I offered it not to suggest that there are biblical contradictions, but to urge believers to make sense of Scripture. Paul put it this way. "Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth." (2 Tim 2:15).
So here I offer my "rules of hermeneutics". "Oh, thanks, Stan," I can hear you say, "but what's 'hermeneutics'." Well, I'll tell you ... and we don't need the sarcasm. Hermeneutics is simply the science of interpreting texts. It is almost exclusively used in terms of interpretation of biblical texts. It is, then, the means by which we can reasonably come to an understanding of God's Word. And if you're a Christian, you really want to do that. So here are a few key principles to keep in mind as you diligently seek to rightly handle the word of truth.
1. Remember the Author.These are just my "rules of hermeneutics". Others have others. Unfortunately, most have very few, if any. So, if you are among those who never imagined rules of interpreting God's Word, feel free to use mine until you come up with something better. Don't be a worker who needs to be ashamed.
The Scriptures are divinely inspired ("breathed"). As such, they are right. They are perfect. And they are best interpreted through the Holy Spirit.
2. Scripture interprets Scripture.
All Scripture must be in agreement with all Scripture. Most critical -- context, context, context. Immediate context as well as all-of-Scripture context.
3. From the known to the unknown.
It is important to go from the explicit to the implicit, from the clear to the less clear. Imposing less clear texts onto clear texts isn't reasonable.
4. Interpret the Bible in its literal sense.
That's not woodenly literal, but in the sense in which it is written. History is history, poetry is poetry, prophecy is prophecy, doctrine is doctrine, wisdom is wisdom, parables are parables, etc. Each genre and each type has its own rules. Recognize, for instance, hyperbole, metaphor, idioms, or anthropomorphisms. Also, Scripture uses parallels and contrasts. Look for them, and use them when you find them.
5. Interpret the Bible as it is intended.
Accurately determine the meanings of words. Words can change sense by usage, translation, context, or user. (An example would be the word "salvation". That can refer to being rescued from eternal damnation or simply being saved from something bad.) Usage of the day, usage in context, definitions, verb tenses, subject-object agreement, all sorts of these things can be critical to a proper understanding of Scripture.
6. Start at the right place.
Start with God and work your way down to Man, not vice versa. Allow God's Word to change your worldview rather than your worldview to change God's Word. (Note: Keep in mind the certainty of your "depraved mind" (Rom 1:28) and deceitful heart (Jer 17:9). If you do not come across things that challenge your thinking and your emotions, you're probably not doing it right.)
7. Be logical.
This would preclude biblical contradiction. It would preclude allowing Scripture to oppose Scripture. And it would require that Scripture be consistent with Scripture. You need to figure out how.
7 comments:
My "rules of hermeneutics"?
Simple. I will try to interpret Scripture the way that Jesus did.
More than telling us exactly what to see in the Scriptures, Jesus taught us how to see, what to emphasize, and also what could be de-emphasized, or even ignored. Jesus is himself our hermeneutic, and he was in no way a fundamentalist or literalist. He was a man of the Spirit. Just study him in the Gospel word and see how he does it.
Jesus consistently ignored or even denied exclusionary, punitive, and triumphalistic texts in his own Jewish Bible in favor of texts that emphasized inclusion, mercy, and justice for the oppressed. He had a deeper and wider eye that knew what passages were creating a highway for God and which passages were merely cultural, self-serving, and legalistic additions. When Christians state that every line in the Bible is of equal importance and inspiration, they are being very unlike Jesus.
Jesus read the inspired text in an inspired way, which is precisely why he was accused of “teaching with authority and not like our scribes” (Matthew 7:29).
A non-literalist who assured us "For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished." (Matt 5:18). A God who denied God's Word? Or was He denying misinterpretations? Because if the Son of God was denying the Word of God, we have a real problem.
I don't recall Jesus ever denying the Hebrew Bible, in part or whole. He in fact did the opposite, as Stan pointed out. The only difference between the Old Testament as the Jews understood it and the Old Testament as Jesus understood it is that it all pointed to Him. All of the Old Testament is preparation for the coming Messiah. And so far as I know, nothing in the Old Testament is "self-serving, and legalistic additions." If there are parts of the Old Testament that were written by men alone, then all of the Old Testament comes into question in its validity to being God's Word. And if the Old Testament comes into question, then the New Testament does as well. And I don't know about you, but nothing I read in the Old Testament is self-serving to the Jews. It constantly tells of their failures, and all of the triumphs they have are through God; not exactly a self-serving way to write.
In the Gospels, Jesus quotes and interprets his Bible in ways that might make some Bible readers today very uncomfortable.
One example comes from Luke’s Gospel. Jesus finds himself in a debate with the Sadducees, a Jewish religious party that was in charge of the temple.
Unlike most other Jews, Sadducees thought the idea of people rising from the dead was nonsense. In this story they try to stump Jesus by posing a hypothetical scenario: if a woman is widowed and marries her husband’s brother, and he dies and she marries another brother, and it happens four more times (seven husbands in all), which brother would be her husband at the resurrection?
Jesus responds that marriage is a nonissue at the resurrection, because they will be “like angels.” Fair enough, but to make his point stick, Jesus quotes from the book of Exodus.
In the story of the burning bush, God appears to Moses and announces who he is: “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” Jesus quotes this verse as biblical proof that God “is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for to him all are alive.”
It’s okay to be confused.
No one reading this episode in the book of Exodus would ever think for one second that resurrection is the topic. It’s simply a story of Moses meeting God for the first time and God introducing himself as the God of Israel’s long-dead ancestors. Now Moses knows whom he’s dealing with.
No reasonable connection exists between what the burning bush story says and what Jesus says it says. Jesus is engaging in a bit of creative biblical interpretation. Specifically, Jesus is exploiting the present tense verb “I am,” meaning that God is, right now as Jesus is talking , the God of an alive—resurrected— Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
It's okay to be confused because in none of the examples you cite did Jesus say anything suggesting, "That text that you're reading is null and void" or anything like it. He explained texts, denied mistakes of the Pharisees (rather than mistakes in the texts), corrected misinterpretations, but nowhere does He "ignore or deny" the Old Testament texts. As a matter of fact, He attributes the Pentateuch to Moses, a real problem for modern scholars.
And, by the way, Matthew did something similar to what you illustrate when he quoted "Out of Egypt I called My son" as an explanation as to why Joseph and Mary took Jesus to Egypt (Matt 2:15). The text itself was referring to God calling the Israelites out of Egypt. Matthew expanded it. Jesus did the same thing. Which is not the same as denying or ignoring Scripture.
Do you not realize that what Jesus taught the men on the road to Emmaus was what the Old Testament really said? It is why we can understand Isaiah 52 as in reference to Jesus, but Jews understand it as a reference only to Israel. And the Author instructing on the meaning of the work isn't Him recanting or rewriting or ignoring it. He's clarifying that which was obscure at the time, and could only be made clear by His arrival. He never denied any of Scripture, only cleared it up. And if you are capable of interpreting Scripture the way that Jesus did, then you are much smarter than anyone around. How you can know the mind of the Lord is beyond me.
1. I love Winging It's wonderful observation that "If you do not come across things that challenge your thinking and your emotions, you're probably not doing it right."
2. To the definition of context, I would add "perspective." Winging Its' rule about interpreting from the top down is an application of recognizing perspective.
Jesus, having the mind of God, knows what the Scriptures mean without having to figure it out like we do. It is, therefore, a fantasy to expect that we can "interpret Scripture the way that Jesus did." We can expect Him to state the meaning of passages without explaining how WE can derive that meaning.
Another application of perspective is that the New Testament explains the Old Testament. The greatest scholars in Hebrew history missed the messages of the Old Testament, and the greatest scholars in church history vigorously debate all things biblical. It would be foolish to think that the correct interpretations will always make sense to us, and it is arrogant to reject or judge the Author's ability to interpret His own words.
Jesus' explanation of Exodus 3:6, in Luke 20:37, makes perfect sense when you add God's perspective. First, as Creator of mass and energy, God is also Creator of time and space. God exists both outside of time, but also enters into His creation. Thus, God need not say, "I was the God of Abraham," but can say, "I AM the God of Abraham." Second, although Abraham's body has died, Abraham's spirit lives. From this perspective, as well, God can say, "I am the God of Abraham." Third, as God directs our attention forward to the resurrection, we realize that though we die bodily, yet we shall again live bodily. The God who both gives and restores life is indeed the God of the living.
While we should seek to understand the perspective of a passage, we should also recognize that our perspective is not God's perspective. Sometimes we just have to accept His explanation.
This takes me full circle to my first point. Perhaps we could call Winging Its' observation the Principle of Humility.
Post a Comment