The End of Interpretation: Reclaiming the Priority of Ecclesial Exegesis

by R.R. Reno

Those who wish to interpret and understand the Bible face a fundamental How do I interpret Scripture faithfully? Theological interpretation is an approach that has received much attention in recent years, and R. R. Reno is a leading practitioner and proponent of this approach.

In The End of Interpretation, Reno's first full statement on the topic, he argues that Scripture is interpreted correctly only when it is read through the lens of creedal orthodoxy--that is, through the apostolic faith. The principle of accordance between doctrine and Scripture is of first importance for solid Christian interpretation.

Reno provides a simple explanation of this multifaceted approach. He wrestles with what makes interpretation "theological" and provides two historical case studies, discussing Origen and the Reformation debate over justification. He then demonstrates what theological interpretation looks like in practice, reflecting on Genesis 1, John 17, and 1 Corinthians. Reno's insights will benefit serious readers who seek to interpret Scripture faithfully.

187 pages, Kindle Edition

Published October 18, 2022

About the author

Russell Ronald Reno III is the editor of First Things magazine. He was formerly a professor of theology and ethics at Creighton University.

A theological and political conservative, Reno was baptized into the Episcopal Church as an infant and grew up as a member of the Church of the Redeemer in Baltimore, Maryland. As an adult he was an active participant in the Episcopal Church, serving as Senior Warden of the Church of the Resurrection in Omaha, Nebraska from 1991–1995, as deputy to the General Convention of the Episcopal Church in 1993, 1996, and 1999, and as a member of the Theology Committee of the Episcopal Church's House of Bishops from 2001-2003. On September 18, 2004, he was received into the Roman Catholic Church.

Reviews

[Simon Voth]

I find myself agreeing with Reno's most fundamental point, that exegesis is not restrained by orthodox and creedal belief but can be informed by it as well as motivate for more rigorous exegetical work in a canonical setting. The point that theology and exegesis must not be separated comes out clearly and convincingly. His criticism of modern, esp. Historical-critical approaches is well founded and probably the greatest strength of the book.
However, the book suffers immensely from its Catholicism. Reno's alternative to historical criticism is the church's magistrate. And Reno fails to argue convincingly that this does not utterly restrain exegesis and makes doctrinal reformation impossible. As a protestant, I have to protest this and give the final authority to scripture itself - not to modern scholars, nor to the pope.

[Matt Koser]

“One’s theology is good only to the degree that it brings one to see Christ more clearly—which, as we learn in Luke 24, means that theology is good only insofar as it opens up the Scriptures. This, dear readers, is a daunting standard.” (163)

His main focus was pushing for Biblical interpretation to move from the academy and historical criticism to theologians for the benefit of the church. This book is a defense of the approach of the Brazo’s biblical commentary series that emphasizes theological interpretation of the Bible. I wasn’t familiar with the series before this book, but I do want to check it out now.

Felt like a bit of a disconnected assortment of essays. Some chapters were really helpful, but 3 stars overall.

[Aaron]

I must admit that I am not the right audience for this book, nor do I have the educational background to fully grok the core problem that the author is supplying an answer to. The author's description of exegesis over interpretation seems to me to be more of an issue of whether a modern "academic" approach to study of Holy Scripture (and based on the descriptions in this book, the academics would hate that term) is better or worse than that of theologians within the church. The author firmly supports the latter, and so did I before and after reading this book. But I believeI have a somewhat better understanding of why I think that way after reading this book.

[Kendall Davis]

A good and accessible introduction to thinking on ecclesial/theological interpretation. Reno is particularly good at showing how ecclesial exegesis is not a copout or predetermining the conclusions in advance the way that is often assumed by historical-critical scholars. Some of the middle essays didn't work as well, but this is what you get with an essay collection.

[Wade Rials]

I enjoyed reading this book. As a Protestant I was interested to see the differences. Reno’s book was helpful in that regard. This book lays out a traditional Roman Catholic approach to hermeneutics. I personally don’t place the same weight on church tradition as Reno, but I respect his approach.

[Stephen Williams]

I'm very much in line with Reno's overall thesis re: reclaiming exegesis as a theological rather than critical discipline, but this book either needed to be shorter with a more tightly-edited through-line or be presented clearly as a series of generally related essays.

[Lucas Bradburn]

Helpful book. Basically argues that we don't have to interpret the Bible because it's already been interpreted by the Great Tradition. Faithfulness requires us to adhere to the principle of accordance: the goal is to have our creeds and confessions 'accord' with Scripture (and vice versa). This simplifies the interpretive endeavor and helps bring our conclusions in line with orthodoxy.