THEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE Part 2

Short History of TIOS

While TIOS is very old, its recent incarnation arose in a very specific context. Ever since the Enlightenment, theology has been banned from exegesis, or at least relegated to the back seat. The result is that “ideal exegesis” entails studying the passage scientifically with no interference from dogmatics, which would prejudice one against the true meaning of the text.This kind of exegesis is clearly seen in scholarly commentaries written during the first part of the twentieth century. Theology could only be done after the text was thoroughly studied, and so much discontinuity was seen in the Bible that most thought a coherent theology was impossible for the Bible as a whole. This style of atheological exegesis has brought a variety of reactions in the past few decades. Some have focused on literary methods. Others have looked to biblical theology to hold theology and the Bible together. TIOS is another reaction against the historically dominant critical method. Advocates of TIOS strive to return the Bible to the church from the academy and to connect the Bible to theology once again.

The relationship between TIOS and evangelicals is somewhat ambivalent. In a sense, evangelicals as a whole are bystanders in the debate between the historical-critical method and TIOS. TIOS has mainly reacted against a strict view of the historical-critical method and the study of the Bible as it is conducted in the university rather than the evangelical seminary.⁴ Evangelicals have traditionally emphasized linking exegesis and theology, and many of the critiques of the historical-critical method from TIOS have already been articulated by evangelicals.

Trying to define TIOS is somewhat like eating ice cream with a fork: it is possible, but it is very slippery. TIOS advocates cover a wide swath of theological territory, as illustrated by A. K. M. Adam and Kevin Vanhoozer. Adam represents the postmodern edge of TIOS and rejects a determine meaning in the text, relying instead on local criteria to interpret the text. Vanhoozer, on the other hand, defends a determinate meaning connected more closely with the author. Adam (along with Stephen Fowl) argues for the acceptance of homosexuals in the church, while Vanhoozer would presumably not come to the same conclusion. But in spite of their differences, Adam and Vanhoozer both claim to be doing some form of TIOS.

For the purposes of this paper I will list a series of important principles which most of the TIOS advocates hold. Not all TIOS advocates would subscribe to all these principles, and the sum of these principles does not equal TIOS, but this listing is an introductory way to grasp the essence of TIOS. I will begin by listing some principles which I think are helpful to evangelicals before moving on to a few principles that can become more problematic.

Login to add comments