© 2004 by David M. Howard, Jr.
All rights reserved.

My Two Hats

I have two metaphorical hats that I wear when I come to the Scriptures. The one is labeled "EXEGETE." When I wear this hat, my task is to understand the text with which I am dealing - as fully and clearly as possible. It is my task - using all the tools and principles that I learned in hermeneutics and elsewhere - to listen to what the text's author has left for me there, what s/he has deposited in the form of clear statements as well as subtle clues. My task is to understand what questions the author was trying to address, what assumptions s/he brought to the work, what the intent was, i.e., to trace the mind of the author as it is revealed in the author's text as closely as possible.

There are many questions that I myself might like to have addressed that the author of the text does not address. For example, I would dearly love to know more specifically how the universe was created, and where the dinosaurs fit into the overall scheme that we read about in Genesis 1. I would love to know what the author of Joshua thought about the fact that Rahab lied to the men of Jericho searching for the Israelite spies in Joshua 2. I would love to know how Jesus spent his years between age twelve and adulthood when he began his public ministry. I could multiply this type of question by the hundreds.

But, sadly for my curiosity, the authors of the Scriptures do not address these (and many other) questions directly. They have other questions and other concerns.

So, is it my prerogative to criticize them for not writing the books that I wish they had written? To ask the question is to answer it, it seems to me.

A typical comment that we might find in certain commentaries goes something like this: "Here is what David did at that time, and then afterwards. But, unfortunately , we do not know what he did in the following period, before the narrative picks up again with much later events." By using the term" unfortunately ," the commentator betrays what his/her primary interest is: it is in reconstructing a historical sequence in David's life and in filling in the gaps; it is not (primarily, at least) in listening to what the text actually says. Thus, we can see that this commentator is more properly a historian (whose task is to reconstruct a series of events) , not a commentator (whose task should be to comment on what is there, not on what s/he wishes were there). (See my essay "On Using Commentaries" for more on the task of a commentator.)

What, then, of these other questions, concerning a wide range of matters, historical, archaeological, sociological, psychological, ethical, dogmatic, and so much more?

Here is where my second hat comes in. It is labeled "CURIOUS GUY." When I remove my "EXEGETE" hat and put on my "CURIOUS GUY" hat, then I have complete freedom to ask any and all such questions. I am not bound only to listen to what a text's author is intending to say; I can also raise queries about what I wish s/he had said. The focus shifts to me and my interests, rather than the author and the author's interests.

This is not to disparage the "CURIOUS GUY" questions. Some are, ultimately, unanswerable, but many are answerable by going to other Scriptures. Many are answerable with certain degrees of probability, but not with absolute certainty. I can answer some of them by saying "I know this, because another book in Scripture deals with the issue, even if this author does not." I can answer others by saying, "I think that this is the answer, for these reasons, but, in the end, I am not certain ." I can answer others simply by saying, "I don't know."

Many of the "CURIOUS GUY" questions are ones that non-Christians ask us. Some are simply frivolous or matters of idle curiosity" (e.g., "Where do the dinosaurs fit it?"), but some indicate deeper yearnings and searching (e.g., "How could a loving and just God command the destruction of all the Canaanites under Joshua?). As such, we should be prepared to answer such questions to the best of our abilities.

It is helpful to be aware of which category our questions fall into. Both are legitimate. But, there is a time and place for each. I would contend that Christians mostly ask questions of the "CURIOUS GUY" variety. I have seen far too little interest among laypeople in questions of the "EXEGETE" variety.

Seminarians would do well to develop their skills in the both categories, but especially not to neglect the latter category. As we ask the "EXEGETE" questions, we are probing the mind of God himself. Why not listen to the questions he is interested in addressing, through his human mouthpieces (the authors of Scripture)? Such questions take us beyond ourselves and our self-centered and self-interested questions and put the focus on something - Someone - infinitely greater, more interesting, and, in the end, more profitable: on God himself.

David M. Howard, Jr.

POSTSCRIPT (April 2004):

I have found the "Two Hats" analogy to be very helpful, and have used it for many years now, in seminary and even in churches. I never actually had any such hats, however. That was changed ca. two years ago, when a woman in my church actually went to a sports shop and special-ordered two such hats and gave them to me! I was stunned, but much pleased. And, now, a Bethel student, Ben Kerns, whom I had in class recently in San Diego , went out and special-ordered two such hats of his own. His picture is at the top of this document. So, the object lesson seems to be working!

return to top