I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to Myk Habets’ taxonomy of the theological interpretation of Scripture. This is an enterprise to which we are both committed and we are working on the same side (of the angels, hopefully). The response is offered in the spirit of seeking constantly to understand well that which we are both engaged in, to the end that the interpretation of Scripture reflect as clearly as possible the character of the God revealed in Christ, to whom the texts bear witness, and to the character of the interpreted texts themselves. My response begins with comment on those matters in which we are in agreement. I then reflect on what I am calling some dualities of practice that arise when theologians and biblical scholars attempt to work together. I then move on to structure my response around an examination of three particular dualities which seem to me to be central to Habets’ argument, two explicit and one implicit: hermeneutics and theology; general and special; texts and Scripture. With respect to hermeneutics and theology, I draw heavily on the biblical wisdom tradition. Finally, I turn to a modest proposal of my own concerning theological interpretation, a proposal that will be dialogic and organic in its understanding of the process of theological interpretation of Scripture. 

Dr Tim Meadowcroft (Senior Research Fellow, Laidlaw College)