International Reformed Baptist Seminary
Article Review of The Presence of God Qualifying Our Notions of Grammatical-Historical Interpretation: Genesis 3:15 as a Test Case
in partial fulfilment of ET 501: Hermeneutics
By
John Carter
August 31, 2024
The Presence of God Qualifying Our Notions of Grammatical-Historical Interpretation: Genesis 3:15 as a Test Case
Vern S. Poythress
(Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 2012, 15pp.)
Reviewed by John Carter
A fatal error by many biblical interpreters is to abandon the fact that God is the sovereign author of the Bible. This error is taken to task in Vern S. Poythress’s paper, The Presence of God Qualifying Our Notions of Grammatical-Historical Interpretation: Genesis 3:15 as a Test Case. Here Poythress is concerned with those leaving the divine author out of the historical-grammatical interpretive method until the “analysis is complete” (1). This paper was presented in the Journal of the Evangelical Society and addressed his concern as well as other issues which logically flow from it. This essay will reflect on Poythress’s paper. The structure will follow the original papers outline.
Addressing the elimination of the divine author out of convenience, Poythress is not reserved in addressing this anti-God malady of many so-called biblical interpretation models. It is a fool’s errand to seek truth while riding on a band wagon that wants everyone to be right and no one offended. As Poythress points out, universal agreement is impossible because not all interpreters agree on the same starting point (1). Therefore, finding a consensus on methods is already problematic, for example, atheists and theists hold divisive positions before the conversation even begins. The atheistic interpreter requires the theist to abandon any notion of a divine author, but abandoning a divine author is not reasonable for the evangelical interpreter (2). Therefore, at this outset of interpretation, hopes of a convenient conclusion must be abandoned.
Even if all the interpreters involved believe in God, the notion of objectivity must be carefully critiqued. Poythress does this by noting that not everyone can equally interpret the Bible (2). This is an offense to our equality minded culture, but as the author argues, an unbeliever is at a disadvantage (2) in interpreting the Bible. Agreement “is possible only if the unbeliever becomes a believer” (3). Requiring the intervention of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, by removing the divine source of Scripture for the sake of consensus and objectivity the efforts become a self-defeating attempt “to eliminate the only source through which genuine objectivity and genuine consensus could actually arrive” (3). Poythress rightly demonstrates that the “goddess of Reason” is proven to be a “false goddess” (3).
The irony of man’s attempt at objective interpretation is that he often neglects the fact that “God is the giver of objectivity” (3). So, to remove God from the discussion is to remove his gifts and their benefits. Without God, who is truth, it is impossible to be objective. The presence of God here and now does not limit the interpreter, but instead allows him to see the text in light of history, not just the present. It is at this point that Poythress introduces Genesis 3:15 as a test case for his argument. He argues that Genesis 3:15 can be understood within its limited historical contexts (Adam and Eve, Moses, etc.) as well as its New Testament eschatological end both without destroying the historical interpretations as well as not requiring that all interpreters over time were equally aware of its historical and eschatological meanings (4). An “easter egg” in a movie can be understood from two perspectives without breeding contradictions from either perspective. In fact, it’s the two perspectives firmly held that make the “easter egg” more potent.
From here Poythress seeks to show that God is undoubtably the author of the Bible. He does this by affirming that God is providentially overseeing the events of history and the personalities of the human authors (4). If this is true then proper interpretation requires that God must be moved to the “center… rather than the periphery” (4-5) of interpretation. For example, the Ten Commandments are asserted to be written by God himself, unlike the Gospel of Luke or Acts, which claim Luke the explicit author. To ignore this would contradict the very claim of the text. At this point Poythress asks of the Ten Commandments, “does the presence of the human hand [Moses] negate the presence of God? Clearly not” (5). Instead, the combination of divine and human author become the framework for all future prophets (5). Two errors could be made here. The Adoptionistic view (5), God’s rubber stamp on what men wrote, or the Kenotic view (5), God is limited by the human authors and doesn’t go beyond their natural limitations. Poythress refutes these false positions by asking whether the words interpreted are primarily God’s word or man’s word (6).
Poythress emphasizes that even up through the reformation scholars and theologians of all stripes were in agreement that God was the preeminent author (6). However, it was with the rise of the enlightenment and other forms of modernism that divine authorship was called into question. Harkening back to Genesis 3 when the snake questioned the word of God. This needs to be taken into account when the modern man points to the distortion of the biblical text through ancient methods as full proof evidence that the ancient method is broken. Fallen man, however, does the same with modern methods. The difference is, that denying God as author is inherently dysfunctional in the modern methods, whereas the ancient methods prove more reliable because they begin with the correct assumption, God is the divine author (6-8).
From here Poythress presents four limitations; understanding the human author, historical understanding, grammatical, linguistic understanding, and understanding readers. In short, Poythress argues that, there is no infallible method for knowing the human author, ancient man was capable of dreaming of a future different than the very one he was experiencing, language cannot be comprehended because it ultimately belongs to God, and finally that Rationalism is not infallible. Although three of these points were excellent, his third of the four is a bit wobbly. Language is comprehensible even though not exhaustively. The explanation about language that Poythress uses here is setting up, or reinforcing, a way of thinking that will ultimacy lead to the destruction of communication, not its fortification. Bible interpreters may not exhaustibly know how to describe how language works, but that doesn’t mean they don’t’ sufficiently understand what is being said.
Before nearing his conclusion, Poythress bring up two hurdles to be addressed. The first is that God, not man, is the one in control of man’s mind, whether to enlighten or to darken (13). And secondly, scholarly resistance to the “mysterious” is because of pride and the need for purity (13-14), which is why he goes on to argue that “we must reject modern autonomous rationalism” (14). Not by pursuing “irrationalism” (14) but as evangelicals “stand(ing) boldly for the truth” (14).
Poythress ends his paper discussing the human authors, the text, and the human recipients (14). Each of these have a particular and important role in interpretation. The modern interpreter, however, must come to grips with an undeniable fourth element, God. No matter what is concluded about the human authors, the text itself, and the recipients, it must be held fast that God is sovereign over all three.
Musica Theologica 