Words that testify of God: The Theology of the Old Testament.

Abstract

Walter Brueggemann crafts a First Testament theology around the organizing principle of Israel's speech about God. He discusses the themes of First Testament thought in four categories: Israel's Core Testimony, Israel's Countertestimony, Israel's Unsolicited Testimony, and Embodied Narrative. He attempts to generate a dynamic theology that captures the rhetorical power of the biblical text. With his own classic style he theologizes excellently on the text in a mode designed to address the needs of theologians, teachers, and preachers, more so than critical scholars. He eschews the Historical Critical Method in favor of post-modern criticism, which this reviewer feels is a mistake.

**********

Walter Brueggemann seeks to craft a biblical theology in a new and distinct mode; it is a theology which builds upon the "speech" or "testimonies" of the First Testament. He boldly declares, "What we have in the Old Testament is speech, nothing else" (p. 713), by which he means to emphasize that the written words of the biblical text, which lie before us, once were dynamic spoken words in the life of a people. If we truly wish to capture the spirit of the biblical text and generate a theology from it, we must focus upon what that text once was: words of testimony about Yahweh spoken in faith. We must organize and reflect upon those spoken testimonies to feel the power of the biblical text and to properly apply it to our modern situation. This dynamic approach to the task of biblical theology is for Brueggemann a way out of the impasse created by biblical theologies of the past, which failed to capture the spirit of the bible.

As he sets forth on this ambitious undertaking, Brueggemann organizes the language in the biblical text into four categories of discourse:

* "Israel's Core Testimony," wherein the biblical authors praise and confess the actions of Yahweh on behalf of Israel and individuals in the community in diverse ways.

* "Israel's Countertestimony," wherein Israelites and Jews lament the pain and tragedy in their lives, or members of the intelligentsia reflect upon the ambiguous nature of Yahweh who can be the source of evil.

* "Israel's Unsolicited Testimony," which includes indirect testimonies about the nature of Yahweh suggested by discourse on Israel's relationship to the deity in covenant and other forms of partnership.

* "Embodied Narrative," which focuses upon those forms of mediation (Law, King, Prophet, Cult, and Sage) which enable people to experience Yahweh in diverse intellectual and cultural manifestations.

Overall, Brueggemann's approach is clever and refreshing; it is a very different way by which to arrange the concepts and texts of the First Testament into an organized format. One senses that he favors the approach of Walter Eichrodt's attempt to systematically organize ideas of the text rather than Gerhard von Rad's attempt to trace their ideational development in Israel's history. Placed alongside other First Testament theologies, this volume provides a wonderful complement, and for many readers it will be seen as a refreshing change from the direction taken in many other theological expositions. Brueggemann's style of homiletical discussion also will appeal to many who find traditional theologies difficult to digest.

In his exposition Brueggemann relies upon the use of many biblical texts, some of which he quotes at length. As he approaches a topic or a theme, his discussion is replete with biblical quotes to illustrate a type of oral discourse or a perception of Yahweh's nature. He heavily favors the Psalms and the prophets, especially Isaiah. For he is attracted to those texts which demonstrate a deep existential encounter with the divine, often of pain or the joy of restoration. His previous work on the Psalms is most evident in this volume. As he quotes texts (often at length) he does not go into detailed exegetical analysis or delve deeply into the theological issues which might be raised by a specific text. (Only heaven knows how long the volume might have become had he done that! His text is 750 pages in length.) What he seeks is a moving theological exposition of the various texts that avoids becoming bogged down in critical scholarly details. Hence, by comparison he does not consider some texts in the depth that Eichrodt did in his two-volume theology. One is reminded of the theological approach evident in the commentaries of the Interpretation series, to which Brueggemann also has contributed.

This is the style at which Brueggemann excels, for as he moves from text to text with his flowing rhetoric, one senses that his theological exposition is akin to preaching. The reader will discover that the classic rhetoric of Brueggemann flourishes as he moves through the volume and addresses the many issues that have drawn his attention over the years. Critical scholars may be somewhat frustrated by Brueggemann's approach, because he does not discuss critical issues in sufficient detail, nor does he organize texts and concepts in the ways that scholars usually do in their scholarly discourse. Critical scholars may find it difficult to cite much of Brueggemann's text on particular topics or biblical texts they might be analyzing for their own critical articles or monographs. (I myself find reading the volume a little frustrating in that regard, because I like critical, exegetical, and historical analyses.) I surmise that Brueggemann would not care. I believe he envisions his audience to be theologians, preachers, teachers, and perhaps above all, his seminary students (some of whom I have known over the years). The volume attempts to step back and to give a focus to the various themes and the image of God in the biblical text. This focus is meant to provide a religious intellectual with a sensitive feeling for what is being said in the First Testament in existential terms rather than exegetical or historical categories. Such a volume is meant to enable seminarians to have a deeper understanding of the text, which will affect their preaching and pastoral ministry.

Brueggemann begins his theology with two chapters entitled "Retrospect." Herein he undertakes the ambitious task of summarizing how the last five hundred years of Christian reflection paved the way for modern biblical theology with the Protestant sola scriptura principle, a sense of human autonomy, rationalism, a sense of developmentalism, and the critical study of the Bible. After a review of significant biblical theologians, including Eichrodt, von Rad, and Norman Gottwald, Brueggemann sets forth the direction he believes biblical theology must take in the future. Brueggemann affirms the insights of Leo Perdue (1994), that the old theologies are outdated and we have witnessed the "collapse of history"; that is, the attempt to envision Yahweh in old Heilsgeschichte imagery is no longer valid. Nor can we confidently reconstruct the history of the development of Israelite or biblical thought with our critical methodologies. In the future biblical theology must do the following:

* admit the failure of historicizing,

* see the text as central rather than penetrating the text to reconstruct events,

* acknowledge the importance of speech behind the written text,

* view much of the biblical text as a response to the Babylonian Exile,

* observe inter-textuality, how texts influence each other, and

* recognize the Jewishness of the text.

When theologizing, the biblical scholar must respond to the demands of critical methodology, the doctrinal teachings of the Christian church, and the inherent Jewish identity of the text.

The Four Testimonies

In the first of four parts Brueggemann considers First Testament texts which function as Israel's "Core Testimony." He chooses to organize the material under the rubric of parts of speech, which is rather clever, since he makes such an issue of considering the biblical text as a written form of what were once spoken statements. The bulk of Israel's "Core Testimony" is spoken language of worship, thanksgiving, and praise (chapter 3). Testimony comes powerfully in the form of verbal sentences which confess Yahweh as creator, promise-maker to the Israelites and their ancestors, deliverer of Israelites, one who commands laws (he criticizes the antinomianism of Christians, especially Lutherans, on this topic), and leader of people in exodus and war (chapter 4). Yahweh is characterized by adjectives, including merciful, faithful, loving, just, and righteous, all of which are relational, not absolute terms (chapter 5). When Yahweh is described by verbs and adjectives, these are particular characterizations, but the use of nouns moves us to a more general characterization of Yahweh. Nouns are metaphors, because a literal understanding of any noun fails to capture the real power of Yahweh's identity. Hence, verbs and adjectives are to be preferred to nouns. Judge, warrior, king, and father are strong images used by a marginal community, like Israel, to speak of divine protection; while divine attributes like artist, potter, healer, gardener, mother, and shepherd all describe that part of Yahweh's persona which provides sustenance (chapter 6). Put together, all these attributes testify to the passion, zeal, and pathos that Yahweh has for Israel (chapter 7).

In the second part attention is given to the "Countertestimony" given by Israel and the Jews, especially in the language of the Psalms, prophets, and wisdom. Herein we find affirmations which probe the statements of "Core Testimony" and question their validity. Wisdom perspectives attest to the subtle activity of Yahweh, or divine "hiddenness" (chapter 9). In stories concerning Ahab and the false prophets, Jeremiah, the flood, the favoring of David over Saul, and the census of David we are permitted to view the dark ambiguities in the persona of Yahweh, especially when the deity deceives or experiences change of mind (chapter 10). Strong laments in the Psalms and Lamentations, as well as reflection in Ecclesiastes, show us the truly negative side of Yahweh, and raise the question of theodicy (chapter 11). Above all, such "Countertestimony" leads us to maintain a tension in the portrayal of the divine nature (chapter 12).

In the third part of the book Brueggemann discusses what he calls "Unsolicited Testimony," or texts which indirectly allude to the nature of Yahweh. In these texts one finds the belief that Yahweh is committed in freedom with passion to Israel, to individuals, to nations, and to creation (chapter 13). People are Yahweh's partners, and they are described as being in a covenant relationship. An appeal to covenant calls for people to act with justice, to see the glory, beauty, and holiness of Yahweh in worship, and to be a blessing for people in the greater destiny of the world. In these texts Israel is loved, commanded to obey, exiled, returned to Yahweh, and gathered to hope (chapter 14). People are in the image of God and in a personal relationship of freedom and responsibility which leads them to obey, be wise, and trust (chapter 15). The nations are Yahweh's partners in that they can be used by divine sovereignty to punish Israel, be punished, be restored, and bring about blessing (chapter 16). Creation is Yahweh's partner in its function of fruitfulness, but creation can be in jeopardy by a very real power of evil against which Yahweh must fight (chapter 17). Overall, Brueggemann observes in the drama of partnership with Yahweh a common pattern of grace, failure or tragedy, and restoration, which he calls a metanarrative. In this symbolic narrative it is Yahweh alone who grants sufficiency to the world, not the world itself (chapter 18).

In the fourth part Brueggemann discusses the "Embodied Narrative" about Yahweh, or those forms of mediation which bring the power of the divine close to people in an intimate fashion. In the primary form of mediation Yahweh came to Israel at Sinai through the intercessory work of Moses. At other times the patriarchs mediated the divine presence; and ultimately the biblical text performs this role for us (chapter 19). The Torah mediates the divine for Israel through human agents, including Moses, Joshua, Samuel, Josiah, and the prophets. Christians must learn the positive value and message of Torah, rather than dismissing it as mere legalism (chapter 20). The king mediates Yahweh by providing justice and righteousness for the people he rules. Kings are appropriately indicted when they fail to do this. Ultimately, royal images provide the messianic vision of hope (chapter 21). The prophet mediates Yahweh and inspires people with poetic imagination (PROPHETIC IMAGINATION is the title of an earlier Brueggemann textbook). Prophets utter a mediating word of Yahweh through oral forms of discourse, including divinely proposed lawsuits, imperatives to repent, and promises of hope (chapter 22). The cult mediates the presence of Yahweh for devout worshippers. Christians too often disdain such texts, unfortunately, because they assume Jesus superseded them. But in reality, cult imagery in the First Testament may provide inspiration for us in our worship patterns. In the cult the symbolic drama of life is acted out. Brueggemann discusses briefly issues of temple ritual, sacrifice, and cult and how they mediate the divine, as well as how the Deuteronomic authors and prophets criticized aspects of arrogant cultic piety (chapter 23). The sage is a mediator of the divine in the family, the school, the court, and public life in general. Though secular at first, wisdom discourse finally merged with Torah (chapter 24). In general, Torah mediates holiness, the king mediates justice, the prophet mediates covenant, the cult mediates communion, and wisdom mediates order in the world. All mediate life from Yahweh, but each can become perverted and deceive people, when the human functionaries lay claim to hold power over the absolute (chapter 25).

Brueggemann concludes his work by discussing interpretation in a pluralistic context (chapter 26). At this point in this volume he attacks the "critical positivism" of the Historical Critical Method, which grew out of Enlightenment values. On this issue he waxes so eloquent with rhetoric, that it becomes somewhat difficult to understand the precise criticisms he actually has against the Enlightenment and all that flows from that era of human intellectual development. He opines that true pluralism emerges only after the "hegemony of the Enlightenment" is broken. This can be accomplished by a serious appeal to the total canon, so that for example, we perceive that the disparate messages of the Deuteronomistic Historians and the Priestly Editors stand in tension with each other and testify to plurality within the biblical text. He attacks the quest for historicity proposed by earlier biblical scholars, and instead affirms the literary readings of the text encouraged by post-modernist critics. Above all, he attacks the "military consumerism" of the West. In this particular section (chapter 26) Brueggemann's text glows with sermon-like rhetoric, but almost every sentence leads the reader to wonder what he really refers to in concrete categories.

In the final chapters Brueggemann makes some valuable observations. Israel's utterance about God tells us that God is elusive (chapter 27). Significant issues to be addressed by biblical theologians include the following:

* overcoming the deficiencies of the Historical Critical Method as a hindrance to theology and actual belief in God (p. 728),

* overcoming the tendency of First Testament theology to lead to supersessionism (Christians must acknowledge that they alone do not possess the First Testament as revelation from God), and

* acknowledging that above all, the First Testament testifies to distributive justice (chapter 28).

We must recover the message of the First Testament as dynamic speech that still addresses us. The Academy of biblical scholars cannot move beyond history, and too often Christians cannot move beyond either a liberal rationalism or a conservative scholasticism. The theologian must release the power of the text to attain a true theology (chapter 29).

Response to Brueggemann

In the precis outlined above we can observe how Brueggemann organizes the themes of the First Testament, and each briefly mentioned item is a significant section in his discussion. Most of these topics are addressed by any First Testament theology, whether it is historical, systematic, or descriptive. The appeal of Brueggemann's effort is the distinctive way in which he integrates these topics into his organizational format. His sequence of topics is refreshingly new, and we must admire how he has handled all of the themes. At times, however, his outline does produce a certain degree of repetitiveness with particular texts and themes. Brueggemann has a certain agenda which he pushes in his exposition, sometimes in dramatic or even heavy-handed fashion. He is quick to preach against the "supersessionism" of Christians--the tendency to regard First Testament and Judaism as having been surpassed by a more final and superior religion, Christianity. As a faithful First Testament scholar and theologian he seeks to remind us that God's relationship with the Jews has never been abrogated, and the Jews should never be denied the status of God's people equal to Christians. Likewise, their sacred text, the First Testament, should never be viewed as a "dead letter," the religion of legalism, or the religion of a wrathful God, etc., which so often popular Christianity has done. Rather, the First Testament has a living and vibrant testimony that can still meaningfully inspire Christians today. Brueggemann is also faithful to his "Reformed" heritage, which has tended historically to take the First Testament more seriously the than other Christian traditions do. His "Reformed" approach, however, is less dogmatic and far more dynamic than that of many of his theological predecessors in the Calvinist tradition. Like Brevard Childs, a fellow "Reformed" theologian in First Testament studies, Brueggemann does the Church a favor by bringing the First Testament forward as a living source of spiritual and theological authority. On this issue I applaud him.

He beats the drum on some other issues, however, which make me a little nervous. Brueggemann takes too much delight in criticizing the Historical Critical Method in favor of post-modernist critique. He calls the critical methods "reductionistic" and lauds the new insights of Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, and other post-modernists. (Unfortunately, he never explains in detail what their methodology really does and how they proceed.) Yes, he is correct in declaring that critical scholarship can be boring and sometimes spiritually lifeless. But I believe one should put the blame for that on some of the practitioners and not the method itself. (Woodworking tools in the hands of a craftsman or craftswoman produce art; in the hands of a small child, they are weapons.)

Brueggemann could not begin to craft the theology he has articulated without the heritage of several centuries of historical critical scholarly groundwork. His deep, personal assessment of texts reflects the fact that he is himself well-grounded in the Historical Critical Method as a master craftsman. His assessment of the Psalms reflects the great heritage of form critical analysis of the Psalter from the turn of the century onward; his assessment of various prophets and the Pentateuch reflect even more serious source critical and traditio-historical studies of the past two centuries. In addition, he quotes with evident approval in his footnotes the scholarly observations and conclusions provided by many contemporary authors who have used the Historical Critical Method to come to their conclusions. His book is built upon observations obtained by critical methodologies. By attacking the Historical Critical Method, he bites the hand that feeds him. He should have referred more directly and positively to the critical methodologies which he actually has assumed in the specific observations he made on particular passages. I agree with James Barr's contention that, had Brueggemann more positively used the Historical Critical Method, rather than trying to ignore it, he might have strengthened the volume greatly. Bart believes that Brueggemann was in a unique position to draw together the theological task with critical methods and the socio-scientific approach to the Bible, but Brueggemann chose not to do this (1999: 545).

I believe that Brueggemann, like all of us at times, got carried away with his rhetoric in this volume and did not really mean to leave the impression that he is so totally opposed to the traditional critical methods of textual analysis. Critical methods, when properly used, can produce creative and inspiring interpretations of the biblical text. Sometimes they can result in interesting but uninspiring studies also, at least from the perspective of someone who might read them for theological or homiletical resources. Furthermore, I have read some post-modernist critical assessments of the biblical text and found them occasionally to be as boring and spiritually lifeless as any turgid critical exegetical analysis (if not more so). One cannot generalize about the method's inability to produce inspiring theological commentary; the ability to inspire the reader lies with the author's use of the method and approach to the material.

Brueggemann does not like the Enlightenment, either. He calls the Enlightenment of the 18th century "reductionistic," maintaining that it has left us with bad intellectual assumptions. However, he, like the rest of us, lives with its benefits, and he is not willing to acknowledge these. The Enlightenment, for example, produced democratic thought, and the classic documents of our society have been produced by thinkers steeped in Enlightenment thought (Bill of Rights, Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence). Are these the documents that have produced the tyranny of thought and and oppressive cultural hegemony of which Brueggemann speaks? I do not believe he really means to imply that. The Enlightenment helped give rise to critical methodologies, a sense of objectivity, and a respect for belief systems other than our own. All of these become part of the process by which a biblical interpreter undertakes to read the text in a new and fresh fashion by attempting, in part, to separate himself or herself from personal assumptions and prejudices. Though we cannot be totally objective, nonetheless, as interpreters we try as best we can to be objective (or at least to recognize our own personal prejudices), and then we seek to discover new meanings in the text. This is what Brueggemann does, and he does it well. The intellectual apparatus for this entire endeavor has been created by the Enlightenment experience, and I do not believe he really wishes to disavow all these intellectual benefits that flow from that great period of human intellectual accomplishment.

Brueggemann speaks of how the Enlightenment with its monolithic worldview must be replaced by a worldview which affirms diversity and plurality. Excuse me, but I think it may be the Enlightenment, more than any other movement, that has helped us in the modern world to appreciate diversity and plurality. My own personal opinion is that the Enlightenment, despite its secularity, actually grew out of the Christian worldview and really implements Christian values in a way that is deeper than what Christians have been wont to do throughout much of their history. But that is another book, I suppose! At any rate, by attacking the Enlightenment and its values--often in wide-ranging generalizations--Brueggemann may again be biting the hand that feeds him.

The specific issue of antinomianism perks my interest. Brueggemann condemns antinomianism. Again, this is a very general term which can be used in many different ways. In one sense Christians can be said to be antinomian, in that they no longer use the Mosaic Law as binding in their moral lives. But in another sense they are not, since Christians have moral norms derived from Jesus' teachings, Paul's paranesis, and a creative reinterpretation of the Ten Commandments, which we Christians in our freedom have reappropriated as a mode by which to teach general moral norms. I would willingly call myself an antinomian, because I believe that Christians appeal not to the literal letter of biblical laws but to the spirit of biblical moral teachings, those of the Second Testament being more significant for us than those of the First Testament. The teachings of neither Testament should be taken literally, because that would mean taking them out of their social and historical context and thus distorting their real message to us today. Brueggemann does not advocate taking biblical laws literally either; so by my definition he, too, would be antinomian. In my view, he is overstating a valuable point, which is that we can take inspiration from biblical laws in the First Testament to address our moral issues today. I have attempted to do as much in previous works of my own (1985, 1997, 2000). But we take such inspiration from those laws without keeping them in the same way that an ancient Israelite or Jew, or a post-Talmudic Jew, would. We are inspired by the spirit of those laws, but we do not keep them literally. We are antinomians.

Brueggemann and I probably intend the same thing when we appeal to specific First Testament laws for social reform today. We simply say it differently. That is because he indeed is Reformed, and I am Lutheran. He is right, from his perspective, that Lutherans do appear antinomian (at least modern American Lutherans in the ELCA might). This is because of the strong Lutheran emphasis upon grace and individual autonomy, and our institutional reluctance (in the ELCA) to make definitive statements on modern social issues, leaving such decisions to the individual consciences of our members. By contrast the historical Reformed or Calvinist tradition in America, which has been very strong since the colonial foundation of our nation, has often sought serious guidance and direction from the biblical text, especially the First Testament, in the articulation of moral and social guidelines for people. They did found Plymouth and Boston, after all! Thus, theoretically Brueggemann and Gnuse might define their assumptions about the authority of those First Testament laws in different ways, but our actual exposition of biblical texts probably would appear very similar as we appeal to the modern Christian conscience.

I believe that Brueggemann could have strengthened his presentation in general, and his thesis in particular, had he used more of the biblical Hebrew terminology in his exposition. This would seem logical, basically, because of his great appeal to the biblical texts as oral speeches. Reference to Hebrew terms could have been used to illustrate the beauty and poetic style of the original spoken testimonies. Reference to the original language at certain points could have been useful in terms of showing how humor, double entendres, irony, and other literary techniques were brilliantly used by the biblical authors. He does, indeed, cite Hebrew words at times. But with his strong emphasis upon the orality of the text and the importance of speech, failure to incorporate more Hebrew into his discussion seems to be a significant omission.

In a related vein, it is my personal opinion that Brueggemann has relied too heavily on certain texts, especially those in the Psalms and the prophetic corpus. In fact, his appeal to similar texts in different chapters, such as the Lament Hymns from the Psalter, appears almost repetitious and makes the overall structure and direction of the book look a little vague. A reader might wonder why Brueggemann keeps returning to similar texts in the various chapters which approached the biblical text from different perspectives. A greater use of narratives from the Pentateuch would have been satisfying. But on this point I might be quibbling over a minor detail. There certainly is a fairly wide variety of texts discussed at various points in the volume.

Conclusion

Let not these criticisms that I have voiced seem to imply that I disagree with Brueggemann's theological assumptions or the bulk of his exposition. My agreements far outweigh my disagreements. The part of me that is a Sunday morning preacher (every Sunday nowadays) finds his presentation cogent and inspiring. Brueggemann was certainly able to express the deep existential feeling which resonates in most texts. He gravitates to truly significant passages in his exposition, such as the Lament Hymns (even if he does it a bit much with that genre). His text will engender a positive response from most people who read it. Of course, there will be criticisms, but I believe that Brueggemann would be disappointed if his work failed to engender some critical response. Any time an author seeks to engage in a serious theological and biblical exposition with the zest, passion, insight, and the rhetoric with which Brueggemann operates, serious dialogue on many levels will be invited.

Works Cited

Barr, James. 1999. THE CONCEPT OF BIBLICAL THEOLOGY: AN OLD TESTAMENT PERSPECTIVE. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.

Brueggemann, Walter. 1997. THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT: TESTIMONY, DISPUTE, ADVOCACY. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.

Gnuse, Robert. 2000. THE OLD TESTAMENT AND PROCESS THEOLOGY. St. Louis, MO: Chalice Press.

1997. NO OTHER GODS: EMERGENT MONOTHEISM IN ANCIENT ISRAEL. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press.

1985. YOU SHALL NOT STEAL: COMMUNITY AND PROPERTY IN THE BIBLICAL TRADITION. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis.

Perdue, Leo. 1994. THE COLLAPSE OF HISTORY: RECONSTRUCTING OLD TESTAMENT THEOLOGY. Overtures to Biblical Theology. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress Press.

Robert K. Gnuse, Ph.D. (Vanderbilt University) is Professor of Old Testament at Loyola University, New Orleans (e-mail [e-mail]). He is author most recently of the following volumes: THE OLD TESTAMENT AND PROCESS THEOLOGY (Chalice, 2000), EMERGENT MONOTHEISM IN ISRAEL (Sheffield, 1997), and DREAMS AND DREAM REPORTS IN THE WRITINGS OF JOSEPHUS (Brill, 1996). He is the author of over thirty articles, including several in the BIBLICAL THEOLOGY BULLETIN, of which he is an Associate Editor.