Viewpoint Brief Bible Study #37 |
||
|---|---|---|
 |
 |
JESUS calls US to be |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
The Christian religion is the worship and service of Jesus Christ. It’s not Mary we worship, but her Son. We worship neither saints, angels, a law code, nor even God’s Spirit. It’s JESUS who is to be honored. The Bible is our guide. |
||
About Correctly Interpreting the Bible
___________________________________________In the CHRISTIAN STANDARD for 7/27/97 is an article titled, "Hermeneutics: Problems and Process," by a long-time friend of mine, CHARLES GRESHAM, now working for the Lord at Kentucky Christian College and other places.
Additional comments follow by Benjamin C. Wong.Hermeneutics, the "science of interpreting Scripture," has long been a significant study in the Restoration Movement (by which he refers to the Stone-Campbell reformation which began in the early 1800's here in the U.S. and in other parts of the world).
Beginning with ALEXANDER CAMPBELL's extensive treatment of this "science" in his section of CHRISTIANITY RESTORED ("Principles of Interpretation"), and continuing on through the next two generations with special studies by McGarvey, Dungan, Lockhart, and others, there was more written about how to understand Scripture than was written to indicate that the Bible was in reality the revelation of God.
It has been in the last two decades that this ancient concern (it has a history beyond the 19th-century Reformation Movement of which we spoke above) has become a "hot topic" among Restoration heirs.
Among the a cappella Churches of Christ, this renewed interest is seen in the controversy that has raged among them over the "new hermeneutic." As I understand it, the "new hermeneutic" is nothing more than the "old hermeneutic" emphasized by the early leaders of our reform movement, but which has been replaced in more recent years by a method of interpretation which seems to suggest that a process emphasizing "command, apostolic precedent, and necessary inference" is the only approach to Scripture that is possible for those who continue to emphasize Restoration ideals.
There are two basic issues here. The first is the nature of the biblical revelation which we are trying to understand. The second is the best process by which this revelation from God CAN be understood.
THE NATURE OF SCRIPTURE
Scripture has too often been analyzed from the
standpoint of our culture rather than having been
studied to see what it really says about itself.In the Restoration Movement we have long labored under the idea that Scripture is like any other book that has developed out of the Enlightenment. Therefore, it is a book of FACTS about God, Israel, the church, and moral behavior.
There is no denying that Scripture IS factual, and that there are facts that can be inferred from its message about God, Israel, the church, and moral behavior. But the Bible itself does NOT suggest this approach to understanding its message.
That approach is, I'm afraid, a part of our Enlightened thinking which we inherited from John Locke, the Scottish Common School of Philosophy, the Campbells (Alexander and his father, Thomas), and other first-generation leaders of this reform movement in the church of the Lord.
Basically, the scriptures, both Old and New Covenant Scriptures, are a NARRATIVE -- a story, of how God relates to man. As Robert Milligan saw and said more than 100 years ago, the Bible presents a SCHEME OF REDEMPTION. But more, it is the story of that redemptive activity which the Living God inaugurated in an ancient garden (Genesis 3:1ff) and will complete in a new Paradise, the Holy City coming down "as a bride adorned for her husband" (Revelation 21:2).
So we have finally come to the position of the poets. The Bible not only presents a story of God's dealings with man in a redemptive contest -- it's a story to be told (or to be sung!).
Tell me the old, old story, / Of unseen things above,
Of Jesus and His glory, / Of Jesus and His love.But as Catherine Hankey rightly observes in this old gospel song, it is a story to be told "simply" ("as to a little child"), "softly" ("with earnest tones and grave"), "often" and "always" ("for I forget so soon").
Other poets -- Fanny J. Crosby and William H. Parker -- see this story culminating in the story of Jesus. That story not only includes the story told about Jesus in the four Gospels, but rightly emphasizes His death and resurrection:
Tell of the Cross where they nailed Him,
Writhing in anguish and pain;
Tell of the grave where they laid Him,
Tell how He now lives again. -- CrosbyIt's no wonder that Miss Crosby sees this as the epitome of God's love as seen in Scripture, but culminating in what Jesus has done in human history for sinful humanity. She writes,
Love in that story so tender
Clearer than ever I see;
Stay. Let me weep while you whisper
Love paid the ransom for me!Some will say, "If you emphasize STORY, there is danger that the common idea of stories as made up, false, or fictional, will follow."
But this is not true when we try to share with others the stories of our own lives. We are careful (unless we are pathological liars) to present our story in a factual way (story and fact are not opposites, but complementaries), and there is always someone (perhaps our wife or children) who is there to keep that story from becoming fictional!
The Bible IS God's story. It can be checked in the public sector. But it is believed because it speaks to the human heart. Its inspiration guarantees its truthfulness and its reality. It is HIS story. Yet it reflects the nature of story as a believable narrative of true events that tell of one's purpose, and that gives reason for one's action.
As that story unfolds, there are other forms of literary material included. Law, ritual, philosophy, poetry, and prophetic preaching (calling God's people back to their basic history and relationship) are all included.
Each type of material needs to be interpreted both in terms of the particular type of writing it IS, and in how it relates to the rest of God's story. Before one can interpret it properly, then, one must always ask as to the nature of the Bible.
THE PROCESS OF INTERPRETATION
It IS important to interpret the Bible as one would interpret any other book, IF the type of literature is recognized in that book. If the Bible is story, then it also must be understood in the way a true story is (or has in the past been) understood. Hence, there is need to understand the story's place in general history, the cultural factors that come through as the story is told, and lexical constructions that make up the message of that story. What biblical scholarship has referred to as the grammatical-historical approach to the Bible is essential (to correct understanding).But even more important is the "pre-understanding," or presuppositions) one brings to the role of interpreter of the Bible.
Alexander Campbell spoke of this, under the phrase, "coming into the understanding distance." He saw this principle as equally important to the grammatical-historical and contextual principles.
More recently, biblical scholars have referred to the spiritual preparation of the interpreter. Basing much upon 1 Corinthians chapter 2 where Paul contrasts the spiritual with the "natural" man, they have rightly assessed the importance of the interpreter being a Christian who is greatly concerned with the message God has revealed.
They are also concerned that one does not approach Scripture naturalistically, assuming that the God of Revelation has no supernatural power, so that for such Bible students, all reference to supernatural events (as exodus, incarnation, miracles, etc.) must, of course, be eliminated. Miracles ARE a part of the Bible story...
In other words, when one's own "story" clashes with the "story" seen in the Bible, one MUST be willing to modify his own story to bring it into consistency with the biblical story. Only then can the interpreter be properly prepared to understand the whole of God's story.
But God's story is public. As Paul said before Agrippa (when Festus, the governor, suggested Paul was insane), "For the king knows about these matters, and I speak to him also with confidence, since I am persuaded that none of these things escape his notice; for this has not been done in a corner" (Acts 26:26).
Both in the O.T. portion of God's story, and in the N.T. recital, there is adequate information to show that the story did occur and that it does reflect what was taking place in the cultural history of the day when it is said to have taken place.
Biblical archaeology and secular history alike demonstrate this adequately. The evidence is there for all to see. Am I willing to accept it and believe it?
There is a sense in which the biblical record is more than a "love letter" (as some brethren have accused other brethren of believing). But it does reflect God's unchanging love. That love is seen in the Garden (Eden) and continues through the story of redemption, reaching its climax in that greatest gift of love -- Jesus.
The story is multi-faceted. It moves through covenantal relationships. It does involve (in the O.T.) laws and regulations. But through it all we see God's unchanging love. It was love that sent His unique Son into the world so that men could be saved (John 3:16,17). It's that crucial story that we must tell, because only THAT STORY can change "our stories" and bring them into grateful submission to the loving God of grace and glory!
We DO have a story to tell. We can only properly tell it when, as Peter so clearly states it, we have sanctified "Christ as Lord in (our) hearts, always being ready to make a defense to every one who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence" (1 Peter 3:15).
------------------------------------
Scripture quotations (if Ray typed them right) are
from the New American Standard Bible. And here
are comments by Benjamin C. Wong --He's addressing particularly Tim Tseng, another CAC list member ==> Thanks for the input on the importance that hermeneutic principles play in trying to understand the Bible. This could be an extensive discussion, but just briefly let me comment. Perhaps others may have more input.
I am not familiar with the two hermeneutical principles to which you drew our attention; Prophetic Protestant Principle and Southern Strategy.
The hermeneutical principle I am committed to requires a historical principle (the historical context of the passage) and a grammatical principle which would derive the same meaning as the recipients of the passage would have understood it.
Any meanings other than that would be uncertain unless another passage of Scripture should cause us to see that meaning in it. Hermeneutical principles that subject the interpretation to the interpreter are not acceptable since the interpreter becomes the voice of God.
Isn't the interpreter also elevated to God if the hermeneutical principle is rejected merely because the interpretation is not acceptable to that scholar/student? This can be due to one's experiences or to one's reasonings or to both (which includes one's culture).
Brief Bible Study #37 from Ray Downen. To go back to Viewpoint's first page, click < here. Or here to go on to Viewpoint Study 38. For Ray's concluding remarks, click HERE.
