VHC, ch. 4
Chapter 4 is a "set-up" chapter to chs. 5-8 (which deal with the three traditional models of atonement and René Girard's work). In this chapter Boersma defends his use of metaphorical language (metaphor: meta-across; pherein-to carry) in 'divine hospitality' and 'divine violence' (which are metaphors) because the atonement models are metaphorical, too.
Boersma begins by defining metaphor. "Metaphors take words out of their original contexts and use them in new, seemingly inappropriate ways.... [M]etaphors have an 'as if' structure. We carry meaning of certain words over from one area into another as if those words still held the same meaning" (101). Of course, this carries dangers (e.g., God is a shepherd could be taken to mean he's rough and despised, rather than caring even for dumb and dirty animals). Skepticism for metaphorical language is seen in conservative circles emphasizing literal language whenever possible because of the mentality that literal language is "rational," whereas metaphorical language is "creative" (102). However, metaphors convey more in themselves than literal language, says Boersma. They bring to mind "stories...and...other elements of our world of experience" (103). They also give room for enrichment--which allows "creative engagement with our surroundings" (103). Third, they are also transformative (this follows, it seems to me, from engagement with surroundings; metaphors can change the way we see the world). Finally, they safeguard against "idolatrous claims of knowledge" (104). Our knowledge is partial, so our language should reflect this, as well.
This last point leads us to believe that metaphors aren't simply acceptable, but most accurate. Our knowledge and access to reality is limited, so describing realities metaphorically most accurately captures what knowledge we do have of reality (104-7). So, using metaphor has two conclusions: first, knowledge is humble (accepting revelation); second, it is accurate.
Having defended his use of metaphor--both in atonement and in theological description (hospitality and violence), Boersma gives the proper use of metaphor in atonement. We can neither ignore metaphors, nor push them too far. So, we must use all biblical metaphors in dealing with atonement (108). Of course, some metaphors are more fundamental than others. These fundamental metaphors must be traditional, compehensively coherent, pertinent to life, and personally authentic (Brummer provides the list). This last point means that some metaphors will be more meaningful than others to individual believers.
So, how do the atonement models relate to one another? This is the question Boermsa seeks to answer over the next 4 chapters. He gives a hint, however, as to where his work will go by saying that recapitulation forms a basis for the three models (113) and that "[t]here is a sense...in which Christus Victor is the ultimate atonement metaphor" (114).
Thoughts on metaphor? Language? Hermeneutics in light of this?
Boersma begins by defining metaphor. "Metaphors take words out of their original contexts and use them in new, seemingly inappropriate ways.... [M]etaphors have an 'as if' structure. We carry meaning of certain words over from one area into another as if those words still held the same meaning" (101). Of course, this carries dangers (e.g., God is a shepherd could be taken to mean he's rough and despised, rather than caring even for dumb and dirty animals). Skepticism for metaphorical language is seen in conservative circles emphasizing literal language whenever possible because of the mentality that literal language is "rational," whereas metaphorical language is "creative" (102). However, metaphors convey more in themselves than literal language, says Boersma. They bring to mind "stories...and...other elements of our world of experience" (103). They also give room for enrichment--which allows "creative engagement with our surroundings" (103). Third, they are also transformative (this follows, it seems to me, from engagement with surroundings; metaphors can change the way we see the world). Finally, they safeguard against "idolatrous claims of knowledge" (104). Our knowledge is partial, so our language should reflect this, as well.
This last point leads us to believe that metaphors aren't simply acceptable, but most accurate. Our knowledge and access to reality is limited, so describing realities metaphorically most accurately captures what knowledge we do have of reality (104-7). So, using metaphor has two conclusions: first, knowledge is humble (accepting revelation); second, it is accurate.
Having defended his use of metaphor--both in atonement and in theological description (hospitality and violence), Boersma gives the proper use of metaphor in atonement. We can neither ignore metaphors, nor push them too far. So, we must use all biblical metaphors in dealing with atonement (108). Of course, some metaphors are more fundamental than others. These fundamental metaphors must be traditional, compehensively coherent, pertinent to life, and personally authentic (Brummer provides the list). This last point means that some metaphors will be more meaningful than others to individual believers.
So, how do the atonement models relate to one another? This is the question Boermsa seeks to answer over the next 4 chapters. He gives a hint, however, as to where his work will go by saying that recapitulation forms a basis for the three models (113) and that "[t]here is a sense...in which Christus Victor is the ultimate atonement metaphor" (114).
Thoughts on metaphor? Language? Hermeneutics in light of this?
posted by Aaron Perry at
10:05 AM
3 Comments:
I'm currently doing a series through the parables. Do you know if he would view them as metaphor, allegory, and/or a category of their own? I think Craig Blomberg's intro to 'interpreting the parables' is pretty interesting.
it would likely depend on the parable. since he's influenced by wright, i expect he'd call them "stories" from within the Jewish worldview. so, sometimes they'd be more allegorical, and as such have metaphorical elements, but would always operate as stories.
i like metaphors a whole lot. thinking of metaphors is fun passtime for me. so, i'm thankful for the author's endorsement of them. i think it's a little like how prof. symonds said "a sermon without an illustration is like trying to look out of a house without any windows and doors." i think the same idea applies to theological concepts that are unable to be spoken of metaphorically....
so, yeah. go metaphors! and go allegory! and go stories! and fables! and go hermeneutics! and go communication! ok i'm done.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home