t f p g+ YouTube icon

Evolution and Our Theological Traditions: Calvinism, Part 2

Bookmark and Share

March 29, 2011 Tags: Biblical Interpretation

Today's entry was written by Pete Enns. You can read more about what we believe here.

Evolution and Our Theological Traditions: Calvinism, Part 2

Introduction

Last week we looked at the first of three distinctive elements in Calvin’s approach to biblical interpretation. We saw how Calvin understood his place as a middle way between the two “Judaizing” approaches of Catholics and Anabaptists.

Calvin’s assessment of these two traditions has to be understood in terms of his own moment in history, and what he has to say about these two traditions can hardly be taken as the final word.

What his assessment shows us, however, is Calvin’s commitment to allow the voice of the Old Testament to speak while also allowing the New Testament to have the final word. Calvin is clearly committed to finding some balance between the beliefs that (1) all Scripture is revelatory and therefore is to be respected, and (2) that revelation ultimately finds its fullest expression in the gospel.

In other words: Calvin sought to respect the context of the Old Testament while also realizing that Christ makes a difference in how one appropriates the Old Testament. This, I would suggest, is an unavoidable tension for all Christian readers, and it comes to bear on the science/faith discussion (i.e., how to read Genesis), which we will get to after we look at the next two distinctive of Calvin’s hermeneutic. We turn to the second of those distinctives below.

Literalism vs. Allegorical Interpretation: the Importance of Grammatical-Historical interpretation

The issue before Calvin was how to read the Old Testament without giving in to the “Judaizing” extremes that he saw in Catholicism and the Anabaptists. His approach wass what we might call “grammatical-historical” today. This is not a term that Calvin would have recognized, but the idea was certainly familiar to him. In fact, Calvin’s attention to both the historical circumstances of the Old Testament and to the Hebrew grammar was as rigorous as one would find among his contemporaries.

It is worth noting that Calvin felt it important to address the historical context of Scripture as a way of grounding a text’s interpretation. Of course, Calvin’s understanding of the ancient world was minimal at best—much of the context of Scripture we take for granted today was unknown to him. Still, Calvin had keen historical instincts owing to his humanist training, which sought to rediscover the cultural values and norm of antiquity. This included a study of the original languages of texts. Calvin applied this same mindset to Scripture.

Put differently, this first question to be asked of the Old Testament was not “What does this mean for me?” or even “What does this mean in light of Christ?” Rather, the first question was “What did this mean in the original setting in which God’s revelation was given?” How that original context then relates to the Christological context and personal application is another matter, one that introduces some tensions, as already mentioned and which we will get to in time.

Calvin’s commitment to historical and grammatical contexts led him to arrive at interpretive conclusions that were not always in sync with his Christian contemporaries. For example, in his Genesis commentary (on 1:6 concerning the firmament), Calvin famously quipped, “He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere.” Calvin simply meant that, given its moment in history, Genesis does not teach astronomy, but rather speaks in such a way that everyone at all times can relate to: no scientific conclusions should be deduced from this description of the cosmos. In Genesis, the cosmos is described as it was seen by ancient peoples, not as it is scientifically.

Similarly, Calvin’s comment on Hosea 6:7 shows his attention to grammatical context. In this verse we have the lone reference to Adam outside of Genesis (with the exception of 1 Chronicles 1:1)—specifically, a reference to Israel breaking the covenant “like” Adam. The Hebrew could be understood as “like Adam”, meaning the person, or “as at Adam”, meaning a geographic location.

The fact that the passage continues by referring back to “Adam” by the adverb “there,” and also mentions Shechem and Bethel as other locations of rebellion, made the matter clear for Calvin: Adam is a place, not a person. It is very tempting to find here the lone Old Testament reference to Adam’s rebellion in the Garden, but Calvin would have none of it and seemed to lose patience with those who insisted on reading the person Adam into Hosea 6:7. Such a reading, Calvin wrote, is “frigid and diluted” and “vapid,” not worthy even of refutation.

Paying attention to the historical and grammatical context of the Old Testament sometimes led Calvin to bucking the trend. Most clearly this pertains to Calvin’s disdain for allegory. Since the examination of context was foundational to Calvin, he had no place for allegory, which he felt was arbitrary.

Calvin was not unique in his rejection of allegory (given the general “humanistic” climate mentioned above), but that rejection was still somewhat against the mainstream of the day. Allegory in the church is rooted in Origen (185-254) and was a common approach to biblical interpretation throughout much the 1500 years prior to Calvin (including Paul, see Galatians 4:21-31). But Calvin’s concern was that allegory downplayed the Christ-centered message of the Old.

Calvin felt that by divorcing Scripture from history (as allegory tends to do) the truth and reality of the gospel was in danger—which is a great irony, since allegorical interpretation arose precisely to advance Christological readings of Scripture.

Further, allegory took the Bible out of the hands of the people and into the hands of experts. Only those with literary sensitivity and training could see the deeper allegorical meanings in the text. Although here too is an irony, since a historically responsible handling of the Bible requires its own kind of expertise (e.g., knowing Greek and Hebrew), and the subjectivity of allegory actually made it more available to the uneducated.

In any event, Calvin’s grammatical-historical approach was a move to respect the context of Scripture, and so he saw himself as correcting the allegorical tradition of early and medieval exegesis. A contextual reading for Calvin was a necessary first step to mining Scripture in his theology. This is certainly understandable today—even instinctual—but it also introduced a tension for Calvin that we can see him working out here and there: the New Testament authors do not always seem rooted in the grammatical historical context of Scripture.

This problem led Calvin to the twin concepts of accommodation and typology, which we will get to in the next post.

At this juncture, the question for us to be pondering is the role that context plays today in interpreting Scripture. Should the approach Calvin advocated be practiced today in view of the great wealth of historical information we have at our finger tips, even if that leads to non-traditional interpretations? In other words, can one take a grammatical-historical reading of Scripture too far?


Pete Enns is a former Senior Fellow of Biblical Studies for The BioLogos Foundation and author of several books and commentaries, including the popular Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament, which looks at three questions raised by biblical scholars that seem to threaten traditional views of Scripture.

< Previous post in series Next post in series >


View the archived discussion of this post

This article is now closed for new comments. The archived comments are shown below.

Loading...
Page 1 of 1   1
Chris Massey - #56019

March 29th 2011

Pete,

This promises to be a very interesting series. Is it the case that most critical scholars today would agree with Calvin that “Adam” in Hosea 6:7 is a reference to a place rather than a person?

In response to your question, I can’t imagine how we could do intellectually honest exegesis without making the grammatical-historical reading the first stop along the way. But it might be taking it “too far” to suggest that the g-h reading is the only legitimate meaning.

Deb - #56024

March 29th 2011

Chris,Not Pete here, but I went and dug around with this just a bit (it was news to me) and found the English translations are divided between ‘like Adam,’ ‘at Adam,’ and ‘like men.’

Hosea 6:7 (NET notes)

20tn Or “Like Adam”; or “Like [sinful] men.” The MT reads MDdDaV;k (keé}adam, “like Adam” or “as [sinful] men”); however, the editors of BHS suggest this reflects an orthographic confusion of MDdDaV;b (beé}adam, “at Adam”), as suggested by the locative adverb MDv (sham, “there”) in the following line. However, MDv sometimes functions in a nonlocative sense similar to the deictic particle hE;nIh (hinneh, “Behold!”). The singular noun

MDdDa (}adam) has been taken in several different ways: (1) proper name: “like Adam” (MDdDaV;k), (2) collective singular: “like [sinful] men” (MDdDaV;k), (3) proper location: “at Adam,” referring to a city in the Jordan Valley (Josh 3:16), emending comparative V;k (kaf) to locative V;b (bet, “at”): “at Adam” (MDdDaV;b). BDB 9 s.v. MDdDa 2 suggests the collective sense, referring to sinful men (Num 5:6; 1 Kgs 8:46; 2 Chr 6:36; Jer 10:14; Job 31:33; Hos 6:7). The English versions are divided: KJV margin, ASV, RSV margin, NASB, NIV, TEV margin, NLT “like Adam”; RSV, NRSV, TEV “at Adam”; KJV “like men.”


conrad - #56045

March 30th 2011

PETE YOUa re a brilliant guy and a resource for all of us and it is a pleasuer to read your stuff .........even though I pick faults with most of it, but you certainly are a worthy adversary in any scholarly debate..
 Tomorrow I am going to argue with you but it is too late this evening.


Cal - #56046

March 30th 2011

I think the genius of Scripture is that it is written and couched in a certain way to be understood by the generation at the time of its writing, yet it has deeper implications pointing to Christ. The h-g way gives us reasons why a certain something is said but I think Calvin is wrong when he thinks the revelation of the Old Testament gives just as clear a revelation as Christ. For did not Jesus say that John the Baptist was greatest of all the prophets and still Jesus had a weightier testimony to give (which is showing the very face of God).


The anabaptists have it closer. While the h-g gives a backdrop, everything has meaning in revelation of the cross of Christ and His resurrection. As the latin saying goes, Christi crux est mea lux (Christ’s cross is my light)


Conrad - #56150

March 30th 2011

Hey PETE WHAT IS YOUR INITIAL IMPRESSION OF THE 2000 YEAR OLD TESTAMENT THEY JUSY FOUNDZ?


Pete Enns - #56197

March 31st 2011

Hey Conrad,


From what I have read, experts are not as sure of the significance fo the find as was reported in the media—even BBC. This may take a while to sort out.

conrad - #56155

March 31st 2011

‘Calvin felt that by divorcing Scripture from history (as allegory tends to do) the truth and reality of the gospel was in danger.”
IT WAS NICE TO HAVE A THINKER LIKE CALVIN WHO WASN’T AFRAID
OF BIG CONCEPTS AND BIG ISSUES.
Now I WONDER HOW HE WOULE DEAL WITH THE CONCEPT OF MULTIPLE FUTURES.
He always thought of a singlr time line which led to an assumption that there must be predestination.
Modern physics goes in the opposite direction  NOW we need someone with Calvin’s intellect to wrestle with that..
where are the great theological minds to deal with great the great new scientific ideas nowadays?


conrad - #56156

March 31st 2011

I really wonder what Calvin would come up with if he considered a reality that had multiple pasts, multiple futures, multiple timelines and infinite possibilities. The great thinkers of our time are dealing with those very questions BUT THEY ARE ALL PHYSICISTS .
THE THEOLOGIANS ARE MISSING IN ACTION ..on multiverse issues.
 I HAVE TURNED MY PUNY BRAIN TOWARD THAT PROBLEM AND I THINK CHRIST IS STILL THE ANSWER.
The idea tha no-one is predestined for sin and hell seems more compatible with the type of universe I would expect a loving Christ to design for us[and I think scripture tells us that Christ was the designer and builder of our universe].

 I neveer could figure out how a loving God could predestine anyone for hell.
I suspect that even old Calvin would find M-theory a swlcome improvment over his concepts.
BTW Alan Guth the author of codmic inflation theory saya building a new universe might not be all that difficult.
He says he might build one in his basement.
When I read his statement the thought of Christ building our universe popped into my head.
The statement in scripture now seems more like reality of course I always did believe it.anyway.


Spittman - #58126

April 16th 2011

Conrad,

Interesting idea with the multiple past, multiple futures statement.  However, let us be careful to not apply “what I would expect” notions to the interpretation of scripture.  Presuppositions can be dangerous and prove to distort what doctrine might have already laid down.

Also, in considering the hope that Jesus would never predestine anyone to sin, is it possible that God’s love would be made complete if He didn’t? For example, if Adam had not eaten the apple and had not rebelled, it would be an unsupported argument to say that God’s love was unconditional.  Adam and Eve were perfect in heart and character until this situation, no grace required.  However, God choosing to love after ordaining such an act might ultimately display a fuller, more awing love (grace) than we could ever dream of.

Just a thought.


Page 1 of 1   1