Lamentations and Theological Interpretation of Scripture

Robin Parry presents one of the better examples of theological interpretation of Scripture which I have read. He presents the idea of the ideal reader, who reads in the way expected by the text. Since the text does not know the NT, the canonical Christian reading will be unexpected, based on that definition. "Indeed, it is essential for a Christian theological reading of Lamentations that the reader is not standing in the shoes of the implied reader" (396). But the Christian theological reading must have an organic relationship with the expected reading: the expected reading is an important and necessary first step, but only the first step. The primary key for a Christian reading of Lamentations for Parry is Isaiah 40-55 (postexilic for him, hence after Lamentations). Second Isaiah takes Lamentations and injects hope into the book, particularly through the connection of the man of Lamentations 3 and the suffering servant of Isaiah 53. From there it is only a short step to the NT and Jesus. Building on N. T. Wright's view of Jesus as true Israel, Lamentations is the equivalent of Saturday in the Passion week. Bringing in the rule of faith, Parry wonders how the Trinity plays a role in Lamentations. Yahweh and Jesus have already been discussed, but how does the Spirit fit in? Parry finds the connection in Romans 8:17, where the Spirit groans with the church and creation. The Spirit thus groans with those who are suffering in Lamentations. The essay ends with the expected complaint: does this not rob Lamentations of its power? Lamentations is designed to be about bad news, not good news. The voice of Yahweh has been purposefully removed from Lamentations; how can we now insert that voice and still consider it a legitimate reading of the book? In response, he says that we must pay attention to both the canonical form and the canonical context: we must balance the good news and the bad news, in a sense. We must be sure to not move too quickly to Sunday from Saturday, but neither should we forget Sunday is coming.

For anyone interested in theological interpretation of Scripture, this is an excellent place to begin. Not only does he give a good example, he is self-conscious about what he is doing and helps the reader along the way with his thinking. But I remained somewhat bothered with his conclusion. The complaint he raises is precisely the complaint I have as well: Lamentations no longer lives up to its name. While I fully agree that canonically we have hope, I want to guard the places like Lamentations where that hope is not expressed. The author of Lamentations could have expressed that hope if he desired; in my thinking Second Isaiah already had been around for awhile, and even apart from that many of the other prophets had spoken of a future hope after exile. The author of Lamentations purposely does not include any hope because he wants to express the despair present at the time and hope would go counter to his desire. I agree with Parry's conclusions in a sense, although I get there a different way: I agree that we need to stay in Saturday for awhile but not forget Sunday is coming. But I would rather frame it as staying in Lamentations for awhile before moving on to Isaiah and the Resurrection. I do not want to level the various books of the Bible and make them all say the same thing; I want to preserve the diversity in them.

Login to add comments