Can We Achieve a Legitimate Reader-Response Interpretation?
We seek the meaning the texts had at the time they were written-the mean- ing the author/editor and original readers would most likely have perceived. But having stressed this point, our reading of how NT writers employ the OT still leaves us reluctant to say that the historical meaning of a text is the only meaning. In our earlier discussion we noted that in places the NT writers found meanings in texts that the OT authors never intended-meanings that would not have occurred to the original readers of those OT texts. We doubt, however, that these phenomena suggest that the Holy Spirit inspired a sensuspleniq a fuller sense, which he then guided later writers to uncover. Though this may be a possible explanation of the data (and Moo’s position may be the most defensible variety of a sensusplenior), we have no objective criteria to posit the existence of a senszts, or to determine where it might exist, or how one might proceed to unravel its significance.81 In other words,
‘Reconstruction is a technical term that refers to a program of interpretation often identified with J. Derrida. Though difficult to define succinctly, deconstructionists attack the normal conventions of how language functions and what texts mean. Throwing off all normal constraints and protocols, they hope to free interpreters to construct new understandings. (We will discuss this subject in more detail in the Appendix.) See J. Derrida, On Decotzstwction (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1982). For interpretive discussions, consult C. Norris, Deconstncction: 7hoy and Practice (Lot-t- don and New York: Methuen, 1982); and J. Culler, On LIeconstruction: 7heoy and Criticism aJter Structurulism (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1982).
ROLexical semantics comprises all the facets of doing responsible studies of words in their vari- ous historical and literary contexts to discover their meaning. The best introduction is M. Silva, Biblical
Words and K3eirMeaning: An Introduction to Lexical Semantics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983). A helpful companion for the NT is J. P. Louw, Semantics of New Testament Greek (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982).
“See Moo, “Sensus Plenior,” 175-211. Moo argues for a multifaceted understanding of the vari- ety of ways NT writers employ the OT. But in addition to the others he finds, he concludes, “it may be that some citations are best explained according to the traditional sensusplenior model: by direct in- spired apprehension, the New Testament authors perceive the meaning in a text put there by God but
if the human author of a text did not intend and was unaware of a deeper level of meaning, how can we be confident today that we cart detect it? We may be able to uncover analogies or types in how God works, and thus suggest additional meaning for a text (as we will explore below), but can we declare we have discovered an additional meaning that the Holy Spirit actually deposited within texts? We remain skeptical. Sensusplenior must remain an interesting construct, an attempt to make sense out of puzzling issues, but it provides little help for modern interpreters when we come to the actual practice of understanding God’s revelation.
So where does this “additional” meaning come from? At the risk of misunder- standing, we posit that in their interaction with the biblical text readers do “create”
meaning. The reader-response approach merits thoughtful, though controlled, recog- nition. Understanding a biblical text is a creative enterprise, much like a conversation between friends. In a conversation each person is involved not only in analyzing (albeit subconsciously) the precise meanings of words and grammatical constructions but in understanding the other person. How each participant “reads” the other will depend upon prior experiences, as well as upon individual situations. In Tate’s words, “Indi- vidual interpretations . . . are individual conversations with the text and are always situated within some context. Interpretation is relational and involves understanding the text in light of who we are, and understanding ourselves in light of the text.” 82
But interpreters who remain committed to the Bible as divine revelation must limit the range of possibilities for interpretation. The sky is not the limit for possible meanings, and here we must set ourselves clearly apart from other reader-response critics’ work. Properly informed, readers may not discover meaning unrelated to the intention of the author or the historical meaning of the texts to be interpreted. We believe Christians operate under the constraints of Jesus Christ-who he is, what he has done, and the community he has created-and the Holy Spirit, who inspired Scripture. Biblical texts must be understood within the context and confines of the believing community in which each interpreter resides, though, admittedly, these interpretations will differ among communities.
For example, the NT presents the practice of baptism in the Gospels where John the Baptizer requires this rite of those repenting. In Mark’s words, “And so John came, baptizing in the desert region and preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgive- ness of sins” (Mk 1:4). Jesus continued and encouraged the practice (Jn 3:22; 4:1-2;
Mt 28:19-20), and it became a central rite in the developing church (Acts 2:38,41;
8:12, 38; 9:18; 10:47f.; 16:15, 33; 18:8; 19:5; et al.). Some texts may indicate a cer- tain method of baptism (e.g., often Acts 8:38-39 is cited to defend immersion), though most do not. Nevertheless, various believing communities have come to understand the relevant texts in different ways. They impose their community’s practice on to the
unknown to the human author.” Moo goes on to argue, “Even in this case, however, it is important to insist that this ‘deeper meaning’ is based on and compatible with the meaning intended by the human author” (210). Moo is at a loss, then, to find any usefulness for this approach in the exegete’s interpre- tive work, unless the “deeper meanings” are clearly enunciated within Scripture itself. In our judg- ment, then, it remains a rather slippery and unproductive concept.
“Tate, Biblical Interpretation, 211.
140 Introduction to Biblical Interpretation
texts and “read” them in that light. Various immersionist groups appeal to the histori- cal precedent of immersion as the rite of cleansing and initiation for the Jews. They insist that, while the spiritual message is of paramount importance, no other method of baptism correctly represents the biblical pattern. Others emphasize the spiritual signifi- cance of the rite, or its connection to circumcision, and treat the method-whether immersion, sprinkling, or pouring-as a secondary issue.
Do some texts “clearly” denote immersion, while others “clearly” teach sprin- kling or pouring? Or, to complicate the discussion, do some texts teach the baptism of believers while other texts teach the baptism of infants? Proponents of one side or the other often would insist upon affirmative answers, but the issues are not so simple. One matter is certain: various church traditions have decided what the rel- evant texts will mean for them. Some Presbyterians decide to baptize infants by sprin- kling, while others both sprinkle and immerse adult believers. Baptist groups typically insist upon the immersion of believers, though they must decide what “belief means, especially in instances where children of a rather young age seek baptism.83
Does the Bible confirm these groups’ practices of baptism? While each group would insist upon an affirmative answer, each one finds different meanings in the same baptismal texts. Those who sprinkle babies may bring into the discussion the analogy of the OT practice of circumcision of infants. They note, of course, that the Church has employed the methods of sprinkling and pouring since the first or sec- ond century. Indeed, some paedobaptists may even admit that the pattern for bap- tism in the NT was immersion; sprinkling of infants is never taught in the Scriptures.84 But, they are quick to add, that is because the NT writers never had to address the issue of children of believing parents. Infant baptism developed as a legitimate theological inference fi-om other clear biblical teachings. Or, says Bromiley,
“The inclusion of the children of adult converts is so much in line with the thought and practice of the OT that it is taken for granted in the New, as the household baptisms of Acts suggest even if they do not prove.“85 He continues,
Quite apart from the external evidence, the New Testament itself offers plain indications that the children of Christians are regarded as members of the divine community just as the children of Old Testament Israel were. In these circum- stances the inference of an accepted practice of infant baptism is undoubtedly legitimate if not absolutely or bindingly ~0.~~
Thus, such people interpret the texts concerning baptism with their preunder- standings. Biblical texts, principles and analogies, and historical tradition weigh heavily in their interpretation.87
“3As authors we affirm believers’ baptism by immersion.
%ee G. W. Bromiley, Children of Promise: 7%e Case for Baptizing Infants (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1979).
H5Bromiley, Children of Promise, 2.
%Bromiley, Children of Promise, 4.
“‘On some of the historical sources for infant baptism see J. Jeremias, Infant Baptism in the First Four Centuries (London: SCM, 1960). For the case against infant baptism from a Reformed theological position see I? K. Jewett, Infant Baptism and the Covenant ofGrace (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978).
,~._^
The Goal of Interpretation 141
Correspondingly, those who teach the immersion of adult believers also rely on biblical texts and their traditions. Opposing the baptism of infants, Beasley- Murray insists,
It is not only that the New Testament is silent on the practice of infant baptism, but that the thought and practice of the primitive communities, as reflected in the New Testament documents, appear to be contrary to the ideas and practices that accompany infant baptism in the later Churches.88
Indeed, it is his thesis that “infant baptism originated in a capitulation to pressures exerted upon the Church both from without and from within.“89
What we are saying boils down to this: neither infant baptizers nor those who insist upon the immersion of believers dismiss the Bible in defending their views.
Indeed, both affirm their loyalty to its teaching and want to abide by what it says.
Hence equally committed, sincere, and equipped interpreters in these two tradi- tions arrive at different conclusions about the meaning of the biblical texts. Cer- tainly, constraints must apply. For example, Presbyterians in the evangelical tradition insist upon the need for each individual’s personal faith in Christ. They do not teach that an infant’s baptism secures his or her personal salvation; salvation, they affirm, depends upon each person’s trust in Christ. In other words the total Bible’s teach- ing about relevant issues provides the guidelines and restraints within which all le- gitimate interpretations must lie.
Another pertinent illustration is the theological topic of eschatology, which concerns the future or what are called the “end times.” Since the earliest days of the Church, Christians have debated the various biblical texts that seem to indicate the intricacies of end-time events. What did the biblical writers say about future events, especially the conclusion of history? While we cannot engage in a thorough study of the issues surrounding eschatology, we can use this topic to illustrate a point about bringing meaning to the process of interpretation.90
One aspect of eschatology concerns the “millennium,” or thousand-year reign of Christ.91 Some theologians and Christian believers accept the view that this will involve a literal period of time (whether or not it entails precisely one thousand years). In one view, following his second coming, Christ himself will reign with believers on this present literal earth. 92 Others view the millennium more symboli- cally: they believe Christ and his followers currently reign in his kingdom, and at his glorious return Christ will bring history to a conclusion and usher in the eternal
%G. R. Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the New Testament (London: Macmillan, 1962), 352.
@Beasley-Murray, Baptism, 352.
gOHere we must limit our discussion to the views of those conservative Christians who take seriously the biblical prophecies about a future eschatology. For others who dismiss the Bible’s teach- ings about the future this example will be irrelevant.
91For a helpful introduction to the major competing options among conservative scholars, see R.
Clouse, ed., 7Ire Millennium: Four Views (Downers Grove: Intervarsity, 1977). For a sane analysis of the options see S. J. Grenz, 7he Miknnial Maze (Downers Grove: Intervarsity, 1992).
92For obvious reasons such interpreters are called prernillennialists. Christ returns to earth prior
to his reign during the millennium. c
142 Introduction to Biblical Interpretation
state or age to come.93 Proponents of a third but smaller group, adopting a literal view’similar to the first, believe that this Church Age will develop into a final pe- riod of time-the millennium-after which Christ will return to begin the eternal state.94
As a test of these interpretations, we may scrutinize what two proponents say concerning Rev 20:4d-5, where the writer says of a group of people, “They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection.”
Premillennialist G. Ladd argues that the phrase ucame to life” refers to the literal resurrection of these believers, and that “it is not used of any ‘spiritual resurrection’
of the souls of the righteous at death.“95 Thus, he continues, “At the beginning of the millennial period, part of the dead come to life; at its conclusion, the rest of the dead come to life.“96 Finally Ladd admits, “This is the only passage in the entire Bible which teaches a temporal millennial kingdom, and there is only one other passage in the NT which may envisage a temporal reign of Christ between his parousia and the telos [end]: 1 Cor 15:23-24.“97
Yet in his commentary on these same verses amillennialist W. Hendricksen asserts, “In this entire passage there is not a single word about a resurrection of bodies.‘79g So “the thousand year reign takes place in heaven.“w As to the binding of Satan during this millennial reign, “This work of binding the devil was begun when our Lord triumphed over him in the temptations in the wilderness, Mt. 4:1-l 1; Lk.
4:1-13.“‘oo For Hendricksen, Satan is now bound in this age, the millennial age in which Christ rules in heaven with his victorious saints.‘O’
Meanwhile, R Mounce seems to say something in-between. He distinguishes between the form of what the text of Revelation says and the content of meaning the author attempted to convey to his readers. Mounce observes, “In short, John taught a literal millennium, but its essential meaning may be realized in something other than a temporal firlfillment.“102 In other words, the author may well have employed language that seems to indicate a literal period of time, and this probably originated in the dominant religious conceptions of the time of the author. But the
93Sometimes such theologians are called umillennialists, though that may be a misnomer. They do not deny a millennium; rather, they prefer to view it as realized in church history following Christ’s victory over Satan at the cross. They expect no future millennium. Other amillennialists equate the millennium with the future state-the new heavens and the new earth.
94We call these interpreters pos&nillennialists. According to this view, Christ returns following a literal millennium.
“Iadd, Revelation, 265.
%Ladd, Revelation, 266.
“Xadd Revelation 267, his emphasis. Ladd also discusses this passage in his Crucial Questions About the Ki&dom of Gdd (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952), 135-150.
9W. Hendriksen, More Than Conquerors: An Interpretation of the Book of Revelation (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1965), 230, his emphasis.
wHendriksen, Conquerors, 231, his emphasis.
“X’Hendriksen, Conquerors, 225, his emphasis.
““Hendriksen, Conquerors, 229.
“‘LMounce, Reuelution, 359.
The Goal of Interpretation 143
“essential truth of prophecy” could well lead us, says Mounce, to “cease to find in Revelation 20 the prediction of an eschatoZo&caZ era.“lo3
Such divergent views naturally raise hermeneutical questions. Are the relevant passages of the Bible so unclear that sincere interpreters cannot agree if they teach there will be a future literal, lengthy reign of Christ on this earth or whether Christ will return before or after such a period, if it exists? How do such divergent views as these from baptism and the millennium develop? Is it because of a lack of biblical evidence?Are the data so obscure or imprecise or minimal that interpreters can know very little with certainty? Can the data be assembled in several defensible ways? Is there not enough information to overturn any of the differing interpretations with certainty? This may certainly be the case. Or perhaps we should attribute the variety of interpretations to the interpreters. Do interpreters want, perhaps unconsciously, to read the evidence in certain ways? Are they blinded to alternatives, or is it per- haps a bit of both? These factors may explain some of the debatable issues in biblical studies; still, there may be another alternative at work here.
Perhaps one or more parties are “creatively” interpreting the texts. This does not deny the above possibilities, but rather may legitimize the view that several options are not only possible but also valid in such interpretive stalemates. We are not advocating a position in which interpreters can simply read anything into a text.
Certainly the substance and the spirit of the biblical revelation must constrain any meaning discovered within its pages. Patterns of God’s working in the past and the significance of Christ in redemption as seen on the Bible’s pages, for example, cir- cumscribe allowable meaning. But we stress again that meaning always results from an encounter or “conversation” between two entities, in this case the biblical text and the interpreter. The preunderstanding and presuppositions of the interpreter contribute enormously to the results of the interpretive process. We might even say they determine the results. In this case perhaps both paedobaptists and immersion&
can claim to have a correct interpretation. And premillennialists and amillennialists may both profess legitimacy. lo4 But how can both be right?
In some ways the process is circular, or as we have preferred to call it, a hermeneutical spiral. Interpreting texts helps us formulate our understandings and
“systems.” Out of those preunderstandings we continue to work at interpreting texts, and in the process revise our preunderstandings and systems.lo5 No interpreta- tion occurs apart from preunderstandings, which inevitably determine the outcomes of the interpretive process. They enable us to see, and yet they color what we see.
‘03Mounce, Revelation, 359, his emphasis.
‘Yt intrigues us that on some deep level many Christian individuals and groups sense that we cannot allow such squabbles to divide us-almost as if to say that we acknowledge both our own inadequacies in getting at truth and an unwillingness to pass judgment on others by saying they are
“wrong,” at least about issues such as the ones we have used. How striking that major interdenomina- tional evangelical agencies, including those affiliated with the National Association of Evangelicals and those who identify with Lausanne, agree that both of the doctrinal debates we have used as illustra- tions will not be included in the otherwise detailed list of crucial doctrinal affirmations.
‘@We find it fascinating as we write these chapters in 1992 to find some dispensationalists significantly revising their system. Some are calling them “progressive dispensationalists,” although the c