1. Introduction
2. Content
3. Strengths
4. Weaknesses

1. Introduction

This is a thought provoking book for those working within a Roman Catholic society for it offers a hermeneutical and theological justification for the communion of the saints. That is, of our ability to get help from God through fellow Christians whether alive or dead.

It would be unfair to say that this is what the book is all about. Most of what is written concerns hermeneutics rather than with theology, particularly the idea of the interpretation of the New Testament as communion with those who wrote the texts. The title of the last chapter on Romans sums up Esler’s thesis: History, Hermeneutics and Communion.

2. Content

The author tackles the important problem of how those who are long dead, such as Matthew or Mark can speak to Christians today. Do we just have ancient parchments and MSS that should be analysed with literary rules (as in traditional Biblical hermeneutics)? Do we have a text whose meaning can be fulfilled with the input of the reader (Barthes, Derrida)? Or is the text an integral part of a canon with an overriding theology (Childs)?

Esler reasons that authorial intent is valid and so goes against the contemporary hermeneutics of, for example, Gadamer and Ricoeur. He uses an approach which is sympathetic to Austin ’s speech-act theory and to Bakhtin’s idea of dialogic (communication with multiple sources), rather than monologic, truth.

Looking at the New Testament he reflects on these as community documents which were shared orally. In interpreting them he also resurrects Schleiermacher´s hermeneutics, not in his usually understood way, as explained by Dilthey, of getting into the mind of the author and understanding the text better than he did; but in terms of the desire the author has to enter into a relationship with the reader. And with this in mind we are to read the NT texts. As an example, this approach is applied to the case of the relationship between Paul and the Corinthians in 1 Cor. 10-14 .

The issue of how past writers can communicate with us, is also to some extent a theological problem. In this Esler follows the lead of Stendahl, ‘advocating a “theology which retains history as a theologically charged category”.’ (p 36). This historical setting of theology is also a cultural one. Such a culture is alien to us and therefore difficult to appreciate. We need extra help.

Examining more closely the theological issues of communion, Esler points to passages such as Hebrews 11 and reasons that on the basis of them there is the potential for real communion with Biblical characters today. The implications of this are seen, for example, in Romans with Paul speaking today on the problem of inter-racial tension by his experience of the tensions between the Jews and Gentiles.

What Esler is saying is thought provoking: there is the defence of a more traditional approach to hermeneutics, the placing of New Testament writers in their historical context, and seeing Biblical principles worked out in the contemporary world. The section on the communion with the saints resonates to some extent with traditional evangelical thinking with the ideas of fellowship, the sharing together at the Lord’s Supper, and feeling a member of the family of God. Extending this to say that Matthew and Mark are part of our present Christian family is a profound thought.

But to go beyond this and justify our expecting personal intervention from those who have died brings a considerable theological area into discussion. Such a concept will be attractive to those within Catholicism and Orthodoxy. But for Protestants it raises considerable theological issues: the boundaries between the living and the dead, the role of Christ as intercessor, and the function of the Holy Spirit during the reading of the Scriptures.

It is refreshing to think of hermeneutics as a relationship with the author. But to use this to advocate the practice of the saints’ intercession as similarly proposed by Karl Rahner, fails to convince.

Evaluation

3. Strengths

1. It tackles the important theme of our relationship and communion with fellow Christians, and in particular with the writers of the New Testament.

2. It effectively shows the weaknesses of post-structuralist hermeneutics and canon criticism, and advocates an authorial intention type of hermeneutics and the use of theological principles derived from the text.

3 It highlights communication as being the essence of Christian piety, rather than solitary Bible study.

4. Weaknesses

1. The theological development of the subject is weak. The concluding chapter on the communion of the saints based on Romans, which should have been the most convincing, is not particularly so. It seems to simply justify the use of applying biblical principals today.

2. The book’s title is misleading. Most will take it as one principally on New Testament theology, whereas it is mainly on hermeneutics and its relation to personal communication.

3. The highly debatable issue of the saints’ intercession is sought to be justified but in doing this, there is a failure to discuss other New Testament theological issues that impinge upon it.

David E. C. Ford,   lecturer,   Seminario Evangélico de Lima,   Fundación Universitaria Seminario Bíblico de Colombia