While reading Don Garlington's Imputation or Union with Christ? A Rejoinder to John Piper, I found the following in footnote 2:

"Christ became what we are, in order that we might become what he is... Paul does not specify by what modality Christ was 'made sin' though he is explicit that we have 'become' the righteousness of God because of union with Christ. But perhaps unwittingly Gundry has provided a clue. He informs us that the verb kathistemi, in Romans 5:19, means to 'establish' by way of appointment, ordination, or making... Thus, it is through Adam's disobedience that human beings 'were counted' sinful, whereas through Christ's obedience they are 'counted as righteous'... It may be, then, that there is an implicit Adam christology lurking behind 2 Corinthians 5:21. That is to say, on the cross Christ was looked upon and treated as the first Adam in his apostasy. That he endured death in a representative capacity is the least we can say... But his representation and substitution take on a specifically Adamic character as he assumes the role of his predecessor and bears the curse placed on the first man when he fell away from the living God."

Now, I have known and been aware of the things that Christ did that Adam did not. Jesus crushed the head of the serpent to save his bride, whereas Adam, all the while looking on, did nothing to the serpent and let his bride "die." The side imagery, the garden imagery, and the angels guarding are all similarities as well. But the things that I hadn't considered where those acts that Adam didn't have done to him that Jesus did have done to him. It would seem that Adam's punishment should have been to be hung on the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, which was the tree that would bring death. Adam was spared this though by God providing a substitute for him. Jesus, though, was hung, as the Second Adam, on a tree of death and of all things it becomes the Tree of Life. Death has been swallowed up in victory (life?); what was mortal (subject to death) has been swallowed up in life. The exchange and transformation is almost too mind-boggling to believe!

In my last two posts I briefly described what I believe to be an appropriate hermeneutical scheme for proper biblical interpretation. Or, at least, a scheme that makes sense to me. Hermeneutics as it has oft been said is both an art and a science, and this is indeed true. One of the advantages of a literary/covenant-historical/typological hermeneutic is that is preserves this art and science of interpretation. (Science here should be read as "rules.") Hermenuetics is a science insofar as things like Hebrew and Greek grammar and syntax are understood, and the basic facts of history, e.g., there actually was a Pharoah named Ramses. It is an art insofar as the Bible's literary aspects are taken into account and perceived by the reader. There are no hard and fast rules for things like themes, puns, humor, and even typology.

One further advantage of the proposed scheme, which is hardly a novel idea, is the Trinitarian framework that it suggests. The literary aspect would seem to correspond to the Son, who is the Word; the typological aspect would seem to correspond to the Spirit, who made the Word flesh. Remember we said that typology is both literary and covenant-historical and seems to be what moves from one to the other, hence the Word becoming "historical/incarnate" by the power of the Holy Spirit. Lastly, the covenant-historical aspect would seem to correspond to the Father, who speaks the Word throught the breath of the Spirit and tells His-story.

This also has implications for how biblical study works and is made profitable for us.

Previously I said that a proper hermeneutical scheme should at least be literary/covenat-historical. "Literary" because grammatical was far too small and limited a category to take into account aspects like genre and theme. "Covenant-historical" because history is by its relationship to the Trinity, covenantal. This may seem to be redundant then, but given that many different interpretations exist because of a lack of understanding of the covenant, this redundancy would seem to be necessary so as to make our scheme as precise as possible.

It must be stated that these two intertpretive aspects arise from a simple glance at the biblical text. It is obviously a literary work that takes place only in the past. Therefore, a literary/covenant-historical hermenutic should be the least that we bring to the table.

There is one final aspect of interpretation that needs to be taken into account, and that ir typology. Typology is a curious thing because it seems to be both literary and historical. Take, for instance, the typology that exists between Adam and Christ:

1. Adam created as God's son
   
2. Adam is put to sleep in the garden
   
3. Adam's side split/Eve
   
4. Adam doesn't crush head of serpent
   
5. Adam kicked out of garden
   
6. Angels block way to garden

1. Jesus, the Son, incarnated as a man
2. Jesus sleeps/dies on the cross
3. Jesus' side split/the Bride
4. Jesus does crush head of serpent
5. Jesus buried in a tomb in a garden
6. Angels unblock way to garden/tomb

There are other typological correlations, but hopefully that is sufficient. Now, the thing to realize here is that this typology is both a literary and an historical reality. There seems to be an interplay here between the literary and the historical that neither can fully account for on there own. Typology seems to be to me a third and final aspect of hermeneutics that needs to be taken into consideration in order to properly understand and exegete the text. So, this would make our final scheme literary/covenant-historical/typological.

I do not think that there are three aspects of this method by coincidence. This would seem to suggest a Trinitarian view of hermeneutics, which I will try to comment about in my next post.

One of my favorite subjects is hermeutics. We are all "hermeuticians" (don't think that's a word, but oh well). We all bring certain interpretive presuppositions to the table. The questions then become what are my presuppositions and if they are no good, what do I change them to?

I'm not convinced that the grammatical-historical method is the best method of interpretation. I agree that a text should be understood in its historical context and that the grammar of the original languages should be known and understood to properly interpret the text. But this doesn't seem to be enough. How does grammar give rise to the literary structure and form, or even the line of argumentation of a given text? I would modify the grammatical-historical to the literary-historical where grammar would be a subsumed category under "literary." Literary would also include things like genre, line of argumentation, structure, and any other literary category.

Now, given the varying interpretations among the different denominations, it seems that the majority of these differences arise from one main hermeneutical concept: the covenant. I don't think this is the only difference, but I do think it is the primary one. How one (person/group) understands the significance and structure of the covenant will determine how one interprets a number of different issues, e.g., baptism, the Supper, salvation, etc. and the relation between these things. But the covenant isn't an abstract notion; it is an historical one and therefore falls under the category of history, at least. I think, though, that a better argument could be made that all history is covenantal, so to speak of history is to speak of the covenant. So, I think that our hermeneutical scheme can be modified to literary/covenant-historical.

Now one more factor needs to be addressed, and that is the place of typology in biblical hemeneutics. I will discuss this in my next post.

I must admit that trying to learn Greek, Latin, and Hebrew has been a tough challenge. The grammar hasn't proven to be the toughest aspect, though; it's all those syntactical categories that really rack the brain. But, despite all that, I have thoroughly enjoyed diving into these hearty languages, and am content that they will be of great profit to me as the years go on both in my personal study and any church and/or public study that I might be blessed to undertake.