Joel will get a kick out of this example.
Jeeves turns to Bertie Wooster and remarks, “Child Roland to the Dark Tower came sir.”
This paraphrase comes from P.G. Wodehouse’s fictional comedy series about Bertie Wooster and his gentleman’s gentleman Jeeves. Jeeves is a genius who gets the bumbling Bertie out of jams. He often quips phrases and quotes from literature and this is one of them. Here’s what’s interesting from that quote. Jeeves is using it in reference to Bertie arriving at the home of his fearsome Aunt’s house. In other words it’s a comic reference paralleling the Child Roland and Bertie’s experience.
However this reference to the Child Roland and the Dark Tower is historical. The most immediate reference is to a poem by Robert Browning by the same name published in 1855. The painting above is a depiction. However Browning was referencing a quotation from the Shakespeare play “King Lear” in which Glouster’s son Edgar is disguised as a character named Tom and he speaks in nonsense terms by saying:
Childe Roland to the Dark Tower came,
His word was still fie, foh, and fum,
I smell the blood of a British man.
Deeper still is that Shakespeare was drawing upon a popular fairy tale when referencing the Child Roland. So say you were to read Jeeve’s reference and interpret it. There’s a rich literary backdrop to the quotation which would need to be “in play” if you wanted to really understand the comedy of Jeeve’s statement.
For us it’s even more interesting not only do we have a background of meaning we have a foreground. Stephen King has written an entire series of novels called “The Dark Tower” series about a gunslinger named Roland in pursuit of the Dark Tower. I think the Jeeve’s series was written in the 1930’s King just finished his series recently. Kings literary foreground is much more likely to be present in our minds as readers than it was the literary backdrop Wodehouse intended.
Enter in the principle of literal interpretation. Is “literal interpretation” a sufficient description of how to adequately understand this quotation from P.G. Wodehouse? I don’t believe so. That does not mean I can’t appreciate his writing or even get the joke at some level without even knowing any of this information. If the Bible were a Bus Schedule then maybe “literal interpretation” would be a sufficient description of how to get at it’s meaning. However the Bible isn’t a bus schedule, all the above dynamics of history, quotation, allusion and more are in play when reading and interpreting Scripture.
One could look at the complicated nature of Scripture and feel that it is impossible to understand unless you’re a scholar. This isn’t the case at all. Just as I can enjoy and understand P.G. Wodehouse without having read all of British literature so we can enjoy and understand Scripture without knowing ancient languages, cultures etc. We just shouldn’t describe what we do when we are reading Scripture as summed up in the phrase “literal interpretation.”
that’s a good illustration. of course now i don’t know what entry to comment on.
By: av on April 10, 2008
at 10:49 am
AV: You’ve stimulated some thinking about exactly how scripture is sufficient or insufficient and for what. My thinking on the subject isn’t that developed so I don’t have a lot to add or critique about what you were saying other than that sufficiency, as you point out, can’t mean simply “having a copy” of the words.
My posts have been more about my feelings about how dispensationalists describe their method of interpreting Scripture. The claim “we take Scripture literally” is, I feel, more about a tactic against covenant theologians than it is a description of good interpretation. It’s muddying the waters to say covenant folks don’t interpret scripture literally but we do. For the record I think the covenant tactic of saying dispensationalists are wooden literalists is unfair too. There’s good interpretation on both sides but literal interpretation isn’t a good descriptor or line in the sand to describe either.
By: Meade on April 10, 2008
at 11:40 am
well put meade & av… The discussion of How literal is literal? is problematic for me, b/c I would much rather things be a clear, bright line of dinstinction. For example, the creation account. the argument i have heard from dispensationalists on why God could not have used evolutionary methods i.e. not 24 hr. days, is that if we do not know it’s 24 hr. days , then we don’t know Jesus rose from the dead.
I, for one, cannot see a leap from creation to the resurrection, but it does beg the question, that when you are trying to interpret words from another time and another culture, it feels like a no-man’s land to me. I can easily see how evolution at the hand of a Creator is possible, but who then is the decider as to what those “days” mean, or any other word in scripture for that matter. Did Paul really mean women? etc. etc.
Sorry if I am being confusing in my examples. The thing that encourages so much here though, is the same peace I take in God’s sovereignty regarding the Bible being His Word. For instance, in most new translations, there will be a note in the margins, saying that due to new archeological discoveries, it’s possible the number 666, should have been (i think) 616. At first that freaks me out, b/c I am wondering if the Bible can be true.. but think about it… ON FAITH, God is sovereign and he made certain his word got to me in a way I could hear and understand it. was it 24 hour days? i dont’ know, but I do know God did it one way or the other.
By: amybaker on April 10, 2008
at 11:54 am
I agree with what you said Meade and definitely think that this is reactionary between dispensational/covenant lines. My only distinction to your last comment is that I unfortunately would say dispensationalists tend to be wooden literalists. One of the areas I highly dislike that came out of this is the dispensational method of typology. Essentially you take the historical pattern and say it is a type for some pattern in the future. Now that may very well be true, HOWEVER, that is the only way dispensationalists often get meaning from the OT text! Let us reverse to the time when that text was actually written – it means absolutely nothing. Without the literary patterns that you have been mentioning Meade and the depth available, the text becomes largely wooden and merely a historical account.
When I sit through most dispensational OT teachings I feel like there is a large effort to give history and it is assumed that is the only thing the human author had in mind. Then we go to the NT and show how God had a divine purpose in mind for that history.
Instead we should be going to the OT passage, unpacking the message the author put in it, while supporting it with possibly cultural understanding/language/history, and then showing how this is developed later into the NT.
By: av on April 10, 2008
at 12:15 pm
One more thing….
AV I just caught your example re-reading again about focusing our energies on ‘one important moment” and I could not agree more. It’s as though all of American evangelical America is just trying to get people to say the “magical” prayer. I hate to be so sarcastic regarding a serious topic, but it does disservice to the Gospel when we focus only on that b/c it ignores issues of sanctification and perseverance of the Saints. I theorize, that our approach and critique of various evangelism methods would be very different if we didn’t just approach it as a once and done. we say we don’t but practically speaking churche’s often operate that way. It seems as though the only question asked is, “what can I do to elicit the response I want?” rather than, ” how can this change the trajectory of this person’s life?”
By: amybaker on April 10, 2008
at 12:17 pm
Amy: Exactly!
This is so true that if you talk about salvation to a Roman Catholic they will assume you are talking about “the trajectory of [the] person’s life”.
It’s incredible how different that is when you talk about salvation with a protestant. You will automatically get a response referring to a conversion.
Which one is more accurate? Well, we use sanctification now to use what Roman Catholics mean salvation by. If we were trying to define our words though I’m not sure who would be more accurate. You have ’salvation’ bringing the Israelites during the judges back into control of their land, yet you also have ’salvation’ as a goal of the entire Christian life (e.g. “Some day there will be salvation for all the oppressed” which results in not a moment but a state of salvation.)
By: av on April 10, 2008
at 12:23 pm
I’m loving this discussion. Hermeneutics are the best!
By: av on April 10, 2008
at 12:24 pm
Someone I know has been saying for years that Protestants have historically made an idol out of the Bible. But the distinction between holding the Bible in its correct place and making it into an idol is so fine that I’m not even sure that I know where it is.
The irony of that, and the conversation going on above, is that the whole “Salvation experience”/”say the prayer” thing is mostly conjured out of thin air, am I wrong?
P.S. Wodehouse good. Always. I felt like I was hanging with a LOT of the allusions but that one would’ve blown right by me. Always awesome.
By: Joel on April 10, 2008
at 12:46 pm
There is definitely a moment when God does multiple things to you that could be termed a salvation moment. Romans 6 argues as well that we are now dead to sin from God’s perspective. From a human perspective we don’t always see this transition and really there is no emphasize anywhere in Scripture on that moment. The entire emphasis is on the process AFTER then. That’s why we have perseverance of the saints and not “once saved always saved”. We are called to persevere and endure and continually seek salvation as a goal.
By: av on April 10, 2008
at 12:54 pm
okay so there is definitely a “moment” per se. but i think we agree that we oversell the heck out of it.
By: Joel on April 10, 2008
at 1:31 pm
notice as well that while we overemphasize it, it is possible to underemphasize it.
E.G.
RCC: Such a lack of teaching on spirit baptism (conversion moment) that people who become protestant later never realize that it even exists (and subsequently denounce the RCC as satan-led).
Protestant: Such an emphasis on spirit baptism (conversion moment) that people build evangelism and churches around the attempt to get people to “that moment”. People who later become Orthodox/Catholic later never realize that Scripture has a strong focus on your actual narrative of life – not on getting to that moment.
By: av on April 10, 2008
at 1:38 pm
None of this would be a problem if people read James.
By: Joel on April 10, 2008
at 2:16 pm
Interestingly, James is nothing more than a sermon on Leviticus 19 to a greco-roman world.
By: av on April 10, 2008
at 2:19 pm
says you
By: Joel on April 10, 2008
at 2:20 pm
This is the only thing I could find online:
http://www.biblestudyworkshop.com/data/Lesson389.pdf
Check out page 5, some interesting parallels.
By: av on April 10, 2008
at 2:27 pm
Paul = Plagiarist?
To get back on track, for some reason my faith construct currently requires that the B be sufficient in and of itself to lead someone to J. I’m just saying that my view of the B currently holds that G is sovereign to the extent that any reasonable translation of the B would be enough, failing all else, to show someone G. Do you have a problem with that?
By: Joel on April 10, 2008
at 2:51 pm
Moreover, if it fails at that basic task, ultimately what good is it.
By: Joel on April 10, 2008
at 2:52 pm
I agree that “any reasonable translation of the B would be enough”. I’m not sure of any biblical way to argue that God divinely designed it that way except by proxy of convenience. I’d say that is sufficient because our reasonable translations clearly articulate the trinity and sin and death/resurrection of J. For full biblical clarity and the plan of God through history more would be necessary.
By: av on April 10, 2008
at 3:19 pm
I would wholly agree with you Joel and even go further than just saying it’s sufficient for salvation. Jonathan Edwards didn’t have the benefit of most of the historical background I know. In that regard anyone who goes to seminary today probably knows more ANE culture than he did. Yet I’d bet there’s no one alive on the planet who understood Scripture as well as he did.
By: Meade on April 10, 2008
at 3:19 pm
Exactly. I like a lot of what AV’s position on this is, but again. . .it’s a pillar of my faith that G would’ve given us all we need in that one book.
I think there’s a lot in there that would make it self-revealing if people were smarter or inclined toward common sense.
By: Joel on April 10, 2008
at 3:28 pm
Meade: I was working on a comment for a while but it is difficult to put the words together. You have JE who was a genius, and also Tozer who had incredible insights with no formal academic training. JE was also from a different era where his beliefs caused him to get booted from his church on an issue of membership. Would we consider membership something worth fighting over? Perhaps the ANE background from one perspective allows us to understand much of the essentials really aren’t essentials.
By: av on April 10, 2008
at 4:02 pm
Also, how do we know that JE understood Scripture better than anyone understands it today?
By: av on April 10, 2008
at 4:13 pm
AV: Yes I’d definitely agree. Church history shows this as well. Edwards also had some major blind spots too. I don’t know if they would have been helped by cultural background or what. I do know that everyone is syncretistic to a higher degree than they realize.
By: Meade on April 10, 2008
at 4:16 pm
sometime you’re going to have to justify the syncretistic statement.
By: Joel on April 10, 2008
at 5:15 pm
I have a correction to something I just realized. This discussion is not based around ANE extras, but extras from all fields including psychology, philosophy, and whatever sciences you want to throw in there. JE was extremely well versed in philosophy and studied an extreme amount of extra-biblical literature. I would argue that this ‘extra’ stuff was what allowed his teachings to be so profound. It was the illustrations and support that took the (illustration time) pencil sketch and turned it into a painting.
We did agree he had some blind spots, and those those blind spots would be caused by an error in his biblical theology – in what he understands of the design of Scripture.
By: av on April 10, 2008
at 6:04 pm
the JE comparison isn’t entirely apt. the question isn’t so much, what does it take to be a giant of the faith, so to speak, vs. find enough to find salvation. i think anyone would argue, AV, that intensive study or wisdom of some sort is critical to be a teacher.
By: Joel on April 10, 2008
at 6:19 pm
the people in line with the latin term you like so much often (in my experience) believe the text alone is the only thing you need to be a giant of the faith. not just the essentials, but that it is completely ancillary to do any extra-biblical work.
By: av on April 10, 2008
at 10:06 pm
http://eleventyone.done.hu/fyoop/metalfan.jpg there’s another example. just found it.
By: av on April 10, 2008
at 10:08 pm
I am involved in the growing movement of theologians and scientists who are attempting to unify science and religion. In fact, the results of my labors will become available later this year in a book entitled “Proving God.”
The apostle John (1:1-3) tells us that everything in the manifest universe was created from the Holy Word. However, a literal interpretation of Scripture is inadequate for providing the rational evidence for such a belief (beyond simple faith). The Holy Word is a multidimensional document with layers of meaning that are abstracted from any involvement with time and space. These rarefied naratives transcend the spatio-temporal arena and describe events taking place in the psycho-scape of the human heart and mind. In other words, they refer to spiritual realities concealed within ordinary language. Even historically correct events in Scripture portray deeper scenarios.
This “layering of meaning” is the patterning principle behind the hierarchical scaffolding of the universe. Without this multi-dimensional architecture, God’s Infinite Wisdom could not be contained within a finite Book nor could it offer us any explanation of how the laws of nature emerged from our Lord God’s nature.
The hidden “quantum” vocabulary of Scripture is what will be revealed at the Lord’s Second Coming. The Second Coming is NOW.
http://www.thegodguy.wordpress.com
By: thegodguy on April 11, 2008
at 11:07 am
I’m going to try to break down your comment:
1) The bible claims everything was created by Jesus in John 1:1-3, but the evidence makes that impossible.
2) Because it is impossible, the bible must have hidden meanings so God remains true and Scripture remains divine.
3) These hidden meanings do not deal with any concept that can be analyzed logically (time/space).
4) Because of this impossibility, Scripture only issues mind/heart issues.
I’m going to put a few things out here now:
From how I understand your post you believe the bible to be inadequate to be read as normal literature. I disagree vehemently and as a college grad student with interests in many scientific displines I find no area of contention between science and theology. To continue a discussion, perhaps we should deal more with root issues instead of jumping to assuming a “layered meaning” that is extra-biblical and based on philosophy.
If you could, please detail some of the rational evidence that contradicts the bible and we can start there.
By: av on April 11, 2008
at 11:55 am
if i could somehow get back on topic, AV: would we agree at the Scripture COULD alone be enough, but, should the opportunity present itself, further study is borderline necessary and recommended?
I feel like the pursuit and study of G is something like playing guitar. It is possible to have equal amounts of fun and enjoyment and fullfillment with either the most rudimentary level of playing or a much higher level. That isn’t to say that it’s “good” or even “better” to pursue either course for its own sake. For some, the rudimentary level is all they could ever hope to achieve, for whatever reason. Heck, some people get better for all the wrong reasons.
At the same time, it’s likely that those who study more will in turn get “more” out of it. Again, with the analogy, it’s possible to lose sight of how enjoyable and correct the basics can be. And vice versa. ad infinitum. See what I’m getting at? I think it’s essential that for you, AV, your pursuit of G has blossomed in ways you can’t even define with your deep study. I’m tempted, though, to say that’s just you fulfilling your path, like a guitarist who’s never happy to be just as good as he is.
Where I’m stuck is that I wouldn’t want to codify that into law. Anymore than I would allow the “Bible and nothing more” people to codify their positions. I honestly think there are as many paths, as many speeds, and as many methods, as there are humans.
By: Joel on April 11, 2008
at 1:48 pm
I think your post sums it up well. The guitar illustration is a good one too. You can start off with basic chords and it sounds great, but as you learn more about guitar theory you start to see all the deep intricateness that makes it all the more wonderful. Of course you as a guitar player become more passionate as you fall in love with the instrument too…
By: av on April 11, 2008
at 1:58 pm
right. there is a time and place for a good G-C-D strum and there is a time and place to play “greensleeves” in an impeccable classical style. where we go wrong is in saying either is “better.” or we deride the other position b/c of our personal insecurities/pride. moreover, i think some people are strummers and others are the classical artists. and neither is better.
the more you “put into” your walk with G, the more you’ll get out of it.
By: Joel on April 11, 2008
at 2:02 pm
I think the difference is that some people will always be focusing on the major (happy) chords, while some love augmented or minor chords (sad). That is fine, but a correct biblical theology that helps you to understand how we are to live as Christians will come about by having a full breadth of guitar theory. When you understand the different chord patterns and strumming methods, you start to understand that strumming in a standard 4/4 is not the most important thing.
There is a definite push for all guitar players to be capable of handling the basic motions of guitar and to be able to defend their playing. It is sad that anyone would not want to practice much and often.
By: av on April 11, 2008
at 2:09 pm
true but the ideal position you’re pointing towards is at best idealistic and at worst ignores human nature. clearly not everyone is of the scholastic bent, so that dispenses with the hardcore studiers. etc. some people are “doers” and some aren’t. i mean we’re different. fit that in.
By: Joel on April 11, 2008
at 2:20 pm
I believe bible was made to be taken literally. But to do that in the real time, would not that make someone be like out in the street in Charlie Chaplin’s outfits riding a T-Ford? I guess it has to be essentially ‘translated’. And its not without problem too. Can you imagine English translations of ‘Mary has a little lamb?’ There’s crazy many. A tower of babel.
By: Rod on April 11, 2008
at 2:36 pm
Rod: I believe the Bible was made to be taken seriously and that we’re not free to determine it’s meaning for ourselves. We want to learn the authors intent. I don’t think this is the same thing as literal interpretation. There’s lots of dispensationalists who call what they do literal interpretation but what they practice has all the intricacies involved in reading literature. That’s okay, I just think they shouldn’t call that “literal” when it’s much more complicated than that.
I agree translation is difficult. For instance there are 12 hebrew words all translated as “glory” in the OT. That means there’s got to be some loss of nuance.
By: Meade on April 11, 2008
at 2:48 pm
Hey Rod, thanks for your comment. When we talk about taking the bible literally, we mean understanding the bible the way the author actually intended. This actually results in looking at the Bible like a real book instead of some divine manual. We believe this results in some very rich and deep theology that is life transforming. If you are interested we can talk about how science interacts with the bible, but that is a difficult concept to talk about briefly.
By: av on April 11, 2008
at 2:49 pm
Yeah, and what Meade said.
By: av on April 11, 2008
at 2:50 pm
the inuits have over 30 words for snow.
By: Joel on April 11, 2008
at 3:07 pm
Thanks Joel
By: av on April 11, 2008
at 4:20 pm
I have over 30 words for coffee. Take that inuits.
By: Meade on April 11, 2008
at 4:27 pm
unfortunately, i have skimmed quickly the above remarks. i am like my mother attempting to chime into a sport’s discussion from the kitchen sink, so take it easy.
by “literal,” dispy folks mean grammatical-historical interpretation. this seems to describe in large part what has been said in previous posts. that is what dispy folks mean by “literal.” this method accounts for the conventions of language as they would have been understood more innately by the first hearers i.e. hyperbole, figurative speech, etc. Like Meade said earlier, the “wooden” interpretation criticism of covenant is unfounded too. just trying to understand each method.
something i’ve been struggling with lately, why all these other books to understand the Bible? is it too simplistic to believe that the Scriptures are sufficient for doctrine and practice? why do we spend so much time on other books? what if the Bible was all we had? would we feel unable to understand the text?
By: jon on April 22, 2008
at 11:21 pm
Hey Jon, welcome to the party. The problem is not with grammatical-historical interpretation. it’s with the description “literal”. Literal is a really poor description of all the intricacies of grammatical historical interpretation. I believe it’s a form of fighting dirty. It makes it sound like non-dispensationalists don’t really take the Bible seriously.
By: Meade on April 22, 2008
at 11:38 pm
Who decides what the author’s intent was? We do. So, in the end, it is really our intent, isn’t it? So why not cut out the middleman and just read the darn book the way we want to?
By: Ron on September 26, 2009
at 11:58 am