,
Routledge & Kegan Paul, 19801, p. 224. Anthony Thiselton takes 1962), pp. 188-195 and Bultmann, Essays: Phibsuphical and Theol-
note of the diverse ways structuralists tend to go in the final step ogicd (London: SCM Press, 19501, p. 239.
of interpretation in The Two Horizons (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 22. Emilio Betti has become known through his two volume
1980), p. 429. For an introduction to structuralism, see Daniel Terio GeneraZe della Interpretuzione (Milan: Dott. A Giuffre, ed.
Patte, What is Structural Analysis? (Philadelphia: Fortress Instituto di Teoria della Interpretazione, 1955) in which he
Press, 1976) and Robert Detweiler, Stay, Sign, and Serf revitalizes such an objective-idealist approach to hermeneutics in
(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1978). contrast especially to Gadamer. In 1962 he summarized his work
17. David Tracy, Blessed Rage for Order (New York: Seabury in one essay “Die Hermeneutik als allgemeine Methode der
Press, 19751, p. 55. Geisterswissenschaften.” Bleicher has translated this essay and
18. Cf. my “On Worldviews,” Christian Scholar’s Rezku includes it in his volume, pp. 51-94. E. D. Hirsch, Jr. is the leading
14/2 (19851, pp. 153-164 for elaboration of the certitudinal way of American adherent of Betti’s approach. Cf. his Validity in
being in the world as well as the nature and function of a vision of lnferpretation (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1967) and The
life. For an earlier attempt to articulate a hermeneutics of Aims of Interpretation (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
certitude, see my ‘Towards a Certitudinal Hermeneutic” in Hear- 1976).
ing and Doing, ed. John Kraay and Anthony To1 (Toronto: Wedge 23. Especially Gadamer and Paul Ricoeur have been very
Publishing Foundation, 1979). critical of the Cartesian model. “It is with Freud and PhiZosophy
19. My concern to help recover a new sense of the unity of that I broke away from the illusions of consciousness as the blind
Scripture while attendant to its diversity is very similar to spot of reflection,” I?. Ricoeur in “Toward a Hermeneutic of the
Brevard Childs’ admirable efforts to search for a new consensus by Idea of Revelation,” The Haroad Theological Review, Vol. 70
viewing the Bible as canon. See Brevard S. Childs, Introduction to (1977), p. 28. Cf. Bleicher, pp. 248-251. It is in the work and wri-
the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, tings of Paul Ricoeur that modern hermeneutical conflicts are
1979). The Nao Testament as Canon: An introduction (Phila- mediated and at least to some extent overcome. He attempts to do
 50 lames Olfhuis A heymeneutics ofultimacy 51
justice to the integrity of the text without minimizing the 541 and Interpretation Theo y: Discourse and Surplus ofMeaning.
significant role of pre-conceptions or the impact of extra-linguistic 36. Cf. Ricoeur, “Toward an Idea of the Hermeneutic of Reve-
matters both personal and social. With Betti and structuralism, lation,” lot. cit. Also Tracy, op. cit., pp. 77-78.
Ricoeur emphasizes the importance and possibility of normative 37. Tracy, ap. cit., p. 76.
interpretation. At the same time, he criticizes any idea of a 38. Ricoeur, Interpretation Theo y, p. 43.
methodologically secured objective meaning as well as the 39. Fuchs, Studies of the Historical Jesus (London: SCM, 1964),
exclusion by structuralism of the existential dimension of meaning. pp. 196-98, and G. Ebeling, ‘Word of God and Hermeneutic,” in
24. R. Bultmann, “Das Problem der Hermeneutik,” Zeifschriff The Nezu Hermeneutic, pp. 78-l 10.
fur Philosophie und Kiyche, Vol. 47 (1950), p. 63. 40. Gadamer, op. cit., pp. 263 ff.
25. Tracy, op. cit., p. 51. 41. Richard Longenecker, “The ‘Faith of Abraham’ Theme in
26. Heidegger, q. cit., #32, p. 195. Paul, James and Hebrews: A Study in the Circumstantial Nature
27. Rosemary Ruether, 7’0 Change the World (New York: of New Testament Teaching,” Journal of the Evangelical Theol-
Crossroad Publishing, 1983), ch. 1, “Jesus and the Revolutionaries: ogical Society 20 (19771, pp. 203-12.
Political Theology and Biblical Hermeneutics,” p. 11. 42. See Walter Brueggemann, The Creative Word (Phila-
28. Another telling example highlighting the impact of delphia: Fortress Press, 1982) for an excellent discussion of the
worldviews on exegesis is Al Wolters’ “Nature and Grace in the nature of these three kinds of writings and their inter-rela-
Interpretation of Proverbs 31:10-31” in Calvin Theological Journal tionships.
19 (November, 1984), pp. 153-167. 43. On Luke, cf. I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke
29. Ricoeur also talks of three levels: the level of semantics, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974). For Mark, cf. William H. Lane,
the level of reflection, and the existential level. Cf. his “Exis- The Gospel According to Mark (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974).
tence and Hermeneutics,” in Bleicher, op. cit., pp. 243-256. Robert Gundry has recently written a commentary, Matthew: A
30. Ricoeur, Inferpyefation Theory, pp. 74-79. In Validity in Commentary on his Literary and Theological Art (Grand Rapids:
Interpretation (pp. 203-2051, Hirsch identifies the “guess,” the Eerdmans, 1982) which argues that it is appropriate to use the
first act of intuitive understanding, and scientific “validation,” adjectives “midrashic” and “haggadic” for Matthew (cf. “A
the second act of understanding, with Schleiermacher’s female Theological Postscript,” pp. 623-640).
‘divinatory” function and male “comparative” function. 44. Donald Sinnema, Reclaiming fhe Land: A Study of the
31. Ricoeur, “Existence and Hermeneutics,” in Bleicher, op. Book of Joshua (Toronto: Joy in Learning Curriculum Centre, 1977),
cit., p. 250. p. 8. Both Sinnema and Femhout (cf. fn. 45) employ the certitu-
32. Gerard Radnitzky, Contemporary Schools of Metascience dinal focus to advantage in their studies.
(Chicago: Henry Regnery, 1968), p. 228. 45. Cf. Harry Fernhout, Of Kings and Prophets (Toronto: Joy in
33. The Critical Hermeneutics of Habermas and Ape1 as well Learning Curriculum Centre, 19791, p. 4. For I and II Samuel, cf. H.
as the more Marxian variants of Sandkiihler and Lorenzer are Femhout, Promises Broken; Promises Kept (Toronto: Joy in Lear-
incisively discussed by Bleicher, pp. 143-180. Bleicher includes a ning Curriculum Centre, 1986).
translation of one of Habermas’ essays, “The Hermeneutic Claim 46. For the “literary program” of the Chronicler, see
to Universality,” pp. 181-211. Cf. also Zygmunt Bauman, Hemre- Raymond Dillard, “The Reign of Asa (2 Chronicles 14-16): An
neutics and Social Science Approaches to Understanding (London: Example of the Chronicler’s Theological Method,” Journal of fhe
Hutchinson, 1978). Evangelical Theological Society 23 (1980), pp. 217-218.
34. For the evangelical predilection for an intentional@ 47. Hans W. Frei has made a significant move to get beyond
theory of meaning, see Gerald Sheppard, “Biblical Hermeneutics: the dilemma by describing biblical narratives as “history-like”
The Academic Language of Evangelical Identity,” Union Sernina- and pleading for a realistic, mimetic reading (The Eclipse of
y Quayteyly Review 32 (19771, pp. 81-94. Biblical Nayya tive New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974,
35. Cf. Paul Ricoeur, “The Model of the Text: Meaningful chap. 1). I am suggesting that we can make further headway by
Action Considered as a Text,” Social Research 38 (19711, pp. 529- recognizing that the biblical narratives are history, history
52 lames Olthuis 53
written from the vantage point of faith-certitude.
48. I talk of “certitudinal” exegesis instead of “theological”
Peril with promise:
because I want to honor the fact that certitudinal texts are not a response to
theo-logical, that is, theoretic texts, and their interpretation is
not fundamentally or in the first place a theoretic endeavor. James Olthuis
Moreover, the concept “theological” is itself highly ambiguous..
Sometimes it means biblical teaching, sometimes systematically by Clark H. Pinnock
construed doctrines, sometimes the science of things divine, and
sometimes the praxis of right living. Often it includes all of these
and theological is used to indicate any reference to or any
connection with God. Jesus gave us this warning: ‘Take heed how you hear” (Luke 8:18).
Theological interpretation is at times taken to mean God’s James Olthuis is correct to insist on the importance of knowing how
way of interpreting or interpretation looked at from the properly to interpret the Bible. For what profit is there if we
viewpoint of an ideal observer such as God. I want to stress that profess a high doctrine of its authority and fail to interpret it
looking at things from the viewpoint of faith certitudes is one correctly and profoundly ? Authority is a functional category. It
completely human and natural way (alongside other modes of makes no sense to claim that Dr. Speck is my authority for child
being human) which can be valid or invalid depending on its raising if I do not follow what he lays down. We must get a
content. On the other hand, in much modem discussion, “theolo- handle on biblical hermeneutics. Olthuis helps us to do so by
gical” often indicates the subjective, constructive intention that integrating into a unique perspective his own many current
we bring to the text. I want to emphasize that the focus on ulti- insights. This essay carries further the theme of an earlier paper
mate certitudes is a characteristic which is structurally built-in to of his entitled ‘Towards a Certitudinal Hermeneutic” published
the text of Scripture as a canonic whole regardless of the inten- in 1979 (Hearing and Doing, John Kraai and Anthony Tol, editors.
tions of interpreters (or even some of the writers). Toronto: Wedge Publishing Foundation, pp. 65-85).
49. Calvin G. Seerveld has offered a helpful contrast between Olthuis is trying to renew evangelical thinking by creating
what I am calling a certitudinal reading of Numbers 22-24 with some new space between old divisions in theology. I propose to
moralistic, higher-critical and orthodox intellectualistic read- pursue three lines of inquiry to uncover his ideas at greater depth.
ings in BaZaam s Apocalyptic Prophecies (Toronto: Wedge Publi- These do not exhaust the rich thinking in the paper, but may serve
shing Foundation, 1980). Sidney Greidanus has shown the inade- to help us reflect critically on it.
quacy of a moralistic, exemplary approach in preaching histori-
cal texts in Sola Scriptura: Problems and Principles in Preaching Does faith come through reason?
Historical Texts (Toronto: Wedge Publishing Foundation, 19701, To my way of thinking the first topic he treats is ancillary to
ch. 3. hermeneutics proper, although this may only reflect my own
50. In his commentary on II Timothy 3:16, John Calvin strongly preference not to let the term include everything under the sun, as
emphasized the importance of proper use if the Scriptures are to it tends to do today. Olthuis devotes some space to an explanation
fulfill their promise. Cf. Commentaries on the Epistles to Timo- of how one arrives at the conviction that the Bible is the Word of
thy, Titus and Philemon (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, pp. 249-50. God (pp. 12-16). Although this could be discussed in fundamental
51. For fuller treatments of such a biblical vision, cf. Brian J. or apologetic theology or even in the psychology of belief, he
Walsh and J. Richard Middleton, The Transforming Vision (Dow- raises it here because it is part of what he means by
ner’s Grove: Intervarsity Press, 1984) and Albert M. Wolters, “certitudinal,” that God gives us the assurance which we have
Creation Regained (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985). concerning the truth of his revelation and Scripture. It does not
come as the result of the efforts of human reason, but is given to us
by grace. God discovers us; we do not discover Him. Convictions
about ultimacy are not within the possibility of human reasoning,
54 Clark Pinnock Peril with vromise 55

but appear in our consciousness as self-evident and self-authen- would a good Calvinist wish to even seem to’ restrict the divine
ticating. freedom in this matter?
It would take us too far afield to inquire how far Olthuis’ I suppose this is important for me in two ways. First, I do not
thinking here lines up with traditional theology in its treatment like to hear Christian scholars telling unbelievers what they
of themes such as general revelation and the indicia of special believe already, namely, that there will not be reasons why they
revelation. should believe until they do believe. Contrary to what Paul says,
Lest we suppose, however, that Olthuis thinks faith is irra- they would seem to have the perfect excuse for never believing.
tional, he introduces a number of disclaimers. It seems that there Second, I do not like the smugness this allows the Christian com-
are reasons and evidences of all kinds in support of faith (14/15). munity which can sweetly say: ““We believe (by grace of course);
Is it a self-evident conviction then or is it the final term in an exer- that settles it.” Belief in this world settles nothing as far as the
cise of apologetic reasoning? The answer comes in the form of a dis- truth of religion is concerned. I tremble for the future of the Christ-
tinction: “Fundamental acceptance does not come from reasons, ian mission if we cannot go out into the market place of ideas
although it may come through reasons.” (15) convinced of the objective truthfulness of our message.
What can he possibly mean ? I would venture to say that
Olthuis sees reasoning as operating within a faith vision or The vision of the text: reading within the macro-purpose
perspective. Therefore believers can give reasons to themselves, Olthuis keeps speaking about the vision we have of the Bible and
but these reasons cannot be expected to be valid currency across the vision the Bible has of itself, and indicates how crucial it is
faith perspectives. Arguments will not help anyone to adopt a for us to grasp these things. It is a matter we must pursue if it is of
faith vision, but they may help them once they have adopted it. utmost importance for good interpretation. Let us start with the
Rational in this way of thinking is what I would call “internal” vision we bring to the text on account of our history and tradition
and not “external” rationality. As with Barth’s so-called ratio- (18).
nal theology, reason operates within the circle of presupposed Olthuis believes that we are shaped in our understanding of
faith but not beyond it. Non-Christians could not expect to find the Bible by the Christian tradition in which we stand. Evan-
arguments to convince them to adopt the Christian faith. When gelicals especially have not fully appreciated the way they en-
Olthuis says faith has “reasons,” he means reasons believers will gage the text in terms of the life vision they have received (35).
understand because they are established in the faith perspective, We have tended to canonize our own understanding of the Bible
but they are not reasons which just anyone on common ground might and be closed to other understandings of it. We sometimes will say
be expected to accept. If this is so, I do not think he is being that we think of the Bible exactly the way in which it thinks
inconsistent in saying that faith is self-evident and that there are about itself, and not be aware of traditional components in our
reasons for faith. I also think that according to the accepted thinking. Is Olthuis a relativist and a traditionalist, then? Does
definition of rationality - as reasoned thinking anyone could he agree with Kelsey (see 18) that each community or theologian
follow to a conclusion - Olthuis does not believe faith is rational. decides how to approach the Bible and use it as an authority, and
At the same time, Olthuis is tempted to go further. He can this is as it should be? There is nothing superior then about
even say: “Rational argumentation can only be the means by Warfield’s approach over, say, Bultmann’s or Tillich’s. Or, I sup-
which, but not the ground on which a person accepts a new faith. pose, between Calvin’s and Pope Innocent’s. At this point Olthuis
Rational argument may occasion a change of faith, and may, in a cites Carl Henry’s review of Kelsey and issues a disclaimer, but
fundamental way, urge the invalidity of a vision and its his disagreement with Kelsey is by no means as clear as Henry’s
underlying faith.” (16) What we ought to say is simply that, al- is. He does not actually say what Henry does, that the Bible has
though the faith event is certainly a mystery, God who made the a “discrimen” for interpretation and it alone should be ours (in
human mind can surely use the evidences of his activity and exis- agreement with Warfield of course) and I am left wondering. It
tence to effect the conversion of the human heart. Even though does not help to read (15) that no vision, such as a view of
the unbeliever may resist them, they remain valid evidences and Scripture, is subject to proof, and I suppose to falsification. On the
need to be presented “whether they will hear or forbear.” Why other hand, Olthuis says enough about the vision the Bible
56 Clark Pinnock Peril with promise 57

supposedly projects that he must be coming down at least softly on makes it very interesting is that in effect it is only an extension of
Henry’s side. a principle in the older inerrancy thinking that the Bible is true
Moving on then to the vision the text has of itself, we have to in what it intends to teach, and presumably not necessarily true
examine Olthuis’ idea that there is a macro-purpose taught in the elsewhere. Olthuis hops through this gap brandishing his rnacro-
Bible which must direct our reading of it. This idea raises many purpose.
intriguing questions. At once one wonders if - like the Scofield This leads us to a much deeper concern, and that has to do
Bible notes - it will be a device to ensure that the reader will not with exactly what sort of truth is contained in the macro-purpose
fall into interpretations which disagree with the preset as Olthuis understands it. It is not just a question of what to do
dogmatic system. After all, we are darkly warned that failure to with an inaccurate king list in Chronicles, but with what kind of
understand the “structural specificity” of the text may result in its biblical truth is binding on us. The same question comes up in
violation (22-26, 38f). This is evidently very serious business. respect of Berkouwer. Once theologians start to talk mysteriously
What then is this vision, this macro-purpose? It is the theme of about truth being “functional” and the text being “encountered,” as
redemption that runs through the Bible, which unfolds the ways Olthuis repeatedly does, you have to ask yourself what you are
of God with men and women, and explains how we might live in a supposed to believe then. I could fill the page with phrases he
covenant relationship with him and be pleasing to him. It is a uses that sound as if one does not need to believe the information
religious purpose, dealing with the dimension of ultimacy, but the Bible gives so long as he gets to know God better. Apparently
religious in the proper sense of addressing the whole of life we do not need to share Paul’s views or opinions (31). It is rather a
“certitudinally.” question of communion with the text (27). We should not think of
I myself have little difficulty admitting that there is a basic the Bible as a deposit of propositional truths to be mined for re-
message running through the Bible, but I should point out that liable information (28). The truth is functional (19). The senten-
many, perhaps most, biblical scholars would question it. The ces are certitudinally qualified (44). The content is taken up into
whole idea is reminiscent of the older biblical theology movement the focus on the ultimate (44). Scripture is true at a depth-level
which sought to state Olthuis’ central unified message (38). (45). Now one cannot continue to talk like this and not expect to
These scholars are greatly impressed by the theological diversity give the impression, not to say certainty, that the theologian
(one could call it contradictions) in the Bible, not only on the takes the truth of the Bible to be symbolic and existential and not
periphery where Olthuis might admit them, but in the center, literal and ontological. Now the question is far more serious. It is
too. Olthuis might try to handle them by his “analogy of not just a matter of a doctrinal core being: true amid a lot of uncer-
Scripture” (40) which can always be counted on to eliminate tain’ periphery, but whether there is e&r a doctrinal core at all.
disagreeable features in the text. But I will not press this further, We recall Cullmann saying that New Testament Christology was
because I think Olthuis can answer it to my satisfaction. functional, too, by which he meant that it referred to what Christ
More serious would be the question whether in adopting a did and not who Christ was. Is this what certitudinal herme-
macro-purpose Olthuis is not skewing the text and channelling it neutics also does? Olthuis must clarify where he stands over
into agreeable lines. Certainly the defenders of inerrancy will against the school of existentialist theologians.
think so. Olthuis completely overthrows their position simply by The problem with having a macro-purpose is that it can
definition. He informs us what kind of truth the Bible intends to silence the text rather than open it up. If the macro-purpose is in
teach according to its macro-purpose, and then can inform us any way woven out of contemporary philosophical cloth, it will
triumphantly that the Bible has no errors by that standard (45). allow the interpreter to twist the Scriptures. ‘Ironically Olthuis
Bultmann of course could do the same. I can hear it now: claims that without a proper macro-purpose one will inevitably
“Statements about God are inerrant statements about man. No violate the text (22). He ought to add that with the wrong one
other so-called errors need disturb us.” Olthuis makes the same one is certain to violate it. It will inevitably corrupt and not in
move regarding inerrancy that Berkouwer and Fuller did before any way assist our reading of Scripture.
him. Simply define the purpose of the Bible more narrowly and My problem with certitudinal hermeneutics is that it is so
the old errors can be granted without being called such. What vague. I cannot predict the results it will produce when actually
58 Clark Pinnock Peril with promise 59
applied to the text. I sense it will require much less of us when it times be completely clear (21). It makes its own structural
comes to believing aspects of the Scripture like factual matters, specificity fully known (23). The first level in hermeneutics is pre-
but I am not at all certain if it requires me to believe such things as cisely ascertaining the sense of the text (33). He even advises us
Adam’s historical fall or Satan’s actual existence. And because it how to attain it (19-22,37-42).
is vague I even suspect it will do different things for different What then can he mean when he tells us that objectivity is an
practitioners when Olthuis is out of earshot. You see, I am not as illusion, based as it is on a discredited concept of subject and object,
confident as he seems to be that most Christians are eager to stemming from Descartes (26-28)? Perhaps he only means that
submit to the divine authority of the Bible (11). I see a good deal total objectivity is practically impossible, and that we have to be
of what I would consider Scripture twisting and Bible denying self-critical in regard to the pre-understandings we bring with us
going on. I take the New Testament seriously when it warns that to the text. But the way he words it makes it sound as if he actu-
Satan is in the business of deceiving the church, and think we ally denies that an objective reading of the Bible is what we
cannot be too careful being clear and forthright in a matter as ought to be striving for. And it does not help to cite Bultmann in an
crucial as hermeneutics. attempt to assure us that the text can correct us, too, since he
Before moving on, I ought to refer to the unseen presence in all allows it to do so only to a limited extent (29).
of this of Dooyeweerd’s philosophy. It is kept discreetly under The roots of this subjectivist tendency must also lie in the
wraps, but eventually the reader of Olthuis pieces things together Dooyeweerdian system which allows the appearance of objective
in its light. The very term “certitudinal” is a code word to refer to thinking in naive experience and distinguishes that sharply from
the so-called pistic modal aspect of reality in that system of theoretical thought. This nuance would seem to leave somewhat
thought. (One must be prepared for a whole new vocabulary!) The incapacitated the power of the Bible to teach us in the latter
Bible addresses directly only this modal aspect, the realm of realm.
faith and certitude (34). When it seems to address other spheres Even to appear to deny the ideal of an objective reading of the
we must remember to qualify what it says “certitudinally,” that text is to open interpretation up to radical subjectivism. If the text
is, pistically. The authority of the Bible is thus greatly restrict- cannot speak its own mind, the interpreter of it has the golden
ed in the other fourteen modal aspects in the system. We need not opportunity to speak its mind for it, and the result will almost
seek proof texts for them (45). We apply the Bible dynamically inevitably be more of the same theological revision we have been
in those regions (45). How does it work then? As Olthuis replied seeing in the liberal camp. We ought to be saying that even
to Frame in 1975, we take the biblical directives to heart and “act though totally objective and presuppositionless exegesis is im-
in that same radical manner” (Vanguard, January 1975, p. 11). possible, an objective reading of the text is what we should al-
Such an approach seems to leave a good deal of leeway for the ways strive for. Otherwise what will happen is that interpreters
reader of the Bible to do his own thing. Since the moral modal will impose upon it notions they derive from their culture and
aspect is different from the pistic aspect, do the biblical moral opinions, and the task of true hermeneutics is doomed from the
directives not apply directly to the moral aspect, then? It seems start. In my judgment, the Christian community is in constant
to me that although the role of a modern philosophy is not danger of being assimilated into the secular vortex. The Bible
acknowledged, Dooyeweerd’s thinking is operating magisterially stands as the strongest single obstacle in the way of this
here, and the Bible is being given the place that system permits it happening. Once its ability to speak its message objectively
to have. Its authority is restricted from the start to the pigeon above the noise of human opinions is compromised, it will no
hole allotted to it. This is reminiscent of the role Heidegger’s longer be able to prevent the assimilation, and enculturation will
categories play in Bultmann’s work. accelerate tenfold.
Another area where Olthuis confuses me is in his denial of
the possibility and desirability of the objective exegesis of Scrip- Conclusion
ture (26-28). From other remarks of his, I do not think he can mean Is Olthuis a reliable guide to the interpretation of the Bible? I
what he seems to say, that we ought not to suppose we can attain cannot say that he is. It may be that he will be able to clear away
an objective reading of the text. After all, he says the Bible can at my doubts about what he is saying. But at this point hesitations
60 Clark Pinmck 61
are aroused. He leaves hermeneutics far too vague and undefined, Promise with
and seems even to allow it to be shaped by a chosen philosophical
structure. In doing this, Olthuis is part of the problem of herme- peril: a response
neutics today, rather than an evangelical corrective to it. Clari-
fication and qualification will, I think, be necessary before certi-
to James Olthuis
tudinal hermeneutics will bear much good fruit.
by Donald G. Bloesch

Points of convergence and divergence

After reading the paper by James Olthuis, I felt encouraged but
also disquieted. Could this be an attempt to bind the Holy Spirit
to a hermeneutical method, or does this represent a Reformed and
ipso facto evangelical critique of the new hermeneutic?
On the whole, I feel very much at home with the main thrust
of this paper. With the author, I affirm that the Bible is self-
authenticating and that external evidences and arguments can be
aids in understanding the truth of faith but not tangible or unam-
biguous proofs.
I also agree with his definitions of truth and error. He right-
ly reminds us that truth in Scripture generally signifies faith-
fulness rather than scientific precision and that error indicates
instability or deception, not defective information. One can say
that truth in the biblical perspective is the redemptively
transformable rather than the empirically verifiable (as in
naturalism) or the rationally inescapable (as in idealism).
Moreover, I concur in his judgment that the uncovering of
authorial intention is not yet understanding or interpretation. He
is also sound in his view that the object of interpretation is not the
intention of the author or the existential moment of decision but
the text itself.
Finally, I warmly endorse his contention that no amount of
scientific-historical investigation can decide the basic question of
Scriptural authority. Historical and literary criticism can throw
light upon the cultural background of the text and redaction
criticism can tell us many things about the author, but none of
these can determine the authority that the text should have in
the church of today.
This paper raises a number of questions, however. First, I am
somewhat perplexed by Olthuis’ appeal to the “vision of the
text.” If this means the worldview of the author of the text, then
I must take exception, since the biblical message must not be
62 Domid Bloesch Promise with peril 63
confused with a particular Welfanschauung. On the other hand, I would have liked more clarification concerning the meaning
if it means the way in which the text is related to the self-reve- of revelation, especially the way in which it is related to Holy
lation of God in Jesus Christ, the culminating point of biblical sal- Scripture. Olthuis tends to accept Gilkey’s definition of revela-
vation history, then it is much more acceptable. tion as “that definite mode of experience in which a particular
Olthuis sees biblical authority as experiential and functio- answer” is given to the “ultimate questions that arise in all
nal, but is it not ontological as well? If Scripture is a product of secular life” (13). This definition harmonizes with Tillich’s un-
the inspiration of the Spirit of God (II Tim. 3:16), if the Spirit is derstanding of revelation, but is it biblical? Is not revelation, as
the primary author and the elected servants of God secondary the Bible conceives it, God’s intervention into human experience
authors, then surely Scripture has an ontological basis, for it is rather than “a mode of experience “? Does not revelation consist in
grounded in the very wisdom and knowledge of God. Moreover, God’s act of self-disclosure that breaks into our experience and
since the Spirit preserves Scripture from dissolution and transforms our experience? Surely Gods self-revelation cuts the
maintains the integrity of the witness of Scripture, it can be ground from under our creative questions rather than simply ans-
surmised that Scripture participates in the divine reality which wering them (as in Tillich’s method of correlation). Is revelation
is its source. universal in human existence, as Gilkey maintains, or particular
Again, Olthuis suggests that a primary aim of the text is to in human history? One can perhaps speak of a general revelation,
transform the self-understanding of the interpreter (26). He here but the light that it conveys is only a reflection of the one great
shows his kinship to existentialist philosophy and theology, light that is Jesus Christ, and we cannot really understand these
which sees the language of Scripture as a vehicle for under- little lights except from the vantage point of God’s self-reve-
standing human existence rather than a source of information lation in Christ (Barth).
about God. My question is this: Is not the fundamental intention of Olthuis follows existentialist theology and the new herme-
the text to lead us to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ? Olthuis neutic in separating faith and cognitive knowing (16). But does not
does allude to the “redemptive intention” of the text, but the faith itself bring us knowledge of God and of his saving work in
question remains whether this is redemption understood as an Jesus Christ? Is not faith, as Calvin said, “a steady and certain
encounter with Being (a la Heidegger) or redemption understood knowledge” of the will and purpose of God toward us?
as deliverance through what God has done objectively in the Jesus
Christ of history. I believe that Olthuis would lean toward the The role of hermeneutics
latter, but he is not always clear on this point. I agree with Karl Barth that hermeneutical principles should not
I cannot escape the feeling that a preoccupation with a fully be derived from general reflections on the nature of human lan-
reliable hermeneutical method flirts with the danger of Gnosti- guage or existence, i.e., from a general anthropology.* At the same
cism, which reserves knowledge of the truth to an intellectual or time, the hermeneutical guidelines that we derive from revela-
spiritual elite. Olthuis is right that “every text needs interpre- tion should inform the way we assess truth claims in general as we
tation in order to be understood” (191, but he relies much more, it find these in philosophy and other religions. Olthuis is not al-
seems, on the input from an array of experts (21) than on the ways consistent, but it seems that he begins with the Word ad-
theological commentary on Scripture in the tradition of the dressing us and then guiding us in our interpretation. On the other
church. hand, he accepts the position of the new hermeneutic that we
This brings us to his contention that we are led to confess our need to come to the text with what Bultmann calls a pre-under-
faith in terms of a vision of life which we bring to the text but standing (Voroersfiindnis) that will guide us in our interpretation.
which is also supposedly drawn from Scripture (15, 16). The His qualification is that this pre-understanding should itself be
danger here is that an a priori philosophical schema may become derived from revelation.
the real authority rather than the message of the Bible. Olthuis Olthuis is sound in his asseveration that a presuppositionless
re-establishes his Reformed credentials when he acknowledges exegesis is an illusion. Even Barth recognized that we can never
that faith itself supplies a vision of life which “integrates and escape from our pre-suppositions entirely and that we must al-
leads our daily walk of life” (25). ways seek to be very much aware of them, especially in the task
64 Donald Bloesch Promise with veril 65
of interpreting Scripture. Yet a distinction must be made between Olthuis follows the new hermeneutic in affirming the reality
the fact of preconceptions and the neti for such preconceptions. It of the hermeneutical circle in which we argue from the text to the
is my belief that a preunderstanding more often than not stands in whole of Scripture and then back to the perspective of faith. I
the way of the authentic understanding of the text rather than agree that a biblical hermeneutic will take a circular form, but I
facilitating it. This is because there will always be an infinite contend (with Berkouwer) that the truth of revelation breaks into
qualitative difference between God and humanity, even redeemed this hermeneutical circle, or otherwise it remains unknown. Reve-
humanity (cf. Isa. 55:8; Hos. 11:9). Barth, in my opinion, is on firm lation is not a truth simply available to human perception or
ground when he argues that we should endeavor always to come to conception; it is an event that takes place when God acts through
Scripture without any overt presuppositions or at least with the the power of his Spirit - not only in the text but in our hearts, and
intention of bringing these presuppositions under the judgment of this event then transforms our perceptions and conceptions.
the Word of God. Berkouwer is also keenly aware of the Olthuis speaks of the aim of hermeneutics as the objective
hermeneutical temptation of making the text conform to a priori reproduction of the author’s vision or world-view (39), which is
speculation. His emphasis is on “listening” to the text rather supposedly fixed in the text (39). Is it not rather the discerning of
than imposing upon it an a priori logical schema.2 the Spirit’s intention as he speaks to us now through the text?
Olthuis nowhere appeals either to Barth or to Berkouwer, but This is not pneumatic exegesis, since the Spirit does not bypass the
he does give much attention to existentialists and philosophical text and speak directly to us. It is closer to what Barth calls “theo-
thinkers such as Polar@ who speak of the need for a tacit reliance logical exegesis” - trying to find with the aid of the Spirit the
on a conceptual system in the task of interpretation. In my posi- relation of the text to Jesus Christ, his life, death and resur-
tion the norm for faith is given by the Spirit in a free and new act rection.
of disclosure as we encounter the text in a spirit of openness that This brings us to the question of the principal focus of
characterizes faith. This “dogmatic norm” will always exist in Scripture. Olthuis is convinced that the “governing focus” of Scrip-
tension with our pre-understanding and even overthrow it. ture is “the ultimate questions of life and death” (24). The aim of
Olthuis makes a place for this, but he appears to view the pre- Scripture is to give certitudinal knowledge of the answers to life’s
understanding in a positive more than a negative light. fundamental questions. Here Olthuis sees the bridge or
I share with Barth a concern to safeguard the freedom of the correlation between philosophy and theology. I hold that the cen-
Word of God. The truth or meaning of the Word is never there at tral focus of Scripture is the proclamation of God’s act of recon-
our disposal even when we use the correct hermeneutical proce- ciliation and redemption in Jesus Christ. This proclamation has
dures. God’s Word can be heard only when God speaks, and God metaphysical implications, but it is not so much a life- and world-
may speak his Word over and against our human searching and view as a report of the saving deeds of God in the biblical history
reading of Scripture. God may also choose! to withhold his Word, culminating in Jesus Christ.
and no amount of hermeneutical dexterity can procure the truth of Olthuis proposes a “certitudinal-grammatical-historical
revelation in these circumstances. exegesis” for both the historico-critical method of the higher
Against the stream of interpretation flowing from Schleier- critics and the traditional grammatical-historical method of the
macher, Olthuis insists that it is not a psychological disposition lower critics. I see his exegesis as supplementing traditional
that we share with the author of the text but rather a vision of methods by a philosophical hermeneutic. In place of all these, I
life. I contend that we do not necessarily even share this if we propose a theological exegesis that gives assurance of salvation
mean by it a life- and world-view. What we share is a relation- and insight into the plan of salvation but not necessarily definite
ship to Jesus Christ that only the Spirit can reveal and make answers to all of life’s ultimate questions, at least as these are
clear. One may perhaps speak of a biblical view of God, man and envisioned by philosophers. At the same time, I believe that the
the world, but this is only an overall perspective that is gleaned biblical answers throw light on philosophical questions, and
from Scripture as a whole and may not be necessarily held by perhaps here I am not far from Olthuis.
every Scriptural author (certainly not the writer of Ecclesiastes). The author describes the vision of life as the “spectacles”
through which we make sense of life. He is here thinking
 Donald Bloesch Promise with aeril 67

basically of a life- and world-view. I see Jesus Christ himself as expressed ideas that go counter to this position. Olthuis concurs in
the spectacles by which we make sense of life, the Christ who the judgment of Ebeling and Gadamer that we do not understand
enters into our modes of cognition and brings them into his service. words but we understand through words (22). The question is:
Paul claimed to have “the mind of Christ” (I Cor. 2:16), not a What do we understand? Olthuis reflects the thought-world of
superior view of the world or a more sophisticated anthropology. existentialism when he says that we are led to a new self-
Whereas Olthuis puts the accent on the vision of life, which understanding through an encounter with the text (26). But does
guides us in understanding the text, I see the Bible as focusing on not the text also give us information about God, humanity and the
the obedience of faith apart from which the text will remain world? In Christian existentialism the word is seen in terms of
veiled to us. I perceive the biblical concern as being more ethical formative power rather than informative statement, and faith
than certitudinal, more evangelistic than hermeneutical. Our becomes decision or resolution. According to Ernst Fuchs, the lan-
vocation, after all, is not to be interpreters of mysteries but to be guage-event (Sprachereignis ) which takes place in the New
witnesses to the meaning that shines through mystery for all who Testament signifies not the communication of concepts but a call
believe. (Berwfung) or a pledge (Eirzsatz). 3 But does not this empty revela-
tion of its conceptual or propositional content?4
Evangelical or existentialist hermeneutics? Olthuis holds that the words of the Bible point beyond
Olthuis is to be commended for opening up a dialogue between the themselves to a “non-semantic” reality (22). Does this mean that
Reformed tradition and the new hermeneutic. He demonstrates they also refer to non-rational or non-cognitive reality? The
that he is willing to learn from the new philosophical under- slippery slope that leads from existentialism to a monistic mysti-
standings of meaning and language. His commitment to the bibli- cism is too readily apparent among both Christian and nonchrist-
cal faith is unassailable, but the question remains whether he ian existentialists. Olthuis guards against this by seeking to hold
depends too heavily on existentialist thought in his construction on to an objective revelation given in Holy Scripture.
of a biblical hermeneutic. He also empathizes with the existentialist critique of Car-
There is peril as well as promise in this kind of enterprise. tesianism and with the existentialist attempt to transcend the
Existentialism in one or more of its expressions has been of substan- subject-object dichotomy. If this means trying to get beyond the
tial aid to the dialectical theology of Karl Barth and Emil self-world polarity and even beyond the divine-human encounter
Brunner as well as to the neo-liberal theology of Bultmann and where all distinctions are lost in an undifferentiated unity or in
Tillich. Existentialist philosophy has reminded theology that some all-encompassing creative force, then again we are closer to
ideas apart from personal appropriation remain empty and mysticism than to biblical faith. On the other hand, if our aim is
abstract. When existentialism is allowed to dictate the agenda fellowship between the I and the Thou in which external rela-
for theology, however, theology is reduced to anthropology, the tions are transfigured rather than overcome, then this kind of
historical is sacrificed to the experiential. concern is not out of harmony with the claims of biblical faith.
Heidegger’s philosophy in particular has proved a pervasive Evangelical theology, as exemplified in Calvin, Luther and
influence on the new hermeneutic. For both Bultmann and Tillich, Barth, begins not from general human experience or even from
modern existentialist philosophy gives an accurate diagnosis of reli@ous experience but from a definitive, historical revelation.
human existence and therefore points to the Christian answer It then seeks to understand the totality of experience in the light
given in revelation. The trouble with this is that Heidegger’s of this revelation. In the early part of his paper, Olthuis appears
philosophy and not the Old Testament becomes the propaedeutic to begin with a general experience of ultimacy and then proceeds
to New Testament theology. Existentialist theologians definitely to relate this to the Christian faith (16). He is nevertheless very
devalue the Old Testament; at the most it is a questionable close to the Reformation stance when he insists that only by
preamble to the New Testament. revelation can we enter the hermeneutical circle and that our pre-
The disjunction between existence and thought, faith and understanding must be drawn from revelation.
knowledge, is one of the premises of existentialism. We have seen In evangelical theology what we experience through the
this to some extent in Olthuis’ paper, though he has also hearing of the gospel is conviction of sin and the love and grace of
68 Donald Bloesch Promise with veril 69
Jesus Christ. In existentialism what we experience through the resurrection of Christ.7 The key to an evangelical hermeneutic is
language of poetic inspiration (including biblical language) is the not even the church as such but the event of redemption in Jesus
wonder of Being (Heidegger) or a deeper insight into ourselves. Christ whose power and impact are conveyed to people of every
Evangelical theology is oriented about a particular revelation in age by the rekindling of the reality of Pentecost.
history which gives meaning to the whole of life; existentialism
on the other hand is oriented about the human predicament of liv-
ing in a meaningless world. NOTES
There are two erroneous ways of approaching the Bible. The
first is to bring our own meanings to the Scripture, which amounts 1. Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics I, w. Eds. G. W. Bromiley &
to reading into Scripture personal biases instead of finding what is T. F. Torrance. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1956), pp. 465-472.
really Gods word for us. This is the way of existentialist and neo- 2. See G. C. Berkouwer, Holy Scripture trans. and ed. Jack
liberal theologies. The second questionable method is to suppose Rogers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), pp. 105-138. Also see
that the words of Scripture contain their own meanings, which Gary Wynn Watts, The Theological Method of G. C. Berkouwer
implies that the truth of the Word of God is self-evident. This is (Pasadena, Calif: Fuller Theological Seminary Ph. D. Thesis,
the approach of Protestant scholastic orthodoxy and fundamental- 1981), pp. 261-281.
ism. The better way is to allow ourselves to be grasped by the 3. See Ernst Fuchs, Studies of the Historical Jesus trans.
meaning that God’s Spirit gives to the text as it is seen in its wider Andrew Scobie (London: SCM, 1964), pp. 94,95.
context, that is to say, in the light of the cross of Christ. In this 4. For a timely evangelical critique of existentialist hermen-
view, the meaning of the text is revealed rather than assumed or eutics see Anthony C. Thiselton, The Two Horizons (Grand Rap
simply discovered. This reflects the stance of original evangel- ids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1980), pp. 327-356. Also see Amos Wilder,
icalism. “The Word as Address and the Word as Meaning” in James M.
The new hermeneutic correctly asks: How can God’s word Robinson and John B. Cobb, Jr. The Nao Hermeneufic (New York:
“which once took the form of human speech in a given time and Harper & Row, 1964), pp. 198-218.
place be understood and translated without abridgement of power 5. Carl Braaten, “How New is the New Hermeneutic?” in
and meaning into a different time and place”?5 The solution pro- TheoZogy Today, Vol. XXII, No. 2 (July, 1965), [218-2351, p. 227.
pounded by those under the spell of existentialism is to enter into 6. Ibid., p. 233.
the same kind of experience as the author of the text in question. 7. In amplifying his position Braaten comes very close to my
But this means that the focus of attention is on the inwardness of own, since he also sees the work of the Spirit in the church as cru-
the author rather than the objective meaning of the text. Olthuis cial for merging the horizons of the biblical authors and modern
is alive to this peril, and this is why he stresses the vision of the readers.
text over both the intention and the experience of the author as
the object of the hermeneutical quest. I would prefer to focus atten-
tion on God’s decisive intervention into history in the person of
Jesus Christ and then try to understand how every biblical text is
related to this supreme event in history.
Carl Braaten suggests that the hermeneutical bridge that
spans the wide chasm between biblical-salvation history and
contemporary history is not the history of language or the lan-
guage event as such but the history of the people of God, the
history of the ecclesia which is an ongoing part of salvation-
historyP I would rather say that it is the work of the Spirit of
God as he dwells within but also acts upon the church enabling
people of every age to appropriate the fruits of the cross and
70 A aromisina swnthesis 71

A promising ‘lower culture” evangelical movement and its “neo-orthodox”

counterpoint rooted more firmly in Western “higher culture.” In
synthesis that period, class distinctions between denominations (with the
exception of black church participants) vividly distinguished the
“historic” denominations which predominated in the established,
by Gerald T. Sheppard neo-orthodox seminaries from the “free church’ denominations
which were more commonly found in the newer “evangelical”
Bible colleges and seminaries.
These rough economic and political lines of division have
since the 1960’s steadily eroded - so much so that today the separ-
The genius of this essay lies not so much in the originality of its ate “evangelical seminaries” now appear to have become centers
hermeneutical ideas about the Bible as in its impressive drive of a conservative “neo-orthodoxy” just as the erstwhile “liberal”
toward a radically new synthesis between the concerns of self- or “neo-orthodox” seminaries have moved toward confessional
styled “evangelicals” in the North American context and the post- forms of liberation theology. With the collapse of an older con-
modern proposals emerging internationally in Western philoso- sensus regarding modernity in both camps, one now senses an
phy and culture. In taking this direction, I believe the essay is escalating crisis in identity, with its inevitable threat from once
prophetic insofar as it points in a constructive direction that dependable sources of economic support for these seminaries. At
evangelicals could move if they have imagination and nerve. present we see increasing strength among what I would call
However, this essay may illustrate just how political rather than “charismatic fundamentalists” (e.g., Jerry Falwell and “fundamen-
grandly intellectual are the differences between Christian groups talist” Pentecostal-charismatics like Pat Robertson) whose enemy
when they seek to discuss the Scripture they allegedly hold in is secular humanism in the world more than liberalism in the
common. If for some this essay “falls between the stools,” we churches. In contrast, both evangelicalism and neo-orthodoxy
should at least ask why they cannot sit down at such a feast of have lost their vitality as movements in the churches. Evangel-
ideas. icals betray their disarray by an overly nuanced effort to retain
For these reasons, I want to risk a brief “economic” scenario in the label (e. g., “neo-,” “young-,” “radical-,” or “conservative”
which I would place Olthuis’ essay, then move to my own appre- evangelical.& while in contradiction to their Social Gospel heri-
ciation and criticism. From my own biased perspective, “funda- tage the once “liberal” or “neo-orthodox” groups have succumbed
mentalism” and “liberalism” in America and in some Canadian to describing themselves as “mainline” or “mainstream.” The lat-
groups were options which invested in the same general conception ter label offers only an uninspired assurance that these churches
of modernity. Therefore, the terms of “objectivity” in the conflict are not “sectarian” or marginal to the prevailing culture. Within
between these two opponents were essentially the same, and, in this context, Olthuis’ essay is a bold attempt to help evangelicals
my opinion, left wing liberalism deservedly won the major find a new hermeneutical identity which will treasure what is
intellectual and institutional battles of the 1920’s and 1930’s. In most important and stake out its own special place in a post-
Canada, the situation has been more complicated and the modern world. The implications are at once inherently political
American fundamentalist formula of wedding a crude right wing as much as they are theological.
modernist defense of orthodoxy with a historicist dispensa- This scenario is perhaps not so vivid in Canada as in the
tionalism did not gain the same hold on the public imagination. United States, but many of the Dutch Reformed in Canada, in
In any case, in America this combination quickly galvanized which Olthuis finds rootage, have contributed to the culturally
disparate groups into a powerful political movement, which has independent American and British “evangelicals” as co-conspir-
only recently attained its greatest strength and public acceptance. ators. The intellectual depth of the Dutch Reformed tradition -
At a very high level of generality, I would argue that following with such towering figures as Kuyper, Dooyeweerd, and Bavinck
the 1930’s in North America we saw the maturation of the - has provided an impressive corrective within evangelical
confessional offspring from these divorced parents manifest in a circles based on a superior understanding of the relationship
72 Gerald Sheppard A promising synthesis 73

between culture, philosophy, and social ethics. Olthuis’ essay affirm that ‘historical criticism is invaluable.” Regarding how
continues that tradition by conversing on the one hand with well- authors’ intentions are important in biblical interpretation,
known philosophical-hermeneutical figures (e.g., Schleier- Olthuis simply admits that this matter “still requires much
macher, Ricoeur, Gadamer, Polanyi), and on the other hand with work.”
much lesser known, “evangelical” theologians (e.g., Buswell, I believe Olthuis has correctly shifted evangelical attention
Camell, Montgomery, Pinnock, Henry, Clark). This attempt risks to more fundamental matters and sought to bracket the issue of
losing an audience outside of politicized evangelical circles. As an intentional@ as only one issue among others in a more fruitful
intellectually rigorous act of pastoral care, Olthuis’ essay de- deliberation over, for example, the role that historical reference
serves far more appreciation than it is likely to receive from should play within the theological interpretation of a scriptural
either side. text. He shows that the more significant confessional claims of
As an observer from outside of the narrowly defined “evangel- evangelicals have been hindered rather than helped by the at-
ical” controversy, I see two outstanding contributions in Olthuis’ tempt to ground evangelical claims on a precarious (and thor-
essay. First, he rejects the commonplace evangelical attempt to oughly modem) theory of intentionality. As a historical critic, I
define the meaning of a text strictly in terms of authorial intent. would argue further that the actual nature of the edited texts in
Second, he tries to describe how the biblical traditions form in the Bible rules out prima facie any appeal to the intent of a single
Scripture a peculiar kind of text, distinguishable from other types human author for most individual books, much less for the Bible
of literature and inviting a search for a specialized “method of as a whole. If one wants to read a biblical book, a modern appeal
Scripture interpretation.” to authorial intent almost always functions dialectically. It con-
In the past, fundamentalist and evangelical disputes over tributes somewhat to our understanding of the biblical text and, at
Scripture have usually been expressed as struggles over how to the same time, focuses the object of interpretation no longer expli-
relate the “intents” of biblical authors or redactors to the unified citly on the biblical text but on some historically reconstructed pre-
message of the Bible, read as a book of divine revelation. text. Olthuis has articulately suggested his own modification of
Allowing for some “accommodation” of the intents of biblical Paul Ricoeur’s proposal about meaning appearing in front of a text
authors, evangelicals disputed one another in nuanced debates rather than residing within it as a “past tense,” gleaned through
over the relation of inspiration to revelation and how an intent speculation about what may have once constituted an author’s
could be inerrant and/or infallible. Scofield could, for instance, “original” intent. Consequently, Olthuis offers a profound way to
argue that by inspiration the words of Solomon were precisely begin to address these issues beyond the older modernist posturing
preserved in Ecclesiastes, then assure his readers that they were of the hermeneutical question.
as “non-revelatory” as the infallibly preserved words of the The second area of great appreciation relates to how Olthuis
serpent in the Garden of Eden or those of Satan in the prologue to freshly challenges us to re-consider just what type of literature
Job. Evangelicals, also, have hotly debated what part of an the Bible is. Contemporary proposals that encourage us to read
author’s intent might be infallible (“in matters of faith and the Bible “as literature” or “like any other book’ can appear
practice”) or whether a philosophically more refined theory of condescendingly trite, if not tautological. After all, the Bible is
intentionality might itself be able to secure how the Bible is obviously “literature”; how else could it be read? It may be the
“inerrant in all that it affirms.” Historical criticism could only be book of books but, regardless, no book is read exactly like every
tolerated when thoroughly domesticated by “evangelical other book. While John Calvin, with his French humanist train-
presuppositions.” Olthuis breaks entirely out of this debate with ing, granted that “the style of some of the prophets is not sur-
claims like, “What the text says matters now much more than knowledged that much of the Bible bears marks of “a rude and
what the author meant to say.” Concomitantly, he rejects even homely style.” Olthuis perceives that the Bible’s uniqueness lies
the most sophisticated non-evangelical defenses for a strict not in its aesthetic excellence but in its unusual claim upon readers
intcntionality theory of meaning (e.g., Betti, Hirsch). Ncvcr- as a “certitudinal text,” belonging to a class of books often called
thelcss, Olthuis thinks knowledge of authors’ intents “...and extra- “sacred texts.” He finds support for this view in Childs’ and my
textual determinates are important.” For that reason he can work, which I think is correct. I suspect that Olthuis’ term
74 Gerald Sheppard A promising synf hesis 75
“certitudinal” results from a concession to the evangelical pre- revealed something about Scripture to us. I think that John Cal-
occupation with “authority” and “propositional” revelation. I vin appeals to the latter and not the former. As Olthuis knows,
would prefer more simply “scriptural texts,” and then see more Calvin defends his reliance on Scripture by an appeal to the Holy
discussion of two matters: how such texts have some features in Spirit and “the conviction which revelation from heaven alone
common as a distinct “type of literature” (helped by compara- can produce.” It is just such a clumsy and pragmatic assertion,
tivists such as Mircea Eliade, W. C. Smith, or F. Peters), and how fraught at the outset with anxieties of self-deception and uncrit-
Christian Scripture historically achieves its own distinct charac- ical piety, that makes Christian theology so politically adven-
teristics (cf. Childs, R. Rendtorff, and J. Sanders). With more such turist. As reflective-action ever tempted by the demonic, it is far
control I believe that Olthuis could press his case further. I think more dangerous than the effort to master a “language game.”
that he is on the right track and, through a more rigorous speci- Olthuis could spell out more clearly how the existential require-
fication of this type of literature, could go even further to help us ment of some “faith’ in order to live in the world relates to reve-
understand how the Bible provides a normative arena for our lation by the Holy Spirit that Scripture provides a sufficient wit-
theological reflection. More critical assessment by Olthuis of ness to God’s special revelation in history.
what other non-evangelical scholars have already begun to do in Regardless, Olthuis has pointed impressively to a new way
this regard would be enormously helpful. for evangelicals to engage these issues, realizing that the issues
Since two other respondents have preceded me, I will limit themselves can, in the end, never be reduced to matters of compe-
my criticisms of Olthuis’ essay to one general observation and one tent syntactical exegesis but must be elevated, however awk-
specific comment. What this essay needs is careful treatment of wardly, to decisions about life and death.
more biblical texts and more conversation with significant secon-
dary literature. This is only another instance of the amazing gulf
that seems to exist these days between theologians or philo-
sophers of religion and biblical scholars. Perhaps biblical theo-
logians have deserved their isolation in part by their choosing -
at the height of the Biblical Theology Movement - to limit the
aim of their work to stating what the Bible “meant” so that
theologians could subsequently say what the Bible “means.” This
separation of biblical studies from philosophical theology also
means that too many evangelical biblical scholars will probably
find Olthuis’ insights too “abstract.” There is clearly a need for a
better exchange between biblical and theological colleagues, re-
gardless of their affiliation.
My one specific comment is that the opening section stresses
the necessity of “revelation” in order to justify the prior conditions
for a reasoned belief in God and a confidence that Scripture should
be read as the normative text of Christian theology. Olthuis
seems to agree with Gilkey that such revelation “is universal in
human existence.” Of course, Wittgenstein would not consent to
the idea that “the scaffolding of thought” should be called “reve-
lation,” any more than Giidel’s incompleteness theorem need sug-
gest that one should look for divine guidance. Therefore, I would
want to distinguish sharply between “revelation” as a universal
principle of human existence and the more historically specific
claim that God through the power of the Holy Spirit has
76 Peril or vmnise: a revlu 77

Peril or promise: as that Canon.

a reply Reason and faith

The place of reason in coming to faith and in accepting Scripture as
Canon for life has, of course, been widely debated - and still is.
By James H. Olthuis Pinnock judges that I underplay the role of reason and that I do not
believe that faith is rational.
Pinnock correctly observes that I see reason as being operative
within a faith vision or perspective. He is mistaken, however, in
concluding that for me “reasons cannot be expected to be valid
Clark Pinnock and Donald Bloesch see peril and promise in my currency across faith perspectives.” Implicit in my acceptance of
effort to develop a hermeneutic approach to Scripture, Bloesch valid reasons is my conviction that they ought to be compelling for
more promise and Pinnock more peril. Gerald Sheppard believes everyone. If the reasons convince me, why shouldn’t they convince
that my essay prophetically points in a constructive direction. others? If they are merely reasons, what is their compelling rea-
Before replying to some of the issues which they raise, I want to sonableness? What we accept to be most true for ourselves we also
express my deep appreciation for their responses. What we need believe to be the universal pattern for all of life.
most of all in our efforts to make headway in the important and Thus, I do insist, along with Pinnock, that there are reasons
complex arena of Scripture interpretation is congenial, interdisci- why people “should believe before they believe.” My contention
plinary discussion and teamwork among colleagues in biblical is, however, that the reasons only become compelling for a specific
studies, theology, philosophy, psychology, history, linguistics, individual when that person, in God’s grace, surrenders his/her
and the social sciences. I hope that my reply to a number of issues life to God.
raised by my critics will serve to continue the discussion. Our ability to think requires that we act coherently within a
comprehensive perspective with its categorial system. The per-
Hermeneutics spective itself is a matter that we must make a decision about, a
Clark Pinnock wonders out loud why I would begin my hermeneutic radical decision of faith. And on that ultimate level, reason is
proposal with a discussion of biblical authority. That topic, in impotent to determine which perspective is true. That is because
his view, is ancillary to hermeneutics proper. In a discussion of the options are ultimates and there is no further standard or norm
general hermeneutics that would indeed be the case. However, for by which they can be assessed. There is no logical move we can
a biblical hermeneutic, paying attention to the status of the text make that will achieve an ultimate premise which is beyond
to be interpreted is especially crucial. doubt.
In our context two special features make some treatment of We are finally faced with the ultimate choice of a frame-
biblical authority highly desirable. In the first place a fair num- work which itself will ground all our subsequent ultimate choices
ber of evangelicals still see hermeneutics as a cloak for the denial and give them meaning within the order of reality. This ultimate
of Scripture. Secondly, I want at the outset to distance myself choice, the venture of faith, is like no other choice in human
from those who see hermeneutics as the way to determine and experience. And the knowledge of faith, although clearly know-
create meaning. Hermeneutics, as the science of interpretation, ledge, is like no other knowledge. Faith and the core beliefs of
does not, in my view, create meaning: it helps unpack, unfold, and faith are a unique form of knowledge, ultimate knowledge, know-
tease out the meaning (or lack of meaning) that is intrinsic to life ledge as surrender, knowledge as gift.
in Gods good (but fallen) creation. Therefore, no matter how valid our reasons are, no matter
Specifically, in reference to Scripture, hermeneutics does not, how much others ought to accept them, they need only be accepted
as integral to its task, decide the legitimacy of the biblical claim as compelling by others when others share the categorial system
to be the Canon for life. However, it can be of considerable help as in terms of which the reasons are compelling. When the
we strive to improve, deepen, and enrich our reading of Scripture discussion revolves around reasons for accepting this and not that
 James Olthuis Peril or vromise: a redu 79

as the ultimate source and ground for life, the reasons will be without making faith itself rational or irrational.
accepted by others only when they surrender to the ultimate
which is the ground for the categorial system in terms of which Avoiding dogmatism and relativism
the reasons are compelling. The Bible has a “discrimen” for interpretation and it alone should
For these reasons, I conclude that although reasons may be be ours. I could not agree more with Pinnock and Carl Henry. My
the medium to faith, they cannot establish ultimate certainty and point, which Pinnock does not seem to take seriously enough, is
cannot be the final ground for my faith. They can negatively en- that we have to recognize that our appropriation of the biblical
sure that my actions are not inappropriate to my basic commit- discrimen is our appropriation and therefore approximate, par-
ment. tial, fallible, and time-conditioned. Dogmatism, I am arguing, ill
I affirm with Pinnock that God “can surely use the evidences becomes the Christian church.
of his activity and existence to effect the conversion of the human Does this mean, as Pinnock suggests, that I am flirting with a
heart.” My point is that without surrender to God in faith, a relativistic one-view-is-as-good-as-another view? It does not.
person will “resist them” and not accept them as compelling for The differing views of biblical authority need to be tested and
him or her. The reality of resistance (sin) is, of course, no excuse. compared in order to choose the one which provides, in our view,
And the importance of surrender in the acceptance of reasons ought the best access to the scriptural message.
never to lead to smugness, but to increased activity in presenting The most difficult and important task facing the Christian
the claims of the Gospel with all the logic, pedagogy, style, and church is navigating a passage between the rationalistic rocks of
empathy at our disposal. dogmatism and the irrationalist eddies of relativism. So to navi-
gate is my intent.
Faith is faith On the one hand, to talk about the biblical message as if our
Does all this mean that for me, as Pinnock and Bloesch fear, faith interpretation of it is independent of our own viewpoint is the pre-
is irrational? By no means. Is faith then rational for me? It is tense of dogmatism. It makes the Bible captive to our own preju-
not. Faith is faith, and the debate about the rationality or ir- dices. And then we are truly blind. On the other hand, to talk
rationality of faith is, I suggest, wrong-headed from the start. about the biblical message as if any interpretation of it is as valid
In my understanding, all human acts are multi-dimensional as any other is the delusion of relativism. It too makes the Bible
unities involving thinking and all the other human ways of being. captive to our own prejudices. And then we are truly empty.
They differ in kind - according to the way of being which quali-
fies and dominates the activity. Thus, for example, troth-acts For our encouragement
such as parenting and marrying are qualified by troth, with all Indeed, it is to avoid violation of the biblical text that I suggest
the other ways of being subsumed to troth; economic acts of buying we need to pay attention to the structural specificity of the Bible
and selling are qualified by stewardship, with all the other ways as a text to engender, encourage, and orient faith. That is in fact
subsumed. Faith-acts such as praying, confessing, and worship- what the Scriptures say about themselves: “For all the ancient
ping are qualified by faith, with all the other ways subsumed, Scriptures were written for our own instruction, that we through
including the rational. encouragement and comfort of Scriptures might have hope” (Rom.
When we distinguish in this way between different ways of 15:4; also I Cor. lO:l, John 20:21, Heb. 13:22). How that is a
being (which are unique and irreducible) and acts (which include “skewing” of the text is difficult for me to understand. Of course,
all the ways of being in differing configurations), it becomes ap if it can be shown that my proposal distorts or obscures the text, so
parent that an act of faith can be rational or irrational even much the worse for my proposal.
though faith as such is other than and different from rationality. For me, “certitudinal” is a handy designation for the kind of
In the same way an act of troth can be rational or irrational even text the Scriptures are, a book exhorting its readers about the ulti-
though troth itself is other than and different from rationality. mate certitudes of life. This distinguishes it from other kinds of
In this way I am also able to discuss the place of reason in coming texts, such as telephone books, do-it-yourself manuals, or economic
to faith and the effect of reasons or the lack of them on faith life treatises, and puts it in a unique class with other “sacred”
80 James Olthuis Promise or peril: a repZy 81

writings. Knowing that the Scriptures are approaching all of life and force by insisting that it be done “in the Lord.” If we fail to
from the angle of ultimate certainty and the total surrender of hear that, we have tuned out the central thrust of the message.
faith helps orient me to hear its abiding message, its enduring However, the certitudinal focus of the Biblical teaching does
claim, and its abundant hope even as I read about people and situ- not, as I have argued in my paper, take away from its normative
ations far removed from my own. bearing on all of our decisions and actions, whatever their nature
In interpretation approach is everything. Just as wrong ques- or stripe. Rather than limiting its normative force, the certi-
tions lead to useless answers, so wrong approaches cause frustra- tudinal focus describes and specifies the way Scripture works out
tion, confusion, and violation. A certitudinal hermeneutic does not its abiding normativity for all of life. Exegetically, Scripture
narrow the Bible’s purpose nor hollow out its content. Its concern is invites us to come to every text with our ultimate, life-and-death
with achieving the proper approach to the textual content in questions, to hear its abiding, life-giving message, to be sensitive
order that misunderstandings be averted. It wants to tune readers to the abiding, life-enhancing norms which it offers or to which it
to the proper frequency so that we will be attuned to the biblical witnesses, and, in response, to form and inform all the rules we
message and hear it with a minimum of static and interference. make, all the decisions we take, and all the actions we enact,
It is in that connection that I warn against approaching the guided by these norms, loyal to that vision, faithful to the
Scriptures as if they were merely books of information or propo- Spirit.l
sitional depositories. Books of information may or may not be If, as I suggest, the ultimate intention of Scripture is to encour-
helpful; propositions may or may not be true. However, certi- age and challenge us in the faith, on that level Scripture asks to
tudinal discourse (which includes information, stories, history, be read literally. Thus, when Matt. 534 tells us that our heaven-
propositions, etc., as the case may be) announces itself as truth ly Father feeds the birds of the air, we are to take that as
which commands acceptance and committed action. It is not that I literally true. We need not, faced with our observations about the
deny, as Pinnock says, the propositional content of Scripture. But food supply of birds, discount these words as only figurative.
considering only the Scriptures’ propositions is a reductionist view They are, when all is said and done, the full and final conclusion
which misses the unique character of Scripture as claim and that needs to be accepted literally as true. Birds, too, live and
promise. move and have their being by the grace and power of the Creator
Certitudinal hermeneutics is not vague (contrary to Pinnock), God.
but neither does it predetermine the content of the exegesis I have found it helpful to think, in this connection, of a birth
(which Bloesch applauds). As any method, it can do only so announcement which proud parents often send to their friends and
much, and as any method, it can be misused. What it does do is acquaintances. “God gave us a daughter” is not hyperbole or myth
arm us with an awareness that the text’s abiding message will, nor does it call into question their role as parents nor does it ignore
whatever the details, address us fundamentally on the certitu- all the other dimensions of the event (the weight, length, and
dinal level. Since faith is the motivator and integrator of all name of the baby are duly recorded, as well as the place and
human activities, via the faith focus, the text will claim all of time). But it announces that the story of human birth is incom-
our lives. plete until it is recognized and acknowledged that children are
The abiding message to be heard is not first of all moral, gifts from the hand of God, gifts which we receive in the course of
political, economic, emotional, logical or whatever; even though living responsibly as human creatures of God.
it will have cognitive content, evoke emotional response, and Such depth-level meaning which either elicits surrender to
have moral, political, and economic implications. Even moral its truth or encounters deep resistance characterizes the Scripture
precepts such as “husbands love your wives” are misread when as a whole. Since examples serve to clarify and since the worth of
primarily or exclusively read morally. That becomes exceedingly my approach will be judged by whether it does facilitate consis-
clear when attention is paid to the phrase “in the Lord” which in tent and edifying interpretations, permit me an example or two.
Ephesians and Colossians is part of the sanctions. Loving one’s
wife is, of course, the right, expected, and proper thing to do. Debt-free
Paul, however, gives the moral responsibility its ultimate ground Recently I heard of a conscientious Christian couple who in
83 lames Olthuis Promise or peril: a reply 83
their reading of Rom. 13:8 “Owe no person anything” felt con- Now the central meaning becomes clear. Christian women ought
strained to sell their house in order to liquidate their mortgage to be adorned in ways fitting their confession. In the situation at
and be debt-free. Now they rent. Is this what God demands of all hand, Paul judges that this means not being decked out in pearls
of us? Are all of us who hold mortgages disobedient, not trusting and costly array, as presumably the prostitutes were. What about
that God will take care of us? today? The text does not specify, but it does forthrightly chal-
Some say such a demand is ridiculous and impossible today. lenge all of us to relate our adornment and fashions to our faith
Others accept that the norm is clear, Christians ought to be debt- and to get our priorities straight. Unless we address that question,
free, but in a fallen world it is impossible to live by the Christian we have not heard the message of the text.
ethic. Some learn to live with that schizophrenia, with or with-
out guilty consciences. No thought
A certitudinal approach, in my view, offers a coherent, consis- Or take Matthew 6:25: “Take no thought for your life, what you
tent reading which, neither defusing the text as figurative nor shall eat or what you shall drink, or for your body what you shall
declaring it a moral ideal, takes it literally on the ultimate level put on.” Plainly that is a ridiculous text which is impossible to
of faith as truth. To begin with, employing the method, we antici- obey. Planning for tomorrow, worry about food and drink and
pate that the text will be fundamentally addressing us on the clothes is part of life. In fact, anxiety is not always negative. It
ultimate faith level of human existence, regardless of its im- often helps us to be better prepared and to avoid disasters. So we
mediate focus or content. try to cut the text down. Don’t be overly concerned, we say. But
In that anticipation, “owe no man anything” seen in context that misses the heartbeat of this text and leaves us feeling guilty
with its following phrase “except to love one another,” does not when we are anxious.
first of all have a specific economic meaning. It means that we are If, however, we read the text as depth-level truth, we get a
to fulfill all our obligations to each other, loving God, neighbor wholly different picture of things. In Jesus Christ, through the
and self. Then we have done everything that God commands and Spirit of God, we are free from anxiety at the root of our existence.
we owe no one anything. Our natural anxiousness which is part of human life is not
From that level, its meaning stretches out to all the nooks and bottomless. Our life is hid with Christ in God. We are free from
crannies of our existence, including our pocketbooks. We ought not the anxiety of believing that our salvation depends on our ability
to over-extend ourselves economically, nor ought we to deprive to keep God’s law. Freed from that anxiety, we are free to do
fellow humans of their economic livelihood. That does not belong God’s law, and enabled to seek the welfare of others and the
to service of God and neighbor. kingdom of God without radical anxiety about ourselves and our
Obeying Romans 13:8, it turns out, is not as easy (or misguided) needs. That is the surprise of the Kingdom of God.
as selling our houses. Only after taking in its faith-meaning are
we able to search out its meaning for us today in all the areas of A developmental, pastoral hermeneutic
life. In giving a few brief examples I do not mean to suggest that only
with an explicit certitudinal hermeneutic will one arrive at the
Gold and pearls conclusions I have suggested. I may have misused the method.
I Timothy 2:9 prohibits women from having braided hair and from And others have arrived at similar conclusions from the biblical
wearing gold, pearls, and expensive clothes. Some Christians text. My concern is for consistency in method, for an exegetical
take this as an explicit dress-code for women. Most of us prefer to approach which is able to deliver edifying interpretations of
ignore it with some reference to the cultural situation of the day. Scripture without arbitrariness in selection of data and in method
Both approaches, in my view, are too easy and miss the thrust of of interpretation. I suggest that a certitudinal approach offers us
the text. consistency and perspective in sorting out the abiding principles
Anticipating that the text will have a certitudinal thrust, from the circumstantial and contextual ways in which they are
we notice the emphasis in the context on “modesty and soberness” given in Scripture. The changing, on-going nature of the historical
and on “good works proper for women who profess to be religious.” process is reflected in the dynamic nature of revelation in
84 lames Olthuis Promise or peril: a reply 85
Scripture.2 Concomitant with an unfolding revelation, we need to Bible and philosophy
be more fully aware of a need for a developmental hermeneutic. One of Pinnock’s more pressing concerns is what he perceives to be
Just as the later prophets re-envision, re-interpret, and ‘e-apply the magisterial operation of Dooyeweerd’s thinking which gives
the words of the Torah and the former prophets for new situ- the Bible the “place that system permits it to have.” That is a
ations, just as the four evangelists and the apostles shape their serious objection, particularly since I intend the opposite.
writings to speak directly to the concerns of the people they are The involved question of the relation of philosophy to her-
addressing, so we are called to re-envision the central thrust of meneutic theory and theology in general needs much more at-
the Scriptural message for our time and day. That is not tention. In this context I will have to limit myself to a brief com-
undermining, rejecting or opposing the message of Scripture, but ment.
expressin its significance more fully in ways relevant in new Interpreting the Bible is a human endeavor which necessarily
situations. 3 Mandated and led by the Spirit of truth promised in makes use of human categories. So the choice is not between a
John 16, we may even be led in obedience to Scripture to accept as “pure” understanding of the text and one that uses human philo-
permissible what specific words of Scripture prohibit. A small sophical categories. The problem is to find the “right” philo-
but instructive example is provided by returning to I Timothy 2. In sophical categories, categories which do not obscure and distort
most Christian communities the wearing of gold, pearls and biblical revelation.
expensive clothes by women is no longer considered immodest and The fact that I use Dooyeweerd, that Bultmann used Hei-
intemperate, even though Paul forbids them. At the same time, degger, that Thomas used Aristotle is, thus, not the exception that
hearing the abiding message of good works with modesty and Pinnock suggests. Willy-nilly, consciously or unconsciously, every
sobriety in our day and age of such extremes of poverty and wealth theologian and every exegete uses somebody’s categorial system.
raises in a new way for women - and for men - how our life-style Indeed a “pure,” “presuppositionless” approach to Scripture is
witnesses to or betrays the gospel. itself indebted to the tabula rasa empiricistic approach of John
The final goal or standard for the adequacy of the exegesis of Locke. Much work remains to be done in comparing and testing the
Scripture (and all sacred writings) must be its ability to edify and categories we use as we search for the categories which best allow
exhort. Scripture is a pastoral book, concerned to feed and shep- the Bible to speak as it intends to speak.
herd the souls of the faithful. As befits such a book, our inter- Conceiving of the Scriptures as a certitudinally qualified
pretive procedures should show an over-riding pastoral concern. book helps me to do more justice to the complex phenomena of
Pastoral considerations of comfort and hope, encouragement and Scripture itself. There is widespread agreement that Scripture is
admonition, not questions of authorship, historicity or literary neither an encyclopedia nor a scientific textbook. Attempts to
form, need to guide our exegesis. If certain ways or methods, no treat the Scriptures as handbooks for morality, etiquette, politics,
matter how refined or erudite, do not help us hear the Word more business, or counselling are highly selective pick-and-choose
clearly, do the Truth more fully, and express Love more deeply, endeavors which not only tend to ignore matters of context but
they need to be revised or rejected. Even when due attention is disregard much if not most of the scriptural text. In this situation
paid to matters of genre, audience, context, language, kind of text, many thinkers are emphasizing that the intention of the biblical
history, and pre-understandings, any interpretation of Scripture material “is religious rather than, say, historical or scientific”4
which does not build the faith is misleading and inadequate. At However, since “religious” means for many non-natural or super-
the same time - to avoid misunderstanding on this cardinal point natural, the urgent question remains as to how a “religious” book
- let me affirm again that proper attention to all these matters speaks to natural life, history and science. Perhaps, as some con-
remains indispensable: the normal route to an edifying inter- clude, it has nothing to say for ordinary human life and history.
pretation is via proper attention to the full realities of text and It is in addressing this issue of how a “religious” book func-
interpreter(s) in their complex interaction. Here my point is that tions with authority in all of life that I have found very helpful
without conscious and continual awareness of their pastoral in- Dooyeweerd’s idea that faith is one natural mode of being human
tent, our exegetical procedures will serve up stones rather than which plays a leading and integrative role in relation to all the
bread. other ways of being human. For when I approach the Scriptures
 James Olthuis Promise or ved: a revlu 87

with the notion that their over-riding focus - whatever the are most in danger of imposing on the text. “After all, we came to
literary genre, whatever the historical context - is on ultimate the text clean!”
certitude, I find myself able to bring into sharper relief the
integral unity of Scripture in its dynamic diversity. Focussing on Form and content
the guiding and integrative role which the certitude of faith Although Donald Bloesch’s response to my proposal is generally
plays in its inter-relation with all the other ways of being in the positive, he does have some concerns. Since I do not see myself in
world also opens up for me in deeper ways how a book structured basic disagreement with Bloesch on any of these points, I trust
certitudinally is able to exercise abiding - guiding and inte- that my brief comments will serve to deepen our dialogue. Indeed,
grative - authority in relation to all these other ways of being in for me the “vision of the text” is the biblical message, what I also
the world. Rather than obscuring or distorting Scripture, aware- refer to as the certitudinal thrust of the text. It is not the partic-
ness of Scripture’s certitudinal focus helps me honor the text as it ular world-view of the author of the text or his emotional state or
presents itself and attunes me to hear more sensitively its abiding his economic situation.
message as I re-envision it for today. Is my hermeneutic too dependent on existentialist thought?
My approach - or something like it - is needed to help us That is up to others, of course, to judge. Let me just say that I have
honor the divine authority of Scripture without playing down or learned from existentialist thinkers. However, in terms of hermen-
romanticizing its creatureliness. Rather than giving the Bible eutics, as my essay indicates, I have learned more from thinkers
“its place,” my proposal, by honoring the phenomena of Scripture, such as Polanyi, Gadamer and Ricoeur who themselves have
intends to place itself in service of Scripture, in order that the trenchant criticisms of existentialism (which I share) and want to
Bible can be for us an instrument of liberation from the bonds of our move beyond its extreme subjectivism. Moreover, at crucial points
own perspectives. I have availed myself of the work of Herman Dooyeweerd, who is
certainly no existentialist. The fundamental intention of Scrip-
Faithful vs objective exegesis ture is to lead to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ, as Bloesch
Pinnock is also puzzled by my denial of both the possibility and indicates, and I would add, to a life of service to God and neigh-
desirability of the “objective” exegesis of Scripture. Part of the bor. That is expressing the intention in terms of message and
problem, at least in this case, is semantic. I prefer to call an exe- content. To say that an aim of the text is to transform the self-
gesis which does justice to the integrity of the text a “faithful” understanding of the interpreter (which certainly includes trans-
exegesis. forming our view of God, humanity and the world) in no way takes
My problem with so-called objective exegesis is that no exe- away from what Bloesch suggests. Rather, it is to describe the
gesis is or can be freed from the subjectivity of the interpreter. intention in terms of itsfomzal intention.
Talk of “objective” exegesis tries to hide this reality. In fact, I need to emphasize that describing Scripture in terms of its
“objective exegesis” puts the control in the hands of the operator redemptive-reconciling content does not clash with a formal,
who is to secure the meaning of the text through rigorous appli- structural description. In most of his comments Bloesch plays one
cation of methods. Hidden in this arrangement and its methods is off against the other. For example, when I talk of the her-
an unwarranted faith in the autonomy of human reason. Such meneutic task as a delineation of the message or vision fixed in
methodological positivism is essentially no less subjectivistic the text, he asks whether the hermeneutic task is not the
than existentialism. Both need to be avoided. “discerning of the Spirit’s intention as he speaks to us through the
This also gives me occasion to emphasize again the pivotal text.” But the two are not in conflict. We set out to discern the
place of pre-understandings. Bloesch has a rather negative view Spirit’s intention by delineating the message of the text.
of them, preferring that we come to Scripture without any overt Another example: I describe the governing focus of the Scrip-
presuppositions. I suggest that the more we are aware of the pre- tures formally and structurally as concern with “the ultimate
understandings that we bring to the text, the more it is possible to questions of life and death.” Bloesch sees the central focus of
avoid making the “text conform to a priori speculation.” It’s Scripture as the “proclamation of God’s act of reconciliation and
precisely when we are unaware of our pre-understandings that we redemption in Jesus Christ.” But again the two are not in conflict.
88 lames Olthuis Promise or peril: a replv 89

My concern is to point out that, formally speaking, Scripture method. At the same time, before we can test a method, we need to
presents its message and addresses its subject-matter from a certain be introduced to it in its various features. Now - since the
point of view, i.e., ultimacy and final certitude. The answer the proposal has been made - is the time for thorough testing. I
Scripture presents, from its certitudinal point of view, is the especially invite biblical scholars to test out my approach. Here,
Gospel of Grace. as a philosophical theologian, I especially need the help of
A third example: Bloesch sees Jesus Christ as the “specta- colleagues in biblical studies. It is in this context that I partic-
cles” by which we make sense of life; I describe a vision of life as ularly appreciate that Sheppard, himself an Old Testament
the “spectacles” through which we make a sense of life. In a scholar, is very positive about my hermeneutic proposal.
biblically-attuned vision of life, Jesus will have a central place. I do want to make brief comments on two other matters that
It is through such a vision that we work out in daily experience Sheppard raises. He prefers to talk of “scriptural texts” rather
what it means to find renewal of life in the spirit of Christ. than “certitudinal texts.” Since my major concern is that “sacred
texts” be recognized as a distinct type of literature, I am less
Word-of-God-for-creation concerned about the technical terms we employ to designate their
There is one area where it appears that Bloesch and I may dis- distinctness. I have no problem talking about “scriptural texts.”
agree. To me it seems that Bloesch lacks sufficient appreciation At the same time, I am suggesting that a “more rigorous speci-
for general revelation. I see the biblical emphasis on Jesus Christ fication” of “scriptural texts” involves notice of their preoccu-
as mediator of redemption in terms of the Johannine and Pauline pation with and focus on matters of “ultimate certitude.”
emphasis on the Word as the mediator of creation. In that light, Sheppard also wants to distinguish between revelation as “a
all of creation is revelatory of the Word of God. Sin blinds us to universal principle of human existence” and the “more histori-
that revelation and distorts it, but it does not destroy it. In cally specific claim that God through the power of the Holy
Christ, according to the redemptive revelation in Scripture, we Spirit has revealed something about Scripture to us.” So do I. But
can again see the Word of God and be directed by it. I do not set the former over against the latter. In my under-
Giving due place to the Word of God for creation can also standing, the Christian claim about Scripture is a unique his-
make us aware that “the bridge which spans the wide chasm torical instantiation of revelation as a creational universal. I
between biblical salvation history and contemporary history” is understand Sheppard to be saying the same thing when he talks
not language or history or the history of the people of God of relating the “existential requirement of some ‘faith’ in order to
(Braaten) but the creating and sustaining Word of God (cf. II Peter live in the world” to revelation by the Holy Spirit concerning
3:5-7). It is according to the Word of God for creation that the Scripture. In my understanding, there is an existential require-
Spirit of God, in the Incarnate Word, renews creation and dwells ment of some “revelation” - corresponding to some “faith’ - in
within but also acts upon the People of God. order to live in the world. In terms of this universal, revelatory
dynamic, we can begin to understand the similarities and dis-
Scriptural texts tinctness when biblical revelation is compared to the nature and
My reply will not be complete without a short response to Gerald forms of revelation in other faiths.
Sheppard. In the first place I confess that I feel at home in the In conclusion, let me note that I fully share with Bloesch -
scenario that he paints. I sense that he understands not only my and I am sure with Pinnock and Sheppard - a belief that the
proposal, but its roots, motivations and intentions. For this I am Word of God is never at our disposal. At the most fundamental
both encouraged and thankful, all the more so because his response level, we do not “possess” the Word, the Word has us in its “grip.”
is so positive and enthusiastic. Hermeneutic dexterity does not guarantee a hearing of the Word.
At the same time, Sheppard wants more exegetical detail But in God’s design, as part of working out our salvation with fear
and more conversation with significant secondary literature in and trembling, we are called to a proper use of Scripture. We are
biblical studies. He raises legitimate concerns. I am only too con- to develop a method of interpretation which is pastoral, i.e.,
scious of the need to test the method in detailed exegesis. For if appropriate to the redemptive-edificatory purpose of Scripture.
the method does not help in interpretation, so much for the It is my hope that we will continue and extend our discussions.
90 James Olthuis
NOTES

1. Allen Verhey has recently written a fine book, The Great

Reuersal: Ethics and the New Testament (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1984), in which he, after establishing that the New
Testament presents no unitary ethic, cogently and candidly - and
I believe rightly - argues that it is inappropriate to Scripture to
ask questions on the “moral-rule level.” “To ask Scripture to be
what it is not is inappropriate; therefore, to ask it to be a
systematic treatise or a comprehensive code or an autonomous
ethic based on reason alone is inappropriate” (p. 175). Verhey
argues that it is legitimate to ask questions of Scripture on the
“ethical-principle” level, although even here we must be careful
because we will not find “some autonomous principle or principles,
impartial to commitments and loyalties, and resting on reason
alone” (p. 177). It is questions of “identity and integrity,”
“loyalties and commitments” at the “post-ethical” level - what
I call the certitudinal level - that Scripture most directly
answers. It is answers to these questions - what I have called
ultimate, certitudinal questions - which form and inform dis-
positions and intentions on the “ethical-principle” level which in
turn form and inform decisions and judgments at the “moral-rule”
level (pp. 176-77).
2. In chapter three of his The Inspiration of Scripture; Prob
Zems and ProposaZs (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1980),
Paul J. Achtemeier has helpfully summarr‘zed “how the evidence
presented by Scripture itself, the so-called ‘phenomena,’ points to
an explanation of Scripture as a process in which traditions are
formulated and reformulated, interpreted and reinterpreted’ (pp.
76-94). Cf. also Clark Pinnock’s discussion in his recent book, The
Scriphtre Principk (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 19841, ch. 8,
‘Unfolding Revelation,” pp. 175-197.
3. Richard N. Longenecker has begun to work out a
developmental hermeneutic in splendid fashion in reference to
Galations 3:28 in his New Testament Social Ethics for Tohy
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984).
4. Achtemeier, op. cit., p. 147. Cf. also, G. C. Berkouwer, Holy
Scripture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), p. 140.
 At a time when Christians interpret Scripture in a variety of ways and
often with very conflicting results, knowing how properly to interpret the
Bible is high on the theological agenda. In this book, James Olthuis pre-
sents a constructive proposal for a more consistent scriptural interpretation
in dialogue with contemporary philosophical discussions in hermeneutics,
particularly Michael Polanyi, Hans-Georg Gadamer and Paul Kicoeur.
Searching for a new synthesis which both honors evangelical concerns
about the authority of Scripture and modem critical efforts to do justice
to the “phenomena” of Scripture, Olthuis proposes that the Bible’s central
claim to answer our “ultimate” life and death questions is the clue for a
method of interpretation which fits with the nature of the text as a
canonic whole. Critiques by Clark Pinnock, Donald Bloesch and Gerald
Sheppard are followed by a response from Olthuis.

James H. Olthuis is Senior Member in Philosophical Theology at the

Institute for Chtitian Studies, Toronto. He has also wn’tten Pacts,
Values and Ethics, I Pledge You My Troth, and Keeping Our Troth.

Titles in the Series CHRISTIAN STUDIES TODAY

Co-Published by University Press of America and
the Institute for Christian Studies

RATIONALITY IN THE CALVINIAN TRADITION

Edited by Hendrik Hart, Johan van der Hoeven and Nicholas
Wolterstorff

UNDERSTANDING OUR WORLD: AN INTEGRAL ONTOLOGY

Hendrik Hart

THE LEGACY OF HERMAN DOOYEWEERD

Edited by C.T. McIntire

TELLING THE NEXT GENERATION

Harro W. Van Brummelen

0-8191-5801-l