Where Has Yahweh Gone?

In the most recent volume of Horizens in Biblical Theology, an article by James Metzger came out entitled “Where Has Yahweh Gone?: Reclaiming Unsavory Images of God in New Testament Studies.” Using the Parable of the Reticent Friend (Luke 11:5-13) and the Parable of the Unjust Judge (Luke 18:1-8), Metzger shows how interpreters often begin by assuming an omnibenevolent, just, compassionate deity is the subject of such parables before asking how this imagery affects our understanding of God. There is nothing inherently wrong with this hermeneutical activity, but what Metzger demonstrates is how new hermeneutical options will present themselves if we do not assume that all divine imagery will be flattering. This is nothing new for Old Testament studies, but Metzger feels that the Yahweh of the Hebrew Bible in all his unflattering glory is often lost to the omnibenevolent, just, compassionate deity of the New Testament. He proposes that the recovery of unflattering divine imagery in the New Testament would be advantageous for reasons he goes on to explain. It is particularly a paragraph from the conclusion that I would like to highlight here:

For persons in the Jewish and Christian traditions, these unsavory portraits of God are a salient feature of these inheritances, one which cannot so easily be dubbed the Bible’s “minority report” on God and sloughed off, for they suffuse the pages of both testaments. While most ignore or even condemn them as unfit for enlightened, progressive faith communities committed to justice, tolerance, and dignity for all, I believe we possess an invaluable resource that remains largely untapped but nevertheless might assist us in giving voice to the truly tragic in human existence as well as to our evolving conceptions of ourselves and our world in a post-Darwin, post-Holocaust age. Indeed, for many a personal encounter with chronic pain or disability and/or extended reflection upon the magnitude and variety of gratuitous suffering prohibits belief in the idealized deity of traditional and quasi-theisms so that the only remaining options are to expand metaphors for God or simply to drop god-talk altogether. For those for whom traditional portrayals do not resonate, God may be conceived as both friend and fiend; as a generative, benevolent presence as well as a capricious, savage, hostile force; as one who orders and sustains (Gen 1:1-2:4b) but also as one who nurtures (even celebrates) the chaotic and destructive in creation (Job 38-41). Experienced both as powers that bear down upon and sustain, as both creative and destructive, God may be one we have to learn how to love–if such love can be mustered at all.

No doubt many will take issue with some of Metzger’s more provocative views, but I believe that he makes some very sound hermeneutical observations that people of faith can consider and implement. I recommend the article for those interested in hermeneutics, in New Testament/Biblical theology (particularly marginalized conceptions of God), and in the intersection of science and faith.

Old Testament Interpretation – Context or Not?

This past week I had the opportunity to teach the adults at a Bible camp that I have been attending since I was 6 years old. Many of the adults in my class were the ones who were teaching me growing up. It was a very exciting opportunity for me to share with them the fruit of my own studies. The theme at camp this year was “Puzzles, Riddles, and Parables,” so I had the task of teaching the adults about the parables of Jesus.

Since my interest is in Old Testament studies, I took every advantage to relate the Old Testament to our study. The first day we explored the history of the word ‘parable’, correcting the common exegetical root fallacy and learning how the Septuagint often translates the word משל with παραβολη. My third class covered the subject of the Kingdom of God/Heaven, and I was able to spend some time in the Old Testament establishing the Jewish hope for the reign of God which Jesus proclaimed he was establishing in his ministry. In my fourth class, I dealt with the parable of the sower and spent plenty of time discussing the background of Isaiah 6:12-13.

I also spent a brief moment discussing Matthew 13:34-35 with the class. Matthew quotes Psalm 78:2, introducing it with his classic formula:

This was to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet: “I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter what has been hidden since the foundation of the world.” (Mat 13:35)

I must admit that I am fascinated with the New Testament’s use of the Old Testament, particularly Matthew (and Paul, and Luke, and Hebrews…). I was raised to believe that “the old Law was nailed to the cross.” It was only after I tried to teach the Sermon on the Mount to the teenagers at a church where I was interning that I learned I could not reconcile what I had been raised to believe and Matthew 5:17-20. This actually became the motivation for me to more seriously pursue studying the Old Testament.

I found it interesting what R. T. France said about Matthew 13:”34-35 in his (relatively) new commentary on Matthew in the NICNT series. While I have been impressed with this volume, his particular treatment of this passage struck me as odd. He writes:

The psalmist claims to reveal things hitherto unknown; cf. the “secrets of the kingdom of heaven” (v. 11). In the psalm what is “revealed” is a theological account of the history of Israel, but Matthew is concerned not with the psalm as a whole but with this introductory statement, focused in the term parabole, about the utterance of God’s hidden truth by one specially empowered to communicate it. So when Jesus taught in parables, that is what he was doing. He stands in the line of God’s authorized spokesman, and his chosen method of teaching has good OT pedigree. (530)

In a footnote he says:

Carson, 321-23, mounts a spirited defense of the relevance of the whole psalm to Matthew’s intention and to the overall perspective of ch. 13, based on the correct observation that Ps 78 is not just history but an interpretation of “the patterns of redemptive history.” His point is well taken, but the nature of Matthew’s quotation here, seen in the context of his formula-quotations as a whole, requires no more than a reflection on the meaning of the programmatic verse quoted. (530 n.6)

While I am not typically a fan of Carson or the evangelical right, I would be very curious to read Carson’s argument. (Unfortunately, I am still away from my local theological library at present.) While the interpreters of the New Testament are by no means modern interpreters, largely ignoring the grammatical-historical interpretation of texts, I am not convinced that their interpretations, even Matthew’s fulfillment quotations, do not in their own unique way take context into consideration. France says that this quotation “requires no more than a reflection on the meaning of the programmatic verse quoted.” But why must I be “required” to examine context. Should I not always explore the possibility that context might be playing a part in the hermeneutical thought processes of the NT author? What would that requirement look like other than to find, as Carson supposedly did, that the whole of the Psalm seems to have been in the mind of the author?

I like to think I can learn a little bit about interpreting the Old Testament from the NT’s quotation of the OT. However, France seems to be encouraging me to see as little theology and hermeneutical ingenuity as is possible in this particular verse. I am curious if any of you out there have an opinion on France’s comments or on this particular issue. Does Matthew consider the larger context of Psalm 78 or is he merely reflecting on the meaning of the programmatic verse? Can we learn anything from the way Matthew interprets Psalm 78?

References

R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew, New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007).