Many thanks to those of you who responded to my most recent post on authorial intent vs. reader-response. I received one sarcastic message that said, in effect, “Can you believe that someone would dare criticize you?” However, this individual misread my intention, which was not to complain about an unfair review but rather to raise for discussion several issues that are in my view highly significant for those with a high view of Scripture, including the following: (1) Is the reader in charge or the author? (2) Is the biblical text autonomous? (3) What is the task of exegesis? (4) What is the role of the commentator? and so on.

To give a bit more background on the review, it was written by a member of the Nyack College faculty who has degrees from Wheaton College (B.A.), Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (M.A.), and Westminster (Ph.D.). Apart from the paragraphs cited, the review was largely positive.

Rereading the critical portion of the review I cited in my previous post, I am struck by the repeated references to “literary”: both “literary artistry” and “literary studies” are mentioned twice. It appears the reviewer holds to a hermeneutic that views textual meaning as in some sense autonomous from the author (be it human or divine) and as apprehended by the reader in reflection on a given text. In his response, Mike Bird rightly points to the work of Kevin Vanhoozer and Anthony Thiselton here, who have shown that authors are communicative agents and texts communicate acts whose meaning cannot be legitimately derived in isolation from authorial intention.

As Jeremy Pierce astutely observed in his remarks, rather than merely empower the reader to construe textual meaning any way he or she chooses, the reviewer actually does attempt to provide textual evidence that Yahweh’s wooing his wayward people as a lover resonates in John 4. The question, then, becomes: By which criterion or criteria, if not authorial intent (whether human and/or divine), should we judge the validity or plausibility of this kind of interpretation? It seems that it is at this critical juncture that the distinction between biblical theology and a postmodern reader-response approach emerges. Several of those of you who responded to my previous post, in my opinion, rightly opted in favor of the former while rejecting the latter.

Now it seems that the reviewer, for his part, uses the criterion of aesthetic pleasure derived by the reader in contemplating possible textual meanings. Consider the following quotes: “I enjoyed the process of contemplating it”; “it led me to a deeper appreciation of Yahweh as lover”; “[s]tudents . . . deserve to have their imaginations and aesthetic impulses fully engaged” (emphasis added). The role of the commentator, in such a scenario, is that of raising a variety of meaning possibilities (invariably blurring the lines between authorially intended and reader-constructed meanings) in order to stimulate the (post)modern reader’s artistic imagination and aesthetic impulses.

On an exegetical level, however, I continue to be hesitant to embrace the “Yahweh as a wooing lover” symbolism in John 4, for this amount to a close to allegorical reading of the text when a more straightforward reading of this narrative seems more in keeping with the genre of this text. There is no necessary textual link between Jesus being called a bridegroom in the previous chapter and John 4; the setting of Jacob’s well brings in salvation-historical dimensions (Jesus is greater than Jacob, cf. John 1:51); Jesus’ request for a drink in verse 7 and the reference to food in verse 32 hardly “frame the story as a betrothal type-scene”; and the woman’s sexual immorality need not be spiritualized or allegorized but is a natural part of her interaction with Jesus that exposes the woman’s sin in order to show her need for a Savior (cf. John 3:3–5).

Having said this, the present discussion shows, once again, that many disagreements are to be found, ultimately, not on an exegetical but on a hermeneutical level. Have I been unduly recalcitrant in depriving readers who “deserve to have their imaginations and aesthetic impulses fully engaged”? Am I the exegetical equivalent of the “Grinch who stole Christmas” from those seeking to feast on an exegetical smorgasboard of culinary delights of interpretations, whether authorially intended or not? Or have I been careful to observe proper boundaries set by the task of exegesis which are vital in fulfilling the interpretive task as outlined in 2 Timothy 2:15: “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth”?

Technorati Tags: exegesis, commentary, authorial intent, reader-response, interpretation

A recent review of my John commentary in the BECNT series (Baker, 2004) in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 48/3 (September 2005): 647–50 has this to say about my hermeneutical method:

“However, Köstenberger appears to be skeptical toward interpretations that may suggest a layer of meaning beyond the historical. In other words, while Köstenberger allows for an “echo” of Christ’s sacrifical death in the narration of his footwashing (Christ “laid down” and “took up” his clothes in John 13:4, 12, p. 404), he is characteristically hesitant to embrace more large-scale “echoes” seen by scholars who have come to appreciate the literary artistry of the Fourth Gospel (whether intended by the author or not [!]). For example, in regard to Jesus’ encounter with the Samaritan woman (John 4:1–42), Köstenberger acknowledges but dismisses the possibility that on a secondary level, the story can function as a romantic picture of Yahweh’s wooing back to himself wayward Samaritans (p. 142n, p. 153n). Several elements in the story contribute to this reading: (a) Jesus is called a bridegroom in the pericope immediately preceding this incident (John 3:29); (b) the well (v. 6), Jesus’ request for a drink (v. 7), and the reference to food afterward (v. 32) frames [sic] the story as a betrothal type-scene (Gen 24:1–61; 29:1–20; Exod 2:15b–21); (c) the Samaritan woman is depicted as sexually wayward, with five husbands, much like the Samaritans who prostituted themselves with the gods of five nations (2 Kgs 17:24, 30–31); and (d) the story ends with a reunion—the Samaritans embrace the bridegroom (vv. 39–42). Köstenberger’s stated hermeneutical approach would consider a symbolic reading valid only if it were clearly within the intention of the original author. His commentary understandably omits extensive discussion of this reading because John’s interest is primarily about Jesus’ life and not about Samaritan reconciliation.

“However, literary studies have long recognized that symbolism is by its very nature open-ended and that it is satisfying to reflect upon multiple meanings beyond those intended by the original author. I personally do not believe John the author wished to picture Jesus and the Samaritan woman as romantic symbols, but when I first came across this proposed reading I enjoyed the process of contemplating it. In fact, in some ways it led me to a deeper appreciation of Yahweh as lover. Students who seek a commentary that summarizes all that literary studies into the Fourth Gospel have to offer deserve to have their imaginations and aesthetic impulses fully engaged. I would guess that would mean devoting space to forays, explorations, and even speculations into the Fourth Gospel’s literary artistry, in addition to the more solidly objective work of historical reconstruction and theological formulation.”

Does this reviewer have a point? I would love for you who are reading this to comment. I plan to join the discussion in my next blog after hearing from you.

Technorati Tags: Bible, reader-response, authorial intent, Gospel of John

In a recent Baptist Press First Person column Mark Coppenger issued a correction to something he said while speaking at Southern Seminary: people’s tithe should be based not on their net but on their gross income. In this Coppenger largely presupposed the (affirmative) answer to the more foundational issue: Should believers tithe (i.e., give at least ten percent of their income, whether net or gross) in the first place? In this belief Coppenger is not alone. In fact, a minimum ten percent “tithing” requirement is regularly assumed on a popular level and in many of our churches. However, as people of the Book, we should take our cue from Scripture, properly interpreted, which requires a close examination of scriptural teaching on the issue of tithing and, more broadly, Christian stewardship and giving.

The word “tithe” literally means “tenth” and is commonly used to refer to the requirement to give ten percent of one’s income to God. However, from the outset, it should be noted that nowhere was money ever tithed. The tithe in the Old Testament always referred to produce from the ground or herds. Some may respond that this is the case because people lived in an agricultural society. While this is true, however, “money” is mentioned about thirty times in Genesis alone (e.g., Gen. 17: 12, 13, 23, 27; 31:15; 33:19; etc.). Therefore, before tithing is ever mentioned in the Mosaic Law (Lev. 27:30), money has been referred to about forty times. The last reference to money before tithing is mentioned in the Mosaic Law even provides rules for an ancient banking system (Lev. 25:37)!

Both Testaments view the tithe within the larger framework of giving and worship. Prior to the giving of the Mosaic Law, tithing was not a systematic, continual practice but an occasional, even exceptional, form of giving (Gen. 14:20; cf. Heb. 7:4; Gen. 28:22). The Mosaic Law includes stipulations regarding the Levitical, Festival, and Poor (or Welfare) Tithe (Lev. 27:30–33; Num. 18:21; Deut. 14:22–29). Taken together, the annual tithe of the Israelites surpassed ten percent of their income, totaling more than twenty percent. Of the seven references to tithing in the Old Testament historical and prophetic books, the most important is that in Mal. 3:8 (cf. 2 Chron. 31:5–6, 12; Neh. 10:38–39; 12:44–47; 13:5, 12; Amos 4:4), where people are told to bring their (Levitical) “tithes and offerings” into God’s “storehouse” and agricultural blessings are promised for those who comply.

It should be noted that in Malachi, the withholding of tithes was a sign of a larger pattern of disobedience. The tithe mentioned by the prophet is the Levitical Tithe (Num 18:21). The offerings to which reference is made were a primary source of livelihood for the priests and were required (not voluntary) offerings. The invitation to test God is limited to the context of Malachi 3 and should not be universalized. For this reason the promised (agricultural) reward, likewise, does not carry over to people who may tithe today. Moreover, if this passage were consistently applied today, offerings—that which tithing advocates refer to as the freewill portion of giving that occurs after one has tithed—are not of one’s free will, but required just as tithes are. Therefore, if someone were to give only ten percent (not that the Jews only gave ten percent), this person would still be in sin for robbing God of “offerings.”

References to tithing in the New Testament are limited to three passages. In Matt. 23:23, the Old Testament tithing requirement is presupposed for Jesus’ audience. The scribes and Pharisees are excoriated for prioritizing the minutiae of the Law over weightier matters. Jesus was not speaking to members of a church, but to Jews still under the Old Covenant and thus obligated to tithe. Similarly, Jesus in Luke 18:9–14 denounces inappropriate religious pride on the basis of observance of the Law. Hebrews 7, finally, addresses Abraham’s giving of a tenth to Melchizedek in the context of Melchizedek’s priesthood being superior to the Levitical one. None of these passages have tithing as their primary subject, and none command tithing for the new covenant era. The case for tithing on the basis of larger systematic-theological or pragmatic considerations likewise fails in that, similar to circumcision, Jesus fulfilled the tithing requirement and replaced it with a command for New Testament believers to give themselves to God and to give liberally of their means (1 Cor. 9:1–23; 16:1–4; 2 Cor. 8–9; Phil. 4:15–17).

Where does that leave New Testament believers? We are not saying that it is okay to neglect giving. In fact, the New Testament contains sufficient guidance for our giving. Second Corinthians 8 tells us that our giving should be relationship-driven, grace-driven, and love-driven. However, nothing is mentioned regarding ten percent. Furthermore, 1 Corinthians 16 teaches us that every believer should give; that they should give consistently or systematically (albeit there the reference is to a special collection); and that the amount is relative to one’s income. Second Corinthians 9 stipulates that the amount should be based upon one’s heart disposition (v. 7); that we should give in order to meet the needs of fellow-believers; and that our motivation should be thankfulness to God for all he has done for us. This is just a sampling of the many principles the New Testament gives for believers in order to direct them in their giving.

For further study see their two-part series “‘Will a Man Rob God?’ (Malachi 3:8): A Study of Tithing in the Old and New Testaments” and “Reconstructing a Biblical Model for Giving: A Discussion of Relevant Systematic Issues and New Testament Principles,” Bulletin of Biblical Research 16/1 (2006): 53–77 and 16/2 (2006): 237–60, posted here and here.

Technorati Tags: tithe, offering, church