On Scripture, Philosophy, and Theological Interpretation

My reading lately has been focused on the relationship between scripture and theology, and I've been reading Matthew Levering's Scripture and Metaphysics: Aquinas and the Renewal of Trinitarian Theology. In his chapter entitled, "YHWH and Being," a few lines struck me:

"the ontological or metaphysical interpretation [of Exod 3:13-14] underscores the identity of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob precisely as the creating and redeeming God...The name "I am who am," a name that is necessarily metaphysical, does not on Aquinas's interpretation trap Israel's God within the limitations of Aristotle's (idolatrous) prime mover." (65)

This point is one of Levering's central arguments in the chapter. Against the charge that metaphysics has no place in the interpretation of Scripture — or even in Christian theology — Levering (with Thomas Weinandy, Gilles Emery, and others) argues that metaphysics is useful (even necessary) to theology when it is governed by Scripture. It is precisely because of that fact that the so-called metaphysical abstractions of aseity and simplicity as put forth by the Church Fathers and medieval scholastics do not entail what they entail in Greek philosophy. In turn, this demonstrates that Aquinas was a critical appropriator of Aristotle: he subjects his philosophy to the rigorous crucible of Holy Writ, and that proves significant for many reasons. 

One pastoral significance of this is that, with Weinandy, we can confess that God's transcendence does not mean simply God's distance from us, nor does it imply the impossibility of any relationship between God and creation. What it does do is inscribe that relation with certain characteristic boundaries. Like Kathryn Tanner's more linguistic expression of Thomas's theological grammar, we are bound by Scripture's own testimony to confess that God's transcendence allows for his radical immanence. God is so utterly transcendent that he can be intimately near his creation without violating its integrity as creation (i.e. not-God). God can be with us in the most intimate way (nearer to us that we are to ourselves, to paraphrase Augustine), and we are not thus rendered empty shells for divine presence. 

Back to Levering's point, this confession does not do violence to biblical claims on the nature of God, but actually make them more intelligible. When we read Exod 3 as both a statement of God's covenantal commitment to his people and a radical assertion of his self-existence and eternal presence, the former is given greater weight and the latter becomes a comfort rather than a terror or cold fact. 

I'm interested in both the material claims of Levering's argument, as well as the formal elements of it. He calls attention to a kind of theological interpretation that has been really fascinating to me lately. There is a kind of approach to exegesis of Scripture that prioritizes (rightly, I think) historical-grammatical hermeneutics, but to the exclusion of theological hermeneutics. This approach makes possible a detached, scholarly treatment of the text (one reason for the plurality of biblical scholars who are atheists or agnostic), but divorces the text from the interpretive community in which and for whom it was written. We do need to pay attention to the various elements of the text entailed by an historical-grammatical approach; the text does not stop being an ancient text because it is inspired by God. Nevertheless, we do well to remember that this is "the word of God for the people of God" — this is God's self-revelation, his address to his people, that confronts them and comforts them and exhorts them and affects them. 

When we read Scripture, we do so in the presence of God. To paraphrase John Webster: God is not summoned into the presence of exegesis; exegesis is summoned into the presence of God. For that reason, all our biblical ratiocination must attend to the One in whose presence we stand, with eager attention paid to that same One who is speaking to us. Theology, therefore, is eminently biblical, and biblical exegesis is inextricably theological. 

This is a budding conviction I have, which I look at as a correction of my former pattern of thought; I used to think that theology synthesized what the Bible teaches in such a way that reading theology was like taking the shortcut to the 'answers,' and that, therefore, I didn't need to read the Bible so much. But more and more I'm convinced that the way the church has read the Bible and done theology is correct: meditation on the text opens us up to deeper understanding, which then turns us back to the text. In the process, we are transformed, "from one degree of glory to another," and further conformed to the likeness of Christ, the Word made flesh. 

I hope to grow in this conviction as I keep reading, learning, and doing theology in the presence of the Lord who loved me and gave himself for me. 

For further reading, including some of what I referenced here:

    -Matthew Levering, Scripture and Metaphysics

    -Thomas G. Weinandy, Does God Suffer?

    -John Webster, "Theological Theology," in T&T Clark Reader in John Webster, ed. Michael Allen

    -Ivor J. Davidson, "Divine Sufficiency: Theology in the Presence of God," in Theological Theology: Essays in Honour of John B. Webster, ed. Darren Sarisky, Justin Stratis, R. David Nelson

    -Kathryn Tanner, God and Creation in Christian Theology

    -Gilles Emery, The Trinitarian Theology of St. Thomas Aquinas

    -J. Todd Billings, The Word of God for the People of God: An Entryway into the Theological Interpretation of Scripture