The Laws of Teaching and Inner-Textuality

Being Frustrated With Biblical Authors

Have you ever been reading one of the Gospels and found yourself frustrated when Jesus makes a really important sounding declaration of some critically significant fact about what it means to enter the Kingdom, or what the Kingdom of Heaven is like, or what the end of time will be like?  The frustration comes because you realize that what Jesus is saying here makes all the difference, but it's not very clear what he means by it.  I think this is exactly what you have in Luke 18:16-17 when Jesus tells us that we won't be able to enter the Kingdom of God (KOG) unless we receive it like a child.  Two big questions pique our interest.  What does it mean to enter the KOG? and what does it mean to receive it like a child?  Here we all want Jesus to go on to say, "Now this is what it means to enter the KOG, and this is what it means to receive it as a child.  I think He doesn't do that because no good teacher would do that.

The Laws of Teaching

John Milton Gregory has left us with my favorite book so far on the principles involved in all good teaching.  As I was reading Luke 18 recently with my children, I noticed how skillfully Luke employs Gregory's fifth law concerning the teaching process.  Rather I should say that Luke 18 provides a fine example of the kind of teaching principles Gregory learned from the biblical writers from whom he intentionally gathered many of his insights.  In his fifth law, Gregory argues that teaching is arousing, i.e. it stimulates the child's mind to grasp the desired thought, or master the desired art.  Teaching never tells the student anything that the child can discover himself because true teaching comes by thinking, not by being told.  After Luke has inspired us to seek an answer, he makes use of inner-textuality to guide us into his answer.

Inner-Textuality in Luke 18:15-19:10

In Luke 18:16-17, Luke displays his mastery of the teaching process.  In these verses, Jesus makes a statement concerning who can enter the Kingdom of God which is a bit obscure and hard to grasp.  The reader's mind is aroused to wonder just what it means to receive the Kingdom of God like a child.  Luke then arranges the following material in such a way through the use of inner-textuality to invite the reader to discover the answer to that question without outright telling the reader the answer.  You'll remember that inner-textuality is the intentional use of similar or the same words and phrases to link passages together within a single book of the Bible in an effort to get the reader to understand those passages in light of one another.

The Rich Ruler, The Blind Man, and Zacchaeus Pericopes

Here I am tempted to just tell you how Luke links these passages together to answer our two questions, but if I did, I would be betraying Gregory's fifth law and short-circuiting your own journey.  I'll just have you read through 19:10 and ask you some questions which should guide you to your own discovery.  Then real learning can take place.

Luke 18:18--What is the rich man's question?
Luke 18:24--But how does Jesus describe the nature of his question, i.e. Jesus says his question is really about what?  How does the phrase Jesus uses connect with 18:17 inner-textually?

Fill in the blank: Entering the KOG is about inheriting ___________ ___________.

Luke 18:38-39--How does the crowd respond to the blind man's cry for mercy?  How is this similar to 18:15 when the children were coming to Jesus, i.e. are there similar words or phrases in both verses?  What does that tell us about what it means to receive the kingdom like a child?

Fill in the blank: Receiving the KOG like a child is about crying out for ______________ to ___________.

Luke 19:1-10: In verse 2 we're told that Zach was rich.  Who does this remind you of from the previous chapter?  In verse 6 how does Zach receive Jesus?  How is Zach's response to Jesus in verse 8 different from the rich ruler's response in 18:23?  Is Luke using key words to contrast two different passages and characters in his book?  This is called inner-______________.

Fill in the Blank:  Entering the KOG is about receiving _____________ with ____.

What to Do When These Authors Frustrate You

So what shall we do when we read something in a biblical text that we don't understand?  The simple answer is to just keep reading while paying close attention to the very words the author uses to link his text together and guide the reader into his meaning.  After all, it's likely the author knows you're frustrated because he did it on purpose.  He wants to arouse your mind to seek an answer by reading further as he shows you the answer in a more powerfully memorable way than he ever could by just telling you.  This is often more subtle than we would like, but lasting learning takes place that way as the answer becomes our own discovery.

Biblical Text Divisions and Why They Matter

A difference in divisions

Deuteronomy 28 completes a major section in the Pentateuch wherein Moses has finished his rehearsal of the Sinai Covenant before beginning a new section in chapter 29 on a "new covenant" for the future.  The received Hebrew Masoretic Text (MT) included 29:1 as the 69th verse in chapter 28.  Thus chapter 28 ends in the MT at 28:69 while the English makes 28:69 the first verse of chapter 29.  The difference is significant because it effects how we read 29:1 [28:69 MT].  The verse in question reads, "These are the words of the covenant which the LORD commanded Moses to make with the people of Israel in the land of Moab in addition to the covenant which he made with them at Horeb."

What's the difference?

The way the MT divides the verse makes it difficult to see chapter 29 as introducing Moses' vision for a future "new covenant" which is different from Sinai/Horeb.  Rather, it makes 29:1 seem to refer backwards to all that we just read in Deuteronomy.  This means that Deuteronomy 1-28 is the other covenant that the LORD made with the people in addition to Sinai.  However, if the verse is meant to introduce what follows in 29-34, then 29-34 are about a future covenant subsequent and distict from Sinai.  John Sailhamer notes that this seems to be how the NT authors understood these last chapters since they see in them "a prophetic message regarding faith and the coming of Christ (e.g., Ro 10:6-13)" (The Pentateuch as Narrative pg. 472).

How can we tell where to divide it?

Figuring out just where the "these" in "These are the words.." points (backward to what precedes, or forward to what follows) is a function of careful text linguistic analysis of the Hebrew Bible and how such a phrase is typically used therein.  It seems pretty clear that in at least two very clear spots in the Pentateuch (Ex 1:1 and Deut 1:1) the same phrase points forward to what follows in the text as a kind of title, announcing what follows.  Although a comprehensive analysis of this syntax would help determine the issue more definitively, these other verses in the Pentateuch suggest that the same meaning is intended here in Deut 29:1 [28:69 MT].  Therefore, I think the English chapter division is likely more consistent with the author's intention, and it helps guide the reader into a more future oriented "new covenant" reading of the last chapters of Deuteronomy.

The real difference

The issue effects how one understands the very message of the Pentateuch, i.e. which covenant the author wants promoted.  The question is whether the author's message is that the reader should look back and do a better job at keeping Sinai, or look forward to a new covenant work of God and the coming of The Messiah.  That's pretty big stuff.

John The Baptist's Doubts and Jesus' Response

Matthew 11:1 When Jesus had finished giving instructions to His twelve disciples, He departed from there to teach and preach in their cities. 2 Now when John, while imprisoned, heard of the works of Christ, he sent word by his disciples 3 and said to Him, "Are You the Expected One, or shall we look for someone else?" 4 Jesus answered and said to them, "Go and report to John what you hear and see: 5 the BLIND RECEIVE SIGHT and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the POOR HAVE THE GOSPEL PREACHED TO THEM. 6 "And blessed is he who does not take offense at Me."

Here is a familiar passage from Matthew's Gospel in which Jesus reveals how he read his Bible and how he understood himself in light of that Bible.  When John seems confused about Jesus' identity as the promised Messiah, or Christ, Jesus quotes from Isaiah as evidence for his Messiahship.  Isn't that amazing?! Jesus is calling for a way to identify him as the promised Messiah that is very different from the way many Christians today identify him.  I'm afraid that, for most Christians, their confidence in Jesus as the Messiah rests in their confidence in the New Testament's witness as it shines light back onto the Old Testament.  In other words, they believe the NT.  It says he's the Messiah, so it must be true.  However, Jesus begins with the Old Testament and allows it to shine light on his life and ministry in order that his followers could see clearly that He is the one to whom the Hebrew Scriptures point.  In light of how most Christians read their Bibles, Jesus should have told John's disciples something like this, "Go tell John that we're working on this new book called The New Testament that will make all this really clear for John.  This new Scripture will ascend higher in authority than the Hebrew Scriptures and will be used to make what was not clear in the OT clear enough for you to know I'm the Messiah."  Surprisingly, this is not what Jesus does.   Also Jesus could have simply answered, "Yes. I am the Christ."

Why didn't Jesus just say, "Go tell John that I am indeed the Messiah." Instead he essentially said, "If you want to know who I am, compare what you know of the Messiah from your Bible, John, to what you know about my ministry."  This is what we should do today.  As we read our NT we should examine the life of Jesus and see if it fits the portrait of the Messiah given in the OT.  Is this how you read your Bible?  It's how Jesus told John to read his.  Jesus is concerned that His followers' faith in his Messiahship rest in their faith in the Hebrew Scriptures/Old Testament's portrait of the future-coming King.  Did you hear that?  Jesus wants your faith in him, i.e. that he is the promised Messiah, to be informed by and dependent on your trusting of the OT Scriptures.  How different this is for many Christians today who rarely read the OT, admittedly prefer the NT, and understand the OT in light of the NT when they do venture to read the OT.  I wonder what Jesus would think of that?  I think he would prefer that we understand the NT in light of a careful, lifelong reading and rereading of the OT.  That's how Jesus, the focused subject matter of the NT, understood himself, i.e. by interpreting his own identity in light of what he knew from his Hebrew Scriptures concerning what Messiah would be like and what he would do.  Let's do the same as we imitate his hermeneutic.  We'll find our confidence in him as the long hoped-for Messiah and our confidence in the OT Scriptures to grow as we do so.

Num 20:12: Moses didn't believe in The LORD?

In Numbers 20 we learn of Miriam's death (20:1) and Israel's subsequent contention with Moses and Aaron about the barrenness of the wilderness (20:3-5).  The people specifically focus on the lack of fruit and water in the wilderness.  God responds with some clear instructions for Moses and Aaron for providing water.  Don't miss the verbal details here.  First, Moses is to take the staff and gather the congregation.  After that he is to "speak to the rock IN THEIR EYES"(20:8).  It seems important that the water should be provided through Moses' speaking to the rock "in their eyes".  God wants the people to see Moses speak to the rock.  Instead Moses strikes the rock after asking a revealing question in verse 9: "Are we able to bring forth water for you all from this rock?"  Could this be an attempt by Moses and Aaron to undermine God's role in providing the water?  Could this be an attempt to highlight the ability of Moses and Aaron to provide for the people instead of trusting God to do it by following his instructions exactly?  I think that would explain why the LORD complains that they did not believe in Him, nor did they treat Him as holy IN THE EYES of the people of Israel. (20:12)  Notice the textual link here with God's instructions in verse 8 ("IN THEIR EYES").   So God is indicting Moses and Aaron for not following the instructions properly, and that is why he is displeased with Moses and Aaron.  Here again we see that careful attention to the way the text refers back to other parts of the text through verbal connections is key for interpretation, and this allows the author to guide his reader with his very words.

Con-textuality

What is Con-Textuality?

Lots of late has been written about the way a biblical book makes allusions to other places within the same biblical book (inner-textuality) and the way different biblical books signal verbal links to one another (inter-texuality).  Indeed the work of scholars like John H. Sailhamer is based on such observations and their import for exposing authorial intentionality.  One category Sailhamer mentions, "Con-textuality", seems to have gotten somewhat less attention although interest is increasing with the publication of books like Michael Shepherd's Daniel in the Context of the Hebrew Bible.  This book is an attempt to understand Daniel in light of its strategic placement in the arrangement of the Hebrew canon.  The notion of con-textuality deals with just that, i.e. the effect the ordering of the biblical books has on the interpretation of that book in the canon.

In this post I want to explore the book of Ruth with regard to the notion of con-textuality and see how two different scholars read the book slightly differently.  I intend to show that con-textuality does play a role in determining meaning based on the different conclusions these two scholars come to on the function of Ruth in the Bible.  T. Desmond Alexander reads the book with reference to its common order in English Bibles which basically follows the ancient order found in the Classic Greek translation of Scripture, the Septuagint.  Stephen Dempster seeks to make sense of the book as it is presented in the order given it by the Hebrew canonical arrangement.

The Difference in Canonical Arrangements


The following chart will give the reader a view of how and where the two orders diverge. 

English                                                     Hebrew TaNaK

Pentateuch (Gen Ex Lev Num Deut)       Pentateuch (G E L N D)
Joshua                                                      Joshua
Judges                                                      Judges
RUTH                                            
1 and 2 Samuel                                        1 and 2 Samuel
1 and 2 Kings                                          1 and 2 Kings
1 and 2 Chronicles                                  
Ezra-Nehemiah
Esther
Job
Psalms
Proverbs
Ecclesiastes
Song of Solomon
Isaiah                                                      Isaiah
Jeremiah                                                 Jeremiah
Lamentations
Ezekiel                                                   Ezekiel
Daniel
12 prophets (HJAOJMNHZHZM)       12 prophets
                                                               Psalms
                                                               Job
                                                               Proverbs
                                                               RUTH
                                                               Song of Solomon
                                                               Ecclesiastes
                                                               Lamentations
                                                               Esther
                                                               Daniel
                                                               Ezra-Nehemiah
                                                               1 and 2 Chronicles

The Hebrew Bible has a three-part design corresponding to the Law (Torah), the Prophets (Neviim), and the Writings (Ketuvim), or the acronym TaNaK.  The Law consists of Gen-Deut. The Prophets is made up of Joshua-12 Prophets, and the Writings comprises Psalms-Chronicles.  In the TaNaK Ruth falls in the third section, The Writings.  For an explanation of the two designs and their significance I recommend Stephen Dempster's Dominion and Dynasty: A Theology of the Hebrew Bible to which I have provided a link above.  Dempster also argues for the value of reading and understanding the OT's theology based on the TaNaK arrangement although he follows a tradition which reads Ruth at the head of The Writings instead of after Proverbs in the middle of The Writings.

Two Readings of Ruth

In The Servant King: The Bible's Portrait of the Messiah, Alexander reads Ruth in its canonical context as found in English Bibles.  He concludes that the book forms a bridge between Judges and Samuel and anticipates the establishment of the Davidic monarchy.  Thus Ruth contributes to the Portrait of the Messiah in the OT by "[linking] the name of David with the divine promises in Genesis concerning a future king from the line of Judah" (49, 53).  This reading depends on viewing the book in the literary context established by the chronological arrangement of books found in the English Bible.

There are at least four reasons which suggest to me that Ruth was not written to be understood in that position within the canon.  These reasons do not establish with certainty that the arrangement in the TaNaK is to be preferred, but they provide enough evidence to favor its order in the TaNaK.

1.  Ruth 1:1 explicitly sets the context for the book "in the days of the judges' judging" (my very literal translation).  Why is this necessary if the book is just a natural bridge between the book of Judges and Samuel?  If the book was written to be read in the historical context of Judges, it seems unlikely the reader would need to be explicitly oriented to that context by the writer.  Admittedly this does not necessarily undermine the notion that Ruth could have been written to be read as a bridge between Judges and Samuel.  However, such a reference would make more sense in light of the TaNaK positioning of Ruth.  At that point in the TaNaK, the days of the Judges have long been left while several other books have intervened.  Referencing their days here signals to the reader that this book will be a flashback to an earlier time period in the TaNaK's storyline.  

2.  The genealogy at the end of Ruth which includes David (4:22) seems to assume that the reader of the TaNaK already knows who David is.  In the order found in the English Bibles David has not yet appeared chronologically.  Alexander may be right that this passage anticipates the Davidic monarchy, but we will see below with Dempster's help that the text likely has a different function in light of its placement in the TaNaK.

3.  Proverbs ends with a description of the "virtuous woman" (אשת חיל) (Prov 31:).  Then, in the next canonical book, Ruth is expressly designated a "virtuous woman" in Ruth 3:11 with the same Hebrew wording, suggesting that the book of Ruth also serves as an example of the virtuous woman described in the immediately preceding last chapter of Proverbs.  Sailhamer makes this suggestion in his work linked above.
 
My fourth reason comes from Dempster's arguments for Ruth's meaning in light of the TaNaK.  Ruth's con-textual arrangement in The Writings serves as a narrative "flashback, focusing on information relevant to the burning questions of exile and the absence from the throne of a member of the line of David. The situation depicted in the text turns on a family from...Bethlehem, which goes into exile and returns greatly depleted to the promised land, all its male members dead. The obstacles to genealogy now are not barren women but dead males" (191).  Don't miss this.  Much of the  subject matter of the Prophets and the Psalms thus far in the TaNaK has focused on the Davidic Covenant and whether or not it still stands.  How can it be that God would allow David's throne to be cut off in this way?  Here in the middle of the Writings, the book of Ruth reminds its readers that though David's line may go into exile and its male kingly prospects do not occupy the throne, God has preserved in the past, and is capable of preserving again the Davidic genealogy through exile for future restoration.

Conclusion

For Alexander, Ruth functions to foreshadow the establishment of the Davidic monarchy in fulfillment of God's promise to bring a king from Judah as in Genesis 49.  For Dempster, the Davidic monarchy is assumed, but at that point in the TaNaK this royal line is in jeopardy of extinction and God's promise in danger of being undone.  Therefore, Ruth's portrayal of the exile and restoration of the Davidic line through historical flashback reminds the reader of God's ability to raise up "David" again.  In other words, the point at which one encounters Ruth's narrative in the overall storyline of the Old Testament could causes one to see an anticipation of the establishment of the Davidic monarchy (Alexander), or an anticipation of the re-establishment of that monarchy (Dempster).

     
                                       

Wayyiqtol versus Qatal in Narrative

Exodus 39:8-10 provides us with a clear example of the difference between BH wayyiqtol and qatal.  Let me illustrate.

verse 8

ויעשׂ את־החשׁן And they made the breast-pouch.

verse 9

רבוע היה כפול עשׂו את־החשׁן It was square. They made the breast-pouch folded double.

verse 10

וימלאו ארבעה טורי אבן And they filled it with 4 rows of stone... 

The wayyiqtol in verse 8 describes an event, i.e. the making of the breast-pouch.  Then the switch to qatal in verse 9 signals that no new event is being added, but rather the further description of what was involved in the making of the breast-pouch.  It's as if the author says, "It involved making it in this way, i.e. square and folded double." Then verse 10 opens with a wayyiqtol signaling a new event, namely, the filling of the breast-pouch with 4 rows of stone.

Thus we have something like this.

wayyiqtol=new event in the narrative.

qatal=coloring in the details associated with said event.

The wayyiqtol introduces a new event in the event chain. The qatal presses the "pause" button on that event to provide more detail for the scene created by that event.  This is what Michel would call the explanatory function of a qatal which interrupts a chain of wayyiqtol's.

Joseph Justiss

Living Biblical Hebrew and Greek

I recently received my copy of Randall Buth's Living Biblical Hebrew, and I recently purchased the Biblical Greek one as well. I'm excited to see if these products can really help me internalize the languages and control them more competently. I want to process the biblical text at the speed of reading without mechanically manipulating the morphology in my head while assigning an English translation to the words and phrases before any understanding takes place. My wife and young children are listening along.

If you are interested in learning more about these products visit www.biblicallanguagecenter.com
You can also follow them on facebook.

Joe Justiss