Imagination and Hermeneutics

Hope is an imaginative enterprise. Especially is this the case when hope’s great gift is its power to negate the negatives of present experience. Only the capacity of the human imagination to transcend the given enables us to escape the constraints of the present and to suppose that things might be otherwise. This kind of imaginative or visionary hope is intimately related to transcendence. It takes us beyond the mere extrapolation of the future from the present and the calculation of the future on the basis of past and present. It envisages the genuinely new. Of course, this raises the specter of mere fantasy and the questions of the ground of hope and the sources of hopeful imagining. The more we envisage the category of the eschatologically new—a future reality that breaks the bounds of the immanent capacities of nature and history—the more important it is to distinguish imagination from fantasy. Christian hopeful imagining is grounded in the promise of God and resourced by the images of the scriptural revelation. As Moltmann’s theology of hope has always insisted, it is inspired and directed by the event of eschatological promise: the resurrection of the crucified Jesus. It is characterized also by its relevance to the way Christian life now is lived in the direction of the coming of God’s kingdom and its impact on present reality. In these ways, eschatological imagination is Christologically and scripturally disciplined imagination, not free-floating speculation.


Consequently, human imagination does not function in Christian eschatology as an alternative to God’s revelation. Rather, the revelatory promise of God in Christ and scripture appeals to the human imagination; seizes, transforms, and expands the imagination; makes the imagination the locus and vehicle of its reception. It is the imagination transfigured by God’s promise that is able to envisage in hope the promised transfiguration of reality. It is this Christian imagination that can envision the coming kingdom sufficiently for it to empower Christian living without reducing the kingdom to a reality that can be all too easily perfected already.

It is vital to insist that, when statements of eschatological expectation are said to be imaginative, this does not mean that they are not truth bearing, as an overly rationalistic view of human understanding might suggest. Christian hope is imaginative but not imaginary. In reckoning with the imaginative character of eschatological images and stories, we recognize that they refer to a reality that, because it lies beyond present experience, cannot be literally described. Christian eschatology must speak of a new creation that is both transcendently new and yet in continuity with this creation, since it is the renewal of this world. Of something that were wholly discontinuous with present reality we could hardly speak at all, but of the transcendent future of this world, we can speak in images that point beyond the limits of their literal reference.



Richard Bauckham, “Conclusion: Emerging Issues in Eschatology in the Twenty-First Century,” Oxford Handbook of Eschatology, 681-682.

Some thoughts on the documentary hypothesis

A short opinion piece reflecting on the documentary hypothesis and does it really matter.  It is also a reminder of how certain scholarly assumptions develop a sort of dogma about them over time - to reject these scholarly assumptions is to be labeled either a fool or a heretic.  I've always considered source criticism as little more than a red herring anyway.  It baffles me that scholars can exert so much energy either defending or demolishing arguments about authorship and sources (oftentimes without any historically verifyable evidence) and in the process totally miss or dismiss the message of the word which has been passed down to us.  This is what happens, I think, when you separate scripture from its moorings in the Church.  For instance, Hebrews has been used as authoritative scripture within the believing community for about 2000 years.  I love speculating about the authorship of Hebrews, but to a great extent it doesn't matter.  What does matter is what this book has had to say to the Church through the years and what it continues to say to the Church today. 

More End Times Predictions

The end is coming - on May 21st of this year!  Shoot!  And the Cubs season will only just be beginning.  This is a great demonstration of the ridiculous and laughable (and tragic) inconsistency of "Bible literalists."  They enjoy taking a passage from 2 Peter 3 out of its context and hyper-literally while ignoring clear statements made by Jesus himself about calculating dates and times.  This passage from 2 Peter 3 has been consistently misinterpreted.  This particular interpretation was extremely popular in the Middle Ages.  This band of merry travelers are by no means the first or the last group (unfortunately) to make a splash (and also a profit?) off of apocalyptic paranoia.  They really aren't even worth mentioning except that the biggest shame of it all is that Jesus' name is mocked and even dismissed in the midst of this craziness.  When asked, this group couldn't even articulate how to get to heaven.  How about...wait for it...Jesus?!  See the article here.

Translating the Son of God to Muslims

Faithful translation always requires contextualization.  If the intent of scripture is for God to reveal His purposes in Jesus Christ to all people, then our translations should be faithful to that purpose and strive to make scripture accessible to all people - while still remaining faithful to the original text.  This balance is often tricky especially when it comes to recognizing what might be more idiomatic language which is often very culture bound.  Is it ok to translate αδελφοι as "brothers and sisters?"  Contemporary translators seem to think so, and I tend to agree.  Is it ok to translate "kick against the goads" as "bang your head against the wall?"  Well, perhaps...if you're paraphrasing.  Is it ok to translate "Son of God" as "the Beloved Son who comes (or originates) from God?"  I must say that this makes me very uncomfortable, but this is the current debate revolving around the translation of the NT into Arabic.  Is the "Son of God" an idiomatic phrase which should be flexible in contemporary, contextualized translations or is there something about that specific title which communicates an important and essential truth about the nature of Jesus Christ? Ed Stetzer on his blog, shares a very thoughtful and critical response to this recent trend (most recently expressed and defended in an article in Christianity Today) of contextualizing the title "son of God."  The newer and less offensive translations have proven incredibly effective in reaching Muslims, but nevertheless the question remains: is there something about the title "Son of God" which is more than mere idiom and must be retained in our translations regardless of how it may cause others to stumble?  After all, a crucified prophet is a stumbling block to Muslims as well.  Mere pragmatics and the itching ears of culture cannot guide our translations.  This is a question which reaches far deeper than the contemporary gender-inclusive debate circling around many newer translations.  This contextualization question goes to the very heart of biblical christology.  I strongly recommend reading both articles.

Genders were an afterthought?

There is not much new in this article.  She mostly recycles old (and silly - David and Jonathan?  We're still making that argument?  Really?) arguments.  She does avoid semantic arguments with interpreting Paul.  Rather, she chooses to simply dismiss him.  There was one argument which was new - at least to me.  I have personally never heard the argument made that God originally created humans as androgenous and therefore chaste.  "God’s original plan was sexual unity in one body, not two.  The Genesis creation stories can support the notion that sexual intercourse is designed to reunite male and female into one body, but they can also suggest that God’s blessing was first placed on an undifferentiated body that didn’t have sex at all."  She bases this interpretation on the gnostic gospel of Philip and a third century Jewish rabbi.  Further, she believes that the resurrection ("spiritual") body which Paul envisions is also androgenous.  Turns out that genders are a result of the fall (not the type of interpretation that you come to expect from a feminist scholar).  Not only does this exegesis stretch the text beyond its breaking point.  To then base a justification of homosexuality on such an interpretation is clearly question begging.

Listening is a Virtue

We might call good listening a skill, but it is better described as a virtue, for it rests less on intellectual ability and more on an attitude of openness that is not just willing but eager to let the others have their say--in their language and from their perspective.  Otherwise they are reduced to the status of a self-justifying mirror in which we see ourselves as right because they are wrong and we are different from them.

Westphal, Whose Community? Which Interpretation? (Loc. 2132-35 Kindle Ed.)

Interpretation as Performance

In exploring this mode of truth, we have seen Gadamer turn to the work in two overlapping modes, the classic text and the work of art.  In doing so he first distinguishes the performance arts, such as drama and music, from the nonperformance arts, such as literature; then he breaks down this distinction by suggesting that reading is a kind of performing.  The difference is that in the case of the (obviously) performing arts the primary interpreter, the actor who plays Hamlet or the pianist who plays the Hammerklavier Sonata, presents an interpretation to the audience, while in the case of the (apparently) nonperforming art the readers (note the plural) of a novel, short story, or poem present an interpretation of teh work to themselves. (1503-8)

All performance is interpretation and all interpretation is performance. (1514-15)

Gadamer repeatedly stresses that classic texts speak to us, address us, make claims on us about what is right and good and true.  In this respect they are more like persons with whom we engage in conversation than objects we subject to some methodical observation.  So we have one more model of interpretation. It is like 1) performing a play or sonata; 2) translating from one language into another; 3) applying the law to a particular, concrete situation; 4) applying a scriptural text to the life of believers; and now 5) carrying on a conversation.  The goal in every case is understanding. (1741-45)

Westphal, Whose Community? Which Interpretation? (Kindle Ed.)