Rowland dissects the theology and apocalyptic hermeneutics of famous theologians, Thomas Muentzer and Gerrard Winstanley, so that political discourse does not make facile Biblical interpretation. The apocalyptic language of Daniel is of significant scholarly interest, especially in regards to the biblical metanarrative, but Rowland advocate for a rebalance in Danielic exegesis. Rowland poignantly comments that the scriptures are not for appropriation, political or otherwise; of this he critiques the two theologians in discussion. He seeks to reverse the trend of engineering Danielic literature to correspond to current society to the appropriate use of the text: engineering days to act in accordance with the message of the scriptures. Thomas
…show more content…
Muentzer takes an individualistic, hierarchical stance while Winstanley believes in the power of each individual in regards to community. The problems arise in their imposition of society onto the text, rather than the text onto society. They are crafting Scripture to fit their politics rather than allowing the Scripture to shape their politics. The utilization of the text is appropriated and inappropriate. The biblical text has relevance to the church today in regards to the Biblical narrative, original audience, and context. The Bible is a typological resource in viewing present problems, certainly, but as Rowland points out, as violated by these two theologians: “[t]he language of the Bible has become a mode of discourse in which the original context and purpose has ceased to be of discourse in which the original context and purpose has ceased to be of primary concern” (463). Yet not is lost on these authors. Muentzer, more than Winstanley, prove with citations the necessity of intimate engagement with the text and a resistance to treating the text passively. Rather than apply the text to the current political society, the authors subtly offer a lens in which the original Hebrew audience might have read the text: images of resistance and change in a Babylonian political era. The work of these theologians cannot be ignored, but they cannot be taken as definite. Rather, they offer the modern-day reader an insight into the perversity of Biblical text and the power culture and society have on the interpretation of a text. With this presented radically, the readers can contemplate their own bias or perspective and how it might deviate from the purpose of the
Muentzer takes an individualistic, hierarchical stance while Winstanley believes in the power of each individual in regards to community. The problems arise in their imposition of society onto the text, rather than the text onto society. They are crafting Scripture to fit their politics rather than allowing the Scripture to shape their politics. The utilization of the text is appropriated and inappropriate. The biblical text has relevance to the church today in regards to the Biblical narrative, original audience, and context. The Bible is a typological resource in viewing present problems, certainly, but as Rowland points out, as violated by these two theologians: “[t]he language of the Bible has become a mode of discourse in which the original context and purpose has ceased to be of discourse in which the original context and purpose has ceased to be of primary concern” (463). Yet not is lost on these authors. Muentzer, more than Winstanley, prove with citations the necessity of intimate engagement with the text and a resistance to treating the text passively. Rather than apply the text to the current political society, the authors subtly offer a lens in which the original Hebrew audience might have read the text: images of resistance and change in a Babylonian political era. The work of these theologians cannot be ignored, but they cannot be taken as definite. Rather, they offer the modern-day reader an insight into the perversity of Biblical text and the power culture and society have on the interpretation of a text. With this presented radically, the readers can contemplate their own bias or perspective and how it might deviate from the purpose of the