“Critical” Scholarship and Hermeneutics

I can’t help but recall the words of Morpheus in the second Matrix film: “Coincidence, or providence?” The same set of facts and circumstances can sit in front of two human beings and two very different conclusions will emerge: “Fluke of nature” and “Oh, that’s easy – God did it!”

I was writing a seminary paper for Esther when I came across some comments in the Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Esther (1908) regarding the ironies and “coincidences” in chapter 6 with Haman:

“This is the way that things happen in story-books, but not in real life.” (245)

“His coming coincides with the moment when the King learns of Mordecai’s service and wishes to find a courtier to execute his commands. This sounds more like fiction than history…the coincidence is too lucky to be natural.” (247)

Of course, the Christian – who believes that God is always sovereign over all things – will respond by saying “That’s right, it is too lucky to be ‘natural,’ so it’s supernatural.” But the presuppositions of materialistic naturalism inherent to the classical liberalism beneath “critical scholarship” simply won’t allow for such a conclusion. Granted, an event either happened or it didn’t. But, in the case where the odds point in the direction that it didn’t happen, then, according to naturalism, it didn’t happen. Case closed. It reminds me of what Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist), said, “materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

I’m not going to recount the story of Esther (and the countless ironies/parallels with the character of Haman and otherwise, see Longman’s An Introduction to the Old Testament, 219). But, the primary connection, I think, that connects Esther to the God of Israel and the Old Testament is divine providence. God is always working “behind the scenes.” In Eugene Merrill’s words “So once more the God of Israel, although never mentioned by name in the book of Esther, bared his mighty arm on behalf of his people” (A Kingdom of Priests, 514).

Esther, like Ecclesiastes, Proverbs, and Job, doesn’t quite seem to “fit” in the rest of the Old Testament. There is little discussion about Israel and covenantal themes, etc. Of course, making radical conclusions about the canonicity and place of these books on these facts is more illusory than reality. For the very uniqueness of these books and what they bring to the table is what makes them so incredibly valuable; Scripture is complete and beautiful because of its rich diversity.

But, if the naturalist materialist liberal has already decided what is possible and impossible in the created universe (which requires nothing less than pushing God off his throne), this central theme (if not purpose) in Esther is essentially destroyed, leaving something less accurate to take its place. There is chance, mechanical coincidence, not providence. In fact, any event in Scripture that doesn’t get past the filter of rationalistic, godless, clock-work model of the typical critical scholar must simply be dismissed, no questions asked.

Clearly, one’s worldview determines one’s hermeneutic, and therefore the “product” of theology. But, the biblical data is only meant to be interpreted from a biblical worldview. Anything less will result in a distortion of the truth.