Jesus's Hermeneutics

I read this somewhere and it has been echoed repeatedly from folks that comment sometimes on this blog: "One of the key rules of good biblical exegesis for Christians is to interpret all the words of the Bible through the teachings of Jesus." Technically, the "key rules of good biblical exegesis" refers to hermeneutics. Exegesis is interpreting Scripture and hermeneutics are the rules that should be followed when doing exegesis. So the argument is that we need to use Jesus's hermeneutics when we study the Bible.

Now, as it happens, the usual place I find this kind of rule for good biblical exegesis is among the liberal Christians. And the only application I've ever seen of this approach is "He seemed to take it however He saw fit, so we should, too." Because, you see, if you take it as it stands, it is problematic to most of those who take this approach.

How did Jesus understand the Scriptures He had? (You know He was using just the Old Testament, right?)

Jesus denied that any of God's Word would pass away. All that was remained. The principles were right when God gave them to Moses and remain right today. We know this because Jesus said, "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). And ... hmmm, let's see ... nope! All is not yet accomplished. So, not one iota will pass from the Law.

To be sure, Jesus was about the business of correcting misconceptions. Jesus strongly corrected the mistaken ideas the Pharisees and Sadducees introduced. He didn't deny the Sabbath, for instance, but denied their confusion about for whom it was designed. "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath," He told them. "So the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath." (Mark 2:27-28). They felt they were being true to Scripture when they declared things "Corban"--given to God--but Jesus assured them they were missing the point when it violated God's command to honor your father and mother (Mark 7:10-13). That is, the commandments were good; their interpretation was faulty. And Jesus, teaching with authority (which, of course, God Incarnate can do as no other), explained that adultery wasn't merely the act, but the desire (Matt 5:27-28) and murder wasn't merely the act, but the desire (Matt 5:21-22). When Jesus explained to His disciples who He was, He did so "beginning with Moses and all the prophets." (Luke 24:27) So Jesus corrected and expanded understanding of the texts, but He held them as both ongoing and correct.

And Jesus never took a "It's myth" approach. Jesus always referred to Old Testament events as genuine history. He corrected the Sadducees' false notion against resurrection by explaining that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were real people (Mark 12:24-27). He understood (in the face of modern "textual criticism") that the Pentateuch was written by Moses (Matt 19:8; Mark 7:10; Mark 12:26; Luke 24:44). Jesus understood the story of Adam and Eve to be genuine and even understood that marriage was defined as the union of a man and a woman (Matt 19:4-6). Jesus understood the Scriptures as literal. That is, He took them as written.

Considering the alternative, you run into all sorts of problems. Arguing that Jesus did not understand the Scriptures to be "God's Word", infallible, inerrant, and certainly not literal in any sense, you step into a hermeneutical nightmare. If Jesus's view was, in essence, "Make of it what you will" and "Don't worry; it will change anyway", then we run into some serious difficulties. First, all Scripture becomes a matter of purely personal interpretation over against Peter's certainty that it wasn't (2 Peter 1:20). Paul was clearly wrong when he argued that the Scriptures were God-breathed, unless, of course, you're willing to admit that God's "breathing" was irregular, uneven, and unreliable. You have, in essence, no solid ground on which to stand. Second, you have a self-refuting argument on your hands. The argument goes something like this. "You need to interpret the Scriptures like Jesus did. The Scriptures are not changeless, literal, or inerrant. Thus, you can't know in a reliable way how Jesus interpreted the Scriptures, since all we know about Him we learn from variable, figurative, erroneous Scriptures." Nice! Now we have a God who can't be trusted giving us His Word which is unsettled and unreliable viewed through the lens of Christ about whom we can know very little with certainty. And that is the hermeneutic we're supposed to use.

I would suggest, then, that we do use Jesus's hermeneutic principle. The Bible is God's Word. As such, it is intended as written. History is history, doctrine doctrine, poetry poetry, and so forth. The principles set forth by God in His Word don't change because God doesn't change. So we need to interpret Scripture by what it says and by other Scripture (as Jesus did) and conclude--if necessary, against modern sensibilities--that God's Word is right and human perceptions are often a product of a deceptive heart (Jer 17:9) and we need to align ourselves with His Word. Which, I think, is the principle of exegesis I've always tried to hold to.