Scriptural Interpretation: A Theological Exploration

Written by Darren Sarisky Reviewed By Uche Anizor

This revised Aberdeen dissertation follows in an increasingly long line of theological retrieval projects—attempts to bring the insights of the Church Fathers to bear on contemporary social and theological issues. In this case, Sarisky is concerned to remediate inadequate modern accounts of biblical interpretation primarily through a retrieval of the insights of Basil of Caesarea, in conversation with two modern theologians: Stanley Hauerwas and Rowan Williams. Sarisky contends that if we are going to attend to interpretation properly, we need to correctly (that means theologically) construe four interrelated areas: readers, the biblical text, the act of reading, and reading’s ecclesial location, or what Sarisky calls “hermeneutical space” (p. 2).

Chapter 1 presents Basil’s theological anthropology. Human beings are created according to the image of God and our end is to know the creator. In our fallen state, we need salvation, which occurs in three stages. First, purification involves the putting off of sinful practices and ways of thinking. Second, illumination denotes the striving toward that for which we were created—knowledge of God and conformity to his image. Finally, participation is the ultimate goal, and represents the fulfillment of the life of faith: full conformity to and fellowship with God (p. 50). We become who we are only through conformity to God, which is ultimately eschatological. The issue of time is essential for Sarisky’s account of readers and reading. Humanity is to attain the paradigmatic perfection of angels as their end, but only in the course of time, and ultimately only at the eschaton (pp. 41–42). What it is to be human, and thus a reader, is to have a telos that takes time to attain.

Basil’s ontology of Scripture (Chapter 2) comes out in his understanding of Scripture’s role in human life. The ultimate goal of Scripture is to help us become like God (p. 73); its aim is to instruct people on the journey of faith. As an instrument of the Spirit, it “adjusts” to people at all stages of their Christian life (pp. 79–80). In the end, it is the primary source for knowledge of God “at this point in the drama of redemption” (p. 88).

If the end of the lives of readers is as described in the first two chapters, then two things follow, according to Sarisky. First, “the theological profile of interpretation mirrors that of the overall journey of human beings.” Second, “Not just any reading will do: simply put, reading ought to aim for knowledge of God” (pp. 90–91). Chapter 3 focuses on salvation as the primary context within which reading is done. Basil presents biblical interpretation as a dying and rising, a putting off of the old self and a putting on of the new (p. 92). In reading we cast off false notions of God and other besetting sins and, by the aid of the Spirit, draw close to God.

Chapter 4 presents the church as a chief means through which readers can receive the divine paideia of Scripture. Through an extended treatment of On the Holy Spirit, Sarisky describes how Scripture reading is an ecclesial practice for Basil. For example, the liturgy rightly orients Christians and aids them in their understanding of Scripture. Moreover, the church is the context in which people are formed, so that they might become right readers of Scripture (p. 127).

The next four chapters bring Basil into conversation with Hauerwas and Williams. Chapter 5 addresses Hauerwas’ critique of modernity’s notions of personhood and identity and his narrative-centered counter-proposal. Modernity ignores that human identity is shaped by an inherited narrative (p. 141). Hauerwas counters this view by defining human identity in terms of the biblical narrative. Christians, for example, embrace their true humanity within the eschatological community of the church. This is where they are formed and continue to live out their story. Thus human beings have a purpose, a trajectory, and an end. While there is overlap between Basil and Hauerwas, the latter is less concrete in his understanding of the telos of humanity and deploys less theological language to depict humanity (and thus human readers of Scripture).

Rowan Williams is the interlocutor in the next two chapters. In Chapter 6, Williams’s view of Scripture as (1) a text (like every other text) betraying power struggles—intratextually and extratextually—and (2) a script that readers perform (pp. 162–65) is rejected by Sarisky since it subordinates Scripture to general categories, and makes it harder to account for Scripture on its own terms or theologically. In Chapter 7, Williams’s view of Bible reading as performance is examined. Scripture puts readers in contact with events like the cross and resurrection of Christ that generate ever new understandings of reality. These understandings are always partial and open for revision, but they do constitute the meaning of the text. Readers are given freedom and responsibility to act upon the range of possibilities and questions that Scripture opens to them. While for Basil time was the duration in which we made incremental progress toward knowledge of God, for Williams, time only destabilizes human knowledge, rendering it indeterminate. It is the overemphasis on unresolved indeterminacy that Sarisky rejects.

In Chapter 8, Hauerwas returns, as Sarisky examines his view of the church as a reading community. To a large degree, Basil and Hauerwas have overlapping visions. However, the latter overemphasizes ecclesial practices and the community’s embodiment of the story such that a back-and-forth movement between church and text becomes superfluous. “Given Hauerwas’ theological commitments, it is not clear that he has a substantial reason to engage deeply with Scripture. . . . Being a Christian means being absorbed into the story, and these embodied versions of the story are the definitive telling of the tale” (pp. 196–97).

The book ends with Sarisky’s constructive account, which by this point would be obvious to the attentive reader. Readers are those in the process of purification, who are called to be in conformity to and live in fellowship with God; Scripture is the means by which we accomplish our telos; Reading is a spiritual process that brings human beings to their end; and the church is the primary social context in which effective, formative Scripture reading takes place (pp. 232–33).

One worthy feature of this book is its presentation of Basil with respect to these important issues. Not only was this valuable for discussions in theological hermeneutics, but also for historical theology generally. While the treatment of Basil was illuminating and fit well within the scope of what the book was aiming to accomplish, I always found myself wondering why Williams was chosen as a dialogue partner. Indeed, he has written on Scripture and interpretation, and he is a prominent theological voice, but I could not help but think that comparing another modern writer with more overlap with Basil would have proven more fruitful and illuminating, as was the case with Hauerwas. Williams seemed to function as little more than a foil, as many of his proposals were seen to be not just missing an element or two, but wrongheaded entirely.

No doubt, few readers familiar with recent conversations in the theological interpretation of Scripture will find this proposal earth shattering, not least because there have been a number of similar accounts by Kevin Vanhoozer, Daniel Treier, Scott Swain, Todd Billings, and others, but also because the basic conclusions are fairly traditional (i.e., Scripture is divine speech designed to shape us into conformity with God within an ecclesial sphere). Yet, the traditional nature of the conclusions might be the point exactly. Modern biblical hermeneutics generally attend to some, but not all of the dimensions Sarisky treats—and when they do, the issues are often not addressed adequately. The chief merit of this book is the summoning of an earlier (great) voice to address inadequacies in contemporary theological hermeneutics. If we are concerned with providing a theological account of the hermeneutical situation, what we find (and Sarisky has demonstrated) is that the traditional answers are often more theologically and pastorally satisfying than the modern.


Uche Anizor

Uche Anizor is assistant professor of biblical and theological studies at Talbot School of Theology in La Mirada, California.

Other Articles in this Issue

The book of Ecclesiastes diagnoses humanity’s tendency to link the value of human life with permanent accomplishment in our work...

In the current fascination of younger evangelicals with the ethos of both Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, John Henry Newman (1801–1890) has become something of a ‘poster child’...

A great deal of research has been done on the life and theology of Jonathan Edwards...

This article surveys the state of Edwards studies today, focusing particularly on its philosophical theologians who have zeroed in on Edwards’s doctrine of God...

This article critically examines Jonathan Edwards’s doctrine of the Trinity with a particular focus upon his understanding of the person of the Holy Spirit...