Participatory Biblical Exegesis: A Theology of Biblical Interpretation

Introduction

I N T R O D U C T I O N The chapters of this book advance the proposal that Christian biblical exegesis, in accord with the Christian and biblical understanding of reality, should envision history not only as a linear unfolding of individual moments, but also as an ongoing participation in God’s active providence, both metaphysically and Christologicallypneumatologically .1 What are the implications of this proposal? While it must await a full spelling-out in the chapters themselves, some implications can be identified here. In agreement with historical-critical exegesis, I affirm that the Bible should be studied in its original ancient contexts . Yet what I call “participatory” biblical exegesis also holds that these original contexts never stand on their own. While temporal reality is a “linear” unfolding of moments, it is so precisely as participating in the triune God. Moment follows moment in succession , and yet these moments are not atomistic, but rather constitute an organic web of interrelation. This is so because the intimate “vertical” presence of the Trinity’s creative and redemptive action suffuses the “linear” or “horizontal” succession of moments. This metaphysical and Christological-pneumatological participation in God joins past, present, and future realities in a unified whole, so that through God’s presence each moment is related intrinsically, not merely extrinsically, to every other moment.2 It follows that one properly understands historical-temporal reality by integrating its linear and participatory dimensions. In short, my thesis is that to enter into the realities taught in the biblical texts requires not — 1 — Levering-00.Intro 2/11/08 11:27 AM Page 1 only linear-historical tools (archeology, philology, and so forth), but also, and indeed primarily, participatory tools—doctrines and practices— by which the exegete enters fully into the biblical world.3 The problematic situation I seek to address is well captured by the biblical scholar Walter Moberly, who eloquently and accurately describes the current disjunction between biblical interpretation and systematic theology: For most Christians there are also [in addition to the creeds] various post-patristic formulations and confessions which are also normative . On the other hand, none of these doctrinal confessions were formulated by the biblical writers, nor (in all likelihood) even envisaged by them. Although the biblical writers provide a content for which the Fathers and others have sought to provide appropriate means of articulation and appropriation, such formulations are always technically anachronistic with regard to any particular biblical text in its likely original context. It is common knowledge that modern biblical criticism only became a recognizable discipline through the process of explicit severing of the Bible from classic theological formulations. The basis for this was the belief that only so could the Bible be respected and heard in its own right, untrammeled by preconceptions which supposed that the answers were already known even before the questions were asked, or by anachronistic impositions of the conceptualities and assumptions of subsequent ages. The fruitfulness of the severance, in terms of a clearer sense of practical and conceptual differences both within the Bible and between the Bible and post-biblical formulations, is well known. Moreover, the approach has been justified theologically , at least by Protestants, in terms of the need for the authentic voice of scripture to critique the always provisional formulations of post-biblical theology. This has led to a curious situation. To be a Christian means, at least in part, the acceptance and appropriation of certain theological doctrines and patterns of living. Yet the task of reading the Bible “critically” has regularly been defined precisely in terms of the exclusion of these doctrines and patterns of living from the interpretative process.4 — 2 — Participatory Biblical Exegesis Levering-00.Intro 2/11/08 11:27 AM Page 2 This “curious situation” has led theologians and biblical scholars increasingly to recognize the need for a deeper philosophical and theological understanding of historical realities.5 As Adrian Walker remarks with regard to the dominant “scientific” philosophy of history, “The question is simply what counts as science—and, so, whether or not the paradigm of ‘scientific’ exegesis that dominates Scriptural interpretation today is indeed sufficiently scientific. Ultimately, this question hinges on the nature of history.”6 In this book I suggest that a fully historical biblical exegesis depends on reinstating the participatory dimension of historical realities. One way to recover a fuller account of historical realities is to seek insight into why...