#The experience watching this show was my canon event - You could document the exact time my brain was rewired when I was watching this | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

kinnoth · 3 years

Note

What's your take on Thor Ragnarok? What's your take on Thor's development within the MCU so far?I'm a fan of your posts and tags!

GREAT QUESTIONS THANK YOU FOR ASKING, THANKS FOR BEING A FAN

tldr I """"like"""" Thor's canon development now bc I've done some fucking Olympic grade backfilling and contortion to recontextualize the canon to make it meaningful, but this results in me living in my own pocket universe of an interpretation where I can't really interact with other people bc they don't subscribe to my exact reading of canon

But bro I LOVE Ragnarok. I know that can be a controversial take (I've read the meta of people who think it "slaughtered" Thor and Loki's characterisations), but I just thought it was so much fun! Like on a movie watching experience level and on a lore/meta level, it's FUN. That's not something I can say for 95% of marvel movies, which are nigh universally too dimly lit and too reliant on hateful sarcasm between characters as a substitute for a relationship.

On a meta level, I 1000% subscribe to the idea that the entire movie is a retelling that Thor is preforming for his refugees, so it's a heavily edited, exaggerated, and sillier version of events meant to keep everyone's spirits up. On the point of lore continuity, I really appreciate that thor3 makes CANON and EXPLICIT Odin's campaign of imperialist violence behind his "peaceful" reign over the nine realms, I FUCKIN LOVE IT. I LOVE the context Hela gives to their family, because she makes canon and explicit Odin's disappointments in Thor. I LOVE that Mjolnir was Hela's weapon before it was Thor's because Mjolnir was never meant to be a metric for moral goodness or readiness for rule, but a metric for a colonialist's commitment to imperialist violence on behalf of an empire WHICH IS WHY IT FINDS CAPTAIN AMERICA WORTHY BUT NOT LOKI

(btw if anyone else can draw a line between Hela and Steve Rogers that is a. representative of Odin's priorities and b. includes Thor but excludes Loki, hmu, bc this is the best I got.)

(Mjolnir rejects Thor in thor1 bc Thor was trying to conquer Jotunheim for personal glory and doesn't accept him again until he starts thinking about the good of the empire again by protecting Midgard, an imperial asset. Mjolnir rejects Loki bc Loki is a not an imperialist in service of an empire)

Off topic but I know a lot of people get hung up on Thor leaving Loki paralyzed in the parking garage, potentially to be found by the grandmasters dudes? Like people say that was unaccountably cruel and ooc for Thor. But like, ok, they killed everyone on the way up, and Thor knows his armed gladiator rebellion is on his heels also headed for the parking garage, so I dunno, I never read it as Loki was in any particular danger? But I'm a notorious Thor apologist as well as a Loki apologist so 🤷‍♂️

Things I also love: loki defunding the military to spend that money on art and infrastructure, Loki's live action thorki fanfic that Asgard unaccountably loved, Loki stonewalling Odin's attempt to reconcile bc fuck Odin, Thor's lightning powers, Bruce banner is now a Jewish grandma, Hela have I mentioned Hela love that girlboss, Jeff goldblum love that wiggly man, the Valkyrie love that angry girl, "piss off ghost", inglorious deaths for all the warriors 3, "I'm here" (screaming, crying, shaking), the story about how Loki bit Thor as a snake as well as the confirmation that they are in fact the same age

I have complicated feelings about Thor's canon development tbh. On a very ground floor sort of reaction, I despise what they did to My Boy in infinity war and endgame. I think it's a disgusting character assassination and I don't think the russos understand humour and specifically how to use humour to expand on tragedy like what thor3 did.

On the other hand, if you've read my fic and meta, you'll know that I've accepted the canon development, bc at this point, I've done a LOT of very deliberate and concerted labour to MAKE the canon development we see between thor1 and endgame WORK. But, like, there was a LOT of labour that I, specifically, put into it. It fully relies on me specifically doing a lot of digging and reaching and mining these movies for every possible frame of content to the point where I am pretty sure I've put more effort into making all the development make continuous sense than any of the screenwriters put into the actual development.

And I think I've probably just drank too much of my own Kool aid but like, I am in a position now where I do think my interpretation of Thor's character development is THE most complete and accurate reading of his character development. Key to these points are: a) I think he is an ex-imperialist who is currently and actively trying to deprogram himself from the colonialists' mindset that Odin instilled within him b) he is trying to deprogram himself from Asgard's culture of extreme toxic masculinity wherein he was not taught to have any sort of emotional processing that did not involve physical violence c) Loki is/was/always will be the person he loves best

So like, as I try to show in my thorki canonverse fics (shameless plug for myself), I can make most of the bad decisions made about Thor's character in infinity war and endgame work if I recontextualize all of his canon actions with my own (well supported, well documented) headcanon'd baggage. Of course he goes on a death wish mission to get revenge on Thanos -- he has a literal deathwish bc he was already supposed to die with Loki. Of course he sinks into an unshakeable depression afterwards -- he has no identity now that he has no family bc he was never taught to live by himself or for himself. Of course he leaves new Asgard and abdicates his rule -- he hasn't wanted a hand in the dirty business of Empire ever since Odin's ambition got his mom and brother killed in thor2, and that hasn't changed. I try to make him go through all the canon-implied feelings and anxieties and doubts in front of the reader. My entire goal of this is that people read my shit, then look at canon and think "oohh that context DOES make it better!" I will be gratified if that is the case.

(The only thing I cannot fix is the bit in endgame where Thor walks past Loki's Tupperware cell and the narrative doesn't come to a screeching fucking halt as Thor has so many feelings that he has some sort of paralytic breakdown where he simultaneously wants to commit Time Crime (tm) so he can just stay here forever and also wishes he could just die here, next to loki, like he was always supposed to. Like, that needed to happen to really lynchpin all of my work together into one smooth, problem free reading, but I'm not allowed to have nice things so)

(oh also I didn't like Thor calling frigga "mom". Shouldn't it at least be "mum"? I think "mother" is best tbh, bc I don't really read them as having that sort of relationship, see "toxic masculinity", see also "homosocial socialisation")

(and ok I get that it was a nice moment for Thor to call the hammer back to his hand, and I get that it even still works with my headcanon that mjolnir finds Thor worthy still bc Thor is defending the imperial asset that is Midgard, but like God damnit. The uncritical and unquestioning use of that word "worthy" when he catches the hammer again. Like worthy of what you guys? Do you ever ask yourself that question bc I very much do. I kinda wish they didnt bring it up at all, or if they did, it didn't come back to Thor's hand and he is just like, wistfully, "that's all right, I suspected as much. I'm such a different man now, mjolnir doesn't recognize me. I don't think I'd be alive right now if I had been the same man I was")

Wow that got long, anyway, thanks for chatting with me! Again, always a pleasure to field asks!

#internal thor tag

25 notes · View notes

jmyers104 · 4 years

Text

The Interpretive Journey: Understaning and Applying God’s Word

Historical-Cultural Awareness

In order to successfully interpret Scripture, one must gain an awareness of the historical and cultural circumstances concerning the passage being studied. Ignoring this step can lead to incorrect interpretation, which ultimately leads to a wrong view of God and a misapplication of the biblical text. Whether someone willingly ignores the historical context or just has not been taught the importance of understanding the historical backdrop, the signs are often easy to spot. A common phrase in many Bible studies and Sunday School classes is, “What this passage means to me is…” The desire to make Scripture relevant is understandable – and even admirable. However, we do not make Scripture relevant because it is always relevant. Paul tells us that all of Scripture is “God-breathed” (2 Tim 3:16, ESV), a description that highlights the living nature of God’s Word. It never goes out of date. Rather than speaking of making God’s Word relevant, we are to seek to understand its relevance. Somewhat paradoxically, the best way to do this not to bring it to the 21st century, but to go back in time to when it was written. Others write themselves into the narrative, replacing names in the Bible with their own names.

Duvall and Hays write, “Since we live in a very different context, we must recapture God’s intended meaning as reflected in the text and framed by the ancient historical-cultural context. Once we understand the meaning of the text in its original context, we can apply it to our lives in ways that will be just as relevant.”[1] Along those same lines, Kostenberger and Patterson write, “Christianity is a historical religion, at whose heart is a historical event, the resurrection of Jesus Christ…Unless Jesus rose from the dead historically, we are not saved but remain in sin (1 Cor 15:16-19).”[2] God did not give us a manual, but rather a living and breathing document – a document that unfolds God’s work throughout redemptive history. When we read our Bible, we are not reading an older version of Aesop’s Fables. God actually created the earth, man actually rebelled against God, and God actually sent Jesus to earth in order to atone for our sins. One day soon, Jesus is actually returning to earth, not to continue His atoning work, but to judge the nations and to restore creation. Understanding the historical developments and the cultural trends of the biblical peoples will guard us from erroneous interpretations and enhance our understanding of God’s living Word. Studying Scripture without having and awareness of the historical context is like starting a movie with only 30 minutes left until the credits roll. You will catch bits and pieces of action and necessary information, but you are left in the dark concerning what has already happened. In order to truly understand what is happening (and in order to enjoy it more fully), one must go back to the beginning and see it through the author’s eyes.

Canonical Consciousness

Gaining an awareness of the historical-cultural context is the first step, but there are other important factors to consider if we are to get a firm grasp on the meaning and implications of God’s Word. The next step is to consider the passage’s place in the canon of Scripture. What exactly is meant by the “canon” of Scripture? Coming from a Greek word that “refers to a group of books acknowledged by the early church as the rule of faith and practice.”[3] Early Christians did not make the 66 books in the Bible authoritative, but rather saw recognized the authoritative nature of these books and compiled them into what is now known as the Bible. Every book in the Bible was almost unanimously viewed as authoritative by God’s people. But before the canon was even completed, key figures like Peter recognized that God was adding to the canon of Scripture. Speaking of Paul’s epistles, Peter says, “He speaks about these things in all his letters. There are some matters that are hard to understand. The untaught and unstable will twist them to their own destruction, as they also do with the rest of the Scriptures” (2 Pet 3:16, CSB, emphasis added). At this point in time, it was understood that the Old Testament was (and is) the Word of God. What is interesting is that Peter puts Paul’s writings on par with the Old Testament, recognizing how God spoke through Him in order to add to the canon. When we come to the end of the final book in our Bibles, we find these words: “If anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book. 19 And if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share of the tree of life and the holy city, which are written about in this book” (Rev 18b-19). This serves as a fitting end to the canon: as stated above, God created the world and called it “good.” Man sinned, wrongfully and selfishly concluding that God’s creation was not good enough. God judges sin, but also seeks to redeem mankind through His Son Jesus Christ. Our sins have been atoned for by the perfect and sinless Lamb of God, and He is presently ruling at the right hand of the Father. Now, we wait expectantly for the day when He will return. Though we face many uncertainties, God has demonstrated His sovereignty in showing us how He will bring this age to a close and usher believers into His presence. There is nothing to be added, and in fact, to do so would result in serious judgment. Each book of this canon presents different aspects of this salvation-historical work, and while we would do well to keep the “grand story” in mind, we would do well to consider each book’s unique contribution to Christ. Like a beautiful diamond with 66 facets, the Bible is a precious jewel comprised of 66 books that shed light on the person and work of Christ in their own unique way.

Sensitivity to Genre

When we go to the movies, there are certain understandings and presuppositions we take into the theater with us. We expect comedies to make us laugh, and we expect thrillers to shock, surprise, and even scare us. Nobody goes into a Star Wars movie thinking that they are about to watch a rendition of an actual battle that happened a long time ago in a galaxy far away. The genre dictates our viewing experience.

When baking a cake, most people do not seek to find some hidden meaning in the instructions. However, when reading a mystery novel, they may look for a hidden meaning in a character’s words. The type of reading material dictates how we approach the reading material. Lexicons are read differently than love letters, and we expect certain things from superhero films that we do not expect out of romantic comedies. The same thing could be said of Scripture

We have seen each book has historical and cultural aspects that must be taken into consideration. We have also seen that each book in the canon is authoritative and has something unique to teach us. Now we turn our attention to the idea that genre affects how we approach the text. Biblical genres include narrative, poetry and wisdom, prophecy, parables, and apocalyptic. Just as we would approach a mystery novel differently than we would a historical account of World War II, so we must approach narratives differently than we would apocalyptic passages. For example, generally speaking, the details that make up narrative accounts are to be taken literally; there is no need to look for some secret meaning or try to decode symbolism in the text. When we approach the apocalyptic sections in Revelation, we do so understanding that the author is conveying literal truth, but he is doing so with unique – at times, almost poetic – language. Neither is the truth to be discarded or ignored because of the symbolism, nor is the symbolism to be taken literally in the apocalyptic passages. Nevertheless, God has spoken, and when if understand the unique nature of each genre, we have added yet another useful tool that will help us in the interpretive journey.

Literary and Linguistic Competence

The student of Scripture must take care to examine the language of the Bible very carefully if he is to interpret it correctly. This seems like an obvious statement, but there are several barriers that make the task more complicated than it seems. To be sure, paying close attention to the immediate context resolves many (if not most) interpretive issues. Anyone can pluck a verse out of its context and force it to say something it does not mean, but such foolish interpretations can be dismissed rather quickly when the surrounding verses are examined. For example, Revelation 3:20 says, “See! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me” (CSB). I recently heard someone use this verse to defend the view that our country should build a wall at Mexico’s border. According to this interpretation, immigrants should stand at the door of our country and knock politely until we let them in (no, this was not a Babylon Bee article!). Reading this verse in its immediate context (Rev 3:14-22) shows that Jesus’ focus was not on politics. Jesus was not addressing the government, but the church. Here, Jesus is calling a wayward church back to Him. The church at Laodicea thought they were self-sufficient, but in reality they were spiritually bankrupt. They deserved judgment, but Jesus was calling them to repentance.

While Revelation 3:20 is not speaking about a physical barrier, there are several kinds of linguistic barriers that are more subtle and nuanced and require a little more “know-how.” One of the most obvious is the fact that the Scriptures were not originally written in English, but were actually written in Hebrew, Greek, and even a little Aramaic. No two languages are alike; every language has its own rules, and not every word shares a word with the exact same meaning in other languages. For example, Paul refers to himself as a doulos of Christ in several of his epistles, but English translators are divided on how best to convey this word. Often this word is translated “servant,” demonstrating Paul’s humble service before Christ. Perhaps the biggest problem with this word choice is that servants are hired hands who can “clock out” and the end of the day and go about their business because they are not owned. Other translators therefore have chosen to interpret doulos as “slave,” for slaves are purchased and belong to their master. The reason that “slave” is not consistently used by all translators is because of the negative connotations that American slavery conjures up. Translators who believe “servant” to be the best word choice feel that consistently translating doulos as “slave” would both repel and repulse many readers. So while the original manuscripts are inerrant, translations are not. Even formal translations require a degree of interpretation, making the reader subject to the biases of the translators. Thus, it is crucial that we gain an understanding of the original languages. The ideal is to learn the languages, but if one is to engage in serious study, he must learn how to use language tools such as concordances and lexicons.

A Firm and Growing Grasp of Biblical Theology

In order to have a firm and growing grasp on biblical theology, two questions must be addressed: 1) What is theology? And 2) How is biblical theology distinct from similar disciplines such as systematic theology? These questions will be answered in turn.

In simple terms, theology is the study of God. Some say that the study of theology is boring and irrelevant, but this could not be further from the truth. God gave humans taste buds, humor, and sexual intimacy (to be enjoyed by a husband and a wife), and the giver is always greater than the gift. Further, theology is always applicable, not just because it is the root of correct application, but because the more the Christian learns about God, the more he will love Him and desire to apply Scripture to his life in ways that are pleasing to God.

While systematic theology is concerned with what the entire Bible says on a given topic, biblical theology is “The organization of Scripture thematically by biblical chronology or by biblical author with respect to the progressive revelation of the Bible.”[4] Biblical theology aims to understand a given passage in its historical context before questions are raised concerning how it is relevant today.[5] For example, when seeking to learn more about God’s character, the systematic theologian might conduct a survey of God’s incommunicable attributes, noting every place in Genesis through Revelation where such attributes are mentioned. The biblical theologian, by contrast, might do a study of John’s use of “light” and “love” to describe God’s character in his first epistle. Noting the literary structure, he may observe how “God is light” starts off the first half of the epistle, while “God is love” begins the second half. From there, he may take note of the defining characteristics of “light” and “love,” and how those traits are displayed throughout their respective portions of the book.

As the heading above suggests, one must possess a “growing grasp” on biblical theology – always progressing, and always learning how to make better use of lexical aids, original language studies, and historical documents that may supplement one’s understanding of the text. The student of Scripture will never “arrive;” just as sanctification is progressive, so will the believer’s knowledge be.

Before moving on, a word of caution is in order: while we should see Christ in every passage, biblical theology dictates that we first understand theology in its historical setting. Charles Spurgeon once said that regardless of the text he was preaching, his goal was to make a beeline to the cross. This should always be the goal, “For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be the glory forever. Amen” (Rom 11:36, CSB). However, this is the end goal.

When listening to a well-written symphony, there are many peaks and valleys, crescendos and decrescendos, high points and low points. Every musician plays a crucial role in the grand scheme (even the triangle player!), and all the musicians work towards specific climactic moments in whatever piece they are performing. Imagine if just one trumpet player skipped ahead and played one such climactic moment when he was not supposed to. If he was a payed musician, he likely would not be any longer! Similarly, each of the 66 books of Scripture play a crucial role in the grand story of the Bible. While today’s student of Scripture can look back on the law and the prophets with New Testament lenses, one must be careful to first consider the book the passage is a part of, as well as how the book fits into the big picture; the student cannot sound the interpretive trumpet too soon!

Application and Proclamation

By necessity, this step comes last. As stated above, we jump to application too quickly, we may miss the author’s intended meaning. There are other pitfalls to watch out for as well. One common misapplication is ignoring the literary context. This is something that is regularly practiced in cults like Mormonism. For example, 1 Cor 15:40 says, “There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another” (KJV). Mormons use this verse to support their view that there are 3 levels of heaven: the celestial level, the terrestrial level, and the telestial level. However, a look at the surrounding verses show that this is not the case. The overarching theme of 1 Cor 15 is resurrection. Thus, what Paul is teaching is not different level of heavens, but different bodies – our resurrection bodies will be different than our physical bodies.

Another common pitfall is forcing unnecessary divisions on a text. Preachers occasionally face the temptation to have a sermon with 3 alliterated points, but such divisions often obscure the natural structure of the passage being preached. 3-point alliterated sermons can be good when they are naturally derived from Scripture. When preaching on 1 John 3:4-10, the preacher could speak on sin’s definition (v. 4), deception (v. 7), and destruction (v. 8). The important thing to remember is that the text must dictate the pastor’s outline, not the other way around. We must not be like the preacher who said, “I have got a great sermon! Now all I need is a Scripture verse to go along with it.” “We are to preach the Word, not use the Word in our preaching.”[6] Yet another common pitfall is allegorizing the text at the expense of its plain meaning. True, one must ask, “What is (the text) communicating beyond the brute facts of history?”[7] The sermon should never be reduced to a history lesson. However, interpreters and Bible teachers must preach what is found in the pages of Scripture and not venture off into ideas and concepts the original authors did not intend. Even when one has arrived at the proper interpretation an applied Scripture rightly, the student can fall into another ditch if he does not actually seek to apply it. Indeed, proclamation will have little effect if the one doing the proclaiming is not applying the message to his own life. Kostenberger and Patterson rightly point out that “Knowledge apart from application leads to hubris. But overt obedience is impossible without knowledge.”[8]

We conclude by considering some guidelines for proper application. First, one must determine the author’s intended purpose. This is accomplished by employing historical-grammatical exegesis. Ultimately, the goal should be to relay the message in such a way that if the original author were listening in, he would say, “Yeah, that is what I meant.” It is also important to “evaluate the level of specificity of the original application(s),”[9] as well as identify cross-cultural principles. A good question to ask is, “Does this conclusion/application fit with what the rest of what Scripture says?” Finally, one should “Find appropriate applications that employ broader principles.”[10] When we utilize these 6 tools, we can interpret Scripture more accurately, love God more deeply, and apply His Word faithfully.

[1] Duvall, Scott and Daniel Hays. Grasping God’s Word, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 100

[2] Kostenberger, Andreas and Richard D. Patterson Invitation to Biblical Interpretation: Exploring the Hermeneutical Triad of History, Literature, and Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 2011), 95.

[3] EDOT, 155

[4] MacArthur, John and Richard Mayhue. Biblical Doctrine: A Systematic Summary of Biblical Truth (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2017), 35.

[5] Kostenberger, Andreas and Richard D. Patterson. Invitation to Biblical Interpretation: Exploring the Hermeneutical Triad of History, Literature, and Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 2011), 697.

[6] Kostenberger, Andreas and Richard D. Patterson. Invitation to Biblical Interpretation: Exploring the Hermeneutical Triad of History, Literature, and Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 2011), 753.

[7] Ibid., 747.

[8] Ibid., 784.

[9] Ibid., 790.

[10] Ibid., 793.

0 notes