Understanding Scripture: An Adventist Approach

.biblical,

Understanding Scripture An Adventist Approach George W. Reid, Editor

Biblical Research Institute Studies, vol. 1

Biblical Research Institute Studies, vol. 1 BS 5 2 0 . R45 U53 eng 2006 v . 1 c.3 R e i d , George W. Understanding Scripture / George W. R e i d

Understanding Scripture An Adventist Approach George W. Reid, Editor

Biblical Research Institute General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists Silver Spring, MD 20904 2005

Copyright © 2006, by the Biblical Research Institute General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists Silver Spring, MD 20904 Scriptures credited to CJB are from the Complete Jewish Bible, copyright © 1998 by David H. Stern. Published by Jewish New Testament Publications, Inc. P.O. Box 615, Clarksville, Maryland 21029, USA. Used by permission.

Scripture quotations credited to ESV are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a division of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. A l l rights reserved.

Scripture texts credited to NAB are from The New American Bible, copyright © 1970, by the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, Washington, D.C., and are used by permission o f copyright owner. A l l rights reserved.

Scripture quotations marked NASB are from the New American Standard Bible®, © Copyright 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 by the Lockman Foundation. Used by permission.

Scriptures credited to NCV are from The Holy Bible, New Century Version, copyright © 1987, 1988, 1991 by Word Publishing, Dallas, Texas 75039. Used by permission.

Texts credited to NEB are from The New English Bible, copyright © The Delegates of the Oxford University Press and the Syndics of the Cambridge University Press 1961, 1970. Reprinted by permission.

Quotations designated NET are from the Holy Bible: The NET Bible ® {New English Translation ™). Copyright © 2001 by Biblical Studies Press, L.L.C. www.netbible.com. A l l rights reserved. Quoted by permission.

Texts credited to N I V are from the Holy Bible, New International Version, copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan Bible Publishers.

Texts credited to NKJV are from The New King James Version, copyright © 1979, 1980, 1982, Thomas Nelson, Inc., Publishers. Used by permission. A l l rights reserved.

Scriptures quoted from NLV are from The New Life Version, copyright © 1969, 1976, 1978, 1983, 1986. Used by permission.

Texts credited to REB are from The Revised English Bible, copyright © Oxford University Press and Cambridge University Press, 1989. Reprinted by permission.

Printed in the U.S.A. by the Review and Herald Publishing Association Hagerstown, M D 21740

ISBN 978-0-925675-17-0

Editor George W. Reid

Associate Editor Gerhard Pfandl

B R I C O M Members 2000-2005 Niels-Erik Andreasen John T. Baldwin Matthew A. Bediako Ivan T. Blazen Keith Burton Lael O. Caesar Jaime Castrejon Gordon E. Christo JoAnn M . Davidson Richard M . Davidson Ganoune Diop Ron duPreez Larry R. Evans Francisco Gayoba Daniel Heinz Eugene Hsu Greg A. King Miroslav M . Kis

George R. Knight Robert E. Lemon John K. McVay Ekkehardt Miiller Daegeuk Nam James R. Nix Brempong Owusu-Antwi Jon K. Paulien Jan Paulsen Paul B. Petersen Roberto Pereyra Gerhard Pfandl George W. Reid Ângel M . Rodriguez ArturA. Stele Ted N . C. Wilson Randall W. Younker E. Edward Zinke

Contributors John Τ. Baldwin, Ph.D. Lael O. Caesar, Ph.D. Fernando L. Canale, Ph.D.

Richard M . Davidson, Ph.D. Ganoune Diop, Ph.D. Ron du Preez, D.Min. Th.D. Frank M . Hasel, Ph.D. Greg A. King, Ph.D. Gerald A. Klingbeil, D.Litt.

Ekkehardt Muller, D.Min. Th.D. Jon K. Paulien, Ph.D.

Gerhard Pfandl, Ph.D. George W. Reid, Th.D. George E. Rice, Ph.D. Ângel Μ. Rodriguez, Th.D. Tom Shepherd, Dr.Ph.H., Ph.D. Alberto R. Timm, Ph.D.

Peter M . van Bemmelen, Th.D.

Professor of Theology, Theological Seminary, Andrews University Professor of Old Testament, Andrews University Professor of Theology and Philosophy.

Theological Seminary, Andrews University Professor of Old Testament, Theological Seminary, Andrews University Professor of Old and New Testament, Oakwood College Pastor, Michigan Conference, North American Division Professor of Theology, Bogenhofen Seminary Professor of Old Testament, Southern Adventist University Professor of Old Testament and Ancient Near Eastern Studies, River Plate Adventist University Associate Director, Biblical Research Institute Professor of New Testament, Theological Seminary, Andrews University Associate Director, Biblical Research Institute FormerDirector,BiblicalResearchInstitute Pastor, Chesapeake Conference, North American Division Director, Biblical Research Institute Professor of Religion, Union College Professor of Church History and Historical Theology, Brazil Adventist University Emeritus Professor of Theology, Theological Seminary, Andrews University IV

Dedication

It is an honor and a pleasure to dedicate this book to RAOULDEDEREN In appreciation for his many years o f superior service as a member o f the Biblical Research Institute Committee.

In recognition o f his exemplary Christian character and the depth o f his thought that have made h i m one o f the most important and influential theologians i n Seventh-day Adventist history.

In gratitude for his theological contributions i n the classroom and i n his writings i n the area o f the biblical doctrine o f revelation and inspiration.

The members o f the Biblical Research Institute Committee

Contents Contributors Dedication Foreword Preface Abbreviations Chapter I Historical Background o f Adventist Biblical Interpretation —Alberto R. Timm Chapter I I Faith, Reason, and the H o l y Spirit i n Hermeneutics —John T. Baldwin Chapter I I I Presuppositions in the Interpretation o f Scripture —Frank

M. Hasel

Chapter I V Revelation and Inspiration —Fernando Canale Chapter V The Authority o f Scripture —Peter M. van Bemmelen Chapter V I The Text and Canon o f Scripture —Gerald A. Klingbeil Chapter V I I Guidelines for the Interpretation o f Scripture —Ekkehardt Muller Chapter V I I I Innerbiblical Interpretation: Reading the Scriptures Intertextually —Ganoune Diop

Vll

Chapter I X Interpreting O l d Testament Historical Narrative —Greg A. King

1

5

3

Chapter X Reading Psalms and the Wisdom Literature —Gerhard Pfandl and Ângel M. Rodriguez

1

6

3

Chapter X I Interpreting O l d Testament Prophecy —Richard M. Davidson

1

8

3

Chapter X I I Interpretation o f the Gospels and Epistles —George E. Rice

2

0

5

Chapter X I I I Interpretation o f Biblical Types, Parables, and Allegories —Tom Shepherd

2

2

3

Chapter X I V The Hermeneutics o f Biblical Apocalyptic —Jon K. Paulien

2

4

5

Chapter X V Hermeneutics and Culture —Lael O. Caesar

2

7

1

Chapter X V I Interpreting and A p p l y i n g Biblical Ethics —Ron du Preez

2

8

5

Chapter X V I I Ellen G. White and Hermeneutics —Gerhard Pfandl

3

0

9

Appendix A Methods o f Bible Study

3

2

9

Appendix Β

3

3

9

Foreword Seventh-day Adventists are a community o f believers shaped by the Scriptures in their doctrinal convictions and practices, as w e l l as in their daily interaction w i t h others. The reading and the study o f the Bible, accompanied by prayer, is a central spiritual discipline in the life o f the church. This spiritual discipline should be exemplified and promoted by church leaders, teachers, pastors, and church elders throughout the world.

The Biblical Research Institute o f the General Conference has always been very interested in the vital role o f the Bible in nurturing the community o f believers. Consequently, it has sought to provide materials for study that w i l l deepen the church members' understanding o f the Bible and w i l l train them i n how to study it by themselves. This new volume, produced under the auspices o f the Biblical Research Institute and the scholars o f the Biblical Research Institute Committee, addresses the question o f how to interpret the Scriptures. Its fundamental purpose is to stimulate the study o f the Scriptures, using basic principles o f interpretation that w i l l minimize, and, i f possible, eliminate, arbitrary interpretations o f the Word o f God.

The Use o f the Modified Version o f the Historical-Critical Approach by Adventist Scholars —Ângel M. Rodriguez Scripture Index

3

53

Index o f Authors

3

^7

Subject Index

3

viii

5

9

This volume introduces the readers to a series o f principles o f biblical interpretation that is compatible with the Adventist high view o f the Bible as the Word o f God. B y including chapters dealing with the nature o f revelation, inspiration, and the authority o f the Bible, it reveals the scriptural presuppositions that Seventh-day Adventists bring to the text as they seek to obtain a better understanding o f the Bible and o f their own presuppositions.

The Biblical Research Institute is particularly grateful to George W. Reid for accepting the task as editor o f this volume. His 18 years as Director o f the Institute qualified h i m in a special way to edit this important book. We are also grateful to Gerhard Pfandl, associate editor, and to Marlene Bacchus, desktop publishing specialist, for the many hours they spent w i t h George Reid i n preparing this book for publication. The church at large, and i n particular the community o f Adventist Bible teachers, w i l l always remain indebted to them for the excellent job done. M a y the church be continually blessed through the pages o f this book. Â n g e l Μ . Rodriguez Director Biblical Research Institute IX

Preface Seventh-day Adventist faith and praxis rest on the Scriptures as final authority, evidenced by the fact that a statement on the Bible heads the official statement o f church beliefs. We are a people o f the Book i n which God has spoken to humanity i n terms intelligible to all, yet transmitted w i t h i n our language and experience.

The Scriptures unveil an astonishing panorama o f insights that addresses every element o f the human need to know. There God reveals Himself, His character, purposes, historic acts, and w i l l . He traces the elements o f the cosmos, including humanity's origins, redemption i n Christ, and the promise o f an ultimate destiny i n His kingdom. This sweeping world view stands absolutely without peer, flooding our intellect and emotions with ultimate meaning. Without the Word o f God, our understanding would be reduced to conjectural guesswork, built on a shifting analysis o f our environment.

Given the Word's supreme manifestation i n Christ Jesus, i n whom "the w o r d was made flesh and dwelt among us," we see His person expressed i n human terms. But its written form must be, and w i l l be, interpreted anew by each generation. This is the task o f hermeneutics and the prime reason this book was written.

The first Biblical Research Institute book on hermeneutics appeared i n 1974. Since then, however, great changes have taken place i n our world, exerting a heavy impact on biblical studies and on interpretation. Instant communication has erased the former isolation found i n many parts o f the world. I n such a setting this new publication comes to aid pastors and laypersons who seek a sound approach to God's Word.

Today we face issues that demand attention and simply must be addressed. Postmodern trends reach beyond historically based studies to the way i n which religious meaning arises w i t h i n the person to become the controlling force i n interpretation. Contemporary thinking largely abandons the idea that the central purpose o f the Scriptures is to communicate messages objectively from the sovereign God. As far as possible, this book seeks to uncover modes o f interpretation that arise from the Scriptures themselves, which requires affirmation o f the universality o f final truth, w i t h God as its ultimate source.

Why is all this important? The very work o f the church i n fulfilling the work that Jesus gave it rests for both message and mission on what χ

xi

we conceive His commission to include. H o w we interpret Scripture is o f huge importance. W i l l the Scriptures speak with authority in the sense o f providing a model, transcendent and applicable to all cultures and to all people, or are they simply a pool o f ideas from which the religiously inclined may draw to craft their personal conceptions o f what really matters? Sound interpretation leads to understanding, and that which we understand controls our actions. So this book addresses the very foundation stones from which the Bible i n the Christian life holds a commanding position.

As a reader y o u w i l l find here a series o f specialized chapters, each written w i t h a prayerful concern open to the guidance o f the Spirit. A l l the authors are highly qualified Adventist scholars, committed in stewardship to the L o r d Jesus, writing for the purpose o f helping every reader o f the Scriptures recover the intent incorporated i n God's Word. While its giving was couched in human settings, beyond them we seek the eternal truths that reveal God's character and purposes.

The writers o f these chapters come originally from many countries and cultures yet share a common commitment to Christ and to the written Word. They constitute a living example o f how the Scriptures reach out to express the universal message o f God. We extend our gratitude to the authors for their w o r k and for their patience with an editorial process that often abridged their work by as much as fifty percent to keep the final product w i t h i n a reasonable length.

Especially, we are obliged to the staff o f the Biblical Research Institute, under whose auspices we present this book to all who sincerely seek to understand God and to put into living practice the treasures o f His Word.

George W. Reid Director Biblical Research Institute 1984-2001

Xll

Abbreviations

Ellen G . White Works AA CD CH COL CSW CT CW DA Ed EGW'88 Ev EW FE GC LDE LS MB MCP MH MR MYP PC PP SC SG PM SM SP SSW Τ TM UL

The Acts of the Apostles Counsels on Diet and Foods Counsels on Health Christ's Object Lessons Counsels on Sabbath School Work Counsels to Parents, Teachers, and Students Counsels to Writers and Editors The Desire of Ages Education Ellen G. White 1888 General Conference Materials Evangelism Early Writings Fundamentals o f Christian Education The Great Controversy Last Day Events Life Sketches of Ellen G. White Thoughts From the Mount of Blessing Mind, Character, and Personality (2 vols.)

The Ministry of Healing Manuscript Release Messages to Young People Paulson Collection Patriarchs and Prophets Steps to Christ Spiritual Gifts (4 vols.)

Publishing Ministry Selected Messages (3 vols.)

The Spirit of Prophecy (4 vols.)

Sabbath School Worker Testimonies for the Church (9 vols.)

Testimonies to Ministers and Gospel Workers The Upward Look

xiii

Zeph Hag Zech Mai Matt Mark Luke John Acts Rom 1-2 Cor Gal Eph

Other References AR BC CJB ESV GCB JATS LCC LW LXX MS NAB NASB NCV NEB NET NIV NKJV NLV NT OT REB RH RI ST

Adventist Review The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary Complete Jewish Bible English Standard Version General Conference Bulletin Journal of Adventist Theology Library of Christian Classics Luther's Works Septuagint Manuscript New American Bible New American Standard Bible New Century Version New English Bible New English Translation New International Version New King James Version New Life Version New Testament Old Testament Revised English Bible Review and Herald Revelation-Inspiration Signs of the Times

Biblical Books Gen Exod Lev Num Deut Josh Judg Ruth 1-2 Sam 1-2 Kgs 1-2 Chron Ezra Neh Esth Job Ps(s)

Prov Eccl Song Isa Jer Lam Ezek Dan Hos Joel Amos Obad Jonah Mic Nah Hab

Genesis Exodus Leviticus Numbers Deuteronomy Joshua Judges Ruth 1-2 Samuel 1-2 Kings 1-2 Chronicles Ezra Nehemiah Esther Job Psalms xiv

Proverbs Ecclesiastes Song of Solomon Isaiah Jeremiah Lamentations Ezekiel Daniel Hosea Joel Amos Obadiah Jonah Micah Nahum Habakkuk

Zephaniah Haggai Zechariah Malachi Matthew Mark Luke John Acts Romans 1 -2 Corinthians Galatians Ephesians

Phil Col 1-2 Thess 1-2 Tim Titus Phlm Heb Jas 1-2 Pet 1-2-3 John Jude Rev

Hebrew Alphabet ‫א‬ ‫ב‬

‫י‬

= b

‫ח‬

Philippians Colossians 1 -2 Thessalonians 1 -2 Timothy Titus Philemon Hebrew James 1-2 Peter 1-2-3 John Jude Revelation

Masoretic Vowel Pointings

= h

‫פ‬

= Ρ

= a

‫ = ט‬ţ

‫פ‬

= Ε

= ă

‫ר‬

= δ

a

‫ב‬

= b

‫י‬

= y

‫צ‬

= ş

‫ג‬

= g

‫כ‬

= k

‫ק‬

= q

‫ג‬

= g

‫כ‬

= k

‫ר‬

= r

‫ד‬

= d

‫ל‬

= l

'‫ = ש‬s

‫י‬... ‫י‬.. = έ

‫ד‬

= d

‫מ‬

= m

‫ = ש‬s

= i

‫ה‬

= h

‫נ‬

= η

‫ = רנ‬t

‫ו‬

= w

‫ס‬

= s

‫ת‬

‫ז‬

= ζ

‫ע‬

=

ο

‫ו‬ ..

= î

= e

= δ = u

‫ו‬

= ύ

= t

‫׳‬

Greek Alphabet

a

= a

c

= ζ

λ

= /

π

= Ρ

Φ = ph

β

= b

η

= e

μ

= m

Ρ

= r

χ

γ

= g

θ

= th

ν

= η

σ,ς= s

Ψ = ps

δ

= d

ι

= i

ξ

= χ

τ

= t

ω = δ

€

= e

κ

= k

0

= 0

υ

= y

‫׳‬

XV

= ch

= h

CHAPTER I

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF ADVENTIST BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION Alberto R. T i m m

Introduction The Christian church was originally built upon the hermeneutical platform o f the Bible as its o w n interpreter. Soon after the apostolic period, however, the church began to move from that platform by accepting certain nonbiblical hermeneutical alternatives. The Scriptures came to be reinterpreted i n many Christian circles from perspectives drawn from surrounding pagan cultures, cultural traditions, ecclesiastical authority, human reason, and even personal experiences. Major struggles and tensions arose between those who subscribed to such hermeneutical alternatives and those who tried to reorient the church back to its original hermeneutical platform.

In brief, this historical overview highlights some o f the major hermeneutical turning points w i t h i n the Christian church that provide the larger background for the development o f the Seventh-day Adventist interpretation o f Scripture.

1. F r o m Judaism to Modern Christianity Jewish Background A defining historical landmark o f the Jewish religion was the BabyIonian captivity o f Judah i n the sixth century B.C. Prior to that event, the Israelites were strongly tempted to forsake the precepts o f the law and the warnings o f the prophets and to embrace the pagan components of the surrounding Canaanite culture. Realizing that they and their forefathers were taken captive because o f their transgressions o f the law and o f the Sabbath (Jer 17:19-27; 2 Chron 36:15-21), post-exilic Jews moved increasingly toward a more rigid obedience o f the law and the Sabbath as defined by tradition. These extra-biblical rules tended to overload and overshadow some basic teachings o f the Scriptures (Matt 15:5-9).

XVI

1

Historical Background of Adventist Biblical Interpretation

Historical Background of Adventist Biblical Interpretation

But geographical, cultural, and religious factors within Judaism helped to develop three major distinctive approaches to Scripture, all o f which flourished in the first century A . D . Rabbinic Judaism was centered in Jerusalem and Judea, promoting obedience to the Mosaic Law and to the Hebrew Scriptures in order to protect Jewish tradition and identity from being diluted by the Greco-Roman culture. Hellenistic Judaism, on the other hand, while widely dispersed, manifested itself particularly in the large Jewish community o f Alexandria, Egypt. Strongly influenced

by Philo, this branch adopted allegorical interpretations o f Scripture to accommodate its beliefs to the Platonic expression o f Greek philosophy.

The ascetic Qumran community, on the northwestern shore o f the Dead Sea, assumed a strong eschatological tenor, trying to show how contemporary events relating to their own community fulfilled OT prophecies.

1

2

3

Christianity actually was born w i t h i n the context o f Rabbinic Judaism and expanded itself later into the realms o f Hellenistic Judaism before facing the greater challenges o f paganism that characterized most o f the Roman Empire.

Ancient and Medieval C h u r c h

B y itself, the allegorical method w o u l d have carried the Christian church into a pluralistic interpretation o f the Scriptures that would have distorted its religious identity. However, uncertainty created by interpreting the Word through various allegorical parallels left many dissatisfied, leading them to seek a single authoritative voice. This role the church hierarchy, particularly the Bishop o f Rome, stepped i n to fill, thereby advancing the church's claim to be the only true interpreter o f Scripture.

Ecclesiastical interests began to overrule true faithfulness to the Word o f God, building a strong nonbiblical hermeneutical tradition.

Biblical interpretation in the Middle Ages was dominated by Origen's allegorical method, which viewed every Bible passage as having four senses: "literal (or historical), allegorical (or doctrinal), moral (or (Topological), and anagogical (or eschatological)." W i t h such a variety o f interpretative options and under the influence o f Irenaeus's elevation o f tradition above the Scriptures, the Medieval church could easily claim biblical support for many o f its nonbiblical teachings. B y elevating ecclesiastical tradition to the same level o f authority as the Bible, the church was able to transfer many o f the salvific prerogatives from Christ and the Scriptures to herself and her sacramental system.

4

Not all Bible interpreters accepted the allegorical method. Already in the fourth century A . D . , the Christian catechetical school o f Antioch i n Syria was teaching "the historical-grammatical understanding o f Scripture: that every passage has one plain, simple meaning conveyed by its grammar and words." During the Middle Ages, pre-Reformers, such as John Wycliffe, John Huss, Jerome o f Prague, and the Waldenses, tried to restore the authority o f the Scriptures above ecclesiastical decisions. The Dutch "Devotio Moderna," or Brethren o f the Common Life (founded by Gerard Groote in the 14th century A . D . ) , were deeply concerned w i t h their own spiritual life and their personal understanding o f Scripture. However, it was only i n the first half o f the sixteenth century A . D . that a more widespread hermeneutical reformation reinstalled the normative authority o f the Scriptures.

Christ and His apostles broke w i t h the hermeneutic limits o f current Judaism by emphasizing the exclusive authority o f Scripture over all other sources o f religious knowledge (Matt 5:18). The high value they gave to Scripture and their balanced interpretation o f its content are evident not only i n the way Christ and the N T writers interpreted the Hebrew Scriptares but also in the way they faced certain hermeneutical distortions i n the Judaism o f their time. Christ condemned several Rabbinic traditions and external rituals as traditions that "invalidated the w o r d o f God" (Matt 15:6, N A S B ; cf. 23:1-38). He also opposed any cultural accommodation o f the Word o f God that would nullify its sanctifying power (John 17:6-23), as the Hellenistic Jews did with their own beliefs. Against a highly ascetic form o f religion, as practiced i n the Qumran community, Christ sent out His followers to preach the gospel to " a l l nations" (Matt 28:19).

Reformation and Post-Reformation

I n John 17 Christ prayed that His followers should fulfill their mission in the w o r l d without being of the w o r l d (vss. 9-19). But, like Hellenistic Judaism, post-Apostolic Christianity also lost much o f its original biblical identity by accommodating Greco-Roman culture. Even prominent leaders, such as Irenaeus, Origen, and Augustine, give evidence i n their writings o f such changes. M a n y Christian interpreters found i n the Alexandrian allegorical method enough latitude for their syncretistic accommodation o f Scripture to popular culture.

The Reformation o f the sixteenth century was first and foremost a hermeneutical Reformation. I t was able to shake the authority o f the Roman Catholic Church and generate an enduring ecclesiastical Reformation. Martin Luther broke w i t h many medieval extra-biblical traditions and w i t h the Roman Catholic hermeneutical hegemony, thereby allowing the Bible to speak directly to every believer. The Bible was restored to its central place through the principles o f sola scriptura (the exclusiveness

2

3

5

Historical Background of Adventist Biblical Interpretation

Historical Background of Adventist Biblical Interpretation

o f Scripture) and tota scriptura (the totality o f Scripture). Once more the Scriptures were allowed to interpret themselves through the historical-grammatical method; and their prophetic-apocalyptic elements began to explain the ongoing history o f the Christian church using the historicist approach. Except for salvation by grace through faith (Eph 2:8-10), the Magisterial Reformers, such as Luther, Calvin, and Z w i n g l i , did not go far toward restoring several other major Bible doctrines that had become obscured following the apostolic period. But they placed on track renewed hermeneutic principles that eventually w o u l d lead to such a restoration.

6

The w o r k o f Luther and other sixteenth century Reformers such as Z w i n g l i , Bullinger, Calvin, Beza, and certain o f the radical reformers, earned a far-reaching influence. Despite its inability to move Roman Catholicism beyond the minimal adjustments o f the Council o f Trent (1545-1564), the Reformation launched the Protestant movement w i t h its various branches and denominations. W i t h the intention o f keeping their own identity, those branches and denominations expressed their respective beliefs i n parallel creeds and confessions o f faith. Useful as such statements could be for maintaining doctrinal unity, they eventually led to fixed traditions that limited further search for Bible truths. Such traditions remained more or less stabilized i n their teachings until the Enlightenment during which rationalistic philosophy and naturalistic science openly began to challenge the trustworthiness o f Scripture.

that history can be understood without taking into consideration a supernatural intervention. When applied to the Bible, the historical-critical method led many to reinterpret its references to miracles and to supernatural interventions as human rhetorical devices and its message as obsolete in the modern scientific setting.

Beginning with the early nineteenth century, many traditional Protestant denominations began to face increasing polarization between those who continued to uphold the Protestant historical-grammatical understanding o f Scripture and those who subscribed to the modernistic historical-critical re-reading o f the Bible. Historical criticism remained dominant in the scholarly work o f biblical interpreters until the second half o f the twentieth century during which it began to lose influence due to the emergence o f Postmodernism.

8

Yet, at the same time that rationalistic philosophy and naturalistic science began to erode the normative authority o f Scripture, the developing science o f biblical archeology came on the scene supporting, in some instances, the historicity o f biblical accounts.

9

2. Interpretation F r o m William Miller to Seventh-day Adventists William Miller

Modern Christianity The latter half o f the eighteenth century and the first half o f the nineteenth century brought a radical paradigm shift to Western culture. M a n y o f the thought leaders o f the time began to replace belief in supernatural revelation w i t h naturalistic methods. H o w to understand the Bible became the core o f a strong debate among those who tried to defend its supernatural origin and its normative authority; those who chose to regard it as simply a product o f ancient cultures; and those who sought to reread it from the perspective o f modern rationalistic culture.

The late eighteenth, and early nineteenth, centuries witnessed an unprecedented worldwide revival o f interest i n the biblical teachings on the second coming o f Christ. M a n y Protestant interpreters were convinced by their study o f biblical prophecies that Christ w o u l d come i n their o w n time. W i l l i a m M i l l e r (1782-1849) o f L o w Hampton, N e w York, a Baptist, provided one o f the most developed chronological calculations o f the 2300 days o f Daniel 8:14 and other end-time prophecies o f Scripture, concluding that the impending fulfillment o f that event would occur about A . D . 1843. Later, Samuel S. Snow calculated more precisely that the 2300 days would be fulfilled i n the autumn o f 1844 (i.e., on October 22, 1844).

While Hellenistic Jews and medieval Christians employed the allegorical method to accommodate the Bible toward the respective cultures in which they lived, modern rationalists developed the historical-critical method to accommodate the Bible backwards to the ancient cultures i n which it was produced. Historical criticism relies on literary analysis to study documents from the perspective o f their indebtedness to the particular socio-cultural milieu i n which they were produced. The method developed out o f the Enlightenment assumption (or basic presupposition)

M i l l e r studied the Scriptures w i t h i n the hermeneutical framework provided by (1) the Protestant principle o f taking the Bible as its own interpreter (sola scriptura), (2) the Protestant grammatical-historical method, and (3) the branch o f the historicist-premillennial Protestant school o f prophetic interpretation that d i d not accept the dispensational theory o f the restoration o f the Jews to Palestine as a fulfillment o f prophecy. But the

4

5

7

10

Historical Background of Adventist Biblical Interpretation Millerite use o f this hermeneutical framework was largely restricted to the end-time prophecies o f Scripture, for M i l l e r did not hesitate to urge his fellow believers not to "enter upon the discussion o f questions foreign to that o f the Advent."

The fact that Christ did not come on the expected date (October 22, 1844) generated a severe disappointment, fragmenting the Millerite movement into many different branches. A m o n g them was a small group o f Sabbatarian Adventists who eventually w o u l d organize themselves into the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

11

E a r l y Seventh-day Adventists Sabbatarian Adventists continued, i n general, w i t h the basic prophetic hermeneutics o f M i l l e r but went further by applying his hermeneutics to Scripture as a whole. I n brief, both Millerites and Sabbatarian Adventists subscribed to the sola scriptura principle, but Sabbatarians were far more consistent than other Millerites i n their commitment to tota scriptura. That commitment developed, to a large extent, from two historical realities.

Negatively, the disruptive effect o f the October-1844 Disappointment seriously damaged the belief system o f the Millerites. Positively, it challenged them to find a convincing explanation for the failure. Most non-Sabbatarian Adventists who did not abandon their hope in the Second Coming assumed that the Disappointment was the result o f a chronological error based on choosing too early a date to end the 2300 days. For them, no further search o f Scripture for such an answer was needed, for the Disappointment dilemma would be solved by waiting for the right future date to arrive. B y contrast, the founders o f Sabbatarian Adventism believed that October 22, 1844, was indeed the right date for the end o f the 2300 days but searched for a more convincing biblical understanding o f the event to take place at the end o f that period. B y studying the Bible they not only found such an answer but also discovered several other abiding biblical teachings overlooked by Christianity i n general. This led the Sabbatarians to revise and expand the Millerite system o f prophetic interpretation.

Historical Background of Adventist Biblical Interpretation cleansing o f the sanctuary o f Daniel 8:14 and the three angels' messages o f Revelation 14:6-12. The doctrinal components o f that system o f "present truth" comprised both those "eschatological doctrines derived from the historical and/or supra-historical fulfillment o f specific end-time prophecies o f Scripture" and those "historical doctrines o f Scripture that had been overlooked and disregarded by the larger Christian church, but which would be restored at the end o f time."

12

13

Foundational to the development o f the doctrinal system were the hermeneutical principles o f typology and analogy o f Scripture. Believing that the relationship between the O l d and the N e w Testaments was one o f typological interrelationship rather than opposition, the Sabbatarians applied the analogy-of-Scripture principle consistently to the whole content o f the Bible. The sanctuary in the OT was treated as a typical shadow o f the sacrifice and o f the priestly ministry o f Christ in the N T (see Heb 7:1-10:18).

This all-encompassing typological interrelationship provided a solid overall pattern o f consistency to the understanding o f Scripture.

D o n F. Neufeld's study o f Sabbatarian Adventist literature shows that such doctrinal developments were controlled by the seven "general hermeneutical principles": (1) "sola scriptura"; (2) "the unity o f Scripture"; (3) " Scripture explains scripture"; (4) "the words o f the Bible must be given their proper meaning"; (5) "attention to context and historical backgrounds"; (6) "the Bible must be interpreted according to the plain, obvious, and literal import unless a figure is employed"; and (7) "the typological principle." Neufeld suggests that Seventh-day Adventists subsequently have made only "little change in these principles."

14

C. M e r v y n Maxwell notes that although Sabbatarian Adventists claimed the sola scriptura principle o f the sixteenth-century Reformation, they developed beyond the Reformers i n regard to the fuller restoration o f biblical truth. According to M a x w e l l this was due to the fact that the Sabbatarians (1) used a more extensive typology; (2) diminished the importance o f tradition more extensively; (3) showed "a keener appreciation for the authority o f the entire Bible"; (4) used the "fulfillment o f prophecy in [the] Advent Movement as a hermeneutical tool"; and (5) "held end-time spiritual gifts i n especially high regard, particularly as manifested i n the ministry o f Ellen G. W h i t e . "

Sabbatarian Adventists significantly moved beyond the Millerite systern o f prophetic interpretation. As noted previously, the Millerite message was focused quite exclusively on the end-time prophecies o f Scripture, w i t h special emphasis on the impending fulfillment o f the 2300 days o f Daniel 8:14. The Sabbatarians retained this end-time eschatological emphasis i n the basic hermeneutical framework for the development o f a unique and broader doctrinal system, incorporating the concept o f the

Nevertheless, until the mid-1880s Seventh-day Adventists focused their study o f Scripture more on the Adventist biblical components o f their own message than on those Evangelical biblical doctrines shared by other Christians. It was only in the post-1888 emphasis on salvation by grace through faith, stimulated by the Minneapolis General Conference Session (1888), that a true overall doctrinal balance was reached.

This means that from

6

7

15

16

Historical Background of Adventist Biblical Interpretation 1844 to 1888 Seventh-day Adventists went beyond the sixteenth-century Reformers by applying the tota scriptura principle in the process o f restoring overlooked Bible-doctrines but fell short by neglecting the biblical doctrine o f righteousness by faith restored much earlier by the Reformers. Hence, since the 1880s, Seventh-day Adventists have allowed the tota scriptura principle to play a more far-reaching role in biblical interpretation.

M u c h o f the Adventist commitment to the sola scriptura and tota scriptura principles was stimulated over the years by Ellen White's efforts to lead Adventists closer to the Bible (5T 663-668; Ev 256-257). I n a time when cultural rereadings o f the Bible were w i p i n g out the original identity o f many Christian denominations, Ellen White's prophetic voice helped Seventh-day Adventists retain the universal principles o f Scripture. While encouraging personal investigation o f the Bible, she also played a major stabilizing influence by identifying both fanatical interpretations that w o u l d not allow the Bible to speak clearly to the modern m i n d and cultural accommodations that could erode the full identity o f its original message.

Aware o f how the historical-critical method (then k n o w n as "higher criticism") was undermining the authority o f the Bible i n some non-Adventist Protestant circles, Ellen White warned in 1903 that "the work o f 'higher criticism,' i n dissecting, conjecturing, reconstructing, is destroying faith in the Bible as a divine revelation; it is robbing God's w o r d o f power to control, uplift, and inspire human lives" (Ed 227).

1919 Bible Conference A t a Bible conference held July 1-19, 1919, several divisive issues surfaced. R. W. Schwarz grasped w e l l the general tenor o f the conference i n characterizing it as preoccupied w i t h "debates over nonessentials." Even a superficial review o f the conference records reveals that much discussion and debate took place over such peripheral issues as the identification o f the "daily" (Dan 8:11-12), the interpretation o f the "seven trumpets" (Rev 8-10), and the identification o f the " k i n g o f the N o r t h " (Daniel 11). But the conference, unfortunately, brought little hermeneutical agreement to Seventh-day Adventist academic circles in addressing those issues.

17

18

Historical Background of Adventist Biblical Interpretation minimal impact on the church during the next few decades, for the records o f the 1919 Bible Conference and Bible and History Teachers' Council were archived and not brought to public attention until the 1970s. His views were not reflected i n the content o f several subsequent books and pamphlets or i n the Sabbath School quarterlies published during the 1920s and 1930s i n defense o f the Bible as the Word o f God. 19

1952 Bible Conference I n sharp contrast to the 1919 Bible Conference, w i t h its debates on minor issues, the 1952 Bible Conference focused quite exclusively on the basic components o f the Seventh-day Adventist faith.

A m o n g the topics addressed at the 1952 Conference were the ways in which archaeology confirmed the Bible, Christ-centered preaching, the Spirit o f Prophecy, the doctrine o f the sanctuary, the atonement at the cross, the covenants and the law, the Three Angels' Messages, Christ's second coming, the health message, and the Great Controversy. The various conference lectures were published subsequently by the Review and Herald i n the two-volume set titled Our Firm Foundation (1953). These volumes gave a permanent form and wide circulation to the content o f the conference.

20

21

Also during the 1950s a team o f thirty-seven Adventist scholars produced the seven volumes o f the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (1953-1957). The hermeneutical significance o f the commentary is due largely to the fact that the commentary represented for the first time an exposition o f the entire Bible from a Seventh-day Adventist perspective. It not only integrated into a single work the views o f its different contributors but also provided for different interpretations o f certain Biblical passages.

While many Adventist scholars regarded such hermeneutical openness as the best way to avoid dogmatic conclusions and controversies, to others it seemed the first Seventh-day Adventist move towards a more pluralistic reading o f the Scriptures.

More significant was the Bible and History Teachers' Council that was held in conjunction w i t h the 1919 Bible Conference. There, Arthur G. Daniells, president o f the General Conference, criticized openly the concepts o f "verbal inspiration" and "infallibility" o f prophetic writings, producing strong reactions from the audience. But Daniells's views had

To the late 1960s, Seventh-day Adventist scholars concerned themselves w i t h the more practical exegetical task o f interpreting correctly the various passages o f the Scriptures, using hermeneutical principles already defined i n the early days o f the movement. However, beginning w i t h the early 1970s, some Adventist scholars began to express publicly their preference for alternative hermeneutical methodologies (specially the historical-critical method) i n place o f the historical-grammatical method. The escalation o f this methodological tension demonstrated the need for a new discussion o f the hermeneutical method.

8

9

22

Historical Background of Adventist Biblical Interpretation 1974 Bible Conferences Consequently, i n 1974, Bible Conferences were held i n three locations: Southern Missionary College ( M a y 13-21), Andrews University (June 3-11), and Pacific U n i o n College (June 17-25). Sponsored and organized by the Biblical Research Committee o f the General Conference, the eight-day conferences dealt specifically w i t h the topic o f biblical hermeneutics from a grammatical-historical perspective. A volume titled A Symposium on Biblical Hermeneutics and a notebook titled North American Bible Conference 1974 were published for use o f the 2,000 delegates who attended.

11

With the contributions o f several leading Adventist scholars, the Symposium on Biblical Hermeneutics comprises 14 chapters, classified under five major sections. U n t i l the publication o f the present volume it was the main and most influential Seventh-day Adventist hermeneutical exposit i o n . Although helpful for the Adventist Church, the 1974 Bible Conferences were unable to settle completely the methodological discussions w i t h i n the denomination.

24

Historical Background of Adventist Biblical Interpretation 2. Another hermeneutical controversy was precipitated by the introduction o f the so-called apotelesmatic principle o f prophetic interpretation, which provided a hermeneutical shelter for preteristic interpretations o f the little horn as Antiochus Epiphanes. Scholarly responses to this interpretation o f Daniel 8:14 were provided not only by the Glacier View Sanctuary Review Committee (1980) but also by the Daniel and Revelation Committee (1982-1992).

26

3. A third hermeneutical challenge developed around certain futuristic prophetic interpretations based on literal readings o f the three prophetic periods i n Daniel chapter 12 and recurring references i n Revelation 11.

Insightful material has been published i n response to such futuristic attempts.

27

4. I n addition to the discussions related to the historical-critical method, the apotelesmatic principle, and futurism, since the 1990s, Seventh-day Adventist hermeneutics is confronted w i t h elements o f postmodernism w i t h its "reader-oriented criticism" o f the Scriptures.

Such hermeneutical questions have provided opportunity for conţinuing refinement o f methodology i n Adventist circles.

F o u r Contemporary Challenges Summary and Conclusions 1. During the 1980s and 90s, Adventists faced several hermeneutical challenges. One was related to the acceptance by some o f modified versions o f the historical-critical method. The question o f whether the method is adequate for the study o f "inspired" writings divided Seventhday Adventist scholars eventually into three groups: (1) those who accept the method w i t h its basic presuppositions, (2) those who believe that a modified version o f the method can be used apart from its basic presuppositions, and (3) those who hold that the method is unacceptable because it cannot be isolated from its basic presuppositions.

This historical overview has highlighted some o f the major hermeneutical turning points within the Christian church that provide the larger background for the development o f the Seventh-day Adventist interpretation o f Scripture. The allegorical method used by Hellenistic Jews and by post-apostolic Christians allowed many teachings o f the Scriptures to be accommodated to the Greco-Roman culture. Numerous nonbiblical traditions were later officially treated as canonical by the medieval church. But the sixteenth-century Reformation restored basic hermeneutical principles that would allow a more complete recovery o f Bible doctrines. Such doctrinal restoration took place over time among Seventh-day Adventists through adoption o f both the Protestant grammatical-historical method o f Biblical interpretation and the Protestant historicist school o f prophetic interpretation.

The 1986 Annual Council o f the General Conference, convened i n Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, voted an official document titled "Methods o f Bible Study," in which Adventist Bible students were urged "to avoid relying on the use o f the presuppositions and the resultant deductions associated w i t h the Historical-critical Method." Under the assumption that "human reason is subject to the Bible, not equal to or above i t , " the document stated that "even a modified use" o f the historical-critical method "that retains the principle o f criticism which subordinates the Bible to human reason is unacceptable to Adventists." Despite its official nature, "Methods o f Bible Study" did not convince all Adventist scholars to avoid using the historical-critical method.

Since the early 1970s a small number o f scholars has tried more openly to introduce a more contemporary appeal by selectively adopting hermeneutical tools, such as elements from the historical-critical method, and revised methods i n prophetic interpretation that incorporate preterist, fitturist, and postmodern components. This has generated tensions between the disruptive effects o f these new hermeneutical methodologies and the

10

11

25

Historical Background of Adventist Biblical Interpretation main Adventist doctrinal teachings based on the sola scriptura

Historical Background of Adventist Biblical Interpretation and tota

scriptura principles.

Church history exhibits numerous instances i n which Christian denominations have allowed the authority o f the Scriptures to be overshadowed by human traditions, reason, personal experience, and contemporary culture. Adventists are convinced God has raised up the Seventh-day Adventist Church, w i t h i n the challenges o f the "last days" (2 T i m 3:1), to restore and uplift the authority o f His Word and to promote a system o f biblical interpretation derived from the Scripture itself.

References 1. Important Rabbinic rules of that period can be found in Richard Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period (Grand Rapids, M I : Wm B. Eerdmans, 1975), pp. 19-50.

2. Jewish writer (first century A.D.). He blended OT monotheism with Greek philosophy and used the allegorical method in the interpretation of Scripture. Many early Christian interpreters of Scripture followed his lead, e.g., Ambrose and Origen.

3. William W. Klein, Craig L. Blomberg, and Robert L. Hubbard, Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (Dallas, TX: Word, 1993), pp. 21-28.

4. Ibid., p. 38.

5. Ibid., p. 35.

6. The historicist school of prophetic interpretation holds that each apocalyptic prophecy of the Bible has a specific historical fulfillment between the time it was given and the final establishment of God's everlasting kingdom.

Prophetic time periods are interpreted on the basis of the year-day principle.

For a comprehensive history of the development of historicism, see LeRoy E. Froom, The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers: The Historical Development of Prophetic Interpretation, 4 vols. (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 19461954).

7. See Edgar Krentz, The Historical-Critical Method (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1975), pp. 35-54. Gerhard Maier, Biblical Hermeneutics (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1994), pp. 209-306.

8. For expositions of postmodern biblical hermeneutics, see e.g., Edgar V. McKnight, Postmodern Use of the Bible: The Emergence of Reader-oriented Criticism (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1988); Anthony C. Thiselton, New Horizons in Hermeneutics (Grand Rapids, M I : Zondervan, 1992); George Aichele, et al., The Postmodern Bible: The Bible and Culture Collective (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1995).

9. Insightful expositions on how Archeology has confirmed the Bible are provided, for example, by Alfred J. Hoerth, Archaeology and the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, M I : Baker Books, 1998); Kenneth Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, M I : Wm B. Eerdmans, 2003). John McRay, 12

Archaeology and the New Testament (Grand Rapids, M I : Baker Book House, 1991).

10. For critical studies of Miller's hermeneutical principles, see Steen R. Rasmussen, "Roots of the Prophetic Hermeneutic of William Miller" (M.A. thesis, Newbold College, 1983); Kai Arasola, The End of Historicism: Millerite Hermeneutic of Time Prophecies in the Old Testament (Uppsala: [University of Uppsala], 1990).

11. W[illia]m Miller, "Letter from Mr. Miller," Midnight Cry, May 23, 1844, p. 355.

12. See Alberto R. Timm, The Sanctuary and the Three Angels' Messages: Integrating Factors in the Development of Seventh-day Adventist Doctrines.

Adventist Theological Society Dissertation Series, vol. 5 (Berrien Springs, M I : Adventist Theological Society Publications, 1995).

13. Ibid., p. 185 (italics supplied).

14. Don Ε Neufeld, "Biblical Interpretation in the Advent Movement," in A Symposium on Biblical Hermeneutics, ed. Gordon M . Hyde (Washington, D.C.: Biblical Research Committee, 1974), pp. 117-122.

15. C. Mervyn Maxwell, " A B r i e f History of Adventist Hermeneutics,"/^Γ5 4, no. 2 (Autumn 1993): 212-217.

16. See George R. Knight, Angry Saints: Tensions and Possibilities in the Adventist Struggle over Righteousness by Faith (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1989).

17. See Arthur G. Daniells, "The Bible Conference," RH, Aug. 21, 1919, pp.

3-4; R. W. Schwarz, Light Bearers to the Remnant (Boise, ID: Pacific Press, 1979), pp. 393-407.

18. Schwarz, p. 393.

19. The records of the 1919 Bible Conference and Bible and History Teachers' Council were misplaced until December 1974, when curator F. Donald Yost discovered them in the General Conference archives. M . Couperus, "The Bible Conference of 1919," Spectrum 10 (May 1979): 23-57.

20. See F. D. N[ichol], "The Bible Conference," 2-part series in RH, Aug. 28, 1952, pp. 1, 13-14; Sept. 4, 1952, pp. 13-14; Frederick Lee, "Historic Bible Conference Convenes,"RH, Sept. 25,1952, pp. 1, 8-10; W. H. Branson, "Objectives of the Bible Conference," RH, Sept. 25, 1952, pp. 3-4.

21. These volumes should not be confused with the magazine also titled Our Firm Foundation, published more recently by a North-American independent ministry called Hope International.

22. Alberto R. Timm, "A History of Seventh-day Adventist Views on Biblical and Prophetic Inspiration (1844-2000)," JATSIQ (1999): 513-524.

23. See footnote 14.

24. For other valuable contributions to Adventist biblical interpretation see Gerhard F. Hasel, Understanding the Living Word of God (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1980); Lee J. Gugliotto, Handbookfor Bible Study (Hagerstown, M D : Review and Herald, 1995); and Richard M . Davidson, "Biblical Interpretation" in Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist Theology, ed. Raoul Dederen (Hagerstown, 13

Historical Background of Adventist Biblical Interpretation M D : Review and Herald, 2000), pp. 58-104.

25. See appendix A "Methods of Bible Study." Cf. AR, Jan. 22, 1987, pp. 1820; Ministry, April 1987, pp. 22-24.

26. See "Special Sanctuary Issue" of Ministry, Oct. 1980; William H. Shea, Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation, Daniel and Revelation Committee Series, vol. 1 (Washington, D.C.: Biblical Research Institute, General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, 1982); and the remaining six volumes of the Daniel and Revelation Committee Series, edited by Frank B. Holbrook.

27. Helpful responses to futuristic interpretation of the 1260, 1290, and 1335 days are provided in Victor Michaelson, Delayed Time-Setting Heresies Exposed (Payson, AZ: Leaves-of-Autumn, 1985); William H. Shea, "Time Prophecies of Daniel 12 and Revelations 12-13," in Symposium on Revelation, Book 1, Daniel and Revelation Committee Series, ed. Frank B. Holbrook, (Silver Spring, M D : Biblical Research Institute, 1992), pp. 327-360; idem, Daniel 7-12: Prophecies of the End Time, Abundant Life Bible Amplifier (Boise, ID: Pacific Press, 1996), pp. 217-223; Gerhard Pfandl, Time Prophecies in Daniel 12, Biblical Research Institute Releases, no. 5 (Silver Spring, M D : Biblical Research Institute, 2005).

Selected Bibliography Bray, Gerald. Biblical Interpretation: Past & Present. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1996.

Burrows, Mark, and Paul Rorem, eds. Biblical Hermeneutics in Historical Perspective: Studies in Honor of Karlfried Froehlich on His Sixtieth Birthday.

Grand Rapids, M I : Eerdmans, 1991.

Dockery, David S. Biblical Interpretation Then and Now: Contemporary Hermeneutics in the Light of the Early Church. Grand Rapids, M I : Baker, 1992.

Froom, LeRoy E. The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers: The Historical Development of Prophetic Interpretation. 4 vols. Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1946-1954.

Grant, Robert M . A Short History of the Interpretation of the Bible. Rev.ed. New York: Macmillan, 1963.

Hyde, Gordon M . , ed. A Symposium on Biblical Hermeneutics. Washington, D . C : Biblical Research Committee, General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, 1974.

Maxwell, C. Mervyn. " A Brief History of Adventist Hermeneutics." Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 4, no. 2 (Autumn 1993): 209-226.

Timm, Alberto R. "A History of Seventh-day Adventist Views on Biblical and Prophetic Inspiration (1844-2000)." Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 10 (1999): 486-542.

White, Ellen G. The Great Controversy Between Christ and Satan. Washington, D.C: Review and Herald, 1911.

14

CHAPTER II

FAITH, REASON, AND THE HOLY SPIRIT IN HERMENEUTICS John T. B a l d w i n

Introduction Interpreting the Scriptures properly is both a privilege and a humbling responsibility. The special focus o f this chapter is to discover biblical and theological principles that relate to the place o f faith, reason, spiritual powers, and the H o l y Spirit i n the hermeneutical process. The following approach rests upon the unity and clarity o f the Scriptures as a whole and upon the concept that the entire Bible is the prepositional, infallible Word o f God. I t assumes that what the text meant originally is, i n principle, what the text means for us today.

1. Faith and Reason in Hermeneutics Faith and Reason in Dialog Hermeneutics involves a rational process that utilizes the reasoning powers o f the human intellect, thereby assigning a central role to human reason in the interpretation o f Scripture. However, a series o f questions addresses reason and faith as related to hermeneutics. Are the truths open to discovery by reason commensurable with the truths o f faith? Is discourse between the two realms possible? Moreover, is reason—understood as the human power to think, to deliberate, to solve problems, to distinguish, to judge, and to choose freely-—either a fully trustworthy power or the sole factor i n the interpretation o f the written Word o f God? What effect might sin have upon human reason? Moreover, can reason be influenced either positively or negatively by supernatural powers perhaps even unknown to the interpreter?

On the other hand, does faith—understood as a divinely inspired trust in, and commitment to, God and to the canonical Scripture as the authoritative Written Word o f God—play a role in hermeneutics as well? I f so, what is its role and how does this kind o f faith relate to reason i n hermeneutics?

15

Faith, Reason, and the Holy Spirit in Hermeneutics Moreover, are there limits to human reason in hermeneutics? I f so, what are they, and upon what are they grounded? I f faith and reason seem to clash regarding a particular interpretation o f Scripture, how shall the tension be resolved? Should either faith or reason have the final authority in such instances? I f so, on what basis could either be granted final authority?

These issues are so basic that they have received major attention throughout the Christian era and continue to be vigorously discussed.

Faith, Reason, and Evidence On the one hand, i n discussing faith and reason there is a sense that, in some fashion, it is good to take account o f criticism through rational analysis. Peter urges believers to be prepared to present a "reason" or a "defense" to anyone who asks questions regarding some Christian position (1 Pet 3:15). This implies the importance o f evidence i n relation to belief and, hence, seems to endorse, i n some fashion, what has been called "warranted Christian belief." While the Christian may not have demonstrable proof as warrants for beliefs, the existence o f sufficient evidence may be expected. Ellen White has described the relationship between evidence and faith as follows: 1

God never asks us to believe, without giving sufficient evidence upon which to base our faith. His existence, His character, the truthfulness of His word, are all established by testimony that appeals to our reason; and this testimony is abundant. Yet God has never removed the possibility of doubt. Our faith must rest upon evidence, not demonstration. Those who wish to doubt will have opportunity; while those who really desire to know the truth will find plenty of evidence on which to rest their faith (SC105).

Faith, Reason, and the Holy Spirit in Hermeneutics Unregenerate Reason Versus Sanctified Reason in Hermeneutics According to the biblical worldview the human rational power, reason, or m i n d consistently is characterized as impacted by sin. Describing the natural rational power as the "heart," Jeremiah claims that it is "more deceitful than all else and desperately sick" (Jer 17:9, N E B ) . Can this "sick" natural reason that, according to the Word o f God, loves "uncleanness, covetousness" and "foolish talking and jesting" (Eph 5:3-4, N K J V ) and other works o f "darkness" (Eph 5:8) interpret the Bible correctly?

Paul responds as follows to this question: "The natural man, [unchanged reason, or rationality] receiveth not the things o f the Spirit o f God: for they are foolishness unto h i m : neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Cor 2:14, K J V ) .

Paul admonishes his listeners to "be transformed b y the renewing o f your mind, that y o u may prove what the w i l l o f God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect" (Rom 12:2). This passage seems to suggest that a renewed reason is required for a person to understand properly the w i l l o f God. Paul equates the renewing o f the m i n d w i t h the "regeneration by the H o l y Spirit" (Titus 3:5). Ellen G. White concurs: "The grace o f Christ is needed to refine and purify the m i n d " ( R H , Sept. 23, 1884, p.

609).

This raises the question o f whether faith or reason should hold priority in hermeneutics when apparent conflicts arise between these two contrasting ways o f knowing.

The Priority of Faith Over Reason in Hermeneutics The N T , i n particular, addresses this issue. Using military metaphorical language, Paul admonishes his hearers to bring "every thought into captivity to the obedience o f Christ" (2 Cor 10:5, N K J V ) . The implication is that the teachings o f Christ, as found i n the Scriptures, are to be elevated in authority over competing claims o f human reason. I n other words, all thoughts, whether geological, philosophical, or theological, w i l l resonate with, and thus be "captive t o " the teaching o f Christ.

On the other hand, i n discussions o f faith and o f reason, we also recognize the value o f personal faith, experiencing the self-authenticating power o f the H o l y Spirit upon the mind. The question arises: What is the relationship between reason, faith, and the H o l y Spirit? Could the answer be that these elements are related functionally? The H o l y Spirit draws us through the evidence. This amplifies the importance o f the reasoning powers respecting evidence, particularly textual evidence. I t also endorses the necessary contemporary w o r k o f God as leading to truth through the evidence. However, are the human reasoning powers always and fully dependable? This question introduces us to the following discussion o f the distinction between unregenerate and regenerate human reason.

Placing faith above reason i n this fashion prepares the Christian to be w i l l i n g to deny the evidences o f the human senses i f empirical phenomena appear to dispute some teachings o f Scripture, e.g., Jesus predicted counterfeit comings o f future false Christs (Matt 24:24-27). I n view o f this, Ellen White asks, " A r e the people o f God now so firmly established upon His word that they would not yield to the evidence o f their senses? Would they, in such a crisis, cling to the Bible and the Bible only?" (GC 625).

16

17

Faith, Reason, and the Holy Spirit in Hermeneutics

Faith, Reason, and the Holy Spirit in Hermeneutics While it is important i n instances o f apparent conflict to place faith i n the Bible and its claims above those o f secular human reasoning, we may need to confess temporarily and freely our current level o f ignorance i n finding methods o f resolving certain issues. However, we also may rest by faith on the assurance that when God finally reveals all things i n the new earth, genuine harmony w i l l be seen i n matters that now appear dissonant and irreconcilable. We turn now to a discussion o f spiritual hermeneutical influences.

2

2. The Cosmic Conflict and Hermeneutics In addition to the impact o f sin upon human reason, accepting a literal interpretation o f Scripture highlights reasons w h y it is difficult, i f not impossible, for the natural mind to interpret the Bible correctly. Fallen spiritual powers, Satan and his angels, can influence the exegete. This is particularly true when the biblical inteipreter denies that these fallen supernatural powers exist as real beings, able to influence the mind, and allegorizes them into mere symbols o f evil. The attempts o f Satan and evil angels to redirect interpretations of the Bible cannot be dismissed. We must also consider the positive hermeneutical role o f the holy angels upon humans. While the effect o f these forces is easily overemphasized, i n hermeneutics we need to be sensitive to the influence o f both holy and unholy angels.

3

The Positive Hermeneutical Influence of Holy Angels In some biblical passages angels are commissioned to work w i t h specific individuals i n understanding the Word o f God. A classic example is recorded i n Daniel 8 i n which Gabriel is sent to "give this man [Daniel] understanding o f the vision"(Dan 8:16). I n the following chapter Daniel asks for further assistance and receives it; Gabriel tells him, " I have now come forth to give you insight w i t h understanding. . . . give heed to the message and gain understanding o f the vision" (Dan 9:22-23).

o f the Scriptures i n humility, with earnest prayer for guidance, angels o f God w i l l open to you its living realities" (ST, Sept. 18, 1893, p. 6). More specifically, she states that, "Angels are round about those who are w i l l i n g to be taught in divine things; and i n the time o f great necessity they w i l l bring to their remembrance the very truths which are needed" (GC 599).

Ellen White also shares remarkable insights o f the hermeneutical influence o f heavenly angels i n post-apostolic times. When Luther discovered a whole Latin Bible i n the library o f the university, she states: "Angels o f heaven were by his side, and rays o f light from the throne o f God revealed the treasures o f truth to his understanding" (GC 122). Concerning William M i l l e r we are told that "God sent His angel to move upon the heart o f a farmer who had not believed the Bible, to lead h i m to search the prophecies. Angels o f God repeatedly visited that chosen one, to guide his mind and open to his understanding prophecies which had ever been dark to God's people" (EW 229).

The Negative Hermeneutical Influence of Fallen Angelic Powers Using warfare imagery, Paul offers a broad comment regarding the impact upon humans o f which Satan is capable: "For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the w o r l d forces o f this darkness, against the spiritual forces o f wickedness in the heavenly places" (Eph 6:12). Later, Paul unpacks some o f the specific consequences o f the warfare: " B u t the Spirit explicitly says, that i n later times some w i l l fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines o f demons" (1 T i m 4:1). This statement indicates that fallen angels have the power to seduce human reason, and implies that they have power to originate doctrines ultimately contrary to the Word o f God. Commenting on this theme and passage, M e r r i l l Unger, whose doctoral dissertation examined biblical demonology, states: "Paul traces error to its real source i n satanic and demonic activity, rather than in the human agent."

4

to impress human minds? M r s . White wrote, " I f y o u come to the study

Satan himself plays a role i n human misinterpretation o f the Word o f God. Paul seems to infer this conclusion i n the following passage: " A n d even i f our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, in whose case the god o f this w o r l d has blinded the minds o f the unbelieving, that they might not see the light o f the gospel o f the glory o f Christ" (2 Cor 4:3-4). Satan possesses fatal hermeneutical capabilities respecting the reasoning power o f the biblical interpreter. This truth should strike a note o f caution i n the mind o f an interpreter o f the Word o f God. I n this same context, Ellen White's comment is revealing:

18

19

Angelic assistance i n hermeneutics appears also i n the N T . Speaking to Mary and to the other women at the empty tomb, an angel says, "Remember how He spoke to y o u . . . that the Son o f Man m u s t . . . be crucified and the third day rise again" (Luke 24:6-7). Here an angel not only helps them remember the words o f Jesus but assists them to understand the true meaning o f Christ's words.

Do angels give the same kind o f assistance today through their ability

Faith, Reason, and the Holy Spirit in Hermeneutics When the word of God is opened without reverence and without prayer; when the thoughts and affections are not fixed upon God or in harmony with His will, the mind is clouded with doubt: and in the very study of the Bible, skepticism strengthens. The enemy takes control of the thoughts, and he suggests interpretations that are not correct (GC 704-705).

Demonic supernatural ability to stir up human minds in order to produce improper expositions o f the Word o f God represents a challenge indeed. I f both good and evil angels can influence human minds (but their identity is not revealed), how can one be sure about the validity o f a resulting scriptural interpretation? I n response, the following statement by Ellen White provides important clues: "Those who turn from the plain teaching o f Scripture and the convicting power o f God's H o l y Spirit are inviting the control o f demons" ( D A 258). Expanding upon this theme, Ellen White offers the key to distinguishing the source o f the supernatural hermeneutical influence: We should not engage in the study of the Bible with that self-reliance with which so many enter the domains of science, but with a prayerful dependence upon God, and a sincere desire to learn his will. We must come with a humble and teachable spirit to obtain knowledge from the great I A M . Otherwise, evil angels will so blind our minds and harden our hearts that we shall not be impressed by the truth (4SP 417).

The quotation implies that rational beings may exercise their free w i l l to adopt a humble, teachable, and prayerful spirit, w h o l l y dependent upon God, and so avoid demonic hermeneutical influence. White develops this encouraging truth as follows: The spirit in which you come to the investigation of the Scriptures will determine the character of the assistant at your side. Angels from the world of light will be with those who in humility of heart seek for divine guidance. But i f the Bible is opened with irreverence, with a feeling of selfsufficiency, i f the heart is filled with prejudice, Satan is beside you, and he will set the plain statements of God's word in a perverted light (TM 108).

3. T h e Role of the Holy Spirit in Hermeneutics The Holy Spirit Guides the Hermeneutical Process The He w i l l in basic promise

familiar words o f Jesus that "when He, the Spirit o f truth, comes, guide y o u into all the truth" (John 16:13) place the H o l y Spirit charge o f the hermeneutical process. Moreover, His words also that the interpreter w i l l be rewarded w i t h the understanding o f the 20

Faith, Reason, and the Holy Spirit in Hermeneutics truth sought. I f one is to discover truth, the ultimate cause w i l l be the action o f the H o l y Spirit.

In addition, the guidance is common to all because the word "you" in this text is plural. This suggests the value o f community checks and balances regarding the nature and discovery o f truth. I n other words, the Spirit o f truth guides a community o f believers into complementary, not contradictory, understandings o f a particular truth. This can guard against the unwarranted absolutization o f a charismatic individual i n hermeneutics.

Biblical searching through regenerate reason, as displayed by the Bereans, indicates that hermeneutical work involves a process characterized as "examining the Scripture . . . whether these things were so" (Acts 17:11). This suggests a thematic comparative investigation o f various biblical passages in order to discover biblical teaching regarding a specific point in question. One text sheds light upon another, suggesting not only the unity o f Scripture but that the Scripture is its o w n interpreter. Consequently, Scripture is not to be subjected to an alleged higher authority such as human tradition or human reason.

It is precisely in the searching process o f comparing one scripture w i t h another that the H o l y Spirit plays an important role outlined by Ellen G. White: " I t is the H o l y Spirit's office to direct this search and to reward i t " (1888 Materials, 4:1538). This being the case, it means that the most intense human endeavors to interpret the Scriptures properly w i l l , in the words o f Ellen White, "prove an entire failure unless the L o r d Himself should by His divine power combine w i t h the human agency. 'Not by might, nor by power, but by M y Spirit, saith the L o r d o f hosts' [Zech 4 : 6 ] " (4MR 310). This shows that the human process o f comparing scripture w i t h scripture should be guided by the H o l y Spirit.

The Transformed Mind and the Mind of Christ The biblical interpreter must become a child o f the Spirit to understand the things o f the Spirit. In Paul's words, "we have r e c e i v e d . . . the S p i r i t . . . that we might know the things freely given to us by G o d " (1 Cor 2:12). I n other words, the biblical interpreter needs to "be born o f the Spirit" (John 3:6), otherwise the "things o f the Spirit" w i l l forever remain, hermeneutically, foolishness to the natural, sinful m i n d (1 Cor 2:14). This means that it is through the work o f the Spirit that God prepares one's mind for biblical interpretation.

Having the Mind of Christ. Paul's words, "For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body" (1 Cor 12:13), may indicate that the concept o f being "born o f the Spirit" (John 3:8) can be qualitatively compared to 21

Faith, Reason, and the Holy Spirit in Hermeneutics

Faith, Reason, and the Holy Spirit in Hermeneutics the concept o f being "baptized w i t h the H o l y Spirit" (Acts 1:5). I f so, the biblical interpreter would do well to ask in faith and to receive the baptism o f the H o l y Spirit, thereby to be prepared intellectually, morally, and emotionally to interpret the Word o f God. This preparation by the H o l y Spirit is described by Paul as the transformation o f the interpreter's m i n d from a "fleshly m i n d " to the " m i n d o f Christ."

A core hermeneutical passage i n the whole o f Scripture is found in Philippians 2:5. Here Paul urges individuals to "Let this mind be in y o u which was also in Christ Jesus" ( K J V ) . I n this passage the word for " m i n d " in the Greek is phroneo, meaning, "to think, reflect," or "set one's m i n d . " Paul indicates that he has "the m i n d o f Christ" (1 Cor 2:16).

What is hermeneutically significant about having the mind o f Christ?

In North America a well-known and relevant bit o f fishing wisdom goes like this: " I f you want to catch a fish, you need to think like a fish." When the necessary adjustments are made, this advice is perfectly fitting for biblical hermeneutics. I f one wishes to catch the real meaning o f the Word o f God or to interpret the Word o f God properly, the person needs to think like God. I n order to think like God one needs to have the m i n d o f God. Is this feasible? Reaching out to this stunning goal is precisely the actual human possibility that Paul addresses i n the Philippian passage.

Elsewhere, Paul contrasts the m i n d o f Christ i n human beings with a haughty "fleshly m i n d " (Col 2:18), also described as a "carnal mind," or one "set on the flesh" (Rom 8:7). Paul indicates that both o f these minds are at enmity w i t h God and his law (Rom 8:7) and that these types o f minds cannot understand the things o f the Spirit (1 Cor 2:14). I n other words, having a "fleshly mind," or a "carnal mind," is death to sound hermeneutics.

Given the need for the biblical interpreter to have the m i n d o f Christ in hermeneutics, how is the unregenerate, natural, human "fleshly m i n d " changed into the " m i n d o f Christ"? Again, Paul opens the way for our thinking on this matter. We should not be conformed to this world, but we ought to be "transformed by the renewing" o f our m i n d (Rom 12:2).

How does this renewing transformation occur? I n answering this question, Paul appeals to the w o r k o f the H o l y Spirit i n His new covenant blessing (2 Cor 3:3). According to Paul, the H o l y Spirit w i l l , upon request by any individual, and through the study o f the Scriptures, create the m i n d o f Christ i n the believer.

5

hardened; for until this very day at the reading o f the o l d covenant [ i n the minds o f Jews i n Paul's day] the same veil remains unlifted, because it is removed in Christ" (2 Cor 3:14).

What caused the change i n the understanding o f Christ from temporal king to Christ as crucified? Paul answers this question: " B u t whenever a man turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. N o w the L o r d is the Spirit, and where the Spirit o f the L o r d is, there is liberty" (2 Cor 3:16-17). This passage attributes the new interpretation squarely to the mighty w o r k o f the Third Person o f the Godhead. Thus, Paul seems to be suggesting that it is by the work o f the H o l y Spirit that the sinful, spiritually blind interpreter is enabled to understand the O T as pointing forward to Christ crucified.

The Holy Spirit Illuminates the Interpreter Jesus offers a remarkable and encouraging promise regarding the hermeneutical power o f the H o l y Spirit: "But the Helper, the H o l y S p i r i t , . . . w i l l . . . bring to your remembrance all that I said to y o u " (John 14:26).

What hermeneutical possibilities might these words carry? I n light o f this passage, the Spirit can bring to the m i n d o f the biblical interpreter explanatory teachings o f Jesus found, for instance, in the Sermon on the Mount and in the parables o f Jesus.

Moreover, i f that which the H o l y Spirit brings to the mind o f a biblical interpreter can be extended to cover the entire corpus o f God's written Word, the H o l y Spirit has the full range o f the O l d and o f the N e w Testaments from which to draw material to assist the interpreter. The key insight is that the biblical exegete can know that, upon request, the H o l y Spirit w i l l bring to m i n d passages and biblical images that otherwise might not be present. This is a significant, helpful hermeneutical promise showing the need for faith in the Holy Spirit. I t helps to show the spiritual rationale undergirding the truthfulness o f the following hermeneutical claim: "We need greater faith i f we would have better knowledge o f the W o r d " (11MR 3).

Summary

Veiling of the Natural Mind. Paul's discussion o f the blinding veil (2 Cor 3:14-18) has prompted much scholarly comment. For our purposes we note that the basic point is that the contemporary biblical interpreter also faces the challenge o f this darkening veil. Paul describes its effect on the Jews o f his day, saying, "But their minds [ancient Israelites] were

Reason as a Tool. We have seen that the God-given gift o f reason is to be endorsed strongly and engaged rigorously in the hermeneutical process. Careful, circumscribed deep thinking and reflection is essential to sound biblical interpretation. Reliance on the H o l y Spirit must not replace the continuing effort o f human rational powers. These two realities are

22

23

6

Faith, Reason, and the Holy Spirit in Hermeneutics

Faith, Reason, and the Holy Spirit in Hermeneutics

complementary, not mutually exclusive. Although human reason is fallen,

References

it can be sanctified by the H o l y Spirit and become thereby fitted to search

Unless otherwise indicated, biblical quotations are from the New American Standard Bible.

humbly, willingly, and inductively all o f the relevant Scriptures regarding a biblical matter. This kind o f research aids in reducing misinterpretations o f Scripture.

Faith the Basis. The Bible supports the posture o f faith seeking u n ‫־‬ derstanding as the proper approach to the relationship o f faith and reason. While reason and faith ideally are complementary in hermeneutics, at times they appear to clash. I n such instances the interpreter through faith w i l l elevate the teachings o f Scripture above the claims o f reason.

Spiritual Powers. A great controversy rages over the interpretation o f Scripture. I n our enlightened age the hermeneutical influence o f spiritual powers needs to be acknowledged. Unfallen angels and the H o l y Spirit seek to influence the m i n d o f the interpreter o f Scripture while, at the same time, evil angels and Satan work to counter the heavenly influence.

The Spirit and Interpretation.

The role o f the H o l y Spirit i n hermeneutics is multidimensional in four ways: (1) The H o l y Spirit guides the hermeneutical process; (2) by the baptism o f the H o l y Spirit, the biblical interpreter is equipped w i t h the m i n d o f Christ and is prepared for the hermeneutical task w i t h a softened, unveiled mind, thereby made responsive to the guidance o f the Spirit; (3) the H o l y Spirit brings biblical truths and images to the m i n d o f the interpreter; (4) He illuminates the m i n d o f the interpreter w i t h fresh meaning.

Divine Guidance.

Without the supernatural assistance o f the H o l y Spirit and heavenly angels, there can be no proper interpretation o f the truths o f Scripture, no matter how hard one engages the rational powers.

The Spirit who inspired the Bible is needed for its proper interpretation.

This conclusion underscores the interpreter's need to commune constantly w i t h the Holy Spirit, requesting divine illumination and the influence o f holy angels in order to understand and to apply properly the treasures in the O l d and i n the N e w Testaments (Luke 11:13).

Again, above all, hermeneutics cannot be done alone. A n interpreter o f the Scriptures who, like Paul, has the m i n d o f Christ and humbly follows a hermeneutical process involving sanctified reason, is subject to the influence o f holy angels and the illuminating guidance o f the H o l y Spirit.

For such an interpreter the rewards are rich indeed.

24

1. See Alvin Plantinga's massive influential work entitled, Warranted Christian Belief (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000).

2. Cf. Jon Paulien, "The Final Deception: An Evil, Counterfeit Trinity Is Now Making Ready for War,".Adventist Review, Oct. 29, 1998, p. 10.

3. See Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, vol. I l l , part 3: The Doctrine ofCreation (Edinburgh, Τ. & T. Clark, 1960), pp. 519-531; Paul Tillich, Systematic Theology (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1951-1957), 1:134, 2:27; Rudolf Bultmann, "New Testament and Mythology," in Kerygma and Myth: A Theological Debate, ed. Hans Werner Bartsch, trans. Reginald H. Fuller (London• S.P.C.K., 1957), pp. 4-5.

4. Merrill F. Unger, Biblical Demonology (Wheaton, I L : Van Kampen Press, Inc., 1953), p. 166.

5. The hermeneutical implications of the biblical teaching regarding the "natural" human mind and the regenerate mind receive insightful treatment in the following article: Frank Hasel, "Theology and the Role of Reason," Journal of the Adventist Theological Society A, no. 2 (Autumn 1993): 72-198.

6. See Philip E. Hughes, Paul's Second Epistle to the Corinthians; the English Text with Introduction, Exposition and Notes, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, M I : Eerdmans, 1962), pp 110121.

Selected Bibliography Davidson, Richard M . "Biblical Interpretation." In Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist Theology, ed. Raoul Dederen, pp. 58-104. Hagerstown, M D : Review & Herald Publishing Association, 2000.

Dorman, Ted M . "Holy Spirit, History, Hermeneutics and Theology: Toward an Evangelical/Catholic Consensus." Journal of the Evangelical Theological SocietyAl (1998): 427-438.

Erickson, Millard J. Evangelical Interpretation: Perspectives on Hermeneutical Issues. Grand Rapids, M I : Baker Books, 1993.

Fuller, Daniel P. "The Holy Spirit's Role in Biblical Interpretation." In Scripture, Tradition, and Interpretation, ed. W. Ward Gasque and William Sanford LaSor, pp. 189-198. Grand Rapids, M I : Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1978.

Hart, Larry. "Hermeneutics, Theology, and the Holy Spirit." Perspectives in Religious Studies 14 (1987): 53-64.

Klooster, Fred H. "The Role of the Holy Spirit in the Hermeneutic Process: The Relationship of the Spirit's Illumination to Biblical Interpretation." In Hermeneutics, Inerrancy, and the Bible, ed. Earl D. Radmacher and Robert D. Preus, pp. 449-492. Grand Rapids, M I : Academie Books, 1984.

25

Faith, Reason, and the Holy Spirit in Hermeneutics Koranteng-Pipim, Samuel. "The Role of the Holy Spirit in Biblical Interpretation: A Study in the Writings of James I . Packer" (Ph.D. dissertation, Andrews University, 1998).

Pinnock, Clark H. "The Role of the Spirit in Interpretation." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 36 (1993): 491-497.

Richardson, Peter. "Spirit and Letter: A Foundation for Hermeneutics." Evangelical Quarterly 45 (1973): 208-218.

Young. William G. "The Holy Spirit and the Word of God." Scottish Journal of Theology 14(1961): 34-59.

Zuck, Roy B. "The Role of the Holy Spirit in Hermeneutics." Bibliotheca Sacra 141 (1984): 120-130.

CHAPTER HI

PRESUPPOSITIONS IN THE INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE Frank M . Hasel

Introduction The notion o f presupposition(s) plays an important role in biblical interpretation. We all hold a number o f beliefs that we presuppose or accept when we come to the task o f interpreting Scripture. N o one is able to approach the biblical text w i t h a blank mind.

Presuppositions delimit the boundaries w i t h i n w h i c h biblical interpretation can and should properly function. They also determine the method and, through the method, also influence, to a considerable degree, the outcome o f our interpretation. I n other words, they directly affect our theology and the authority that Scripture has for our life and for doctrine. In turn, our theology influences spiritual and theological identity and, finally, also the mission o f the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

A n acceptance o f biblical Christian presuppositions w i l l lead to very different conclusions from, for example, a commitment to naturalistic, and even atheistic, presuppositions. Since the method o f interpretation is inseparable from its presuppositions, the respective presuppositions invariably influence the outcome. I f the method o f interpretation rules out supernatural interventions, Scripture w i l l not be read and understood as true and as reliable reports but interpreted differently. Thus, to some extent at least, the conclusion may be implicit within the methodology. The great issue is that of the correct and proper method. Everything else follows in due course.

I n this chapter, without claiming to be exhaustive, we w i l l point out the basic presuppositions o f an authentic Adventist biblical hermeneutic and describe some general hermeneutical principles to be derived from them.

1. The Hermeneutical Challenge Interpreters o f the Bible cannot divest themselves from their own past, their experiences, resident ideas, and preconceived notions and opinions.

26

27

Presuppositions in the Interpretation of Scripture

Presuppositions in the Interpretation of Scripture It is an accepted truism that total neutrality, or absolute objectivity, cannot be achieved i n the act o f interpretation. Exegesis and theological reflection always take place against the background o f fundamental presuppositions about the nature o f the w o r l d and the nature o f God. Inevitably there is a pre-understanding toward which the interpreter w i l l slant his investigation. Even the so-called objective or hard-science researchers now recognize the influence o f values.

The Hermeneutical Spiral We acknowledge that the object under investigation should be allowed some influence i n determining the appropriate approach. A God-centered theology demands a God-centered methodology. A n y pre-understanding, such as evolution, that questions or denies the supernatural dimension clearly testified to i n Scripture is alien to the Bible and w i l l not come to grips w i t h the subject matter o f God's Word. Our presuppositions and pre-understandings must be modified and reshaped by the text o f H o l y Scripture and remain under the control o f the Bible itself. The biblical text must have priority over the interpreter.

I f we deal w i t h the Bible, then i t should be the Bible that is allowed to determine our presuppositions and methodology rather than physics, mathematics, or biology. The biblical interpreter has to realize that an understanding o f the Bible increases through the reshaping o f the m i n d and o f the heart by reading Scripture. The successive exposure to God's Word, through which the interpreter is able to bring his or her pre-understanding i n ever closer alignment w i t h biblical truth, can be likened to a hermeneutical spiral. The Bible must be given room to teach us its own essential categories. This enables the biblical interpreter to think increasingly with the biblical text rather than just to think about the text o f the Bible. Thus " G o d H i m s e l f through the Bible and the H o l y Spirit creates i n the interpreter the necessary presuppositions and the essential perspective for the understanding o f Scripture." The Bible consistently demonstrates that people are not so captive to their pre-understanding that they cannot be transformed. A t Thessalonica, for example, Paul "reasoned w i t h them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that the Christ had to suffer and rise from the dead" (Acts 17:2-3). As a result "some o f the Jews were persuaded and j o i n e d Paul and Silas, as d i d a large number o f God-fearing Greeks and not a few prominent w o m e n " (vs. 4).

1

2. Biblical Presuppositions A Personal G o d Who Speaks and Acts Nowhere i n Scripture do the biblical writers attempt to prove the existence o f God. Instead, it is simply asserted from the very beginning (Gen 1:1). I n the N T the message is similar: Those who w o u l d come to God "must believe that he exists" (Heb 11:6). Our source o f information about God is His o w n personal revelation (Heb 1:1-3), faithfully recorded i n Scripture (Rom 16:26). Although it is impossible to k n o w God completely and exhaustively, the Bible provides us w i t h enough true knowledge to enable us to enter into a saving and loving relationship w i t h H i m . The self-testimony o f Scripture is o f decisive importance.

When we speak o f the "living God" we mean that God is essentially personal and that He made Himself known i n a highly personal manner, particularly in Christ's incarnation. As the living God He is a personal God who speaks and acts. One o f His communicative acts can be seen in His revelation.

The things that God has revealed for us are for us to know (Amos 3:7; Deut 29:29). Divine revelation generates Scripture (cf. 2 Pet 1:19-21). I n originating "Holy Scripture" (Rom 1:2), God utilized human instrumentalities. God did not eliminate their individualities nor did He suppress their personalities.

And yet the Holy Spirit carried the biblical writers along, guiding their minds and thoughts i n selecting what to speak and assisting them i n what to write so that they faithfully committed to trustworthy and apt words the things divinely revealed to them. Thus, Seventh-day Adventists affirm that "all Scripture is an indivisible, indistinguishable union o f the divine and the human."

2

Humanity Created for Fellowship With G o d A d a m and Eve, created i n the divine image, were capable o f responding to God and o f entering into a meaningful fellowship w i t h their Creator. God, who created human beings w i t h the ability to speak and think, is depicted i n Scripture as using human language to communicate w i t h humans (cf. Gen 1:28; 3:9; Exod 4:11-12, 15-16; 1 Sam 3:21). Humans are portrayed as being created w i t h the ability to understand God correctly.

Hence, they are accountable to God their Creator.

The Disruptive Power of Sin The entrance o f sin, however, has radically altered, ruptured, and fractared this initially pure and holy relationship w i t h God. Whereas sin has

28

29

Presuppositions in the Interpretation of Scripture

Presuppositions in the Interpretation of Scripture marred and distorted the image o f God in man, it has not completely destrayed it. Otherwise human reasoning and creativity would be difficult to fathom, and genuine instances o f love and sacrifice for others would be 3

enigmatic.

While the origin o f sin remains a mystery that cannot be unraveled fully, it is clear that pride, dissatisfaction w i t h status, and a desire to be like God were the sins that caused Lucifer and the fallen angels to revolt against God (cf. Isa 14:12-14; Ezek 28:11-19). Sin is a desire to cross the boundaries o f creaturehood in the attempt to become like God, a rupture o f the essential Creator-creature relationship, and a desire to live an independent, egocentric, self-sufficient life without God. This separation from God has affected our human nature and has corrupted every aspect and dimension o f our existence, including our reasoning powers and our capabilities o f understanding.

The Effects of Sin on the Interpretation of Scripture. It is rare in hermeneutical discussions to find a description o f the effects o f sin on the task o f biblical interpretation. Yet several inner predispositions addressed in Scripture are obstacles for reaching a deeper and correct understanding of biblical truth.

It is not just that our human thought processes are employed for sinful ends; our mind and thoughts have become corrupted and thereby closed to God's truth.

Pride. Perhaps the chief characteristic o f this corruption is pride. According to the Bible, pride is at the very root and the essence o f sin. W h y were the Pharisees in Jesus' time unable to recognize Jesus Christ as the Messiah? Jesus calls them spiritually blind, because their proud claim that "they can see" was a hindrance to recognizing God's self-revelation in Jesus (John 9:39-41; 12:43). I n 2 Timothy 3:2-3 pride occurs in a list describing the characteristics o f the godless men i n the last days. It leads to wrong teachings and sinful deeds (2 T i m 4:3-4; cf. 1 T i m 6:3-4).

Pride is an attitude toward God and His W ord i n which the proud person is characterized by an arrogant mind-set that elevates oneself over God and His Word and thus loses any balance that might grow out o f a recognition o f one's true position in relation to God and to His Word.

God, "opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble" (1 Pet 5:5).

Pride leads the interpreter to overemphasize human reason or existential concerns as the final arbiter o f what one should know, believe, and obey, and, at the same time, diminishes the divine authority and the inspiration o f Scripture. I t is not without reason that Ellen G. White wrote "The sin that is most nearly hopeless and incurable is pride o f opinion, self-conceit.

This stands i n the way o f all growth" (7T 199-200).

4

r

5

Self-deception. o f self-deception.

Connected w i t h the obstacle o f pride is the problem Sin has affected all aspects o f our human existence, 30

including our thinking and our desiring. As sinners we are prone to listen only to those ideas that seem attractive to us but do not necessarily correspond to God's revealed w i l l . Self-deception is a real danger, because "the heart is deceitful above all things" (Jer 17: 9). God has warned about the danger o f self-deception that leads to a wrong understanding o f our situation (Rev 3:17).

Self-deception also affects the proper understanding o f God's written Word (2 T i m 4:3-4; cf. 3:13). The apostle Paul instructs Timothy and all believers not to fall prey to this self-deception. They are to preach the Word and to live a consistent lifestyle modeled after the instruction found in God's Word (2 T i m 4:2, 5). I t is the written Word o f God that is a lamp to our feet and a light for our path (Ps 119:105). I t is the H o l y Spirit working in our hearts through the Word o f God who clears up our self-deception and enlightens the darkness o f our understanding.

Doubt. Doubt is a painful experience. To doubt means "to waver in one's opinion"; it means "to be undecided about the truth o f something" and "to question the veracity o f an idea"; the one who doubts is "inclined not to believe the truth o f an assertion." Doubt as part o f a critical methodology dampens the certainty o f God's Word and diminishes the conviction o f faith. A n approach characterized by doubt is "never able by itself to come to a saving and sanctifying knowledge o f God's truth. Just as faith is the condition for knowledge (2 Cor 4:13), so doubt or skepticism is the condition for remaining i n ignorance o f the truth."

6

7

Uncertainty only deepens when a doubting person is confronted with the verbal or written testimony o f truth (cf. John 5:46-47), "for such a declaration demands the transfer o f authority from one's o w n reason as final arbiter to the witness declared to be true." It has been pointed out that the source for this problem "lies not in the kind o f evidence presented to reason, but in autonomous reason's skeptical stance i n the face o f all evidence. When one starts w i t h doubt, evaluation o f the text w i l l never lead to certainty." The interpreter who doubts the statements o f Scripture judges God's Word and thereby elevates himself to a position i n which he thinks to know what is acceptable and what not. God, however, does not call for an attitude o f "criticism" and "doubt" to gain an understanding o f His Word but requires faith. While Scripture admonishes us "to be mercifill to those who doubt" (Jude 22), Jesus rejects complacent doubt (cf. Matt 16:1-4).

8

9

Distance and Distortion. The nature and consequence o f human sin is described in Isaiah 59:2 as "a separation" between humanity and God that hides His face from us. This was the experience o f A d a m and Eve in the garden o f Eden. While God still seeks contact and communica31

Presuppositions in the Interpretation of Scripture tion w i t h humankind, the distance that sin creates leads to a distortion o f our knowledge o f God. A n attitude o f critically dissecting Scripture, thus fragmenting and distorting its God-given unity, is sharpened and stimulated by exercise. I n the words o f Ellen G. White: Those who think to make the supposed difficulties of Scripture plain, in measuring by their finite rule that which is inspired and that which is not inspired, had better cover their faces. . . . When men, in theirfinitejudgment, find it necessary to go into an examination of scriptures to define that which is inspired and that which is not, they have stepped before Jesus to show Him a better way than He has led u s . . . . Brethren, let not a mind or hand be engaged in criticizing the Bible. It is a work that Satan delights to have any of you do, but it is not the work the Lord has pointed out for you to do.

Men should let God take care of His own Book, His living oracles, as He has done for ages. They begin to question some parts of revelation, and pick flaws in the apparent inconsistencies of this statement and that statement. Beginning at Genesis, they give up that which they deem questionable, and their minds lead on, for Satan will lead to any length they may follow in their criticism, and they see something to doubt in the whole Scriptures. Their faculties of criticism become sharpened by exercise, and they can rest on nothing with a certainty (ISM 17-18, emphasis supplied).

Rather than being able to see a unity in Scripture, the Bible and its message are fragmented when fallen human reason applies foreign and hostile presuppositions to the task o f interpreting Scripture, resulting in a loss o f biblical authority. I n such a case, authority is shifted to the interpreter, who chooses which voice he or she w i l l listen to among the plurality o f voices.

Furthermore, fallen human reason also can introduce distortion through the reinterpretation o f Scripture by means o f "fine-sounding arguments" (Col 2:4; cf. 2 T i m 4:3-4; 2 Pet 3:16) that, nevertheless, deceive. For instance, "The contention that one cannot know absolute truth leads to distortion, meaning the truth o f Scripture w i l l be interpreted as personal rather than as factual information that corresponds to reality." Distortion also can take place when the current concerns o f the interpreter do not correspond with the concerns o f the text and the interpreter asks questions the text cannot answer or the text is giving answers the interpreter is not prepared to accept. [Scripture tells us that sin blinds us to God's truth (Rom 1; 1 Cor 1-2). This means that sin keeps the interpreter from acknowledging warranted conclusions.

10

Presuppositions in the Interpretation of Scripture tive barrier to knowing God's truth (Ps 66:18). B y refusing to admit that we need to learn new things from God's Word, we resist spiritual truths and become insensitive to them. A persistent opposition to, and rejection of, God's revealed truth leads to a point i n which the disobedient person is unable to hear properly and understand the Word o f God. Necessary Attitudes and Presuppositions for the Interpretation of Scripture.

Precisely because God meets us i n Scripture and meets us there for a specific purpose, the approach to the study o f Scripture on any other terms than those delineated in God's Word is to come to God w i t h a wrong attitude.[We need a disposition o f m i n d and o f heart that leads to understanding. This is not simply gained through certain exegetical techniques^ Openness and Honesty. One o f the foundational attitudes necessary for an adequate understanding o f the biblical message is an open mind-set imbued w i t h a willingness to learn, a mind-set receptive to the message and content being studied. In the words o f Ellen G. White: iln your study of the word, lay at the door o f investigation your preconceived opinions and your hereditary and cultivated ideas. You will never reach the truth i f you study the Scriptures to vindicate your own ideas. I f as you read, conviction comes, and you see that your cherished opinions are not in harmony with the word, do not try to make the word fit these opinions. Make your opinions fit the word (MYP 260).

Without such honesty and openness, no change or correction is possible i n terms o f one's pre-understanding. Honesty aims at the motives w i t h which the interpreter approaches the biblical text and also includes an openness to use the proper methods for interpretation.

The ideal starting point is an open mind, not an empty mind. No one comes to Scripture w i t h an empty head. But the interpreter has to approach the biblical text with a willingness to open his fundamental convictions to the transforming power o f God's H o l y Spirit, who is working w i t h and through the written Word. Consciously, one has to allow the Bible to shape and transform one's pre-understanding?‫ ־‬God tests the heart and is "pleased w i t h integrity" (1 Chron 29:17; Prov"2:7, N A B ) .

Disobedience.

Disobedience, the unwillingness to follow God's revealed w i l l , also negatively affects our abilitiy to understand Scripture correctly. Disobedience goes w i t h pride and is sin. Deliberate sin is an effec-

The promise is given i n Scripture that anyone w i l l i n g to do God's w i l l shall k n o w whether the teachings come from God or not (John 7:17).

This honesty opens up the possibility o f overcoming the subjectivity o f man by letting God speak to the interpreter i n and through the text o f Scripture.

32

33

Presuppositions in the Interpretation of Scripture

Presuppositions in the Interpretation of Scripture

This willingness to learn from God's Word enables the interpreter to enter a process o f understanding that can be likened to a hermeneutical spiral.

It leads first from a recognition o f biblical ideas to an acceptance o f those ideas, then to a closer and more adequate perception o f the subject matter o f the Bible, leading to a new investigation and deeper understanding. Thus, the biblical interpreter who is w i l l i n g to ascribe to the word o f Scripture the fundamental primacy for the proper meaning o f the biblical message is able to grow continually i n his or her understanding o f that message.

11

Faith. Without faith it is impossible to please God (Heb 11:6). A l ready the apostle Paul affirmed that a true understanding o f H o l y Scripture is possible only through the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 2:14), who enlightens our understanding i n order that we may know (Eph 1:18). I t is faith that opens up the spiritual truths o f God's Word to the reader. _While Scripture can be read just like any other book, it cannot be understood correctly i n the biblical sense without faith, for the subject matter o f the Bible, God, is available only to the believer. K n o w i n g and understanding i n the biblical sense involve much more than just an intellectual recognition. They also encompass a relational and communicative dimension that includes the involvement o f the whole person i n the act o f knowing. Faith is the place from which knowing is possible.

The person who tries to read the Bible just like any other book does not do justice to its divine-human nature. The interpretation o f Scripture does not reach its goal i n examining only its human dimension. A reading o f H o l y Scripture has to aim at an interpretation i n which God, the author o f Scripture, is being acknowledged and heard. A n d this is possible only from an attitude o f faith. Without faith no growth i n human knowledge is possible.

to be led and to be taught by the H o l y Spirit. For "God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble" (Jas 4:6). H u m i l i t y expresses the unassuming insight that God and His Word are greater than our human reason and greater than our current understanding. There is always more light to break forth from God's Word. This subordination o f human reason to the higher authority o f God's Word is expressed i n these words: ,God desires man to exercise his reasoning powers . . . yet we are to beware of deifying reason, which is subject to the infirmity of humanity....

When we come to the Bible, reason must acknowledge an authority superior to itself, and heart and intellect must bow to the great I A M (SC 109-110)7 Whoever wants to understand the Bible, and through the Bible, even God, the world,• and oneself has to allow Scripture to be given normative priority over one's own experiences and assessments.

Obedience. Obedience is the path to deeper understanding. It reflects a biblical principle that as we respond to the light we have more light is given (cf. Ps 119:100; Acts 5:32; 1 John 2:3). I n interpreting Scripture "it is not enough to have mastered an eight-step exegetical technique; it is equally a matter o f one's spirituality. ^Biblical interpreters have to be w i l l i n g apprentices, students who are w i l l i n g to live as well as to look 'along the text,' according to the Scriptures." For the true end o f our hermeneutical task is a devoted life._ Biblical understanding is never abstract and theoretical. I t is understanding the w i l l and w o r k o f the living God, who constantly seeks to change us more fully into His likeness. Thus biblical understanding ultimately involves God's claim on, and purpose for, our lives i n light o f all that He has revealed to us. It means knowing and doing God's truth; such understanding is a gift o f God (Eph 3:16-19; Phil 3:15-16).

12

Jesus Himself displayed complete trust i n Scripture (John 10:35). He accepted the O T canon (Luke 24:44) and acknowledged Scripture as the authoritative norm for our lives (Matt 4:4). He did not doubt Scripture; instead He relied on Scripture as a trustworthy word to defeat Satan (Matt 4:6-7). After His resurrection, Jesus chided the disciples on the road to Emmaus for being foolish and "slow o f heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken!" (Luke 24:25).; Lack o f faith leads to a deficient understanding o f Scripture^ Humility. One o f the most important presuppositions for the knowledge o f truth is humility. The attitude o f humility expresses the^ willingness and modesty to submit one's beliefs to a higher authority. Through humility the highest and deepest knowledge o f God is gained, namely an awareness that one is dependent upon God to gain true knowledge, that man is not the final measure o f everything. Instead, the interpreter is open

Prayer. LLast but not least, prayer leads the interpreter to explore the Bible from a different perspective. When Daniel prayed, he was granted understanding and insight (Dan 2:18-19; 6:10). I n Psalm 119:18 we read, "Open m y eyes that I may see wonderful things i n your law." B y praying, we acknowledge the need for God's H o l y Spirit to help us understand what He has inspired.

34

35

Love. _The supreme requirement for understanding the biblical message is sympathy with its subject matter. It is an undisputed fact that to really know and appreciate something you need to love it] I t is the virtue o f love, faith, and obedience that w i l l open up the treasure house o f God's Word to the reader. One cannot love God wholeheartedly and criticize His revelation from a distance.

Presuppositions in the Interpretation of Scripture

Presuppositions in the Interpretation of Scripture

3. Hermeneutical Principles We can never hope to understand God's written Word correctly i f we treat it like any other book. The principles o f our Bible study must then be consistent w i t h the principles that govern our whole relationship w i t h God. This means that our study o f Scripture should be both academic and devotional, involving m i n d and heart i n the search to uncover the true meaning o f the text.

13

By Scripture Alone—Sola

Scriptura

From their very beginning Adventist believers have considered themselves as people o f the Book, literally as Bible-believing Christians in the full tradition o f the Reformers o f the sixteenth century. Seventh-day A d ventists acknowledge that for a correct interpretation o f Scripture the Scripture itself is foundational (1 Cor 4:6). Hence, they affirm the scriptural principle summarized in the Reformation slogan: sola scriptura—by Scripture alone. This appeal acknowledges the unique authority o f Scripture.

14

[Scripture alone is the ruling norm (norma normans). Other authorities such as religious experience, human reason, and tradition are ruled by Scripture (they are ruled norms, norma normată).

I n fact, the sola scriptura principle was intended to safeguard the authority o f Scripture from dependence upon other sources, such as the church, and precluded the possibility that the standard o f its interpretation could come from outside.

Neither does the principle o f scripture interpreting scripture negate the community o f faith or human reason. When Luther maintained the principle o f sola scriptura, he was not suggesting that the tradition o f the church was without value. Rather, he was arguing a case o f relative clarity and weight. I n other words, i f a conflict arises in the interpretation o f faith, then Scripture carries the authority that transcends and judges any o f the church's traditions.

On the road to Emmaus, Jesus upheld the principle that Scripture is its own interpreter. "Beginning w i t h Moses and all the Prophets, He explained to His disciples what was said i n all the Scriptures concerning h i m s e l f (Luke 24:27). Later that night, Jesus again pointed to Scripture when He made it clear to the disciples that everything written about H i m " i n the L a w o f Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms" (Luke 24:44) must be fulfilled. For Jesus, Scripture was the authoritative source whereby we can discriminate between right and wrong.

The Sufficiency of Scripture. To speak o f Scripture as its own interpreter implies the corollary o f the sufficiency o f Scripture. Scripture is sufficient as the unerring guide to divine truth. I t is sufficient to make one wise unto salvation (2 T i m 3:15). It is the sole standard by which all doctrine and experience must be tested (Isa 8:20; John 17:17; Heb 4:12). To know God and His w i l l we need no other source save Scripture alone. The intrinsic authority o f Scripture as the source o f its o w n exposition rests in its character as the inspired Word o f God. However, this divine authority is recognized for what it is only as the H o l y Spirit illumines the mind.

Scripture Interprets Scripture. One hermeneutical characteristic o f the sola scriptura principle is its self-interpretation. It is not tradition, human reason, or religious experience, culture, or the verdict o f scholars and leaders that is the source and norm for interpreting Scripture. Scripture alone is the key that unlocks Scripture.

To understand sola scriptura, in this sense, does not exclude the reality o f cultural influences or the reality o f religious experience. To maintain that scripture interprets scripture does not negate the insight from other fields o f study, such as biblical archaeology, anthropology, sociology, or history, which may illumine some biblical aspects and the background o f scriptural passages, contributing to a better understanding o f the meaning o f the biblical text. N o r does it exclude the help o f other resources in the task o f interpretation, such as biblical lexicons, dictionaries, concordances, and other books and commentaries. ^However, i n the proper interpretation o f the Bible, the text o f Scripture has priority over all other aspects, sciences, and secondary helps. Other viewpoints have to be carefully evaluated from the standpoint o f Scripture as a whole.

Only on the basis o f its unity can Scripture function as its o w n interpreter. Only then is it possible to come up w i t h a harmony in doctrine and teaching. I f there is no overarching unity i n Scripture one looks i n vain for a normative teaching o f Scripture on any given issue. Without the unity o f Scripture the church has no means to distinguish truth from error and to repudiate heresy. It has no basis to apply disciplinary measures or to cor-

36

37

The Unity of Scripture Another foundational principle o f biblical interpretation included in the sola scriptura principle is the analogy o f faith, or the analogy (or harmony) o f Scripture. The Scripture itself claims that "all Scripture is God-breathed" (2 T i m 3:16), that "no prophecy o f Scripture came about by the prophet's o w n interpretation," and that "men spoke from God as they were carried along by the H o l y Spirit" (2 Pet 1:20-21). W i t h God as its ultimate author and being inspired by the H o l y Spirit, we can assume a fundamental unity and harmony among its various parts.

15

Presuppositions in the Interpretation of Scripture

Presuppositions in the Interpretation of Scripture rect deviations from God's truth. Scripture would lose its convincing and liberating power.

The N T writers, however, testify to a high view o f Scripture and assume its unity. This becomes obvious when they support their point by quoting several O T sources as o f equal and harmonious weight. This indicates that different Bible writers provide different emphases on the same event or topic, thus contributing to a rich and multifaceted expression o f divine truth i n which all the doctrines o f the Bible w i l l cohere to one other.

God never contradicts Himself.

Tota Scriptura—All of Scripture.

The unity o f Scripture includes the concept o f tota scriptura (all o f Scripture). I n order to learn what Scripture has to say on any given subject we must consider all that is stated by Scripture. To gain a comprehensive, complete understanding o f what God wants to say i n the Bible it is not enough to pick out one statement to the neglect o f other statements on the same question. This means that "the two Testaments have a reciprocal relationship i n w h i c h they mutually illuminate each other. . . . Neither Testament is superseded by the other, although the later revelation is tested by the former."

The best example for this trust i n Scripture appears among the Berean Christians, w h o "were o f more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message w i t h great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see i f what Paul said was true" (Acts 17:11). I n a similar manner Jesus pointed out how the OT sheds light on the N T .

"These are the Scriptures that testify about me" (John 5:39). From passages such as 1 Timothy 5:18, i n w h i c h Paul juxtaposes a statement o f Jesus w i t h a quotation from the O T or 2 Peter 3:15-16, i n which Peter appears to recognize Paul's letters as Scripture, it is clear that already in N T times the apostolic writings were being accepted as being part o f H o l y Scripture, together w i t h the O T .

with an appropriate Bible translation faithful to the meaning contained i n the original Hebrew and Greek.

The Clarity of Scripture

16

17

18

The appeal to Scripture alone makes little sense i f the texts are unclear as to their meaning. The message o f the Bible is sufficiently clear to be understood by children and by adults alike. A n d yet, the content o f Scripture gives even the most learned person ample opportunity to grow in knowledge and to deepen an understanding o f God and His revealed w i l l . The truth o f the clarity o f Scripture has been recognized by many Christians i n the Reformation tradition. The Bible repeatedly reminds us of its o w n clarity. Scripture can be understood not only by theologians, scholars, or priests, but by all believers. The biblical testimony encourages readers to study the Bible for themselves because they are able to understand God's message to them (cf. Deut 6:6-7; Ps 19:7; 119:130; Isa 34:16; Luke 1:3-4; Acts 17:11; R o m 10:17; Rev 1:3).

The consistent example o f the Bible writers shows that the Scriptures are to be taken i n their plain, normal, literal sense, unless a clear and obvious figure is intended or a symbolic passage is employed. [The clarity o f Scripture assumes the priesthood o f all believers rather than restricting the interpretation o f Scripture to a select few, the clerical priesthood, or the "community" o f trained scholars. This means that the study o f Scripture itself, rather than secondary sources and commentaries about Scripture, is to hold priority, ί 20

The Clarity of Scripture and of Bible Translations. The clarity o f Scripture pertains to the language, sense, and words o f Scripture. One hermeneutical consequence o f this can be seen i n the value o f mastering the original languages o f Scripture (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek), wherever possible, i n order to grasp more fully the meaning o f the original biblical words. While it is possible to study the Bible by comparing scripture w i t h scripture, i n translations many biblical idioms or figures o f speech can be lost easily i n the process o f translation.

The Context of a Biblical Passage. Furthermore, to use Scripture as its o w n interpreter does not mean indiscriminately stringing together various passages o f Scripture i n a loose "proof-text" fashion without regard for the context o f each passage. Rather, "since the Scriptures ultimately have a single divine Author, it is crucial to gather all that is written on a particular topic i n order to be able to consider all the contours o f the topic," taking into consideration the literary, as w e l l as the historical, context o f a passage, fk careful interpreter w i l l take into consideration the immediate context before and after the passage under investigation; the context o f the biblical book i n which the passage is found, as w e l l as the larger context o f all the Bible^ I n comparing scripture w i t h scripture it is important to study the Bible thoroughly, i f possible i n its original languages or at least

i n order to find out how a word or concept is used i n Scripture and what connotations are associated w i t h this word or concept it is indispensable to compare carefully scripture with scripture. This can be done best i n the original languages. I f a translation needs to be used, a formal translation is to be preferred to a dynamic translation or paraphrase. ^ This does not mean that all Bible translations should be quite literal, for even dynamic translations or paraphrases may be suitable for different needs and situations. However, there is certainly an important place for more literal translations that do less

38

39

19

21

2

Presuppositions in the Interpretation of Scripture

Presuppositions in the Interpretation of Scripture

interpretation for the readers and thereby enable them to do more interpretation for themselves, thus making them less dependent on the translator.

The Clarity of Scripture and Difficult Passages. While there are mysteries o f faith in the Scriptures that can be understood sufficiently to be accepted by faith, this does not mean that we w i l l understand everything exhaustively and completely. Furthermore, to speak o f the clarity o f Scripture does not mean that there are no passages that w i l l be difficult to understand for the reader (2 Pet 3:16). Often we do not have sufficient knowledge o f all the facts involved to gain a clear understanding o f some passages o f Scripture. Sometimes the difficulty o f correctly understanding is perhaps not so much a matter o f a "darkness" o f Scripture but o f a darkening o f our sinful and distorted mind.

The enlightened student o f God's Word w i l l carefully compare one passage o f Scripture with other passages, moving from clear and unambiguous statements to those that are more difficult to understand. One important hermeneutical principle derived from the clarity o f Scripture is that difficult passages are not to be the starting point in any interpretation^ One has to start from the larger context o f clear scriptural statements o f truth.

Fortunately, Scripture enlightens our mind and understanding (Ps 119:105). While even unbelievers can read and intellectually understand the literal and historical sense o f Scripture (the sensus literae), the illuminating H o l y Spirit must be present so that the message w i l l be perceived as true. Even the regenerate interpreter o f Scripture needs the continual aid and enlightenment o f the Spirit. Thus, the true significance o f the message o f Scripture can be understood only by minds enlightened by the H o l y Spirit. Only in accepting the biblical message as true and following it obediently does true and full understanding take place.

famous preface to the Epistle o f James comes to m i n d i n which he claims that whatever does not point to Christ or draws out Christ is not apostolic, even though Peter or Paul would teach it. On the other hand, whatever "drives home" Christ is apostolic, even i f it comes from Judas, Annas, Pilate, or Herod. Therefore, for Luther the content o f Scripture is Christ, and, from this fact, he seems repeatedly to assign its authority.

A l l Scripture revolves around H i m as its authentic center. This "Christological concentration" can be seen as the decisive element in Luther's interpretation and use o f Scripture. Thus, Luther actually contended not "for the primacy o f Scripture i n the strict sense, but for the primacy o f the gospel to w h i c h Scripture attests and hence for the primacy o f Scripture as the attestation to the gospel." Thus, Luther valued the Bible, "because it is the cradle that holds Christ. For this reason, the gospel o f justification by grace through faith served as Luther's hermeneutical key to Scripture."

24

25

26

According to Luther, Scripture must be understood in favor o f Christ, not against H i m . This means, as has been pointed out, that i f a passage o f Scripture seems to be in conflict w i t h Luther's Christ-centered interpretation, his interpretation becomes "gospel-centered criticism o f Scripture."

Christ and Scripture can be set over against each other, because Luther ultimately ranked the personal Word (Christ), the spoken Word (Gospel), and the written Word (Scripture). This distinction and ranking leads to a canon w i t h i n the canon, in which Christ becomes the hermeneutical key to the proper understanding o f Scripture. O f course, this compromises the strength o f the Scripture principle, in which Scripture is the sole source o f its own exposition. For " i f Scripture is interpreted either by a doctrinal center or by a tradition it is no longer Scripture that is interpreting itself—rather it is we who are interpreting Scripture by means o f a doctrine or tradition, to which Scripture is, in practice, being subjected." Thus, it is not surprising that Luther's Christological method is "sharpened into a tool o f theological criticism" i n which the interpreter becomes the judge and stands above Scripture.

27

28

4. The Christological Principle of Bible Interpretation

29

It was Martin Luther, who, while affirming the authority o f Scripture and heralding the sola scriptura principle, also proposed another hermeneutical principle that can be termed the "Christological principle."

This Christological principle has become responsible for a subtle, yet significant, shift in understanding the authority and the hermeneutics o f the Bible. Luther's position on authority was closely connected to his understanding o f the gospel. Apparently, for Luther it was Christ and the gospel o f justification by faith alone to which Scripture attests that constituted the center o f Scripture and ultimately its final authority. Here, Luther's

23

40

Ellen G. White did not mean to separate Christ from the Scriptures when she wrote ['the sacrifice o f Christ as an atonement for sin is the great truth around which all other truths cluster. I n order to be rightly understood and appreciated, every truth in the Word o f God, from Genesis to Revelation, must be studied in the light that streams from the cross o f Calvary" (Ev 190)‫ל‬ She was not proposing a theological center to function as a tool for t h e o l o g f cal criticism, a canon within the canon. Rather, "every truth in the Word of God, from Genesis to Revelation, is to be studied in the light that streams from the cross o f Calvary" (Ev 190, emphasis supplied).

41

Presuppositions in the Interpretation of Scripture Thus Ellen G. White could affirm the centrality o f certain biblical themes without denigrating other parts o f Scripture as unimportant. For no man has the right to judge Scripture by selecting those passages that are deemed more important than others. A l l Scripture is given by inspiration and is therefore profitable to make us wise unto salvation (2 T i m 3:16).

30

5. The Relationship Between Christ and Scripture H o w are we then to see the relationship between Christ and Scripture? The living and speaking God o f Scripture has chosen to reveal Him¬

Presuppositions in the Interpretation of Scripture The Spirit o f Christ who indwells Christians never leads them to doubt, criticize, go beyond, or fall short o f Bible teachings. Instead, the Holy Spirit makes us appreciate the divine authority o f Scripture. Sola scriptura without Christ is empty, but Christ without Scripture—whose son is He? Without Scripture we would not know Jesus as the Messianic Christ, and He could not be our Savior. Thus, our loyalty to the Bible is part o f our loyalty to Christ. What is needed is not our human criticism o f Scripture—not even in the name o f Christ—but the critical examination o f ourselves, the church, and all other areas by Scripture for which the biblical text alone is divinely fitted. Through this the Scriptures are allowed to be the controlling principle and final authority for theology, faith, and practice.

self through the Word. God also has seen fit to commit His spoken w o r d through the biblical authors to the medium o f writing, thus generating the Bible, the written Word o f God. It seems that one needs to believe Scripture before one can believe the Christ o f Scripture. The Word-incarnate (Jesus Christ) cannot be separated from the Word-inscripturated (Holy Scripture). I n fact, there exists a very close and intimate relationship between Christ and the Scriptures.

It is undoubtedly true that Christ is central in the Scriptures. Christ Himself showed the disciples how Scripture pointed to H i m (Luke 24:2527). Scripture testifies about Christ (John 5:39). However, we have to distinguish carefully between a central theme or person i n Scripture and postulating a theological center whereby other portions and statements o f Scripture are relegated to a secondary or inferior status. A theological center that functions as a hermeneutical key leads only to a canon w i t h i n the canon that does not do justice to the fullness, richness, and breadth o f divine truth as we find it i n all o f Scripture.

31

We need to allow Scripture i n its entirety (tota scriptura),

in all its

multifaceted voices and genres, to reveal the richness and depth o f God's wisdom to us. Only such a symphonic reading o f the Bible, under the unifying guidance o f the H o l y Spirit, w i l l be able to do justice to the multiplex

Sola Scriptura or Prima

Scriptura?

To affirm that Scripture is the sole final source for its own exposition is more than to uphold the primacy o f Scripture. This is affirmed even by the Roman Catholic Church. However, in Roman Catholic dogma it is the church, and the church only, w i t h its tradition, that claims the right to interpret Scripture authentically and authoritatively. Thus Scripture, even though it is the primary source for theology, is domesticated by the hermeneutical spectacles o f the church and its tradition. This is what the Protestant Reformers protested against when they affirmed sola scriptura.

33

34

To opt merely for the primacy o f Scripture, rather than for Scripture alone as the final norm and ultimate authority for faith and practice, is to part ways w i t h the Protestant principle that Scripture alone is the final norm for theology and the sole source o f its o w n interpretation. Protestantism claimed more than the superiority o f Scripture over against other sources, or even its priority. It claimed that Scripture alone is the sole source o f its own exposition. Otherwise Scripture no longer can be the final authority in theology nor can it be the place i n which theological reflection originates and reaches its conclusions.

phenomena o f Scripture.

God sends the Holy Spirit to lead us to the L i v i n g Word (Jesus Christ) through the written Word (Holy Scripture). Scripture is central to our faith and devotion, because there is no other explicit witness to Jesus Christ. We have no other Christ than the one the biblical writers present to us. The Bible is the place i n which God has told us about Himself. " B o w i n g to the living Lord entails submitting mind and heart to the written Word. Disciples individually and churches corporately stand under the authority o f Scripture because they stand under the lordship o f Christ, who rules by Scripture.

This is not bibliolatry but Christianity i n its most authentic f o r m . "

2. Richard M . Davidson, "Biblical Interpretation," in Handbook of Seventhday Adventist Theology, ed. Raoul Dederen (Hagerstown, M D : Review and Herald Publishing Association, 2000), p. 62. On the biblical teaching of revelation and

42

43

32

References Unless otherwise indicated, biblical quotations are from the New International Version.

1. Gerhard F. Hasel, Understanding the Living Word of God (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1980), pp. 77-78.

Presuppositions in the Interpretation of Scripture inspiration, see also the balanced article by Peter M . van Bemmelen, "Revelation and Inspiration," in Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist Theology, pp. 22-57.

3. John M . Fowler, "Sin," in Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist Theology, p. 236.

4. A notable exception is the discussion in William J. Larkin, Jr., Culture and Biblical Hermeneutics: Interpreting and Applying the Authoritative Word in a Relativistic Age (Grand Rapids, M I : Baker Book House, 1988), pp. 293-304. I am also grateful to Jens Schwenger to have made available his research on this issue and for stimulating discussions that have pointed me to some of these important aspects in biblical hermeneutics. Yet, I take responsibility for the content and conclusions reached in this study.

5. On the role of human reason in theology see Frank M . Hasel, "Theology and the Role of Reason," Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 4, no. 2 (1993): 172-198.

6. Peter A. Angeles, "Doubt," in Dictionary of Philosophy (New York: Barnes and Noble, 1981), pp. 65-66.

7. Larkin, p. 295.

8. Ibid.

9. Ibid., p. 296.

10. Ibid., p. 298.

11. Helge Stadelmann, Grundlinien eines bibeltreuen Schriftverstăndnisses, (Wuppertal: R. Brockhaus Verlag, 1985), p. 94.

12. Kevin Vanhoozer, "The Voice and the Actor: A Dramatic Proposal about the Ministry and Minstrelsy of Theology," in Evangelical Futures: A Conversation on Theological Method, ed. John G. Stockhouse, Jr. (Grand Rapids, M I : Baker Book House, 2000), p. 85.

13. David Cupples, The Devotional Life of a Theological Student (Leicester, England: Religious and Theological Studies Fellowship, 1987), p. 10.

14. In 1847, several years before the Seventh-day Adventist church was formally organized in 1863, James White felt it necessaiy to state publicly his allegiance to the historic Protestant principle on religious authority when he wrote: "The Bible is a perfect, and complete revelation. It is our only rule of faith and practice" (James White, A Word to the Little Flock, 1847), p. 13. In similar fashion Ellen G. White has stated that "In our time . . . there is need of a return to the great Protestant principle—the Bible, and the Bible only, as the rule of faith and duty" (GC [1888] 204-205, emphasis supplied).

15. Davidson, p. 64.

16. Davidson has pointed out that "for example, in Romans 3:10-18 we have scriptural citations from Ecclesiastes (7:20), Psalms (14:2, 3; 5:10; 10:7). and Isaiah (59:7-8). Scripture is regarded as an inseparable, coherent whole" (Davidson, p. 64).

17. Ibid.

18. Peter M . van Bemmelen, p. 37.

19. Davidson, p. 65.

20. Ibid. This also applies to parables. They are stories that illustrate spiritual truths. Even though the details regarding people, events, times, and places in the 44

Presuppositions in the Interpretation of Scripture parables may not be actually historical, the spiritual truths they convey are literal and real.

21. A standard work on this topic is still E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible (Grand Rapids, M I : Baker Book House, 1995, [originally 1898]; also Walter Buhlmann and Karl Scherer, Sprachliche Stilfiguren der Bibel: Von Assonanz bis Zahlenspruch (Giessen: Brunnen Verlag, 1994).

22. Cf. Gerhard F. Hasel, pp. 100-105, on the differences of those translations.

23. It is Luther's courage to emphasize Scripture alone as the authoritative norm by which every doctrine of the church is to be tested that seems to be what most impressed Ellen G. White about the great Protestant reformer. Ellen G. White clearly did not approve everything Martin Luther said or taught (cf. The Great Controversy, chapters 7 and 8, pp. 120-170; esp. pp. 139, 148-149.

24. Cf. Frank M . Hasel, Script ure in the Theologies of W. Pannenberg and D. G. Bloesch: An Investigation and Assessment of Its Origin, Nature, and Use (Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1996), pp. 44-46.

25. Stanley J. Grenz, Renewing the Center: Evangelical Theology in a PostTheological Era (Grand Rapids, M I : Baker Book House, 2000), pp. 57-58.

26. Ibid., p. 58.

27. Paul Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther trans. Robert C. Schultz (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966), p. 81.

28. Brian Gaybba, The Tradition: An Ecumenical Breakthrough? (Rome: Herder, 1971), p. 221.

29. Werner Georg Kiimmel, The New Testament: The History of the Investigation of Its Problems, trans. S. McLean Gilmour and Howard C. Kee (Nashville: Abingdon, 1972), p. 24.

30. "Do not let any living man come to you and begin to dissect God's Word, telling what is revelation, what is inspiration and what is not, without a rebuke. . . . We want no one to say, 'This I will reject, and this will I receive,' but we want to have implicit faith in the Bible as a whole and as it is" (Ellen G. White, 7BC 919, emphasis supplied, cf. COL 39; I S M 17, 42, 245; 5T ‫־‬700-701 8T319).

31. The definitive study on Jesus' understanding and use of Scripture is John Wenham, Christ and the Bible (Grand Rapids, M I : Baker Books, 1994).

32. James I . Packer, Truth and Power: The Place of Scripture in the Christian Life (Wheaton, IL: Harold Shaw Publishers, 1996), p. 40. The term "Bibliolatry" implies that the Bible is being turned into an idol. As Protestants we do not worship the paper and ink and the leather cover that goes to make up a Bible. We love this Book because of its message. Its very words are treasured in our hearts because we believe that God wanted to communicate His message through these words and that it is through these words that our sinful hearts are brought closer to the Lord Jesus Christ.

33. Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church (Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1994) pp. 26-38.

34. '"The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether m its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living, 45

Presuppositions in the Interpretation of Scripture teaching office of the church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.' [DV 10 § 2] This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, p. 27). "It is clear therefore that, in the supremely wise arrangement o f God, sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the Magisterium of the church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others" [DV 10 § 3] (ibid, p. 29).

CHAPTER IV

REVELATION AND INSPIRATION Fernando Canale

Selected Bibliography Davidson, Richard M . "Biblical Interpretation." In Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist Theology, ed. Raoul Dederen, pp. 58-104. Hagerstown, M D : Review and Herald Publishing Association, 2000.

Grudem, Wayne A. "Scripture's Self-Attestation and the Problem of Formulating a Doctrine of Scripture." In Scripture and Truth, eds. D. A. Carson and John Woodbridge, pp. 19-59, 359-368. Grand Rapids, M I : Zondervan, 1982.

Hasel, Frank M . Scripture in the Theologies ofW. Pannenberg andD. G. Bloesch: An Investigation and Assessment of its Origin, Nature and Use. Frankfurt/ Main: Peter Lang Verlag, 1996. . "Theology and the Role of Reason" Journal ofthe Adventist Theological Society 4, no. 2 (1993): 172-198.

Hasel, Gerhard F. Biblical Interpretation Today. Washington, D . C : Biblical Research Institute, 1985.

Larkin, William J , Jr. Culture and Biblical Hermeneutics: Interpreting and Applying the Authoritative Word in a Relativistic Age. Grand Rapids, M I : Baker Book House, 1988.

Maier, Gerhard. Biblical Hermeneutics. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1994.

Satterthwaite, Philip E. and David F. Wright, eds. A Pathway into the Holy Scripture. Grand Rapids, M I : Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1994.

Schnabel, Eckhard. Inspiration und Offenbarung: Die Lehre vom Ursprung und Wesen der Bibel. Wuppertal: R. Brockhaus Verlag, 1997. van Bemmelen, Peter M . "Revelation and Inspiration." In Handbook of Seventhday Adventist Theology, ed. Raoul Dederen, pp. 22-57. Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 2000.

Weeks, Noel. The Sufficiency of Scripture. Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1988.

Zinke, E. Edward. " A Conservative Approach to Theology," Supplement to Ministry 50/10 (1977): 24A-24P.

Introduction We know about God only by way o f His revelation, and Christians have generally recognized Scripture as the public and specific revelation o f divine thought and w i l l to us. Besides God's special revelation i n Scripture (2 T i m 3:16), theologians also speak about a general revelation through nature by which all people have some knowledge o f a supreme Being. God has specifically presented us w i t h such a thought in Scripture (e.g., Rom 1:18-20). This chapter w i l l discuss the biblical evidence for the inspiration o f Scripture and for the various models used to articulate it. I t w i l l suggest a new understanding o f the evidence based on biblical presuppositions and a careful listening to the entire range o f the biblical evidence.

1. Revelation, Scripture, and Interpretation With the arrival o f the modern and postmodern ages, many Christians have concluded that the existence o f a special cognitive revelation from God is impossible. Unfortunately, these theologians attempt to interpret Scripture from the assumption that it was written only by human beings. They are dogmatically persuaded that God cannot communicate knowledge to human beings. Scripture and theology, then, are the product o f ever-changing human imaginations. Thus, these theologians deny Peter's conviction that in Scripture we do not find myths but truths (2 Pet 1:16).

Author and Interpretation Whenever we read a text, we correctly assume that someone has written it. We do not always need to k n o w the author o f a text to understand its meaning, but such knowledge may add depth to the meaning.

The same dynamic takes place when we read Scripture. Most o f the time we understand the face-value meaning o f texts. I f we are convinced that God

46

47

Revelation and Inspiration

Revelation and Inspiration is the author o f what we read i n Scripture, our theological understanding o f it w i l l differ considerably from a reader who is persuaded that Scripture was written by well-intentioned religious persons describing their own experiences. Thus, the understanding of who the author or authors o f Scripture are becomes a pivotal presupposition from which believers and theologians approach their interpretation o f Scripture, formulate Christian teachings, and experience its transforming power i n everyday life. I n short, our understanding o f Revelation-Inspiration (R-I) becomes a necessary assumption for our hermeneutics o f Scripture and its theology.

1

2. Biblical Evidence We k n o w that someone is the author o f Scripture. Yet, how do we know who the person or persons were? I n answering this question, we begin by paying close attention to what biblical authors have to say about the origin o f Scripture. Extensive O l d and N e w Testament evidence tells us that biblical authors considered God to be the author o f Scripture. The classical passages used i n the formulation o f the biblical doctrine o f Scripture are 2 Timothy 3:15-17 and 2 Peter 1:20-21.

Paul's "theopneustos" Paul's statement on the origin o f Scripture is brief and general: " A l l Scripture is inspired by God [pasa graphe theopneustosT (2 T i m 3:16, N A B ) . While our w o r d "inspiration" comes from the Latin equivalent, "divinitus inspirata" Paul uses the word "theopneustos" which literally means "God-breathed." We have no idea about what a "divine breathing" could mean when literally applied to the generation o f Scripture, yet we may attempt to understand it metaphorically. Thus understood, the text is saying that God is directly involved i n the origin o f Scripture, although it does not explain the mode and particulars o f divine operation.

Peter's

^pheromenoF

Peter's remarks on the origin o f Scripture are more nuanced, analytic, and specific. B y stating that "men spoke from God being led [pheromenoi,"being moved"] by the H o l y Spirit" (2 Pet 1:21), Peter explicitly underlines the fact that human beings have written Scripture under the leading o f the H o l y Spirit. I n short, both God and human beings were involved in the generation o f Scripture.

Yet Peter carefully and forcefully qualified the intervention o f h u m a n agents. " K n o w i n g this first: every prophecy o f Scripture does not come into being [ginetai] from [one's] o w n interpretation [epiluseds]" (2 Pet 1:20). Given the context in which he uses the Greek word epilusis, Peter may be arguing that even when human beings were involved i n w r i t i n g Scripture they did not originate the explanations, expositions, or interpretations o f the various subject matters presented there.

In a follow-up sentence Peter explains that "not by the w i l l o f man was ever a prophecy brought about/derived [fromphero], but men spoke from God, being led [pheromenoi] by the Holy Spirit" (2 Pet 1:21). Peter again denies the human origin o f Scripture by excluding the w i l l o f human beings. What d i d human beings do? They spoke (elalesan), proclaimed, and communicated the explanations, expositions, and interpretations that originated in God as author.

Speech and writing are expressions o f thought. Thus, God's direction accompanied the writers o f Scripture not only when they wrote but also when they spoke. What they said was the manifestation o f God's thoughts and actions.

The Problem Behind Revelation-Inspiration Notably, while Peter and Paul unequivocally affirm God's direct involvement i n the generation o f Scripture, neither explains the concrete ways i n which the divine and human agencies interfaced, nor details their specific modus operandi. Scripture nowhere addresses this problem. To provide answers o f our o w n is to embark on a theological task, for theology searches for understanding.

The statements o f Paul and Peter teach rather significantly that G o d is the author o f Scripture, o f all Scripture (2 T i m 3:16; 2 Pet 1:20-21).

Theologians should find a way to understand how this took place, and, at the same time, account for the human side that appears in the w a y i n w h i c h Scripture was conceived and written.

The various answers given to this question throughout history have become leading hermeneutical presuppositions. They decidedly influence the entire task o f exegetical and theological research, even to the p o i n t o f dividing Christianity into two distinctive schools o f thought across denominational lines.

3. Method and Models Before briefly considering some leading models o f interpretation o f R-I, we make a methodological "rest stop." We need (1) to ascertain w i t h 49

Revelation and Inspiration

Revelation and Inspiration is the author o f what we read in Scripture, our theological understanding o f it w i l l differ considerably from a reader who is persuaded that Scripture was written by well-intentioned religious persons describing their own experiences. Thus, the understanding of who the author or authors o f Scripture are becomes a pivotal presupposition from which believers and theologians approach their interpretation o f Scripture, formulate Christian teachings, and experience its transforming power in everyday life. In short, our understanding o f Revelation-Inspiration (R-I) becomes a necessary assumption for our hermeneutics o f Scripture and its theology.

1

2. Biblical Evidence We know that someone is the author o f Scripture. Yet, how do we know who the person or persons were? I n answering this question, we begin by paying close attention to what biblical authors have to say about the origin o f Scripture. Extensive O l d and N e w Testament evidence tells us that biblical authors considered God to be the author o f Scripture. The classical passages used i n the formulation o f the biblical doctrine o f Scripture are 2 Timothy 3:15-17 and 2 Peter 1:20-21.

Paul's "theopneustos" Paul's statement on the origin o f Scripture is brief and general: " A l l Scripture is inspired by God [pasa graphe theopneustos}" (2 T i m 3:16, N A B ) . While our word "inspiration" comes from the Latin equivalent, "divinitus inspirata" Paul uses the w o r d "theopneustos," which literally means "God-breathed." We have no idea about what a "divine breathing" could mean when literally applied to the generation o f Scripture, yet we may attempt to understand it metaphorically. Thus understood, the text is saying that God is directly involved i n the origin o f Scripture, although it does not explain the mode and particulars o f divine operation.

Peter's

"pheromenoV

Yet Peter carefully and forcefully qualified the intervention o f human agents. " K n o w i n g this first: every prophecy o f Scripture does not come into being [ginetai] from [one's] o w n interpretation [epiluseds]" (2 Pet 1:20). Given the context in which he uses the Greek w o r d epilusis, Peter may be arguing that even when human beings were involved in writing Scripture they did not originate the explanations, expositions, or interpretations o f the various subject matters presented there.

In a follow-up sentence Peter explains that "not by the w i l l o f man was ever a prophecy brought about/derived [fromphero], but men spoke from God, being led [pheromenoi] by the Holy Spirit" (2 Pet 1:21). Peter again denies the human origin o f Scripture by excluding the w i l l o f human beings. What did human beings do? They spoke (elalesan), proclaimed, and communicated the explanations, expositions, and interpretations that originated in God as author.

Speech and writing are expressions o f thought. Thus, God's direction accompanied the writers o f Scripture not only when they wrote but also when they spoke. What they said was the manifestation o f God's thoughts and actions.

The Problem Behind Revelation-Inspiration Notably, while Peter and Paul unequivocally affirm God's direct involvement i n the generation o f Scripture, neither explains the concrete ways i n which the divine and human agencies interfaced, nor details their specific modus operandi. Scripture nowhere addresses this problem. To provide answers o f our o w n is to embark on a theological task, for theology searches for understanding.

The statements o f Paul and Peter teach rather significantly that God is the author o f Scripture, o f all Scripture (2 T i m 3:16; 2 Pet 1:20-21).

Theologians should find a way to understand how this took place, and, at the same time, account for the human side that appears i n the way in which Scripture was conceived and written.

The various answers given to this question throughout history have become leading hermeneutical presuppositions. They decidedly influence the entire task o f exegetical and theological research, even to the point o f dividing Christianity into two distinctive schools o f thought across denominational lines.

Peter's remarks on the origin o f Scripture are more nuanced, analytic, and specific. B y stating that "men spoke from God being led [pheromenoi "being moved"] by the H o l y Spirit" (2 Pet 1:21), Peter explicitly underlines the fact that human beings have written Scripture under the leading o f the H o l y Spirit. I n short, both God and human beings were involved in the generation o f Scripture.

Before briefly considering some leading models o f interpretation o f R-I, we make a methodological "rest stop." We need (1) to ascertain w i t h

48

49

3. Method and Models

Revelation and Inspiration

Revelation and Inspiration

precision the technical meaning o f R-I, (2) determine on what evidence theologians build their understanding o f R-I, and (3) note from what hermeneutical presuppositions they work out their views. This w i l l help us understand what others have said on this issue and what we should bear in m i n d i n our o w n interpretation o f it.

Scripture" involves theological analysis, access to the "phenomena" o f Scripture takes place through historical and literary analysis. The first line of evidence underlines the role o f the divine agency i n R - I while the second uncovers the role o f human agencies. Failure to integrate both lines o f evidence adequately leads respectively to either fundamentalist or liberal interpretations o f R-I.

Working Definition of Revelation-Inspiration Hermeneutics and Revelation-Inspiration When theologians deal w i t h the R - I doctrine, they use the words "revelation" and "inspiration" i n a technical sense. "Revelation" broadly refers to the process through which the contents o f Scripture emerged i n the m i n d o f prophets and apostles. "Inspiration," broadly speaking, refers to the process through which the contents i n the mind o f prophets and apostles were communicated i n oral or i n written forms. Thus, revelation is a cognitive process while inspiration is mainly a linguistic one.

A w o r d o f caution is necessary to avoid confusion. Biblical writers did not use the w o r d "inspiration." Moreover, neither the biblical authors nor Ellen G. White used the notions o f "revelation" and "inspiration" i n the technical analytical sense i n w h i c h we are using them i n this chapter.

They used them interchangeably. According to the context, they may refer to the origin o f contents i n the m i n d o f prophets and apostles, to the process o f communicating them i n a written format, or to both. N o t surprisingly, a large number o f Adventist and Evangelical theologians do the same. A proper understanding o f the origination o f Scripture, however, requires a careful analysis o f the cognitive and literary processes involved.

The Evidence On what evidence do theologians build their understandings o f R-I? Since one does not directly observe R - I i n process today, theologians work from the results o f R - I ; namely, from Scripture. Theologians have come to recognize two lines o f evidence i n Scripture. They are the doctrine o f Scripture and the phenomena o f Scripture. Since we have already dealt w i t h the biblical doctrine o f Scripture i n this section we w i l l briefly introduce the notion o f the "phenomena" o f Scripture.

It is evident that "the time has come for Seventh-day Adventists to move beyond apologetic concerns into the task o f developing a more constructive theology o f inspiration." But how do we develop an understanding o f a subject matter that Scripture addresses indirectly? What is required is nothing short o f a constructive, pioneering task i n systematic theology.

Since all theological construction is based on presuppositions, the formulation o f an Adventist understanding o f R-I could benefit from analyzing the way other interpretations have been conceived.

2

The systematic theological task envisaged here must take into consideration three different levels o f hermeneutics: (1) the hermeneutics o f the text, (2) the hermeneutics o f theological issues, and (3) the hermeneutics of philosophical principles. The interpretation o f biblical texts and theological issues is conditioned by the doctrine o f R-I, which i n turn depends on the philosophical principles presupposed by the exegete.

So, what are the presuppositions i n v o l v e d i n the understanding o f R-I? W h o decides w h i c h presuppositions should be used? Let us begin w i t h the latter question. Since b i b l i c a l evidence shows that the R - I phenomenon always involves divine and human actions, theologians unavoidably bring their o w n conceptions o f divine and human natures to play i n their doctrines o f R - I . These are hermeneutical philosophical principles, because they are assumed as principles i n biblical and theological hermeneutics. God's nature and actions, as w e l l as human nature and actions, have been variously interpreted b y Christian theologians. Different views o f God and human nature have produced different interpretations o f R - I .

Let us review our discussion i n this methodological section. First, we decided to use the words "revelation" and "inspiration" in the technical sense to foster clarity. Second, we realized that a proper understanding o f R-I must start by listening to what biblical writers say about the origin o f Scripture and consider the actual work they produced (phenomena o f Scripture).

The Scriptural Phenomena.

When theologians talk about the "phenomena" o f Scripture, they are not usually referring to biblical teachings in Scripture but to the characteristics o f Scripture as a written work and its entire contents. Consequently, while access to the biblical "doctrine o f

Third, we learned that doctrines o f R - I are interpretations involving not only biblical data but also presuppositions. A n y doctrine o f R-I is an

50

51

Revelation and Inspiration

Revelation and Inspiration interpretation that hinges on the way i n which theologians understand the natures and actions o f God and o f human beings. W i t h these methodological clarifications in mind, we turn to the history o f interpretations o f R - I .

Models of Revelation-Inspiration Theologians have interpreted R - I i n many ways, yet, most explanations fall into two main models o f interpretation, namely, the classical and modern models. We need to acquaint ourselves w i t h these models, because they have influenced the development o f Adventist thought on R-I. Verbal Inspiration. During the first eighteen centuries following the death o f Christ the doctrine o f R - I was not a disputed matter. Following Christ's example, His followers took the biblical teaching about its inspiration at face value. Briefly put, they assumed God, through human instrumentality, wrote the Bible.

As classical theologians maximized the role o f divine activity i n RI , they were minimizing the role o f human agencies, seeing prophets and apostles merely as instruments God used to write the very words o f Scripture. Because God was believed to have written the words o f Scripture, this notion, which led to a high view o f biblical authority, came to be known as the "verbal" theory o f inspiration. The words o f the Bible are the words o f God. This view builds on an extrabiblical philosophical understanding o f hermeneutics. The replacement o f the biblical notion o f God w i t h the Greek idea o f a timeless God made the idea o f divine sovereign providence an overpowering, all-encompassing causal phenomenon. B y the fifth century A . D , Augustine already was using these ideas, linking the notion o f divine w i l l and activity w i t h the timeless nature o f God. Centuries later, it came to shape Luther's understanding o f the gospel, as well as the understanding o f the verbal inspiration o f Scripture. Consequently, the biblical affirmation that the H o l y Spirit led the prophets' writing was understood on the assumption that God operated as an irresistible sovereign influence, overruling any initiative originating in human freedom. On this assumption, God becomes not only the author o f Scripture but also the writer.

3

tation, spoke o f inspiration as divine superintendence i n the confluence o f the divine and human agencies.

The sculptor-chisel-sculpture analogy helps to visualize the way in which the verbal theory o f inspiration conceives the manner i n which the divine and human agencies operate when generating the writings o f the Bible. As the sculptor, and not the chisel, is the author o f the work o f art, so God, and not the human writer, is the author o f Scripture. Human writers, as the chisel, play only an instrumental role.

The most noticeable hermeneutical effects o f the verbal theory are recontextualization and inerrancy. (1) I n claiming that a timeless God is the author and writer o f Scripture, verbal inspiration places the origin o f biblical thought in the nonhistorical realm o f the supernatural. Historical contexts and contents are bypassed i n favor o f timeless divine truths.

This nonhistorical recontextualization has assumed various forms. They spread from the classical depreciation o f the historical literal meaning o f biblical texts to allegorical spiritual meanings and to the fundamentalist reading of Scripture in which each biblical statement is an objective communication of supernatural absolute truth. (2) We are more familiar with the notion o f inerrancy, according to which every biblical statement is absolute truth.

Encounter Revelation. Modern times generated a radically new understanding o f R - I , based on complex philosophical arguments. Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768-1834), the father o f modern theology, proposed a blueprint that later proponents o f encounter revelation w o u l d follow.

Briefly put, revelation is a divine-human encounter devoid o f the impartation o f knowledge. "Thus, the content o f revelation is regarded no longer as knowledge about God, not even information from God, but God H i m self." Consequently, not a single word or thought that we find i n Scripture comes from God. Encounter revelation is the opposite o f verbal inspiration.

4

I f the contents o f Scripture do not come from God, then from where?

The answer is simple: from the historically conditioned response o f human beings to the personal non-cognitive encounter w i t h God. The Bible is a human book like any other book. The study o f how the contents o f Scripture originated is left to historical investigation.

Assuming that God did not contribute to the contents o f Scripture, historical critics see Scripture as the product o f a long process o f cultural evolution. Human imagination, community, and tradition become the grounds from which the all-human books o f Scripture arise.

In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, Evangelical theologians used the verbal inspiration theory to fight modernism w i t h its challenge to traditional Christian theology. Working from the philosophical hermeneutical perspective o f divine sovereign providence, Archibald A . Hodge (1823-1886) and Benjamin B . Warfield (1851-1921), while denying die-

Consequently, some exegetes believe that inspiration operates not on individuals but on the entire community. According to this view, "inspiration" did not reach the personal level o f prophetic thoughts or words

52

53

Revelation and Inspiration

Revelation and Inspiration

directly but influenced the social level o f the community w i t h i n which the authors o f Scripture lived and wrote. Not surprisingly, Scripture's contents remain human, not divine.

The foregoing change on how inspiration is viewed is a direct result o f the application o f Immanuel Kant's (1724-1804) restriction o f reason's capabilities to the realm o f time and space.

Modern theologians found themselves assuming that God is timeless and that human reason cannot reach timeless objects. Within these parameters, there can be no cognitive communication between God and human beings. B u t Christianity revolves around the notion that God relates to human beings. Encounter revelation suggests that the divine-human relation (encounter) takes place not at the cognitive but at an "existential" or inner "personal" level, through the soul. Thus, revelation is a divine-human encounter, real and objective, but involving absolutely no communication from God. The most noticeable hermeneutical effects o f the encounter theory o f inspiration can be summed up in two words, recontextualization and criticism. (1) A s the verbal theory o f inspiration led to recontextualization so does the encounter theory o f revelation. While verbal inspiration assumes that Scripture reveals objective timeless truths, encounter revelation assumes that Scripture is a pointer to an existential, non-cognitive, divinehuman encounter. Scripture then has no revelatory contents but is simply a pointer or witness to revelation. (2) Since the content o f Scripture originated (contrary to the views o f Paul and Peter) from the impulse and wisdom o f human beings, we must subject it to scientific criticism and use them for religious purposes only metaphorically. (3) Due to the human origination o f the biblical contents, the interpreter assumes Scripture contains errors not only i n historical details but also i n all that it expressly teaches, even teachings about God and His salvation.

Verbal Inspiration Early in the history o f our church Adventists used verbal inspiration as an apologetic argument against Deism. This trend intensified after the death o f Ellen G. White when Adventists faced modernism.

During the first half o f the twentieth century, Carlyle B . Haynes, for example, addressed the issue in two chapters o f his God's Book. His implicit adoption o f the verbal theory o f inspiration appears when he affirms that "revelation is wholly supernatural, and altogether controlled by God." "Whether dealing either w i t h revelation or w i t h facts within his knowledge," explains Haynes, "the Bible writer required inspiration to produce a record preserved from all error and mistake." Absolute inerrancy follows total control o f the human agent by the H o l y Spirit; God is totally in control of the process o f writing, and the human agent is a very passive instrument.

This concept may still be the default understanding o f R - I held by most Adventists who have not yet explicitly considered the issue.

6

1

8

9

10

Unknowingly, then, the verbal inspiration theory, embraced by conservative Adventist theologians, draws from the Augustinian-Calvinistic understanding o f philosophical hermeneutical presuppositions derived from a particular Greek view o f reality. W h i l e the verbal theory affirms a high view o f Scripture, de facto it denies its revelatory supremacy (the sola scriptura principle) i n the task o f practicing Christian theology, since the theory itself is not built on biblical foundations.

Thought Inspiration

H o w do these ideas affect Adventists today? Perhaps Edward Heppenstall properly described the general way i n which most Adventist writers approach the study o f R - I by saying that "this church has no clearly defined and developed doctrine o f revelation and inspiration. We have aligned ourselves w i t h the evangelical or traditional position."

Ellen G. White strongly influenced Adventist thought on R-I. B y her example and teachings, she pointed away from both verbal inspiration and encounter revelation. This did not discourage some Adventists, however, past and present, from adopting such views. Attempting to understand R-I by taking clues from Ellen G. White's teachings and prophetic experience, many Adventists have adopted the idea called "thought inspiration," convinced that their representation o f this view properly reflects her views on inspiration.

Thus, by "thought inspiration" we mean, specifically, the theological reflection o f some Adventist scholars on R - I , supposedly based on the views o f Ellen G. White on inspiration. These comments, therefore, not only affirm that the thoughts o f the prophets were inspired but that i n a very particular way, in the words o f Ellen G. White, the "men" themselves were inspired.

In this section our aim continues to be very modest, attempting only to describe from an overall perspective the main models o f R - I that Adventist theologians have adopted.

One o f the earliest expressions o f thought inspiration among Adventists took place i n 1883. I t affirmed "We [Adventists] believe the light given by God to his servants is by the enlightenment o f the mind, thus i m -

54

55

4. The Recent Adventist Discussion

5

Revelation and Inspiration

Revelation and Inspiration parting the thought, and not (except in rare cases) the very words in which the ideas should be expressed."" On the basis that inspiration acts on biblical writers' thoughts, not on their words, this marks a clear departure from verbal inspiration. This initial statement was a sign along the way, not a theory.

Eighty-seven years later, Edward Heppenstall articulated this insight w i t h i n a broad theoretical profile. Heppenstall's w o r k came as both an alternative to encounter revelation and a departure from verbal inspiration. Correctly rejecting the non-cognitive basis o f encounter revelation, Heppenstall proposed that divine revelation took place at the level o f the biblical writer's ideas, concepts, and teachings i n the m i n d o f the writer.

Unfortunately he did not specify the means through which such conceptual revelation was formed. Also inspiration, says Heppenstall, took place in the m i n d o f the writer. He suggested that i n inspiration the H o l y Spirit took control o f the m i n d o f the human writer i n order to guarantee "the accuracy o f that which is revealed." "Inspiration is co-extensive w i t h the scope o f what is revealed and assures us that the truths revealed correspond to what God had i n m i n d . " I n both revelation and inspiration God operates on thought, not on words. Through revelation ideas are generated i n the m i n d o f the prophet and through inspiration those ideas are faithfully communicated. However, uncertainty is introduced on the basis that "one o f the unknown factors i n inspiration is the degree o f the H o l y Spirit's control over the minds o f the Bible writers." Heppenstall's position implied that divine inspiration does not reach to the words o f Scripture. Consequently, he advances to what could be called "thought inerrancy." Only biblical thoughts, not words, are inerrant.

12

13

14

15

Very conveniently, for the sake o f apologetics against biblical and scientific criticisms o f scriptural contents, the believer can argue that errors and inconsistencies are due to imperfect language, not to imperfect thought or truth. I n brief, according to thought inspiration, divine R - I operates in the truth behind the words but falls short o f affecting the words.

Hence, in Scripture we have infallible truth presented i n fallible language.

Scripture, therefore, contains errors i n matters o f detail which do not affect the revealed thought.

o f detail at the level o f words. Scripture's salvific message, however, remains inerrant.

In 1991, coming precisely from the perspective o f biblical studies, Alden Thompson elevated the issue o f biblical inspiration to the forefront o f Adventist discussion. A year later, a group o f Adventist theologians published a critical response to his proposal.

16

17

Thompson distinguishes between revelation and inspiration. Revelation is the supernatural communication o f thoughts and truth to prophets, "some k i n d o f special input from God, a message from H i m to His creatures on earth." Divine thought is communicated by means o f supernatural interventions, such as visions, dreams, a voice from heaven, miracles, words written on stone, and Jesus Christ. Inspiration, however, becomes a very fuzzy and subjective "fire in their bones" that moves prophets and apostles to write and to speak from the presence o f the H o l y Spirit. Far from claiming that inspiration transforms the words o f the prophets into the words o f God, Thompson thinks inspiration means, "God stays close enough to the writers so that the point comes through clear enough."

Note that through inspiration God works on neither the prophet's thoughts nor his words. Inspiration is a divine presence that the prophet senses in the bones, not i n the mind.

18

19

20

The question is, who is originator o f the point that comes through "clear enough" in the words o f Scripture? A t this point another feature o f Thompson's view on R - I comes into view. While the entire Scripture is inspired (the divine presence felt in the bones o f the writer) only some portions are revealed (that is coming from divine thought, propositions and miraculous actions). Thompson argues this point by asserting, incorrectly, that "the Bible does not say that all Scripture was given by revelation."

Reacting against this notion, Raoul Dederen concludes that "to hold that all is inspired but only part—i.e., a small part—is revealed and on that basis address and attempt to solve the apparently contradictory statements in Scripture remains unsatisfactory."

21

22

Working from Ellen G. White's classical statement on thought inspiration, some scholars have concluded that thought inspiration works on the thinking process o f biblical writers but stops short o f reaching their words. They also assume a dichotomy between thought and words.

Thoughts are independent from words. I n Scripture, then, we have perfeet truths or thoughts conveyed in imperfect fallible words. On this basis they suggest that Scripture presents a limited verbal errancy i n matters

I n fact, because Scripture does not assume the technical distinction between revelation and inspiration that we use to probe into the understanding o f the origins o f Scripture, Paul claims that the entire contents o f Scripture originated i n God. Thus, according to Scripture, the entire Bible is both revealed and inspired.

From where then, according to Thompson, do other portions o f Scripture come? He correctly argues that many portions o f Scripture originate from research and experience. Such contents, however being o f human origin, can hold only authority when based on inspiration. Yet, i f biblical writers experienced inspiration neither cognitively nor linguistically but

56

57

Revelation and Inspiration

Revelation and Inspiration subjectively as a fire in their bones, we are left w i t h the unavoidable conelusion that large portions o f Scripture present fallible human ideas.

Thompson's use o f thought inspiration for exegetical purposes shows how the historical-critical method may be used in Adventist theology, namely, by circumscribing the biblical materials that fall outside the reach o f thought inspiration.

Advantages and Difficulties of Thought Inspiration. Thought inspiration, as reflected by Adventist theologians noted above, involves positive and negative points. On the positive side, for instance, it provides a middle way between modernistic non-cognitive encounter revelation and absolutely inerrant classical verbal inspiration. Thought inspiration also has the positive effect o f directing the interpreter's attention to the weightier matters discussed in Scripture and away from minutiae. Finally, this view o f inspiration has the obvious advantage o f accounting for biblical phenomena that do not fit w i t h i n the verbal inspiration theory.

However, those reflections on thought inspiration have certain disadvantages. The thought-words dichotomy leads to the claim that inspiration does not reach the words o f Scripture. Unfortunately, this claim and the thought-words dichotomy are not supported by Scripture, Ellen G. White, or philosophical analysis. A l t h o u g h thought inspiration accounts better for the phenomena o f Scripture and Ellen G. White's experience i n w r i t i n g her books than does verbal inspiration, a radical understanding o f it fails to account for the clear biblical claim that inspiration reaches the words (2 T i m 3:16).

Moreover, a detailed study o f Ellen G. White's thought on inspiration seems to suggest that, according to her, divine inspiration does reach the words and assures the "total trustworthiness o f the biblical record." The classical Ellen G. White quotation that Adventist proponents o f thought inspiration use to persuade others o f their view reads: " I t is not the words o f the Bible that are inspired, but the men that were inspired. Inspiration acts not on the man's words or his expressions but on the man himself, who, under the influence o f the H o l y Ghost, is imbued w i t h thoughts.

Nevertheless, the words receive the impress o f the individual mind. The divine m i n d is diffused. The divine mind and w i l l is combined w i t h the human mind and w i l l ; thus the utterances o f the man are the w o r d o f G o d " (1SM 21). Unfortunately, they leave out the last sentence o f the paragraph in which Ellen G. White clearly says that inspiration reaches the words o f the prophets. Ellen G. White clearly says that divine inspiration—which includes our technical revelation and inspiration—works not on the words (as the verbal theory affirms) but in the formation o f the writer's thought.

23

58

Nevertheless inspiration reaches the words o f the prophets, which "are the words o f God." I n numerous passages, Ellen G. White refers to Scripture as "the inspired word," or "words" o f God (Ev 269; I S M 17; SC 108), and "words o f inspiration" (LS 198; 2T 605). I t seems clear that Ellen G. White would not support "thought" inspiration as many understand it at the beginning o f the twenty-first century. Consequently, it appears misleading to use one aspect o f her complex view on inspiration to give authority to a theory she would not approve.

Although as Adventists we do not believe that the words o f Scripture were inspired, i.e., they were neither dictated nor do they represent the divine language per se, the process o f R - I nevertheless reaches the words of the prophets. I n other words, the H o l y Spirit guided the prophets in the w r i t i n g process, ensuring that the prophets' o w n words expressed the message they received i n a trustworthy and reliable form. Sometimes Ellen G. White did not k n o w how best to express what she was shown; "as m y pen hesitates a moment," she wrote "the appropriate words" came to her m i n d ( l M C P 3 1 8 ; 2 M R 156-157).

Philosophical reflection suggests that "language and thinking about things are so bound together that it is an abstraction to conceive o f the system o f truths as a pregiven system o f possibilities o f being [thoughts] for which the signifying subject [biblical writer] selects corresponding signs [words]." Thought and words belong together. A thought w i t h no word or words to be communicated perishes i n the mind o f the thinker.

24

Another problem is that, for all practical purposes, thought inspiration as defined above reduces inspiration to revelation. We should explain.

Technically, revelation deals w i t h the formation o f ideas in the mind o f biblical writers and inspiration as part o f the process o f communicating revelation i n written or in oral formats. When thought inspiration claims that divine assistance to the prophet does not reach the words it is thereby limiting divine intervention to revelation. The practical problem w i t h this view is that we have no access to prophetic thought, which died w i t h the prophets leaving only their fallible, human words.

Finally, a thought-word dichotomy creates a disjunction between history and salvation that finds its ground not i n biblical but Platonic thinking. Since theological content is not tied strictly to the words o f Scripture, exegetes and theologians end up using their imagination and presenting i t as the theological content o f the text. N o t surprisingly, some Seventh-day Adventist theologians and scientists, trying to accommodate the biblical account o f creation to evolutionary scientific teachings, use thought inspiration i n the form discussed above to justify their approach.

59

Revelation and Inspiration

Revelation and Inspiration But i f the separation between thought and words makes room for small errors, w h y should it not also make room for substantial errors in theological teachings?

itly or i m p l i c i t l y involved in the conception and in the formulation o f each model o f R - I .

Moving Beyond Encounter Revelation, Verbal Inspiration, and Thought Inspiration

Encounter Revelation N T scholar Herold Weiss' well-argued article, published in 1975, represents another way o f making room for the use o f the historical-critical method in Adventist theology. Weiss believes revelation takes place as a non-cognitive divine human encounter. " I do not understand revelation," he explains,

Raoul Dederen approaches an understanding o f R-I b y using a different methodology. Instead o f embracing available interpretations for apologetic or hermeneutical purposes, Dederen subjects current interpretative patterns to criticism based on attentive listening to what biblical authors and Ellen G. White have to say on this issue. O n this basis, he finds the encounter revelation and thought inspiration alternatives wanting.

26

"to be essentially the communication of divine information given by the Spirit to the writers of the Bible; nor do I consider faith to be the acceptance of this information. Revelation, rather, is first of all, a divine disclosure that creates a community in which life expresses this revelation in symbols of action, imagination and thought under the guidance of prophets."

25

What, then, is the source o f the concepts and words o f Scripture? N o t God, but the prophets and apostles. This v i e w produces a dichotomy between faith and belief. While belief belongs to the realm o f history and is verifiable, faith belongs to the realm o f the divine transcendence and is not verifiable. Scripture as a written work represents the thoughts and words o f the prophets, not o f God. The goal o f this exercise is not to find truth but to delineate the nonhistorical, non-cognitive mystical experience w i t h God i n order to inspire our o w n life experiences.

Summing up these points, we can say that presently Adventist scholars work by assuming three different interpretations o f R-I. The differences reveal different theological schools and paradigms. They decidedly influence the entire task o f exegetical and theological research even to the point o f dividing Adventists into distinctive schools o f thought across the world.

Dederen recognizes that revelation is not merely an intellectual phenomenon but a personal encounter o f the prophet w i t h God. Yet according to Scripture, he argues, in the encounter o f revelation, God communicates, though partially, knowledge about Himself and His w i l l . Moreover, the disjunction between divine act and human w o r d on w h i c h encounter revelation builds its case has no biblical support. This position can be argued only on a scientific and philosophical basis.

27

Proceeding on the same biblical basis, Dederen implicitly dismisses thought inspiration as discussed above. He argues that i n the Scriptures word and thought belong together. Consequently, "words are intrinsic to the revelation-inspiration process." Also correctly, he argues that after reviewing Ellen G. White's writing on R - I "everything points to the fact that God who imbued the prophets' mind w i t h thoughts and inspired them in the fulfillment o f their task also watched over them in their attempts to express 'infinite ideas' and embody them in 'finite vehicles' o f human language."

Scriptures are " i n the highest and truest sense God's creation." Finally, Dederen feels i l l at ease with the notion that Scripture is only partially revealed, but totally inspired, and encourages the church to find "other solutions."

28

29

30

31

5. Toward a Biblical Understanding of Revelation-Inspiration

This succinct evaluation disqualifies the three views o f R-I presently operative in Adventist theology. Because each view works from philosophical definitions o f hermeneutical presuppositions, no amount o f reflection w i l l make them responsive to the entire range o f biblical evidence.

Therefore, we must develop a new understanding by using biblical definitions o f the hermeneutical presuppositions involved i n R - I .

Should we choose one interpretation over the others? Alternatively, should we seek a new understanding? To answer these questions we must begin by evaluating present theories on R - I . H o w do we evaluate them? We assess them by carefully listening to all the evidence. Our understanding, then, without distortion, should account for tensions or contradictions found i n the full range o f Scripture's self-testimony and i n other phenomena o f Scripture. Moreover, we should look at the origin and content o f the philosophical hermeneutical presuppositions explic-

However, nothing is really new. I n our search for another model o f interpretation, we should recognize the strength and contributions o f present

60

61

Building F r o m Scripture

Revelation and Inspiration

Revelation and Inspiration models on R-I. From "encounter" revelation we should retain the biblical conviction that God's work o f R - I takes place w i t h i n a personal historical I-Thou relationship (e.g., Deut 34:10). From "thought" inspiration we should retain the biblical teaching that God's work o f R-I focuses on the thought-process level o f biblical writers (2 Pet 1:21). From "verbal" inspiration we should retain the biblical teaching that the divine work o f R-I also reaches the level o f the words (2 T i m 3:16). Finally, because i n Scripture God has incarnated His thoughts i n human thought and writing, the human and divine elements are inseparable. Consequently, we should never attempt to distinguish between divine and human contributions i n the conception and i n the writing o f Scripture.

divine history to take place w i t h i n human history. I t is not the prophet, but God who translates His ideas into our cognitive and linguistic patterns.

The idea that God acts historically i n time, which is assumed by the biblical writers and Ellen G. White and which lies at the foundation o f the Great Controversy theme, requires a reinteipretation o f the philosophical hermeneutical presuppositions that underlie encounter revelation, verbal inspiration, and thought inspiration, understood as a radical dichotomy between words and thoughts.

From this starting point we should consider the many ways i n w h i c h God and the biblical writers interacted i n the process o f conceiving the ideas and o f gathering the information we find i n Scripture. We should ask the same regarding the process through w h i c h these ideas and information were put into w r i t i n g (Heb 1:1). I t is true that God acts i n ways hidden from our sight. Yet, Scripture and Ellen G. White give us abundant evidence on which to b u i l d our understanding. The evidence we find i n them includes both the self-testimony and the phenomena o f Scripture.

I n contrast to the classical, evangelical, and modern idea that God used only one pattern o f divine operation i n R - I , Scripture speaks about a variety o f divine patterns. The introduction to the Epistle to the Hebrews affirms that " i n the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at various times (polumeros) and i n various ways (polutropos), but i n these last days he has spoken to us by his Son" (Heb 1:1).

I n our search for a biblical understanding o f R - I we w i l l take two steps. First, we w i l l consider carefully the hermeneutical presuppositions involved i n our interpretation o f the human and the divine agents involved in R - I . Second, we w i l l attempt to formulate i n a succinct manner a biblical understanding o f R-I by using the notions obtained i n the first step to understand the general statements o f Paul and Peter on inspiration (2 T i m 3:16; 2 Pet 1:20^21).

Foundational Hermeneutical Presuppositions The key to any interpretation lies i n applying the appropriate hermeneutical principles. Basic scientific procedure requires that we derive our hermeneutical presuppositions from the thing we want to understand.

Since i n our case we are trying to understand the origin o f Scripture, we not only must listen to what biblical authors say about R - I but also take note o f the hermeneutical presuppositions they used, rather than adopting them from human philosophy and science. Fundamentally, we presuppose a God who personally acts w i t h i n the flow o f human history.

Revelation

Some Adventists have begun to recognize this variety and have suggested that to the generally accepted "prophetic" model we should add the "research model" o f revelation. Other suggestions include the "witness," "counselor," "epistolary," and "literary" patterns o f revelation. Additional analytical work needs to be done i n order to discover, as far as possible, in what ways divine and human agencies contributed to the generation o f biblical thought and information.

It seems clear that, i n the origination o f Scripture, divine and human agencies interacted i n at least the following patterns: Theophanic (Exod 3:1-5), prophetic (Rev 1:1-3), verbal (Exod 31:18), historical (Luke 1:1-3), wisdom (Eccl 1:1, 12-14; 12:9-11), and existential (Lam 3:1). Analyzing these patterns and their hermeneutical presuppositions w i l l allow us to understand better how the entire Bible resulted from revelation and from inspiration and w i l l enable us to overcome the radical thought-versus-words disjunction implicit i n thought inspiration.

Inspiration

Dederen affirms, "revelation takes place and unfolds w i t h i n history."

B y adapting His infinite thoughts, ideas, and actions to our creaturely level, to our limited, imperfect thought patterns and words, God enables

The prophets have not left us much information about the ways i n which divine interventions operated while they were communicating their messages i n oral or i n written forms. Yet, from the information available, we are entitled to draw some working conclusions.

It seems the biblical writers received ideas and information before they sat down to write. The role o f the H o l y Spirit i n inspiration, therefore,

62

63

32

Revelation and Inspiration

Revelation and Inspiration was not primarily to generate thoughts but to assure the trustworthy communication o f the information received.

When God sent Moses to liberate Israel from Egyptian bondage, the Moses-Aaron team worked i n ways like the God-prophet team. Moses represented God i n "putting words" into Aaron's mouth. Meanwhile, Aaron, speaking for Moses to the people, played the role o f the prophet.

The act o f "putting words i n the mouth" o f someone meant that the recipient became a subservient representative o f another; the representative, however, had freedom to represent. He or she had, so to speak, power o f attorney. Verbatim representation makes no sense. Aaron had strong verbal skills, and God called h i m to use his gift. I n the same way, prophets and apostles, as representatives o f God, were subservient to His thoughts but expressed them according their understanding and manner o f expression.

self and His w o r d to us. In Scripture, then, we find God's truth expressed in an imperfect human mode o f communication. God wanted it to be this way, because it is the best way to reveal Himself and His salvific truths to us.

33

D i d divine inspiration always erase or overrule the imperfections o f the human mode o f thinking and o f writing? Contrary to the claims o f "verbal" inspirationists, the phenomena o f Scripture clearly shows that it did not. God used our imperfect means o f communication to reveal H i m -

The goal o f inspiration is not to upgrade the human mode o f thinking or o f writing but to ensure that writers do not replace God's truth w i t h their o w n interpretations. The H o l y Spirit's guidance d i d not overrule the thinking and the writing process o f biblical writers but supervised the process o f writing i n order to maximize clarity o f ideas and to prevent, i f necessary, the distortion o f revelation, or changing divine truth into a lie.

In other words, we should not conceive o f the continuous guidance o f the Holy Spirit i n the process o f writing as continuous divine intervention, causing the choice o f every thought and w o r d i n Scripture. Instead, we should consider â less intrusive pattern o f inspiration, one more consistent with the freedom o f human writers.

Ellen G. White's comments on her o w n writing experience provide us w i t h examples o f the many remedial-corrective patterns o f direct intervention that the H o l y Spirit used during the process o f inspiration. For instance, we note enhancing the memory (2SG 292-293; I S M 36-37), helping find a "fit w o r d " ( 2 M R 156-157; 1MCP 318), and giving new revelation ( 3 S M 36, 110). From these examples we can see that God is not causing the words by overruling the normal function o f the human agency.

On the contrary, we see the thinking and the writing processes freely taking place i n the human agency under the careful guidance o f the H o l y Spirit.

Finally, Scripture presents an example o f an occasional divine intervention pattern also used by the H o l y Spirit to guide biblical writers. We note Balaam's prophecies ( N u m 22:1-24:25). The biblical text and Ellen G. White's comments make it clear that Balaam's freedom was overridden by the H o l y Spirit ( N u m 22:18, 20, 28-31; PP 439, 443, 448-449). This pattern is not the usual pattern o f divine inspiration, as the verbal theory suggests. Obviously, we cannot apply Balaam's pattern o f divine operation to the biblical prophets.

This incident helps us to see that God w i l l not allow Himself to be misrepresented by recognized prophets who, because o f self-interest, are w i l l i n g to change God's truth into a lie. The Spirit made sure that chosen prophets d i d not change divine truths into human imagination.

On the forgoing basis we can affirm the total reliability o f Scripture within the parameters o f the normal human limitations o f the thought and the linguistic process. Since the whole Bible is revealed and inspired within the level o f human thought and language, it does not represent divine perfection; yet, its words reliably disclose God's thoughts and w i l l to us.

64

65

A t this point, we must bear i n mind that, i n revelation, divine thought adapted itself to the limitations and imperfections o f human-thought processes. W i t h inspiration, divine thought, already adapted to the human mode o f thinking, adjusts itself to human-writing patterns. The mode o f thinking and w r i t i n g we find i n Scripture, then, is not divine, but human.

Therefore, Ellen G. White tells us "the Bible is written by inspired men, but it is not God's mode o f thought and expression. I t is that o f humanity.

God, as a writer, is not represented. M e n w i l l often say such an expression is not like God. However, God has not put Himself i n words, i n logic, i n rhetoric, on trial i n the Bible. The writers o f the Bible were God's penmen, not His pen" ( I S M 2 1 , italics supplied).

This does not mean that the content o f Scripture is unreliable. It means only that we must not expect i n Scripture divine absolute perfection to the minutest detail, as i f God would have used His perfect mode o f thinking and writing. The true content generated by revelation becomes expressed in the imperfect mode o f human thought and writing.

For instance, biblical writers did not have perfect memories; they forgot things as we do. They did not possess perfect sensory perception.

They were not able to grasp all the richness o f divine thoughts and ideas revealed to them. Moreover, our words may have several, even contradictory, meanings. Our syntax allows for arranging sentences i n different ways w i t h different meanings, and so on. A l l this is part o f the human mode o f thinking and writing that God used i n revealing and i n inspiring Scripture.

Revelation and Inspiration

Revelation and Inspiration This view o f inspiration explains why certain discrepancies and the lack o f absolute precision in matters o f detail that we find in the phenomena o f Scripture do not affect the trustworthy communication o f revealed contents.

6. The H o l y Spirit's "guidance" or " m o v i n g " harnessed the freedom and literary skills o f human agencies i n their historical and spiritual development. Divine overruling o f the human agency was not the main pattern of divine "guidance" or " m o v i n g " but a possible last resort to avoid human misrepresentation.

6. A Biblical Model of Revelation-Inspiration

7. Because the guidance o f the Holy Spirit respected human modes o f thinking and writing, we should not expect to find in Scripture the absolute perfection that belongs only to the inner life o f the Trinity. On the contrary, we should not be surprised to find in Scripture imperfections and limitations that essentially belong to human modes o f knowing and writing.

8. Although the divine "guiding" and " m o v i n g " operated on human agencies, through them it reached the words o f Scripture. I n this sense the Biblical Model o f R - I is "verbal."

9. Divine "guidance" i n the process o f writing did not assure absolute divine perfection, but i n their entirety the Scriptures truthfully and trustworthily represent God's teachings, w i l l , and works.

In short, God, not the human writers, is the author o f Scripture i n the sense that He is the source o f content, action, and interpretation.

I n this section, we bring together our analysis o f biblical evidence gathered thus far. H o w do the biblical understanding o f God, the diversity o f His operations i n the process o f creating the contents o f Scripture (revelation), and the communication o f it i n oral and written ways (inspiration) shape our understanding o f R-I? We shall seek to describe what can be designated a Biblical Model.

Earlier we discovered that the classical statements o f Paul and Peter on inspiration (2 T i m 3:16; 2 Peter 1:20-21) set the general parameters w i t h i n which we have attempted to understand the H o l y Spirit's "guidance" and " m o v i n g " o f human agencies involved i n the process o f writing Scripture. Since those statements d i d not distinguish technically between the processes o f origination o f contents and o f writing, we should understand their statements on "inspiration" as applying to both, which we technically analyzed i n the sections on "revelation" and "inspiration."

Summary: We must understand the divine inspiration o f Scripture, o f which Paul, Peter, and Ellen White spoke, as including at least the following points: 1. Divine "guidance" or " m o v i n g " acted directly on the human agency in the R - I process.

2. The divine "guiding" or " m o v i n g " o f human agencies followed the various ways o f divine providence working w i t h i n the flux o f historical events, not as God's timeless, absolute sovereign power working by way o f eternal decrees and overruling the freedom o f biblical writers.

3. God guided the reception o f information and the formation o f ideas in the biblical writers by means o f a historical process o f divine cognitive revelations given to them i n a diversity o f patterns.

Differences F r o m Other Models The Biblical Model o f R - I differs from the encounter, thought, and verbal theories o f inspiration i n significant ways. The Biblical Model and the encounter theory o f inspiration share a personal existential element, but the latter denies any communication o f truth i n the encounter.

W i t h regards to the nature o f information generated i n revelation, the Biblical M o d e l envisages concrete, historical, spatio-temporal truths, whereas the "thought" revelation theory generates timeless, nonhistorical truths. W h i l e for some "thought" inspiration stops short o f affirming divine guidance i n the w r i t i n g o f Scripture, the B i b l i c a l M o d e l affirms it.

5. The whole o f Scripture was both revealed and inspired. I n this sense the Biblical Model o f R - I is plenary, for it embraces the entirety o f Scripture.

I n common w i t h the "verbal" theory o f inspiration, the Biblical Model affirms that the H o l y Spirit guided biblical writers not only while receiving information and revealed ideas but also i n the process o f writing Scripture i n its entirety. However, the two models depart at the grounding level of the foundational hermeneutical presuppositions that determine the way in which we understand God's supernatural contributions to the formation o f Scripture. The "verbal" theory assumes God acts timelessly and sovereignly, overruling the human freedom o f biblical writers. I n contrast, the Biblical M o d e l assumes that God's providence acts w i t h i n the spatio-temporal flux o f concrete human freedom and history.

66

67

4. The divine "guidance" and " m o v i n g " o f human agencies embraced multiple patterns o f divine operations, both in the revelation and inspiration processes (Heb 1:1) w i t h strong emphasis on the former. That emphasis allows for the inclusion o f the dynamics o f "thought" inspiration i n the Biblical M o d e l .

Revelation and Inspiration

Revelation and Inspiration

Finally, we must not forget that we are dealing with a mystery that we know and understand only i n part. Therefore our model o f interpretation should be understood as a first step rather than the final word. As a first step, it leads us i n a quite different theological path from current models operating within present Adventist and Christian theologies. The importance o f a correct, though partial, understanding o f R-I centers on its hermeneutical role in the task o f doing Christian theology. We need to turn our attention now to the hermeneutical role o f the Biblical Model o f R-I outlined i n this chapter.

7. Hermeneutical Effects In what ways does the understanding o f R - I just outlined impact our interpretation o f Scripture and the task o f doing theology? It influences these tasks through the hermeneutical principles that derive from it. I f so, what are the major derivative principles?

F u l l Incarnation of Divine Thought in Human Words According to the Biblical Model o f R-I, God revealed Himself i n many ways by condescending to human patterns o f thought and writing.

The entire Bible is revealed. The words o f the prophets have become the words o f God. When doing exegesis and theology, then, we should not distinguish between divine thought and human words or between portions o f Scripture.

We have access to divine teachings and revelation only through words.

Consequently, the entire text o f Scripture, from Genesis to Revelation, becomes the most specific, sufficient, and only reliable source o f data and hermeneutical principles that we have for knowing God and His w i l l for us.

of the historical times in which each prophet lived and wrote. Guided by the Holy Spirit, prophets used culture critically and selectively.

Divine revelation is not historically conditioned. Cultural aspects i n sacred history are dated, but they form part o f divine actions and revelation. The Adventist interpreter w i l l therefore assume that the biblical text, in toto, is the result o f divine revelation i n history, received, understood, and composed by prophets and apostles. Awareness o f the historical situations i n which divine revelation and the prophetic writing took place becomes a necessary step to a proper understanding o f divinely revealed thoughts and teachings.

Multifarious Nature of Divine Truths Because the Biblical M o d e l o f R - I flows from w i t h i n the flux o f human history, i t understands the purpose o f the Scriptures to reveal truths not only about God but also about everything God has created i n nature and done i n history. Biblical truths, then, cannot be confined to God or salvation, as other models seem to suggest, but embrace the astonishing diversity o f interconnected truths about God and H i s works. Exegetes and theologians must take special care not to quench this richness by unilaterally deciding that only certain salvific truths are relevant, discarding the rest. To do so sets theologians on a reductive and distortive pursuit o f the "essence" o f the Christian message, discarding the great majority o f biblical teachings as culturally conditioned and, therefore, disposable.

Limitations of Revealed Knowledge According to the Biblical M o d e l o f R - I , divine revelation is limited by all the characteristics o f our human modes o f knowing and o f writing.

Interpreters should always bear i n m i n d that not even biblical writers can present completely a single truth i n human language ( c f . John 21:25).

Even human truths are always greater and fuller than what our language can express. Consequently, interpreters dealing w i t h divine mysteries w i l l beware o f the hermeneutical error o f assuming that the interpretation o f a passage stands for the whole truth on that subject.

34

Historical Composition of Scripture According to the Biblical Model o f R-I, God reveals Himself within the historical process (Exod 25:8; John 1:1-14). I n other words, revelation is historical, primarily because God executes His plan o f redemption historically from within the spatio-temporal flow o f human history. However, this divine condescension does not mean that biblical teachings are the outgrowth of cultural trends. It simply means that God's transcendent truths appear not only within the limitations o f humanity, in general, but also within the limitations 68

Moreover, revealed knowledge is limited by the imperfection o f human syntax. The interpreter is forced to make choices based on assumptions; hence the great importance o f a clear understanding o f the hermeneutical presuppositions and o f the Biblical Model o f R-I involved i n the interpretation o f Scripture.

69

Revelation and Inspiration

Revelation and Inspiration

Reliability of Scripture

understand Scripture from hermeneutical presuppositions based on human sciences and philosophies. Scripture interprets itself. One may apply a hermeneutic o f suspicion to scientific and philosophical studies but never to Scripture.

Finally, the authority o f Scripture and its inspiration is confirmed by the truthfulness o f its teachings (John 17:17). This confirmation, however, depends on accepting the Biblical Model o f R - I . Otherwise, interpreters applying the hermeneutic o f suspicion to Scripture never w i l l understand its truths, and, therefore, never w i l l be capable o f verifying them.

The Biblical Model o f R-I assures us that divine revelation is reliably communicated in the words o f Scripture. Therefore, i n Scripture we do not find the understanding or philosophy o f its human authors, but •of God. R-I is the process used by the Holy Spirit to communicate God's views on nature, history, our human plight, and His dynamic, salvific involvement in them.

Scripture reveals God's views and operations i n nature and history.

Moreover, there is no dichotomy between history and salvation, because salvation takes place as a historical process i n which God is personally involved. Scripture gives us the broad picture necessary for our life i n this w o r l d and in the w o r l d to come. I n this broad and all-inclusive sense, Scripture does not err and is the ultimate reliable source o f divine knowledge available this side o f eternity.

According to the Biblical Model, R - I takes place within the historicaltemporal continuum. Thus the Scriptures include many indispensable historical and natural data that belong essentially to God's revelations and actions.

Biblical revelation, however, does not seek to provide us with an exhaustive, accurate account o f historical and scientific data, but rather with a reliable synthesis o f God's multifarious wisdom, w i l l , and activities within the spatio-temporal realm o f creation. Facts in Scripture always are incorporated as required by God's all-inclusive salvific activities within the flow o f human history.

The interpreter, therefore, should read Scripture not as science but as a philosophy o f history. He or she should search for the meaning o f biblical revelation at the all-inclusive theological level without expecting to find the kind o f accuracy regarding historical and natural facts that one anticipates i n scientific studies. Lack o f precision in factual details should be considered as evidence o f the full incarnation o f divine thinking from w i t h i n the everyday flow o f human history.

Authority of Scripture

Conclusion During the past fifty years a large segment o f Adventist scholars has adopted some version o f thought inspiration. Others have felt satisfied by working w i t h i n a verbal view o f inspiration. Some theologians have ventured into the land o f modernistic encounter revelation. Behind these positions, we find very little serious theological and philosophical reflection. I n general, Adventists have "solved" the issue o f revelation practically; that is, they simply adopted a ready-to-use interpretation o f R-I in order to preempt interpretive and practical problems.

As a result, by the beginning o f the twenty-first century thought inspiration seems to hold the loyalties o f a broad spectrum o f Adventist theologians. Their argument against verbal inspiration and i n favor o f thought inspiration rests on a few selected statements by Ellen G. White on RI . Theologians have used the wedge between thought and word, which is characteristic o f thought inspiration, for diverse purposes. They range from explanations o f literary and historical inconsistencies to an accommodation to scientific and to philosophical theories, such as the historical-critical method and evolution. While the former does not affect the Seventh-day Adventist understanding o f Scripture w i t h i n the framework of the Great Controversy motif, an accommodation to scientific and philosophical theories implies its abandonment and replacement.

The Biblical Model o f R-I grounds the authority o f Scripture in God. Authority means that Scripture is the reliable source o f information about God, His actions, His teachings, and His salvific w i l l for us. Since i n Scripture God explicitly reveals His thoughts and His actions about everything, Scripture is to judge every thought and to be judged by nobody (1 Cor 2:15; 2 Cor 10:5).

Certain consequences follow from Scripture's authority. I n exegetical and theological studies, for instance, the interpreter never w i l l attempt to

One thing is clear. Adventists are not united i n their understanding o f the fundamental issue of R-I. Moreover, the three views circulating among them have been conceived and formulated by Christian philosophers and theologians who worked from hermeneutical principles derived from human philosophy. These principles are not only extra-biblical i n origin but contrary to biblical thinking in content. Moreover, none o f the three options satisfactorily integrates all the evidence; hence, the need for a new model o f understanding comes clearly into view.

70

71

Revelation and Inspiration

Revelation and Inspiration

Some Adventists have searched for a better way o f understanding R - I by attentively listening to Scripture (teachings and phenomena) and Ellen G. White. B u i l d i n g on their w o r k , we have suggested i n this chapter a new model o f understanding R - I . It is a Biblical M o d e l , because it builds on biblical foundational hermeneutical presuppositions and carefully listens to the entire range o f biblical evidence (doctrine and phenomena). We need to continue searching for a better and deeper understanding o f the Biblical M o d e l o f R - I . I n so doing we must w o r k from the biblical understanding o f the foundational hermeneutical presuppositions involved i n our interpretation o f R - I . Only on such a basis can we overcome the deficiencies o f verbal inspiration, thought inspiration, and encounter revelation.

We must account for, and integrate, i n detail all the evidence we find in the teachings and phenomena o f Scripture relating to R - I . I n this way, we w i l l further understand how God revealed knowledge and information to us in a reliable written account, a love letter intended for our salvation.

We should continue to surrender all theological authority to God's written revelation i n the entire text o f Scripture, in spite o f minor inconsistencies in historical detail. From such a strong and rich source o f revelatory data, Adventist theologians w i l l be able to probe further into the astonishing richness o f divine revelation, reaching for its inner historical logic, centered i n God's continuous involvement i n the Great Controversy. They also w i l l be able to explain their views vis-â-vis any and all schools o f theologies that built on the quicksand o f human philosophies and scientific convictions.

References Biblical quotations are the Author's own translation.

1. The words Revelation-Inspiration are hyphenated to indicate they are inseparable aspects of the same process. To save space I will use the abbreviation "R-I." 2. Alberto Timm, "A History of Seventh-day Adventist Views on Biblical and Prophetic Inspiration (1844-2000)," Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 10, (1999): 542 (emphasis author's).

3. Augustine Co nfess ions, 12.15.18.

4. Raoul Dederen, "The Revelation-Inspiration Phenomenon According to the Bible Writers," in Frank Holbrook and Leo Van Dolson, eds. Issues in Revelation and Inspiration, Adventist Theological Society Occasional papers, vol. 1 (Berrien Springs, M I ; Adventist Theological Society Publications, 1992), p. 11.

5. Edward Heppenstall, "Doctrine of Revelation and Inspiration (part 1)," Ministry, July 1970, p. 16.

72

6. Timm, pp. 487-509.

7. Carlyle B. Haynes, God's Book (Nashville, TN: Southern Publishing Association, 1935).

8. I b i d , p. 144 (emphasis supplied).

9. I b i d , p. 136 (emphasis author's).

10. Samuel Koranteng-Pipim offers a recent explicit example of this trend; see his Receiving the Word: How New Approaches to the Bible Impact our Biblical Faith and Lifestyle (Berrien Springs, M I : Berean Books, 1996). As with Alden Thompson, who will be discussed later, Pipim does not explicitly deal with the doctrine of Revelation-Inspiration but assumes the evangelical verbal theory, as many Adventists have done in the past (ibid. 51). As with Haynes, Pipim's approach is apologetic against the inroads of Modernism and the Historical Critical method of exegesis in Adventist theology. Pipim distances himself from the evangelical verbal theory of inspiration when he emphasizes the "trustworthiness" of Scripture rather than its "inerrancy" (pp. 54-55). Yet, he comes near when explaining that while "no distortions came from the hand of the original Bible writers, some alterations and minor distortions have crept into the Word during the process of transmission and translation" (p. 227).

11. "General Conference Proceedings," Review and Herald, November 27, 1883, pp. 741-742.

12. Edward Heppenstall, part 1, p. 16.

13. Ibid.

14. Ibid.

15. Idem, "Doctrine of Revelation and Inspiration (conclusion)," Ministry, August 1970, p. 29.

16. Alden Thompson, Inspiration: Hard Questions, Honest Answers (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 1991).

17. Holbrook and Van Dolson, eds. Issues in Revelation and Inspiration.

18. Thompson, p. 47.

19. I b i d , p. 53.

20. Ibid.

21. Ibid, p. 48 (emphasis author's).

22. Raoul Dederen, "On Inspiration and Biblical Authority," in Issues in Revelation and Inspiration, p. 101.

23. Gerard P. Damsteegt, "The Inspiration of Scripture in the Writings of Ellen G. White," Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 5, no. 1 (1994): 162.

24. Hans-Georg Gadamer, Truth and Method, 2d rev. ed, trans. Joel Weinsheimer and Donald G. Marshall (New York: Continuum, 1989), p. 417.

25. Herold Weiss, "Revelation and the Bible: Beyond Verbal Inspiration," Spectrum 7, no. 3 (1975): 52.

26. Raoul Dederen, "Toward a Seventh-day Adventist Theology of Revelation-Inspiration," in North American Bible Conference (North American Division: unpublished paper, 1974), 10.

27. This switch at the scientific-philosophical level of hermeneutics seems to undergird Fritz Guy's methodological proposal for Adventist theology in his 73

Revelation and Inspiration Thinking Theologically: Adventist Christianity and the Interpretation of Faith (Berrien Springs, M I : Andrews University Press, 1999).

CHAPTER V

28. Dederen, "Toward a Seventh-day Adventist Theology of Revelation-Inspiration," p. 16.

29. I b i d , p. 13.

30. I b i d , p. 10.

31. Idem, "On Inspiration and Biblical Authority," pp. 101 and 97.

32. Idem, "Toward a Seventh-day Adventist Theology of Revelation-Inspiration," p. 6.

33. "The Lord gave His Word in just the way He wanted it to come. He gave it through different writers, each having his own individuality, though going over the same history" (PM 2).

34. Ellen G. White explains, "It is impossible for any human mind to exhaust even one truth or promise of the Bible" (Ed 171).

Selected Bibliography van Bemmelen, Peter Maarten. "Revelation and Inspiration." In Handbook of Seventh-dav Adventist Theology, ed. Raoul Dederen, 22-57. Hagerstown, M D : Review and Herald, 2000.

Canale, Fernando. Back to Revelation-Inspiration: Searching for the Cognitive Foundations of Christian Theology in a Postmodern World. Lanham, M D : University Press of America, 2001.

Dockery, David S. Christian Scripture: An Evangelical Perspective on Inspiration, Authority and Interpretation. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1995.

Holbrook, Frank and Leo Van Dolson, eds. Issues in Revelation and Inspiration, Adventist Theological Society Occasional Papers. Berrien Springs, M I : Adventist Theological Society Publications, 1992.

Gulley, Norman R. Systematic Theology: Prolegomena. Berrien Springs, M I : Andrews University Press, 2003.

Rice, George. Luke, a Plagiarist? Is a Writer Who Copied From Others Inspired?

Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1983.

Timm, Alberto. " A History of Seventh-day Adventist Views on Biblical and Prophetic Inspiration (1844-2000)." Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 10 (1999): 486-542.

Thompson, Alden. Inspiration: Hard Questions, Honest Answers. M D : Review and Herald, 1991.

THE AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE Peter M . van Bemmelen

Introduction The authority o f the Bible as the Word o f God has been a major issue in Chrisjtianity, as w e l l as i n the Seventh-day Adventist Church, over the last few decades. Should the Bible be the final authority on all matters o f belief and o f lifestyle, or should scientific and socio-cultural forces be allowed to influence what we permit the Bible to mean? As i n other Christian churches that hold to a high view o f Scripture, historic biblical positions are under attack i n the Adventist church, either outright rejected by some or modified almost beyond recognition. This chapter deals w i t h the nature of, and the evidence for, the authority o f God and the Bible and with the repercussions this has on biblical hermeneutics.

1. The Authority of Jesus Christ and the Authority of the Scriptures For more than three thousand years, Jews have received the writings o f Moses and o f the Prophets as Holy Scriptures and, i n addition to that, Christians have accepted the Gospels and the other books o f the N T as deserving the same sacred designation. Scripture is God's w o r d written. The apostle Paul, writing to Jewish and Gentile Christians i n Rome, raised the question, "What advantage then has the Jew, or what is the profit o f circumcision?"

His answer: " M u c h in every way! Chiefly because to them were committed the oracles o f God" (Rom 3:1-2). The Scriptures are the oracles o f God. That was the conviction o f the apostle Paul and has been the belief of untold millions o f Jews and Christians through the ages; and it still is today.

The Scriptures as Authority The expressions "the Scriptures," " H o l y Scriptures," or, simply, "Scripture" occur more than fifty times i n the NT. The Hebrew Scriptures,

74

75

The Authority of Scripture

The Authority of Scripture

by Christians commonly called the OT, were a well-defined body o f books consisting o f three major sections: the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings (Luke 24:44). Careful study o f the way i n which Jesus used the terms "The Scriptures," "Scripture," " I t is written," and similar expressions demonstrates clearly that He attributed to the Hebrew Scriptures ultimate and unquestionable authority.

For H i m Scripture was the Word o f God that cannot be broken (John 10:35). He repudiated the temptations o f the devil w i t h a decisive " I t is written" (Matt 4:4, 7, 10). He frequently appealed to the Scriptures as forecasting His Messianic ministry (Luke 4:17-21; John 5:39-47), and, after His resurrection, He explained from all the Scriptures to His disciples the things concerning Himself (Luke 24:27). Despite persistent denials by some modern scholars, there can be no serious doubt that the evidence presented in the four Gospels justifies John Wenham's conclusion that "to Christ the O T was true, authoritative, inspired. To h i m the God o f the OT was the living God, and the teaching o f the OT was the teaching o f the living God. To h i m what Scripture said, God said."

1

2

Jesus as Authority

evidence itself derived from the Scriptures. The self-evident fact is that divine authority can be affirmed only by God's o w n witness, b y His o w n Word. As God swore by H i m s e l f to Abraham when He made a promise "because He could swear by no one greater" (Heb 6:13), even so, God testifies to the authority o f His Word by His o w n testimony, because there is no higher source than God Himself. I t is the H o l y Spirit, Himself God, who moved prophets and apostles to write the Scriptures to testify of Christ (2 Pet 1:19-21; 1 Pet 1:10-12; John 16:13 -15). A n d i t is Christ, of w h o m the Spirit-given Scriptures testify, who puts the seal o f His divine authority upon the God-breathed Scriptures.

The Nature of the Authority of G o d and of the Bible Because the Scriptures come to us as the oracles o f God, they speak w i t h divine authority. But what does this mean? I n this w o r l d , authority generally is based on position, function, wealth, power, education, beauty, certain skills, or some other asset that sets a person or a group apart. Religious traditions and customs often are vested w i t h significant authority similar to the standing o f the traditions o f the elders, or fathers, among the Jews i n the time o f Jesus and o f the apostles (Matt 15:2; Gal 1:14). A l l forms o f human authority, however, are derived, and, i n this world, temporary. B y contrast, the authority o f God is underived and eternal, because He himself is underived (Exod 3:14) and eternal (Ps 90:2). Because He is the Creator, God's authority stands supreme over all His creatures, and all creaturely authority is subordinate to the authority o f the Creator.

The Gospels record that Jesus Christ claimed for H i m s e l f divine authority. He could say, "For as the Father has life i n Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life i n Himself, and has given H i m authority to execute judgment also, because He is the Son o f M a n " (John 5:2627); " A l l authority has been given to M e i n heaven and on earth" (Matt 28:18).

The w o r d "authority"is translated from the Greek w o r d exousia, which has a fairly wide range o f meanings, such as freedom o f choice; the right to act or to decide; the ability to do something; authority; the power exercised by rulers by virtue o f their office; even absolute power. I n the texts cited earlier, Jesus refers boldly to His absolute authority as the eternal Son o f God, who i n His incarnation also becomes the Son o f Man, the Son o f David, the Messiah. I n view o f His claims to supreme authority, it is significant that Jesus still directed the minds o f all, whether followers or enemies, to the Scriptures as the Word o f God. There, His Messianic claims were to be confirmed, issues o f doctrine and life settled, and, by them, all would be judged (John 5:39-46; Luke 16:29-31; Matt 22:29-32; Luke 24:44-47). He did not come to do away w i t h the Scriptures but to fulfill them, so confirming their authority (Matt 5:17-19).

Some may object that it is a circular argument to derive the authority o f Scripture from the supreme authority o f Christ while relying on

Divine authority rests primarily not on supreme force or perfect knowledge, although both are divine attributes. Here is a sharp contrast between the divine government, based on love, and human government, based on principles o f force and o f self-exaltation.

76

77

While God's authority is eternal and supreme, it is very different in character from that generally understood as authority i n human practice.

Jesus explained this difference to His disciples i n the midst o f a dispute among them concerning who should be considered the greatest. He said, "The kings o f the Gentiles exercise lordship over them and those who exercise authority over them are called 'benefactors.' But not so among you; on the contrary, he who is greatest among you, let h i m be as the younger, and he who governs as he who serves" (Luke 22:25-26). Then, referring to Himself, w h o m they recognized as Lord, He said, " I am among y o u as the One who serves" (vs. 27). Divine authority is rooted i n love and exercised i n service and i n self-denial.

The Authority of Scripture

The Authority of Scripture When asked by Pilate whether He was K i n g o f the Jews, Jesus answered, " M y kingdom is not o f this world. I f M y kingdom were o f this world, M y servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now M y kingdom is not from here" (John 18:36). When Pilate asked again, "Are You a king then?" Jesus made it clear that His authori t y — H i s kingship—was defined by truth. He answered, " Y o u say rightly that I am a king. For this cause I was born, and for this cause I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is o f the truth hears M y voice" (John 18:37).

Just as Christ's authority is based primarily on divine love and defined by truth, so the Scriptures speak to us with that same authority. It has long been recognized that there is a profound parallel between Christ, the Word made flesh, and Scripture, the Word o f God, expressed i n human language. The words o f prophets and o f apostles are not human words merely but the Word o f God i n human form. Paul thanked God that the Christian believers i n Thessalonica "received the word o f God which you heard from u s . . . not as the w o r d o f men, but as it is i n truth, the word o f God" (1 Thess 2:13). It is really the Spirit o f Christ that speaks to us i n the words o f the prophets and the apostles (1 Pet 1:10-12). Ellen G . W h i t e draws attention to this parallel between Christ and the Bible: The union of the divine and the human, manifest in Christ, exists also in the Bible. The truths revealed are all "given by inspiration of God;" yet they are expressed in the words of men and are adapted to human needs.

Thus it may be said of the Book of God, as it was of Christ, that "the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us." And this fact, so far from being an argument against the Bible, should strengthen faith in it as the word of God (5T 747).

2. Biblical Evidence Affirming the Supreme Authority of the Scriptures as the Word of God The Scriptures come to us as the Word o f God. They address us with divine authority, the authority o f the one true God. The words o f the Shema, "Hear, O Israel: The L o r d our God, the L o r d is one!" (Deut 6:4), express the uniqueness o f Yahweh, the God o f Israel. The entire Scriptures, both O l d and New Testament, recognize only one God. His authority is supreme above all other authority. Although His authority is based on love, it tolerates no rivals. He is the Creator o f heaven and o f earth, and no other beings can claim the same prerogative (Isa 40:25-28; 45:18).

He also is the only One who can save (Isa 43:10-12).

Likewise, while the words o f God in Scripture reach us i n a servant form, they nevertheless speak w i t h supreme authority. Through Moses, God made clear to His people that nothing was to be added to the word and to the commandments that He had given through His servant and that nothing was to be taken from it (Deut 4:2; 12:32). The principle that nothing is to be added to, or detracted from, the Word o f God was repeated by other inspired writers. We read i n Proverbs 30:6, " D o not add to His words, lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar." A n even stronger warning is found i n Revelation 22:18-19. Some argue that these warnings deal only w i t h specific portions o f Scripture; however, i t is evident that the Scriptures assert that no prophetic revelations, traditions, or writings are to be accepted as carrying divine authority other than those that have come to us through the divinely ordained prophets and apostles.

Moses warned against false prophets; their words, even i f spoken i n the name o f the Lord, were to be rejected as presumptuous (Deut 13:1-5; 18:2022). On the other hand, the rejection o f the words o f the true prophets o f the Lord was tantamount to a rejection o f the authority o f God, which ultimately would have fatal consequences (Deut 18:15-19). To a large extent, the history o f Israel shows that acceptance or rejection o f the Word o f God through His chosen messengers determined the destiny o f individuals and nations (2 Chron 36:15-16; Neh 9:26-31). Only the revelation given through Moses and the words o f God's true messengers were to be received as the Word of the Lord. Isaiah stated the principle o f the exclusive authority o f God's Word succinctly, "To the law and to the testimony! I f they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light i n them" (Isa 8:20).

The parallel often has been expressed in terms o f the servant form o f both Christ and the Bible. Bernard Ramm notes, "Both the divine Savior and the divine Scriptures bear the form of a servant even though both contain w i t h i n themselves the divine glory." While limitations to the parallei exist, it is appropriate to apply to the Scriptures what was said o f the words o f Jesus, "No man ever spoke like this M a n ! " (John 7:46), and also, "He taught as one having authority" (Matt 7:29). While Christ "made himself nothing, taking the very nature o f a servant, being made i n human likeness" (Phil 2:7, N I V ) , yet He spoke w i t h divine authority. Likewise, while the Scriptures are given in the weakness and i n the imperfection o f human language, nevertheless, "every w o r d o f God is pure" (Prov 30:5), "is truth" (John 17:17), "is living and powerful" (Heb 4:12), "cannot be broken" (John 10:35), and "stands forever" (Isa 40:8).

We have seen how, i n the N T , the principle o f the unique authority o f the Scriptures receives confirmation i n the ministry and i n the teachings o f Jesus. He strongly warned against false prophets and false messiahs, who would seek to claim divine authority for their messages, while turning away

78

79

3

4

The Authority of Scripture

The Authority of Scripture from the Word o f G o d (Matt 7:15-23; 24:5, 11,24). He also condemned the traditions superimposed upon the Scriptures, with their effect o f nullifying the Scriptures' supreme authority (Matt 15:1-9; Mark 7:1-13). The apostles issued similar warnings against false teachers, false prophets, false apostles, and their teachings (Acts 20:29-30; 2 T i m 4:3-4; 2 Pet 2:1;. 1 John 4:1).

A n y exaltation o f human commandments or ecclesiastical traditions above the teachings o f the Scriptures undermines the supreme authority o f God's Word.

for? The more we reject it, the more we become satisfied with men's books and human teachers.

6

This emphasis on "Scripture alone" (sola scriptura) Luther maintained for the remainder o f his life. Appearing before the emperor Charles V at the Diet o f Worms, Luther said, " M y conscience is captive to the Word o f God." For Luther, the authority o f the Scriptures was based on the belief that only they proclaimed the true gospel o f Christ and that they were the words o f the Holy Spirit. Repeatedly, he appealed to Scripture alone as the sole authority for faith and doctrine. This principle became embodied i n the definitive statement o f the Lutheran faith, The Formula of Concord: 7

8

3. The Protestant Reformers and Biblical Authority The supreme authority o f the H o l y Scriptures, upheld by the L o r d and His apostles, came under challenge i n succeeding centuries. Numerous heretics arose, twisting the Word o f God and bringing i n false teachings.

In dealing w i t h these dissidents, the response became an undue emphasis on ecclesiastical authority, allowing tradition gradually to overshadow the authority o f the Scriptures. Although the church fathers o f the early centuries often affirmed scriptural authority, it diminished before the growing influence o f church councils and, even more so, i n claims to authority by the bishops, especially i n Rome. The authority o f the Scriptures also was diluted by allegorical interpretations, scholastic philosophy, and the addition o f the Apocrypha to the canon o f the OT. While forerunners o f the Protestant Reformers, such as John Wycliffe (c. 1329-1384), already had appealed to the Scriptures as the only standard o f faith and doctrine, it was M a r t i n Luther (1483-1546), Augustinian monk and professor o f biblical theology at the University o f Wittenberg, who clearly enunciated the sole and the supreme authority o f the Bible. When nailing his famous Ninety-five Theses against indulgences on the door o f the castle church i n Wittenberg, he d i d not yet recognize the conflict between the authority o f the Church and the authority o f the Scriptures, implied by his teachings. Two years later, i n a debate w i t h Johann Eck (1486-1542), Luther was forced to appeal to the authority o f the Scriptures as supreme above the authority o f church councils and papal decrees. When forty-one o f Luther's teachings were condemned i n a papal bull i n June, 1520, and he was accused o f rejecting all the holy teachers o f the church, he wrote an extensive defense o f his position:

We believe, teach, and confess that the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testaments are the only rule and norm according to which all doctrines and teachers alike must be appraised and judged, as it is written in Ps 119:105, "Thy word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path."

9

Luther and other Protestant Reformers were well aware that the issue o f the sole authority o f Scripture involved other issues, such as the interpretation o f Scripture; the clarity, or perspicuity, o f Scripture; and the sufficiency, or perfection, o f Scripture. The Roman Catholic Church claimed that believers needed the church to provide them w i t h the correct interpretation o f the Scriptures, for much i n the sacred books was obscure.

The faithful, therefore, needed to adhere to the interpretation given by the Catholic Church. Over against this the Reformers upheld the clarity, or the perspicuity, o f Scripture. I n August 1522, U l r i c h Z w i n g l i (1484-1531), the Swiss Reformer at Zurich, preached a sermon published the next month under the title " O f the Clarity and Certainty o f the Word o f G o d " in which he illustrated the certainty and the clarity o f the Scriptures w i t h many examples from the O l d and the N e w Testament. After answering a number o f objections, he stated i n the conclusion o f the sermon, "For the Word o f God is certain and can never fail. It is clear and w i l l never leave us i n darkness. I t teaches its o w n truth. I t arises and irradiates the soul o f man w i t h full salvation and grace."

10

11

Scripture alone is the true lord and master of all writings and doctrine on earth [emphasis supplied]. I f that is not granted, what is Scripture good

Both Luther and Z w i n g l i held that Scripture can exercise its authority and its transforming power only through the working and the illumination o f the H o l y Spirit. John Calvin (1509-1564) especially stressed the conviction that the authority o f Scripture was established i n the heart o f the believers, not by the determination o f the church but through the inward testimony o f the Holy Spirit. The claim "that Scripture has only so much weight as is conceded to it by the consent o f the church," he con-

80

81

5

The Authority of Scripture

The Authority of Scripture

sidered to be "a most pernicious error." He pointed out that the Christian church was "founded upon the writings o f the prophets and the preaching o f the apostles," therefore, the Scriptures "must certainly have preceded the church." "Let this point therefore stand," wrote Calvin, "that those w h o m the H o l y Spirit has inwardly taught truly rest upon Scripture, and that Scripture indeed is self-authenticated"; consequently, "the certainty it deserves w i t h us, it attains by the testimony o f the Spirit." Calvin presented many proofs to establish the divine origin and the authority o f the Scriptures, such as the majesty o f their content; their truthfulness; the fulfilment o f their prophetic predictions; their marvelous preservation; their simplicity; and the consistent testimony o f the church, through all ages, to their divinity. But he cautioned that 12

13

of themselves these [reasons or proofs] are not strong enough to provide a firm faith, until our Heavenly Father, revealing his majesty there, lifts reverence for Scripture beyond the realm of controversy. Therefore Scripture will ultimately suffice for a saving knowledge of God only when its certainty is founded upon the inward persuasion of the Holy Spirit.

14

4. The Scope and the Sufficiency of Scriptural Authority By stressing the sola scriptura principle, the Reformers broke the ecclesiastical stranglehold by the Roman Catholic Church on the Scriptures' authority and interpretation. N o longer was the clear, historical and grammatical meaning o f the Bible attenuated by allegorical interpretation.

No longer were patristic tradition; scholastic philosophy; or conciliar, or papal, authority allowed to supercede biblical authority. N o longer was the Apocrypha added to the canonical Scriptures as having the same divine unction and authority.

The Reformers did not foresee developments i n succeeding centuries that would undermine confidence and faith in the truthfulness and in the authority o f the Scriptures. A premonition o f this process lies i n the haunting question o f Jesus, "When the Son o f M a n comes, w i l l He really find faith on the earth?" (Luke 18:8). Faith i n the divine origin and i n the authority o f the Bible is challenged by criticism of the Scriptures in countless ways. Geoffrey Bromiley observes:

doctrinal and ethical absolutes. On the other side Roman Catholicism embraced a doctrine of papal infallibility which, along with the concept of dogmatic development, permitted the weakening o f biblical authority by addition or expansion.

15

In particular, modern biblical criticism i n its myriad forms has led even many sincere Christian believers to a l i m i t i n g o f the authority o f Scripture, reducing it to some core essentials o f Christian faith and morality. Whatever Scripture has to say about matters o f a historical or scientific nature is subjected to the criteria o f rigorous historical criticism and a naturalistic philosophy o f science that a priori excludes supernatural causality i n the realm o f nature and i n the flow o f history. Such approaches generally tend to ignore, distort, or deny the express claims of the biblical writers i n regard to the divine origin, authority, and truthfulness o f their writings.

Another important element i n the modern debate about biblical authority is the issue o f the scope or purpose o f Scripture. The primary purpose o f the H o l y Scriptures is to make us "wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus," stated in the words o f Paul (2 T i m 3:15), or, to speak w i t h the apostle John, "these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son o f God, and that believing you may have life i n His name" (John 20:31). Christ Himself, speaking o f the O T Scriptures, criticized the contemporary Jewish religious leaders for their tragic failure in grasping this primary purpose, saying, " Y o u search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify o f Me. But you are not w i l l i n g to come to M e that you may have life" (John 5:39-40).

The question i n the debate about the scope o f the authority o f the Bible is not about the purpose o f Scripture. Rather, the primary question is whether the authority o f Scripture extends to the entire content o f the Bible. For twenty-first century Christians, the issue is not only the sola scriptura principle but also its correlate principle, tota scriptura.

The issue is not only whether we add to the authority o f the Word o f God but also whether we take away from it. I n the hearts and i n the minds o f many Christians, criticism o f the Bible has reduced the authority o f Scripture to a bare m i n i m u m or nullified it altogether. Ellen G. White addressed this issue in reference to ministers:

The modern period brought new threats to biblical authority. On the one side liberal scholars engaged in literary and historical research that questioned traditional authorships, challenged factual reliability, rejected or refashioned divine inspiration, and promoted a relativism destructive to

Many professed ministers of the gospel do not accept the whole Bible as the inspired word. One wise man rejects one portion; another questions another part. They set up their judgment as superior to the word; and the Scripture which they do teach rests upon their own authority. Its divine authenticity is destroyed (COL 39, emphasis supplied).

82

83

The Authority of Scripture

The Authority of Scripture The principle is that all the Scriptures are to be received as the Word o f God, speaking with divine authority. This is expressed in many ways by the biblical writers. Moses included it in his final address to the people o f Israel: "The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but those things which are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words o f this law" (Deut 29:29). His earlier admonition is that "man lives by every w o r d that proceeds from the mouth o f the L o r d " (Deut 8:3).

The same emphasis on believing and on obeying all words that come from God recurs in the N T . Jesus cited it in response to the temptation to deliver Himself from starvation through a miracle o f divine power. He repeated Moses' words that humankind shall live "by every word that proceeds from the mouth o f God" (Matt 4:4). The Gospel narratives give evidence that Jesus not only had an unparalleled knowledge and understanding o f the Scriptures but that He accepted all o f Scripture as the authoritative Word o f God. Following the resurrection, He gently chided two o f His disciples for their slowness o f heart to believe in " a l l that the prophets have spoken" (Luke 24:25).

Likewise, the apostles manifested the same faith in the entire Scriptures as the Word o f God. Paul, before the Roman governor Felix, confessed that, "according to the way w h i c h they call a sect, so I worship the God o f m y fathers, believing all things which are written i n the L a w and in the Prophets" (Acts 24:14). To the elders o f the church at Ephesus, he testified that he had not failed "to declare to y o u the whole counsel o f G o d " (Acts 20:27). Later, i n his Epistle to the Ephesians, he reminded the entire church that they were built "on the foundation o f the apostles and prophets—Jesus Christ H i m s e l f being the chief cornerstone" (Eph 2:20). I n his second letter written from Rome, sent shortly before his martyrdom, Peter urged believers "to be mindful o f the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and o f the commandment o f us, the apostles o f the L o r d and Savior" (2 Pet 3:2). W r i t i n g i n his final Epistle to Timothy, Paul reaffirmed the principle o f tota scriptura in clear and concise fashion: " A l l Scripture is given by inspiration o f God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction i n righteousness" (2 T i m 3:16).

16

life? . · · Does the Bible explicitly limit the range o f its own authority?"

His clear-cut answer to these questions is that there are no such limitations in Scripture. He argues that Scripture not only focuses on Christ as Redeemer but also on Christ as Creator and as L o r d o f creation and o f the whole history o f the world. Therefore, no area o f knowledge is excluded from the authority o f Christ and His Word, the Scriptures.

Some claim that since the Bible is not a textbook o f science or history it should not be used as authoritative i n these areas o f knowledge. While this claim is true in a technical sense, it becomes a frontal attack on the authority o f the Bible i f the truthfulness o f its clear record o f the creation and its historical narratives is rejected or reinterpreted along lines o f scientific theories or historical research. Neither Jesus nor any o f the inspired prophets and ,-apostles ever questioned the historical truth o f the Genesis record or o f any other part o f the Scriptures. To the contrary, they affirmed the truthfulness and the divine authority o f them all.

The Reformers upheld the principle o f the sufficiency o f Scripture, primarily, though not exclusively, i n reference to the doctrine o f salvation, which centers i n the person o f Christ as Redeemer. B u t that same principle must be upheld i n regard to the doctrine o f creation, w h i c h centers i n the person o f Christ as Creator. The Scriptures inform us not only that God, through Christ, created this w o r l d but also how this was accomplished.

The t w i n principles o f sola scriptura and tota scriptura apply as much to the origin o f this world and the human race as to their redemption and their ultimate restoration.

The application o f the sola scriptura principle to the doctrine o f ereation is stressed in Ellen G. White's writings. She wrote, " I t is the w o r d o f God alone that gives us an authentic account o f the creation o f our w o r l d " (FE 536). She applies the tota scriptura principle to Christ as Creator and as Redeemer i n these specific words, "The whole Bible is a revelation; for all revelation to men comes through Christ, and all centers in H i m . God has spoken unto us by His Son, whose we are by creation and by redemption" (7BC 953).

Although it is undoubtedly true that the primary focus o f the tota scriptura principle is the authority o f the Scriptures i n the spiritual realm, we cannot limit that authority arbitrarily by excluding from it any area o f human knowledge, such as history or natural science. I n a penetrating study o f the sufficiency o f Scripture, Noel Weeks raises crucial questions, such as, "Does the Bible have a restriction to its authority imposed by its focus on salvation? Is it irrelevant to other major subjects or areas o f

Ellen G. White was deeply concerned that many Christians, under the influence o f scientific theories, rejected the biblical account o f a six-day creation in its plain, literal sense. She considered this a substitution o f the authority of human reasoning " i n opposition to plain Scripture facts" (PP 113). She observed that God never revealed to men the exact process by which He accomplished the work of creation; hence, "human science cannot search out the secrets o f the Most High" (PP113). I n view o f this, she stated categorically, "There should be a settled belief in the divine authority o f God's Holy Word.

The Bible is not to be tested by men's ideas o f science" (PP 114).

84

85

The Authority of Scripture

The Authority of Scripture

5. Divine Authority, H u m a n Response, and Biblical Hermeneutics Although God's authority is supreme, He does not force the w i l l o f His moral creatures. Humans, created i n the image o f God, were endowed w i t h the power o f choice. God respects that power, even i n fallen human beings. Divine authority, based on love and on truth, elicits from us a response o f faith, trust, obedience, and love. However, i f we choose to reject His authority, we are separating ourselves from H i m who is the source o f our existence. Moses expressed this basic truth i n these words: I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live; that you may love the Lord your God, that you may obey His voice, and that you may cling to Him, for He is your life and the length of your days (Deut 30:19-20).

Jesus applied the same truth to His o w n teaching. Anyone who hears His words and does them is a wise man who builds his house on the rock, and that house withstands stormwind and flood. Anyone who rejects His words He compares to a foolish man who builds his house on the sand, and the w i n d and flood sweep that house away (Matt 7:24-27). Acceptance o f God's authority as expressed i n His Word leads to life, eternal life; rejection o f the authority o f His Word, whether spoken or written, leads to eternal death (Ps 1:1-6; Prov 8:32-36; Rev 22:18-19).

God cannot, and w i l l never, abrogate or surrender His divine authority. The same is true o f the supreme authority o f the H o l y Scriptures, for they are God's Word. The p r i m a r y response to that authority by humans should be a response o f faith, issuing i n w i l l i n g obedience.

The W o r d o f God addresses humans i n their totality: m i n d , heart, and soul ( M a t t 22:37). Through His Word, the L o r d not only invites us to reason together (Isa 1:18); He also urges us to give H i m our hearts (Prov 23:26).

The Protestant Reformers understood that it is the privilege and the duty o f all to read and to study the Bible for themselves. This conviction motivated Wycliffe, Luther, Tyndale, and others to translate the Bible into a language that common people could read and understand. I n modern times the same conviction has led to the translation o f the Bible, or portions o f the Bible, into more than two thousand languages. Ellen G. White shared that position. I n an article entitled, "The Bible to Be Understood

by A l l , " she wrote, "The Bible has been addressed to everyone,—to every class o f society, to those o f every clime and age. The duty o f every intelli86

gent person is to search the Scriptures. Each one should know for himself the conditions upon which salvation is provided" (ST, Aug. 20, 1894).

From a human standpoint, to hold the Scriptures i n highest respect brings w i t h it a valuable cluster o f distinct benefits. Ours is an environment marked by an instability that, at times, plunges us into actual peril.

How we cope w i t h such situations has much to do w i t h the quality o f life and w i t h personal satisfaction, to say nothing o f our eternal destiny.

When honored as an authoritative message from God, this Book, although written many centuries ago, remains an immovable point o f contact with our Creator. Through written communication w i t h His human sons and daughters, He provides a source o f ultimate stabilization that brings meaning. The God who made us remains active, not only i n His sweeping universe but perpetually i n our daily lives.

In large part, the Scriptures are a written record o f His personal intervention and o f His guidance i n human affairs. For superficial readers, this human side is often misinterpreted i n ways that reduce the Bible to a remote, or even insignificant, role i n their lives. I n this, they miss the benefits that could be theirs.

The Scriptures provide an authentic basis for understanding ourselves.

Who are we? Are we really persons o f worth or but passing shadows across the face o f time and place? The Scriptures assure us that beyond mere skill i n competition w i t h others our personal worth rests on an intrinsic value, creation and redemption by Christ. I n this light, our value as persons is as secure as the written Word that brings us this truth.

We witness the unifying power o f the Scriptures. Beyond all the diverse peoples and cultures that are spread across our planet stands one Word o f God, reaching out to every person, transcending i n power and authority every cultivated practice or opinion. I n this, it is the great unifier.

In a centrifugal world, often brutally at odds w i t h itself, genuine adherence to God's Word brings peace and respect for every person.

The authoritative Word alone enables us to understand our destiny.

Only there is a genuine account o f our Creator's character and how He brought us into existence. O n l y i n His Word do we find something that raw nature never could tell us: God is benevolent, seeking earnestly to restore us to intimate fellowship w i t h H i m s e l f i n the near future, a l l o f which is made possible through the ministry, the atoning death, and the resurrection o f the Son.

87

The Authority of Scripture

The Authority of Scripture References

Selected Bibliography

Unless otherwise indicated, biblical quotations are from the New King James Version.

Retz Otto. "Exousia." In The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology. 3 vols. Edited by Colin Brown. Grand Rapids, M I : Zondervan PublishingHouse, 1975-1978. 2:606-611.

Bromiley, Geoffrey W. "Authority." In The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. rev. ed.. 4 vols. Edited by G. W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids, M I : William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1979-1988. 1:364-371. . "Scripture, Authority of." In The International Standard Bible Ency'dapedia, rev. ed, 4 vols. Edited by G. W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids, M I : Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1979-1988. 4:362-363.

Geldenhuys, J. Norval. Supreme Authority: The Authority of the Lord, His Aposties and the New Testament. Foreword by Ned B. Stonehouse. Grand Rapids, M I : Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing C o , 1953.

Maier, Gerhard. Biblical Hermeneutics. Trans. Robert W. Yarbrough. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1994.

Miller, Donald G. The Authority of the Bible. Grand Rapids, M I : Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1972.

Ramm, Bernard. The Pattern of Religious Authority. Grand Rapids, M I : Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1968; reprint of The Pattern of Authority, 1957.

Warfield, Benjamin Breckinridge. The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible. Edited by Samuel G. Craig, Introduction by Cornelius Van Til. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing C o , 1948; reprint, Grand Rapids, M I : Baker Book House, 1967.

Weeks, Noel. The Sufficiency of Scripture. Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1988.

Wenham, John. Christ and the Bible. 3d edition. Grand Rapids, M I : Baker Books, 1994.

1. See John Wenham, Christ and the Bible, 3d ed. (Grand.Rapids, M I : Baker Books, 1994), pp. 16-44.

2. I b i d , p. 17.

3. Bernard Ramm, Special Revelation and the Word of God (Grand Rapids, M I : Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing C o , 1961), p. 34.

4. Ellen G. White makes this comparison, "The Bible is not given to us in grand superhuman language. Jesus, in order to reach man where he is, took humanity. The Bible must be given in the language of men. Everything that is human is imperfect" ( I S M 20).

5. Harold Grimm in the introduction to his translation of Luther's "Disputation and Defense of Brother Martin Luther against the Accusations of Dr. Johann Eck," observes that "The Leipzig debate is of great significance in Luther's development as a reformer because he on that occasion publicly states his evangelical conception of the church in unmistakable terms and showed that in the last analysis his sole authority in matters of faith was the Word of God. Therefore he could state without reservations that not only the papacy but also church councils could err." Harold J. Grimm, ed, Luther s Works, (hereafter LW) 55 vols. (Philadelphia; Fortress Pess, 1957), 31:311.

6. I b i d , 32:11-12.

7. The text of Luther's famous final answer before the Imperial Diet at Worms can be found in LW 21:112-113.

8. This is evident from two of his writings produced during his ten months' exile in the Wartburg Castle: "Against Latomus," LW 32:133-260, and one of his model sermons in the so-called "Church Postii" entitled, "The Gospel for the Festival of the Epiphany, Matthew 2[:1-12]," LW 52:159-286, esp. 171-183.

9. Theodore G. Tappert, trans, and ed. The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1959), p. 464.

10. An English translation of this sermon can be found in Zwingli and Bullinger, trans, and ed. G. W. Bromiley, vol. 24 in the Library of Christian Classics (hereafter LCC). (Philadelphia: Westminister Press, 1953), pp. 49-95.

11. LCC 24:93.

12. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1:7:1, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, LCC, vol. 20 (Philadelphia: Westminister Press, 1960), pp. 75-76.

13. I b i d , p. 80.

14. I b i d , p. 92.

15. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, "Scripture, Authority of," International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, rev. ed, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, M I : Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1979-1988), 4:363.

16. Noel Weeks, The Sufficiency of Scripture (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1988), p. 85.

88

89

CHAPTER VI

THE TEXT AND THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE Gerald A . Klingbeil

Introduction Communication requires a medium and a channel to be effective; therefore, to "hear" God, a medium and a transmission channel are needed. The only way to transmit God's message throughout the ages has been the faithful copying and re-copying o f the revealed Word. Because revelation and Scripture are concerned w i t h textual data, to "hear" God in Scripture i n the twenty-first century requires that the text and its limits must first be established and then interpreted. This chapter seeks to understand the limitations o f what should, and should not, be included in Scripture. I n addition, it looks at the inspired, canonical text itself, its transmission process, and the manuscripts and translations by w h i c h we have access to the text today.

1. The Canon of Scripture The canon o f Scripture cannot be disconnected from questions o f authority and normativity, which, i n turn, relate to our understanding o f revelation and inspiration. What makes one ancient text more authoritative than another for a religious community (whether Jewish or Christian)? As a point o f departure, it seems clear that the O T and the N T books were self-authenticating. Their authority rests not upon the fact that someone, whether an important individual or an ecclesiastical authority, included them i n the canon but that they were recognized by their religious community as having authority because o f their divine origin, and, as a result, were included i n the canon. Space limitations w i l l require us to paint rough outline strokes o f the picture, paying attention to the major issues and the questions, without necessarily covering every specific problem or issue.

90

91

The Text and the Canon of Scripture

The Text and the Canon of Scripture Underlying Concepts and Definitions The English w o r d "canon" is derived from the Greek term kanon, meaning a reed, measuring rod, or even curtain rod, which, i n turn, is connected to the Hebrew noun qăneh, "reed, r o d " (1 Kings 14:15; Job 40:21). I n a derived sense, a canon is a body o f texts that "has been measured" and found w o r t h y o f inclusion i n a collection o f texts w i t h binding authority for a religious community. Thus, canon must be connected to the concept o f Scripture, as well as inspiration. A canonical text is one that is accorded authority i n a given religious community and is considered to be "inspired" by God (2 T i m 3:16). However, Scripture presents a wider concept than the more limited canon. We have references to inspired writings, mentioned in the O T and written by authors regarded as inspired whose writings have not been included in the OT canon (1 Chron 29:29). I n the O T there exists a close connection between God's speaking (as authoritative) and the dissemination o f this revelation—in either spoken or written form (Exod 17:14; 24:4). Writing down the instructions received from God was a logical consequence, since it provided continuity and future adherence (Deut 31:9-13). Deuteronomy 31:26 indicates the "testimony/function" o f this "book o f the Law." A l s o , i n other places i n the OT, the Hebrew term ed, "testimony," is often connected w i t h verification according to a set standard. (Deut 31:19, 2 1 ; Joshua 22:27, 28, 34).

On three specific historical occasions we find the concept o f an authoritative written source that needed to be followed: (1) Exodus 24:7 in which the people declare their commitment to the book o f the law revealed to Moses on Sinai; (2) 2 Kings 23:3 and 2 Chronicles 34:32 in which the people o f Judah accepted the words o f the book o f the law found i n the temple by H i l k i a h i n the time o f king Josiah; (3) Nehemiah 8:9 in which Ezra read the law to the exiles who had returned from Babylon to Jerusalem. As they listened, the people wept, and Nehemiah 8:11 indicates that they had understood the meaning o f the reading and o f their responsibility.

A l l three events took place during covenant making, or covenant renewal, ceremonies. Therefore, it seems valid to conclude that the covenant relationship between God and His people was determined by their adherence to the "Word o f the L o r d . "

The term kanon was well k n o w n and utilized i n Hellenistic Greek. I n fact, the ancient world was full o f canons (or models/regulations) guiding different aspects o f human activity. I n Galatians 6:16, Paul utilizes the term in the sense o f a measure o f Christian conduct that can be verified.

However, in Scripture it is not used to designate the biblical canon. A t the end o f the first century A . D , Clement o f Rome utilizes the term i n reference to the Christian "tradition" . Nearly a century later, Clement of Alexandria refers to the canon o f faith. From the middle o f the fourth century onward, kanon was used also o f the collection o f sacred writings of both the OT and the NT. 1

2

3

Eusebius usually is credited as the first to use the term i n reference to the binding collection o f Christian Scriptures. However, this does not mean that the concept was not present in N T times. Jesus complied w i t h OT regulations (feasts [John 2:23; 4:45], Sabbath observance, temple services [Luke 21:1], temple tax [Matt 17:24]) and thus indicated their binding character. He refers to O T commands, promises, or other stories i n the context o f " i t is written" (Matt 4:4, 7, 10; 11:10; M a r k 7:6; and others), which always appears as a conclusive argument i n His discussions.

4

The early church seems to reflect this attitude concerning the binding authority o f the OT, as w e l l . The Bereans check the O T Scriptures daily to verify Paul's teachings (Acts 17:11). Paul utilizes the strength of the OT i n his arguments for financial support o f the fledgling ministry (1 Cor 9:9-10, 14), on vengeance being the sole prerogative o f God (Rom 12:19-20), and i n the case o f the universal nature o f sin ( R o m 3: lOff).

Peter argues for a lifestyle o f holiness on the basis o f the O T (1 Pet 2:46). Such evidence suggests the existence o f the concept o f an authoritative body o f texts, utilized to define the limits o f rightful living, both in the OT and i n the NT. So far, both the O T and the N T demonstrate the concept o f canonical writings, i.e., writings that carry authority. This authority is not the result o f individual or organizational decisions but rests upon the authority o f the written (or spoken) Word itself, w h i c h was God-breathed.

Logically, this concept required the existence o f an authoritative collection o f this "Word" o f the Lord. Clearly, this collection was not considered a human collection nor a collection based upon the preferences o f a specific religious leader or religious tradition. The O T (and N T ) authoritative collection (canon) was based upon God's self-revelation.

However, not all inspired writings came to be included i n the canon.

This process o f canonization, a determination o f what to include and o f what to exclude, needs to be understood. While definite answers may not be that easy to come by, a historical review can provide the necessary data, which, in turn, needs to be explained in the light o f the authority claim of Scripture, based upon the doctrine o f revelation. Before undertaking a conceptual explanation o f the process o f canonization, the following two questions need to be addressed: First, which books/texts were included in this canon, and second, when was the biblical canon closed?

92

93

The Text and the Canon of Scripture

The Text and the Canon of Scripture History of the O T Canon Traditionally, the Jewish O T has been divided into three main divisions: Law, Prophets, and Writings (see Table 1): e

Law (Heb. torah)

Prophets (Heb.

n bî'îm)

Genesis

Joshua

Writings (Heb.

Exodus

Judges

Proverbs

Leviticus

1-2 Samuel

Job

kftăbîm)

Psalms

Numbers

1-2 K i n g s

Song o f Songs

Deuteronomy

Isaiah

Ruth

Jeremiah

Lamentations

Ezekiel

Ecclesiastes

The Twelve Prophets (Hosea. Joel,

Esther

A m o s , Obadiah, Jonah, M i c a h .

Daniel

N a h u m , Habakkuk, Zephaniah,

Ezra

Haggai, Zechariah, M a l a c h i )

Nehemiah 1-2 Chronicles

Table 1: The canon o f the Hebrew Bible according to Jewish divisions This threefold division is important for the reconstruction o f the canonization process. The earliest datable extrabiblical reference to its existence is found in the prolog o f the apocryphal book o f Jesus Ben Sirach, which dates to 132 B.C. Other sources, such as Second Maccabees, Philo, and Josephus, cite similar divisions.

The earliest complete codices (i.e. Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) both date from the fourth century A . D . and include some apocryphal books. This canon has also been called the Alexandrian canon. However, it is not clear when the apocryphal books were included, and the current evidence suggests a late date for the inclusion o f these extra-canonical works. Therefore, it appears to be reasonable to argue that these monumental codices (which only came into use from the third century A . D . onwards) exhibit influences prevalent in the early Christian church, which struggled to define its identity against the background o f Rabbinic Judaism.

Tobit, Judith, 1-4 Maccabees, Wisdom o f Solomon, Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) and Baruch, as well as additions to the books o f Esther and additional material i n the book o f Daniel (Susanna and Bel and the Dragon), books not found i n the Hebrew canon. These differences may have been due to the emerging tensions between Judaism and Christianity. I t must be noted that primitive Christianity did not always accept the additional material as authoritative. Athanasius, as well as Jerome, in the fourth century A . D , both mention apocryphal books but clearly distinguish them from the canonical works.

The evidence from Qumran is very informative and important. Complete scrolls and fragments o f all the books i n the Hebrew canon except Esther have been found at Qumran. This is significant, since most o f the scrolls are to ,be dated between the first century B.C. ( w i t h some as early as the second century B.C.) and A . D . 73. Therefore, virtually all books generally connected to the Jewish canon o f the OT, already existed as copies in the second/first century B.C. Secondly, the Qumran community seems to have been also familiar w i t h the threefold division already mentioned i n the prolog o f Jesus Ben Sirach i n the second century B . C . This classification is also shared in different N T texts, such as Luke 24:44, and Matthew 23:35 (with its parallel text i n Luke 11:51).

5

Written around A . D . 100, the apocryphal book 2 Esdras (14:45) refers to the OT canon as containing 24 books (plus another 70 "hidden" books).

Around A . D . 170, Melito, bishop o f Sardis, published his famous list o f books belonging to the OT, which includes all books, except possibly Esther. The crucial question that divides modern scholarship is whether the OT had already stabilized by the time o f Jesus (or before) or whether this only occurred in the first century A . D . or perhaps even later i n the second century A . D .

Significant differences exist between the Hebrew Jewish canon and the canon preserved in the oldest codices o f the L X X . The latter include

M u c h controversy surrounds the so-called "council o f Jamnia." Most discussions o f the canon suggest that the rabbis determined the canonicity o f the O T writings. Jamnia, on the Mediterranean coast o f Palestine, had both a rabbinical school (Beth ha-Midrash) and a legal court (Beth D i n , Sanhedrin) during the period A . D . 70-135. The extent o f the sacred Scripture was one o f many topics discussed there. However, such discussions were not extraordinary, for rabbis argued about them at least once i n the previous generation and also several times long after the Jamnia period.

It is clear that these rabbinical discussions (and many more) played an important role for orthodox Judaism, since they were later included i n the Babylonian Talmud, but they were not formative for the O T canon. A t most, they simply confirmed what had long been established and generally accepted.

94

95

The issue o f the canon o f the L X X must be understood i n the light o f the heightened confrontation and competition between Judaism and the rapidly growing Christian church. Although the L X X originated as a Jewish enterprise, its rapid adoption and authority i n the Christian community as an important tool for the evangelization o f the Roman w o r l d led to a definite rejection o f the L X X (including its canon) by Judaism at the beginning o f the second century A . D .

The Text and the Canon of Scripture

The Text and the Canon of Scripture P h u r c h Father

History of the N T Canon The history o f the N T canon is not as complex as its O T counterpart—partly due to the existence o f codices, which represented a tremendous innovation i n terms o f practicality. When discussing the emergence o f a canon o f the N T church, the primary evidence needs to come from the N T itself. Jesus himself builds his message solidly upon O T law, as can be seen i n the famous phrase " y o u have heard that it was said . . but I say" (Matt 5:33-34, 38-39, 43-44). I n John 10:35 Jesus goes even further, stating that Scripture (graphe) cannot be "broken" (RSV, N I V , N K J V ) , w h i c h logically w o u l d require its binding authority. Other early Christian writings utilize Jesus' commands to argue for the permanence ofthe marital b o n d ( l Cor 7:10-11). Specific teachings are based upon the command o f Jesus (1 Cor 9:14 [gospel-worker sustenance]; 1 Cor 11:17, 23 [Lord's Supper]; and 1 T i m 5:17-18 [remuneration o f elders]).

Paul develops the concept o f the inspiration o f Scripture further, i n eluding not only the k n o w n and established O T canon but also the texts o f t h e new Christian church (2 T i m 3:16; Heb 1:1-2). It is clear that, for the N T writers, the canonicity (binding authority) o f their written works is rooted i n their inspiration. Second Peter 1:21 emphasizes the process not as "man-made" but rather as "God-moved." However, most references allude directly to the spoken word, not necessarily to the written record. Luke's introduction to his Gospel (Luke 1:1-4) refers to the perceived need to have an authoritative written record o f t h e acts, sayings, and message o f Jesus to witness i n an environment that quickly spurned apocryphal " h o l y " writings. Beside the authoritative historical record o f Jesus' life, death, and resurrection (the Gospels), the early church soon included other writings as trustworthy. I n 2 Peter 3:15-16 the apostle includes the writings o f Paul (without being specific) as those inspired by the wisdom that God gave h i m , thus giving them credibility.

Evidence i n the early church fathers suggests that by the close o f t h e first, and the beginning o f the second, century A . D , there existed a collection o f written Christian documents that enjoyed authoritative status.

Table 2 illustrates the use o f N T canonical writings i n the early church fathers.

Church Father

Date

Canonical N T Writings

Clement ot Rome

c. 60-100

Acts (?), Romans, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, Titus, Hebrews, 1 Peter

96

<:anonical N T Writings

I)ate

Ignatius

£Med c. A.D. 107

tUlusion to Matthew, Luke, John, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, 1 and 2 Timothy

Poiycarp

c .70-160

Îvtark, John, Acts, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinhians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Hebrews, 1 Peter

Justin Martyr

c . 100-165

Marcion

<• . A.D. 140

Irenaeus

‫י‬

‫ז‬vlatthew^, Mark(?), Luke, John, Acts, Rornans, 1 Corinthians, Galatians. Ephesians, (3010ssians, 2 Thessalonians, Hebrews, Peter I_uke, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, (jalatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colosians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians. and Philemon Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, hilippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessaonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Hebrews, lames, 1 and 2 Peter, 1 and 2 John, [Jude was juestionedl. Revelation Luke, John, Acts, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Romans, Philemon, Titus, 1 and 2 Timothy, 1 and 2 John, Jude. Revelation

'.. 150-202

3

Muratorian Canon

: . A . D . 190

Clement of Alexandria

c. 155-220

Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, 1 Peter, 1 John, Jude, Revelation

Tertullian

c. 160-220

Hippolytus

170-235

Origen

c. 185-254

Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Hebrews, Titus, 1 Peter, 1 and 2 John, Jude, Revelation Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, 1 Peter, 1 John, Jude, Revelation After traveling extensively, he published, around A . D . 230, a comprehensive list of N T writings that were universally accepted: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, 1 Peter, 1 John, Revelation. Books held in dispute: Hebrews, 2 Peter. 2 and 3 John, James, Jude

97

|

The Text and the Canon of Scripture

The Text and the Canon of Scripture Church Father

Date

C a n o n i c a l N T Writings

Eusebius o f Caesarea

c. 260-340

Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, 1 Peter, 1 John. Revelation Bishop of Alexandria and the first to include all 27 N T books in his canon

c. 296-373

Athanasius

Table 2: Church fathers and their canon Gnostic literature, such as the Evangelium Veritatis (Gospel o f Truth),

by Valentinus ( A . D . 135-140), illustrates the comprehensive use o f the canonical writings and suggests that by that time the canon had already been stabilized, perhaps even considered closed.

During the fourth and fifth century A . D , several synods and councils dealt w i t h the issue o f the canon o f the NT. They did not determine the canonicity o f the N T writings but instead ratified earlier practices. The early church, having begun its development i n a Jewish context, was familiar with the O T concept o f an authoritative body o f texts. Jesus based His understanding o f His person and o f His work on this concept when He refuted the tempter and other adversaries w i t h a resounding " i t is written" (Matt 4:4, 7,10; 21:13; 26:24; Mark 7:6; 9:13), demonstrating His regard for the Scripture o f the O T and for the concept o f an authoritative collection o f texts. The N T church followed this example. N o organized creed or strong ecclesiastical control guaranteed the unity o f the early Christian church; rather, it was adherence to the apostolic witness about Jesus, His message, and His ministry that kept the church relatively united. This adherence needed a faithful and a trustworthy body o f texts to provide a material witness to Jesus.

Protestant Versus Catholic Canon As can be seen easily i n table 3, marked differences exist between the Protestant and the Catholic canons, which ultimately are based upon distinct theological presuppositions.

Protestant Canon

Roman Catholic/Orthodox Canon

History

History 6. Joshua 7. Judges 8. Ruth 9,-10. 1 and 2 Samuel !1.-12. 1 and 2 Kings 13.-14. 1 and 2 Chronicles 15. -16. Ezra and Nehemiah 17.T0bit* 18. Judith* 19. Esther (including additions*)

6.Joshua 7. Judges 8. Ruth 9.-10. 1 and 2 Samuel 11.-12. 1 and 2 Kings 13.-14. 1 and 2 Chronicles 15.-16. Ezra and Nehemiah 17. Esther

Poetry a n d W i s d o m

Poetry and W i s d o m 20. Job 21. Psalms 22. Proverbs ' 23. Ecclesiastes 24. Song of Solomon 25. Wisdom o f Solomon* 26. Ecclesiasticus (Ben Sirach)*

18. Job 19. Psalms 20. Proverbs 21. Ecclesiastes 22. Song of Solomon

Prophets

Prophets 27.

28.

29.

30.

Isaiah Jeremiah Lamentations Baruch (including Letter of Jeremiah*)

31. Ezekiel 32. Daniel (including additions to Daniel*) 33. Hosea 34. Joel 35. Amos 36. Obadiah 37. Jonah 38. Micah 39. Nahum 40. Habakkuk 41. Zephaniah 42. Haggai 43. Zechariah 44. Malachi 45. 1 Maccabeesţ 46. 2 Maccabeesţ

23. Isaiah 24. Jeremiah 25. Lamentations 26. Ezekiel 27. Daniel 28. Hosea 29. Joel 30. Amos 31. Obadiah 32.Jonah 33. Micah 34. Nahum 35. Habakkuk 36. Zephaniah 37. Haggai 38. Zechariah 39. Malachi * = apocryphal i n Protestant canon t = Roman Catholic only

6

Table 3: Comparison of Roman Catholic/Orthodox and Protestant Canon Roman Catholic/Orthodox Canon

Protestant Canon

Pentateuch 1. Genesis 2. Exodus 3. Leviticus 4. Numbers 5. Deuteronomy

Pentateuch 1. Genesis 2. Exodus 3. Leviticus 4. Numbers 5. Deuteronomy

98

Both the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox Church include several books in their recognized canon that are not included either i n the Jewish or in the Protestant canon. Books such as Tobit, Judith, the Additions to Esther, the Additions to Daniel, e t c , have been classified as "apocryphal" books, since their origin was not clear.

They originated around 200 B . C . - A . D . 100 in a period that the rabbis described w i t h the term 7

99

The Text and the Canon of Scripture "cessation o f prophecy." They were included in the L X X and the Latin Vulgate (which was itself partly based upon the L X X ) . I n the patristic period "apocryphal" came to mean "esoteric or secret knowledge," emphasizing the fact that these books contained messages available only to the initiated. For this reason most church fathers d i d not accept these books as authoritative (or belonging to the original O T canon), since the message o f t h e gospel is neither esoteric nor secret. Neither N T writers nor most patristic writers accepted these books as authoritative and as belonging to the recognized canon.

While it is true that some N T books may refer to apocryphal works (e.g., Jude 9 may refer to the Testament o f Moses, Hebrews 11:35 may allude to 2 Maccabees 7), this by no means demonstrates an authorization o f these works. I n several instances Paul quotes Greek philosophers (e.g., Titus 1:12 and Acts 17:28) without necessarily making them canonical or authoritative. I n this sense, a possible reference or allusion to an apocryphal book may make use o f the specific context or known imagery without canonizing it.

8

The L X X evidence that includes apocryphal books is rather late, because most Greek manuscripts that include apocryphal O T books originated i n the fourth or fifth century A . D . Thus they do not provide a reliable perspective o f the canon o f the L X X during the time o f the early (apostolic) church. Furthermore, no N T author cites from an apocryphal book as inspired, utilizing, for example, the familiar phrase "as has been written by the prophet. . ." (Matt 2:5-6; Luke 3:4). Additionally, none ofthe apocryphal books claims to be the Word o f the Lord, as can often be found i n the canonical O T (e.g., N u m 35:1; Josh 1:1; Isa 1:10, etc.). I t should also be remembered that apocryphal books exhibit gross historical and theological errors. Theological inconsistencies include (1) prayer for the dead (2 Mace 12:43-45; although Scripture clearly states that salvation is determined before death [Heb 9:27] and that man does not k n o w anything in death [Eccl 9:5-6]); (2) preexistence o f the soul (Wisdom 8:19-20; although Scripture clearly teaches that man is created and that only God has immortality [1 T i m 6:15-16]); and (3) the Platonic dichotomy between body and soul, whereby the body is considered evil (Wisdom 9:15; although Gen 1:31 indicates that everything [including the material substance] was very good at Creation). Finally, it should be noted that the earliest Christian list ofthe O T canon by Melito (c. A . D . 170) does not include the Apocrypha.

The Text and the Canon of Scripture the tradition and the authority o f the church. This tradition was at stake at Trent, in 1546, because the reformation's call o f sola scriptura

posed a

formidable threat to Catholic tradition. Trent marked a political decision to make what was previously only ecclesiastical tradition equal to Scripture.

By this means, certain doctrines challenged by the Protestant Reformation could be answered from "Scripture."

9

The Catholic Church did not use

Scripture systematically to counter Luther and the other Reformers but sought to counter Protestantism through tradition and scholastic reasoning.

Canon and Tradition Every religious community cherishes specific traditions, whether i n oral or written forms. Oral tradition played an important role in the transmission and preservation ofthe OT canon (Deut 6:20-25; 26:5-9). Therefore, tradition in itself is not negative. The challenging part is the relationship between tradition and (written) Scripture. Which informs which? I n other words, what determines the authority and veracity o f tradition: Scripture or apostolic succession? Traditional Roman Catholic theology often refers to the church's prerogative o f forming, or establishing, the canon. This prerogative is based upon the tradition ofthe apostolic succession ofthe bishop of Rome, who may lead the church to adopt and to delimit new perimeters.

In Eastern Orthodox circles, tradition is defined as the witness ofthe church in its totality, based upon Scripture, but "expressed chiefly in the seven ecumenical councils, the writings o f the fathers, and liturgical worship."

10

11

I n the N T , the Greek term paradosis, "tradition," appears 13 times and generally has negative connotations. Jesus juxtaposes the traditions of the fathers (possibly rabbinical teachings) w i t h divine commands (Matt 15:2-6 and the parallel story i n M a r k 7). I n Galatians 1:14, Paul seems to have a similar connotation i n m i n d when he refers back to his notorious past, although the reference in 1 Corinthians 11:2 appears i n a positive context and should be translated (as done by the N I V ) as "teachings." After the close o f the N T canon, church fathers often connected Scripture w i t h tradition and as a result the borderline between the two began to soften.

It is interesting to note that the Catholic Church canonized the Apocrypha only during the Council o f Trent, in 1546, i n the context ofthe ecclesiastical conflict w i t h Martin Luther. They are known now to Catholics as "deuterocanonical books," i.e., forming the second canon, authorized by

Roman Catholics have appealed repeatedly to a gradual development ofthe biblical canon in order to show that the canon is actually the product ofthe church. From this perspective, the Roman Catholic position on ecclesiology (i.e., the role and function ofthe church) determines, to a large degree, its position on Scripture. Thus, ecclesiology takes precedence over revelation and inspiration. Protestants have emphasized the internal crite-

100

101

The Text and the Canon of Scripture

The Text and the Canon of Scripture

ria o f inspiration and revelation contained in the canonical books. Clearly, the issue at stake is one o f tradition versus Scripture. Historically, the issue was at stake during the Reformation period i n which the Catholic Church ratified the inclusion o f the deuterocanonical books i n their canon at the Council o f Trent ( A . D . 1546). Vatican IPs Constitution on Divine Revela-tion (Dei Verbum) "insisted that 'Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the Magisterium o f the church are so connected and associated that one o f them cannot stand without the others.'"

This statement clearly underlines the Catholic Church's self-purported claim, based upon tradition, to continue the shaping and forming o f "sacred tradition" and o f "sacred Scripture." A good summary o f this position and o f its implications can be found i n the following quote from J. W. Charly: 12

At the heart of Roman Catholic theology lies its exclusive understanding ofthe church and its authority. Its teaching authority stands over that of the Bible and its interpretation. Its priestly authority has control over the church's sacramental life.

13

One expression o f the superior teaching authority of the Roman Catholic Church over that o f the Bible is its inclusion o f the Apocrypha in the OT.

2. Canonization: Criteria and Process Thus far, the canon o f both O T and N T has been described i n historical terms, i.e., by looking at historical witnesses documenting the process o f canonization. These witnesses included the O T or the N T writings themselves, evidence o f the versions, apocryphal and pseudepigraphical books, church fathers, heretics, and also different lists. It was more descriptive than analytical or theological.

Defining valid criteria for the process o f canonization is not an easy task. Modern scholarship emphasizes considerably the sociological factor, whereby the religious community determines, to a certain degree, what is holy and authoritative. Additional factors include (1) Prophetic origin; (2) authorship (i.e., the author had to be known); (3) i n the case ofthe NT, apostolicity; (4) antiquity; (5) orthodoxy (i.e., congruence w i t h what has already been revealed); and (6) inspiration.

that the most decisive criterion considered by both the OT Hebrew/Jewish community and the N T Christian community for their acceptance o f the canon was the concept o f inspiration. Those writings which were inspired, which included a "Thus says the L o r d " and which had proven their inspiration to their contemporaries, were, therefore, included. I n this scenario it is not the church or a religious community that makes a text canonical but rather the content and origin o f the writing, which, i n turn, is recognized and accepted by the church. Clearly, the internal testimony o f the religious text cannot contradict earlier revelations o f God's w i l l ; and, i n most cases, the person connected to the writing had to be recognized.

It seems that by the fourth century B.C., the O T canon had been closed, since contemporary intertestamental and Jewish writings do not regard later literature as "worthy" o f being counted among the inspired books o f the OT. Ezra and Nehemiah (Ezra 7:10; Neh 8:2-8) d i d play an important role i n popularizing the authoritative collection before the people, but they definitely did not "canonize" the OT. In modern critical scholarship, the supposed second-century B.C. dating o f Daniel has been used as an argument for a late formation o f the canon. Since there are sufficient excellent arguments i n favor o f the authentic sixth century B.C. date for the writing o f this book, the canonical question involving the "Writings" is not conclusive. The upsurge o f apocryphal and pseudepigraphical writings during the intertestamental period bears indirect evidence to the Jewish notion o f the closed canon, since it illustrates the concept that, i n order for a new work to be accepted as authoritative, it had to be attributed to an already recognized biblical author.

In N T times, both the first and the last book o f the Jewish canon are cited by Jesus i n a sweeping and important reference to martyrs o f the faith (Matt 23:35). Jesus also seems to have been aware o f the tripartite division o f the Jewish canon, which he utilized to indicate the whole. The rabbinical discussion at Jamnia did not codify a canon; rather, it discussed several books that were challenged from some quarters w i t h i n Judaism.

Clearly, a high view o f revelation and inspiration does not provide much space for a sociological interpretation o f the process o f canonization.

Thus, it appears that, while the concept o f the reception and acceptance o f the authoritative books i n a specific historical context is important, it was not the decisive factor i n the process o f canonization. Rather, it seems

In regard to the N T canon, it appears that the closed canon o f the OT played an important role i n the formation o f the N T canon. Modern scholarship opts for a late closing o f the canon, relying more on historical or sociological necessities, such as the theological challenges i n the turbulent third and fourth centuries A . D . , rather than on internal evidence. The single most important factor for canonization—already seen i n the case o f the OT—is the inspiration o f the writings. God is speaking through prophets or through apostles. This provides the authenticity o f texts i n the community o f the church. I n addition, the definition o f the closing o f the N T canon also depends upon the dating o f certain books. A closed canon at the end ofthe

102

103

The Text and the Canon of Scripture

The Text and the Canon of Scripture second century A . D . can be postulated from the traditional dating o f the Muratorian fragment. After the theological struggles o f the third century A . D . , the fourth century witnessed the official recognition o f the already accomplished fact that went hand in hand with the official recognition o f the church by the Roman authorities and the church's new role as state church.

Canonical Criticism

an evaluation on the methodological level. B y criticizing the content o f biblical books, the critic, whether scholar or lay person, actually makes himself the measure o f truth, not vice versa. This may be postmodern wisdom, but it is definitely not based upon biblical theology.

Some parts of the New Testament [or the OT] may continually wield greater influence because they are longer and more comprehensive. But to raise pragmatic pastoral choices and the accidents o f composition to the obligation to relativize the canon is to deny that there is a canon that must stand as the test of our pastoral choices.

14

Recent decades have generated a tremendous interest in the so-called canonical criticism.

Its goal is to focus upon the biblical text i n its final form. Canonical criticism is not a monolithic block, but represents a tremendous variety o f methods. Instead o f focusing upon individuals it focuses upon the communities that shaped the reception o f these writings. It wants to see how the religious community (whether Judaism or the Christian church) handled different interpretations and pressures before reaching an agreed upon authoritative canon. This is obviously an interesting question, and its historical study might provide some clues for challenges to the twenty-first century church. However, it misses the basic ingredient o f canonization, i.e., the inspired nature o f Scripture. B y focusing upon the communities that generated these "inspired" writings, inspiration resides in the community, rather than in an author. This is not the biblical model that regularly focuses upon the individual (Heb 1:1) and the response o f that individual to God's call for service (Isa 6:1-8).

The Canon-within-the-Canon

The "canon-within-the-canon" concept is actually one side o f a tendency to question the validity o f the concept o f normative authority. Since it does not appear to change the content o f the canon outwardly, i t is the more dangerous one. On the other hand, it encourages the tendency to expand the canon and include apocryphal or other contemporary religious writings into the accepted canon.

Some interpreters want to distinguish between the N T and the O T in terms o f the "canon within the canon," whereby the N T "obviously" holds the higher authority. But here an important theological principle is at stake. Different levels o f inspiration do not exist—at least not according to Scripture. To facilitate the "canon w i t h i n the canon," one must assign different levels o f inspiration. The only alternative, albeit not as sound in terms o f its methodology, would be an arbitrary selection based upon personal preference. Truly, the very idea o f a normative and authoritative canon speaks against such a concept.

Concept Establishing the Biblical Text—Textual Criticism

The "canon-within-the-canon" concept is another important development in the theological reflection about the canon. I t suggests that, for specific circumstances or a specific point i n time or even a specific religious community, some books are to be valued higher than others. After all, even M a r t i n Luther referred to the book o f James as the "straw epistle" The "canon-within-the-canon" concept has also been called the "christological principle."

The question is, Would it not be acceptable to define a nucleus o f books w i t h i n the accepted canon that contains the most essential and important content? Another metaphor often utilized in this context—and also often seen i n recent Adventist publications—is the reference to core points o f belief. Core and periphery are two poles also visible i n the discussion o f the canon w i t h i n the canon. We observe that the idea o f the canon within the canon is closely connected to content criticism. Obviously, it requires

Textual Criticism is an essential ingredient o f exegesis, because it provides the textual basis needed for an adequate interpretation and for theology. Generally, however, i t is the least noticed and least understood sub-discipline o f biblical studies since i t does not occupy the "frontrow" o f new theological methods or insights. God's Spirit not only inspired the authors o f His Word i n ancient times but also saw to i t that the transmission o f the inspired Word was done i n a faithful manner. Both rabbinical instructions and material evidence from Qumran suggest that the transmission process was indeed a holy affair, done w i t h great care and under supervision. Jewish regulations included the type o f material used, the size o f the columns, the type o f ink used, the space requirements between letters and words, and the religious fitness o f t h e copying scribe.

104

105

The Text and the Canon of Scripture

The Text and the Canon of Scripture However, there is another important aspect in thinking about the transmission o f Scripture: God not only inspired His prophets to write down His message on planet earth, He also guarded the overall process o f transmission o f his Word (Ps 12:6-7; Rev 22:19, I S M 15). Nevertheless, both Scripture itself (Acts 7:16. c f . Gen 23:8; 33:19; Matt 27:9) and Ellen G. White ( I S M 16) provide for possible errors o f copying and transmission.

It is here that Textual Criticism provides relevant tools to discover possible errors i n the transmission process and to identify these errors, thus establishing the most reliable wording o f the biblical text. Such errors, however, do not involve doctrinal issues but usually only numbers, names, or places. We must keep i n mind the relevant proportions. Only about ten percent o f the Hebrew text o f the standard edition includes some textual note. Thus, ninety percent o f the text stands unquestioned, and even the ten percent w i t h some textual uncertainty does not significantly alter the meaning o f the text and not at all the doctrines o f Scripture. The following working definition provides a convenient point o f departure in order to understand and appreciate the task o f Textual Criticism: Textual criticism seeks to establish the most reliable wording of the biblical text bv applying specific principles, comparing the most ancient manuscripts and extant versions.

Textual Criticism deals primarily w i t h the transmission o f the biblical text and is not an appropriate tool to discover the origin or alleged later redaction (or edition) o f any given biblical text, a trend that has become fashionable i n recent studies i n Textual Criticism.

Ancient texts did not come down to us in printed or digital forms, but for more than 3000 years scribes had to manually copy and re-copy from earlier copies. While it is common to find errors i n modern printed material which has been proofread and digitally checked and re-checked many times, the transmission o f ancient texts depended entirely upon sound criteria, concentration, and the ability o f ancient scribes. It is clear that even these extraordinary scholars occasionally failed, resulting i n textual errors i n subsequent copies. Often, when the next scribe copied the faulty text, he tried to correct the earlier error, which sometimes resulted in even more confusion.

to draw, each o f which has its limitations, but, i n the aggregate, they provide strong evidence for their reliability. For the OT, the Masoretic Text is our most important witness i n Hebrew. Discovery o f the famous Dead Sea Scrolls has cast new light on how the Scriptures were regarded and preserved. In the main, these texts, some 1000 years older than our other biblical textual sources, confirm both the reading o f the traditional Hebrew text and the intensity o f efforts to preserve the sacred books intact. Other manuscript sources include the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Septuagint ( L X X ) , and various commentaries and references by later writers. For the N T our sources are relatively abundant, w i t h thousands o f manuscripts, some o f which are o f great antiquity. Among the papyri fragments are a few documents that were produced within a single generation o f the time the biblical books were first written. Ancient translations and quotations from early Christian writers provide more sources.

While we cannot here explore the technical methods used to ascertain the correct reading o f the original writings, this useful process has become a refined science as w e l l as something o f an art. I n brief, we can affirm the reliability o f the biblical text upon w h i c h the translations are based. Because every translation comes w i t h a b u i l t - i n point o f view, consulting several translations helps us grasp the original intention ofthe Bible writer. We w i l l be wise, however, to select translations that adhere closely to the actual readings o f the manuscript sources, being wary o f building theological understandings on loose translations that incorporate significant adaptations into their w o r k i n an effort to popularize the Bible.

Conclusion

With respect to sources, the Bible comes to us better attested than any other ancient writings. In most cases we have multiple sources from which

The Seventh-day Adventist understanding o f the canon and o f the text is based upon a clear understanding o f inspiration. The same H o l y Spirit who inspired authors i n different time periods, i n different historical contexts also has remained actively involved i n the conservation and transmission o f Scripture. One o f the main features o f the biblical canon is the self-authenticating nature o f the texts, since they were "inspired."

As indicated earlier, canonization is not a sociological phenomenon, but a historical affirmation ofthe authority and "God-breathed" nature o f Scripture. Apparently, by the end o f the fifth century B.C., the OT canon had been widely determined, w i t h only a few books still being discussed i n Jewish circles. Jesus and the apostles understood Scripture as the definite collection witnessed to, and known from, Judaism o f the period. The

106

107

On the surface, such scribal variations would seem to raise significant challenges, for, after all, the sacred message is involved. I n almost every case, however, alternative readings introduce few questions into the actual message being transmitted. The theology involved stands above what are described as minor scribal errors, because the major doctrines o f the Bible rest on a broad sweep o f teachings.

The Text and the Canon of Scripture

The Text and the Canon of Scripture early church adopted the scriptural concept o f Judaism and formulated a canon, as well. I n general, this process was completed by the second century A . D . , although continued discussion surfaces i n patristic writings.

Canon, as well as Scripture itself, is not based upon tradition but rather upon God's authoritative speaking and preserving.

Once the limits o f the canon have been recognized, the transmission process o f Scripture needs to be understood. I n order to appreciate the tremendous endeavor o f copying the Bible by hand during 2,500 years prior to Gutenberg's invention o f the moveable type press i n A . D . 1456, we need to understand the office o f the copyist/scribe, the possibility o f errors, the nature o f the languages employed, and the history o f the text and its versions.

Today, even laymen, without access to the original languages, can take advantage o f a variety o f aids at their disposal, ranging from translations and Bible dictionaries to commentaries written by specialists and other published sources. As always when using such aids, the reader must remain sensitive to the preferences, opinions, and even biases o f those who prepared these works. I n order for the modem readers to have access to the message o f God, it is necessary to approach His Word w i t h respect and under the guidance o f the H o l y Spirit.

The importance o f working more seriously and closely with God's Word was already pinpointed by Isaiah, who declared, "So is m y word that goes out from m y mouth; it w i l l not return to me empty, but w i l l accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent i t " (Isa 55:11, N I V ) .

References 1. Altogether kanon appears 4 times in the NT, (Gal 6:16 and 2 Cor 10:13, 15, 16). In 2 Corinthians 10 it refers to an appointed sphere of ministry. See Linda L. Belleville, "Canon o f the New Testament," in Foundations for Biblical Interpretation. A Complete Library of Tools and Resources, eds. David S. Dockery, Kenneth A. Mathews, and Robert B. Sloan (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), p. 375.

2. He wrote, "Let us give up idle, vain considerations, and let us turn to the renowned and solemn standard (kanona) that has come down to us." (7 Clement 7:2 in Edgar J. Goodspeed, The Apostolic Fathers [London: Independent Press, 1950], p. 52).

3. Clement of Alexandria The Stromata 6.15.125.

4. Belleville, p. 375, suggests that Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria around A.D. 353 was the first to use the term in the sense of distinguishing authentic Scripture from non-authentic. In A.D. 363 the synod of Laodicea was the first church council to employ the term to distinguish between "canonical" and "noncanonical" books.

108

5. The reference in Matthew 23:35 connects Abel, the first martyr, with Zechariah, the last martyr mentioned in the last book of the Jewish canon (2 Chron 24-20). Genesis and 2 Chronicles represent, according to the Jewish canon, the first and the last books of the canon.

6. The table is based upon Andrew E. Hill and John H . Walton, A Survey of j Old Testament (Grand Rapids, M I : Zondervan Publishing House, 1991), p. t 1e

21.

7. Apocryphal means "hidden" and denotes those books that appeared on the fringes of the canon of either the OT or the NT. A concise introduction to the OT Apocrypha can be found in James H . Charlesworth, "Old Testament Apocrypha." in Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman, Gary A. Herion, David F. Graf et al., 6 vols. (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 1:292294. Individual helpful studies can be found in George W. E. Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature Between the Bible and the Mishnah (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981).

8. Probably he was quoting Epimenides of Crete (Acts 17:28a; Tit 1:12) and Aratus of Cilicia (Acts 17:28b).

9. For example, the doctrine of purgatory has a convenient basis in Wisdom 3:1-6.

10. It was the bishop of Rome, Basil the Great (c. 330-379) who steered the official theology of the Catholic Church towards the position that "unwritten traditions of apostolic origin, not found in the Scriptures but preserved in the church, could be accepted as having divine authority." (Peter M . van Bemmelen; "Revelation and Inspiration" in Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist Theology, ed. Raoul Dederen, Commentary Reference Series, vol. 12 [Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 2000], p. 47).

11. John Van Engen, "Tradition," in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed.

Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids, Ml/Carlisle: Baker Books/Paternoster Press, 1984), p. 1105.

12. Daniel J. Harrington, "Introduction to the Canon," in The New Interpreter's Bible. Volume I : General Articles, ed. Leander E. Keck, 12 vols. (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1994), 1:20.

13. J. W. Charly, "Roman Catholic Theology," in New Dictionary ofTheology, eds. Sinclair B. Ferguson and David F. Wright (Leicester/Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1988), p. 598.

14. D. A. Carson, Douglas J. Moo, and Leon Morris, An Introduction to the New Testament (Grand Rapids, M I : Zondervan Publishing House, 1992), p.

498.

Selected Bibliography Beckwith, R. The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and its Background in Early Judaism. Grand Rapids, M I : Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1985.

109

The Text and the Canon of Scripture Black, D. A. New Testament Textual Criticism. A Concise Guide. Grand Rapids, M I : Baker Books, 1994.

Brotzman, E. R. Old Testament Textual Criticism. A Practical Introduction. Grand Rapids, M I : Baker Book House, 1994.

Carson, D. A. and Woodbridge, J. D. Eds. Hermeneutics, Authority and Canon.

Grand Rapids, Ml/Carlisle, U.K.: Baker Books/Paternoster Press, 1995.

Hasel, G. F. "Divine Inspiration and the Canon of the Bible." Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 5.1 (1994): 68-105.

Jobes, Κ. H. and M . Silva. Invitation to the Septuagint. Grand Rapids, M I : Baker Academic, 2000.

Maier, G. Biblical Hermeneutics. Transl. by R. W. Yarbrough. Wheaton, I I I : Crossway Books, 1994.

McDonald, L. M . The Formation of the Christian Biblical Canon. 2d rev. ed.

Peabody, M A : Hendrickson Publishers, 1995.

Metzger, Β. M . The Canon of the New Testament. Its Origin, Development, and Significance. Oxford, U.K.: Clarendon Press, 1987.

Oswalt, J. N . "Canonical Criticism: A Review from a Conservative Viewpoint."

Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 30 (1987): 317-325. Τον, Ε. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. 2d rev. ed. Minneapolis/Assen: Fortress Press/Royal Van Gorcum, 2001.

Ulrich, E. The Dead Sea Scrolls and Origins of the Bible. Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature. Grand Rapids, Ml/Leiden: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company/Brill Academic Publishers, 1999.

Waltke, Β. K. "Textual Criticism of the Old Testament and Its Relation to Exegesis and Theology." In New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis, ed. W. A. VanGemeren. 5 vols., 1:51-67. Grand Rapids, M I : Zondervan Publishing House, 1997.

Wurthwein, E. The Text of the Old Testament. 2d rev. ed. Transl. by E. F. Rhodes.

Grand Rapids, M I : Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1995.

CHAPTER VII

GUIDELINES FOR THE INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE Ekkehardt Muller

Introduction A crucial and very practical issue today involves the question o f which method should be employed to interpret Scripture, for interpretation is necessary, as pointed out even by Jesus (Luke 24:27). This chapter begins w i t h general guidelines, then moves to specific exegetical steps that help us understand God's Word. From the beginning, we must keep in mind that the goal o f our interpretation must be to create a "burning heart" (Luke 24:32) in both the expositor and i n the audience, which draws them closer to God.

1. The Historical-Biblical Method The historical-biblical method is sometimes called the biblicalgrammatical approach to Scripture, the historical-grammatical method, or the grammatical-historical method. I t is to be distinguished from the predominant historical-critical method w i t h its source criticism, form criticism, redaction criticism, tradition history, and socio-scientific criticism.

In contrast to most other approaches, the historical-biblical method acknowledges the self-testimony o f Scripture and studies its phenomena. It accepts the claim that God revealed Himself (1 Sam 3:21), that He entered into a relationship w i t h the human authors o f Scripture (Amos 3:7; Eph 3:5), that He also revealed propositional truth and communicated messages (Dan 10:1; Titus 1:3), that He inspired the human authors to share these messages w i t h others (2 T i m 3:16; 1 Pet 1:10-12: 2 Pet 1:19-21), and that the inscripturated message is the Word o f God ( M a r k 7:10-13). Basic presuppositions ofthe historical-biblical method are: 1. The Bible alone is the final and the highest test o f truth (Isa 8:20; 66:2). A l i e n principles o f interpretation forced upon the Bible from the

110

111

Guidelines for the Interpretation of Scripture outside that do not respect its self-testimony must be rejected. Principles derived from philosophy, psychology, and sociology cannot control the interpretation o f the text. Tradition and science do not determine matters o f faith, although they have their rightful place in human life.

2. A second presupposition involves the totality o f Scripture. The ‫־‬ B i b l e is the written W o r d o f God, as a whole, not simply here and there (2 T i m 3:16). The message o f the prophets and o f the apostles is the prepositional W o r d o f G o d (2 Chron 36:15-16; R o m 3:2; 1 Thess 2:13).

The human and the divine sides o f Scripture are linked inseparably (2 Pet 1:19-21).

3. The analogy or the harmony o f Scripture is seen in three points: (a) Scripture is its o w n expositor (Luke 24:27). A l l texts dealing w i t h one topic must be brought together and studied i n order to present correctly biblical doctrine. This is not proof-texting, i n w h i c h texts are strung together w i t h o u t regard to their context, (b) There is a fundamental agreement or u n i t y w i t h i n Scripture (John 10:35). (c) There is also clarity i n Scripture. This clarity not only means that the Bible can be understood but also that clear texts shed light on difficult texts (1 Pet 1:10-12).

4. Spiritual things must be discerned spiritually (1 Cor 2:11,14): (a) Whoever wants to understand Scripture needs the illumination ofthe Holy Spirit (John 14:26). Yet, the H o l y Spirit does not work contrary to the Scripture that He has inspired, (b) O n the other hand, whoever interprets Scripture must have faith and a spiritual attitude (2 Chron 20:20).

The Issue of the Text Our w o r l d today is different from the ancient Near East. Most o f us speak languages other than those used by the writers o f the Bible, and many elements o f our cultures differ from those described in the Bible.

Therefore, we must investigate the biblical texts and try to understand the languages, the time, and the circumstances under which these texts were written. We must try to see w i t h the eyes o f those who lived centuries ago and hear w i t h their ears when they were addressed w i t h the biblical message. While attempting to overcome barriers o f time, language, and culture, we believe that we can come close to the biblical text and apply it to our situation today.

But do we need to distinguish sharply between what the text meant and what the text means? Behind this question lies the idea and the agenda that the biblical text must be reapplied i n a totally new way in order to meet our present situation. When this is done, biblical vocabulary is still 112

Guidelines for the Interpretation of Scripture used but is invested with a completely new meaning. For example, some claim that the resurrection o f Jesus, which the N T presents as a guarantee for the future physical resurrection o f the redeemed, was not a historical and physical resurrection. Instead, it merely points to a spiritual resurrection o f the believers to a new dimension o f life here and now, whatever that may mean. B y following this approach we would replace God's original intentions w i t h the authority o f the human interpreter and would open the text to innumerable interpretations, replacing truth w i t h relativism and pluralism.

Although we believe that God through the prophets spoke to particular situations, His message transcends these situations and reaches us today.

Despite time-bound differences, a high degree o f continuity characterizes the human race independent o f time, culture, and circumstances, especially when it comes to moral issues.

1

God's Word is not culturally or historically conditioned but culturally/ historically constituted. It transcends cultures and reaches us today. Therefore, what the biblical text meant i n principle i n its original setting is precisely what the text means for us today. A n y application o f a text to our situation must be tied to the original meaning. As already pointed out, Jesus himself was convinced that Scripture was directed not only to the original audience but also to the generation o f His time, as well as to those to come.

2

2. Interpreting a Biblical Text When we talk about a biblical text, we may refer either to an individual verse or to a larger biblical passage containing a number o f verses.

These are the basic exegetical steps i n chronological order: Turning to God i n prayer 1.

Reading the text 2.

Using the best possible reading 3.

Translating the text 4.

Investigating the context 5.

Analyzing the text 6.

Performing theological analysis 7.

A p p l y i n g the text 8.

Using resources 9.

Taking time 10. o Each f these steps is essential. However, persons not trained in theology or biblical exegesis may want to skip step three, w o r k w i t h an existing translation (step four), and may simplify some other approaches discussed

Guidelines for the Interpretation of Scripture under step six. Even w i t h these adjustments, they w i l l benefit from the historical-biblical approach to Scripture.

3

Step One: Turning to G o d in Prayer Scripture. Since spiritual things are discerned spiritually (1 Cor 2:14), it is natural to turn to God i n prayer before starting to study the Bible.

Since the Bible is the Word o f God, the illumination o f t h e H o l y Spirit is essential for its proper understanding. The interaction between prayer and the study o f Scripture is illustrated i n Daniel 9:1-19. I n this case, Bible study was followed by prayer.

Exegetical Step. I n prayer we ask God for w i s d o m (Jas 1:5) and for the guidance o f the H o l y Spirit (Luke 11:13) as we open His Word.

However, prayer is not l i m i t e d to the time prior to the study o f Scripture. The interpreter may turn to G o d throughout the endeavor to understand the biblical text, presenting to the L o r d what puzzles h i m or her and reacting to the personal challenges o f Scripture. Thus, a dialog takes place between G o d and His W o r d on one side and the human agent on the other.

Guidelines for the Interpretation of Scripture Exegetical Step. Despite thousands o f biblical manuscripts that have been discovered, we do not have the original manuscripts. The extant manuscripts are copies o f copies originating w i t h the autographs, containins a number o f different readings. Scholars o f the text are interested i n the potential reconstruction o f the original biblical text, w i t h the goal o f coming as close as possible to the original. The Bible remains the best preserved manuscript o f antiquity and is both trustworthy and reliable.

Textual analysis can be quite demanding and is the domain o f specialists.

It requires a good working knowledge i n several ancient languages, for the task does not stop w i t h the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. I t extends to versions i n other languages, as well as to quotations i n the writings ofthe church fathers. Therefore, most o f us w i l l w o r k w i t h the established Greek and Hebrew texts and/or translations into our mother tongues.

Step Four: Translating the Text

Scripture.

I n biblical times, great numbers o f biblical manuscripts were not yet available, but the N T authors seem to have used different forms o f t h e Septuagint ( L X X ) and o f the Hebrew text. However, the Bible stresses the need o f its preservation without additions and deletions (Deut 4:2; 12:32; Rev 22:18-19). Since today we have at hand thousands o f N T manuscripts, as well as many O T documents, we need to look for the best possible text.

Scripture. In contrast to the Qur'an, which basically has to be read i n Arabic, the biblical text comes i n three languages, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Translations may be found w i t h i n the Bible itself, for example, i n Genesis 31:48 (Aramaic and Hebrew) and Romans 8:15 (Aramaic and Greek).

Exegetical Step. The person who is able to read the biblical Ianguages—Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek—should translate the passage under investigation and put i t down i n w r i t i n g . Nuances and options exist in a text that no translation can ever capture. The translators have already made certain decisions, and even the best translation is already an interpretation.

A l l those who do not have access to the respective biblical language should consult—where possible—a number o f good translations. There are different ways to translate the Bible. One can find paraphrases, which actually are not translations but rather descriptions o f the biblical content in one's o w n words w i t h plenty o f room for interpretation. The Clear Word, for example, is a paraphrase. Real translations can be distinguished as formal or dynamic translations.

Formal translations seek to stay as close to the original language as possible. The K i n g James Version, the Revised Standard Version, and the New American Standard Bible belong to the category o f formal translations. However, some versions may sound somewhat wooden.

Dynamic translations try to create a relationship between reader and translation similar to that which existed between the original reader and the original text. They are less literal than formal translations. They not only

114

115

Step Two: Reading the Text Scripture. I n Revelation 1:3, the readers o f the Apocalypse are called blessed. I n Luke 4:16-19, Jesus reads Scripture before He starts to interpret and apply it (Luke 4:21-27). Reading the Scripture may be private or public. I n our case, we are referring to private reading ofthe text.

Exegetical Step. In order to become familiar w i t h the passage, the text must be read carefully and repeatedly, preferably i n its larger context.

Memorizing the passage can be very helpful. Memorization requires a constant repetition o f the text. Frequently this repetition causes the paragraph to come alive to the reader, opening new understanding.

Step Three: Using the Best Possible Reading

4

Guidelines for the Interpretation of Scripture analyze the text but try to restructure it. The New English Bible (NEB) and Today s English Version (TEV) belong to this type o f translation, whereas the New International Version (NIV) stands between the formal and the dynamic translations.

Good English translations include the King James Version, although the language is sometimes outdated and, on occasion, difficult to understand. Furthermore, the Greek manuscripts used for the K J V do not i n elude better manuscripts discovered later. The New King James Version (NKJV), the Revised Standard Version (RSV), the New International Version (NIV), the American Standard Version (ASV), and the New American Standard Bible (NASB) are based on the most ancient manuscripts, w i t h the latter two being the most literal English translations.

Although sometimes we may encounter problems with Bible translations, in general, they can be trusted. Using more than one translation is a safeguard against liberties taken by some translators or groups o f translators.

Step Five: Investigating the Context

Guidelines for the Interpretation of Scripture cal context. The historical context is very helpful and very much needed to gain a better understanding o f the text that w i l l be explored. As an example, the date in which the B o o k o f Daniel was written, as well as the name ofthe author, can be derived from the book itself. Dates for events that have taken place, as well as other chronological data, can oftentimes be found at the beginning ofthe different chapters (Dan 1:1; 2 : 1 ; 6:1; 7:1; 8:1; 9:1; 10:1). Consequently, the book is placed i n the sixth century B.C. 2. The Literary Context: The literary context consists o f the verses, paragraphs, chapters, and even books that precede and follow the text to be studied. Normally, the literary context is available more readily than the historical context. Therefore, we distinguish between the larger and the more immediate literary context. a. The Larger Literary Context—The larger literary context is Scripture, more specifically, the biblical book from which the text is taken. This context must be consulted. The text under investigation is part ofthe overall message o f the biblical author, and somehow it must fit into his overall message. Normally, texts are not disconnected totally from their larger context.

Therefore, we look to find the place o f the author's major argument.

Scripture. A negative example that illustrates the neglect ofthe scriptural context is Jesus' second temptation (Matt 4:6) in which Satan challenges Jesus w i t h a quotation from Psalm 91:11-12. The quotation has been shortened as compared w i t h the original text and, therefore, somewhat misrepresented. The Psalmist talks about God's guidance " i n all your ways" and not just about His intervention in special situations. The context i n Psalm 91 reveals that there are snares and plagues from which God preserves the faithful. Jesus opposes any misrepresentation ofthe biblical text by disregarding its context. I n Matthew 19:4-8 Jesus discusses divorce by citing the OT context o f creation (larger context) and confirms the principle o f Scripture being its own interpreter.

For instance, the letter to the Galatians deals specifically w i t h justification by faith, whereas Ephesians stresses the nature ofthe church. The overall message or important themes o f a biblical book can be identified by trying to find a statement o f the author telling us his purpose o f writing; by outlining the document; by watching for repetition o f words, phrases, or themes; by focusing on interacting persons; and by taking note o f the place i n which action happens and o f the time involved.

Exegetical Step. We need to distinguish between the historical-cultural context and the literary context. The literary context can be classified as the larger literary context or the'immediate literary context.

1. The Historical Context: The historical-cultural context provides answers to such question as: When was the biblical book written? Who was the human author? To w h o m was the book originally addressed? What was the author's purpose? A t which time and i n which geographical location did events described i n this book happen? What was the political, economic, and social situation at that time? What do we know about the religious background and situation? W h i c h customs were prevailing? H o w did people live, work, and support themselves? What did they eat? The Bible itself, archeology, geography, and history throw light on the histori-

The most sweeping context is the entire Bible w i t h its plan o f salvation.

Normally, each text that we study contains interesting words and specific topics. First o f all, these words and topics should be traced throughout the biblical book in which they appear. I f the author has written more than one book, we may also trace them through all these biblical books. Finally, it is legitimate to go one step further and explore how other biblical authors have used the very same words and concepts. There may be continuity or discontinuity, although the writers o f Scripture do not contradict each other. They may have different emphases. Here we encounter the principle that Scripture is its own interpreter and that one text may illuminate another one.

116

117

Consider an example from Peter. I n first Peter the author seems to focus on suffering. No book o f the N T refers to suffering so often and develops this topic so clearly. But despite their suffering, the apostle calls the church members to holy conduct and to good works, a secondary theme.

b. The Immediate Literary Context—One o f the most important activities, i f not the most important element i n biblical interpretation, is the

Guidelines for the Interpretation of Scripture

Guidelines for the Interpretation of Scripture study ofthe literary context. Even the meaning o f words normally is determined by the context. Being able to discern how a text is embedded i n its context helps the Bible student avoid false or biased interpretations.

For example, Isaiah 65:17-25 is not yet the description o f the new heavens and the new earth as found i n Revelation 21-22. I n Isaiah 65:20 death is still present. See also Isaiah 65:23 and 66:23-24. This is a conditional prophecy for Israel, pointing to an almost ideal state that was never fulfilled on a local scale but that looks forward to the ultimate fulfillment on a universal scale as found in Revelation 21-22. Similarly, 1 Corinthians 2:9 does not describe the new earth, but the wisdom o f God revealed i n Jesus for our salvation. Studying the context also includes investigating its structure, determining the delimitation o f passages, and identifying its literary genre.

(1) The Structure: While reading the immediate context, i.e., the verses and paragraphs preceding and succeeding the text to be studied, these questions must be kept in m i n d : H o w does our text fit into the context? H o w is the text connected to what comes before and what follows?

A t times, readers o f the N T Gospels and o f the Epistles get the impression that the authors are somewhat disorganized i n presenting their ideas or narratives. However, i f studied diligently, usually a well-organized outline and a clear purpose emerge. The authors do not always follow our conventions. For instance, they may link passages w i t h the use o f one or more theological terms. Biblical books are not chaotic creations, lacking a degree o f sequence and arrangement, but excellent literature. Therefore, it is indispensable to examine carefully the structure o f the context to get a clear picture o f what is going on.

Determining the structure o f a passage or a document may help us to understand the author's line o f thought, notice connections between different parts o f a document, and enhance our understanding o f the paragraph.

Outlining the context may be achieved by analyzing the content o f the document or studying the literary features o f the book, such as recurring words, phrases, and whole sentences. To establish a structure one may look for theological motifs, persons being mentioned, geographical locations, the time frame o f a document, chiasms, progressions, thematic parallels, parallel reports, and repetitions.

• Theological M o t i f — A n important theological m o t i f in the Gospel o f Luke is the rejection o f the Messiah. I t is constantly repeated.

• Persons Being Mentioned—Acting personages o f Revelation 4 : 1 8:1 differ widely from those mentioned i n Revelation 8:2-11:18. I n the vision ofthe seals the lamb appears ten times, i n the vision ofthe trumpets 118

not at all. This is also true for the l i v i n g beings who are found twelve times in Revelation 4-7 and not at all i n the trumpets section. However, the inhabitants o f the earth are emphasized i n the trumpets.

• Geographic Locations—Geographic locations are quite important in John's Gospel and could be used to structure it.

• Time Frame—In Revelation, the first part portrays several times the period between the first century A . D . and the final consummation, whereas the second part focuses on end time events only.

• Chiasm—A chiasm is a structure i n which the first section corresponds w i t h the very last section, the second from the beginning w i t h the second from the end, the third from the beginning w i t h the third from the end, etc. I t may have a single peak or a double peak i n the middle. Chiasms are typical o f Hebrew thinking.

Daniel 2 — Four Daniel 3 — Daniel 4 Daniel 5 Daniel 6 — Daniel 7 — Four •

empires Death decree for the faithful — Judgment on Babylon's king — Judgment on Babylon's king Death decree for the faithful empires

Progression—Progression is found i n the introductory scenes o f

Revelation, all o f them relating to the sanctuary.

• Thematic parallels—A thematic parallel exists between the person born blind and those spiritually blind i n John 9.

• Parallel reports—Parallel reports occur in the conversion stories of Paul i n Acts 9, 22, and 26.

• Repetitions—Repetitions are frequent, for instance, those found in Revelation 16:12-21 as compared w i t h Revelation 17-19.

(2) Delimitation o f Passages: Another question raised when studying the context and later when analyzing the text is: Where are the boundaries o f a passage? Where does a paragraph start and end? Determining the delimitation o f passages becomes very important i n the B o o k o f Revelation.

(3) The Literary Genre: Another issue is the k i n d o f literature being used. Do we find prose or poetry? Poetry oftentimes is quite figurative and metaphorical and should not be over-interpreted. Yet, the other extreme to discount any historical value found in poetry must be avoided.

Is the context and/or text a historical report or a prophecy? I f a prophecy, is it classical prophecy or apocalyptic prophecy, such as found i n Daniel and Revelation, that may include many symbols and fantastic figures?

119

Guidelines for the Interpretation of Scripture

Guidelines for the Interpretation of Scripture

Classical prophecy is normally conditional. It may also have more than one fulfillment, whereas apocalyptic prophecy "depicts the struggle between good and evil, and the ultimate victory and establishment o f God's eternal kingdom. It is, therefore, not conditional on human responses" and portrays the future as it w i l l be rather than as it may be.

Step Six: Analyzing the Text

3.

(a) Question (b) Answer (Topic: Goods and soul) b. Scene 2: God Monolog (Topic: Soul and goods) Conclusion: The principle

Scripture. In some places the Scripture's structures are clearly discernable. Some chiasms, many parallelisms, and the acrostic outline o f certain psalms are recognizable for almost everyone. John, i n the Apocalypse, seems to have adopted certain structural principles from Daniel, such as recapitulation.

b.

I n an acrostic outline the letters o f the alphabet are successively

5

N T authors, using the OT, have stressed specific words and interpreted them. For example, in Romans 4 Paul refers back to Genesis 15:6 and explains justification by faith. I n Galatians 3:16, he emphasizes the singular o f t h e noun "seed." I n the O T quotations listed in Romans 3, Paul underscores the words "no one" and " a l l " before drawing the conclusion that "all have sinned and fall short o f the glory o f G o d " (Rom 3:23). Scripture encourages us to take a careful look at the text.

a. A n outline allows us to perceive better the issues the author is presenting, his main line o f thought, the digressions he makes, and the arrangement o f the material.

12:20

12:21

6

used at the beginning o f successive verses. This can be seen only i n the original language. c.

A n inclusion is a kind o f envelope structure. A statement at the

beginning o f a passage is repeated at its end. d. A chiasm can use an A B B ' A ' or an A B A ' pattern. They can be extended or joined together, and are found on sentence and on verse level, as well as on the level o f large units and even o f biblical books.

A chiasm appears i n the book o f Amos (5:4-6a).

A

Exegetical Step. Analyzing a text includes the investigation o f the text's structure, its literary form, individual words, phrases, sentences, and larger units.

1. Different Kinds of Structures: The structure o f verses and paragraphs can be quite different. I t must be kept in m i n d that a structure should not be forced upon a text; rather, it has to be extracted from the text. Therefore, a change o f w o r d order or o f verse order to fit a structure must be rejected. However, finding the outline o f a text may help us considerably to understand and interpret it. Here are a few o f the possible patterns:

12:17 12:18-19

"For thus says the LORD to the house of Israel: SEEK ME AND LIVE; Β but do not seek Bethel, C

A'

and do not enter into Gilgal D or cross over to Beersheba; C for Gilgal shall surely go into exile, Β ' and Bethel shall come to nothing.

SEEK THE LORD AND LIVE, or He will break out against the house of Joseph like fire" (NRSV).

e. The most important feature i n Hebrew poetry is parallelism. I t also extends to the N T , because its authors followed Hebrew thinking. I n parallelism the second line stands i n a close relation to the thought ofthe first line, either as a repetition, expansion, or contrast. Therefore, one line can be used to explain the other line.

A well-known instance o f parallelism exists in Proverbs 9:10. Here we relate the units by setting them i n grouped style.

Luke 12:15-21 can be outlined as follows: The fear 1.

2.

Introduction: The principle The parable a. Scene 1: The rich man (1) Information on h i m (2) Soliloquy 120

12:15 12:16-20 12:16-19) 12:16 12:17-19

ofthe L O R D

is

A n d the knowledge ofthe H o l y One is

the beginning o f wisdom, understanding ( N I V ) .

f. Other features include climax, contrast, and repetition o f words, phrases, and thoughts. For instance, i n 1 John 1:6-10 a l l the verses start similarly ( " i f w e " ) . Three o f them begin i n precisely the 121

Guidelines for the Interpretation of Scripture

Guidelines for the Interpretation of Scripture same way: " i f we s a y " ( l : 6 , 8, 10). These three verses are a l l negative and form a sharp contrast to the verses between them that contain divine promises (1:7, 9). This structure highlights the difference between human claims and God's offer. Furthermore, an intensification takes place w i t h the negative verses (1:6, 8, 10) so that the climax is reached in the last verse.

2. Literary Forms: Literary forms may change as the reader moves from context to the text itself. O n the level o f the forms we may, for instance, distinguish between confessions, thanksgiving, hymns, royal psalms and eschatological psalms, casuistic law and apodictic law, faith formulas, proverbs, parables, miracle stories, passion narratives, admonitions, litigations, and homilies.

7

In Scripture we find narratives w h i c h describe a certain behavior without containing a call to imitate this specific behavior. I n addition we encounter reports, commandments, and admonitions that directly or indirectly call for a positive response ( R o m 15:4). Behavior that Scripture clearly identifies as morally negative is not to be imitated, but positive attitudes and constructive behavior are. For instance, whereas Abraham's faith is exemplary (Rom. 4) and we are called to follow Christ's footsteps (1 Pet 2:21), Noah's drunkenness is not to be imitated (Gen 9:20-24).

3. Investigating Larger Units: Larger units w i t h i n the text under investigation are verses and short paragraphs. A number o f issues need to be considered when studying these units. a. Divisions ofthe Text—The division into verses and chapters found in today's Bibles is not original but was added much later. Oftentimes, these divisions are helpful; on occasion, they are not. I n a number o f places, English translations differ from the chapter and verse count found in Hebrew and Greek editions, as well as i n non-English translations. In short, divisions by chapters and verses should not determine our interpretation o f a given passage. We notice this i n Revelation 20:5, in which the latter part o f the verse clearly belongs to vs. 6.

8

b. M a i n Thought—With the larger units, we must ask, H o w does the author develop his argument? What are his main lines o f thought? Where does he take a detour or insert some other ideas? What is the main goal toward which he is moving? When a paragraph is studied, it is important to find the main topic or the author's predominant concern.

on the message being proclaimed. A change o f place occurs also when the attention is drawn from events on earth to the heavenly world. In Revelation. 12, important changes i n time and in location take place. Verses 1-5 depict the early conflict between the dragon and the woman; verse 6 the medieval conflict between the dragon and the woman; verses 7-12 the conflict between Michael and the dragon i n heaven; verses 13-16, again, the medieval conflict between the dragon and the woman; and in verse 17 the end time conflict between the dragon and the remnant, the descendants o f the woman. d. Acting Persons—It is useful to look at the different persons being mentioned in a text and to observe how they interact. To study these characters may be significant to the message in the passage. e. Connections to Other Parts o f the Document and to Other Literature—Literary connections to other parts o f the same document, such as phrases that have been used i n our text and elsewhere become important. Where does the author quote the OT? Where does he allude to the O T or to the N T ? H o w is his quotation used later i n the canon?

Where does he refer to documents outside the Scriptures? I t is helpful to study parallel accounts, for instance, i n the Gospels or i n SamuelKings/Chronicles.

The Bible writers frequently cited passages from other Bible writers.

We find a string o f OT quotations, for instance, in Romans 3. O T allusions are abundant i n Revelation, although the book does not contain a single direct O T quotation. For example, the background o f Revelation 4 is Ezekiel 1 and 10. Another example o f an allusion occurs i n James 5:12.

James refers back to the Sermon on the M o u n t (Matt 5:37). I n Acts 17:28, Paul refers to Gentile poets and i n Titus 1:12 to a Cretan prophet. Under inspiration, Jude seems to quote from 1 Enoch (vss. 14-15). Literature not contained i n the Bible may be used as illustration.

9

f . Allegory and Typology—Expositors o f the Bible should avoid allegorization i n their interpretation. Allegorizing means to assign deeper meaning to the details o f a story. There are no controls and safeguards, and the message is easily misrepresented. I n the case o f allegorization, the only limiting element is the imagination o f the interpreter. Therefore, interpreters vary widely. The literal meaning is to be preferred.

c. Time and Geographic Location—Oftentimes, it is helpful to investigate time elements and geographic locations mentioned i n the text.

We may find flashbacks in time, time prophecies, and descriptions o f t h e future as i f it were already present. Different locations may exert an impact

Rather than allegory, the B i b l e predominantly uses typology. I n typology a type is met by an antitype. For instance, a figure o f t h e OT finds its fulfillment in the N T , yet on a larger scale. B e h i n d the smaller type stands a greater reality. " A type is an institution, historical event, or person, ordained by God, w h i c h effectively prefigures some truth connected w i t h Christianity." I t is safer to use a typological ap-

122

123

10

Guidelines for the Interpretation of Scripture

Guidelines for the Interpretation of Scripture

proach o n l y when the B i b l e allows for it as when the N T refers back to an O T precursor.

For instance, in Romans 5:14, A d a m is a type o f Christ, and in John 6:14 so is Moses (citing Deut 18:15).

4. Phrases and Sentences: After studying the larger units, we now turn to phrases and sentences. This step focuses on grammatical features and the syntax, i.e., the way sentences are constructed. I t also observes literary and rhetorical patterns.

c. Words—When investigating words, the most important principle is to allow the context o f a given sentence to define the meaning o f the respective word. Determine the ways i n which the author has used it in different places. A t times, we may even want to see how it is used i n the rest o f Scripture. A concordance is helpful and should be used as the basic tool for studying the Bible. Every w o r d that may be important should be carefully researched. Great care must be taken not to come to a premature or hasty decision w i t h regard to the meaning o f a word.

a. Grammar and Syntax—Investigating phrases and sentences means to ask: What is going on here? What is peculiar? What is the message that is disclosed? We try to participate i n what the text describes.

Normally, the meaning o f phrases is more than the sum o f the words.

Therefore, i n addition to a simple reading, we examine the tenses and actions i n verbs, peculiar expressions, and look for the syntax o f phrases and sentences. Furthermore, the question has to be asked about how the different parts o f a given sentence relate to one another and which message they, thereby, convey.

It is important to recognize how the author has used a term and what it meant for him, not what it means for us today. Contemporary ideas should not be equated w i t h the biblical use o f words. Words do change, because language is dynamic and not static. Therefore, words can have different meanings at different times. Words can also have different meanings i n different contexts.

In John 8:58, Jesus makes an astonishing statement: " . . . before Abraham was, I am." This sentence uses irregular grammar. The accepted way to speak w o u l d be: "Before Abraham was, I was." Jesus would still claim preexistence. The apparent grammatical irregularity is made on purpose.

Jesus not only claims to have lived prior to Abraham, He applies the divine title o f Exodus 3:14 to Himself. The people get the point. They understand that Jesus claims divinity and want to stone h i m (vs. 59). b. Rhetorical Features—In conversation today we sometimes use literary tools, such as irony, sarcasm, comparisons, and rhetorical questions that do not require an answer. A l l these and more are also found i n Scripture. One has to be aware o f these features to avoid misunderstanding an author. They include also hyperbole, oxymoron, paradox, and others.

We find striking examples o f these literary forms i n the N T ; Jesus Himself uses hyperbole: " A n d you, Capernaum, w i l l you be exalted to heaven? You shall be brought down to Hades. For i f the mighty works done i n you had been done i n Sodom, it would have remained until this day." (Matt 11:23). Paul uses irony i n writing to the Corinthians, "For in what were you less favored than the rest o f the churches, except that I myself did not burden you? Forgive me this wrong!" (2 Cor 12:13). A n example o f an oxymoron, or juxtaposition o f contradictory statements, appears i n Jesus' statement "To h i m who has w i l l more be given, and he w i l l have abundance; but from h i m who has not, even what he has w i l l be taken away" (Matt 13:12), and paradox: " I tell you, i f these were silent, the very stones w o u l d cry out" (Luke 19:40).

124

Etymological studies need to be done carefully. Sometimes investigating root meanings and comparable terms i n related languages is unavoidable, especially for words found i n Scripture only once. However, the context has priority over against etymology.

It is not permissible to use the etymology of words i n an English Bible or any translation to explain the meaning ofthe biblical word, based on the root meaning ofthe translated term. In fact, the meaning o f a word i n the biblical languages may have a larger or smaller range o f meanings than the corresponding term in a modem language. We must allow the author to speak for himself within the framework of his original language. For example: (1) Change o f Meaning: The term "meat" i n the K J V stands for food, not flesh; "corn" is grain and not maize; and "prevent" i n 1 Thessalonians 4:15 ( K J V ) means "precede." Some words w i t h a pejorative meaning today were positive or neutral i n the past. The "Lord's day " i n Revelation 1:10 cannot be equated w i t h the "Lord's day" o f subsequent centuries, in which it has become a technical term for Sunday. I n Scripture similar expressions are used for the day o f judgment or for the Sabbath.

(2) Range o f Meaning: The Hebrew and Greek words for "eternal" are quite broad i n meaning, indicating either a limited time span or eternity. The judges i n the Book o f Judges cannot be compared w i t h modern day judges. They were also leaders ofthe nation.

(3) Different Meanings i n Different Contexts: The term "flesh" i n Galatians 5:17 denotes our sinful nature, whereas the same w o r d in Philippians 1:22-24 refers to the physical body.

It also may be helpful to study words in connection w i t h their synonyms, antonyms, and metonyms. The grammatical form o f each w o r d should also be noticed.

11

125

Guidelines for the Interpretation of Scripture

Guidelines for the Interpretation of Scripture Words must be understood literally except when the verse or the immediate context indicates that a figurative meaning is implied. A figurative, or non-literal, meaning occurs in metaphors, personifications, idiomatic expressions, hyperboles, euphemisms, and symbols. Usually, symbols are explained by the same inspired writer who uses them or by other biblical authors. Again, it is the context that decides whether a word has to be interpreted literally or figuratively.

12

d. Apocalyptic Symbols—In studying apocalyptic prophecy one more step must be taken. Having employed all the above mentioned exegetical steps, then and only then are we ready to identify carefully the symbols o f the text w i t h historical realities and developments. Shortcuts can lead to false identifications and false excitement that in the end only damages the church.

cuses on the law. The term " l a w " is first introduced i n Matthew 5:17 and found the last time in Matthew 7:12. These two verses form the introductory and concluding statements o f this sermon. However, the entire passage following Matthew 7:12 seems to focus on doing God's w i l l ; in other words, obedience to God and Jesus are central. B u i l d i n g on the OT, Jesus discusses the Decalogue and other laws and shows their far-reaching implications.

Step Eight: Applying the Text Scripture.

I n 1 Corinthians 10:6 and 11, Paul twice stresses that

Israel's history is an example for the N T church. Between these two statements, he warns against idolatry, fornication, presumption, and grumbling against God, using historical accounts dealing w i t h God's OT

Theological themes may be expressed through typology i n the prediction-fulfillment sequence, as w e l l as in the portrayal o f salvation history. For example, an important part o f the Sermon on the M o u n t fo-

covenant people.

In Hebrews 11 the heroes o f faith are introduced. I n Hebrews 12: l-2a, the writer draws a conclusion: "Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud o f witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight and sin that clings so closely, and let us run with perseverance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus the pioneer and perfecter o f our faith . . ." On this basis it becomes important to apply the text to the present-day audience.

Scripture also personalizes biblical texts. What God has done for the Exodus generation applies likewise to later generations. They still participate i n His saving actions (Deut 5:2-4). Similarly, the Christian believer participates i n Christ's death, resurrection, and ascension already here and now (Gal 3:29; Eph 2:6).

Exegetical Step. Only after a text is properly understood i n its original situation can we move to its application. The application is extremely important. I f omitted, the audience or readers may get the impression that we are dealing only with history. I f the text is applied too quickly, however, the passage is easily misinterpreted and the exposition remains shallow.

The process o f applying the biblical text shows that the text is relevant for us today. Several considerations help us reach sound positions. /. Personalizing the Text. Already we have pointed out that humanity throughout history shares similar experiences, a similar psychological makeup, and even some common moral values.

Since believers share in, and are incorporated into, salvation history, biblical texts address them on the personal level and as a group today.

Therefore, when it comes to the application o f biblical texts, we have to ask personal questions such as the following: What does God want to tell me w i t h this passage? H o w does it affect m y devotion and m y commit-

126

127

Step Seven: Performing Theological Analysis Scripture.

Luke reports Jesus' programmatic speech in the synagogue o f Nazareth (Luke 4:14-27). The topic o f liberation, in which Jesus includes the heathen, seems to be emphasized by Luke. More than the other evangelists, he shows that Jesus takes care o f and frees also those who are socially marginalized by society, such as women, publicans, and even Gentiles.

A t least to a certain degree, Jesus develops a theology o f marriage (Matt 19:1-12) and builds it on Genesis 1 and 2.

Exegetical Step. The following issues and questions are dealt w i t h in theological analysis: Which theological motifs and themes are discussed in the biblical text being studied? H o w are they developed? Where do they stand w i t h i n the context o f the whole book? H o w do they relate to the overall message o f Scripture?

This is where the principle of comparing Scripture with Scripture is so important. A variety of theological themes-such as God, man, creation, the fall, sin, covenant, the Sabbath, the law, remnant, salvation, sanctuary, eschatology, etc.-can be found throughout the Old and New Testaments!

And the theology of a particular passage must be in harmony with the theology of Scripture as a whole. In Scripture we see that the theological messages of the New Testament writers presuppose, build upon, and stand in continuity with the major Old Testament theological themes.

13

Guidelines for the Interpretation of Scripture

Guidelines for the Interpretation of Scripture ment to H i m , m y spiritual life, m y insights into God's character and into His plan for us, m y actions, and m y obedience? H o w can I respond to His message? B y praise and thanksgiving, petition and intercession, or changing m y life and reorienting m y value system?

Biblical texts are not only addressed to individuals but also to the church.

Therefore, we have to ask: H o w does the respective biblical text affect us as a church? In which areas o f our church life does Scripture challenge us?

How does the text educate and teach us, comfort and encourage us?

2. Applying Different Kinds of Texts: What the text meant is basically the same as what the text means today, meaning that Scripture is transcultural and transtemporal. But we still have to wrestle w i t h the question o f permanence. Which parts i n Scripture are permanent, even i n details, and which contain only a permanent principle? Furthermore, what are the criteria that can help us determine this issue? (See chapter 16 on Ethics.) A closer look at the different kinds o f biblical texts may be helpful. a. Passages Dealing w i t h B i b l i c a l Doctrines—Scripture contains passages and chapters that present biblical doctrines. Genesis 1-2 portrays the Creator and Creation. I n Matthew 24, Jesus teaches His followers about His second coming. I n Romans Paul explains righteousness through grace by faith, and i n 1 Corinthians 15, he spells out the doctrine o f the resurrection.

Biblical doctrines stand independent o f time and culture. A biblical teaching may not be understood fully by a particular generation, but the biblical doctrine o f the second coming o f Christ, for instance, is'not traife today and wrong tomorrow. To a degree biblical doctrines may be couched in cultural terms—Hebrews 1 presents Jesus as king and the rest o f the book presents H i m as High Priest—but even today we understand that a king is the supreme ruler and the priest a mediator.

Thus, there is no difference in what the text meant and what it means when it comes to biblical doctrines. When personalizing these doctrines one has to ask: What does the Second Coming mean for me? H o w does the hope o f a future resurrection brighten m y life? H o w does the doctrine o f creation affect me and m y church? The application points to the relevance o f biblical doctrines but does not change them. I t shows the relationship o f the doctrine to Christ, underlines its meaningfulness, and portrays the related benefits. b. Prophetic Passages and Promises—A similar picture emerges in regard to biblical prophecy, predictions, and promises. Isaiah 53 describes God's suffering servant, Psalms 2 and 110 point to the Messiah. Daniel 2 and 7 picture w o r l d history from Daniel's day to the final consummation and are not limited by time and culture.

128

Furthermore, we must distinguish whether predictions are addressed to a certain individual or group or to all humanity. The former cannot be applied to us directly today, the latter must be. When Jesus announces Peter's denial and the possibility o f his subsequent conversion (Luke 22:32, 34), He does not address us, although indirectly we are called not to follow Peter's example. On the other hand, when Jesus promises eternal life to those who believe i n him (John 3:36), we are included.

Universally formulated promises should be studied in the immediate context, as w e l l as i n the overall context, o f Scripture, and the congregation should be encouraged to accept them and experience their fulfillment.

The application o f broad prophecies may point to God's sovereignty. As Lord over history, He is also Lord over our lives, carrying out His w i l l and His plan o f salvation. c.

Passages Containing Narratives—Scripture contains many narra¬

tive sections. H o w are these to be applied?

The basic principle underlying a narrative needs to be uncovered and applied to the contemporary reader. Sometimes stories cannot be reduced to one single principle only and may be viewed from different perspectives that complement one another.

The characters o f biblical narratives may function as examples for later generations. They also may exhibit traits not to be imitated. Nevertheless, the reader can derive personal lessons from the narrative, even i f it were only how not to act. I n a narrative that points to a lack o f trust m God, the application could elaborate what i t means to trust God today and how to develop that trust. d. Wisdom Passages—Wisdom literature is found in the OT, for instance, i n the books Proverbs and Ecclesiastes. H o w shall we deal w i t h them? "Do proverbs state truth that inexorably work themselves out w i t h no exceptions? Or do they state general principles to which there are sometimes exceptions? . . . I n most cases proverbial sayings reflect what is typical or normal without suggesting or implying that there are never exceptions." For example, Proverbs 14:11 states that "the house o f t h e wicked is destroyed, but the tent o f the upright flourishes" (NRSV), which is oftentimes true. However, sometimes believers are perplexed when they see "the prosperity ofthe wicked" (Ps 73:3). To be sure, there is a future dimension i n which this statement w i l l come true. Indeed, blessings ofthe OT "are usually more spiritual i n nature and reserved primarily for the future" in the NT. 14

15

M a n y proverbial sayings are so plain and make so much sense independent o f culture and time that their application w i l l be more or less an elaboration o f what is already said.129

Guidelines for the Interpretation of Scripture

Guidelines for the Interpretation of Scripture

e. Passages Containing Commands—The real challenge comes when passages contain commands. Are all divine commands found in the Bible permanent, or not? H o w can we distinguish between permanent and limited commands? H o w do we apply commands that are no longer valid?

H o w shall we apply permanent commands?

sessions but to belong to God and to be part o f His mission to the world.

Fortunately, Scripture tells us that some commandments or laws are not o f a permanent nature. The sacrificial and ceremonial laws pointing to Jesus were fulfilled when Jesus as the Lamb o f God died on the cross in the sinners' place. The type reached its fulfillment i n Jesus the antitype (Heb 10:1-18). Likewise, enforcement o f the theocratic and civil laws o f the O T came to an end when the theocracy ended. The O T itself already pointed to their limitations. Some laws were merely temporary concessions to the hardness o f hearts o f the Israelites but did not reflect God's ideal, for instance, the regulations on divorce in Deuteronomy 24:1-4. In His Sermon on the Mount, Jesus stressed the indissolubility o f marriage (Matt 5:31-32), and in Matthew 19:1-12 and M a r k 10:1-12, He argued that God's ideal was presented in Genesis 1-3 and pointed back to it. The concession is replaced by God's original w i l l .

The parable o f the rich fool (Luke 12:16-21) can be summarized and applied i n the following way: Money does not save us, God does. Therefore, we do not live for money but for God. The passage challenges us today to get our priorities straight, not to rely on and live for material pos-

Scripture. Biblical authors not only knew the books o f their predecessors, some were also familiar w i t h nonbiblical literature and used it for illustration when they proclaimed the gospel. We already have mentioned Paul, who refers to Greek poets (Acts 17:28) and a Cretan prophet (Titus 1:12). Non-canonical literature was known, and some seems indirectly recommended for reading (2 Chron 9:29). However, i t seems that pagan and apocryphal literature served only as a means to illustrate the message ofthe biblical author, not to interpret it.

Exegetical Step. Resource materials should be used. They can be especially helpful in providing historical, exegetical, and theological background information. Nevertheless, commentaries should only be used after having intensively analyzed the text and its context. Almost all secondary literature conveys elements o f purely human construction and is to be handled w i t h a certain reserve.

Ellen G. White's literature is o f special importance. Often it furnishes valuable insights; at other times, i t is silent on particular texts or issues.

In any case, Adventists would want to check what these writings have to tell us on a specific passage. Frequently, M r s . White uses biblical texts in a manner similar to illustrations. We could call this the homiletical use o f Scripture. Sometimes she interprets passages, more often, however, biblical topics. Nevertheless, even her inspired writings should not be used as a shortcut, replacing proper exegesis o f a text.

Concordances are the exception to the rule. They may already be used when the vocabulary and theological topics are investigated. Those who immediately start reading secondary literature to see how others understand a certain text or to get information on the historical background o f a passage often avoid studying Scripture seriously for themselves. While the results may come quicker, understanding remains superficial, and the meaning ofthe text has not become part o f their life. They have not wrestied w i t h the text and have not gained a gem from it. The other danger is that they are no longer open to take a fresh look at the text but approach i t w i t h a bias or an agenda.

Even when secondary literature is correct i n its conclusions and interpretation, it may not present the full scope o f what the text wants to communicate. We must study for ourselves. On the other hand, secondary literature may challenge our conclusions and sharpen our perception. I f we

130

131

The N T clearly teaches that the Ten Commandments are still valid (Matt 5:21-32; Jas 2:8-13) and that certain Christian forms, such as baptism, foot washing, and the Lord's Supper, cannot be replaced or substituted by other forms, because they are "rooted in Jesus's explicit example and command."

16

3. Additional Deliberations: There are three developmental quesl tions that are helpful when moving from a text to its application. The following question is particularly important to our discussion. "What difference does it make?" This question centers on application. When it comes to the application o f a biblical passage, the present audience is confronted w i t h the good news and w i t h the challenges ofthe text.

17

18

A p p l y i n g the text does not give us freedom to use the text only as a springboard for our own ideas and hobby horses. The application must correspond w i t h the goal and w i t h the intention o f t h e text. But here we must become quite practical and specific. Contemporary examples and current issues are to be used to drive home the message o f God's Word.

The expositor must show the relevance o f Scripture for the present generation. I n order to be able to do that, he or she must k n o w (1) the Word o f God, (2) the church, and (3) present-day society.

The application develops this main goal.

Step Nine: Using Resources

Guidelines for the Interpretation of Scripture

Guidelines for the Interpretation of Scripture insist that our interpretation is correct, despite the opinion o f others, we must make sure that it is biblically defensible.

Another important resource is the community o f believers. I f we find new ideas and interpretations that differ from the accepted understanding, it is crucial to check w i t h others, especially w i t h those with expertise in interpreting Scripture. Furthermore, we must be w i l l i n g to abandon our interpretations or pet opinions i f others show us our intetpretations are questionable. M u c h harm has been done to the church by those who defend indefensible positions and believe they are right while all others are wrong. A wise person listens to counsel (Prov 12:15). It is rare that God reveals new understandings o f the Scriptures to one individual only.

References Unless otherwise indicated, biblical quotations are from the New American Standard Bible or the author's own translation.

1. For instance, to take a neighbor's spouse is more or less unacceptable on a universal scale. The experiences o f suffering, sickness, rejection, and death are familiar to almost all humans. The desire to be accepted, to be loved, to enjoy friendship and social interaction is common to all o f us. See also Maslow's hierarchy o f needs in James F. Engel, Contemporary Christian Communications: Its Theory and Practice (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers 1979) pp. 112-114.

2. See, for example, Matt 5:17-48; 24:20; and Exodus 20. \ 3. See especially the article by Richard M . Davidson, "Biblical Interpretation," in Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist neology, ed. by Raoul Dederen (Hagerstown, M D : Review and Herald, 2000), 58-104.

4. The Clear Word Bible of Jack Blanco is a very loose paraphrase, closer to a running commentary.

5. Gerhard Pfandl, The Authority and Interpretation of Scripture (Wahroonga, Australia: South Pacific Division of Seventh-day Adventists, n.d.), p. 9.

6. Thus, the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet is found at the very beginning of vs. 1, whereas the second letter is used in the beginning of vs. 2, etc. In Psalm 119, the first letter of the alphabet is used as the first letter of vss. 1-8. The next eight verses use the second letter ofthe Hebrew alphabet, etc.

7. Casuistic law normally employs the phrase " i f someone . . . ," whereas apodictic law uses "you shall," and "whoever" or starts with a curse.

8. Cf. Ekkehardt Muller, "Microstructural Analysis of Revelation 20," Andrews University Seminary Studies 37 (1999): 235-236.

9. Davidson, pp. 72-74, makes a number of suggestions on how to deal with "seeming discrepancies in parallel biblical accounts." "Recognize the different purposes in the different writers Recognize that each writer may be relating the parts of the incident that must be combined with other accounts to form a 132

le Recognize that historical reliability does not require that the different reports be identical Recognize that the accepted conventions for writing histor>‫ ׳‬were different in the first century. . . . Recognize that some similar miracles and sayings of Jesus recorded in the parallel Gospels may have occurred at different times. . . . Recognize that there are some minor transcriptional errors in Scripture Acknowledge that it may sometimes be necessary to suspend judgment on some seeming discrepancies until more information is available."

10. C. T. Fritsch, "Principles of Biblical Typology," Bibliotheca Sacra 104 w h o

(1947): 214. .

11. Metonyms are terms that replace other terms. In Romans 3:30 the circumcised" and "the uncircumcised" represent Jews and Gentiles.

12. This may be different quite often in the Book of Revelation in which the Greek text of chap. 1:1 may point to a more symbolic approach. Figurative or non-literal meanings often occur in metaphors, such as God's word as fire and hammer (Jer23:29).

13. Pfandl, p. 13 14. Robert B. Chisholm, Jr., From Exegesis to Exposition: A Practical Guide to Using Biblical Hebrew (Grand Rapids, M I : Baker Book House, 1998), p. 258.

See also Chapter 10 "Reading Psalms and the Wisdom Literature."

15. Ibid.

16. Davidson, p. 86.

17. Haddon W. Robinson, Biblical Preaching: The Development and Delivery of Expository Messages (Grand Rapids, M I : Baker Book House, 1980), pp.

79-96.

18. The other questions are "What does this mean?" and "Is it true?" According to Robinson, the first question not only focuses on the above mentioned exegetical steps. It deals with the passage and the audience. It centers on explanation. What does the audience need to have explained? How do people attending my church react to it? Would they understand it, and how would they understand it? The second question centers on validity. "Psychological acceptance seldom comes by citing the Scriptures alone, though; it must also be gained through reasoning, proofs, and illustrations. Even the inspired writers . . . establish validity not only from the Old Testament but from common life as well." Ibid., pp. 83-84.

Robinson quotes and explains 1 Corinthians 9:6-12 in order to show that biblical authors used this principle. This second point does not question the sola scriptura principle, Scripture as the final and highest test of truth. It points to the fact that the audience is helped by presenting additional evidence that supports Scripture.

"That is not to say that we establish biblical truth by studying sociology, astronomy, or archaeology, but that the valid data from these sciences seconds the truth taught in Scripture" (Ibid., p. 86).

Selected Bibliography Beale, G. K., ed. The Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts? Essays on the Use of the Old Testament in the New. Grand Rapids, M I : Baker Book House, 1994.

133

Guidelines for the Interpretation of Scripture Black, David Alan. Using New Testament Greek in Ministry: A Practical Guide for Students and Pastors. Grand Rapids, M I : Baker Book House, 1993.

Chisholm, Robert B. Jr. From Exegesis to Exposition: A Practical Guide to Using Biblical Hebrew. Grand Rapids, M I : Baker Book House, 1998.

Davidson, Richard M . "Biblical Interpretation." In Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist Theology, ed. Raoul Dederen, 58-104. Hagerstown, M D : Review and Herald, 2000.

Fee, Gordon D. New Testament Exegesis: A Handbook for Students and Pastors.

Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1993.

Green, Joel B., ed. Hearing the New Testament: Strategies for Interpretation.

Grand Rapids, M I : Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1995.

Hasel, Gerhard F. Understanding the Living Word of God. Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press Publishing Association, 1980.

Hyde, Gordon M . , ed. A Symposium on Biblical Hermeneutics. Washington, DC: Biblical Research Institute, 1974.

Marshall, I . Howard, ed. New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Principles and Methods. Grand Rapids, M I : Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1977.

Stuart, Douglas. Old Testament Exegesis: A Handbook for Students and Pastors.

3rd ed., Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 2001.

Virkler, Henry A. Hermeneutics: Principles and Processes of Biblical Interpretation. Grand Rapids, M I : Baker Book House, 1981.

\

CHAPTER VIII

INNERBIBLICAL INTERPRETATION: READING THE SCRIPTURES INTERTEXTUALLY Ganoune Diop

Introduction A n intertextual reading o f t h e Bible is the science and art o f making associations and connections between texts w i t h i n the setting o f the biblical canon. Jesus' discourses in the Gospels and every other N T book refer to the OT. Well over two hundred direct citations from the O T are identified by NT introductory formulas in addition to numerous allusions. The parallels between biblical passages reveal that innerbiblical, or intertextual, interpretation is part o f the very fabric o f Scripture. Fully grasping the overall purpose o f God is more readily i n reach when this aspect o f biblical interpretation is considered.

1

H o w does scripture interpret scripture i n the setting o f the OT? H o w does Jesus interpret the OT? Finally, how do N T writers interpret the OT? This chapter aims to answer these questions.

We w i l l address issues related to the legitimacy o f the interpretation and the use o f the O T in the NT. Such study also helps us to measure the prerogatives, possibilities, and limits o f the contemporary interpreter engaging in innerbiblical interpretation. Finally, we w i l l suggest guidelines for today's readers on how they can best benefit from innerbiblical interpretation.

1. The Importance of Innerbiblical Interpretation Defining Innerbiblical Interpretation The reader o f the N T must be steeped i n the O T i n order to understand its various themes. Reading the Bible intertextually is called for since Intertextual (or innerbiblical) exegesis is the embedding of fragments, images, and echoes of one text within another one. Later biblical authors demonstrated their love for and allegiance to their tradition by strate134

135

Innerbiblical Interpretation: Reading the Scriptures Intertextually gically reworking a scriptural subtext. Much more than simple citation, innerbiblical exegesis represents a strong prophetic and poetic stance, sometimes extending a subtext to the very limits of its possible horizon of meaning.

2

The issue o f innerbiblical interpretation is crucial to enable us to grasp the organic unity o f all Scripture and to interpret properly its various sections.

The subject matter o f the N T is shaped in dialog with the OT. The N T in turn is shaped as well by dialog w i t h first-century Judaism. This is obvious from the N T itself in which it records the numerous encounters between Jesus and His disciples w i t h the various Judaic schools o f thought.

Moreover, examination o f the N T material reveals that most o f the theologically significant words o f the N T are rooted i n the OT. Familiar words such as "Jesus," "Christ," "gospel," "covenant," "salvation," "ternpie," "priest," "expiation," "justification," or even Hebrew words such as " A m e n " and "Hallelujah," call for a consideration o f their OT background.

The genealogies in the N T are indisputable invitations to the reader to consider the O T background o f the N T . Moreover, these genealogies are in themselves examples o f innerbiblical interpretation. The selection o f names in both the Gospels o f Matthew and o f Luke are interpretations o f O T material. They testify that God is leading history to its intended purpose.

Legitimation of Innerbiblical Interpretation There are several possible reasons why two or more passages in Scripture relate to one another and, thereby, legitimize innerbiblical interpretation.

The biblical writers or characters may share the same quarry o f words, w o r d pictures, images, metaphors, themes, or theology. A t times, however, a biblical character or a biblical writer's words or expressions i n citations, i n direct or indirect allusions, whether intentional or not, may reveal his interpretation and understanding o f another biblical passage.

I n this case, not only is intertextuality in general at stake but innerbiblical interpretation.

Innerbiblical Interpretation: Reading the Scriptures Intertextually covenant lawsuit connects several discourses that one finds both i n the Old and in the N T (i.e., Stephen's discourse i n Acts 7 or the letters to the seven churches, echoing the prophetic indictments against God's people).

Interbiblical interpretation was part o f first-century hermeneutical practice. Jesus legitimized it; the H o l y Spirit prompted it.

Rabbinic Exegesis. Most N T scholars assume that Jewish methods of interpretation influenced the N T writers. Intertextuality was a common rabbinic practice. The way in which Rabbinic Judaism had developed rules (middot) for interpreting the Scriptures attests to the importance o f innerbiblical interpretation i n the setting o f the OT. Most o f these rules focus on connecting texts w i t h one another i n order to understand their meaning. The rabbis connected verses o f Scripture to one another based on the assumption that Scripture should be "viewed as a whole; the truth to which its constituent parts points is the same consistent truth." Innerbiblical interpretation was, therefore, part o f the N T writers' religious and cultural environment. However, deeper reasons prompted N T writers to quote extensively, to cite, and to allude to the OT. 3

4

Jesus' Example. Foremost among the N T interpreters o f the O T is Jesus Himself. On the very day o f His resurrection, Jesus' use o f the OT to validate His ministry confirmed the practice o f relating the O T to His life and His teachings. Chiding His disciples, "He said to them, ' 0 foolish men and slow o f heart to believe i n all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into His glory?'

Then beginning w i t h Moses and w i t h all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures" (Luke 24:25-27).

In this instance, Jesus' hermeneutics involved searching through the O T to highlight the things concerning His person.

I n the most famous o f all His discourses, the Sermon on the M o u n t , Jesus refers constantly to the OT. The major theme o f Jesus' preaching and teaching, the k i n g d o m o f God, as w e l l as His famous antitheses, are incomprehensible w i t h o u t the O T background. The discourse is punctuated by the expression " Y o u have heard it was said to those o f old . . . B u t I say to y o u . . ." ( M a t t 5:21-22, 27-28, 31-32, 38-39, 4344). These connectors clearly are designed to engage the audience or the reader i n a dialog w i t h the O T revelation.

Innerbiblical interpretation goes far beyond a mere mention o f texts.

Indeed it can occur i n the form o f a word-for-word citation o f a biblical passage. I t also can be an approximate but still obvious reference to a biblical text, or it can occur in the form o f a thought pattern reminiscent o f a previous text, a stylistic device or literary feature connecting two or more biblical texts. A manner o f argumentation can also show the same underlying issues o f two or more biblical passages. Additionally, the prophetic

The Leading of the Holy Spirit The N T writers firmly believed that the primary interpreter o f the Scripture—the H o l y Spirit—supervised and led them. Jesus told His disciples that, after His ascension, the Holy Spirit would guide them into all truth (John 16:13). The H o l y Spirit not only interprets past events, He tells o f things to come. More fundamentally, He w i l l exegete Jesus (John 16:14). As Jesus opened the eyes o f the disciples

136

137

Innerbiblical Interpretation: Reading the Scriptures Intertextually on the road to Emmaus, the Father would send the H o l y Spirit i n the name o f Jesus i n order to teach His followers and to recall to their memory the words o f Jesus (John 14:26). The N T writers believed that the H o l y Spirit was the initiator o f the Scriptures (1 T i m 3:16) and that the Spirit o f Christ was at work i n the prophets (1 Pet 1:11). They were convinced that "no prophecy o f Scripture is o f any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the w i l l o f man, but holy men o f God spoke as they were moved by the H o l y Spirit" (2 Pet 1:21).

2. Foundations for an Intertextual Reading of Scripture From the very beginning o f the Bible we find texts that refer to or connect w i t h other texts. Genesis 1 and 2 relate the same Creation story but from different angles. Each story answers different questions. From Genesis to Revelation, the Bible invites us to enter into a dynamic dialog, an association o f ideas from which emerges the expression o f God's w i l l for humanity. The stories o f the patriarchs share a common thread—the blessing that God intends to bestow upon all human beings through Abraham and his descendants. The Sinai covenant between God and Israel informs the subsequent encounters between God, His chosen people, and the nations. Throughout the Scriptures the law (Torah) measures the faithfulness o f God's people to the covenant. Repeatedly, the prophetic books refer to the first books o f the Bible that lay out the foundations o f the covenant.

The Prophets and Their Use of the Torah The language o f the prophets presupposes the reality ofthe covenant between God and His people Israel. The prophets themselves were sent as covenant mediators. Bringing God's people into conformity to the Torah was their main concern.

Biblical writers reference the Pentateuch i n various ways. Prophets such as A m o s and Hosea use patriarchal names i n order to illustrate the condition o f their contemporaries, hoping to entice them to live up to their calling as descendants o f the patriarchs.

I n the prophetic writings the name Jacob is used i n parallel to the name Israel to refer either to the Northern Kingdom (Amos 3:13; 7:1-8) or to both kingdoms together. The usage o f "Jacob," however, goes beyond a mere referent; it is pregnant with theological implications. Amos employs the name Jacob i n a setting o f judgment. Probably this is to remind the Israelites o f 138

Innerbiblical Interpretation: Reading the Scriptures Intertextually Jacob's precarious situation i n a time o f trouble and o f his helplessness i n the absence o f divine intervention. The survival ofthe patriarch is mirrored by using the name Jacob in Amos 9:8, signifying the continuation o f Israel as a remnant while providing an echo o f the promise to the patriarch.

Hosea went even farther by using the events o f the patriarch's life to draw parallels w i t h God's people i n the eighth century B.C. I n Hosea 12, the prophet refers to Jacob's life w i t h its two phases. The first was characterized by mistrust o f God, which resulted i n self-reliance, the end justifying the means, the trading o f truth, integrity, and uprightness for deceitfulness. The second was an itinerary o f faith, repentance, and reformation. Hosea employs both o f these phases to denounce the conditions of his contemporaries and then to urge them to pattern their lives after the second phase^of the patriarch's life.

The prophets also use significant locations i n the history o f Israel to remind the people o f key events that highlight the particular situation i n which they are living. This is the case i n Hosea w i t h his use o f names such as "Jezreel" (Hos 1:4-5, 11), "the valley o f Achor" (Hos 2:15), "Mitzpah and Tabor" (Hos 5:1), and "Gibeah" and "Ramah" (Hos 5:8).

Prominent among the prophetic texts that display associations w i t h the Pentateuch are Messianic texts. For instance, Isaiah 61:1-3, i n proclaiming "liberty to the captives" i n the "acceptable year o f the L o r d , " echoes the Jubilee language o f Leviticus 25:8-12. The Jubilee year contained such concepts as "the return o f property," "the release o f slaves," "the cancellation o f debts," and "the rest o f the land." The connection between these texts is further developed i n the N T (see Luke 4:18).

5

Additionally, the prophets frequently refer to the messages revealed to their predecessors. Daniel, for example, refers to prophecies o f Jeremiah, regarding the length o f the exile (Dan 9:2). Ezekiel mentions Noah, Daniel, and Job as examples o f righteous men (Ezek 14:14). I n the last prophecy o f the OT, Malachi legitimizes the ties w i t h the past and the connection to the future (Mai 4:5-6).

God's dealing w i t h His people and w i t h all the families o f the earth is an ongoing story. Hence, the prophets themselves refer to and interpret one another's writings, reading contemporary events i n the light o f past ones. This innerbiblical interpretation appears at various levels.

1.

2.

Biblical writers may use linguistic features to connect various texts.

They may also use a network o f themes to associate various episodes o f salvation history. From this perspective, the themes o f Creation, the Flood, the Exodus, and the covenant are patterns for God's future encounters w i t h His people and other peoples.

139

Innerbiblical Interpretation: Reading the Scriptures Intertextually 3.

The prophets used place names to illustrate the real issues they wished to draw to the attention o f the people. I n Hosea, Jezreel and Gibeah are examples o f such devices. Biblical writers also used patriarchal names to describe the situation o f God's people in their time. Such is the case with the names Jacob, Joseph, and Ephraim i n Amos and i n Hosea.

In fact, the entire O T is a w o r l d in conversation. Texts refer to other texts, episodes to other episodes. The reader enters a w o r l d o f encounters between God and His creatures, an unfolding story whose main themes are the revelation o f God and the redemption o f humanity. Stories o f humans, whether "successes" or "failures," are told as they are. Moreover, the reader o f Scripture is invited to follow story lines and to witness surprising transformations. For example, how can the valley o f Achor, the scene o f Achan's tragedy in Joshua 7:24-26, become a resting place (Isa 65:10) and even a door o f hope i n Hosea (2:15)? Questions o f this kind invite the reader to consider various sections o f the Scriptures as they relate to one another at several levels.

Moreover, the shift from classical to apocalyptic prophecy (at the beginning, during, and after the exile, and even in the N T writings) opens fascinating perspectives for the understanding o f biblical revelation.

Beyond prophecies that link the past to the present or future, we find an interconnectedness o f peoples, events, themes, and stories. I t calls us to consider biblical intertextuality, w i t h its unique characteristic o f being part o f a canon, presided over and inspired by the H o l y Spirit (2 T i m 3:16).

The interconnectedness o f peoples, events, and institutions introduces typology as a major hermeneutical key to the OT, to Jesus, and to the N T writers.

Typology as a Hermeneutical K e y

Innerbiblical Interpretation: Reading the Scriptures Intertextually is not accidental; it is designed by God to show the unity o f language and o f thought throughout salvation history.

On the basis that typology is both historical and implies a real correspondence, the following definition is fitting. " A type is a biblical event, person or institution which serves as an example or pattern for other events, persons or institutions; typology is the study o f types and the historical and theological correspondences between them; the basis o f typology is God's consistent activity in the history o f his chosen people." The presence o f correspondences between biblical events, peoples, or institutions places before the interpreter the phenomenon o f intertextuality and innerbiblical exegesis. Reading the Bible intertextually contains an inherent typological element.

6

Jesus, the Center of Innerbiblical Interpretation How d i d Jesus interpret the OT? H o w did He and the N T writers understand Jesus' relationship to the OT? A key text may be enlightening.

Jesus: The Fulfillment of the Promises. The idea o f fulfillment is a key element in reading the Gospels.

In the setting o f Matthew 5:17-18, Jesus unequivocally declares: "Do not think that I came to abolish the L a w and the Prophets; I d i d not come to abolish, but to fulfill. For truly, I say to y o u until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law, until all is accomplished." "To f u l f i l l " i n this setting has been understood in various ways: "to fill out," "to expand," "to complete"; obviously not "to bring to an end." Since the context o f a passage, i n particular the network of the themes that are "woven together," is determinant in interpreting a word, what does the immediate context o f Matthew 5 convey regarding the word "to fulfill"?

The context is a debate concerning the righteousness o f the Pharisees versus the righteousness o f the followers o f Jesus. Jesus specifies to His audience, " I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that o f the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter the kingdom o f heaven" (Matt 5:20). He then goes on to illustrate what He means b y showing the depth of what was revealed i n the law. Jesus fulfills the law. He confirms i t by restoring its intended scope.

Typology plays an important role in the use o f the OT by Jesus and by the N T writers. The word typos derives from the verb typto, (to strike, to press in). I t signifies the mark o f a blow, the impression or the imprint left by a stroke, the stamp made by a die, the form, the model, the example, the pattern, or prototype. The use o f typology displays the correspondence and the continuity between the two testaments. The relationship between a type and an antitype involves a correspondence between an element and its counterpart that is more than a resemblance. The types have historical reality; they can be predictive. The antitype generally is greater than the type. Typology

The implication o f Jesus' declaration reported by Matthew is that the OT is not negated by the N T . This is further corroborated i n the declarations o f Jesus that aim to uphold the Word o f God over human traditions.

To the question o f the Pharisees and the scribes, " W h y do your disciples not walk according to the tradition o f the elders, but eat their bread with

140

141

Innerbiblical Interpretation: Reading the Scriptures Intertextually

Innerbiblical Interpretation: Reading the Scriptures Intertextually

impure hands?" Jesus responds that they (the Pharisees) neglect the commandment o f God for the tradition o f men (Mark 7:8). Moreover, He tells them that they set aside the commandment o f God to keep their tradition (Mark 7:9). He contrasts what Moses said w i t h the interpretation of the Pharisees and the scribes, accusing them o f "invalidating the w o r d of God" and upholding their tradition instead (Mark 7:13).

The announcement o f the angel to Joseph o f Jesus' birth from a virgin (Matt 1:22-23) The journey, sojourn, and Exodus out o f Egypt (Matt 2:15) The massacre o f the children in Bethlehem (Matt 2:17-18) Life i n Nazareth (Matt 2:23) Settlement i n Capernaum, by the sea, i n the region o f Zebulon and

While not negating the law, Jesus shows a freedom that reveals His sovereignty. Not only does He use expressions w i t h an unprecedented dignity, such as "You have heard that the ancients were told, . . . but I say to you" (Matt 5:21-22), but His audience was "amazed at His teaching, for He was teaching them as one having authority, and not as the scribes" (Mark 1:22).

Naphtali (Matt 4:14-16) Healing o f the i l l and exorcism (Matt 8:17) Discretion and gentleness o f the Servant o f Yahweh (Matt 12:15-21) Revelation i n parables o f things hidden (Matt 13:34-35) Entry o f the king into Jerusalem (Matt 21:4-5) The price o f Judas' betrayal (Matt 27:9-10).

In fact, Jesus is not just "a repeater" as a first-century scribe was called, a "tannâ." Besides the OT texts, He does not refer to or cite another authority. He has become the reference. He can refer to what Moses permitted conceming divorce as not being God s absolute w i l l but rather a commandment given because o f the "hardness o f the heart" o f His recipients (Mark 10:5).

His interpretation, though conforming to the OT practice, is nevertheless unique, mainly because o f who He was, the Word o f God in human flesh. ,

Moreover, the question o f fulfillment cannot be limited to the idea of analogy, not even to an in-depth consideration o f the intended scope o f the law nor to the subsequent interpretation o f the prophets to their contemporaries. Specific promises exist throughout salvation history that God has committed Himself to keep. The promises o f God to Abraham (Gen 12:13), David (2 Sam 7:12-13), and Aaron (Jer 33:18) have not been forgotten.

They constitute the foundation ofthe interpretation o f Jesus' identity and o f His mission. These promises find their "yes" in Christ, to use the apostle Paul's terminology. The NT, therefore, is built on the foundation o f the OT. The N T reveals the depth and the extent o f God's w i l l in the OT. A t the same time, the N T surpasses the O T and reaches the heights o f God's ultimate revelation in Jesus Christ. What comes w i t h Christ is far greater than what was expected.

Jesus recapitulates the history o f humanity, i n general, and the story o f God's people, Israel, i n particular. Jesus Christ is the Son o f David and the Son o f Abraham. He embodies the destiny o f Israel. The key events o f the history o f Israel coalesce i n the story o f Jesus. Matthew deliberately presents Jesus as the fulfillment ofthe destiny and o f the mission o f Israel.

The numerous citations and allusions to events and to people o f the OT in this Gospel, prefaced w i t h introductory formulae, stressed this belief.

Examples from Matthew, showing that Jesus fulfills the words o f God through the prophets, are: 142

I f we extend the scope o f our study to the entire N T , a more specific listing can be made concerning the way i n which Jesus relived the history of humankind and o f Israel. Jesus is: 1.

2.

The head of the new creation (Rev 3:14; 2 Cor 5:17). He is the living One. He has conquered the last enemy. He has the keys o f death and o f Hades (Rev 1:18).

The New Adam (Rom 5 and 1 Cor 15)—He is the image o f God (2 Cor 4:4), married to the Church (Eph 5:32-33), i n full dominion over the earth (John 6:16-21), over the sea (Luke 5:1-11; John 21), and over every living thing (Mark 11:12-14, 20). He can give orders to the sea, to the w i n d , calm the raging tempest, and walk on water.

3.

The New Moses (John 5:45-47), who is threatened at his birth by a hostile king (Matt 2). Jesus gives the law to his followers gathered on a mountain (Matt 5-7). Jesus is, however, greater than Moses and is counted as worthy o f more glory than Moses (Heb 3:1-6).

In fact, Jesus is the new authority, who can declare: "Amen, I say to y o u " (Matt 5:18, N A B ) or "you have heard . . . but I tell y o u " (Matt 5:21-22).

4.

5.

The New Joshua who gives rest to God's people (Heb 4:8-9).

The New Israel. Jesus the Messiah is called Israel (Isa 49:1-5).

I n this setting, the Servant o f the L o r d is clearly an individual figure who has the mission o f bringing Israel back to a covenant relationship w i t h God. Jesus deliberately chooses twelve aposties reminiscent o f the twelve tribes o f historic biblical Israel.

He ordains seventy. He is the Son o f G o d w h o m G o d called out o f Egypt. However, there is something unique about H i m . The 143

Innerbiblical Interpretation: Reading the Scriptures Intertextually ultimate liberation that the Exodus from Egypt had not accomplished, Jesus makes possible. " I f the son makes y o u free, you w i l l be free indeed" (John 8:36). Jesus spends forty days and forty nights i n the wilderness (Matt 4:2). Jesus passes through the waters o f baptism (Matt 3:13-17) as d i d historic Israel (see 1 Cor 10:1-2). The Spirit leads h i m into the wilderness. Jesus spends forty days fasting i n the wilderness. The temptations parallel the story o f Israel narrated i n the book o f Deuteronomy.

Jesus feeds His people w i t h bread from heaven (John 6:28-35).

Jesus as the N e w Israel also can be drawn from His designat i o n as God's Son. Jesus' resurrection also fulfills what was predieted i n Hosea 6:2, concerning the resurrection o f corporate Israel.

6.

7.

8.

9.

The Son of David, the eternal king who rules over the house o f Jacob (Luke 1:32-33). Moreover, He is the new David.

The New Isaac, the New Solomon, and the New Elisha. He is, however, greater than all the patriarchs and the prophets. His miracles go far beyond those recorded i n the OT. The Consolation of Israel. He brings hope; He escapes the slaughter instigated by Herod (Matt 2:16). He can reverse the plight o f His people.

The New Covenant. Jesus' acts during the communion service that He holds w i t h His disciples reenacts what Moses did w i t h the children o f Israel at Sinai (Exod 24:8). He refers to the blood o f the covenant (Matt 26:27-28). However, there is something more, for Jesus is the covenant. We move from "the blood o f the covenant to " m y blood o f the covenant" (Matt 26:28).

10. The Ultimate Sacrifice that provides atonement. He is the Lamb o f God that takes away the sin o f the world. The language o f atonement (expiation, propitiation) is applied to Jesus (Rom 3:25; 1 John 2:2; 1 John 4:10, and also Heb 2:17).

11. The High Priest. He is repeatedly designated as the H i g h Priest o f t h e N e w Covenant (Heb 2:17; 3:1; 4:14-15; 5:5, 10; 7:26; 8:1; 9:11. See also John 17).

12. The Holy One of God. Jesus epitomizes what holiness is all about.

A life totally centered on the w i l l o f God the Father (Mark 1:24; Acts 2:27; 3:14; Rev 3:7).

13. The Prophesied Shepherd (Ezek 34:23; 3 7:24), the ultimate leader o f God's people.

14. The Bread of Life. Jesus is contrasted and compared to the manna, which did not guarantee eternal life (John 6:31-35); Jesus does.

144

Innerbiblical Interpretation: Reading the Scriptures Intertextually 15. The sanctuary of God. He is Emmanuel (Matt 1:23, N R S V ) , God's presence among human beings (John 1:14; 2:19-21).

Jesus not only lived as the ideal man, and the ideal Israel, He corrected what went wrong with human beings, in general, and w i t h God's people, in particular. Jesus is the obedient Son o f God, and the righteous Servant who fulfils the law. Jesus satisfies the hope o f humanity and o f Israel. He transcends, however, the local or national expectations. Instead o f being merely the Savior o f Israel, He is the Savior o f the world. Instead of just being the priest who blesses Israel, He is the One who blesses all the nations o f the world, according to the gospel God preached to Abraham (Gal 3:8).

A New Paradigm for Innerbiblical Interpretation: The Book of Acts The language, terminology, and phraseology used i n the book o f Acts clearly reveal an interpretation, understanding, and appropriation o f the history o f God's people as narrated i n the OT. The Pentecost setting, the gift o f the Spirit that echoes the gift o f t h e law at Sinai, the insistence on maintaining the number o f the disciples at twelve, and the various citations to prove the constitution o f a new and expanded covenant commun i t y — a l l these presuppose an interpretation and an understanding o f OT material. F r o m the first to the last, the various discourses i n the book o f Acts, especially, but not exclusively, those addressed to the Jews, contain citations from the OT woven into the argumentations. A new aspect o f innerbiblical interpretation appears w i t h the book o f Acts. Jesus Christ becomes the pattern who shapes the identity and the mission o f His followers. A t both the individual and the corporate level, the lives o f Jesus Christ's followers are modeled after Jesus Christ Himself. The stories o f Stephen and Paul provide examples o f such parallels. Stephen's prayer for the forgiveness o f those who were stoning h i m (Acts 7:60) parallels that o f Jesus' (Luke 23:34). A t his death, Stephen committed his spirit to Jesus (Acts 7:59) as Jesus d i d to the Father (Luke 23:46). Both narratives mention the Son o f M a n at the right hand o f G o d (Acts 7:56; Luke 22:69).

Jesus was determined to go to Jerusalem (Luke 9:51). I n Acts, Paul is determined to go to Rome. Likewise, Paul before the Roman authorities echoes Jesus before the Roman authorities. O f Paul, Festus declares that he "found that he had committed nothing w o r t h y o f death" (Acts 25:25). O f Jesus, Pilate said " I found no fault i n h i m " ( L u k e 23:4). As at the beginning o f His ministry, Jesus received the H o l y Spirit, and so did the believers on a corporate level i n the book o f Acts. Jesus began His 145

Innerbiblical Interpretation: Reading the Scriptures Intertextually

Innerbiblical Interpretation: Reading the Scriptures Intertextually ministry after having been baptized, the H o l y Spirit having descending upon H i m ; so w i t h the disciples. As Jesus performed wonders and miracles so d i d the church i n Acts. Jesus, the representative o f God's people, is the model, the foundation upon w h i c h the church builds its identity and mission.

5.

6.

From the perspective o f Jesus and o f the N T writers, the most important reason for the use o f the OT i n the N e w is to establish Jesus' Messianic authority and identity and to show that He is the climax o f the history o f Adam, the patriarchs, and Israel. The institutions o f historic Israel, including the sanctuary and the festivals, find their purpose and their significance in the life o f Christ.

7.

A t times, Jesus and the N T writers interpret the O T as prophecy. Often, these usages show that Jesus is the fulfillment o f the promises God made to Adam, to the patriarchs, to Israel, and to the nations.

The N T writers interpret the OT using typology, which is already present i n the OT. Typological indicators are woven into the text.

Such indicators may be linguistic, thematic, or theological features. Typological relationships exist as well between various OT texts and the NT. The sign o f Jonah, the resurrection o f Israel after three days i n the book o f Hosea, and the death and the resurrection o f Jesus are clear examples o f interconnectedness.

3. Legitimacy of the Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament Writings Were the N T writers faithful to the original context o f the passages that they quoted? First o f all, we give the N T writers the benefit o f our belief that they would not do something tending to discredit the whole purpose o f their argumentation to prove that Jesus is the Messiah and that the plan o f salvation has entered a new phase. This new phase means that the borders o f Israel have been expanded, that the church, composed o f both Jews and non-Jews, is in legitimate continuity w i t h historic Israel, and that people o f non-Israelite origin are incorporated or grafted into the olive tree (Rom 11:17-24).

Second, i t is acknowledged w i d e l y that the book o f Revelation is in many ways a rereading o f the OT. A similar interpretative strategy can be discerned throughout the Bible. The prophetic writings are interpretations o f the Pentateuch w i t h applications to contemporary events.

Similarly, the N T is an interpretation and an expansion o f the OT. The subject matter o f both sections o f the Scripture is connected inseparably.

Moreover, the authors o f the N T refer to one another. The creative way i n w h i c h James uses material from the Sermon on the M o u n t or the parallels between the eschatological discourse in Matthew and the seven seals o f Revelation are but two o f many examples o f intertextuality w i t h i n the NT. 7

Biblical writers interpret one another's writings i n various ways and for multiple reasons. Here are examples: 1.

2.

3.

4.

A t a formal level, i n referring to one another biblical writers may want to achieve a literary or stylistic effect.

The prophets apply the Pentateuch to contemporary situations.

The language and imagery o f key events in history, such as Creation, the Exodus, the sojourn i n the desert, the settlement in Canaan, the exile, are used to describe subsequent divine acts o f salvation.

Jesus and the N T writers communicate w i t h people immersed in the Scriptures. They use a language familiar to their audience and 146

to their readers. This also applies to the OT prophets as they use the language o f the Torah.

A N T writer or character may want to obtain the support o f an authority (Matt 4:14). I n the case o f Jesus, however, He quotes, at times, from the OT to underline His o w n authority.

8.

9.

Jesus cites the O T to show how He stands i n continuity to its revelation and to show that He implements its principles. Nevertheless, even w i t h such continuity, who Jesus is exceeds, by far, what was predicted about H i m .

10. I n interpreting various O T passages, N T writers and characters seem to bear in mind the larger context o f the passage. Salvation history, w i t h its various components, is considered through the lenses o f a philosophy o f history by which God's purpose is to lead His creation to a cosmic reconciliation.

11. N T writers show a keen awareness o f the O T context. Texts they cite refer more often than not to a local, as w e l l as a distant, Messianic fulfillment.

12. Although they are more than mere repeaters, Jesus and the N T writers respect the O T context. They are sensitive to both the OT contexts and to the newness o f God's dealings w i t h humanity through Jesus Christ.

13. Frequently, there is more to a text than meets the eye, especially when one takes into consideration the context. I n Galatians 3:16, Paul attributes a Messianic meaning to the w o r d "seed." The move from a collective to a single "seed" is i n harmony w i t h what al147

Innerbiblical Interpretation: Reading the Scriptures Intertextually ready is inferred in Genesis 22:17-18. In other words, the oscillation from plural to singular indicates the necessity to consider not only the local but also the Messianic fulfillment o f certain OT prophecies. Genesis 3:15 is one o f those numerous Messianic texts that directs the readers' attention to the dynamics o f biblical prophecies. Paul, then, is not reading into the OT text something that was not there.

14. The N T use o f t h e O T is grounded i n the belief that Christ is the end or goal o f the law. The major figure that the biblical testimony anticipated reshapes the N T reading o f the OT. The veil that prevented the appropriate hermeneutics is lifted and taken away only through Christ (2 Cor 3:12-17). This Christocentric perspective also is grounded i n the very words o f Jesus when he said: " Y o u search the Scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is these that bear witness o f M e " (John 5:39). I n fact, the very goal o f reading the Scriptures is to behold the glory o f the L o r d and to be transformed into the same image. This happens as the reader is engaged i n innerbiblical interpretation whose main focus is Jesus Christ, the revelation o f God's glory.

4. Guidelines for an Intertextual Reading of Scripture A n intertextual reading o f Scripture can become a highly complex study.

Experts engage in interdisciplinary studies to extract the most from a text.

But the fact that such study may become technical does not mean that intertextuality is inaccessible to the general reader. The H o l y Spirit leads the believer into all truth. A l l can benefit from reading the Scriptures i n tertextually. Moreover, when Jesus invited the reader o f Scripture to understand what was spoken through the prophet Daniel (Matt 24:15), He assumed their competence and their ability to understand. I n matters pertaining to knowing God's w i l l from Scripture, there is room for the expert and for any inquisitive mind.

Innerbiblical Interpretation: Reading the Scriptures Intertextually

2.

3.

ing various sections o f Scripture, using mnemonic devices, also helps develop sensitivity to innerbiblical interpretation.

Study passages w i t h similar content. Carefully compare the original setting o f a passage and its use i n the new context.

Define the meaning o f the key terms through w o r d studies (concordances, dictionaries).

4.

5.

Study the context.

Acquaint yourself w i t h the O T w o r l d to obtain a better understanding o f the NT. 6. Focus on connections that are clearly made w i t h i n the Scriptures.

Refrain from finding an application to every detail o f O T persons, events, and institutions, such as the sanctuary.

7. Focus-on the fact that Scripture testifies about Jesus (John 5:39).

A n intertextual study o f Scripture is a servant o f a higher goal, to know God, to contemplate his glory in Christ Jesus, and to be transformed into His likeness, from glory to glory.

Conclusion Intertextuality is part o f the very fabric o f Scripture. The first chapters ofthe Bible initiate a world o f encounters. From Creation i n Genesis 1 to re-creation in Revelation 21 and 22, God is revealed as He engages i n a story whose overall theme is the salvation o f His creation. Stories are told and retold from various perspectives. As time passes, mediators o f the covenant between God and Israel and humanity, in general, refer to the foundations o f the covenant. This covenant is laid out in the Torah, the guidance God has provided for the life, ethics, and relationship among His covenant partners, His people.

Key events in His encounter with His people become patterns for future encounters. Even though biblical writers are more than mere "repeaters," the language they use shows homogeneity. The Creation story, the Flood, the covenant with the patriarchs, the Exodus, the encounter o f God with His people at Sinai, the sanctuary/temple, the priests, sacrifices, cultic performances, and festivals become background and language for subsequent theological formulations dealing with Christology, ecclesiology, and eschatology.

To develop an intertextual reading o f the Scriptures, whose main goal is to lead the reader to access the full counsel o f God i n Scripture on any given topic, the Bible reader should use the following guidelines: 1. Familiarize yourself w i t h the content o f the whole Bible. A regular reading o f the Scriptures is highly recommended. This practice w i l l make the w o r l d o f Scripture a home for the reader. Memoriz-

So do we still need the OT? Does the N T use the O T in a legitimate way? Do we need the OT to understand the N T ? The answer must be an unequivocal Yes. The OT provides the language that N T writers use to express the ideas they wish to communicate to the world. Those very ideas are grounded i n the OT as part o f God's dealings w i t h Israel and w i t h the

148

149

Innerbiblical Interpretation: Reading the Scriptures Intertextually w o r l d as witnessed in the Scriptures. However, Jesus and the N T writers do not limit themselves merely to quoting the OT. A t times they correct what was not ideal in their audiences' ethics, behavior, w o r l d views, understanding, or interpretation o f the O T texts (see Jesus on marriage and divorce i n M a r k 10, also Jesus' discussion w i t h the Sadducees on the resurrection [Matt 22:23-33], and Peter's argumentation i n favor o f Christ's resurrection that David predicted [Acts 2:22-36.])

The Scriptures are an indivisible and united whole. The OT provides the matrix for N T language and thoughts and informs its doctrine and theology. Reading the Scriptures intertextually opens windows to the connection between the O l d and the N e w Testaments. This mode o f awareness helps us understand the rhetorical strategies o f biblical characters and o f writers. I t gives insights concerning the uniqueness o f each biblical book.

H o w the writers quote, cite, or echo one another's writings gives a glimpse into what they were trying to communicate.

References Unless otherwise indicated, biblical quotations are from the New American Standard Bible.

1. Roger Nicole, "The New Testament Use of the Old Testament," in The Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts?: Essays on the Use of the Old Testament in the New, ed. G. K. Beale (Grand Rapids, M I : Baker Books, 1994), pp. 13-14.

2. Robert B. Sloan Jr. and Carey C. Newman, "Ancient Jewish Hermeneutics," Biblical Hermeneutics: A Comprehensive Introduction to Interpreting Scripture, eds. Bruce Corley, Steve W. Lemke, and Grant I . Lovejoy, 2d ed. (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 2002), pp. 58-59.

3. Prominent among the methods are: 1. Peshat, a literalist type of exegesis that consists of a rendition of the literal meaning of a text. 2. Targum, a paraphrase or explanatory interpretation. 3. Midrash, an exposition of a passage whose aim is to develop the relevance of a text for the present. 4. Pesher, derived from an Aramaic word that means "solution. "The presupposition is that the text contains a mystery communicated by God that is not understood until the solution is made known by an inspired interpreter." (See Klyne Snodgrass, "The Use of the Old Testament in the New," in Interpreting the New Testament: Essays on Methods and Issues, eds. David A. Black and David S. Dockery [Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 2001], p. 218.)

4. Donald Juel, Messianic Exegesis: Christological Interpretation ofthe Old Testament in Early Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1992), p. 44.

5. Sloan Jr. and Newman, pp. 59-60.

6. David L. Baker, Two Testaments, One Bible: A Study of the Theological Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments (Downers, Glove, I L : InterVarsity Press, 1991), p. 195.

150

Innerbiblical Interpretation: Reading the Scriptures Intertextually 7. Ask and it will be given (Jas 1:5; Matt 7:7; Luke 11:9), good gifts from the Father (Jas 1:17; Matt 7:11), being doers of the Word rather than simply hearers (Jas 1:22-25; Matt 7:21-26), the poor as those who receive the kingdom (Jas 2:5; Matt 5:3; Luke 6:20), peacemaking (Jas 3:18; Matt 5:9), and taking oaths (Jas 5:12: Matt 5:33-37).

Selected Bibliography Bock, Darrell. "Use of the OT in the New." In Foundations for Biblical Interpretation, eds. David S. Dockery, et al. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1994.

Carson, D. A. and H. G. M . Williamson, eds. It Is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture: Essays in Honour of Barnabas Lindars. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.

Davidson, Richard M . "New Testament Uses of the Old Testament." Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 5/1 (1994): 14-39.

Hayes, Richard B. and Joel B. Green. "The Use of the Old Testament by New Testament Writers." In Hearing the New Testament: Strategies for Interpretation, ed. Joel B. Green. Grand Rapids, M I : Eerdmans, 1995.

Neusner, Jacob. Canon and Connection: Intertextuality in Judaism. Lanham, M D : University Press of America, 1987.

Paulien, Jon. "Elusive Allusions: The Problematic Use of the Old Testament in Revelation." BR 33 (1988): 37-53.

Snodgrass, Klyne. "The Use of the Old Testament in the New." In Interpreting the New Testament: Essays on Methods and Issues, eds. David Alan Black and David S. Dockery. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2001.

151

CHAPTER IX

INTERPRETING OLD TESTAMENT HISTORICAL NARRATIVE Greg A . K i n g

Introduction The Bible-contains more literature that fits under the rubric "historical narrative" than any other literary genre. Nearly h a l f o f the OT is o f this nature and over one-third o f the entire Bible.

I n the O T the books of Genesis, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, and Jonah are largely written in historical narrative. Also, substantial parts o f other books such as Exodus and Ezekiel appear in this form. I n the N T the Gospels and Acts are largely o f this genre.

In light o f the pervasiveness o f historical narrative i n Scripture, it is vital that this genre be interpreted properly i f God's Word is to be understood correctly. This chapter w i l l list and explain some guidelines that are helpfill to use when interpreting the historical narrative sections o f the Bible.

Additionally, we include a sample interpretation o f a historical narrative section from the book o f Ruth.

This article assumes use o f the general hermeneutical principles applicable to every portion o f Scripture (i.e., having an accurate translation, understanding the context, application, etc. See chapter 7, "Guidelines for the Interpretation o f Scripture"). However, specific guidelines are particularly important when approaching certain genres o f the Bible, and here we w i l l set forth, develop, and nuance these guidelines i n such a way that they focus specifically on the interpretation o f historical narrative.

In line w i t h the design o f this volume, these guidelines w i l l primarily be discussed i n relationship to verses found i n the "Historical Books" section o f the OT, as given i n the English canon (the books o f Joshua through Esther). However, they also apply to the other historical narrative sections o f Scripture.

1

2

3

152

153

Interpreting Old Testament Historical Narrative

Interpreting Old Testament Historical Narrative 1. Guidelines for Interpreting Historical Narratives

4

Read the Text Closely A close reading o f the text is essential. I n historical narrative, as well as w i t h other biblical genres, it is vital to pay attention to the details ofthe story, even to those that, at the time, may seem insignificant or superfluous. For example, the careless reader might overlook the seemingly minor detail about Absalom's vain behavior regarding his hair (2 Sam 14:26).

However, Absalom's vanity towards his hair is an important point, because it anticipates the cause o f his demise. This underscores the fact that the text itself must be carefully read and closely studied.

of the narrative, sometimes by the words uttered by the characters, and, at other times, by explicit comment or by summary statements, delineating the meaning o f a certain narrative. As an example o f the latter, who can miss the narrator's negative assessment o f the chaos in the Israelite nation during the days o f the judges, appearing i n the epilog o f the entire book? " I n those days Israel had no king; everyone did as he saw fit" (Judg 21:25).

Other Features. Other literary features in historical narratives, such as comparison/contrast and irony, could also be mentioned, but to conelude this point, there is no substitute for analyzing the plot, the characters, and other features i n order to understand the meaning o f the narrative sections o f the Bible.

Take Note of Repetitions

Study Literary Features It is important to notice the various literary features that make up the narrative sections o f Scripture. A t a minimum, the following elements o f each passage should be studied: the plot, the setting, the characters, and the narrator's viewpoint.

Plot Discovering the plot involves answering the What? and the How? questions. It is the sequence o f events that compose the narrative. It is what holds the story together. To discover the plot, ask, What is this story about?

The setting deals with the When? and Where? questions. What is the time and place i n which a certain narrative is set? For example, the book o f Ruth is said to take place during the era when the judges ruled (Ruth 1:1). When understood against this setting, it stands i n contrast to the violence and the anarchy consuming the nation o f Israel at that time. Also, the book o f Ruth begins at Bethlehem, the name o f which has the ironic meaning "house o f bread," because the land is i n the grip o f famine right then.

5

Repetitions are commonly used i n historical narrative. Recurring words and phrases can be helpful i n determining the meaning intended by the author. For example, Jeroboam, son o f Nebat, is used repeatedly as a standard o f comparison, the monarch who set the pattern for the evil kings ofthe Northern Kingdom succeeding to the throne (1 Kgs 15:34; 16:7,26).

Any king said to follow the ways o f Jeroboam clearly w i l l be no agent o f spiritual revival.

As another example, the astute Bible student who reads that Adonijah, as part o f his plan to usurp the throne, rides i n a chariot w i t h 50 men running ahead o f h i m (1 Kgs 1:5) already can sense that Adonijah is heading for doom, for the same had been done by Absalom as part o f his unsuccessful power grab (2 Sam 15:1).

Look for the Divine Perspective

Narrator's Viewpoint The narrator's viewpoint, refers to the theological perspective o f the one who relates the narrative—to the point he or she is trying to make. The narrator's viewpoint comes to us in a variety o f ways.

For example, sometimes it appears in the arrangement and in the structure

A fourth guideline to remember is that historical narratives are not attempting merely to relate the story o f people who lived i n ancient times, but they are mainly about how God worked i n and through his children—and sometimes i n spite o f them. There is a divine perspective to these stories.

In light o f this, i t is appropriate to use the term "theological history," since the historical narrative also intends to communicate theological truth to the reader. For example, the last few verses o f 2 Kings are not only trying to tell us o f t h e good fortune o f Jehoiachin i n being released from prison and i n being allowed to eat at the table o f the Babylonian king; rather, this passage is attempting to show that God has not abandoned his covenant people and is still working redemptively on their behalf, even in the dark night o f exile.

154

155

Characters. The characters are the people involved i n the story, those who move the plot forward. I t is very important to analyze how the various characters are portrayed i n order to interpret historical narratives correctly. For example, a careful analysis o f the character o f Samson pays rich dividends in the interpretation o f Judges 13-16. Though one o f t h e strongest men who ever lived, he is at the same time one o f the weakest.

His weakness w i t h women, manifested i n previous dalliances (Judges 14 and 16), prefigures his ultimate undoing at the hands o f one.

6

Interpreting Old Testament Historical Narrative

Interpreting Old Testament Historical Narrative

Here, we need to affirm the importance o f reading each narrative, not only in light o f its own immediate context but in the context o f the entire plan o f redemption. That is, each narrative unit should be read in light o f the Great Controversy as a whole.

The message o f the O T historical narratives operates on three levels.

The top level is God's plan and purpose for the human race, including God's perfect creation, the fall, and Christ's incarnation, sacrifice, and offer o f salvation. The middle level focuses on Israel, including God's call o f Abraham, deliverance o f his descendants from bondage in Egypt, their apostasy and exile, and their restoration. The lower level is composed o f the events and incidents in all the individual narratives that make up the larger story.

For example, the narrative o f Ruth not only demonstrates God's love for two individual widows and their friendship with one another (the lower level), it also shows Ruth's important role in the nation o f Israel as she becomes an ancestress o f the great K i n g David (the middle level). Reading further in the Bible (see the genealogy in Matthew 1), one discovers that Ruth has a place in the family tree o f the Messiah (the top level) and thus plays a role in God's plan o f redemption. It is important to consider an individual OT narrative at each o f these levels and ask such questions as: What is happening in this specific story? What role does it play i n God's plan for the covenant nation?

H o w does it fit into the entire plan o f redemption?

7

Recognize the E x a m p l a r y Nature of Narratives Historical narratives do not normally proclaim a direct biblical command or teach a biblical doctrine. They may well assume and illustrate a command or a doctrine taught elsewhere. A n example o f this is the Elijah narrative. Though there is no explicit command i n 1 Kings 17-18 not to worship other gods, as is stated in the Ten Commandments, it is clearly assumed by the narrator and by Elijah that it is sinful for the people to worship Baal. The outcome on M t . Carmel confirms this assumption. The narrator o f 1 Kings assumes from Deuteronomy the dangers inherent in great riches and i n foreign women and provides only a short account o f how Solomon turns away from God (1 Kgs 10:14-11:10). Thus, one o f the purposes o f historical narratives is that they often serve as powerful illustrators o f biblical commands given elsewhere.

happen. In keeping with this, it is important to remember that readers o f the Bible are not called to imitate all the actions o f the biblical characters, even those o f the so-called heroes o f Scripture. Certainly David's sin w i t h Bathsheba and his murder o f her husband are not worthy o f emulation, even though David is referred to as a man after God's own heart. Rather, his actions are morally evil, gross violations o f God's standard o f conduct. While in David's situation the text explicitly states that his action displeased the L o r d (2 Sam 11:27), sometimes the narrative unit does not state clearly the divine assessment o f a certain act. Rather, the reader must look at what the text implies and what the Bible states elsewhere.

While there are other interpretive guidelines that could be adduced, the aforementioned ones should provide some helpful guidance in discerning the meaning o f the Bible's historical narratives.

2. A n Example of Historical Narrative Interpretation This brief review o f the book o f Ruth provides an example o f how a historical narrative section o f Scripture might be interpreted and applied today. Though it focuses on Ruth 2:1-13, it also deals w i t h certain major themes o f the entire book and attempts to understand these themes in light ofthe Bible as a whole. Additionally, i t notes some o f the literary features and uses some o f the guidelines that are mentioned above.

Exposition of R u t h 2:1-13

Evaluate the Actions of the Characters

The more things change, the more they remain the same. Or so the saying goes. A n d so it was for Naomi and Ruth. Notwithstanding a change o f address from Moab to Bethlehem, the same old problems and uncertainties persistently plague the lives o f these two widows. Their plight was a desperate one. I n a cruel irony, although they now lived i n the "house o f bread" (the meaning o f the name Bethlehem), they were stalked by hunger. Other challenges loomed large also. They were locked in poverty, overwhelmed by loneliness, uncertain o f their acceptance by the Israelite community, and convinced that their situation was due to divine judgment (Ruth 1:20-21). They faced the extinction of their family line due to the lack o f a male descendant to inherit the estate and carry on the family name. They seemed on the verge o f just giving up. This "house o f bread" was no cornucopia for them!

A final interpretive guideline to note is that biblical historical narratives record what actually happened, not necessarily what God wanted to

Confronted by seemingly insolvable situations, perplexed about the present, worried about the future, wondering i f life is worth living, i f there is anything to hope for, we are the Ruths and Naomis o f today.

156

157

Interpreting Old Testament Historical Narrative

Interpreting Old Testament Historical Narrative When mired in such difficult and desperate circumstances, what do we need to know? What God-given message w i l l bring us courage? What biblical truth can give birth to hope? The answer comes in the very message that Ruth 2 proclaims, namely, that God is actively working on behalf o f His children to bring about redemption and restoration. The Almighty has not forgotten or abandoned us. To the contrary, the God who proclaims elsewhere, " I w i l l never leave you or forsake y o u " (Heb 13:5, N R S V ) , is already arranging events and circumstances so as to bring about a glorious renewal.

Note how Ruth chapter 2 expresses this message. The first verse hints at the coming restoration by introducing the person through w h o m it w i l l later be accomplished, Naomi's wealthy relative, Boaz. A t this point in the narrative, Naomi and Ruth are not thinking o f Boaz as a candidate to extricate them from the pit into which they have fallen. I n fact, judging from her later comments, Ruth knows nothing about h i m at all. However, he is already in place and possesses resources that w i l l be used to bring about a reversal o f their fortunes. There is a redeemer, as Boaz w i l l be designated later, waiting in the wings. In Ruth 2:20 and 3:9, 12, the participle form o f ga>al denotes Boaz; the N I V translates this as "kinsman-redeemer."

I n keeping w i t h the foregoing paragraph, perhaps we need to add the phrase "prevenient providence" to our theological lexicon. Some already are acquainted w i t h the concept o f prevenient grace, though probably not everyone (one o f m y dictionaries does not even have an entry for the adjective "prevenient"). It refers to the divine grace already working on a person's heart prior to that person's turning to God. Although theologians seldom speak o f prevenient providence, the book o f Ruth establishes the validity ofthe concept. Simply by introducing Boaz, the agent o f redemption and by alluding to his abundant resources, the author is suggesting that God already is at work and has a plan to accomplish His purposes. A l though tear-stained eyes, whether o f Naomi and o f Ruth in ancient times or o f our o w n in modern times, are often oblivious to the fact, God already is working to redeem and to restore.

But what should Ruth and Naomi do, in the meantime, before God's plan comes to fruition? To do nothing was to starve, so Ruth suggested a plan. I n accord w i t h the stipulation permitting the poor to gather grain left by the harvesters (Lev 19:9-10; 23:22; Deut 24:19-22), she proposed finding a field in which she would be allowed to glean. So she headed out, and "as it happened" (Ruth 2:3, N R S V ) , or so the Bible says, she came to the field o f Boaz.

o u s significance as the plot ofthe book unfolds, is simply a coincidence, stroke o f good luck that she gleaned i n his field instead o f someone else's? N o t at all! Although it may appear to the reader that Ruth stumbled on the field o f Boaz by accident, this "labeling o f Ruth's meeting w i t h Boaz as 'chance' is nothing more than the author's way o f saying that no human intent was involved. For Ruth and Boaz it was an accident, but not for God." A study ofthe Hebrew verbal root used here (qarah) buttresses this point, for "Yahweh often lurks i n contexts where qrh occurs."

m

a

8

9

Here, the author is attempting to make a point about divine providence.

Divine providence means God's care for His children, His general supervision over them, and His ordering and working out o f events so as to fulfill His plan i n their lives. Providence i n the book o f Ruth is not ofthe spectacular, miraculous, "fireworks-in-the-sky" variety. To the contrary, much of God's activity "is very much that o f one i n the shadows, the one whose manifestation is not by intervention but by a lightly exercised providential control." But it is there all the same, and the events that occur subsequent to Ruth's encounter w i t h Boaz all have the feel o f being part ofthe divine plan to redeem and to restore Ruth and Naomi. Boaz' interest in, and kindness to, Ruth; her corresponding attraction to him; the outcome of his dealings w i t h the other kinsman; their marriage union; and production o f an offspring, who ultimately redeems N a o m i (4:14-15), seem meant to be.

10

But what about the present? Dare we affirm God's providential leading of His children today? Dare we proclaim divine involvement in our own lives? I n light ofthe teaching o f Scripture, not only in the book o f Ruth but in all sixty-six books, dare we not? The Ruths and the Naomis o f today, worried and hopeless, need desperately to hear the message that the same God who knows when a sparrow falls (Matt 10:29) cares deeply about them, that He is interested and involved in their lives. They need to be reminded ofthe gift o f redemption that He has provided and the ultimate restoration that He promises. I n fact, this redemption and restoration was provided i n a climactic way by none other than the great redeemer par excellence, the one w h o m Boaz foreshadowed i n several respects, Jesus Christ. Like Boaz, Jesus claims kinship with those w h o m He redeems (Heb 2:11), and like Boaz, He is w i l l i n g to redeem, even though redemption comes at a cost.

"As it happened." What is the meaning o f this phrase? Is the author suggesting that Ruth's encounter w i t h Boaz, an event that takes on enor-

But today redemption and restoration are not always immediately evident i n the lives o f God's children. The L o r d does not wave a magic wand and, "Voila" the difficulties and problems immediately disappear. For example, when the passage under consideration here concludes (2:1-13), Ruth and N a o m i still face the problems o f poverty, hunger, and the threat o f family extinction. I t is true that Ruth has met the wealthy and friendly Boaz, but the small cache o f food she has gathered w i l l be devoured quick-

158

159

Interpreting Old Testament Historical Narrative

Interpreting Old Testament Historical Narrative ly, and she and Naomi must still deal w i t h the same problematic situation In one sense, nothing has changed. But in another sense, everything has changed, for Ruth has encountered the agent o f redemption! Redemption and restoration are on the march and, ultimately, w i l l be visible i the lives o f these two widows. The positive outcome is not in doubt. To the contrary, it is as certain as the promises o f God. A n d so it is with us.

Our status as the redeemed o f God, our future in His kingdom, while not always apparent now, is as sure as tomorrow's sunrise. n

Something more should be said about one ofthe objects o f redemption and restoration, Ruth. She deserves special mention, because her Moabite ancestry w o u l d seem to preclude her acceptance by the people o f God and would make her an unlikely candidate for such a work o f grace. It would seem to make her a permanent outsider (Deut 23:3). Not only in the passage under consideration here, but throughout the book, the author delights i n calling attention to the fact that Ruth is a foreigner. Some ofthe references, such as the dual one in Ruth 2:6, are clearly superfluous. Every opportunity is taken to remind the reader o f her Moabite heritage (1:4, 22; 2:2, 6, 2 1 ; 4:5, 10). I n light o f this alien status, Ruth considers herself undeserving o f any kindness (2:10). She has no covenant claims on the mercies o f God or on those o f His people. Or so she believes, perhaps, reflecting the views o f her Israelite contemporaries.

However, this emphasis on her foreignness serves only to highlight and to dramatize the effect when Ruth's status as an outsider is reversed, a reversal anticipated by Boaz' comment i n chapter 2:12. This reversal comes to a climax in the last chapter ofthe book in which Ruth is portrayed as blessed by the L o r d and honored in Israel (4:11-22). This foreigner, whose Moabite ancestry w o u l d seem to place her outside the orbit o f such blessings, is revealed as the great-grandmother o f David, the Israelite par excellence, and the one through whose line Jesus Christ would later come (Matt 1:1-17). N o greater honor could be bestowed i n Israel!

Thus, we have i n Ruth a striking witness to the biblical truth implied in the Genesis genealogies and later revealed anew to Peter, "God does not show favoritism but accepts men from every nation who fear h i m and do what is right" (Acts 10:34-35). This truth needs to be proclaimed loudly and often in our day i n which, sadly, ugly terms such as "ethnic cleansing" are alive and well. The fact that redemption and restoration are bestowed on this seeming outsider serves to highlight for us the equal status and value o f all people in God's eyes. The riches o f t h e divine kingdom are available to all who call upon the Lord's name (Rom 10:13).

References Unless otherwise indicated, biblical quotations are from the New International Version.

1 The term "historical narrative" is perhaps the best term for the type of literature most prevalent in the Bible, keeping in mind that history includes the following: (1) relatms what occurred, (2) sharing the narrator's viewpoint on what occurred, 3) placing it all in a meaningfol arrangement so that it conveys a message. (Walter C Kaiser and Moises Silva. An Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994], p. 83) Since selectivity and the bias ofthe historian are always involved in writing history, the nineteenth century idea of history as a completely objective and unbiased statement of past events is unrealistic. Though some prefer the word "story" for the genre under discussion here, for many people "story" implies, something that may not be true, so it is not the best term. In the term "historical narrative," the adjective "historical" indicates that the literature is relating a past event and the noun "narrative" suggests the literary form in which it comes.

2. Kaiser and Silva, p. 69.

3. Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982), p. 73.

4. Although the biblical examples discussed are mostly my own, some have been selected and adapted from Fee and Stuart, p. 78 ff.

5. The succeding paragraphs are adapted from J. Scott Duval and J. Daniel Hays, Grasping God's Word (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), p. 299 ff.

6. Ibid., p. 294.

7. Fee and Stuart, pp. 74-75.

8. Ronald M . Hals, The Theology ofthe Book of Ruth (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1969), p. 12.

9. Robert L. Hubbard, Jr., The Book of Ruth, NICOT. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B.Eerdman's, 1988), p. 141.

10. Edward R. Campbell, Jr., Ruth, Anchor Bible (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1975) p. 29.

Select Bibliography Campbell, Edward R., Jr. Ruth. Anchor Bible. Garden City: Doubleday, 1975.

Fee, Gordon D. and Douglas Stuart. How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth.

Grand Rapids, M I : Zondervan, 1982.

Hals, Ronald M . The Theology of the Book of Ruth. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969.

Hubbard, Jr., Robert L. The Book of Ruth. NICOT. Grand Rapids, M I : Eerdmans, 1988.

160

Kaiser, Walter C. and Moises Silva. An Introduction to Biblical Grand Rapids, M I : Zondervan, 1994.

161

Hermeneutics.

CHAPTERΧ

READING PSALMS AND THE WISDOM LITERATURE Gerhard Pfandl and  n g e l Μ . Rodriguez

Introduction The book o f the Psalms contains some o f the most inspiring subject matter in Scripture. It is more often quoted i n the N T than any other book and is revered by Christians up to the present time. Job, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes focus on the Hebrew concept o f wisdom (hokmăh), a word indicating both the intellectual and moral traditions o f ancient Israel. Because Israel's wisdom belonged to the larger context o f the ancient Near East, we find i n the biblical wisdom literature some parallels to the sayings of Egyptian and Mesopotamian sages.

The book o f Psalms and the wisdom literature i n the Bible are the work o f a number o f authors; the whole collection was probably brought together i n its final form in the time o f Ezra and o f Nehemiah. Since these books were written i n poetic form, the interpreter needs to take note ofthe characteristics o f Hebrew poetry.

1. The Book of Psalms The book o f Psalms is a collection o f inspired Hebrew prayers and hymns, seventy-three o f which are ascribed to K i n g David. While the psalms primarily contain words spoken to God or about God, they are, at the same, time God's words to His people; they focus on the relationship between God and His children. Psalms, therefore, contains hymns o f praise for God's great deeds; laments i n which people pour out their hearts in times o f trouble; and prayers for God's guidance and help i n the journey o f life. They reflect the faith experience o f the people o f God prior to the first coming o f Christ, but they are not time-bound. A l l the psalms were, and still are, used i n private devotions and i n public worship. They played an important part i n the temple service down to its destruction in A . D . 70.

163

Reading Psalms and the Wisdom Literature

Reading Psalms and the Wisdom Literature Because there are very few clues to their historical setting, they are, in a sense, universal. They speak to, and for, typical human situations and, therefore, have the capacity to speak to human beings in any age.

Because the psalms are poems—musical poems, they require special care when interpreted. Their poetic character is not obvious in translation, because, in contrast to western poetry, Hebrew poetry has no rhyme.

Much o f the language i n the psalms is intentionally emotive; the interpreter, therefore, needs to be careful not to search for special meanings in every word or phrase in which the author has intended none. Furthermore, because the language o f the psalms is largely metaphorical, the interpreter must look for the intent o f the metaphors and not stop at their literal meaning. Mountains do not really skip like rams (Ps 114:4); nor should God's people be or act like sheep (Ps 23).

L o w t h distinguished between three basic types o f parallelism: synonymous, antithetic, and synthetic, a division still i n use today.

Synonymous

Parallelism—The

thought ofthe first line is repeated in

the second line i n different words: Prov 1:20

Wisdom calls aloud outside; She raises her voice i n the open square.

Isa 2:17

The loftiness o f man shall be bowed down, A n d the haughtiness o f men shall be brought low.

Antithetic Parallelism—The

second line contrasts, or negates, the

thought and the meaning o f the first line. Frequently, the second line is introduced w i t h "but."

2. Hebrew Poetry More than one-third o f the O T is poetry. Most o f it appears in the book o f Psalms, in the wisdom literature (Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes), and in the prophetic books. Isaiah is written almost entirely i n poetic form. A number o f poetic sections are also found in the historical books, e.g., Genesis 49 and Numbers 23 and 24. Only seven O T books have no poetry at all (Leviticus, Ruth, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Haggai, and Malachi). Thus, it is important to understand Hebrew poetry in order to interpret large portions o f the O T correctly.

The modern study o f Hebrew poetry began i n 1753 with the publication o f Bishop Robert Lowth's book De Sacra Poesi Hebraeorum. He believed that Hebrew poetry had a real meter, but that it was difficult to recognize because knowledge o f how classical Hebrew was spoken had died out. Therefore, he focused on the chief characteristic o f Hebrew poetry, which he labeled parallelismus membrorum (parallelism o f members).

Prov 14:30 A sound heart is life to the body, But envy is rottenness to the bones.

Prov 16:25 There is a way that seems right to a man, But its end is the way o f death.

Synthetic or Formal Parallelism—This of the first line.

Ps28:6

Bishop L o w t h explained parallelism as follows: The correspondence of one verse or line with another, I call parallelism. When a proposition is delivered, and a second is subjoined to it, or drawn under it, equivalent, or contrasted with it in sense, or similar to it in the form of grammatical construction, these I call parallel lines; and the words or phrases, answering one to another in corresponding lines, parallel terms.

1

164

Blessed be the Lord, Because he has heard the voice o f m y supplications!

Here the first line makes a statement, and the second line provides the reason.

Ps 119:9

Parallelism

parallelism is not as clear as

the other two. Basically, the second line develops or completes the thought

H o w can a young man cleanse his way?

B y taking heed according to Your word.

The first line asks a question; the second line provides the answer.

Since Lowth's work on Hebrew parallelism, additional types o f parallelism have been identified. For example, i n Emblematic Parallelism,

one

line uses a metaphor or simile, while the balancing line makes a factual statement: Ps 42:1

As the deer pants for the water brooks, 165

Reading Psalms and the Wisdom Literature So pants m y soul for You, O God. Climactic or Stairlike Parallelism repeats and advances the message in successive steps. The thought appears to ascend in three or more steps: Ps 29:1 -2

Give unto the L O R D , O you mighty ones, Give unto the L O R D glory and strength.

Give unto the L O R D the glory due to His name; Worship the L O R D in the beauty o f holiness.

2

Chiastic Parallelism inverts the words or thoughts in successive lines.

Thus, what was first i n the first line appears last in the second line: Ps 30:8

I cried out to you, O L O R D ; A n d to the L O R D I made supplication:

Reading Psalms and the Wisdom Literature Metaphor—In a metaphor the writer describes one thing i n terms o f another. The comparison is merely implied. Psalm 18:2 "The L O R D is m y rock and m y fortress and m y deliverer; M y God, m y strength, i n w h o m I w i l l trust; M y shield and the horn o f m y salvation, m y stronghold." God was to D a v i d as the strength ofthe rock and the cover o f a shield providing him w i t h protection from his enemies.

Parable—An extended simile becomes a parable. I t is a short story that teaches a lesson by comparison. God's parable i n Isaiah 5:1-5 describes God's disappointment w i t h the vineyard that brought forth only w i l d or sour grapes. The main point o f comparison is recognized at the end ofthe story, "For the vineyard o f the L o r d o f hosts is the house o f Israel."

Allegory—An extended metaphor becomes an allegory. I n the allegory o f Proverbs 5:15-23, the main point is marital fidelity. "The comparison that is drawn there is between the practice o f drinking water from one's own w e l l and the need for being faithful in the conjugal responsibilities and privileges o f marriage."

4

Acrostic

2.

Several psalms are composed in an acrostic pattern in which the initial letter o f each verse or set o f verses follows the order ofthe Hebrew alphabet. Thus, i n Psalm 34 the first verse begins w i t h the Hebrew letter aleph, the second w i t h the letter beth, the third with the letter gimmel, etc. I n Lamentations 3 not one but three lines are assigned to each letter, i.e., the first three verses all begin w i t h aleph, the next three verses all begin w i t h beth, the next three w i t h gimmel, etc. I n Psalm 119, eight verses always begin with the same Hebrew letter, and since the number o f Hebrew letters is 22, the psalm has 176 verses. The acrostic form may have been an aid for memorization.

Figures of Speech Hebrew poetry is rich i n the use o f imagery and figures o f speech, but it is also very elliptic; i.e., it drops out nouns and verbs in parallel lines and rarely uses conjunctions (and, but), temporal indicators (when, then), or logical connectors (thus, therefore).

Figures of Fullness of Expression Paronomasia—Paronomasia is a w o r d play i n w h i c h words w i t h similar sound but not necessarily similar meaning are repeated. For example, Proverbs 11:18 says, "The wicked man does deceptive (săqer) work, But he who sows righteousness will have a sure reward (seker). The sounds o f the w o r d "deceptive" and "reward" (săqer and seker) are similar but their meaning is not. See also the similarity o f the words for "trouble" (şărăh) and "small" (sar) i n Proverbs 24:10. This literary effect is usually lost i n translation.

Hyperbole—-This is a conscious exaggeration or overstatement, e.g., Psalm 78:27, "He also rained meat on them like the dust, Feathered fowl like the sand ofthe seas." This text is part o f a graphic poetic account ofthe miracle ofthe quails. To emphasize the showers o f God's blessings, the number o f quails is compared to the sand o f the sea.

3.

Figures of Association Metonymy—In this figure o f speech an idea is evoked or named by

3

means o f a w o r d that refers to some associated notion. Psalm 47:8, "God reigns over the nations; God sits on His holy throne." God's throne stands

1.

Figures of

Comparison

for His reign.

Simile—A figure o f speech in which two essentially unlike things are compared by the use o f an introductory " l i k e " or "as." Psalm 42:1 "As the deer pants for the water brooks, so pants m y soul for You, O God." A simile is the most easily recognizable figure o f speech.

a part or a part for the whole. Psalm 26:10, " I n whose hands is a sinister

166

167

Synecdoche—A

figure

o f speech in which the whole can be put for

scheme, and whose right hand is full o f bribes." The right hand as part o f the body stands for the whole person.

Reading Psalms and the Wisdom Literature

Reading Psalms and the Wisdom Literature When dealing with figures o f comparison, association, or fullness, the interpreter must be careful not to press them beyond what the author had originally intended. "Figures o f speech are not as precise in their meanings as prose is. What these figures lack in precision, however, is surely made up for in their increased ability to draw pictures for us and to give a vividness that ordinary prose cannot."

5

Types of Hebrew Poetry

6

Hebrew poetry had its origin i n the life o f the people. However, it was not recreational but functional. I t played an important role i n the life o f the nation o f Israel, particularly i n its relationship w i t h God. Therefore, the prophetic messages were frequently given i n poetic form. N o t only were they more easily remembered, but they were also more emotive and powerful in their message.

War Songs—War songs were one o f the earliest forms o f poetry (Judg 7:18, 20). The best k n o w n are the victory songs o f Moses (Ex 15:1-18) and Deborah (Judg 5). They usually dwell rapturously on the power o f God, who defeated the enemy.

Love Songs—The most famous love song in Scripture is the book Song o f Solomon. Another poetic expression o f human love is found in Ruth 1:16-17, in which Ruth utters some o f the most memorable words in all o f Scripture.

Laments—The lament, an anguished cry to God, is the most common poetic form i n the psalms. M o r e than sixty psalms are either individual (Ps 3) or corporate laments (Ps 9). Generally, a lament has several, or all o f the following, elements: (a) The address to God: Psalm 22:1, " M y God, M y G o d . " (b) A description o f distress: Psalm 57:4, " M y soul is among lions; I lie among the sons o f men who are set on fire, whose teeth are spears and arrows." (c) A plea for deliverance: Psalm 3:7, "Arise, O L O R D ; Save me, O m y God!" (d) A statement o f trust i n God: Psalm 28:7, "The L O R D is m y strength and m y shield; M y heart trusted i n H i m . " (e) A confession o f sin: Psalm 51:4, "Against You, You only, have I sinned, A n d done this evil i n Your sight." (f) A v o w to do certain things: Psalm 61:5, "For You, O God, have heard m y vows." (g) A conclusion, w h i c h may be i n the form o f praise or thanks: Psalm 30:12, "O L O R D my God, I w i l l give thanks to You forever.'

tion, there are thanksgiving hymns that express gratitude to God for His answer to specific prayers (Pss 18, 30, 32, 65, 67).

Imprecatoiy Psalms—These are usually lament psalms i n which the writer's desire for vindication, based on the principle o f retribution, the lex talionis, are especially prominent (Pss 12, 35, 52, 58-59, 69, 70, 83, 109, 137). Frequently, statements in these psalms are shocking to modern ears, "Happy the one who takes and dashes your little ones against the rock!"

(Ps 137:9). However, it needs to be remembered that the thought behind the desire for vengeance is biblical (Deut 32:35, "Vengeance is Mine,"); how it is expressed is human. "Some o f the language comes from the covenant curses.... I n other cases concepts and phraseology seem to be taken from or point to some divine punitive activity w i t h i n history against sinners." Hyperbolic language is common i n such emotional passages.

8

Guidelines for the Interpretation of Hebrew Poetry Poetry calls for a different hermeneutical approach from that used in narrative. Narrative brings information and teaches by illustration; poetry makes room for a freer expression o f inspiration. Here are some basic guidelines to interpret Hebrew poetry.

1. Take Note of the Pattern of the Poem or of the Hymn—The primary element o f Hebrew poetry is the pattern o f parallel lines as indicated above.

2. Group Parallel Lines—Since the poet is using very emotive, colorful language, the interpreter must walk a fine line between reading too much into individual lines and assuming synonymity whenever the thoughts are similar. The context must indicate whether or not the clauses are synonymous.

3. Study the Metaphorical Language—In Hebrew poetry, figurative language is predominant and more difficult to understand than prose. Job 38 and Psalm 19 are not meant to teach Hebrew cosmology; nor does the statement " I w i l l lift up mine eyes unto the hills, from whence cometh my help" (Ps 121:1, K J V ) mean that God lives on the hills. Nevertheless, the background to such imagery adds richness and depth to the understanding o f these passages.

Hymns—Hymns, or praise songs, were used i n the worship o f God. Scholars have identified three specific types o f hymns in which God is praised as: (a) Creator (Pss 8, 19, 104, 148), (b) Protector o f Israel ( 66, 100, 111, 114), and (c) L o r d o f history (33, 103, 105-106, 135). I n addi-

4. Where Possible, Note the Historical Background to the Text—In the book o f Psalms, the titles o f fourteen psalms (3, 7, 18, 30, 34, 5 1 , 52, 54, 56, 57, 59, 60, 63, 142) provide some historical references. While scholars have debated the authenticity o f these titles, there is little reason to doubt the basic trustworthiness o f the titles, though they are not necessarily inspired. Commentaries and dictionaries are helpful i n illuminating the background to these psalms.

168

169

5

7

Reading Psalms and the Wisdom Literature

Reading Psalms and the Wisdom Literature

5. Study the Poetic Texts in Terms of Their Type and Basic Stance— A n imprecatory psalm needs to be studied differently from a praise psalm.

Statements about God's relationship to people i n Proverbs and Ecclesiastes differ from type to type (proverbs, didactic or experiential sayings, etc.), and the applicability to present circumstances changes accordingly.

9

6. Study Poetic Passages as a Whole Before Drawing Conclusions—After noting the basic structure o f a poem and studying the details, the interpreter needs to take note o f the whole passage before explaining its meaning.

7. Study Messianic Psalms in Terms of Their Historical Significance—From the perspective o f the N T writers, many psalms were interpreted as Messianic psalms; their words were quoted w i t h specific reference to Jesus (Pss 2, 22, 110). However, i n ancient Israel, w i t h the exception o f Psalm 110, these psalms were not viewed as referring directly to the Messiah; they had a historical meaning at the time they were written.

These psalms, therefore, must first be studied to determine the author's original intended meaning before they are applied to the Messiah. Yet, beyond the historical meaning they "provide verbal indicators that identify the typological nature o f these psalms." I n Psalm 22, for example, many features far transcend the actual experiences o f David. They can be understood fully only i n the context o f Jesus' suffering.

10

I n the interpretation o f the poetic portions o f Scripture, the final word should not be technical but devotional, presenting to the hearers the wonders o f God's ways w i t h man and His grace i n the plan o f redemption.

3. Hebrew Wisdom Literature In addition to the guidelines for the interpretation o f Hebrew poetry, an understanding o f the special characteristics o f Hebrew wisdom literature w i l l be o f benefit. The title "Wisdom Literature" is used by biblical scholars to designate the books o f Proverbs, Job, and Ecclesiastes.

Catholie scholarship includes the apocryphal books Ecclesiasticus (Ben Sirach) and the Wisdom of Solomon. Some scholars also include some psalms, usually called Wisdom Psalms (Pss 1; 32; 34; 37; 49; 73; 112; 127; 128; and 133) under the wisdom genre. W i t h respect to the Song o f Solomon, there are different opinions, but many biblical students would argue that even though the book is, or seems to be, a collection o f love poems, it probably was preserved by the Israelite sages.

a few general remarks that hopefully w i l l encourage the reader to study the books themselves to gain a better understanding o f the intellectual w o r l d of the wisdom thinkers. Biblical wisdom is interested i n the relationship between nature and humans and in the social life o f human beings. Wisdom literature illustrates the Hebrew interest i n nature and i n the use o f the human mind to study it (1 Kgs 4:33). The wise persons also examined human conduct and learned from those observations how to enjoy life.

They discovered the value o f proper language i n social interaction, the importance o f work, and the risks and the dangers involved i n improper social relationships.

The motivation and the purpose for the study o f nature and human beings was significantly different from that o f modern scientific research.

The Israelites presupposed that the L o r d was their Creator and that the natural w o r l d was also the result o f God's creative activity. The goal o f exploring nature was not to uncover the origin o f its existence but to observe and understand the power and wisdom o f the Creator.

The Israelites believed that the wisdom o f their Creator and Redeemer was mediated to them, not just through the words o f the prophets but also through creation. The wise persons, therefore, spent time exploring God's creation in order to apprehend that wisdom. But wisdom was at the same time a gift from God: "For the L O R D gives wisdom; From his mouth come knowledge and understanding" (Prov 2:6).

The acquisition o f wisdom was preceded by the "fear [reverence] o f the L O R D " (Prov 1:7). This did not mean that fear/reverence was the main element i n the acquisition o f wisdom. I t meant that the fear o f the Lord was the sphere within which it was possible to obtain wisdom. Once that presupposition was accepted, the wise person went out i n search for wisdom. H o w was this done? B y using basically the same principles we use today. They observed the natural w o r l d and the social interaction o f human beings, analyzed what they observed, and drew conclusions that impacted the quality o f their lives (Prov 24:30-34). I n other words, they used the rational abilities that God had given them and obeyed His command to explore the intelligibility o f the created world. I n the process o f analysis, they also discovered the limitations o f wisdom. What we find i n the wisdom books o f the OT is the result o f that search for wisdom.

Interpreting the Book of Proverbs

In interpretating the wisdom literature, it is important to have a basic understanding o f the biblical approach to wisdom. Here we can make only

What is a proverb? The term proverb is difficult to define. The Hebrew term măsăl ("saying," "song,") has a broad range o f meanings, making it somewhat imprecise for a valid definition. The Hebrew verbal root

170

171

Reading Psalms and the Wisdom Literature

Reading Psalms and the Wisdom Literature "seems to indicate comparison, a meaning that is illustrated, implicitly or explicitly, in very many o f the sayings o f t h e book." We perhaps could say that a proverb compares, contrasts, points to similar or dissimilar elements, expressing ideas in popular sayings that contain an explicit or implicit teaching. Such proverbs were very much a part o f daily life as 1 Samuel 10:12 and 24:13 indicate. In general the book o f Proverbs has a very high view o f the role and o f the importance o f wisdom in human existence, without denying some o f its limitations. Widsom, a divine characteristic, is personified i n the book as a being who interacts w i t h human beings. I n 1:20-33; 8:1-3; 9:1-6, 13-18, she (wisdom) is set in opposition to a "foolish woman." I n other places, wisdom's activities closely parallel those o f Y a h w e h . B o t h pour out the Spirit (Prov 1:23; Isa 44:3); both called Israel, but i t refused to answer (Prov 1:24; Isa 66:4); both promote justice (Prov 8:15; Isa 11:4, 5); etc. W i s d o m is the essence o f the being o f God.

25:2-29:27

M a i n Text

11

Proverbs is written in poetic form; therefore, the principles used in the interpretation o f poetry also apply to the study o f this book. Apart from that, the interpretation o f Proverbs could be facilitated by taking into consideration the following suggestions: First, one should become acquainted w i t h the structure o f the book.

It is formed by several collections o f proverbs from different individuals, written at different historical periods.

1:1-9:18 1:1-7 1:8-9:18 10:1 - 2 2 .16 ‫־‬ 10:1 10:2-22:16

Proverbs

of Solomon Title and Introduction M a i n Text

Proverbs of Solomon Title M a i n Text

22:17-24:22 Words ofthe Wise Men 22:17-21 Introduction 22:22-24:22 M a i n Text 24:23-34 More Words of the Wise Men 24:23a Title 23:23b-34 M a i n Text 25:1-29:27 25:1

Proverbs

of Solomon Copied by the Men ofHezekiah Title 172

30:1-33 30:1 30:3-33

Words of Agur Title M a i n Text

31:1-9 31:1 31:2-9

Words of

31:10-31

Acrostic Poem to the "Good Wife "

Lemuel Title M a i n Text

This outline is useful i f one is interested i n comparing the contribution of each collection to a particular subject. It is intriguing to find two collections o f proverbs from individuals who may not have been Israelites (Agur and Lemuel). H o w did their proverbs find a place i n the book? The most logical suggestion is that the L o r d guided the prophet i n the selection o f that material, because it contained truths compatible w i t h God's revealed w i l l for Israel.

Second, most o f the proverbs are single units o f meaning without an immediate context that could help us to interpret them. I n many cases, the meaning o f the proverb is clear, but, i n other cases, it is difficult to ascertain its significance. However, it is useful to get acquainted w i t h the cultural context o f the writer in order to be able to gain a better understanding of the images used i n phrasing the proverbs.

Third, since the purpose o f the book o f Proverbs is clearly given, the interpreter should pay particular attention to it and use it as a hermeneutical key. I n the prolog o f the book, Solomon lists a series o f goals that he is trying to achieve through the collection (1:2-6). But the ultimate purpose ofthe search for wisdom is summarized i n 8:33-36. Wisdom is so important, because "whoever finds me finds life . . . , all those who hate me love death."

The fundamental issue is one o f life and death. The centrality o f that aspect is such that wisdom is described as "a tree o f life" (3:18). This insight, together with the prolog should guide the interpreter i n the reading o f the book.

Fourth, knowing a little about the different literary forms used in Proverbs w i l l be o f help to the interpreter. As the title suggests, the most common form is the proverb or saying pattern. Proverbs usually are a description or statement about something w i t h a particular wisdom twist (e.g., 12:5; 26:1). We have many different types o f sayings, among them numerical sayings to indicate that a list o f items is not complete (e.g., 30:7, 15); better-than sayings, to reveal the superior value o f a particular situation or 173

Reading Psalms and the Wisdom Literature

Reading Psalms and the Wisdom Literature conduct over the other option (e.g., 12:9; 16:8); and the comparative saying, employed to discourage a particular action (26:8).

Another literary form are the admonitions. They can contain a command to do something (e.g., 3:1; 6:6) or a prohibition not to do something (e.g., 22:24; 23:6), and, in some cases, the two are combined into one (e.g., 1:8). We also find autobiographical accounts that contain moral lessons or teachings (e.g., 4:3-9; 24:30-34). Being aware o f what the biblical writer is doing w i l l help the interpreter to understand what is being said.

Fifth, the book o f Proverbs can be studied by using different approaches. One can study passages in which there is a group o f proverbs addressing the same issue. That facilitates the study o f a particular topic (e.g., the value o f wisdom [2:1-4:27; 8:1-9:18]; poverty [24:30-34]). But in most cases, proverbs dealing w i t h the same subject are found in different places throughout the book. I n those cases, it is better to group the passages for careful study i n order to find out what the book teaches about a particular topic. This can be done by subject areas, such as prayer, hatred, wickedness, righteousness, etc., or by studying the characters mentioned i n the book (e.g., the righteous, the wicked, the wise, the fool, the scoffer, the sluggard, the seductress).

Interpreting the Book of Job The book o f Job is considered by some to be one o f the greatest literary works o f humanity. The events it describes belong to pre-Mosaic days, but according to an early Jewish tradition, they were written down by Moses.

The beauty o f the language, its literary style, and its theological content single it out as a unique book within the Bible itself. Surprisingly, as far as we know, none o f the protagonists are Israelites, even though they worship the Lord (e.g., 12:9). It is a wisdom book in the form o f a narrative, making its reading more interesting. It is a discussion o f human suffering as it is being experienced by Job, the main character o f the book. I n the discussion the most disturbing question concerns the role o f God i n the experience o f Job. It is there that the issue o f the value and o f the role o f wisdom poignantly surfaces. Does wisdom provide an answer to the suffering o f the innocent?

W i t h the exception o f the prolog and the epilog, the rest o f the book is written i n poetry. I n addition to the principles for the interpretation o f poetry discussed above, the following suggestions should be helpful i n the interpretation o f the book: First, the book primarily consists o f dialogs between Job and his friends and between God and Job. This dialogical nature o f the document w i l l assist the reader in following the flow o f ideas and i n determining 174

whether or not there is progression i n the arguments leading to a resolution ofthe theological plot.

Second, the dialog is formed by the following three cycles introduced by a speech o f Job (chapter 3): First Cycle Eliphaz's Speech Job's Response Bildad's Speech Job's Response Zophar's Speech Job's Response

Job Job Job Job Job Job

4-5 6-7 8 9-10 11 12-14

Job Job Job Job Job Job

15 16-17 18 19 20 21

Job Job Job Job

22 23-24 25 26-27

Second Cycle Eliphaz's Speech Job's Response Bildad's Speech Job's Response Zophar's Speech Job's Response T h i r d Cycle Eliphaz's Speech Job's Response Bildad's Speech Job's Response

This organization is useful to the interpreter i n at least two ways: (a) By reading all the speeches o f each o f Job's friends i n one sitting, one is able to understand their arguments better. Reading all o f Job's responses in the same way w i l l also facilitate the comprehension o f what he is saying, as well as the intensity of his psychological, theological, and spiritual pain, (b) I f the speeches are read i n the order given i n the text one w i l l be able to establish more clearly the areas o f agreements and o f disagreements between Job and his friends.

Third, the interpretation o f Job 29:1-31:40 is important for the understanding o f the book. This monolog seems to precipitate the "resolution" o f the plot i n the book. I n chapter 3 1 , Job appears to pronounce an oath o f 175

Reading Psalms and the Wisdom Literature innocence. I f this is correct, it means that Job is demanding that God present the evidence He has against h i m or otherwise exonerate h i m from any charges. This is the climax o f Job's defense; from that point on he remains silent, waiting for God to speak.

Fourth, trying to establish the purpose o f the speech by the young man Elihu may be a difficult task, but one worth pursuing. A l l other speeches have ended; Job is silent, waiting for the Lord to intervene, and unexpectedly Elihu speaks up. What does this mean? Is he speaking for God? Is he defending Him? Fifth, it is useful to observe that the last part o f the book is another dialog, this time between God and Job: God's first speech (Job 38:1-40:2); Job's response (40:3-5); God's second speech (40:6-41:34); Job's response (42:1-6). This is one o f the most challenging and interesting sections o f the book. Does God answer all the questions or even some o f the questions raised i n the dialogs between Job and his friends? W h y is God's creative and sustaining power emphasized so much? Is that God's way o f dealing w i t h Job's claim o f innocence? What is the purpose o f the description o f the behemoth and the leviathan? Is there a progression o f ideas in Job's responses to the divine speeches?

Sixth, the prolog and the epilog constitute the proper theological perspective for the understanding o f some o f the basic issues raised in the book. The interpreter should pay close attention to their content. The mystery o f suffering is not totally solved, but, by placing it i n a cosmic perspective, certain new insights are provided, and the limits o f human wisdom are revealed.

Interpreting the Book of Ecclesiastes In Ecclesiastes 1:1, the author identifies himself as the son o f David, king i n Jerusalem. The traditional view, therefore, accepted by Jewish and Christian scholars alike, has been that Solomon wrote the book i n its entirety. While the book sounds rather pessimistic i n places, it needs to be remembered that the basic purpose o f the book is to demonstrate that, apart from God, life lacks any ultimate meaning and amounts to no more than vanity.

Reading Psalms and the Wisdom Literature thor o f the book is not a true agnostic i n that he makes specific affirmations about God, but he rejects the possibility o f gaining a true understanding o f human existence.

The book Ecclesiastes is indeed difficult to interpret. There are elements o f pessimism, skepticism, and even some aspects o f agnosticism in the book. The following suggestions w i l l be useful i n interpreting the book.

First, the primary purpose o f the book is mentioned i n 12:9: "Not only was the teacher wise, but also he imparted knowledge to the people" ( N I V ) . The book has a pedagogical or didactic function. Like all wisdom books, i t attempts to summarize the findings o f the wise person in order to instruct others and to make them wise. This means that the book is not a rejection o f the value o f wisdom for human existence. I t may question the ultimate value o f human wisdom, but it does not promote folly.

Second, one should place the book w i t h i n the Israelite wisdom theology. I n other words, it must not be interpret i n isolation from the other wisdom books. They provide the proper context for its interpretation.

Third, although scholars have not been able to agree on the outline o f the literary structure o f the book, it is clear that some sections are grouped thematically. This is helpful for the interpreter. For example, i n 1:4-11, the cosmos is studied and the conclusion is drawn that there is nothing new under the sun. I n chapter 2, we find autobiographical materials describing the wise person's search for meaning i n joy, work, wisdom, and toil. The conclusion o f the section is that all is meaningless.

Fourth, particular attention needs to be paid to subjects that are addressed several times i n the book. For example, the expression "Vanity o f vanities" or "Meaningless! Meaningless! . . . Everything is meaningless" ( N I V ) appears at the beginning and at the end o f the book (1:2; 12:8). I n the Hebrew language, repetition was used to express the superlative—"absolute vanity!" Anything human beings may seek i n place o f God is absolute vanity, according to the Preacher.

The history o f the interpretation o f Ecclesiastes reveals a diversity o f views concerning its message. M a n y consider the book to contain a very pessimistic view o f life that usually leads one to consider humans as vietims o f events out o f their control. Others have concluded that the book is fundamentally agnostic—that it promotes the idea that it is impossible to understand what takes place under the sun. Most would argue that the au-

Fifth, i n order to place the book i n its proper theological perspective the reader should pay particular attention to the epilog (12:9-14). The voice that we hear there is the voice o f the narrator summarizing the fundamental message o f the book for the reader. That is precisely what makes the epilog so important for the interpreter. I t makes clear that pessimism is not the ultimate message o f the book. Certainly "everything is meaningless," but there is more to life than simply trying to find its present significance. The interpreter should carefully explore the contribution o f the epilog to the message and to the theology ofthe book: What is that contribution? In what sense does it set limits to the content o f the

176

177

Reading Psalms and the Wisdom Literature

Reading Psalms and the Wisdom Literature

rest o f the book? What is its significance for a Christian reading o f the book?

Interpreting the Song of Solomon The history o f the interpretation o f this book, which in the opening verse is attributed to king Solomon, reveals a great deal o f confusion that should alert the reader to the complexity o f the interpretational task. The most common approach has been to treat it as an allegory (see chapter 13). Primarily, because the book appears to be quite secular, even erotic.

The allegorical approach looks for meanings i n a text beyond the literal sense o f t h e language. I n the case o f the book Song o f Solomon, it is understood to be nonhistorical but containing deep spiritual truths. Using the allegorical method, Jewish interpreters concluded that the male figure in the poems was the Lord and the Shulamite girl was Israel. Others saw in the experience o f the man and the woman the way that wisdom and the student o f wisdom should relate to each other. A m o n g Christians, the book has been read as a description o f the relationship between Christ and the church. That is, its spiritual value has been decoded through the allegorical approach. This raises the question whether the text itself is suggesting this approach and whether, in spite o f the apparent secular dimension o f the text, there is a theological concern, or message, i n the book.

There is no indication in Scripture that the book is an allegory. Neither Jesus nor any o f the N T writers ever referred to it; but this does not mean that this love song does not have some spiritual value. Scripture repeatedly illustrates the union between God and His people by the relationship o f a husband to his bride (Isa 54:4, 5; Jer 3:14; 2 Cor 11:2), and Ellen G. White, on occasion, used passages from the book to illustrate spiritual truths ; but this does not mean that she considered the book to be an allegory or that she used the allegorical method to interpret it.

12

H o w should the book be interpreted? First, the book should be read many times. One o f the most obvious things that the interpreter w i l l realize is the fact that we are dealing here w i t h love poetry. Second, the poems are primarily spoken by two individuals, namely a woman (e.g., Song 1:2) and a man (e.g., 4:1-2). There are references to the daughters o f Jerusalem, but they do not seem to play any active role i n the book (e.g., 1:5). Third, the book is characterized by dialogs (e.g., 1:7-8; 15-16; 8:13-14) and monologs (e.g., 3:1-5; 6:4-10). Their study is useful in understanding the nature ofthe poems.

they were written. This means the interpreter should have access to commentaries or biblical dictionaries that w i l l provide that information. Using a concordance is probably the best way to understand the particular terminology used i n the book. Sometimes it is difficult to understand the point being made through a comparison. For instance, the man says, "Your two breasts are like two fawns, twins o f a gazelle which feed among the lilies" (Song 4:5, N A S B ) . A possible interpretation o f this comparison sees the gazelles as "symbols o f life and renewal." The fawns add to the image elements o f softness and playfulness. O. Keel says, "Hebrew literature does not attach notions o f form to the term 'breasts' but notions o f blessing (Gen 49:25), o f kindness, nourishment, and trust building (Ps 22:9; Job 3:12), o f softness, warm security . . . in short, notions o f foil participation in life and o f life's renewal." This means that "both breasts and fawns o f a gazelle symbolize the warmth o f life, an inspiring and victorious counterforce to death."

13

14

15

Fifth, notice should be taken o f the freedom w i t h which the biblical writer speaks about sexual matters. This reveals to the interpreter the way in which the Bible looks at sex and sexual relations. Sixth, the fundamental intention or message o f the poems needs to be investigated. This can be done by paying particular attention to what is emphasized i n the book through repetitions. Such repeated ideas as love, marriage, longing for the other, and the references to the garden w i l l be helpful i n the formulation and in the development o f the theology ofthe book.

Conclusion In the interpretation o f Psalms and o f the wisdom literature i n Scripture, we need to use the same principles we use in other parts o f Scripture —linguistic and contextual analysis and background studies concerning the text or passage. I n addition, it w i l l be o f help i f the interpreter has a good grasp o f the special characteristics o f Hebrew poetry and o f the concept o f wisdom in the OT. When reading the wisdom literature we need to remember that it teaches rational living, which, at the same time, is good and godly living. A n d it teaches how when troubles come the wise can bear it. Hence, common sense and sound judgment w i l l help the interpreter to understand what God is saying through these poetic portions o f Scripture.

Fourth, particular attention needs to be paid to the language that is used so that the poems can be interpreted within the cultural context i n which 178

179

Reading Psalms and the Wisdom Literature

Reading Psalms and the Wisdom Literature References Unless otherwise noted, biblical quotations are from the New King James version.

1. Robert Lowth, De sacra poesi Hebraeorum praelectiones academicae (Lectures on the Sacred Poetry of the Hebrew) (Oxford: Clarendon, 1753), quoted in Walter Kaiser and Moises Silva, An Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics (Grand Rapids, M I : Zondervan, 1994), p. 88.

2. Named after the Greek letter chi (X). It refers to the inversion of related elements within parallel constructions.

3. Kaiser and Silva, p. 91.

4. Ibid., p. 94.

5. Ibid., p. 98.

6. The next two sections are indebted to material found in Grant R. Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral (Downers Grove, I L : InterVarsity Press, 1991), pp.

181-185, 187-190.

7. Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth (Grand Rapids, M I : Zondervan, 1981), 176-177.

8. Ângel Μ. Rodriguez, "Inspiration and the Imprecatory Psalms," J ATS 5.1 (1994): 57.

9. See Rodriguez, 57-58.

10. Richard M . Davidson, "New Testament Use ofthe Old Testament," J ATS 5.1 (1994): 23.

11. Roland E. Murphy, Proverbs (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1998), xxii.

12. In the book Education (p. 261) Ellen G. White illustrates the need for a personal relationship with Jesus by quoting Song of Solomon 2:3-4; and repeatedly she refers to Jesus as "the 'the chiefest among ten thousand,' the One 'altogether lovely.' Song of Solomon 5:10, 16." (6T 175; Ev 186).

13. Othmar Keel, Song of Songs (Minneapolis, M N : Fortress Press, 1994), p.

150.

14. Ibid.

15. Ibid.

Murphy, Roland E. The Tree of Life: An Exploration of Biblical Wisdom Literature. Grand Rapids, M I : Eerdmans, 1996. . Proverbs. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1998.

Osborne, Grant R. The Hermeneutical Spiral. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1991.

Weiser, Artur. The Psalms. The Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1962.

Selected Bibliography Clements, Ronald E. Wisdom Theology!. Grand Rapids, M I : Eerdmans, 1992.

Hartley, John E. The Book of Job. Grand Rapids, M I : Eerdmans, 1988.

Kaiser, Walter and Silva, Moises. An Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics.

Grand Rapids, M I : Zondervan, 1994.

Keel, Othmar. Song of Songs. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1994.

Kidner, Derek. An Introduction to Wisdom Literature: The Wisdom of Proverbs, Job and Ecclesiastes. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1985.

Longman, Tremper, III. The Book of Ecclesiastes. Grand Rapids, M I : Eerdmans, 1998.

180

181

CHAPTER XI

INTERPRETING OLD TESTAMENT PROPHECY Richard M . Davidson

Introduction This chapter focuses upon the interpretation o f prophecy i n the OT, except for the apocalyptic prophecies o f Daniel, which are discussed in chapter fourteen. The messages o f the OT prophets included both "forth-telling," (non-predictive messages) as well as "fore-telling" (divine predictions).

Here attention is directed toward the "foretelling," the numerous predictive prophecies estimated to comprise nearly thirty percent o f the OT. These are found not only in the books o f the major and minor prophets but also in the Pentateuch, the historical books, and the hymnic/wisdom literature.

1

1. General Observations I n studying the predictive prophecies o f the O l d Testament, several general and preliminary observations that arise from the biblical selftestimony are foundational.

First, the Bible specifically claims that God is able to predict the near and distant future (Deut 18:22; Isa 46:10), and the interpreter must not be influenced by modern critical presuppositions that reject the concept o f future prediction and divine foreknowledge.

Second, predictive prophecy was not given simply to satisfy curiosity about future events but for moral purposes, such as the establishment o f faith i n God (Isa 45:21; 46:9-11; cf. John 14:29) and motivation to holy l i v i n g (Gen 17:7-8; E x o d 19:4-6).

Third, the same basic steps o f careful analysis followed i n interpreting any biblical passage must be taken when interpreting a predictive prophecy, including attention to the historical setting, literary structure and other literary features, grammatical and syntactical elements, meanings o f words w i t h i n the immediate context, and theological messages (see chap. 7 for elaboration o f these general principles).

183

Interpreting Old Testament Prophecy

Interpreting Old Testament Prophecy Fourth we must recognize that within the O T there are two different genres or types o f predictive prophecy: apocalyptic (e.g., the visions o f Daniel) and non-apocalyptic (often called "classical" or "general" prophecy). Both classical and apocalyptic prophecy involve specific hermeneutical rules o f interpretation that arise out o f an examination o f the biblical evidence. Principles o f interpretation for apocalyptic prophecy are discussed in chapter 14. Some o f the major differences between classical and apocalyptic prophecy may be summarized i n the following chart: Two Genres of Predictive Prophecy in the Old Testament General (Classical) Prophecy

Apocalyptic Prophecy

1. Primary focus: local/national, contemporary

1. Primary focus: universal sweep o f history, w i t h emphasis on the end time

2. Eschatology: w i t h i n history (national, geopolitical, ethnic)

2. Eschatology: comes from outside o f history (final, universal)

3. Some contrasts

3. Striking contrasts (dualism): • temporal (this age/age to come) • spatial (earthly/heavenly) • ethical (righteous/wicked)

4. L i m i t e d symbolism with trueto-life imagery

4. Profuse, composite symbolism

Two Genres of Predictive Prophecy in the O l d Testament (Contd.)

General (Classical) Prophecy

Apocalyptic Prophecy

7. Prophetic "telescoping"; the prophet frequently jumps from the local, contemporary crisis to the eschatological Day o f the L o r d (e.g., Joel 2-3), or from one peak o f the predictive fulfillment to another, without reference to the valley i n between them.

7. Visions give the full sweep o f history from the time o f the prophet to the end o f time, w i t h no gap between the local setting and the final end or between the different stages o f the prophetic fulfillment.

As a fifth general observation, there are several different predictive forms i n the OT. The most common form is the spoken oracle (introduced by "The w o r d o f the Lord came unto me . . ." or similar phraseology), which may be recorded in prose or poetry and may utilize highly figurative language, as well as straightforward, literal declarations. Predictions also may be symbolically acted out as i n the lives o f Jeremiah (13:1; 19:1; 27:2) and Ezekiel (2:8-3:3; 4:1-17; 5:1-17), although these sign-actions are usually accompanied by a verbal divine interpretation o f their meaning. Typology is also a species o f predictive prophecy, since the divinelyordained O T type (a person, event, or institution) points forward to its antitypical eschatological fulfillment i n Jesus Christ and the gospel realities brought about by H i m . The type itself is usually "mute" concerning its predictive nature. Yet, as w i t h the sign-actions, there is regularly some verbal indicator accompanying the type (or, at least, appearing somewhere in the O T in advance o f the N T fulfillment) that announces its predictive character.

2

5. Basis: " w o r d o f the L o r d " (plus some visions)

5. Basis: visions/dreams, interpreter

6. Conditionality (two possible scenarios are delineated for the prophet's o w n generation: the way o f blessing or curse, dependent on the covenant response o f the peopie), although an ultimate fulfillment o f the covenant promises to God's people is certain.

6. Determinism (the actual course o f human events, as shaped by the divine hand i n history and recognized by divine foreknowledge o f human choices, is set forth, and sealed up, to be revealed to the endtime generation), w i t h an ultimate positive outcome for God's people.

184

angel

As a sixth observation, one must always be cautious w i t h regard to specific unfulfilled prophecies o f the OT, especially i f the N T does not deal directly w i t h these passages. Jesus' counsel regarding prophecy is pertinent: I t is given so that when it comes to pass, we may believe (John 14:29). Before it comes to pass, we may not understand every detail o f the OT predictions, even though the basic outline o f events and o f issues is clear.

Finally, there are three major categories o f predictive prophecies i n the OT (outside o f Daniel): (1) Messianic prophecies; (2) oracles against the foreign nations; (3) and covenant-centered kingdom promises/prophecies given to Israel as a geopolitical entity, including end-time prophecies involving the final worldwide showdown between Israel and her enemies.

I n the pages that follow, we w i l l discuss each o f these categories i n turn.

185

Interpreting Old Testament Proph,

Interpreting Old Testament Prophecy 2. Messianic Prophecies Scores o f specific prophecies concerning the Messiah appear throughout the various parts o f the OT. We can sample only a few here. Predictions that the Messiah assuredly w o u l d come and perform His saving work, which do not depend upon human choice, are unconditional i n the classical prophecies, although descriptions o f the results o f His work among His covenant people and the rest o f the w o r l d depend upon human choice.

They are dealt with in succeeding sections o f this chapter.

The First Promise of the Messiah—Genesis 3:15 This passage contains the first Messianic promise o f Scripture. The entire third chapter o f Genesis is arranged in a chiastic structure and, exactly in the center, at the apex o f the chiasm, in verses 14-15, is found the first gospel promise.

The last part o f Genesis 3:15 goes to the heart o f this promise and shows that it is centered in a Person. God tells the seipent: "He shall crush your head, and you shall crush His heel." I n this verse the conflict narrows from many descendants (a collective "seed") in the second line ofthe verse to a masculine singular pronoun in the last part ofthe verse—"He"—fighting against the serpent. Throughout Scripture, whenever the pronouns related to the Hebrew term zera "seed, offspring" are singular, it is always a single individual, not a collective o f many descendants, that is in view.

3

c

4

Thus, here, God promises victory centered in a single Person: "He" the ultimate representative Seed o f the woman, later to be revealed as the Messiah—"shall bruise/crush your head [Satan]," "and you shall bruise/crush His heel."

According to the poignant portrait underlying Genesis 3:15, the Promised Seed w i l l bare His heel and step voluntarily on a venomous viper.

Here is a powerful prophetic picture o f Christ voluntarily giving up His life to slay "that ancient serpent, called the devil and Satan" (Rev 12:9).

Already, here is implied the substitutionary sacrifice o f Christ on behalf o f the fallen human race. Genesis 3:15 also predicts the windup ofthe cosmic conflict, the end o f evil and o f the serpent at the close o f earth's history. The heel o f the Representative, the Messianic Seed, w i l l be bruised/ crushed, but it is only a wound to the heel. Later, biblical revelation makes clear that, although Christ dies, He comes back to life on the third day. But the serpent, Satan, is crushed in the head, a mortal wound w i t h no hope o f recovery. The great conflict w i l l not continue forever. I n Romans 16:20, Paul alludes to this text: "The God o f peace w i l l soon crush Satan under 186

your feet" (RSV). Satan's head is mortally wounded by the Messiah at Calvary and w i l l receive the final crushing at the end o f time.

It is important to notice that i n this passage, as w i t h most other Messianic prophecies ofthe OT, there is no clear separation between events o f the first and second and even third (post-millennial) advents o f the Messiah; between His suffering and His glory and final eradication o f evil. The events ofthe "last days" are merged together i n what has been called "prophetic telescoping," i n the same way that several mighty mountains, w i t h great valleys between them, when seen from a distance, often appear as a single mountain. It remains for the N T fulfillment to make clear the distinction between the Messiah's kingdom o f grace and His kingdom o f glory.

The Messiah as King—Psalm 2 I n Psalm 2, written by D a v i d (Acts 4:25), we find striking evidence that the anointed Davidic k i n g ofthe O T is to be regarded as a propheticpredictive type pointing forward to the future Messiah. Psalm 2 moves from the local level o f t h e earthly "anointed one" (Heb. masîah, vs. 2), installed i n Jerusalem as the Davidic k i n g and Yahweh's "son" (vss. 6-7), to the cosmic level o f t h e divine Son, the Messiah. The final verse (vs.

12) indicates this movement: "Kiss the Son, lest He [the Son] be angry, and y o u perish i n the way, when His [the Son's] wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all those who put their trust i n H i m [the Son]." The word for "son" is the Aramaic bar, used elsewhere i n Scripture for royal sons. B u t i n this passage, as i n the reference to "Messiah" i n Daniel 9:26, there is no article "the"; therefore, the noun should be taken i n an absolute, unqualified sense o f a divine title, "Son" ( w i t h caps i n English): "Kiss [the ultimate] Son!" To confirm this interpretation o f "Son," the phrase "trust i n H i m , " used some two dozen times elsewhere i n the Psalms, is always reserved for the deity, and, therefore, use o f this phrase for the "Son" in verse 12, indicates that this Son is none other than the divine Son o f God. I n light o f the final verse o f the psalm, the entire psalm is to be taken not only as describing the inauguration and the rule and the victory o f the OT Davidic k i n g but as typologically pointing forward to the royal mission o f t h e Messiah.

The internal typological indicators i n Psalm 2 set the tone for the remainder o f t h e Davidic psalter: I n other Davidic psalms, such as Psalms 16, 22, and 69, the language moves beyond what is applicable to the O T David and points beyond h i m to the new David, the Messiah. The N T writers recognize the fulfillment o f Psalm 2 i n Jesus' death (Acts 4:25-26), His resurrection (Acts 13:33), His inauguration as H i g h Priest after His 187

Interpreting Old Testament Prophecy

Interpreting Old Testament Prophecy

5

ascension (Heb 5:5), and i n His destruction o f t h e wicked at His second coming (Rev 2:26-28; 19:15; cf. 12:5).

The Messiah as Suffering Servant—Isaiah 53 In Isaiah 42-53, there is a frequent alternation between references to the corporate servant (national Israel) and to the individual Servant (the Messiah), using the same expressions for both, thus indicating that the Messianic Servant w i l l represent and recapitulate the experience o f OT Israel. A t the same time, it is clear from the context that the individual Servant presented in these chapters is not synonymous w i t h corporate Israel, for the Messianic Servant is said to bring salvation to the people o f Israel, as well as to the Gentiles (Isa 49:5-6). Isaiah 42-53 contains four "Servant Songs" that predict the coming ofthe Messiah and delineate various phases o f His work: (1) Isaiah 42:1 (His call), (2) Isaiah 49:2-13 (His commission), (3) Isaiah 50:4-11 (His commitment), and (4) Isaiah 52:13-53:12 (His career). While the Messiah's suffering is alluded to throughout the first three Servant Songs, this theme forms the very heart o f the final Song. Isaiah 53, perhaps the most poignant portrait o f the Messiah in the OT, makes clear that the Servant's suffering and death are not due to His own sins but that He takes upon Himself the guilt, covenant curses, and punishment " o f us a l l , " as Sin Bearer, providing a substitutionary atonement (see esp. vss. 4-6, 8, 10-12). This fourth Servant Song also depicts the Messiah's resurrection, high-priestly intercessory ministry and royal exaltation (52:13; 53:11 -12). Isaiah 53 (along w i t h the other Semmt Songs o f Isa 42-53) is often cited in the N T as fulfilled in Christ (e g Matt 8:17; John 12:38; 1 Pet 2:20-25). Beyond exact quotations, Isaiah 53 forms the conceptual backdrop to much ofthe N T teaching on Christ's atoning work.

the appearance and the work o f the Messiah i n the last days. For example, each ofthe large narrative blocks o f the Pentateuch is climaxed by a lengthy poetic passage that recaps what has gone before and explicitly links this past history w i t h a prediction o f the coming o f t h e Messiah m "the last days" (Gen 49 [esp. vss. 1, 10-12, 22-26]; Exodus 15 [esp. vss. !6-17]; Numbers 23-24 [esp. 23: 22 and 24:8-17]; and Deut 32-33 [esp.

33:8-10, 13-17]). Again, at the precise chiastic center and climax o f the Levitical laws and ofthe entire Pentateuch, one finds Leviticus 16, pointing to the antitypical work o f Christ as H i g h Priest on the eschatological Dav o f Atonement. " As an indication ofthe Messianic thrust o f the entire OT, the prophet (probably Ezra) who, under inspiration, arranged the Hebrew order ofthe canon into three major sections—Torah (Pentateuch), Prophets, and Writings—placed at the introduction and conclusion o f each o f these sections a prophetic passage that points toward the coming o f t h e Messiah i n the last days. So, at the beginning and at the end o f the Torah are Genesis 3:15 and Deuteronomy 33, respectively (noted above); at the beginning ofthe Prophets is Joshua (who is presented as a type o f t h e Messiah); at the end ofthe Prophets is Malachi 3 (English versions divide this into two chapters, 3-4, which predict the coming o f the Messianic "Messenger o f the Covenant" at the time ofthe "great and terrible day ofthe Lord); at the beginning ofthe Writings are Psalms 1 and 2 (the two-part introduction to the Psalter, which, as noted above, predicts the coming o f t h e Messianic King); and, at the end o f t h e Writings is 2 Chronicles 36 (which predicts the coming o f Cyrus, who is presented as a type o f the Messiah). This pattern o f eschatological Messianic passages, placed at the "stitching" or "seams" ofthe Hebrew canon, makes apparent the overarching Messianic casting o f t h e entire OT. Jesus w e l l summarized the message o f t h e OT Scriptures: " Y o u search the [ O T ] Scriptures . . . and these are they which testify o f M e " (John 5:39)!

The Messianic Thrust ofthe Entire O l d Testament We could examine numerous other specific Messianic prophecies in the OT, but beyond these individual passages are biblical indications that the entire O T is Messianic i n its outlook. Jesus hints at this i n His Resurrection Sunday dialog w i t h the disciples on the way to Emmaus‫ " ־‬A n d beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them i n all the Scriptures the things concerning H i m s e l f " (Luke 24:27). This statement is not simply hyperbole.

3. Prophecies About Foreign Nations The Bible has much to say about other nations besides Israel, including many promises/predictions regarding their future status. I n order to understand these prophecies and interpret them properly, we need to grasp the larger biblical picture o f Yahweh's relationship w i t h the foreign nations.

According to the OT, Yahweh, "creator/possessor o f heaven and earth

A close examination o f the literary structure o f the Pentateuch and o f t h e OT, as a whole, reveals that the entire OT is indeed centered upon

(Gen 14:19, 22), is Sovereign over the whole world. He is K i n g over all

188

189

Interpreting Old Testament Prophecy

Interpreting Old Testament Prophecy

nations (Ps 47:2-8). He has "made" them (Ps 86:9), assigning and controlling their territories and boundaries (Deut 32:8; cf. 2:5, 9. 19), directing their migration (Amos 9:7), raising them up and putting them down ( J 1:10; Dan 2:21). The nations o f the world are all part o f one family (Gen 10), and God desires their welfare and salvation. Abraham and his descendants are called to be a blessing to the nations (Gen 12:2-3; 22:18· 26:4). A t Sinai, Israel is constituted as "a holy priesthood" to mediate God's blessings to the other nations ofthe w o r l d (Exod 19:5-6), and those among the other nations who accept the worship o f Yahweh are welcomed into the covenant community (e.g., Josh 6:22-25; Isa 56:3-8). A special work ofthe Messianic Servant is to be a "light to the Gentiles" (Isa 42:6; 49:6), bringing Yahweh's "salvation to the ends ofthe earth" (Isa 49:6; c f 42:1; 51:4-5). These foreign nations are sometimes used by God as His agents o f judgment against His special covenant people o f Israel (Isa 10:5; Jer 51:7, 20; cf. Hab 1:5-11) or as agents o f salvation to deliver His peonle (Isa 4 4 : 2 8 ^ 5 : 1 - 7 ) . e r

A t the same time, as Ruler over the whole world, Yahweh holds all nations accountable for their actions. The entire earth is regarded by God as under an "everlasting covenant" (Isa 24:5), an international law or code o f human standards (Amos 1-2), i n which all nations have ethical duties o f civility and humaneness. Yahweh i n His universal sovereignty is the Guarantor o f justice and decency among the nations i n their treatment o f one another. Those nations who violate the universal norms o f proper behavior receive divine sanctions for their crimes. Numerous oracles concernmg foreign nations address their crimes and the divine sanctions against them ( N u m 24:17-24; Isa 13-24; Jer 46-51; Ezek 25-32; Amos 1-2). I n some cases, whole books o f the Bible have their focus upon the sins and the punishment o f foreign nations (e.g., Assyria i n the books o f Jonah and Nahum and Edom i n the book o f Obadiah). Although the non-Israelite nations are the "mission field" to which Israel is called to bring the message o f salvation, nonetheless, these nations, especially as they exercise a hostile attitude toward Israel and Israel's God, are considered as wicked and as enemies (Exod 15:9; Ps 9:5 [Heb 6 ] ; 59:5 [ 6 ] ; 106:41-42).

Some have argued that two contradictory, and even irreconcilable, attitudes toward the foreign nations are represented in the biblical predictions regarding them: on the one hand, a universalism and conditional prophecies, revealing God's compassion and willingness to forgive and accept foreign nations i f they repent (as portrayed in the book o f Jonah); on the other hand, a nationalism and divine sovereignty, expressing a fierce divine hatred toward foreign powers w i t h no opportunity extended for repentance and forgiveness (as in Nahum). While these two perspec190

tives may have been regarded as irreconcilable by some individuals in Israel (see the prophet Jonah's own personal struggles over this issue), the inspired prophetic utterances are not contradictory when viewed in the setting ofthe larger picture.

God's dealings with the Amorites i n Canaan are instructive i n coming to arips w i t h the interplay o f conditionality and divine sovereignty in prophecies against foreign nations. God predicted to Abraham that his descendants would be strangers in a land not theirs and afflicted 400 years before they would be given possession o f Canaan; the reason given for the delay is that "the iniquity ofthe Amorites is not yet complete" (Gen 15:16). T h e A m o r i tes were given an extended period o f probation, during which time Abraham himself witnessed to them, and other true worshipers ofthe Most High God lent their influence for the truth (e.g., Gen 14:18-24). But when the A m o r i tes had filled up their cup o f iniquity and become totally given over to evil (Lev 18:24-28), their probation was closed, and God dispossessed them and gave their land to the people o f Israel (Exod 13:5; Deut 7:1-5, 16-26).

The predictions concerning the nations during the probationary phase of their national history, should be seen i n the light o f the general principle of conditionality, stated in Jeremiah 18:7-10: I f at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, and i f that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. And i f at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, and i f it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it (NIV).

Jonah's prediction, "Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown" (Jonah 3:4), is a clear example o f a conditional prophecy, although the principle o f Jeremiah 18 is not explicitly stated. Indeed, this is the way the people o f Nineveh regarded it; they repented o f their evil, and God relented from His purpose o f destroying the city (Jonah 3:5-10).

On the other hand, when nations had filled up their cup o f iniquity, no longer responding to the divine entreaties to repent, the threatened judgment surely came to pass. W i t h regard to Nineveh, the prophet Nahum wrote about a century later than the time o f Jonah, at a time when Nineveh and the nation o f Assyria had returned to their evil ways o f brutality, arrogance, and idolatry. The nation's cup o f iniquity was full. There was nothing left for Nahum to do but denounce their heinous sins and announce the Sovereign Lord's irrevocable sentence o f their national doom.

It is not always possible to determine whether the divine oracles against the foreign nations come at a time when probation still lingers for a given 191

Interpreting Old Testament Prophecy

Interpreting Old Testament Prophecy nation and, thus, the threat o f judgment is conditional or whether that nation has passed the bounds o f divine forbearance and their fate has already been sealed. I n Amos 1-2, the oracles against each nation begin w i t h the phrase "For three transgressions o f [nation x ] and for four, I w i l l not turn away its punishment" (Amos 1:3,6,9, 11, 13; 2:1). The use o f the formula 3 + 4 [ = 7] probably denotes completeness or fullness o f transgression, and the statement that the L o r d w i l l not turn away seems to indicate that these judgments are certain, i.e., unconditional.

in our chart contrasting with apocalyptic prophecy, classical prophecy does not give a detailed and an unbroken sweep o f history. Rather, its "prophetic telescoping" often jumps from the local immediate crisis (such as the locust plague in Joel 2) to the eschatological Day o f the Lord (Joel 3 [Hebrew, 4]), without filling in all the historical details in between.

However, these certain divine judgments may not always involve total or permanent or immediate destruction o f the nation that is punished.

While Amos 1-2 predicts destruction and/or captivity for the political powers surrounding Israel and Judah (Syria, Philistia, Tyre, Edom, A m mon, and Moab), Jeremiah indicates that, at least i n the case o f A m m o n and Moab, God would eventually "bring back the captives" o f these people (Jer 48:47; 49:6). To other nations, such as Edom and Egypt, the prophet predicts that the nation i n question w i l l become a relatively insignificant power i n w o r l d politics i n the future (Jer 49:15; Ezek 29:14-16). Complete and permanent destruction is predicted for Tyre (Ezek 26:1-14) and for Babylon (Isa 13:20-22; Jer 50:3, 13).

To the nation's founding father, Abraham, God specified Israel's universal mission from the outset: " I w i l l make y o u a great nation, I w i l l bless you, and make your name great, and you shall be a blessing In y o u all the families o f t h e earth shall be blessed" (Gen 12:2-3). When Israel was formally constituted as a nation at M t . Sinai, God reiterated the plan by promising to make His people a "kingdom o f priests" (Exod 19:6), mediating the covenant blessings to the world.

On the borders o f Canaan, Moses received, and transmitted to his suecessor, Joshua, a detailed divine blueprint o f God's mission for Israel as a nation. Upon entering Canaan, the Angel o f the Lord would go before them and send the hornets to drive out the inhabitants o f the land (Deut 7:1720; cf. Exod 23:23, 28). Israel was to dispossess these nations now totally given over to evil (Deut 9:4; cf. Gen 15:16), but individuals who were still responsive to God's mighty acts were to be spared and united to His people (Josh 6:22-25). As long as Israel remained loyally obedient to God in the Promised Land, the covenant blessings would be showered upon them (Deut 28:1-14; cf. Lev 26:1-13). They would be such healthy (Deut 7:15; cf. Exod 15:26), happy (Deut 28:2-8), holy (28:9), wise (4:6, 7), morally enlightened (4:8) and prosperous (28:6, 7; cf. Lev 26:4, 5, 10) people that they would become the head and not the tail (Deut 28:13) above all the nations ofthe earth " i n praise, in name, and in honor" (Deut 26:19). A l l the people o f other nations would see that they were called by the name ofthe L o r d (28:10).

Several passages in the O T refer to the final judgment o f all the nations o f the world, i n connection w i t h the eschatological deliverance o f Israel (Isa 24-27; Ezek 38-39; Zech 9-14). These apocalyptic-like passages w i l l be discussed i n connection w i t h God's original plan and purpose for Israel to which we now turn.

4. Kingdom Promises/Prophecies Concerning Israel Some have insisted that the covenant promises made to Israel are not actually predictive prophecies but only expressions ofthe two alternative ways available to Israel (depicted foundationally in Lev 26 and Deut 27-28): the way o f covenant loyalty leading to prosperity (the covenant blessings) and the way o f covenant disloyalty leading to disaster (the covenant curses). While this may be true in the technical sense, at the same time God, does predict the detailed outcome i f Israel would wholeheartedly participate in His mission to use them as agents o f salvation for the whole world. Since specific predictions are involved and since this divine mission for Israel encompasses so much o f OT Scripture, it is appropriate to include these covenant promises as part o f our discussion o f OT prophecy. While the following outline sets forth the basic contours o f God's plan for Israel, one cannot be completely certain ofthe precise sequence o f divinely intended events, because, as noted above 192

The Divine Mission for Israel

During the United Monarchy this divine plan for Israel came into sharper spiritual focus. K i n g David's first appointment o f praise to God in the sanctuary called for a declaration o f God's glory among all peoples (1 Chr 16:24 = Ps 96:3). Other psalms envisioned God's praise and way and saving power as being proclaimed to, or reaching, all the nations, even to the ends ofthe earth (Ps 48:10; 57:9; 66:4). What the Levitical choirs intoned was echoed in Solomon's prayer o f dedication for the Jerusalem Temple (1 Kgs 8:41-43), and seemed on the verge o f fulfillment in the career o f David's son, as "the whole earth sought the presence o f Solomon to hear his wisdom, which God had put into his m i n d " (1 Kgs 10:24, RSV), and the wealth ofthe world poured into his expanding empire (vss. 14-29).

193

Interpreting Old Testament Prophecy

Interpreting Old Testament Prophecy The O T prophets (most notably the gospel prophet Isaiah) intensified the vision o f God's sweeping program for a repentant and faithful Israel after the Babylonian exile. It is a glorious plan! As the people o f Israel are gathered back to the Promised Land, God pardons and cleanses them from their sins and gives them a new heart, puts His Spirit w i t h i n them, and causes them to walk in His statutes (Ezek 36:24-28; cf. Jer 31:31-34).

The ruined cities are rebuilt and the land o f Israel is renewed like Eden (Isa 44:24-28; Ezek 36:33-35), causing the other nations to know that Yahweh has done this for them (Ezek 36:22, 36). As Israel loyally serves God and receives the concomitant covenant blessings, all the nations see her righteousness and glory and call her blessed (Isa 61:9; M a i 3:12); Jerusalem becomes a praise and a glory before all nations (Jer 33:9).

As a result, nations come to the light (Isa 60:3)! They are gathered, they flow, yes, they run to Jerusalem (Isa 66:18-20; cf. 2:2) to seek the L o r d (Zech 8:20-23) and j o i n themselves to H i m (Isa 56:7-8; Zech 2:11).

Nation after nation goes up to the house o f the L o r d — w h i c h is called "a house o f prayer for all nations" (Isa 56:7)—to seek instruction i n His ways and to serve H i m "shoulder to shoulder" (Isa 2:3 = M i c 4:2). The gates o f Jerusalem are open continually to receive the wealth o f other nations, contributed to bring about the conversion o f still other nations (Isa 60:1-11; cf.

45:14; Hag 2:7). Eventually " a l l nations" are gathered to Jerusalem and call it "the throne o f the L o r d " (Jer 3:17). Those aliens from other nations who " j o i n themselves to the L o r d , " i.e., give their allegiance to Yahweh and hold fast to His covenant w i t h Israel, are considered to be fully part o f the covenant community o f Israel (Isa 56:1-8; Ezek 47:22-23).

Thus Israel, i n cooperation w i t h the powers o f heaven, prepares the way for the coming o f the Messiah. The Messiah comes, and as the Representative Israelite (Isa 42-53), recapitulates the history o f Israel in His own life (Matt 1-5), bringing salvation. He generally is accepted as the Messiah by the people o f Israel. While He is still betrayed by some o f His supposed friends (Zech 13:6) and is delivered to die for the sins ofthe w o r l d (see, e.g., Isa 53), the majority o f Israel, including its leadership, accept H i m ; and after His resurrection (immediately or eventually after a break i n time, He returns to heaven. The timing is not clear), He takes the throne o f David and reigns over a reunited kingdom o f Israel forever (Ezek 37:22-25; Isa 9:6-7). The sanctuary and city o f Jerusalem, now rebuilt, also remain forever (Jer 17:24-25; Ezek 37:26). As nations accept the L o r d and His Messiah, Israel extends its borders (Amos 9:12), until its dominion embraces the w o r l d (Isa 27:6; Zech 9:10). Thus, the "Promised Land" for Israel is expanded beyond the borders o f Canaan to include the entire earth.

194

Several OT passages describe the divinely predicted eschatological windup o f this earth's history i n the final showdown between Israel and her enemies (Isa 24-27; Ezek 38-39; Zech 9-14). These passages have been classified by some as apocalyptic prophecies on a par w i t h Daniel, since they describe God's final, universal intervention from outside o f history.

However, inasmuch as these apocalyptic-like prophecies deal primarily with the deliverance o f Israel as a national, geo-political entity, I find it better to consider these as the climax ofthe kingdom promises/prophecies made to Israel and not fully apocalyptic i n nature.

According to the universalistic, end-time scenario predicted by these passages, remnants o f opposition against Israel and Israel's God from the other nations o f the world launch a final attack against Jerusalem. During the siege o f Jerusalem, the reprobate Israelites are slain by their enemies (Zech 13:8; 14:2). Then God calls the rebellious nations into judgment, and they are eliminated by the L o r d i n the final eschatological battle (Zech 14; Ezek 38-39). God raises the righteous dead and puts the finishing touches o f immortality upon the living (Isa 25:8; 26:19). The wicked are also raised, judged, and (and after a period o f time [the millennium?], Isa 24:22) punished, ending i n everlasting destruction (Isa 24:20-23). God then recreates new heavens and a new earth, and He re-creates "Jerusalem as a rejoicing, and her people a j o y " (Isa 65:17-18). The world becomes Eden restored, and the Lord's universal and eternal kingdom is ushered in (Zech 14; Isa 24-27; 35; 51:3). ' " A n d it shall come to pass that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, all flesh shall come to worship before M e , ' says the L o r d " (Isa 66:23). Sin and sinners are totally vanquished, and evil w i l l never arise again (Isa 66:24; cf. Nah 1:9).

The Eschatological Fulfillment ofthe Divine Promise/Plan for O l d Testament Israel One o f the most pressing questions o f this study concerns the fulfillment (or non-fulfillment) ofthe numerous OT classical prophecies predicting the glorious eschatological future o f Israel. F r o m our vantage point, more than two millennia after the OT era, it becomes apparent that many prophecies concerning the future o f Israel as a nation did not come about as predicted i n the OT. Have these prophecies concerning Israel failed?

W i l l they never be fulfilled? Or are they still part o f the divine plan for the future? I f they w i l l yet be fulfilled, what is the nature o f this eschatological fulfillment?

Very different answers have been given to these questions. Dispensationalists maintain that the Bible presents two distinct salvation programs 195

Interpreting Old Testament Prophecy for humanity, one for the ethnic, national (geo-political) entity o f Israel and one for the Gentiles (the church). The divine predictions to the patriarchs concerning the geo-political aspects o f Israel's history, as well as the spiritual blessings, are seen to be unconditional, based upon irrevocable divine promises (Gen 12:1-7; 17:8; 26:3-5; cf. 2 Sam 7:12-17; etc.).

While OT Israel experienced the covenant curses o f destruction and exile (as described i n Lev 26:14-39 and Deut 28:15-68), at the same time, i n fulfillment o f these same passages, Israel never w i l l be cast off totally and destroyed but, i n the last days, w i l l be gathered together as a geo-political entity and restored to their land again (Lev 26:40-45; Deut 30:1-10).

According to this scenario, we are now living in the dispensation o f the church, which constitutes a chronological gap in the overarching plan o f God for Israel, brought about by Israel's initial rejection o f Christ. A l though some (progressive) dispensationalists allow for a partial, spiritual fulfillment o f O T covenant promises to Israel by the church, all o f them agree that the complete and literal fulfillment w i l l take place through a revived national state o f Israel. The establishment ofthe state o f Israel i n 1948 is viewed as pivotal i n the completion o f God's divine plan for Israel as a geo-political entity, and the consummation o f that plan is regarded as imminent, occurring literally as predicted in the O T kingdom prophecies.

Christian covenant theologians, on the other hand, argue that the promises/predictions made regarding Israel as a nation were conditional upon their faithfulness to the covenant. Since, according to this view, the Jewish nation proved disloyal to the covenant i n their rejection o f the Messiah, O T Israel received the curses o f Deuteronomy 28, instead o f the blessings, and has been permanently replaced by the church to w h o m belongs the fulfillment o f the O T covenant promises o f a spiritual nature. The passages depicting a glorious future for the nation o f Israel, promised upon condition o f covenant faithfulness, no longer apply but are superceded by a spiritual and universal fulfillment to spiritual Israel, the church.

Interpreting Old Testament Prophecy judgment i f Israel does not repent. I n this respect, the kingdom prophecies ofthe classical prophets may be seen as conditional i n nature.

In regard to the covenant, we need to remember the following points: First, on the most basic level, all the divine covenants o f Scripture are part o f one unconditional promise o f God to w o r k out salvation for the human race, stated first i n Genesis 3:15, and elaborated i n each succeeding development o f this one unified covenant (see, e.g., the promises of Gen 12, later incorporated into the Abrahamic covenant o f Gen 15 and 17). Thus, as we have noted i n the first section o f this chapter, the coming o f the Messiah to fulfill God's redemptive covenant promise, is unconditional, totally independent o f human choice. However, the actualization o f t h e divine promise i n the lives o f humans is conditional upon the response o f each individual in accepting the Messiah's gift o f salvation.

A second feature o f OT covenants, particularly the Abrahamic and Da6

vidic covenants, parallels ancient Near Eastern royal covenants o f grant, in which a king grants land or position to one o f his subjects and to his descendants, in perpetuity, in recognition o f the servant's loyalty. So God promised to Abraham and his descendants a grant o f land in perpetuity, based upon the covenant loyalty of Abraham (Gen 17:8; 26:3-5; etc.). To David, God gave the additional promise o f a never-ending kingdom (2 Sam 7:12-16; Ps 89:3437).

Many ofthe prophecies made by the O T classical prophets are indeed couched w i t h i n the framework o f a covenant relationship in which God's people are always free to remain faithful to the covenant and to reap the covenant blessings or to persist in unfaithfulness and to receive the covenant curses. Thus, as we have already noted, the classical prophets present two different options: God's plan for blessing Israel i f they heed the prophetic call to remain faithful to His covenant but also the certainty o f punitive judgment and o f the reception o f the covenant curses i f Israel persists in covenant unfaithfulness. Within classical prophecy, there are repeated calls to repentance so that God can pour out His blessings and warnings o f

A third feature o f biblical covenants also parallels the ancient Near Eastern covenants o f grant, i n which only those o f the grantee's descendants who remain loyal to the crown actually share i n the perpetual grant.

Generation after generation o f descendants might forfeit their right to the royal grant but, eventually, that which was granted w i l l be restored to loyal descendants. So i n Scripture, God bequeaths i n perpetuity the land o f promise to Abraham and to his line o f descendants and the royal throne and kingdom o f Israel to David and to his sons (2 Sam 7:12-16). Though generations have passed in which the divine grant, w i t h its national features, has been forfeited, yet in the future all that was promised under the divine grant w i l l be restored to Abraham's descendants who are loyal to the "everlasting covenant" made w i t h h i m (Gen 17:7, 13, 19).

This brings us to the last and, I believe, most crucial feature o f the OT covenants. Who comprised the covenant people who were to receive the kingdom promises made to Abraham? Was Israel comprised only o f the direct, ethnic, descendants o f Abraham, traced through his son Isaac and Isaac's son Jacob? The answer to this question is a resounding " N o " !

Throughout the OT, as we have seen above, God's plan was for Israel to reach out to those peoples and nations around them, inviting them to be-

196

197

Interpreting Old Testament Prophecy

Interpreting Old Testament Prophecy

come part o f God's covenant people. O T Israel was composed o f direct physical descendants o f Jacob, plus a multitude o f others from various nations who accepted Israel's God Yahweh and chose to become part o f the covenant community (for example, the multitude o f the Egyptians at the time o f the Exodus [Exod 12:38], Zipporah the Midian/Cushite [Exod 2:16, 21], Rahab the Canaanite and her family [Josh 6:22-25], Ruth the Moabitess [Ruth 1:16,17], Uriah the Hittite [2 Sam 11 ] , and the many Persians who joined Israel [Esth 9:27]). They were all called "Israel"; none were to be considered second-class citizens in the nation o f Israel (Isa 56:1-8; Ezek 47:22-23). There were not two plans for two different groups o f God-fearing people in the OT; all were called to j o i n biblical Israel, the one people o f God. A n d w i t h i n the nation o f Israel, there was always the "spiritual" remnant o f those who not only took the name o f "Israelite" but also gave evidence o f true covenant loyalty to the God o f Israel (e.g., Isa 10:22-23; Jer 23:3; M i c 2:12; Zeph 3:3).

7

Now, i n light o f these aspects o f O T covenants, further to be informed by N T data, let us see how the kingdom promises made to Israel find a three-stage eschatological fulfillment—in connection w i t h Jesus' first advent, i n connection w i t h the church throughout the N T era, and at the end o f time. We noted above how already i n O T times the kingdom promises began to be fulfilled i n the time o f Solomon and, again, upon Israel's return from the Babylonian exile. These promises were to climax i n the first advent o f the Messiah i n "the last days" (Heb 1:2).

When the Messiah, Israel's ultimate K i n g and Representative Israelite, came to earth, He brought about a basic fulfillment, i n principle, o f all these k i n g d o m promises i n H i m s e l f (Matt 12:28; 2 Cor 1:20). Through His life, death and resurrection, He inaugurated the "rule" or "reign" o f God on earth ("the kingdom o f grace" that Jesus called "the k i n g d o m o f God").

Thus, the N T does not present a picture o f two separate programs o f salvation for two separate peoples o f God. Rather, there is one single olive tree, representing the true people o f God, comprised o f Jews, the natural branches (believing Jews, the spiritual 'remnant according to the election of grace,' R o m 11:5), and ingrafted Gentiles ( R o m 9-11; esp. 11:17,24), as in OT times. Although at the time o f Jesus' first advent many o f the Olive branches were broken off, yet, Paul anticipated an eschatological grafting in o f Jews prior to Jesus' second coming, and, i n this way, " a l l " o f true Israel (both Jews and Gentiles) w i l l be saved (Rom 11:26).

W i t h the divorce o f the nation o f Israel from the theocracy, brought about by the Jewish leaders' rejection o f Christ, the national (geo-political) features o f the covenant promises could no longer be fulfilled literally by the Jewish nation as God had originally intended. Throughout the period of the Christian era, the spiritual blessings o f the covenant have been enjoyed by God's covenant people, comprised both o f Jews and o f Gentiles, and proclaimed to the world. Spiritual Israel, the church, as the body o f Christ, receives the fulfillment o f all the kingdom promises (Gal 3:29), but it is only a spiritual fulfillment; and the national language takes on a spiritual, universal, and/or heavenly meaning. So, for example, M t . Zion is used spiritually o f the universal church ( R o m 9:33; 1 Pet 2:6), which now is the "royal priesthood and holy nation" (1 Pet 2:9; cf. Exod 19:6) or refers to the heavenly city o f Jerusalem to which the earthly believers are spiritually gathered (Gal 4:26; Heb 12:22-24).

However, the literal features o f the covenant promises are not annulled permanently . A t the end o f time, "eschatological Israel," comprised o f all the faithful people o f God throughout all ages, including both Jews and Gentiles, w i l l be resurrected or translated to experience the ultimate, universal, glorious, literal fulfillment o f the O T covenant promises! I n heaven, during the millennium, they w i l l reign w i t h Christ i n the New Jerusalem and after the millennium w i l l finally receive their eternal inheritance i n the earth made new (Rev 20-22). While the cultural-specific aspects o f the O T geo-political covenant promises w i l l be universalized, a final literal fulfillment is nonetheless certain.

A t Christ's first advent, the people o f Israel, i n general, "heard H i m gladly" (Mark 12:37) and, although many misunderstood His mission to be that o f a political deliverer o f Israel from Roman occupation, they widely hailed H i m as the Messiah (Matt 21:1-11). On the day o f His resurrection, the disciples, traveling on the way to Emmaus, could state that Jesus "was a Prophet mighty i n deed and w o r d before God and all the people" (Luke 24:19). On the day o f Pentecost ten days after His ascension, thousands o f Jews were converted i n a single day (Acts 2:41), and the steadily growing N T covenant community, in continuity w i t h the one in the OT, was comprised primarily o f Jews—a multitude o f them—to w h o m were added another multitude o f Gentiles, who responded to the preaching o f the followers o f the Way (Acts 2:47; 4:4; 5:14; 6:1, 7; etc.).

The book o f Revelation confirms this final, universal-literal fulfillment o f the O T end-time prophecies as i t portrays the post-millennial battle against the forces o f evil in the language o f Ezekiel 38-39. "Gog and Magog"—now referring to all o f the enemies o f God throughout the ages—are repulsed in their attack against God's holy city and His people and consumed in the lake o f fire (Rev 20:8-9). Likewise, the N e w Jerusalem, eternal home o f the saints i n the earth made new, is largely depicted in the language o f Ezekiel 40-48, and the experience o f Isaiah 25:8 is

198

199

Interpreting Old Testament Prophecy

Interpreting Old Testament Prophecy fulfilled as "God w i l l wipe away every tear from their eyes" (Rev 21:4).

The seed o f Abraham w i l l inherit the Promised Land, which, already in the OT, was expanded to include the entire earth. The meek finally "inherit the earth" (Ps 37:11; cf. Matt 5:5)!

To summarize, the O T kingdom prophecies o f classical prophecy have one eschatological (last-day) fulfillment w i t h three stages: (1) inaugurated eschatology: the basic fulfillment o f the OT eschatological hopes, climaxing i n the earthly life and work o f Jesus, the Representative Israelite, at His first advent; (2) appropriated eschatology: the derived spiritual aspects o f fulfillment by the church (made up both o f Jews and o f Gentiles), the body o f Christ i n the time between Christ's first and second coming but lacking the national aspects o f fulfillment; and (3) consummated eschatology: the aspect o f final universal fulfillment by the eschatological Israel (all the redeemed, including both Jews and Gentiles) i n connection w i t h ushering i n the age to come at the second advent o f Christ and beyond, w h i c h includes not only the spiritual but also the literal dimensions o f fulfillment.

8

The mode o f fulfillment in each o f these aspects o f fulfillment is differentiated according to the physical and/or spiritual presence o f Christ the K i n g w i t h regard to His kingdom. First, in Christ's earthly ministry when, as the Representative Israelite, He was physically present, the fulfillment was literal and local, centered in H i m . So, for example, the "gathering" prophecies (Deut 30; Ezek 36-37; etc.) received an initial fulfillment as He literally gathered the twelve disciples to Himself (Matt 5:1; John 10:14-16; 11:52).

Second, during the time o f the Church in w h i c h Christ is universally but only spiritually present (that is, through His Spirit), the fulfillment is spiritual and universal. During this period, for example, the O T "gathering prophecies" are fulfilled as the people o f God are gathered spiritually (not physically) and universally by faith to Christ (Matt 18:20; Heb 12:22).

Finally, at the time o f the second advent o f Christ i n w h i c h He physically returns and, literally reuniting the people o f God to Himself, reunites the K i n g w i t h His kingdom, the fulfillment is gloriously literal and universal. So, w i t h regard to the O T "gathering prophecies," at the Second Advent, and again, after the millennium and for eternity, Christ literally and gloriously gathers all His people to H i m s e l f (Matt 24:31; 2 Thess 2 : 1 ; Rev 21-22). I n the book o f Revelation, the various OT depictions o f t h e end-time scenario meet and find glorious literal, universal fulfillment, centered i n Christ, the Conquering K i n g , and His people, the eschatological Israel.

200

5. Practical Steps for Interpretation As a practical guide for the interpretation o f predictive prophecy in OT Scripture, the following suggested steps may be helpful: 1. Determine the historical setting that calls forth the prophecy: Who wrote the prophecy, When, and under What circumstances. Recognize instances i n which the book may j u m p from an immediate local crisis as described in the book or specific passage to the eschatological "Day ofthe L o r d " at the end o f time (for example, Joel's description o f the local locust plague, then j u m p i n g to the eschatological "Day ofthe Lord").

2. Analyze the literary structure o f the book and the immediate passage under consideration, determining where this passage comes and what part it plays i n the overall structure o f the chapter or o f t h e book (for example, Gen 3:15 coming at the chiastic center o f Gen 3.)

3. Look closely at the natural grammatical flow ofthe passage—words, phrases, clauses, sentences—to understand what specifically is predicted (for example, the movement i n Gen 3:15 from a collective "seed" [Eve's spiritual descendents] to a singular "Seed" [the Messiah], a movement also occurs in Gen 22:17-18, as recognized by Paul i n Gal 3:6, 16).

4. Note any obvious symbols or any figurative language employed and determine the meaning o f each symbol or figure i n light ofthe immediate context and use o f this language elsewhere i n Scripture (for example, the many sign-actions o f Ezekiel).

5. Determine what type o f prophetic prediction is involved: Messianic, oracle against a foreign nation, or a kingdom promise to theocratic Israel. I f Messianic prophecy, note which aspects o f these prophecies are not dependent upon human choice and are, therefore, unconditional and which are describing effects o f the Messiah's advent that are conditional upon Israel's response. Note also whether the prediction is directly Messianic (as in Ps 110), or indirectly (typologically) Messianic (as i n Ps 2).

I f typologically Messianic, look for indicators w i t h i n the passage that the language goes beyond what is applicable to the O T person, event, or institution and points forward to the Messiah. Use a concordance or marginal notes to trace connections between the OT prophecy and the life o f Christ recorded i n the Gospel accounts.

6. I f it is a kingdom prophecy, regarding the future o f Israel, analyze the specific promises or prophecies that are given and check marginal notes to discover where similar or related prophecies are given elsewhere in the OT. Visualize the original divine plan for the people o f Israel as they remained faithful to God, as well as the covenant curses that are threatened in case o f continued covenant unfaithfulness, which would disrupt the divine plan.

201

Interpreting Old Testament Prophecy

Interpreting Old Testament Prophecy

7. I n understanding the N T fulfillment o f these kingdom promises, remember that Jesus as the Representative Israelite brought about the basic, initial (inaugurated), literal fulfillment o f the kingdom prophecies in Himself. (For example, the "gathering" prophecies received an initial fulfillment, in principle, as He gathered the twelve disciples to H i m s e l f ) 8. Recognize that these same covenant promises/prophecies find spiritual fulfillment i n the church, the body o f Christ. (For example, the church is spiritually gathered by faith to Christ.)

9. Note that these kingdom prophecies find their consummated, universal, and literal fulfillment at the Second Advent and beyond. (For example, Christ universally and literally gathers all His people to Himself at the Second Advent and again after the millennium.)

10. W i t h regard to the national/geo-political terminology or imagery for Israel, found i n the kingdom prophecies, recognize that this language (Jerusalem, M t . Zion, Israel, etc.) is often universalized in the N T as it refers to Christian Israel, to heavenly realities, or to the New Jerusalem after the millennium.

11. K i n g d o m prophecies describing Israel's enemies likewise are to be interpreted in the N T w i t h reference to Christ (as i n steps 7-9 above): literal, local enemies o f Christ at His first advent (e.g., John 13:18); spiritual, universal enemies o f the church during the Christian era (Rev 12:1316); and the literal, universal enemies at the Second Advent and beyond (Rev 20:8, 9).

12. Apocalyptic-like OT kingdom prophecies, referring specifically to the final eschatological battle between Israel and her enemies (Ezek 3839; Zech 12-14; Joel 3; Isa 24-27), must also be interpreted i n harmony w i t h the Christ-centered principles highlighted above. The consummated fulfillment is literal (e.g., the enemies o f God literally march against Jerusalem, and the M o u n t o f Olives divides i n two [Zech 12:1-9; 14:4; cf. Rev 20:9]), but the references to Israel and her enemies is universalized: Israel refers to the true people o f God in all ages; Gog and Magog refer to all o f their enemies (Ezekiel 38-39; cf. Rev 20:8).

2. For discussion of biblical typology, see chapter 13 and Richard M . Davidson, Typology in Scripture: A Study of Hermeneutical Typos Structures (Andrews University Dissertation Series, 2; Berrien Springs, M I : Andrews University Press, 1981).

3. The author's translation.

4. See Jack Collins, " A Syntactical Note (Genesis 3:15): Is the Woman's Seed Singular or Plural?" Tyndale Bulletin 48 (1997): 139-148: and Afolarin O. Ojewole, "The Seed in Genesis 3:15: An Exegetical and Intertexual Study" (Ph.D. Dissertation, Andrews University, 2002), 190-207.

5. For more complete discussion and substantiation, see Richard M . Davidson, "The Eschatological Literary Structure of the Old Testament," in Creation, Life, and Hope: Essays in Honor of Jacques B. Doukhan, ed. Jiri Moskala (Berrien Springs, M I : Old Testament Department, Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary, Andrews University, 2000), 349-366; cf. John H. Sailhamer, "The Messiah and the Hebrew Bible," JETS 44 (2001): 5-23.

6. See Moshe Weinfeld, "The Covenants of Grant in the Old Testament and the Ancient Near East," JAOS 90 (1976): 184-203.

7. See Gerhard F. Hasel, Hie Remnant: The Histoiy and Theology of the Remnant Idea From Genesis to Isaiah (Berrien Springs, M I : Andrews University Press, 1972); and Kenneth Mulzac, "The Remnant Motif in the Context of Judgment and Salvation in the Book of Jeremiah" (Ph.D. dissertation, Andrews University, 1995).

8. For further elaboration of these principles, see Davidson, "Sanctuary Typology," in Symposium on Revelation—Book I , Daniel and Revelation Committee Series, vol. 6, ed. Frank B. Holbrook (Silver Spring, MD: Biblical Research Institute, 1992), pp. 99-111, and Hans K. LaRondelle, 772e Israel of God in Prophecy: Principles of Prophetic Interpretation (Berrien Springs, M I : Andrews University Press, 1983).

Selected Bibliography

Unless otherwise indicated all other Scripture quotations are from the New King James Version.

Davidson, Richard M . "The Eschatological Literary Structure of the Old Testament," in Creation, Life, and Hope: Essays in Honor of Jacques B. Doukhan.

Edited by Jiri Moskala. Berrien Springs, M I : Old Testament Department, Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary, Andrews University, 2000.

Doukhan, Jacques B. The Mysteiy of Israel. Hagerstown, MD: Review and Heraid, 2004.

Hasel, Gerhard F. 77Î<2 Remnant: The Histoiy and Hieology ofthe Remnant Idea From Genesis to Isaiah. Berrien Springs, M I : Andrews University Press, 1972.

Kaiser, Walter C , Jr. The Messiah in the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, M I : Zondervan, 1995.

1. See J. Barton Payne, Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy: The Complete Guide to Scriptural Predictions and Their Fulfillment (Grand Rapids, M I : Baker, 1973), pp. 13, 674-675. According to Payne's analysis, out of the 23,210 verses ofthe Old Testament, 6,641 contain predictive material, or 28 V2 percent.

LaRondelle, Hans K. The Israel of God in Prophecy: Principles of Prophetic Interpretation. Berrien Springs, M I : Andrews University Press, 1983.

Sailhamer, John H. The Pentateuch as Narrative: A Biblical-Theological Commentary. Grand Rapids, M I : Zondervan, 1992.

202

203

References

Interpreting Old Testament Prophecy Strand, Kenneth. "Foundational Principles of Interpretation." In Symposium on Revelation: Introductory and Exegetical Studies—Book I. Daniel and Revelation Committee Series, vol. 6, ed. Frank B. Holbrook. Silver Spring, M D : Biblical Research Institute, 1992.

White, Ellen G. "The Lord's Vineyard." Christ's Object Lessons. Washington D.C: Review and Herald, 1941. . "The House of Israel." The Story of Prophets and Kings. Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1943.

CHAPTER XII

INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPELS AND THE EPISTLES George E. Rice

Introduction This chapter w i l l discuss methods o f interpretation that w i l l help make the Gospels and the N T epistles meaningful. I t is not our purpose to get into the technical discussion o f N T scholars regarding these books, although reference w i l l be made to this discussion on occasions for purposes o f clarification. Our goal is to help the reader to see that careful, thoughtful, and prayerful reading o f the Gospels and the Epistles w i l l be rewarded w i t h meaningful insights and bring spiritual renewal.

1. Interpreting the Gospels For the moment, we are interested i n the Gospels and how to gain an understanding o f what they are communicating. A l l four Gospels report various parts o f Jesus' life and ministry. They do not contain a complete report, o f course, for they are much too short to be what we c o m m o n l y call a biography. I n fact, the apostle John concludes his gospel w i t h the observation, " A n d there are also many other things that Jesus d i d , w h i c h i f they were w r i t t e n one by one, I suppose that even the w o r l d itself could not contain the books that w o u l d be w r i t t e n " (John 21:25).

A simple rule-of-thumb is helpful at the outset. Read carefully. D o n ' t rush. Then go back and reread. Soak up what the writer is saying. One o f the Epistles can be read i n a single sitting, but this is harder to do w i t h the Gospels, which are much longer. However, several chapters o f a Gospel can be read at one time and then reread.

When interpreting the Gospels, it is important to establish the following, as far as possible: (1) the historical events i n Jesus' personal life; (2) the social and religious context w i t h i n w h i c h Jesus lived and ministered; (3) the personal interests o f the men who wrote the Gospels; and (4) the lit204

205

Interpretation the Gospels and of the Epistles

Interpretation of the Gospels and the Epistles erary context w i t h i n which a particular sermon, parable, miracle, or event appears. This involves careful reading.

Let's consider each o f these four points for a minute.

1. Although there are numerous commentaries and books designed to help a student ofthe Gospels gain a deeper insight into Jesus' personal life, The Desire of Ages, by Ellen G. White, surpasses them all. W i t h inspired insight, this book guides us into the emotions and the thinking o f Jesus from His childhood to His sacrifice upon the cross. Being able to feel what Jesus felt brings the Gospel narrative to life.

2. Two books, from among the many that are available, are recommended to help establish the social and religious context w i t h i n which Jesus worked. Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus, by Joachim Jeremias, and Everyman's Talmud, by Abraham Cohen, help to establish both the social and the religious context o f Jesus' day.

When reading the Gospel record o f Jesus' healing blind people, one cannot help but ask the question, " W h y did He spit into the eyes o f the blind?" (Mark 7:33; 8:23). "Or why d i d He make clay out o f spittle and smear it on the eyes?" (John 9:6). The answer can be found i n Cohen's book, and the significance o f using spittle then becomes clear.

Cohen says that the following belief existed i n Jesus' day, "For eyetrouble spittle was commonly used, but we are told 'there is a tradition that the spittle ofthe first-born son o f a father has healing powers, but not the first-born son o f a mother' (B.B. 126b)."

1

N o w to the significance o f what Jesus did. It was commonly believed that Jesus was the illegitimate Son o f Joseph by Mary. Because Joseph fathered sons before he married Mary, Jesus was not Joseph's first-bom ( D A 86). Therefore, according to Jewish folk medicine, Jesus w o u l d not be able to heal eye diseases w i t h His spittle. The spittle o f a first-bom son o f a woman, w h i c h was Jesus' relationship w i t h Mary, had no healing power either. So this w o u l d also exclude Jesus from healing eye diseases as He did. Yet, Jesus was able to correct eye problems w i t h His spittle. Using the superstition o f Jewish folk medicine, Jesus gave evidence that He was not the illegitimate Son o f Joseph, as many accused H i m o f being, but was who He claimed to be, the only begotten Son o f God.

4. As is true in reading any portion o f Scripture, the literary context must be clearly seen i f we are to understand the smaller portion being read T o i gnore the context can lead to misunderstanding and wrong interpretations o f what a passage actually is saying.

Why F o u r Gospels?

One question that has been asked over and over again is, W h y are there four Gospels? Would not one have been sufficient to give us a picture o f Jesus, or would not five or six have been better than four? There is nothing sacred about the number four. There is no question that four Gospels give us a more complete picture than one, and, evidently, four d i d what God wanted, so we do not have five or six. It is interesting to note that Luke was aware that "many" accounts had been written about Jesus when he picked up his pen and began his work. "Inasmuch as many," he says, "have taken in hand to set i n order a narrative o f those things which have been fulfilled among us . . . " (Luke 1:1).

But o f these "many" who wrote, the H o l y Spirit chose only four to be included in the N T : Matthew, a former tax official, who had worked for Herod the Tetrarch o f Galilee and had been, we may safely assume, a Herodian; Mark, whose parents were devoted followers o f Jesus, i n whose home Jesus ate the Last Supper w i t h His disciples and who may have been the young lad who followed Jesus and the apostles to the Garden o f Gethsemane, escaping those who arrested Jesus by squirming out of their grasp, leaving the linen cloth in which he had wrapped himself in the hands o f the arresting party (Mark 14:51, 52); Luke, a Gentile and coworker w i t h Paul and w i t h Mark (Phlm 24), and a physician (Col 4:14); and then there was John, the beloved disciple, who gives us an inspiring account o f Jesus, the great " I A M . " The Synoptic Challenge Three o f the four Gospels are very similar in their accounts. Matthew, Mark, and Luke are called the Synoptic Gospels; that is, they give a "common view." But i f you read them carefully, you w i l l see differences in each that fill i n what is lacking i n the others. A n y given Gospel should be read first o f all to understand what the writer is presenting about Jesus.

Once this is clear, then comparisons can be made w i t h the other Gospels for other details.

3. Establishing the personal interests o f the Gospel writers is important. Each writer was touched by the saving grace o f Jesus and had a deep interest in who He was and what he said and did. But each gives us his report from his own frame o f reference. Understanding the frame o f reference helps us to see Jesus through four sets o f eyes and thus gives us a more complete picture. More w i l l be said later about the personal interests o f each writer.

When comparisons are made, there w i l l appear to be discrepancies.

These differences annoy skeptics, and they are pointed to as evidence that

206

207

Interpretation of the Gospels and the Epistles the Gospels are not trustworthy. But the synoptic writers were not robots, rigidly adhering to one account o f Jesus' ministry that could not vary i n the slightest. Rather, each writer was painting a portrait o f Jesus, and the various differences are nothing but the touch o f their brushes bringing out different shades in coloring. Remember each writer is telling us about Jesus from his o w n frame o f reference. Anyone reading through the Synoptics w i l l immediately recognize the same portrait while being refreshed by the different shadings.

The differences contained i n the Synoptic Gospels are known in the scholarly w o r l d as the Synoptic Problem. But these differences are really not a problem. They are, rather, a tantalizing challenge. A challenge to see and to understand Jesus as the Gospel writer saw and understood H i m . B y comparing the Synoptic accounts o f Jesus' miracles, parables, sermons, and His dealings w i t h people, you begin to see what each writer appreciated about Jesus. You can see the touch o f their paint brushes.

While Matthew, Mark, and Luke present a common view o f Jesus' life, John stands apart. His Gospel is the portrait that fills in the gaps left by the other three writers. B u t even at that, remember, w i t h the four Gospels we still do not have a complete account o f Jesus' life. The Synoptic Gospels probably were written some twenty-five to thirty years after Jesus' ascension. John was written sometime during the last decade ofthe first century A . D . From his vantage point he could see what were important events to h i m that had been left out by the other three, and so he shares them w i t h us.

For example, John is the only writer that records the visit o f Nicodemus w i t h Jesus immediately after Jesus cleansed the temple for the first time. Ellen G. White makes the following observation about this visit, and it illustrates John's personal interest and how he filled i n missing details, "Nicodemus related to John the story o f that interview, and by his pen it was recorded for the instruction o f millions. The truths there taught are as important today as they were on that solemn night i n the shadowy mountain, when the Jewish ruler came to learn the way o f life from the l o w l y Teacher o f Galilee" ( D A 177).

Sources of the Synoptic Gospels

Interpretation the Gospels and of the Epistles in Luke. Be that as it may, the idea is that both Matthew and Luke used the written account o f Mark as the basis for their Gospels. They then used another written document called " Q " (Q from the German word "Quelle" that means "source") as the basis for the material they have i n common that is not found i n Mark. This is known as the two-document hypothesis.

But there is one step beyond this. Matthew and Luke, it is believed, each had access to written material that they used and to which other writers did not have access. So the two-document hypothesis is now expanded to the four-document hypothesis. The written sources now line up as follows, Mark and Q were both used by Matthew and by Luke (the two-document hypothesis), Matthew used a source known as " M " that Luke did not have, and Luke used a source known as " L " that Matthew did not have, which gives the four-document hypothesis (Mark, Q, M , and L ) .

However, i f you look at Luke 1:1-4 carefully, he appears to be telling his readers that he and the "many" who had compiled narratives o f Jesus' ministry d i d not use written sources but relied upon oral accounts o f eyewitnesses and ministers o f the Word.

There is no evidence that the writers o f the Gospels received their information about the ministry o f Jesus through inspired dreams or visions.

Matthew and John were apostles and spent a great deal o f time w i t h H i m .

They were eyewitnesses o f many events that they recorded. M a r k knew Jesus personally but did not spend the time w i t h H i m that Matthew and John did. Tradition has it that Peter was the source o f information recorded

by Mark. Luke, on the other hand, did not know Jesus personally, nor d i d he ever see H i m . While the other three had personal contact w i t h Jesus to varying degrees, it was Luke who felt he must explain to Theophilus, and anyone else who might read his Gospel, how he acquired his information about Jesus.

I f the Gospel writers d i d not receive inspired dreams and visions, how can their Gospel accounts o f Jesus' life be considered as inspired? The answer is thought inspiration, and it is described as follows: " I t is not the words o f the Bible that are inspired, but the men that were inspired. Inspiration acts not on the man's words or his expressions but on the man himself, who, under the influence o f the H o l y Ghost, is imbued w i t h thoughts" ( I S M 21). Going a step further, we are told that "God has been pleased to communicate His truth to the world by human agencies, and He Himself,

by His H o l y Spirit, qualified men and enabled them to do this work. He guided the m i n d in the selection o f what to speak and what to w r i t e " (GC vi-vii).

For several centuries, the majority o f N T scholars have believed that Mark was written before Matthew and Luke. Possibly because it is the shortest o f the three (although there are some who think Matthew was written first). However, some o f the accounts o f Jesus' activities i n Mark are more detailed than what is found in the parallel accounts in Matthew and

For example, since Luke investigated the life o f Jesus carefully from its very beginning (1:1-4), why did he not record the visit o f the wise men from

208

209

Interpretation of the Gospels and the Epistles the East? Certainly, he must have known about it, for it was an important event that set the whole city of Jerusalem abuzz and struck terror i n the heart o f Herod the Great. D i d Luke not know about this event, or was he guided by the Holy Spirit to select instead the visit o f the shepherds, which turned out to be a brush stroke i n Luke's portrait o f Jesus that we do not see i n the other Gospels? A n d what is there about Luke's portrait o f Jesus that makes the visit ofthe shepherds a contribution to his Gospel while the visit ofthe wise men would make a contribution to Matthew's portrait? We w i l l come back to these questions later. B y noting these differences, even little ones, the picture o f Jesus is sharpened as it comes from the pens ofthe different writers. The tantalizing challenge is to note these differences and to see what contribution they make to the overall picture.

The Importance ofthe Gospel of John Interpreting the Gospels requires a careful reading o f each. One ofthe first things the reader w i l l look for is the major theme or the emphasis that the writer wishes to bring out. For example: John's major emphasis is the divinity o f Jesus. The opening verses o f his Gospel set the tone for what follows, " I n the beginning was the Word, and the Word was w i t h God, and the Word was G o d " (John 1:1). This theme is brought out repeatedly throughout John's Gospel by the sermons, parables, debates, and miracles that the H o l y Spirit guided h i m to record. After a debate w i t h the religious leaders over their identity and His identity, Jesus nails down who He is, "Before Abraham was, I A M " (John 8:58). So, watch for the major theme in each Gospel, because it w i l l vary from book to book.

The reader w i l l next look for events i n Jesus' life that are shared by the other Gospels and then for details i n these events that are unique to the Gospel he or she is reading. Having done this, the reader w i l l pool all ofthe details from all four Gospels for a more complete understanding. Variations in accounts (the tantalizing challenges) only help to broaden the picture. For example: John's Gospel is very important for our overall understanding o f Jesus' life and ministry for three reasons: (1) His record is made up largely o f events that the Synopics do not mention. Thus there are few parallels; (2) When he does report an event that is parallel w i t h the Synoptics, he adds details that result in a more complete understanding o f what happened; (3) He gives us a chronological time-frame for Jesus' ministry.

1. Here are a few examples to point number one: (a) the call o f a handful o f disciples immediately following the forty days o f temptation in the wilderness (John 1:35-51); i n the Synoptic Gospels, the call ofthe disciples to full-time ministry comes at a later time ( D A 246-247); (b) the 210

Interpretation the Gospels and of the Epistles wedding at Cana (2:1-12); (c) the first cleansing o f the temple that inaugurated Jesus' ministry (2:13-22); (d) the visit o f Nicodemus (3:1-21); (e) the woman o f Samaria (4:1 -42); (f) the healing o f the crippled man at the pool on the Sabbath, followed by Jesus' arrest and trial on the charge o f Sabbath breaking (cf. D A , p. 204), and His legal defense before the council ofthe elders during which He claims equality w i t h His Father, because He possesses life as a part o f His own nature (5:1-47). A n d the list goes on. Our knowledge would be greatly restricted without these independent reports, and John's chronology (point three above) helps to arrange this record and the record i n the Synoptics i n a logical sequence.

2. Except for the final hours o f Jesus' life, John repeats very little o f the information that can be found i n the Synoptics. A n d even i n his record o f Jesus' final moments, he gives us numerous details that are unique to his Gospel. I n John 6, wefrnd an illustration o f an event that John has in common with the Synoptics. B y adding details, he deepens our understanding o f what is happening and enriches our understanding o f those events recorded in the Synoptics by including information that the Synoptics do not report.

John, i n his report o f the feeding o f the 5000 (John 6), adds the following facts: (1) After the miracle o f the bread and fishes, the multitude wanted to take Jesus by force to make H i m king (John 6:15). (2) K n o w i n g these people were only interested i n worldly power and not i n eternal life, He preached the Sermon on the Bread o f Life (6:26-59). (3) From the content o f the sermon, the people realized that Jesus had no intention o f fulfilling their political ambitions but was calling them to spiritual union w i t h H i m (John 6:53-58). (4) The response to the sermon was a mass desertion o f people who had claimed to be His followers, only one day after they wanted to make H i m king by force (John 6:60-66). (5) This desertion was so extensive Jesus asked the Twelve, "Do you also want to go away?"

(John 6:67). The Synoptics do not conclude the feeding ofthe 5000 w i t h these important details. This is just one illustration o f how a careful reading o f one Gospel and its comparison w i t h the other three can expand our understanding o f the events i n Jesus' life.

3. The Gospel o f John gives us a chronology o f Jesus'ministry. I f we had only the Synoptics, we would have to conclude that Jesus' ministry was much shorter than it really was. John establishes his chronology around four Passovers. Jesus was baptized i n the fall o f A . D . 27 at the conclusion o f the 69 weeks o f Daniel 9:25. The first Passover was the following spring ( A . D . 28, John 2:13) when Jesus cleansed the temple for the first time and inaugurated His ministry (chap. 2:14-22). The next Passover (A.D. 29, John 5:1, cf. 2:13) brought His Judean ministry to a conclusion with His arraignment "before the Sanhedrin to answer the charge o f Sab211

Interpretation of the Gospels and the Epistles bathbreakin2" (John 5:2-47; D A 204). The third Passover ( A . D . 30, John 6:4) saw the conclusion o f His Galilean ministry w i t h the feeding o f t h e 5000 and the mass desertion o f His professed followers (John 6:1-71).

The final Passover ( A . D . 3 1 , John 13:1) saw His arrest and His trial and the crucifixion.

On the basis o f John's chronology, we can put the events recorded m the Synoptics i n their proper place. Without a doubt, John's Gospel makes a valuable contribution to interpreting and understanding the gospel story.

Interpreting the Synoptic Gospels When it comes to interpreting the Synoptic Gospels, at least three questions should be foremost in our minds: (1) Since John's Gospel, which establishes a time frame for Jesus' ministry, was written decades after the Synoptics, where d i d the synoptic writers get the order o f events we see in their Gospels? (2) What do the variations i n content tells us? (3) Is it possible that Jesus repeated His teaching, sermons, and parables, adapting them to meet the needs and interests o f varying groups o f listeners i n different geographic locations?

1. I n dealing w i t h the first question, a reading o f the Synoptic Gospels suggests that there is a certain order o f events i n Jesus' life that is shared by all three. For example: I f we assume that Mark was written first and that he recorded the memoirs o f Peter, then M a r k received the order o f events i n his Gospel by listening to Peter's oral report (there is no canonical Gospel authored by Peter). This means that imbedded within Peter's oral report there was a basic order o f events that took place i n Jesus' life.

Luke tells us that he gleaned his Gospel account from talking personally w i t h eyewitnesses and ministers o f the Word. Although he adds a great deal o f information and makes some adjustments, Luke has the same basic order o f events that can be found i n Mark. O f course, Luke was a co-laborer w i t h M a r k and Paul and, no doubt, received much information orally from M a r k (Phlm 24).

Then we have the contributions o f Matthew, an eyewitness, and again we see the same basic order o f events. One cannot help but conclude that there already existed i n the oral tradition about Jesus a basic sequence o f events before the Synoptics were written.

There is another point o f interpretation o f which the reader must be aware. It is clear that some events i n one Gospel do not synchronize with the others. I t is here that a comment by Ellen G. White is helpful, "There is not always perfect order or apparent unity i n the Scriptures. The miracles o f Christ are not given i n exact order, but are given just as the cir212

Interpretation the Gospels and of the Epistles cumstances occurred, which called for this divine revealing o f t h e power o f Christ" ( I S M 20). In other words, some o f the miracles o f Jesus were used as literary illustrations o f His power and the truths which He taught.

Therefore, these miracles would not appear i n the same chronological order i n each o f the Synoptics.

Mark seems to record the bare bones. Matthew and Luke add flesh to the bones with the addition o f information not found i n Mark, but they rarely upset the basic sequence o f events by their additions. I t is true that Matthew and Luke present some events and parables differently than Mark, but here is the situation or place i n which the tantalizing challenge comes i n . A n d this leads us to the second question that must be kept i n mind when interpreting the Synoptics.

2. The second question deals w i t h the variations found i n the Synoptic Gospels. Although the Synoptics present a common view o f Jesus' ministry, each writer shows his o w n unique interest i n who Jesus is and what He did from his o w n point o f reference. I t is their personal interests that present the challenge to interpretation while filling i n the details i n each portrait o f Jesus.

Although M a r k gives us the bare bones o f Jesus' ministry, he does have a personal interest i n Jesus that is reflected i n his Gospel. This interest is seen i n the opening sentence, "The beginning ofthe Gospel o f Jesus Christ, the Son o f God" (Mark 1:1). That Jesus is the Son o f God is the foundation o f the good news about Jesus, and each event, each sermon, and each parable communicates something about the Son whether it is an acknowledgment by demons o f His divinity (Mark 1:24) or telling the paralytic his sins are forgiven and then establishing His authority to forgive sins before the astonished eyes o f the assembled scribes by telling the paralytic to arise, take up his bed, and go home (Mark 2:5-11).

As we move from the basics presented i n Mark, the personal interests that Matthew and Luke had i n Christ become very apparent. For example, Matthew's interest i n Jesus screams for attention right from the first verse, "The book o f the genealogy o f Jesus Christ, the Son o f David, the Son o f Abraham." This statement is followed by Jesus' genealogy beginning w i t h Abraham, going down through the kings o f Judah, to Joseph, Jesus' adoptive father (Matt 1:1 -17).

The Messianic interest i n Jesus is clear. He is the Son o f David; He was born i n the royal city o f David into the household o f Joseph, who was an heir to the throne (though Jesus' conception was a miracle by the H o l y Spirit [Matt 1:18]). After the wise men from the East came looking for H i m who was born K i n g o f the Jews (Matt 2:2), Herod, i n a jealous rage, attempted to eliminate his competition for the throne (Matt 2:3-18). The 213

‫ד‬ Interpretation of the Gospels and the Epistles Messianic interest is also evident in Christ's temptations and i n His Sermon on the Mount. The last ofthe three temptations i n the wilderness was over the issue as to who was to rule the kingdoms o f the earth, Satan or Jesus (Matt 4:8-10). Luke reverses the last two temptations [Luke 4:1-12]), and the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5-7) was designed to give its hearers a right conception o f Jesus' kingdom and o f H i m as the K i n g ( D A 299).

It might be added that this sermon also was designed to show how the citizens o f this kingdom are to live. The Beatitudes begin w i t h the poor i n spirit and end w i t h those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, and both are assured they w i l l inherit the kingdom o f heaven. Without a doubt, Matthew was interested i n Jesus as the Messianic K i n g and i n His kingdom. This interest runs throughout his Gospel. Once the reader is aware ofthe personal interests that the Gospel writer has i n Jesus, he can watch for it as it surfaces. Each appearance broadens the overall understanding o f the gospel story.

Interpretation the Gospels and of the Epistles (5:2) and Luke (8:27) say a demon-possessed man, who lived i n the tombs, met Jesus as He got out o f the boat. Matthew, on the other hand, says two demon possessed men met H i m (Matt 8:28). Ellen G. White follows Matthew's account ( D A 337).

Luke's interest in Jesus grows out o f his personal experience. Luke was a Gentile convert. He looked at Jesus from an entirely different frame o f reference than Matthew, Mark, and John, who were Jews. Because Gentiles were despised by Jews, Luke is interested i n how the gospel story and the ministry o f Jesus relate to others who are despised or in a lower social category. For example, while Gabriel announced the coming birth o f Jesus to Joseph, the son o f David (Matt 1:20-21), the announcement is made to Mary in Luke 1:26-38. Women were generally held i n low esteem.

Matthew records the visit o f the wise men who were looking for the K i n g o f the Jews, and Luke records the visit o f t h e shepherds (Luke 2:820). There was a certain nostalgia attached to shepherding i n O T times, because king David had been a shepherd. However, i n Jesus' day the occupation o f a shepherd was despised. I t must have been o f great interest to Luke that God bypassed all of the religious leaders to announce the birth o f His Son to a despised group o f men.

M i n o r differences can be looked for, because they also help the reader to get an insight into the writer's interests. For example, Matthew had been an employee o f Herod and w o u l d have been viewed as a Herodian and sympathizer w i t h Rome. K n o w i n g this, the record o f t h e healing o f the man w i t h the withered hand by the Synoptic writers is interesting.

This miracle took place i n a synagogue and before a group o f men who wanted to do Jesus i n . Luke concludes the account o f the miracle by simply saying that these men "were filled w i t h rage and discussed w i t h one another what they might do to Jesus" (Luke 6:11). M a r k identifies these men as Pharisees, noting that they left the synagogue and plotted w i t h the Herodians as to how they might k i l l Jesus ( M a r k 3:6). Matthew, being a former Herodian, leaves his former peers out o f the murderous plot and says, "Then the Pharisees went out and plotted against H i m , how they might destroy H i m " (Matt 12:14). This does not mean that Matthew was still a Roman sympathizer, but i t may indicate that he put the blame for this plot upon those who once hated h i m because o f his position i n Herod's government.

While Jesus' temptations in the wilderness, as recorded by Matthew, end w i t h the issue o f who w i l l rule the nations o f the earth, w h i c h fits into Matthew's particular interests, i n Luke's Gospel they end in Jerusalem.

Jesus is taken to the pinnacle o f the temple and Satan tells H i m to prove who He is by throwing Himself down. I n Luke's order o f the temptations, Jesus gained the victory i n His struggle w i t h Satan w i t h i n the heart o f the very city that would turn on H i m and crucify H i m (Luke 4:9-13), the city in which Gentiles were looked down upon.

There is an additional point o f interpretation that needs to be added here before we move on to Luke. Matthew was a co-laborer w i t h Jesus and an eyewitness o f the last two years o f Jesus' ministry. He was called to discipleship immediately after Peter, Andrew, James, and John were called to full-time labor ( D A 272). Mark, and especially Luke, d i d not have the advantages o f Matthew as an eyewitness. Therefore, when a minor discrepancy appears, logic w o u l d say, Go w i t h the eyewitness.

The account o f the exorcism that took place on the east side o f the Sea o f Galilee i n the country o f the Gadarenes is a good example o f this. M a r k

O n l y Luke records the story o f the Samaritan village that refused hospitality to Jesus and His attitude toward these Gentiles as compared w i t h what James and John wanted to do to them (Luke 9:51-55). Luke alone records the story o f t h e good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37) and o f the cleansing o f the ten lepers who were outcasts o f society and the one, who happened to be a Samaritan Gentile, who returned to thank Jesus for what He had done for h i m (Luke 17:11-19). Luke also reports the parable o f the Pharisee and the tax collector praying i n the temple (Luke 18:9-14) and Jesus accepting the hospitality o f Zacchaeus, the despised

214

215

2

A l l three Synoptics quote the prophecy o f Isaiah 40 concerning the ministry o f John the Baptist, "The voice o f one crying i n the wilderness . . . , " but Luke alone concludes the quote by drawing from Isaiah 52:10, " A n d all flesh shall see the salvation o f God" (Luke 3:6), which w o u l d include himself, a despised Gentile.

Interpretation the Gospels and of the Epistles

Interpretation ofthe Gospels and the Epistles tax collector (Luke 19:1-10). I t is clear that Luke is interested i n how Jesus, the Savior o f the w o r l d , related to non-Jews and to those o f the Jewish nation who were despised.

The tantalizing challenges seen i n additions and in omissions in the Synoptic accounts only add to the broader picture o f Jesus' life and minis¬

fies himself by name in the opening salutation, and the recipient is identified. This is followed by a greeting, a prayer or expression of thanksgiving, then the body o f the letter, and the farewell (e.g., Romans, 1 Corinthians, etc). Some o f the epistles lack the formal introduction (e.g., Hebrews, 1 . John) and others the final farewell (e.g., James).

try. A n interested reader ofthe Gospels w i l l watch for them and be aware of them when they appear, compare them w i t h parallel accounts in the

Content of the Epistles

other two Synoptics to see how each change deepens the understanding o f what is written.

3. N o w the final question, Is it possible that some variations in the Synoptic accounts resulted from Jesus repeating His teaching to various groups o f people? This is, indeed, what happened. Preachers often present a sermon more than once, altering it here and there to suit the different audiences they address. The teachings and parables o f Jesus contain truth that He wanted all to hear. What He taught i n Judea would certainly be repeated for the benefit o f those who lived i n Galilee. A n d the same truth might be presented w i t h a different emphasis and with varying illustrations.

Ellen G. White makes the following comment, " A considerable part o f the closing months o f Christ's ministry was spent i n Perea, the province on 'the farther side o f the Jordan' from Judea. Here the multitude thronged His steps, as in His early ministry i n Galilee, and much o f His former teaching was repeated" ( D A 488).

Understanding that each o f the Gospel writers paints a portrait o f Jesus as he sees H i m w i l l go a long way i n helping to interpret the Gospels and in resolving the differences that are encountered. These differences are not to be looked upon as errors or something that renders the Gospels unreliable but as tantalizing challenges that expand our own view o f who Jesus is and what He taught and did.

2. Interpreting the Epistles In addition to the Gospels (accounts o f the life and ministry o f Jesus), Acts (history ofthe early church) and Revelation (prophecy), the N T contains a body o f documents sent to Christian congregations or to individuals. These documents are generally called Epistles. There is a question as to whether a distinction should be made between an Epistle, a literary production to be read by all, and a letter which is seen as personal correspondence.

The Epistles are not theological expositions. They were intended for practical instruction in Christian living, spiritual nurturing ofthe reader(s), correction where needed, encouragement, and admonition. Some o f the Epistles address theological issues to enlighten the reader(s), to correct misunderstandings, and to confront outright error, but they were not written as theological expositions.

Example: I n Romans, Paul develops justification and righteousness by faith, but this is not the sole intent o f this Epistle. I n Galatians, he confronts the error of'"another gospel" that is not a gospel. The majority o f Hebrews is devoted to a masterful presentation o f Jesus' work as our H i g h Priest i n the heavenly sanctuary using the earthly sanctuary and its services as a type o f the heavenly, but it also contains practical advice on Christian living.

The following approach to a study o f the Epistles w i l l prove helpful: 1. Because o f the varied nature o f the content o f the Epistles, the practice o f reading an Epistle through in one sitting is a sound procedure.

2. Then reread it slowly and carefully.

3. On a sheet o f paper, divide the content o f the Epistle into logical sections. One section for theological study, another for identifying problems the writer is addressing, another section for counsel and for advice in practical Christian living, etc. Having done this, each section can be given undivided attention.

4. While dividing an Epistle into sections for further study, note words that may produce insights from a w o r d study. For example, comparing verses i n which Paul uses the word "righteous" or "righteousness" is an interesting study. It w i l l be seen that these two words are used to address the faith experience as well as living a life o f obedience.

From this collection o f documents, those that are genuine letters, generally, follow the format o f any other letter o f that time. The author identi-

First Corinthians 15:29 produces interesting results from a w o r d study.

This is the sole verse used by some people to support vicarious baptism and thus salvation for the dead. I n this w o r d study two things must be noted: (1) the use ofthe Greek preposition huper, generally translated "for" or "on behalf o f " ; and (2) the presence and the absence ofthe definite article ("the dead" and "dead people," in general).

216

217

Interpretation of the Gospels and the Epistles 1. The preposition huper means "over" or "above" and, as noted, is commonly translated " f o r " or "on behalf of." Within the context o f salvation, the word conveys the idea o f a protective shield over the repentant sinner that absorbs the punishment deserved by the sinner. Thus, Christ as a vicarious sacrifice paid the penalty o f the broken law on behalf o f sinners and becomes their Protective Shield, (cf., Rom 5:6, 8; 8:32, etc.)

However, human beings cannot gain salvation vicariously for another human being, because both are sinners. Therefore, vicarious baptism (a living person being baptized "for" (huper) a dead person), is contrary to the gospel and to Paul's theology o f righteousness by faith. Therefore, i n 1 Corinthians 15:29, huper must take on a different meaning.

Pagans i n Paul's day saw that the grace o f Jesus and His resurrection were the only hope that they had o f being reunited w i t h departed loved ones who had become Christians before they died. Paganism held out no hope o f a reunion or a resurrection. Because o f the Christian hope i n the resurrection, pagans were turning to Jesus as their Savior, believing that through His grace they w o u l d be reunited w i t h dead loved ones at Jesus' return. Thus, the living were being "baptized for the sake o f or because o f the dead" or, as Paul puts it, "for the dead" (cf. G. G. Findlay's commentary on 1 Corinthians i n The Expositor s Greek Testament for further discussion on this verse). I f the Corinthians actually were being baptized for dead relatives, w i t h the idea that their baptism would vicariously save the dead, Paul would have come down hard on this heresy i n his letter to them. But his casual mention o f what was being done indicates he had no problem w i t h it.

Interpretation the Gospels and of the Epistles ary of Biblical Words by W. E. Vine. The three volume Theological Lexicon of the New Testament by Ceslas Spicq is also helpful. For those who want to get serious about w o r d studies, there is the three-volume Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament by Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider and the multivolume Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by Gerhard Kittel. Also, The New Englishman s Greek Concordance of the New Testament is a helpful tool.

Historical Context As w i t h the study o f the Gospels, establishing the historical context o f an Epistle is important. With the Epistles it is necessary (1) to gather as much information about the author as possible and (2) to gather all the information available about the congregation or individual to w h o m the Epistle is sent.

1. Except for Jude, the names o f the authors o f the Epistles appear i n the Gospels and i n Acts. I t is from these two sources that the historical context o f the writers can be reconstructed. We k n o w a great deal about Paul, Peter, and John, much less about James, and nothing about Jude other than that he claims to be the brother o f James (Jude 1). This would make h i m , together w i t h his brother, a son o f Joseph ( c f , M a r k 6:3).

From the Epistles themselves, we can glean some information about the personal situation o f the author when he wrote. For example, when Paul wrote Romans, he had wanted to get to the capital city ofthe empire for some time so that he could share some gift w i t h the Roman Christians and strengthen them i n the faith (Rom 1:11, 12), as well as w i n converts to Christ (1:13), but he had not been able to do so (1:13). His plan was to take the material assistance donated by the churches i n Greece and in Macedonia to the poor i n Jerusalem and then stop by i n Rome on his way to Spain (15:26-32).

2. I n this verse there is a definite article before the first appearance o f the w o r d translated "dead" (ton nekron, genitive case), thus indicating that "the dead" are a specific group among all the dead, i n this case Christians.

The second appearance ofthe word translated "dead" (nekroi, nominative case) has no article, thus indicating the dead i n general. The K J V and the N K J V have a third appearance o f ton nekron i n the last sentence o f the verse. But the oldest Greek manuscripts read "for them" (huper auton), referring back to the first appearance o f t h e w o r d "dead." As a result o f this w o r d study, the verse can be understood to say, " W h y are people being baptized because o f their hope o f being reunited w i t h their departed, Christian loved ones, i f the dead i n general are not raised?" First Corinthians 15:29 now becomes a strong affirmation for belief i n the resurrection, as it gives us insight into what was happening historically w i t h i n the pagan culture o f Paul's day.

When Paul wrote to the Galatian churches, his position, authority, and teaching as an apostle were being challenged by critics who followed h i m to these churches and were teaching a gospel that was different from what he taught (Gal 1:1,6-11). First and Second Corinthians were written to a church that also challenged Paul's authority (2 Cor 1:23-2:5).

To do a w o r d study, a Greek/English Dictionary w i l l be needed.

There are several that can be purchased, such as An Expository Diction-

Picking up these tidbits helps i n interpreting what the author is saying in the Epistle.

218

219

W h e n Paul wrote his letters to the Philippian Christians, Timothy, Titus, and Philemon, he was a prisoner i n Rome. James wrote to Jewish Christians scattered throughout the Roman Empire, as d i d Peter i n his First Epistle.

τ Interpretation the Gospels and of the Epistles

Interpretation of the Gospels and the Epistles 2. Establish the historical context o f the reader by going to a Bible dictionary and finding out all you can about the city, region, or individual to w h o m the Epistle is addressed. The Interpreter s Dictionary ofthe Bible, published by Abingdon Press, is a useful tool.

Also, from the Epistle itself and from other sources try to establish the makeup o f t h e congregation. I f the Epistle is addressed to an individual, what was the relationship between the author and the reader? I f there were problems w i t h i n the congregation, what were they, and how does the author address them?

For example, over sixteen double-column pages i n The Interpreter s Dictionary of the Bible are devoted to the city o f Corinth and to the two Epistles that Paul wrote to the Corinthian Christians. The city was very cosmopolitan, a thriving center o f commerce, and located near the place in which the ancient Greek Olympic Games were held.

A problem can be picked up in the Epistle itself. Being a commercial center, it drew people from various parts o f the empire who spoke different Ianguages. This may have been the root o f the problem with speaking in tongues in this church. None o f the other churches seems to have had this problem.

The Epistles to Timothy and Titus speak for themselves. Paul had a very close relationship w i t h these two men, calling both o f them his sons.

They had shared w i t h Paul the joys and the pain o f preaching the gospel to a pagan world. Paul's relationship w i t h Philemon was that o f a mature fellow worker. He was a friend from w h o m Paul wanted to collect a debt in taking back as a brother i n Christ, Onesimus, a runaway slave who had wronged Philemon.

Application of Content

1. Determine the central core o f the message contained in an Epistle and then address the instruction that is dependent upon that core.

Example: The fallen, helpless condition o f man in sin is at the heart o f most o f the messages in the Epistles as is redemption in Christ from this fallen condition through His death and resurrection. Justification, sanctification, and the return o f Jesus are also core material. Understanding the instruction for Christian behavior and life style is today just as dependent upon an understanding o f the core material as it was when it was written.

2. Identify what the Epistles see as inherently moral and what is not.

M o r a l behavior that was based upon God's law at the time the Epistles were written is moral behavior today, for God's law does not change.

Example: The list o f positive behavior given by Paul i n Philippians 4:8 remains a guide for us today. Let the mind dwell on things that are good, noble, just, pure, lovely, o f good report, and that which has virtue. B y contrast, the sin list in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 applies just as much today as it did when Paul compiled it.

3. Make a list o f items that are consistent throughout the Epistles.

Example: Love is to be the basis for all interaction w i t h our fellow men, love that is o f the quality that brought Jesus to Calvary, self-renouncing love. Non-retaliation would fit under the category o f love. Then there are strong statements against strife, hatred, murder, stealing, immorality, and drunkenness.

4. Distinguish between a principle and a specific application.

Example of a principle: There are two underlying principles that Christians today must note that grow out o f Paul's counsel to the Corinthians: (1) Although we may not live i n a culture in w h i c h the temptation to feast i n an idol's temple exists and we may not expose ourselves to the immorality that once existed in these temples, we are faced w i t h demonic activity that is much more subtle. We can identify it everywhere in our postmodern culture. In some cultures o f our w o r l d today, the danger that the Corinthians faced still exists. But the underlying principle is that toying w i t h anything that exposes us to demonic activity places us i n grave spiritual danger. Within the Corinthian context, Paul recognized the danger. (2) The second principle is that toying w i t h the demonic powers disqualifies us for companionship w i t h Jesus. We cannot have fellowship w i t h Satan and then expect to have fellowship w i t h Jesus.

Perhaps the greatest challenge connected w i t h interpreting the Epistles is deciding what is relevant for today. I t is dangerous to dismiss counsel and instruction that irritates us by saying that it just does not fit our modern cultural context. Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart make a valid point when they say that what we share today w i t h the original reader(s) is meant for us too.

Another problem w i t h interpreting the Epistles is trying to make an Epistle say what it originally did not say and trying to answer questions that are not asked w i t h i n the context o f the Epistle. Again Fee and Stuart have sound counsel for interpreting an Epistle; the text cannot mean what it did not mean to the author and to the reader(s).

H o w then do we today understand instruction that was given i n the first century A . D . context? Here are some helpful suggestions:

Example of a specific application: Paul had strong words for those Corinthian Christians who were feasting in the temples o f idols in 1 Corinthians 8 and 10. These temple feasts were spread in honor o f the god represented by the idol. A n d , o f course, demonic power was behind the idol. B y eating at these feasts, the participants were showing a w i l l i n g -

220

221

3

4

5

Interpretation of the Gospels and the Epistles ness to enter into a covenant relationship w i t h the god being thus honored.

A Christian cannot cozy up to a demon. So in 1 Corinthians 10:20-21, Paul is absolutely clear as to the fallout o f such behavior: "Rather, that the thing which the Gentiles sacrifice they sacrifice to demons and not to God, and I do not want you to have fellowship w i t h demons. You cannot drink the cup o f the L o r d and the cup o f demons; you cannot partake ofthe Lord's table and o f the table o f demons."

As the Epistles are read and reread and work sheets and w o r d studies are developed, the reader becomes accustomed to look for underlying principles that can become a guide for the twenty-first-century Christian.

B y following the steps outlined above the core message o f the Epistles can be seen clearly and then separated from peripheral instruction.

References A l l Scripture quotations are from the New King James Version.

1. A. Cohen, Everyman s Talmud (New York, NY: E. P. Dutton & Co. Inc, 1949), p. 253.

2. Joachim Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1975), p. 304.

3. Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth, 3d ed. (Grand Rapids, M I : Zondervan Publishing House, 2003), p. 75.

4. Ibid.,p.74.

5. Ibid., pp. 81-83.

Selected Bibliography Balz, Horst, and Gerhard Schneider. Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament.

3 vols. Grand Rapids, M I : Eerdmans, 1990-1993.

Brown, Raymond E. An Introduction to the New Testament. New York, NY: Doubleday, 1997.

Fee, Gordon, and Douglas Stuart. How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth. 3d ed.

Grand Rapids, M I : Zondervan Publishing House, 2003.

Jeremias, Joachim. Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1975.

Kaiser, Walter C. The Use of the Old Testament in the New. Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1985.

Marshall, I. Howard, ed. New Testament Interpretation. Grand Rapids, M I : Eerdmans, 1977.

Osborne, Grant. The Hermeneutical Spiral. Downers Grove, I L : InterVarsity Press, 1991.

Synopsis of the Four Gospels. 10 ed. Stuttgart: Wurttembergische Bibelanstalt, 1993.

222 th

CHAPTER XIII

INTERPRETATION OF BIBLICAL TYPES, ALLEGORIES, AND PARABLES Tom Shepherd

Introduction Typology is based on the fact that there is a pattern i n God's work throughout salvation history. God prefigured His redemptive work i n the O T and fulfilled it in the NT. Parables and allegories can be found i n the Old, as well as i n the New, Testament. Jesus used parables regularly as He taught. [The Greek parabole occurs nearly fifty times i n the synoptic gospels, indicating that parables were one o f Jesus' favorite teaching devices^.

A n allegory differs from a parable in that the parable and its interpretation follow one another (Matt 13:1-9, 18-23), whereas in an allegory, story and meaning are intertwined (Eph 6). Furthermore, parables generally focus on one comparison, while allegories may have several points o f comparisom Types, parables, and allegories in Scripture present us w i t h both an intriguing opportunity i n imaginative theological thought and, at the same time, introduce the threat o f diverse inteipretations that can contradict even the most central truths o f Scripture. To enhance the first, without falling into the trap o f the second, is the goal o f this chapter.

1. Definitions Before proceeding further, it is important to define terms as they are used w i t h i n a biblical setting.

Type—An OT historical event, person, or institution which serves as a prophetic model or pattern for a heightened or intensified fulfillment in an OT and/or NT historical counterpart (often called the Antitype).

1

Allegory—The use of a story as an extended metaphor to refer to spiritual truth outside the literal meaning of the text. The meaning of the metaphor is found in the interpretive method. The focus resides in the interpreter's method rather than in the story itself. In contrast to parables in which the 223

Interpretation of Biblical Types, Allegories, and Parables

Interpretation of Biblical Types, Allegories and Parables application usually follows the story, allegories intermingle the story and its application.

Parable—A short story that teaches a lesson by comparisons. It is usually taken from the setting of everyday life, which serves as a simile or allegory comparing or bringing together God's reality and our everyday life. It often deals with the eschatological realities of the Kingdom of God ("The kingdom of God is like . . ."). Through unique twists in plot or striking depictions of human experience the story challenges the hearer to make a decision and change.

These definitions give a content o f meaning to each of the terms. However, to understand better each term and its limits it is useful to carry out two other tasks. One is to explain the term's usage in a biblical setting.

The other is to demonstrate how these terms compare and contrast with one another. I n the process o f carrying out these two tasks it is important to formulate clear and useful rules for interpreting each o f these literary devices.

2. Types The English w o r d "type" comes from the Greek noun tupos. Originally tupos carried the idea o f either a mold used for making an impression, the impression itself, or both. The word came to mean " f o r m , " "archetype," "pattern," "graven image," "outline/sketch," and "rough draft."

Biblical Uses In the N T the w o r d is often used by Paul to refer to a "pattern" or "example," one could almost say a "paradigm" (in the following exampies the English words that translates the Greek term tupos are i n italics): 1 Corinthians 10:6, " N o w these things happened as examples for us, so that we should not crave evil things as they also craved."; Philippians 3:17, "Brethren, j o i n i n following my example, and observe those who walk according to the pattern you have i n us." See also 1 Thessalonians 1:7, 2 Thessalonians 3:9, 1 Timothy 4:12, and Titus 2:7. Paul uses tupos i n these passages to indicate a pattern o f living by which others are to model their behavior or a negative model they are to avoid. The "type" is the paradigm o f lifestyle that is to guide the choices o f the Christian.

The term tupos finds its fuller historical/prophetic function i n Romans 5:14 i n w h i c h A d a m is the type o f " H i m who was to come" (Christ). A h i s torical person serves as a "prophetic blueprint" to which the corresponding "antitype" w i l l stand i n parallel or contrast.

224

However, the "antitype" fulfills a higher, more extensive role than the "type." Christ is superior to Adam and fulfills what the first man could not be. The "prophetic blueprint," the "type," is outstripped and overshadowed by the "antitype" (cf. Col 2:16-17). While the "type" is first historically, the "antitype" is superior typologically. In fact, i n some cases this superiority o f the counterpart reaches even to the point o f role reversal—in Hebrews the heavenly sanctuary is termed the tupos and the earthly is the antitupbs.

The reason for this is that the heavenly supercedes the earthly and is actually the "blueprint" according to which the earthly tabernacle is constructed.

Typological thinking and interpretation is not limited to the Epistles.

It is fairly common i n the Gospels i n which some aspect o f Jesus' ministry, or people linked to His ministry, such as John the Baptist, are seen as prefigured in OT stories. I n Matthew, John the Baptist is identified w i t h Elijah (Matt. 17:1143, cf. the clear allusion i n M a r k 9:12-13). Jesus is placed i n parallel to K i n g David i n the birth narrative (Matt 1) and i n the temptations i n contrast to Israel i n the wilderness (Matt 4). I n the Gospel o f John, Jesus is linked to the sacrifice o f the Passover Lamb (cf. John 1:29) and His death to the day o f Passover i n John 19 (cf. also 1 Cor 5:7).

In John 3 Jesus links Himself to the uplifted serpent i n the wilderness (cf.

N u m 21). Clearly, typological thinking is taking place i n N T writings.

However, even w i t h i n the OT, there are examples that point toward the typological and that indicate the predictive nature o f typology. Moses is told to follow the tupos shown to h i m on Mount Sinai i n preparing the tabernacle. A heavenly/earthly typological pattern is set up, illustrating that the earthly tent has a counterpart i n heaven. Furthermore, Moses says in Deuteronomy 18:15-19 that God w i l l send another prophet "like me." A correspondence between Moses and the coming prophet is suggested. In the Prophets the exodus from Egypt is used as a type ofthe deliverance o f God's people from the Babylonian exile, (cf. Jer 16:14-15 and Isa 43:1619). Malachi refers to a new Elijah i n Malachi 4:5-6. Thus, i t is not a N T innovation to see events i n a typological framework.

A t this point it may be useful to suggest a number o f hermeneutical principles that may assist i n the discovery o f biblical typology and its interpretation, while at the same time avoiding the pitfalls o f overextending typological understanding.

Rules for Interpreting Types /.

Recognition of the Use of Typology Read and know the Bible—It is nearly impossible to recognize typology i f we do not know well the stories o f the O l d and the N e w Testament.

225

Interpretation of Biblical Types, Allegories and Parables Recognize explicit statements of typology—At times the Bible writer w i l l use OT names or titles to refer to later OT, or NT, antitypes (cf. Matt 11:11-14 i n which John the Baptist = Elijah). This explicitly calls to mind the OT type and indicates that typology is being used.

Recognize implicit statements of typology—At times, the Bible writer w i l l use an OT quotation to point the reader to a typological connection (cf. Matt 2:14-15: "Out o f Egypt I called m y son," quoting Hosea 11:1. I n Hosea the words refer to the original Exodus and " m y son" refers to Israel.

When Matthew uses this passage he applies it to Jesus. Thus, typologically, Jesus is the new Israel).

Note parallelism of stories—At times, the Bible writer implies typology by a parallel between the characters in the O T stories and the typological fulfillment i n the later O T or N T character (cf. Matt 4:1-11, i n which Jesus relives the temptations o f Israel i n the wilderness and conquers where they failed; He is the new Israel).

Establishing the Limits and the Content of Typology Note what is included and what is left out—The Old or the New Testament writer includes some things in the reference to the same story or institution, and he may leave out other aspects o f the OT story or institution. It is safest to interpret typology via what is included in the new reference. This sets limits and controls on the typological explanation and avoids interpreting the typology in ways that the biblical writer did not intend. Not every quotation o f the OT in the N T is an example o f typology.

Interpretation of Biblical Types, Allegories, and Parables ogy o f Matthew builds and enriches these themes. I n chapter 2, Jesus is the newborn king who is the N e w Israel. He is God's Son called out o f Egypt. He is the Messiah, the Son o f D a v i d who establishes the Kingdom o f God. But Jesus' being God's Son called out o f Egypt does not mean that, like ancient Israel, He experienced the errors o f the 40 years o f wandering. That w o u l d be to extend the typology i n the w r o n g direction, counter to Matthew's theology.

Keep the typology in perspective—Typology is not the entire picture.

It is not the only way, or even the primary way, that biblical writers make their point. To keep typology in balance w i t h other means o f explaining the author's point, it is useful to prepare or obtain an outline o f the Bible writer's argumentation or story and see what emphasis the outline places on typology and, what role typology plays i n the overall argumentation.

Typology can then be placed w i t h i n the perspective o f the entire theology o f the Bible writer.

2.

Note how the author uses typology—Typology is invoked by the O l d or N e w Testament author to make a point. Typology involves a heightened or intensified historical fulfillment. The O l d or N e w Testament author w i l l illustrate or w i l l imply how the antitypical fulfillment parallels or contrasts w i t h the O T type. I t is these parallels and contrasts that make up the content o f the thought o f typology.

3.

Confirming the Typological Interpretation Check the linkage of typology to the author s theology—We can take typology too far, expanding it beyond the biblical author's point. A check on this is a careful analysis ofthe biblical author's theology. What theological ideas is he trying to stress in his book? His use o f typology w i l l agree with and build his theology. I f there is a contrast between our understanding o f typology and the major theological themes o f the author, we should reexamine our understanding o f typology.

For example, Matthew sees Jesus especially as Son o f God and L o r d and stresses the fulfillment o f the K i n g d o m o f God. The typol226

3. Allegories Allegory uses a story as an extended metaphor to refer to spiritual truths outside the literal meaning ofthe text. One o f the key words in this definition is uses. Allegory uses a story as a means to an end. I t takes the story as a medium for expressing an idea entirely outside any literal historical meaning. I n contrast, typology finds the fount o f its meaning in the historical and sees a parallel i n a later historical event. Allegory makes the story become a mere shell for the meaning poured into i t . Allegory uses the story for its o w n purposes.

It does not matter whether the story used is historical or fictional, the concept o f allegory always is to go beyond history to a higher meaning unconnected historically with the original story. As G. W. H . Lampe states in Essays on Typology: "Allegory differs radically from the kind o f typology which rests upon the perception o f actual historical fulfillment. The reason for this great difference is simply that allegory takes no account o f history."

2

The story itself is not the center o f attention, it is only a vehicle for expressing the higher spiritual reality. The focus resides i n the interpreter's method rather than in the story itself. Thus, allegory is inherently an interpreter-focused genre rather than a textually focused genre. As Eta Linnemann notes, An allegory cannot therefore be understood unless one knows not only the allegorical narrative but also the state of affairs to which it refers.

227

Interpretation of Biblical Types, Allegories and Parables

Interpretation of Biblical Types, Allegories, and Parables

Anyone who does not have this key can read the words, but the deeper meaning is hidden from him. Allegories therefore may serve to transmit encoded information, which is only intelligible to the initiated.

3

A t this point it is useful to differentiate between allegory and allegorization.

Allegory is the literary genre noted above that uses a story to impart a meaning outside o f the literal meaning o f the story itself.

Allegorization is the process whereby texts that are clearly not allegorical i n nature are taken to be allegories and new meanings derived from them, meanings w h i c h clearly were not part o f the original intent o f the author.

4

The Challenge of Allegorization The problem o f allegorization is twofold—first, something not original to the text is read into it, and second, it can be difficult to apply an appropriate control for the process. The goal o f exegesis is to understand and to explain what the original author sought to convey. Reading into a text something that was not the author's intent is inappropriate for biblical interpretation. The second difficulty o f finding an appropriate control for the process only exacerbates the problem via flights o f fancy and principles o f interpretation that can take the Bible captive to ideas opposed to even the most central teachings o f the Word o f God. 5

Some preachers use allegorization and thus give credence to this method that imposes meanings upon the text o f Scripture rather than bringing out the meaning o f the text. The three gifts o f the magi—gold, frankincense, and myrrh—are allegorized into justification, sanctification, and glorification. The four anchors cast out from the boat that Paul was in on his way to Rome (Acts 27:29) are allegorized as salvation, the church, the home, and the family. The parable o f the Good Samaritan becomes an allegory about humanity's fall and restoration in the Gospel, w i t h the beaten man being A d a m , the robbers being the devil and his angels, the priest and Levite being the priesthood and the ministry o f the OT, the good Samaritan being Christ, the donkey the incarnation, and the inn the Church.

6

few controls and that moves the point o f focus from the intent ofthe original author to the interpreter's concerns. This method really has no place in the pulpit. The Scriptures are full o f truth! We need not use a method that undermines the authority o f Scripture.

Do the Scriptures contain allegories as defined above? It is true that the Scriptures are full o f metaphors. "You are the light o f the world" (Matt 5:14), "The L O R D is m y shepherd" (Ps 23:1), "You are a garden spring, A well o f fresh water, A n d streams flowing from Lebanon" (Song 4:15). But while the Scriptures are full o f metaphors, they are not full o f allegories. I n the Bible metaphoric language usually comes in short bursts, even single words that color and enhance understanding within a literal context. I t is much rarer to have an entire story that is metaphoric, and rarer still for the biblical writers to take a story and use it in the typical pattern o f allegorization.

Paul's Galatian Example Galatians 4:21-31 is one o f the clearest examples o f allegory in Scripture. The apostle Paul writes in verses 21-26 Tell me, you who want to be under law, do you not listen to the law? For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the bondwoman and one by the free woman. But the son by the bondwoman was bom according to the flesh, and the son by the free woman through the promise. This is allegorically speaking, for these women are two covenants: one proceeding from Mount Sinai bearing children who are to be slaves; she is Hagar. Now this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem above is free; she is our mother.

In verse 24 when Paul says "allegorically," the term he uses is allegoroumena. This term can mean either "to speak or write allegorically," or "to explain or interpret allegorically." I f the former is the case, then Paul is saying that Moses i n Genesis wrote the story d o w n as an allegory.

I f the latter is the case, then Paul is saying that he himself, i n the first century A . D . , is interpreting the passage allegorically; that is, he is doing allegorization. I t appears that the second option is what is taking place since the apostle uses a passive form o f the verb allegoreo; that is to say, the story is "being interpreted allegorically."

7

These are classic cases o f allegorization. The text is used to teach some idea totally outside the original meaning and a non-historical meaning is imposed on the text by the interpreter. Rather than allowing the Word o f God to use us, we turn it around and use it for our own purposes. This may seem innocent enough i n pointing to foundational concepts o f Scripture, or it may actually give the appearance o f demonstrating a deeper spiritual meaning o f Scripture, but the danger lies i n an interpretive method that has

But i f this is the case, it seems our earlier rejection o f allegorization needs to be re-examined. I f the inspired apostle uses the method, is it inappropriate for today's preacher? One answer is that the very fact o f Paul's inspiration places h i m i n a different category from those o f us who

228

229

8

Interpretation of Biblical Types, Allegories and Parables are not inspired and authorized by the Spirit to be such direct spokesmen and spokeswomen for God. We must be more cautious in our approach, lest we misapply and misinterpret H o l y Writ. But such an answer does not satisfy completely, for it seems to separate us from the very process o f explaining Scripture that the inspired text illustrates.

A more nuanced approach is to note more carefully just what type o f allegorization the apostle uses and the probable setting in which he puts it to use. R. R C. Hanson notes, It seems reasonable to conclude, then that St Paul was quite ready to use allegory,... but that he employed this allegory [in Gal. 4] in a Palestinian rather than an Alexandrian tradition, and that in practice the bent o f his thought lay so much towards typology rather than what we should strictly call allegory that he had in the course of his extant letters few occasions to indulge in allegory. His motives for using it were, as far as we can discover, far from being those ofthe Alexandrians, and especially Philo, who wanted by allegory to avoid the necessity o f taking historical narrative seriously; Paul on the contrary used allegory as an aid to typology, a method of interpreting the Old Testament, which, however fanciful some of its forms may be, does at least regard history as something meaningful. It is significant that there is no typology in Philo whereas Paul is full of it.

Interpretation of Biblical Types, Allegories, and Parables support of their case, and that Paul felt obliged to refute their argument by inverting it and showing that the incident, properly understood, supported the gospel o f free grace, with its antithesis between flesh and spirit.

10

Thus, although Paul is employing allegorization, it is not o f the type carried out by Philo or by allegorists in the Christian Church at a later "time. The argument o f Paul remains connected to history, but he makes a twist in the application ofthe stories ofthe two women in order to counter the argument o f his opponents who may very well have been using the same stories to support their own viewpoint. Paul uses their o w n argument against them, illustrating that the true children o f Abraham and Sarah are those who believe in righteousness by faith.

I n summary we can say that allegory is rare i n Scripture. I t does occasionally appear, as in some o f the parables o f Jesus. But these parables are followed by the explanation o f their metaphoric meaning. Paul does use allegory or allegorization rarely, but when he uses an allegory it stays connected to history. The use o f allegorization today as a method to bring out a deeper, more spiritual sense o f Scripture is unwarranted.

Rules for Interpreting Allegories

9

The important point we garner from Hanson is that Paul's allegorization was o f a type distinct from that o f Philo, (and later Origen). Paul's type o f allegorization takes into account the historical situation, but here w i t h a quite unusual twist, for he identifies the Sinai covenant w i t h Hagar.

This seems to be completely counterintuitive to the historical fact that the Jewish people were descendants o f Sarah, not children o f Hagar.

A Probable Solution

1. Determine That the Text is an Allegory—Most texts i n the Bible are historical and should be taken literally, not allegorically. There are a few instances o f allegory in Scripture. In most cases they are either identified as such or contain the clear markings o f an allegory—a narrative w i t h meanings attached to most o f the elements o f the story, as i n the parable o f Sower.

2. Look for Interpretive Clues in the Context—Often w i t h i n the text o f the allegory itself are indicators o f linkages to the real world. Sometimes an interpretation is given within the same context that serves as a control on meaning (e.g., the parable o f the Sower). : :

Here, the special situation under which Paul is writing comes into play. F. F. Bruce elaborates,

3. Confirm That the Interpretation is Consistent with the Themes and Theology ofthe Writer—Once an interpretation is determined for an allegory, it needs to be checked for consistency w i t h the themes and theology ofthe writer and w i t h the entire tenor o f Scripture. This serves as a control over interpretations o f allegory that can lead away from the writer's intentions.

In the present 'allegory', however, there is a forcible inversion of the analogy which is unparalleled elsewhere in Paul. Whereas in other typological passages the OT account is left intact, the argument here is up against the historical fact that Isaac was the ancestor ofthe Jews, whereas Ishmael's descendants were Gentiles. This unique clash between type and antitype demands an explanation, and a highly probable explanation has been put forward by C. K. Barrett... namely, that the incident ofthe two sons of Abraham had been adduced by Paul's opponents in Galatia in

4. Avoid Allegorization—This method o f interpretation takes Scripture hostage to our own sense o f what the higher spiritual truths are that extend beyond the literal, historical meaning o f Scripture. B y indulging i n this

230

231

Interpretation of Biblical Types, Allegories and Parables method, we move people away from the historical and the plain meaning o f the Bible and encourage them to take its historical message less seriously.

Interpretation of Biblical Types, Allegories, and Parables while at the same time calling forth emotions that inspire (or warn) us to change.

12

Linkage to Jewish Parables 4. Parables The literature on the interpretation of parables is extensive. A number o f crucial issues surface w i t h i n the discussion—what is the genre o f the parables o f Jesus, what is their linkage to Jewish parables o f the same period, what is the purpose Jesus had for telling parables, and what method should be used to interpret the parables?

11

The Genre of the Parables.

I n today's popular vocabulary "parable" has a rather specific definition, usually a short story that illustrates some truth. However, the N T term parabole and its O T counterpart mashal have a rather broad meaning. Parabole can mean "proverb" (Luke 4:23), "metaphor" or "figurative saying" (Mark 7:14-17), "similitude" (expanded simile) (Mark 4:30-32, Matt 13:13), "parable" (story parables or example parables, Luke 12:16-21, 14:16-24), or "allegory" (Mark 12:1-11). Thus, the meaning o f the term parabole is rather broad. However, at the heart o f the meaning o f both parabole and mashal is the idea o f a comparison between two dissimilar things. The reality o f our w o r l d is brought into contact w i t h the story w o r l d o f the parable for some comparison that produces a new understanding.

But we must ask i f all the parables o f Jesus are similes or if, perhaps, some o f them might be allegorical? A simile makes a comparison between two things and places each before us for our examination. A n allegory, on the other hand, creates a metaphoric w o r l d i n which the story stands for something else. This "something else" must be explained by some interpreter or interpretive key.

Looking at all the parables that Jesus told and the varied situations in which He told them, it is reasonable to say that He used a variety o f parables, some that were pure similes that did not need much i f any explanation (their point struck everyone immediately) and others that could best be described as metaphoric or as allegorical in nature and needing explanation.

The OT contains the literary style o f the parable under the term mashal}* There are approximately ten O T parables, ranging from Jotham's parable o f the Trees Seeking a K i n g , in Judges 9, to Ezekiel's Seething Pot (chap. 24). Craig Evans, in his article, "Parables i n Early Judaism," notes O T backgrounds to Jesus' parables and presents the following conclusions.

14

1.

M a n y o f the parables are i n a judicial setting—the hearer pronounces judgment on what he has heard i n the parable, and it turns out to be a judgment on himself! (e.g., the story o f D a v i d and the parable o f the one ewe lamb, 2 Sam 12).

2.

Some o f the parables are taken by the hearers initially as fact, which catches them o f f guard and they condemn themselves.

3.

Parables are true to life.

4.

Some o f the parables contain allegorical elements.

5.

Parables are all addressed to leaders.

Evans notes four characteristics o f rabbinic parables from about Jesus' time to around A . D . 150. They shed light on Jesus' parables. The rabbinic parables often speak o f a king, and this figure almost always stands for God. "Kingdom" i n the rabbinic parables usually refers to God's reign.

The characters i n rabbinic parables sometimes act illogically. A n d rabbinic parables use terminology and follow themes that also often appear in Jesus' parables.

15

But parables do more than convey information via simile or metaphor. They also create emotion and touch the imagination, inviting the listener into the setting o f the story and thereby creating, w i t h i n the listener, feelings that call for decision and for change i n preparation to meet God. Thus, the genre o f parables brings together common everyday life and the eschatological K i n g d o m o f God. I t presents us w i t h truth content

Evans concludes that Jesus' teaching with parables would be right at home in first century Palestine. Our Lord's parables find their roots i n OT parables, and parallels in rabbinic parables o f approximately the same period.

These parallel texts help illustrate several important points about how the Gospels report Jesus' parables. OT parables are, at times, accompanied by explanations. This same phenomenon appears in the Gospel parables (e.g., the parable o f the Weeds). A t times, an explanation is essential to understand the O T parable because o f the hidden character o f the original

232

233

16

Interpretation of Biblical Types, Allegories and Parables story. This too finds a counterpart in the Gospel parables (e.g., the Sower).

A t times allegorical features are included in the OT parable, and again this occurs in Gospel parables (e.g., the Weeds). Thus, these OT texts illustrate how Jesus' teaching with parables was fairly similar to methods used in Jewish history.

Jesus' Purpose in Teaching With Parables W h y did Jesus talk i n parables? Was it to illustrate truths about the K i n g d o m o f God? Was i t to hide information from enemies? Or did He have both o f these purposes? Perhaps, the variation i n forms o f parables that we noted above gives a clue. I n M a r k 4:11-12, Jesus gives an explanation for w h y He spoke in parables. This passage comes w i t h i n the context ofthe parable ofthe Sower. We should note that it may not be the only reason that He spoke i n parables. But here is what He says: 17

And He said to them, "To you the mystery of the Kingdom of God has been given. But to those who are outside everything is in parables, in order that when they look, they may look and not see, and when they hear, they may hear and not understand, lest perhaps they turn and it be forgiven them."

K

Understanding several phrases i n the passage helps to explain its meaning. The term "mystery" i n this context refers to a secret that can be understood only by God revealing it to you. I t is the secret o f the Kingdom o f God that is revealed in Christ to the disciples but w i l l become evident to all only at the end o f the world. " I n order that" (Gr. hind) introduces a quotation from Isaiah 6:9-10 about people not understanding. Some interpreters take the " i n order that" to indicate purpose—Jesus tells parables to keep people i n the dark.

However, such a position stands i n contrast to M a r k 4:33-34 i n which Jesus teaches i n parables to the crowd "as they were able to hear." That sounds like instruction rather than keeping people i n the dark. Another way to translate hina is w i t h a sense o f result—"with the result that."

This w o u l d mean that the misunderstanding o f parables was not inherent i n Jesus' teaching per say, but instead arose from the obduracy ofthe hearers' hearts. The seed the Sower casts is always the same, the difference is on what kind o f soil it falls. "Outsiders," those who are hostile to Jesus, see only puzzling parables, since they are not open to the revelation from God. But "insiders" w i t h their openness to God can receive the revelation. I t is not that outsiders are permanently excluded; they can change.

234

Interpretation of Biblical Types, Allegories, and Parables Jesus' purpose in speaking i n parables was multifaceted. He used them to teach His disciples, and He used them to keep enemies i n the dark.

But He also used them to warn His enemies as i n Mark 12:1-12. A n d in M a r k 4:33-34, He used parables to teach the people the w o r d "so far as they were able to hear i t . " Jesus' multifaceted use o f parables goes along w i t h the variations in the parables themselves. Some are illustrations o f how disciples are to live. Others illustrate the characteristics ofthe eschatological kingdom o f God. Some are warnings to His enemies o f where their steps are leading. Some have allegorical characteristics, while others do not. Their varied patterns together make them the versatile tool i n Jesus' hand to establish the K i n g d o m o f God. Interpreting the Parables To summarize what we have said to this point—the parables o f Jesus are stories from everyday life, used to make a comparison w i t h God's reality. More than just information, the characters and the plot o f these stories draw the reader into the story w o r l d and generate the emotions and feelings that call the listener to decision and to change. Jesus used these stories both to teach His disciples and to challenge His enemies. Sometimes they are riddles meant to keep outsiders in the dark so as to protect Jesus from attacks, but they are also meant to instruct the open listener in the ways o f the K i n g d o m o f God. The parables arise from the everyday life experience o f first century Palestinian life, using the commonplace to explain the eternal realities o f God's Kingdom.

It is not necessary to limit parables to similitudes; nor is it necessary to call the gospel interpretations o f the parables the invention o f the early church. Although some parables are allegorical, we should avoid allegorization for the same reasons noted above under the interpretation o f allegories.

Allegorization lacks controls and imposes on the text a meaning the author never intended. While we can trust the Evangelists' settings for the parables, it is extremely important to research their Palestinian setting and background so as to interpret rightly the actions that take place within their story world.

Rules for Interpreting Parables

19

1. Avoid Allegorization—Allegorization is the process o f redefining every term and character within a parable by a code from a different period from the author's (such as Augustine did w i t h the parable o f the Good Samaritan in which the man going down to Jericho equals Adam, the Samaritan represents Christ, etc.).

235

Interpretation of Biblical Types, Allegories and Parables 2.

Gather Historical,

Cultural, Grammatical,

Interpretation of Biblical Types, Allegories, and Parables

and Lexical

Data—Our

modern w o r l d differs significantly from the w o r l d o f Jesus. However, excellent archeological, historical, and cultural data available i n good Bible dictionaries and commentaries throw light upon the meaning ofthe parables. As an example, i n the parable that has come to be called "The Good Samaritan," i t is important to note that for Jews o f Jesus' day that title w o u l d be an oxymoron. Samaritans were thought o f as anything but good.

Information about the meanings o f words and about their relationships to one another enhances a clear explanation ofthe parables.

3.

Analyze the Story ofthe Parable—First,

read the story several times.

Parables have characters, actions, settings and props, and time relationships; they have a narrator and an implied reader, a point o f view, and a plot. Analyzing these helps the reader to see, i n objective form, the way i n w h i c h the emotional impact o f the story is created and helps to delineate the themes and emphases o f the story (see chapter 9 on Narrative Analysis).

4.

Apply the Parable to Today's Situation—Once

a careful analysis has

been made o f the parable, it is possible to imagine modern settings to which it speaks. This application should flow from the analysis ofthe parable rather than being imposed upon it.

spised trade" i n w h i c h no Jew f o l l o w i n g the L a w was to participate.

The Pharisees and Scribes, on the other hand, were respected groups i n Jesus' day.

The three parables o f Luke 15 have several characteristics i n common that cumulatively drive home Jesus' point. I n each o f the stories something valuable is lost. I n each case, either a diligent search is made or a rather involved process is involved i n recovering that w h i c h is lost. I n each story, there is reference to repentance, or, i n the case o f the Prodigal Son, a clear showing o f repentance i n the younger son's return. I n each case, when the lost is found, there is great rejoicing, w i t h the coming together o f friends to celebrate. The last story is the most developed o f the three and expands the story to incorporate the discordant note o f someone who does not like the celebration—the older brother. But the open ending (we never learn whether the older brother joins the celebration) stands as an appeal to the scribes and Pharisees to change their ways.

Highlights of Story Analysis.

The story comes i n three scenes, each focuses on one o f the major characters. Many props are used i n the story, mostly w i t h the purpose o f highlighting rank i n the social world. For instance, the younger son i n the far country refers to the bread the servants eat, an indication that they are above h i m i n status. When the boy returns home, the father lavishes on h i m all the symbols o f family power—best robe, ring, sandals, fatted calf. I n contrast to these markers o f high status stand the props that point to l o w status—swine, pods, young goat (what the older brother says he does not even get).

5. Examples of Interpretation Below is an application o f this method, i n very brief summary form, to two parables—the Prodigal Son and the Rich M a n and Lazarus. Space does not permit a full exposition o f either parable; however, these brief expositions w i l l illustrate the method.

The Parable ofthe Prodigal S o n — L u k e 15:11-32

The story characters are briefly, but interestingly, developed i n the story. The younger son is rash and rebellious i n his actions but sees the errors o f his way when he reaches the p i g pen. He characterizes himself as a sinner no longer worthy o f sonship, along w i t h a plea for servanthood (a step up!). The father, however, refuses this role for the boy and instead graciously characterizes the boy as son. The father's words about the boy being dead and now alive, o f being lost and now found, are echoed by a servant to the older brother, and recur i n the conversation between father and older son.

Historical, Cultural, Grammatical, and Lexical Data. This parable appears i n L u k e 15 w i t h two other parables, the Lost Sheep, and the Lost C o i n . The context indicates that Jesus is answering the charge o f the Scribes and Pharisees against H i m that He "welcomes sinners and eats w i t h t h e m " ( L u k e 15:1-2). The "tax collectors," grouped together w i t h the more general pejorative term "sinners," were a hated group i n Jesus' day, since they collaborated w i t h the Romans to take tax funds from the general Judean populace. Their w o r k was considered a "de-

The parable presents the older brother as angry and as jealous o f the younger son. There is a strong bitterness i n his remarks to his father—the sinner gets it all while the upright gets nothing. I n the process, the older son characterizes himself as a slave, but the father rejects this characterization, just as he rejected the younger son's characterization o f himself. To the father, both boys are his sons and the place o f fellowship is inside together.

236

237

The actions o f the first scene o f the story are told rapidly to indicate the speedy decline o f the younger son. Only when he reaches the p i g pen

Interpretation of Biblical Types, Allegories and Parables does the action slow down i n order to focus on the change that takes place.

When the boy returns home, there is a long description o f the actions o f the father welcoming the lost boy. The undeserved forgiveness that the father bestows on the humiliated boy becomes the most touching aspect o f the parable, painted i n a most unforgettable way. But the parable does not end there. The scene o f the father w i t h the older brother focuses attention on differing interpretations ofthe meaning o f the younger son's return. To the older brother, it is injustice that calls for bitter anger; to the father, i t is grace that calls for rejoicing.

The parable's expression o f time relationships runs mostly as straight forward narrative through the story—events are described as they occur. But there are a few exceptions. A t the crucial pig pen scene, the boy says, " I w i l l get up and go to m y father." This foreshadows the important central scene with its surprise o f grace. But there are also a number o f times that the story characters look back to the past o f the younger son. The younger son refers to his past twice (vss. 18 and 21), calling it sin. The father refers to it twice (vss.

24, and 32), calling it dead and lost. The older brother refers to it once (vs.

30), calling the younger son the one who devoured the father's wealth with prostitutes. The older brother also refers to his own past as an experience o f unrequited servitude (vs. 29). Interestingly, the father breaks out o f each son's characterization o f himself by calling each one "son" (with the implication stressed to the older son that the younger son is his brother).

Applying the Story Today. The parable o f the Prodigal Son answers the accusation against Jesus, "This man welcomes sinners and eats w i t h them" (Luke 15:2, N I V ) . Our L o r d shows that coming back is a deeply humiliating, but nonetheless, necessary action. I t is the grace ofthe father that is so captivating i n the story. I t is this central display o f love that overwhelms the reader—such grace coming i n contact w i t h such humiliation. The parable's appeal is that to love the father we must also love our brother or our sister who has fallen and comes back. The parable does not teach that there is no such thing as sin; nor does it teach that anything one does is alright w i t h God. I f the reader misses the point about sin, the point about grace is lost. But i f one focuses on holiness, as the Pharisees did, to the exclusion o f grace, then the very heart o f community is lost. It becomes a lesson we especially need to learn today.

Interpretation of Biblical Types, Allegories, and Parables their meaning i n life. The chapter begins w i t h the enigmatic parable o f the shrewd manager whom Jesus commends for the sly use o f the master's funds. Lest anyone gather the wrong idea from the parable and from its brief conclusion i n verse 9, Jesus follows up w i t h two clear teachings about faithfulness i n the small details o f life and about the importance o f serving God, not money. This is followed by the Pharisees' scoffing at Jesus. The L o r d sternly rebukes them by contrasting their self justification w i t h God's true valuation o f the heart. Then come the two brief sayings o f verses 16-17 and verse 18, followed by the parable o f the Rich M a n and Lazarus. The context o f the parable helps to l i m i t possibilities for its meaning—it is clearly a teaching about how we use our money i n this life and the consequences for our future, and its central point may very well be linked to the contrast between self-justification and God's valuation, as seen in Luke 16:15.

Unique to this parable among all the teachings o f Jesus i n the Gospels is the idea o f life immediately after one dies. Elsewhere i n the Gospels, Jesus refers to death as a sleep from which He awakens people (see Matt 9:24, Matt 27:52, John 11:11-12, cf. Acts 7:60, 1 Cor 15, 1 Thess 4:13-15 and 5:10). Furthermore, we note the N T ' s consistent emphasis on resurrection as vital to the fulfillment o f God's plan o f redemption (cf. 1 Cor 15, 1 Thess 4:13-17). These concepts point away from seeing the parable o f the Rich M a n and Lazarus as literally explaining what happens to a person when they die.

20

I f the point o f the parable is not life after death, then what is the point?

Narrative analysis is helpful here and a brief summary o f the narrative data o f the story follows.

Highlights of Story Analysis. This parable might better be called the parable o f the Rich M a n and Abraham, for Lazarus never says a w o r d i n the entire parable while Abraham has much to say to the tortured rich man.

The story is a demonstration o f marked contrasts both i n this life and i n the life to come. The rich man is well o f f i n this world, w i t h a rich table and beautiful clothes, while Lazarus is poor, hungry, and plagued by dogs that lick his sores. I n the story's w o r l d to come there is a great reversal, the rich man is tortured i n flame, and Lazarus has wonderful repose w i t h Abraham.

Historical, Cultural, Grammatical, and Lexical Data. The parable o f the rich man and Lazarus appears only i n Luke's Gospel. The whole o f Luke 16 deals almost exclusively w i t h the question o f riches and o f

Neither the rich man nor Lazarus says a word i n the story before death, but, i n the afterlife, the rich man calls for mercy from Abraham. The rich man's attitude remains the same i n death. He ignores Lazarus i n both the present life and i n the afterlife, focusing instead on the exalted and authoritative Abraham for help. Their conversation comes i n three rounds. The rich man first pleads for a little water. Abraham refuses on t w o grounds—

238

239

The R i c h M a n and L a z a r u s — L u k e 16:19-31

Interpretation of Biblical Types, Allegories and Parables first, the rich man had it good during his life while Lazarus suffered, and now things are rightfully reversed; and second, a great chasm has been fixed between heaven and hell.

Having failed to obtain relief, the rich man next pleads for Abraham to send Lazarus back to warn the rich man's five brothers. Again, Abraham refuses, stating that the witness o f Moses and o f the prophets is sufficient.

But the rich man remonstrates i n the third round o f speeches, insisting that i f one were to rise from the dead, the witness w o u l d be irresistible. Abraham refuses yet again, repeating that the witness o f the Scriptures is sufficient. A t this point, the parable comes to a somewhat abrupt end, leaving the reader w i t h the distinct question i n m i n d as to what happens to the five brothers—do they listen to the Scriptures?

The story presents a clear ideology. The rich man was wrong i n neglecting poor Lazarus. The poor man, i n contrast, is presented as one deserving pity and comfort—expressing the common biblical ethic o f concern for the weak. There seems to be no hesitance about the justice o f the reward o f both men. Furthermore, it is clear that the parable teaches the present life as the opportunity for change and that God provides the necessary opportunities for repentance i n the witness o f the Scriptures.

Applying the Story Today. The parable has three clear points—the rich have a responsibility to help the poor i n this life, the Scriptures are a sufficient witness to lead us to repent and to follow the Bible's ethic, and there is no chance for change after death; you w i l l receive the reward you deserve. Is that reward given at death? N o , the N T clearly teaches that the reward comes at the return o f Christ (see Matt 16:29; 25:31-46), and numerous other passages teach the same. Is the reward o f the wicked eternai torment i n hell? N o again, based on numerous passages that speak o f divine retribution ending i n the destruction o f the wicked (see M a i 4:1-3, Rev 20). John 3:16 indicates that whoever believes on Christ will not perish but have everlasting life. The opposite o f eternal life is not an eternally burning hell, but rather eternal death—being destroyed forever by the fires that cleanse the earth i n the end. We conclude that this parable uses a popular folkloric presentation ofthe afterlife i n order to stress the need to live for God now, blessing and helping others, and listening to the appeals and the rebuke o f the Scriptures.

21

Conclusion

Interpretation of Biblical Types, Allegories, and Parables Scripture i n regard to their relationship to history, to their method o f literary presentation, and to their interpretation. Types and their antitype counterparts are rooted i n history and historical fulfillment. The types carry out a prophetic role that is realized i n the higher and more extensive application in the antitypes. In contrast, allegories have a more timeless role, disconnected from history but focused on a concept o f truth i n what they teach.

Parables fill a role intermediate between types and allegories, because parables are sometimes similes and, at other times, more allegorical i n nature.

The parables that are similes have a certain timeless quality to them; yet, they are true to life, not as detached from daily life as allegories tend to be.

As methods o f literary presentation the types and antitypes come i n the form o f historical narratives, i n both cases. The genius o f type and antitype is the way in which two historical events are drawn together as commentary on one another. The linkages between the stories create an interpretation o f the two events that exceeds either when read alone. I n allegories there are also two levels; but here it is not two historical events but rather a story (usually not historical but timeless i n nature) and its interpretive key that form the two levels. The story by itself does not express the author's point. The interpretive key explains the story's meaning. Parables, again, hold a somewhat intermediate position. The parables that are similes take reality and compare it to a story ("The K i n g d o m o f God," the reality, "is like . . ." the story). The story tells us something about the reality that we did not know before and helps us to grasp the truth about that reality. As w i t h types and allegories, parables have the characteristic o f two levels. God's reality is one level, and i t is compared to things i n our world.

In relation to interpretation, the three literary devices have i n common the importance o f analyzing the text and its context carefully. It is important to differentiate between these different literary devices when studying any text. Most o f Scripture is rooted deeply i n historical realities; thus, it is not surprising that allegories i n the Bible are the least common o f the three literary devices studied in this chapter. Allegories are also the least historical o f the devices.

The three devices also have a similarity i n that each o f them requires comparing the literary device w i t h some other text or reality to explain the meaning o f the device. Types must be compared w i t h antitypes to be understood, allegories must be compared w i t h their interpretive key, and parables require comparing the reality o f God's K i n g d o m w i t h the story w o r l d found i n the parable.

We have looked at types, allegories, and parables i n this chapter. It is useful to compare and to contrast each o f these literary devices used in

Finally, the number o f controls necessary to keep the interpretation accurate is highest for the least historical o f the literary devices, allegory,

240

241

Interpretation of Biblical Types, Allegories and Parables and the lowest for the most historically based o f the devices, types. The controls needed for parables find a place somewhere between the types and allegories. W i t h both parables and allegories, allegorization is a risk that needs to be resisted. There is so much truth in Scripture as it has been given us that we need not turn to flights o f fancy to soar as the eagles. The Word o f God, sharper than any two edged sword, must be brought to bear on the human heart so that its deep renewing power can recreate us i n the image o f our Creator.

References Unless otherwise noted, Scripture quotations are from the New American Standard Bible.

1. See Richard Davidson, Typology in Scripture (Berrien Springs, M I : Andrews University Press, 1981), pp. 184-190, 397-424.

2. G. W. H. Lampe and K. J. Woolcombe, Essays on Typology, Studies in Biblical Theology (Napervile, IL: Alec R. Allenson, Inc., 1957), p. 31.

3. Eta Linnemann, Parables of Jesus: Introduction and Exposition (London: S.P.C.K., 1966), p. 7.

4. See Maureen Quilligan, The Language of Allegory: Defining the Genre (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1979), pp. 29-31.

5. It might be argued that "reading into a text something that was not originally there" is exactly what happens in typology. But what occurs in typology is quite different. Typology takes seriously the original historical setting and then sees its expression at a higher level in the new historical situation. Allegory has none of that since it neither takes the original historical situation seriously, nor derives the new meaning from a link to the new historical event.

6. See Klyne R. Snodgrass, "From Allegorizing to Allegorizing: A History of the Interpretation ofthe Parables of Jesus," in The Challenge of Jesus 'Parables, ed.

Richard N . Longenecker (Grand Rapids, M I : Eerdmans, 2000), p. 4. The example ofthe parable ofthe Good Samaritan is from the allegorization of Augustine.

7. See Richard N . Longenecker, Galatians, Word Biblical Commentary, vol.

41 (Dallas: Word Books, 1990), pp. 209-210.

8. Ibid., p. 210.

9. R. P. C. Hanson, Allegory and Event: A Study of the Sources and Significance ofOrigen's Interpretation of Scripture (London: SCM; Richmond, VA: John Knox Press, 1959), pp. 82-83, as quoted in Longenecker, Galatians, p. 210. Hanson uses the term "allegory" here rather than "allegorization." He is referring to the text of Galatians in which Paul has produced an allegory. However, the process Paul used to make an allegory out of an historical text is rightly called allegorization.

10. F. F. Bruce, Commentary on Galatians, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, M I : Eerdmans, 1982), p. 218. The reference to C. K. Barrett is found in C. K. Barrett, "The Allegory of Abraham, Sarah, 242

Interpretation of Biblical Types, Allegories, and Parables and Hagar in the Argument of Galatians." in J. Friedrich, ed., Rechtfertigung: Festschrift fur Ernst Kasemann (Tubingen/Gottingen: P. Stuhlmacher 1976) pp 1-16.

11. See Robert Stein, An Introduction to the Parables of Jesus (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1981), pp. 15-21, and Robert Stein, "The Genre ofthe Parables," in TJie Challenge of Jesus 'Parables, pp. 30-50.

12. See Stein, "The Genre of the Parables," in The Challenge of Jesus'Parables, pp. 34-36.

13. See Craig Evans, "Parables in Early Judaism," in The Challenge of Jesus' Parables, pp. 51-75.

14. Ibid, pp. 65-66.

15. Ibid, pp. 66-72.

16. See Ibid, pp. 72-74.

17. Jesus' statement in Mark 4:11-12 is given in connection with the parable ofthe Sower, which, as we have noted, has allegorical characteristics.

18. The translation is my own. The words in italics are a quotation from Isaiah 6:9-10.

19. See Stein, An Introduction to the Parables of Jesus, pp. 53-71, and Ariana Hultgren, The Parables of Jesus: A Commentary (Grand Rapids, M I : Eerdmans, 2000), pp. 12-19, for a number of these ideas.

20. Some maintain that the idea of life in heaven after death also appears in Luke 23:43 in which Jesus promises the thief on the cross that he will be with Christ in Paradise. However, it is instructive that in Luke's writing elsewhere the Evangelist refers to the Christian's reward as received at the time o f Christ's return (Luke 22:16-18; Acts 1:6-8; and 3:19-21). Furthermore, Luke teaches that judgment occurs at the second coming of Christ (Luke 11:31-32, 22:28-30).

21. Josephus in his "Discourse to the Greeks Concerning Hades" speaks of a subterraneous region. "In this region there is a certain place set apart, as a lake of unquenchable fire . . . there is one descent into this region, at whose gate we believe there stands an archangel with an host; which gate when those pass through that are conducted down by the angels appointed over souls, they do not go the same way; but the just are guided to the right hand . . . . This place we call The Bosom of Abraham. But as to the unjust, they are dragged by force to the left hand by the angels allotted for punishment . . . . Now those angels that are set over these souls, drag them into the neighborhood o f hell itself; who when they are hard by it, continually hear the noise of it, and do not stand clear ofthe hot vapor i t s e l f . . . they are struck with fearful expectation o f a future judgment, and in effect punished thereby; and not only so, but where they see the place ofthe fathers and of the just, even hereby are they punished; for a chaos deep and large is fixed between them (The Works of Josephus, translated by William Whiston [ Peabody, M A Hendrickson, 1987], 813). Cf. Hultgren's comment, "It should be evident that the parable draws upon common folkloric imagery of conditions after death, and the imagery is used only here within the NT. It is not the purpose of the parable to reveal the nature of those conditions" (Hultgren, p. 113).

243

Interpretation of Biblical Types, Allegories and Parables Selected Bibliography Davidson, Richard. Typology in Scripture. Berrien Springs, M I : Andrews University Press, 1981.

Fletcher, Angus. Allegoiy: The Theory of a Symbolic Mode. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1964.

Goppelt, Leonard. Typos: The Typological Interpretation of the Old Testament in the New. Grand Rapids, M I : Eerdmans, 1982.

Hultgren, Arland. The Parables of Jesus: A Commentary. Grand Rapids, M I : Eerdmans, 2000.

Jeremias, Joachim. The Parables of Jesus, rev. ed. New York, NY: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1962.

Kissinger, Warren. The Parables of Jesus: A History of Interpretation and Bibliography. ATLA Bibliography Series, no. 4. Metuchen, NJ: The Scarecrow Press, Inc., 1979.

Lampe, G. W. H. and K. J. Woollcombe. Essays on Typology. Studies in Biblical Theology. Naperville, IL: Alec R. Allenson, Inc., 1957.

Longenecker, Richard N . , ed. The Challenge of Jesus 'Parables. Grand Rapids, M I : Eerdmans, 2000.

McArthur, Harvey and Robert Johnston. They Also Taught in Parables. Grand Rapids, M I : Zondervan, 1990.

Powell, Mark. What Is Narrative Criticism! Minneapolis, M N : Fortress Press, 1990.

Quilligan, Maureen. The Language of Allegory: Defining the Genre. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1979.

Stein, Robert. An Introduction to the Parables of Jesus. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1981.

Westermann, Claus. The Parables of Jesus in the Light of the Old Testament.

Minneapolis, M N : Fortress Press, 1990.

CHAPTER XIV

THE HERMENEUTICS OF BIBLICAL APOCALYPTIC Jon K . Paulien

Introduction The Seventh-day Adventist Church was born and nurtured in the biblical apocalyptic prophecies o f Daniel and o f Revelation. Adventist pioneers placed these prophecies at the center in the formative years o f the church's history. A n d there were several reasons for doing this. (1) Daniel and Revelation provided much o f the content that makes Adventist theology unique i n the Christian world. (2) These apocalyptic books furnished the core o f Adventist identity and mission, particularly the conviction that the Advent movement was to play a critical role in preparing the w o r l d for the soon return o f Jesus. (3) The apocalyptic sense that God was i n control o f history supplied confidence to go on even when the movement was small and difficulties were large. (4) A n d the sense o f an approaching end, fostered by the study o f Daniel and Revelation, supplied the motivation to take this message to the w o r l d in a short period o f time.

1. Recent Challenges Speculation Within the last generation, there have been a number o f challenges to the Adventist understanding o f Daniel and Revelation. Some, who wished to broaden our understanding or introduce special focus into these prophecies, offered speculative applications o f prophecy to history. For example, in the 1990s, a few evangelists taught that the locusts o f Revelation 9 portrayed marine helicopters in use during the then-current G u l f War. Others sought to use apocalyptic as a basis for determining the date o f Jesus' coming or other end-time events, mistakenly focusing on dates such as 1964, 1987, 1994, and the year 2000. Wariness o f these speculative tendencies has led some to question the validity o f some o f our core beliefs.

244

245

The Hermeneutics

of Biblical

Apocalyptic

Alternative Approaches Other Adventists have become attracted by alternative approaches to apocalyptic texts. The preterist approach, popular among professional scholars, treats Daniel and Revelation as messages to their original time and place, not as a divinely-ordained sequence o f future events. God's people benefit from these books, they say, not by seeing where they stand in the course o f history but by applying spiritual principles drawn from the text to later situations. This approach treats apocalyptic literature as i f it were no different than Matthew or Romans.

A very different alternative sees apocalyptic as concerned primarily w i t h a short period o f time still future from our o w n day. While rejecting the dispensational form o f futurism, popularized by H a l Lindsey's bestseller Late Great Planet Earth and the more recent Left Behind series, some Adventist Bible students are seeking end-time understandings i n every corner o f Daniel and o f Revelation. A major motivation toward a futurist approach is "relevance," the search for an Adventist message that speaks more directly to current issues i n the w o r l d than pioneer applications appear to do. Approaches to Daniel and to Revelation that l i m i t the meaning o f most o f the text to end-time events, however, consistently have proven to claim more than they can deliver. Adventist forms o f futurism tend toward an allegorism o f dual or o f multiple applications that loses touch w i t h the original setting and w i t h the context o f t h e prophecies.

Postmodernism Another challenge to the pioneer understandings o f Daniel and o f Revelation arises from a major philosophical shift i n Western experience, sometimes called postmodernism. Beginning with the 1960s, most younger people in Western nations have had a tendency to reject sweeping solutions to the world's problems. They question both the religious certainties and the scientific confidence o f their elders. The apocalyptic idea o f a detailed and orderly sweep to history seems hard to grasp and even more difficult to believe. While postmodernists are more likely to believe in God than their baby boomer elders, they have a hard time imagining that anyone has a detailed hold on what God is actually like. The confidence that Adventist pioneers had about their place in history seems to them out o f step with the times.

The Hermeneutics

of Biblical

Apocalyptic

to promote personal viewpoints as absolute truth. But our o w n ignorance about aspects ofthe "big picture" is no reason to deny that a b i g picture exists. While we may not know truth in its fullness, it was embodied i n Jesus Christ and revealed sufficiently in His Word that we can have a meaningful relationship w i t h H i m . Historical apocalyptic is a part o f that revelation.

The Result As a result o f these and other challenges, some Adventists are paying ever less attention to the historic Adventist approach to apocalyptic.

Liberal, conservative, and o l d and young alike are experimenting w i t h alternative approaches and questioning traditional ones. But this neglect o f attention to apocalyptic prophecies is not a neutral matter. For i t is creating a radical, i f unintentional, shift i n the core message o f the Adventist Church. Increasingly, prophetic preaching is left to the evangelists w h i l e weekly sermons focus more on social scientific insights and story telling.

O u r Purpose The objective o f this chapter is to offer practical guidelines for a suecessful approach to biblical apocalyptic. Such guidelines can help interpreters avoid the extremes o f speculation while valuing the appropriate caution o f postmodernism. When we treat the biblical text w i t h respect, we w i l l find that it affirms the best o f the Adventist core identity while pointing to fresh insights that speak powerfully to today's world.

2. What Apocalyptic is L i k e

Postmodernism has raised valid concerns about the "modernistic" confidence w i t h which evangelists and teachers have trumpeted questionable interpretations o f prophecy i n the past. Some have been all too quick

The word "apocalypse" is drawn from the introductory phrase o f the book o f Revelation (Rev 1:1) and means "revelation" or "disclosure." It is used to describe writings similar to Daniel and Revelation in the Bible.

A considerable collection o f comparable works existed i n ancient Judaism, e.g., the Ethiopic Enoch, 4 Ezra, and 2 Baruch. Apocalyptic books use the form o f a story to disclose things o f God beyond the ability of the five senses to comprehend, things such as the realities o f heaven and o f the course o f history leading up to God's salvation at the end o f the world. These disclosures are sometimes communicated to the writer by otherworldly beings, such as angels or the twenty-four elders o f Revelation.

246

247

The Hermeneutics of Biblical Apocalyptic

The Hermeneutics of Biblical Apocalyptic

Worldview The apocalyptic worldview portrays God's overarching control o f history. Apocalypses see the w o r l d as evil and as oppressive, under the apparent control o f Satan and his human accomplices. B u t the present w o r l d order w i l l shortly be destroyed by God and be replaced w i t h a new and perfect order, corresponding to Eden. The final events o f history involve a severe conflict between the old order and the people o f God, but the outcome is never i n question. Through a mighty act o f judgment, God w i l l condemn the wicked, reward the righteous, and re-create the universe.

B r i e f reflection w i l l indicate that many fundamental Seventh-day Adventist beliefs are grounded i n biblical apocalyptic. For Adventists, Daniel and Revelation are not marginal works; they are foundational to the Adventist worldview and its concept o f God. For Adventists to reject this position as hopelessly dated would be to inaugurate a fundamental shift i n Adventist thinking. The purpose o f this chapter is to demonstrate a method for studying apocalyptic that w i l l draw out the biblical intention. One cannot have a truly biblical faith without profound respect for the intention o f the divine and human authors o f the biblical text.

Prophecy and Apocalyptic Characteristics of Prophecy and of Apocalyptic. The prophetic literature ofthe Bible can be divided into two major types: general prophecy, represented by Isaiah, Jeremiah, Amos and others; and apocalyptic prophecy, represented by Daniel and Revelation. General prophecy, sometimes known as "classical prophecy," focuses primarily on the prophet's o w n time and place, but occasionally offers a glimpse forward to an end-time "Day o f t h e L o r d . " Apocalyptic prophecy, on the other hand, sees history as a divinely-guided series o f events leading up to, and including, the final events o f earth's history. General prophecy normally focuses on the shortrange view, while apocalyptic prophecy takes the long-range view. The primary focus o f general prophecy is the immediate situation; the primary focus o f apocalyptic is the end-time conclusion.

1

key interpretive principle, then, is to determine which biblical prophecies are general i n nature and which are apocalyptic. Once the genre has been determined, the appropriate approach can be taken.

Characteristics of General and Apocalyptic Prophecy General Prophecy

Apocalyptic Prophecy

Present and End-Time Events Mixed Short-range View Dual Fulfillment Immediate Focus Local Situation in View Conditional

Series of Historical Events Long-range View Single Fulfillment End-Time Focus Whole Span of History Unconditional

The major factor o f this determination refers to the time and to the frequency o f fulfillment. B y its very nature, an apocalyptic time sequence, is limited to a single fulfillment. As a prediction o f history that runs the entire period from the prophet's time until the end, there is no room for dual or multiple fulfillments. While aspects o f the prophecy (such as the "stone" o f Daniel 2) may be applied i n various ways by later inspired writers, the original meaning o f the prophecy as a whole is complete in its single fulfillment. A classical prophecy, such as Joel 2:28-32, on the other hand, may readily be applied to the original situation, as w e l l as to similar situations i n the future. Recent scholarship outside the Adventist setting seems to be generally supportive o f this distinction.

Historicist Method The historical sequences o f apocalyptic led the Adventist pioneers, in harmony w i t h virtually all Protestant commentators up to that time, to utilize a method o f interpretation k n o w n as historicism when interpreting Daniel and Revelation. The historicist method understands the prophecies o f Daniel and Revelation to meet their fulfillments in historical time through a sequence o f events running from the prophet's time down to the establishment o f God's kingdom at the end o f the world. This method has been the cornerstone i n the Adventist interpretation o f apocalyptic.

Apocalyptic prophecy is concerned w i t h long sequences o f human history, including the major saving acts o f God w i t h i n that histoiy. General prophecies, which are written to affect human response, tend to be conditioned upon the reactions o f peoples and o f nations. O n the other hand, apocalyptic prophecies are unconditional, reflecting God's foreknowledge o f His ultimate victoiy and the establishment o f His eternal kingdom. A

Recent studies have shown how the centuries-old method o f historicism gave way to both dispensational futurism and to the more scholarly preterism. Historicism became discredited in large part, because the Millerites shifted, i n 1842 and 1843, from general anticipation o f the nearness ofthe Advent to an attempt to determine the exact time. With the passing o f the

248

249

2

The Hermeneutics of Biblical Apocalyptic

The Hermeneutics of Biblical Apocalyptic time set by the "seventh-month movement" under the leadership o f Samuel Snow, the methods o f Millerism and M i l l e r himself became the object o f ridicule, a ridicule that continues i n some scholarly circles to this day.

W h i l e historicism has been replaced i n the popular consciousness by preterism and futurism, it is not, i n fact, dead. It lives on i n a modified, and partly renewed, form i n the churches that built their faith on M i l l e r ' s heritage. I t is marred at times b y date-setting and the tendency to pay more attention to history and to the newspapers than to the exegesis o f the biblical text. A balanced historicist interpretation draws its impetus from the biblical text rather than from fashion or from external assumptions.

3. Sound Methods of Interpretation G o d Meets People Where They A r e A generally accepted principle o f biblical interpretation is that God meets people where they are. I n other words, Scripture was given i n the time, place, language, and culture o f specific human beings. Paul, who was highly educated, expresses God's revelation to h i m i n a different way from Peter, the fisherman. John writes i n simple and i n clear Greek. On the other hand, the author o f Hebrews exhibits perhaps the most complex and literary Greek i n all the N T . So the sacred Word was expressed through the cultural frailty o f human beings i n a way comprehensible to each audience. To understand the Bible rightly, we need to interpret each passage i n terms o f its original context as far as that is possible for us today.

While this principle is true for the Bible, i n general, does it apply to the sweeping historical sequences o f apocalyptic? D i d God consider the language, time, and place o f Daniel and o f John when He provided the visions they record i n their books? Indeed He did. Biblical apocalyptic also met God's people where they were. The book o f Revelation was intended to make sense to the one who reads and to those who hear (Rev 1:3). The vision o f Christ utilized the language o f John's past, the OT, as the primary source for its symbolism.

The primary message o f both visions is the same, God is i n control o f history (Dan 2:21; 7:26-27).

So, i n the vision o f Daniel 7, God again draws on the prophet's knowledge and setting. This time, instead o f symbolism drawn from the Babylonian world, He seems to shape the vision i n terms o f the Creation story o f Genesis chapters 1 and 2. God describes Daniel's future i n terms o f a new creation. The sequence o f history i n Daniel's first two visions is roughly the same (Dan 2:45; 7:17). But i n his choice o f imagery, God meets apocalyptic writers where they are.

The principle that God meets people where they are, even i n apocalyptic literature, has a number o f general hermeneutical implications.

1. When God reveals Himself, He always speaks i n the language o f the prophet's time, place, and circumstances. This means that i n our study o f apocalyptic literature, we must always begin w i t h the original time, place, language, and circumstances. God's meaning for today w i l l not contradict the message that He placed i n the vision i n the first place.

2. The purpose o f apocalyptic visions is not simply to satisfy human curiosity about the future. I t is a message about the character and about the workings o f God. To study apocalyptic only as a key to unlock the future is to miss its message about a God who seeks to be known by His people.

3. Apocalyptic is people-oriented. Its purpose is to comfort and to instruct the people o f God on earth. While the details o f a passage may have concerned another time and place, God was using i t to offer a powerful message both o f hope and o f warning to the original recipients o f the passage. A n d that message o f hope and o f warning is spiritually significant throughout history to every reader o f these visions. W h i l e the historical sequence o f a passage has a single fulfillment, the larger message o f hope and o f warning is applicable to all times and to all places.

Vision and Interpretation I n light o f these facts, however, distinction must be made between the time o f apocalyptic visions and the time o f their interpretation. I n a vision, the prophet can travel from earth to heaven and range back and forth from time past to the end o f time. The vision is not necessarily located i n the prophet's time and place. But when the vision is explained to the prophet afterward, the explanation almost always comes i n the time, place, and circumstances o f the visionary.

God meets people where they are in Daniel, as well. To Nebuchadnezzar, in Daniel 2, He portrays the future w o r l d empires by means o f an idol. This made sense i n that time and place, because to the heathen king the nations o f the w o r l d were bright and shining counterparts o f the gods they worshiped. For Daniel the Hebrew prophet, on the other hand, the nations o f the w o r l d were like vicious, ravenous beasts hurting his people (Dan 7).

We see this principle clearly in Daniel 2. While the vision o f the statue carries Nebuchadnezzar to the end o f earth's history, the explanation o f the vision

250

251

The Hermeneutics of Biblical Apocalyptic

The Hermeneutics of Biblical Apocalyptic

by Daniel is firmly grounded in the time and in the place o f Nebuchadnezzar.

The interpretation begins with a straightforward, unambiguous assertion, "You are that head o f gold (Dan 2:38)." Nebuchadnezzar is then told that the series o f kingdoms that follow are "after you'' (2:39) in point of time.

As was the case w i t h Daniel 2, the apocalyptic prophecy o f chapter 7 is divided into two parts; a description o f the vision (Dan 7:2-14) and an explanation o f the vision, given i n the language, time, and place o f the prophet (7:15-27). So, whenever vision moves to interpretation, the principle o f "God meets people where they are" must be applied to the explanations given. This has profound implications for the interpretation o f difficult apocalyptic texts, such as Revelation 17:7-11.

General Principles of Interpretation

the study o f books such as Daniel and Revelation, then, is not to make them the sole focus o f one's study o f the Bible. They are best understood by interpreters who are thoroughly grounded i n the clear, central teachings o f the Bible.

Focus on General Reading. Spend the majority o f your study time reading the Bible rather than searching through a concordance. When you read biblical books from beginning to end, the biblical author is i n control o f the order and the flow o f the material. Broad reading o f the Bible, therefore, anchors the interpreter i n the intentions o f the original writers. When we use a concordance, on the other hand, we are i n control o f where we go and what we learn. W h i l e concordance study is a valuable tool, there is the danger o f losing the forest i n the midst o f a l l the trees. Broad reading o f t h e Bible keeps our eyes focused on the b i g picture.

In spite o f God's purpose o f hope and o f warning, apocalyptic often has become a "safe-haven" for time-setters and speculators. The ambiguity o f apocalyptic symbolism makes it easy to read ideas, concepts, and needs into the symbolism. H o w can we safeguard our own study o f apocalyptic from speculation? Five general principles can serve as a guide. These form what I sometimes call a "life hermeneutic," a lifelong process o f allowing Scripture to have its way in our lives, rather than seeking simply to serve our o w n needs and our o w n purposes.

The Criticism of Peers. Give careful attention to the evaluation o f peers (people who study the Bible as carefully as you do), especially those who disagree w i t h you or who are competent i n the original languages and the tools o f exegesis. One o f the greatest problems in biblical understanding is that each o f us has a natural bent to self-deception (Jer 17:9).

A good antidote to self-deception is to subject one's own understandings constantly to the review o f others who are making equally rigorous efforts to understand those texts.

Prayer and Self-Distrust.

As we approach any biblical text, especially apocalyptic texts, it is important to study them in the context o f much prayer and i n an attitude o f self-distrust. B y nature, we lack a teachable spirit (Jer 17:9). True knowledge o f God does not come from mere intellectual pursuit or academic study (John 7:17; 1 Cor 2:14; James 1:5).

The study o f apocalyptic texts, therefore, needs to begin w i t h authentic prayer that the Spirit o f God w i l l open us to the truth, no matter what the cost. Only then can the Bible truly become our teacher rather than our servant.

Those who saturate themselves i n the b i g picture o f the Bible that comes from broad reading o f the clear texts, corrected b y vigorous listening to others, w i l l gain two great benefits as a result. They w i l l stay out o f the pit o f sensationalism and o f date-setting. A n d they w i l l enjoy the wonderful sense o f assurance and o f identity that comes when one better understands the steady and reliable workings o f G o d i n human history.

Use a Variety of Translations. Every translation has its limitations and weaknesses and, to some degree, reflects the biases o f the translator(s).

Such limitations can be minimized by comparing several translations w i t h one another. Where most translators agree, the meaning o f the underlying Greek or Hebrew text is probably fairly clear and the translation can be safely followed.

Focus on the Clear Texts. Spend the majority o f your study time in the clear texts o f Scripture. The clear texts ground the reader in the great central themes o f the biblical message, safeguarding the interpreter against the misuse o f texts that are more ambiguous. A n important safeguard for 252

Detecting Apocalyptic Sequences While Daniel and Revelation are widely thought o f as apocalyptic books, neither is completely apocalyptic i n the narrow sense o f the term.

Daniel contains a number o f stories i n a prose-narrative style, chapters 1, 3-6, and 10, in particular. The book o f Revelation contains seven epistles written to seven churches in Asia M i n o r (Revelation 2 and 3). While many commentators have seen a historical sequence i n these letters, it may not be the primary purpose o f the text.

Sequence Markers. A significant indicator o f an apocalyptic historical sequence is the presence o f shifts i n words, phrases, or tenses (for 253

τ The Hermeneutics of Biblical Apocalyptic convenience, I call all o f these sequence markers) that indicate a suecessive passage o f time, o f events, or o f institutions. I n Daniel, such sequence markers by themselves are usually evidence enough o f apocalyptic sequencing. For example, in Daniel 2, it is clear that the vision begins in Nebuchadnezzar's time and place because o f the statement "You are the head o f gold" (Dan 2:38). The terms (sequence markers) "after y o u " (2:39), "another" (2:39), and "finally" (2:40) signal successive kingdoms that would follow Nebuchadnezzar's kingdom. These four stages are followed by a fifth, the mixed kingdom o f iron and clay (2:41). The climax o f the vision and its interpretation comes " i n the days o f those kings" (2:44).

The coming o f God's stone kingdom is the final event o f the vision, the one that brings the whole course o f history to an end. The vision o f Daniel 2, then, is an apocalyptic prophecy w i t h a clear historical sequence, running from the time o f Nebuchadnezzar down to the end o f earth's history.

Daniel 7 offers similar markers o f a sequence.

Sequence markers are also helpful for identifying apocalyptic sequences i n Revelation. The seven trumpets, for instance, contain a number o f time periods. There is a period o f five months (Rev 9:5-10), another o f 42 months (11:2), a period o f 1260 days (11:3), and a period o f three and a half days (11:9, 11). The sequential nature o f the trumpets is strongly confirmed by the woe series after the fourth (8:13; 9:12; 11:14).

Trumpets five, six, and seven not only occur as a sequence o f time; each is completed before the next begins. This provides a strong parallel to the apocalyptic sequences o f Daniel.

Character Introductions.

Another significant indicator o f historical sequence in Revelation is the literary strategy we could call character introduction. Consistently throughout the book, the author o f Revelation i n traduces characters in general terms before describing their actions at the time o f the vision. I n other words, when a character appears i n the book for the first time, there is a general description o f the character's appearance and often a number o f prior actions, followed by a description o f the actions that the character takes in the context ofthe vision's own time and place setting. These character-introduction passages normally offer clear markers o f sequence.

The Hermeneutics of Biblical Apocalyptic (past) tense. The story then shifts to the present and future tenses to describe how the beast and its cronies w i l l act at the end o f history (13:810,12-18). So when an apocalyptic character first appears i n the text, there is normally a summary description o f its "pedigree," or actions prior to the main vision. Thus, the actions o f that character are portrayed in two or more stages.

Old Testament Roots When reading the book o f Revelation one is plunged fully into the atmosphere o f the OT. Although Revelation never directly quotes the OT, repeatedly i t alludes to it w i t h a word here and a phrase there.

One o f the best ways to detect apocalyptic sequences in Revelation is to identify structural allusions to parts o f the O T that contain series o f events. For example, major structural parallels to the seven trumpets i n elude Creation, the plagues o f the Exodus, and the battle o f Jericho. Each o f these O T backgrounds includes a series o f days or events, implying that the trumpets are to be understood also as a series o f events.

4. Apocalyptic Symbolism Apocalyptic uses symbols to convey truth. B y their very nature, symbols express a double meaning. There is a literal intention, the primary meaning the term has i n everyday life. Then there is a second intention; the literal points beyond itself to a second meaning evident only in relation to the first meaning. These two meanings can even be opposite! I n the book o f Revelation the lion is a lamb, death is a victory, and the victim is the victor!

This fact makes apocalyptic books at once both difficult to understand and rich i n potential meaning. The same symbol can have different meanings i n different contexts. To interpret rightly a symbol one must compare its many possible and sometimes conflicting meanings w i t h the literary context i n which it is used.

I n Revelation 11, for example, the two witnesses are introduced w i t h a description o f their appearance and an overall description o f their characteristics and their actions. While this introduction utilizes present and future tenses, it is clearly prior i n point o f time to the visionary description that follows (11:7-13). The events o f verse 7 and f o l l o w i n g come only when the 1260 days o f verse 3 are finished. In Revelation 13:1-7, the sea beast's actions prior to the final conflict are described in aorist

Symbolism is the main choice o f words i n the visions o f Daniel, as evidenced from the very first. I n Daniel 2:45 the strategy o f Nebuchadnezzar's dream/vision is expressed as follows: "The great God has shown the king what w i l l take place in the future." The vision o f Daniel 2 is a pictorial representation o f events to occur in Nebuchadnezzar's present and future. The Greek translator o f Daniel uses the w o r d semaino ("has shown") to express that God "had symbolized" to the king what w o u l d take place in the future.

254

255

The Hermeneutics of Biblical Apocalyptic The book o f Revelation opens w i t h a clear allusion to Daniel 2.

Revelation 1:1 picks up on Daniel 2:45 and its concept o f semaind. This allusion to Daniel 2 makes it clear that the entire book o f Revelation is couched i n symbolism as a primary method o f communication. The words o f Revelation are to be taken as symbolic or figurative unless careful investigation indicates that the language must be understood in literal terms.

Types of Symbols H o w does one go about interpreting symbols? The best answer to this question is found i n the introduction to G. K . Beale's commentary on Revelation. Beale encourages the interpreter o f Revelation to recognize the way in which different types o f symbols function. A metaphor, for example, is "a deliberate transgression o f a word's boundaries o f meaning."

I f one were to say, as Jesus did, "Peter is a rock," y o u are transgressing the boundary between a living thing and an inanimate object. You are applying a characteristic o f the object, rock, to the man, Peter. While metaphor transgresses the boundaries both o f Peter and o f rock, one's description o f Peter is enriched by the comparison.

3

While the metaphor Peter is a rock is fairly straightforward, Beale agrees that symbols are often multiple in meaning, resisting simplicity o f comparison. For example, the concept o f water i n Revelation can be a metaphor for nutrition (positively: Rev 22:17; negatively: 8:11), for power and for destruction (9:14; 17:15), and for something that forms a barrier (16:12; perhaps 21:1). I n such cases, the context i n which the symbol is found informs the reader as to which ofthe many possible meanings is to be understood.

The Hermeneutics of Biblical Apocalyptic ed ears, and large teeth. Unless George exhibited such characteristics to a considerably greater degree than most humans, it is likely that comparing h i m to a w o l f is restricted to some aspect o f the wolf's behavior rather than its appearance.

H o w can one detect the presence o f a symbol? Beale notes at least six ways. (1) The formal linking o f two words o f totally different meaning; "the seven lampstands are the seven churches." (2) The use o f a key descriptive term to alert the reader to the presence o f some unusual meaning; "the mystery o f the seven stars." (3) The unlikelihood that a literal interpretation is intended; " I ate the book." (4) A statement that would be outrageously false or contradictory i f taken literally; " m y two witnesses are the two olive trees and the two lampstands." (5) Context that renders a literal interpretation improbable. (6) Clear and repeated figurative use o f the same w o r d elsewhere i n the book. Beale notes that the last o f these is probably the most consistently helpful.

The Use of Numbers in Apocalyptic Another aspect o f apocalyptic symbolism mentioned by Beale is the use o f numbers, which are to be taken as symbols more often than not.

Beale notes that seven is the number o f completeness while four represents an extension o f that concept to something universal or worldwide in scope. Twelve represents unity in diversity as i n the one nation Israel that is composed o f twelve tribes. Ten also represents completeness. I n addition to obvious uses o f numbers, the book o f Revelation is often organized in patterns o f fours and sevens. So i n Revelation the interpreter needs to give attention not only to the numbers in the book but also needs to count groupings o f symbols, which may have an extended meaning, as a result.

Another way to interpret symbols is to examine the degree of correspondence between the picture evoked by the symbol and the limitations o f the literal subject o f the symbol. I n the comparison "George is a wolf," the humanity o f George excludes such wolf-like associations as fur, point-

A n area o f numerical symbolism that Beale does not address is the use o f t h e year-day principle for interpreting time periods in Daniel and in Revelation. W h i l e this principle has been articulated by biblical interpreters for many centuries, the best current treatment o f the topic can be found in the writings o f W i l l i a m Shea. When unusual time periods, such as 1260 days; 1335 days; and a time, times, and h a l f a time, occur i n biblical apocalyptic, how are these periods to be interpreted—as literal days or as symbolic o f an equal number o f years? There is a strong exegetical basis for interpreting them as symbolic. For example, Daniel 9:24-27 refers to a prophetic period o f 70 weeks. W i t h i n these "weeks," Jerusalem and the temple w o u l d be rebuilt, the Messiah w o u l d come, and He w o u l d be cut off, or k i l l e d . A l l o f these events could not have been expected to occur i n a year and a half.

256

257

Once a given meaning for a symbol is established in a given work, that same meaning normally carries on to repeated uses o f that same symbol later on i n the book, unless a later context requires a different understanding. Where the meaning o f a symbol is not provided i n a work, it is important to survey the way i n which that symbol was used elsewhere i n the rest o f the Bible and i n ancient literature. Readers o f Daniel and Revelation can access such information in exegetical commentaries and such resources as Bible dictionaries, scholarly lexicons, and concordances.

4

The Hermeneutics of Biblical Apocalyptic

The Hermeneutics of Biblical Apocalyptic The possibility o f year-for-day symbolism i n Daniel is grounded i n two aspects o f the interpretation o f Daniel. First, it rests on one's belief i n predictive prophecy. N o uninspired human being ever has succeeded in accurately predicting events hundreds o f years into the future. Second, it is also grounded i n a sixth-century dating for the book. I f Daniel was written i n the sixth century B.C. and the little horn is identified w i t h Rome rather than Antiochus Epiphanes, then the prophetic-time periods o f Daniel must last several centuries, at least. Taken i n terms o f literal time, the prophetic periods o f Daniel w o u l d not span even a small portion o f that history.

W i t h i n the text, as Shea points out, the first feature o f these time periods which points to their symbolic nature, is their symbolic context. For example, the 2300 evenings and mornings o f Daniel 8 are found i n a setting containing various other symbols, such as a ram, a goat, four horns, and a little horn (cf. Dan 7:21, 25). A second special feature o f these time periods is the symbolic nature o f the units i n which they are usually given, "evenings and mornings" instead o f days, "a time, times and half a time" rather than three and a half years. Third, the time periods are expressed i n quantities a Hebrew normally would not use to date some event i n the fitture. A Hebrew normally would say an event is six years, four months, and twenty days i n the future (although such exact specificity is rare), not 2300 days. The year-day prophecies o f Scripture are characterized by unusual numbers such as 1260 days, 70 weeks, and 42 months.

Are there clear examples o f a relationship between days and years i n ancient times? Biblically speaking, the year-day principle is given explicit statement i n the classical prophecies o f Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:6.

In Numbers 14:34, the L o r d tells Moses that the 40 days that the spies explored the promised land would be prophetic o f the 40 years that Israel was to wander i n the wilderness. I n Ezekiel 4:4-8, the prophet is to lie down for a total o f 430 days i n order to represent the 430 years that Israel and Judah have been disobedient to the w i l l o f God (the monarchy period).

In each case a day clearly represents a year.

The Hebrew concept o f a year for a day is embedded i n the sabbatical-year concept. The weekly Sabbath became the basis for a seven-year agricultural cycle (Exod 23:10-12). The seventh year the land was to lie fallow, so as "to have a Sabbath o f rest" (Lev 25:4-5). The sabbatical year is modeled clearly on the weekly Sabbath, a year for a day i n principle. So in apocalyptic sequences, the presence o f an unusual form o f numbering (such as "2300 evenings and mornings" or "time, times and the dividing o f time" or "1260 days") normally should be understood i n light ofthe yearday principle.

258

5. A Look at Some Sample Texts Daniel 7 Daniel 7 contains the first vision i n the book mediated directly to Daniel himself. Like the narratives that precede this chapter, the vision is written out i n the Aramaic language (Hebrew is used i n chapters 8-12).

Daniel 7 is, i n many ways, the center point o f the book o f Daniel, which makes it a good sample passage for our brief study o f apocalyptic interpretation.

Similar to chapter 2, the vision o f Daniel 7 is introduced by a "vision formula" (Dan 7:1; cf. 2:28) and is followed by an explanation o f the vision (7:15-27; cf. 2:36-45). Both passages deal w i t h four kingdoms (2:3740; 7:17), some o f which are numbered, "first," "fourth," and so on (2:3940; 7:4, 5, 7). I n both visions, the fourth element is numbered (2:40; 7:7), involves iron, and uses the language o f crushing. Both visions climax w i t h the final establishment o f God's kingdom (2:44-45; 7:27). The God who gave these visions was using the principle o f recapitulation to convey His revelations more clearly.

There are a number o f differences w i t h chapter 2, as w e l l . I n chapter 7, there is no lengthy narrative leading up to the vision. Another new element is the little-horn power that plucks up three horns and speaks boastful things (Dan 7:8). There is also a heavenly judgment scene (7:9-14), w i t h its books, w i t h its Ancient o f Days, and w i t h its Son o f man. So i n interpreting Daniel 7, i t is helpful to compare and to contrast w i t h Daniel 2, which is widely recognized as a historical sequence.

Are there sequence markers pointing to an apocalyptic historical sequence i n Daniel 7? Several such markers are worthy o f our attention.

First o f all, a vision formula is repeated three times, " I n m y vision at night I looked." These occur i n verses 2, 7, and 13. This divides the vision into three parts or scenes: (1) the beasts from the sea (Dan 7:2-6), (2) the fourth beast and the judgment (7:7-12), (3) the Son o f man (7:13-14). There is an additional formula that signals chronological progression, translated loosely i n the N I V as "there before me" or "after that" but more consistently and clearly as "behold" i n the N A S B . This term (Aramaic: waaru) is found i n verses 5, 6, 7, 8 (twice) and 13. Combining these two linguistic cues leads to the following structure for the vision:

259

The Hermeneutics of Biblical Apocalyptic Scene 1: (Dan 7:2-6) Beasts from the Sea vs. 4: Lion vs. 5: Bear vs. 6: Leopard Scene 2: (Dan 7:7-12) Fourth Beast and Judgment vs. 7: Nondescript Beast vs. 8: Ten horns vs. 8: Little horn Judgment scene (9-10) Judgment verdict (11-12) Scene 3: (Dan 7:13-14) Son of Man vs. 13: Son of man approaches throne Receives dominion (14)

The Hermeneutics of Biblical Apocalyptic

'‫•׳‬ ;

Daniel 7 clearly exhibits the apocalyptic pattern o f a series o f historical events or institutions, climaxing w i t h the kingdom o f God (Dan 7:1314, 26-27). While the chapter does not explicitly indicate a starting point for the vision, the strong set o f parallels w i t h chapter 2 suggests a starting point w i t h Babylon at the time o f the prophet (the time o f Belshazzar, Nebuchadnezzar's grandson). Daniel 7 would, then, be a complete historical sequence covering the big sweep o f history from the time o f Daniel to the kingdom o f God at the end o f history.

Additional sequence markers occur i n the explanation o f the vision in Daniel 7:15-27. The little-horn power o f Daniel 7 arises directly from among the ten horns that are part o f the fourth beast (7:7: " I t had ten horns"). But while rooted in the fourth beast, the little horn comes up after the ten horns which themselves come up after the fourth kingdom is established (7:24). So there is a sequencing taking place w i t h i n the explanation o f the imagery o f the fourth beast.

Daniel represents the medieval papacy, which was different in character from the secular powers o f the earth; persecuted the saints; made changes in the Ten Commandments, particularly the Sabbath; and dominated Western Europe for more than a thousand years.

So the vision o f Daniel 7 is not so much adding new elements to the earlier vision as it is elaborating on the later stages o f it, the times after the fourth kingdom and before the setting up o f God's eternal kingdom. I n Daniel 7, therefore, we have an apocalyptic prophecy which reviews the same basic historical sequence as Daniel 2, running from the time o f the prophet until the establishment o f God's kingdom at the end o f history.

The only reason to question this scenario would be i f these prophecies were not written ahead o f events but were the result o f pious history after the fact, written around 165 B.C. So for Adventist scholarship, the decisive issue w i t h regard to the hermeneutics o f Daniel is the time i n which the book was written, with the sixth-century B.C. date defended.

Revelation 12 The same methodology used i n the interpretation o f Daniel should be applied to the book o f Revelation. I t must include searching for sequence markers, for character introductions, and for O T allusions that indicate historical sequence. A n example o f such evaluation is given i n the following material on Revelation 12. After the analysis o f chapter 12, which for Revelation is relatively straight forward, we w i l l briefly examine a more perplexing text, that o f Revelation 17.

A good reason to choose Revelation 12 as a sample passage for study is that it is seen widely as the center and the key to the entire book. Traditionally, Adventists have understood Revelation 12 to offer an apocalyptic prophecy o f three sequential stages o f Christian history. First, is the Christevent o f the first century (Rev 12:1-5). The third is the final battle between the dragon and the Remnant (12:17). The second is the vast middle period o f 1260 years o f papal supremacy i n the Middle Ages and beyond.

The description o f the little horn exhibits the following characteristics and actions: (1) I t speaks boastfully (Dan 7:8, 20); (2) it wages war against the saints and defeats them (7:21); (3) it is different i n character from the earlier kings, which were political i n nature (7:24); (4) the boastful speaking is interpreted in verse 25 as speaking "against the Most H i g h ; " (5) the war against the saints is redefined as "oppressing the saints" (7:25); (6) he w i l l " t r y to change the set times and the laws," something only God is supposed to do (2:21), and (7) the period during which he w i l l dominate the saints is said to last for "a time, times and half a time" (7:25).

There has been a long-standing consensus w i t h i n Adventist scholarship that the four major kingdoms o f Daniel 2 and 7 represent Babylon, MedoPersia, Greece, and Rome, in parallel w i t h the more obvious sequence i n Daniel 2. There has been a similar consensus that the little-horn power o f

This impression is enhanced when the reader realizes that the cryptic phrase "a time, times, and half a time" (Rev 12:14) is unquestionably based on two o f the apocalyptic prophecies o f Daniel (Dan 7:25; 12:7).

260

261

We note that chapter 12 includes two o f the sequence markers that indicate passage o f time. I n Revelation 12:6, the woman is nurtured by God in the desert for 1260 days. I n Revelation 12:14 she is cared for a time, times, and half a time, presumably the same period as Revelation 12:6. So Revelation 12 is not describing a single event but a considerable period o f time.

‫ד‬ The Hermeneutics of Biblical Apocalyptic Further study leads to the discovery that Revelation 12 builds on Daniel throughout. The dragon o f Revelation 12:3-4 has several ofthe characteristics o f the beasts o f Daniel 7 and o f the little horn (Dan 7:7, 24; 8:10).

The war in heaven o f Revelation 12:7-9 makes several allusions to Daniel (Dan 10:13, 20-21; 12:1). This broad utilization o f Daniel's apocalyptic prophecies enhances the impression that Revelation 12 should be interpreted along similar lines.

Finally, Revelation 12 contains a number o f character identifications characteristic o f typical time sequences. First, a woman appears in heaven, clothed w i t h the sun, w i t h the moon under her feet and a crown o f twelve stars on her head (12:1). These symbols i m p l y that the woman's "family tree" is based on the O T image o f a virtuous woman as a symbol o f faithfill Israel (Isa 26:16-17; 54:5; 66:7-14; Hos 2:14-20). But i n verse 5, she acts in the context o f the vision o f Revelation 12, giving birth to a male child, widely recognized to be a symbol o f Jesus. So her character and her actions, described in Revelation 12:1-2, are clearly prior to the actions in verse 5. After she gives birth to the child (12:5), she is seen fleeing into the desert for a lengthy period (12:6). So the experience o f t h e woman in Revelation 12:1-6 is actually depicted i n three stages: (1) the time o f her appearance and pregnancy, (2) the time o f giving birth, and (3) the time o f fleeing into the desert.

The second character introduced in this chapter is the dragon (Rev 12:3-4), who represents the devil, or Satan (12:9). The dragon's initial action i n the context o f the vision is described i n Revelation 12:4, i n which he waits before the woman, seeking to devour her child as soon as it is born. Scholars widely recognize that the dragon's attack on the male child in Revelation 12:5 represents Herod's attempt to destroy the Christ child by k i l l i n g all the babies i n Bethlehem (Matt 2:1-18). But the description ofthe dragon, as it was w i t h the woman, carries back to a time before the events o f the vision.

The dragon's pedigree is seen i n the heads and in the horns o f Daniel 7 (Rev 12:3); it is embodied i n the kingdoms o f t h e w o r l d i n the service o f Satan. His pedigree, i n fact, goes a l l the way back to Eden ("the old serpent"—Rev 12:9, 15). A n d prior to his attack on the woman, his tail sweeps a third o f the stars out o f the sky and flings them to earth (12:4).

But the dragon is not finished when the male child escapes (vs. 5).

The dragon pursues the woman into the desert (12:13-16) and eventually makes war w i t h the remnant o f her seed. So the dragon i n chapter 12 is described actually i n terms o f four successive stages: (1) his attack on a third o f the stars (12:4); (2) his attack on the male child (12:4-5); (3) his attack against the woman herself (12:13-16); and, finally, (4) his war against 262

The Hermeneutics of Biblical Apocalyptic the remnant. The character and actions o f both the woman and the dragon suggest the successive periods o f a historical apocalypse.

The third character introduced in this chapter is the male child, the woman's son. This character introduction is unique in that i t does not focus on the prior actions o f this male child but on action beyond the time ofthe vision. Using the future tense, He is described as the One who " w i l l rule all the nations w i t h an iron scepter" (Rev 12:5). This allusion to Psalm 2:9, describes Jesus'judgment role at the end o f time. The very next phrase reverts to the visionary past, "her child was snatched up to God and to his throne." So i n Revelation 12:5 reference is made to the birth, to the ascension, and to the ultimate victory o f Jesus Christ.

These markers in the text point us to an apocalyptic sequence similar to those o f Daniel 2 and 7. The vision begins w i t h the time o f the prophet and moves i n stages to the final battle o f earth's history.

Stage 1: The Time of Jesus and of John. The result o f the dragon's attack i n Revelation 12:4-5 is to separate the woman from the child. He is snatched up to heaven, and she flees into the desert, under God's protection but still on earth (12:6). When the male child reaches heaven, war breaks out there, w i t h the result that the dragon and his angels lose their place in heaven and are hurled down to earth (12:7-9). When did this casting out take place? Verse 10 clearly addresses the same point in time as the war o f 7-9. "Now have come the salvation and the power and the kingdom o f our God, and the authority o f his Christ. For the accuser o f our brothers has been hurled down." (emphasis supplied) The time o f the war in heaven is the time i n which the kingdom o f God and the authority o f Christ are clearly established (Rev 12:10). I n the book o f Revelation, this took place when the Lamb was enthroned at His ascension to heaven (Rev 5:5-6, cf. 3:21, Acts 1:9-11). The language o f Revelation 12:7-9, however, is also reminiscent o f Revelation 12:4, in w h i c h the dragon hurled a third o f the stars from heaven to earth. But that event occurred before the birth o f Christ, and the war o f Revelation 12:7-9 occurred after the ascension. So i n two separate events i n this chapter, a hurling d o w n from heaven occurs, one is prior to the birth o f Christ (12:4) and the other after His ascension (12:7-10).

H o w long before the birth o f Christ d i d the dragon sweep a third o f the stars from heaven to earth? The traditional Adventist answer is "before Creation." The exact timing o f that action is not addressed i n this chapter, but a strong hint is found i n Revelation 13:8, i n which the Lamb is described as "slain from the creation o f the w o r l d . " This comment finds no context i n the entire book unless the dragon's action i n Revelation 12:4 represents that primeval attack on the Lamb. So, while the war in heaven 263

The Hermeneutics of Biblical Apocalyptic o f Revelation 12:7-9 is clearly in the context o f the cross, nevertheless, it echos that earlier conflict.

I n His earthly life, therefore, Jesus was participating i n a war that had begun i n heaven before His arrival on earth (Rev 12:3-4). A t His ascension, Jesus establishes His kingdom and casts the "accuser o f the brothers" (12:7-10) out o f heaven. The language o f Revelation 12:7-12 implies that, after the Christ-event, Satan has no more influence over heavenly deliberations. I t is interesting that, while the dragon appears i n all four stages o f the conflict i n chapter 12, the actions o f Jesus, expressed i n the images ofthe male child, the Lamb, Christ, and probably Michael, are confined to the second stage, the time o f Jesus' birth, life, death, resurrection, ascension, and heavenly rule (12:5-10).

Stage 2: The Broad Sweep of Christian History. Revelation 12:12 returns our focus to the woman back on earth. Her exile into the desert is introduced i n Revelation 12:6, and now she becomes the focus ofthe devil/ dragon, who is angered by his casting out and by the knowledge that "his time is short." Revelation 12:12-16 serves as a bridge between the time o f Jesus and o f John (Stage 1) and the final events o f earth's history (Stage 3). It describes briefly what, i n God's eyes, are the key events o f the broad sweep o f history, from the time o f the cross to the events preceding the Second Coming.

The Hermeneutics of Biblical Apocalyptic The woman fleeing into the desert on the t w o wings o f a great eagle (Rev 12:14) reminds the reader o f the Exodus experience i n w h i c h God carried the tribes o f Israel "on eagle's w i n g s " out o f Egypt (Exod 19:4).

So the experience o f the woman, who represents the people o f God, is built on the language o f OT Israel, both before and after the time o f Christ.

In Revelation 12:16, the "earth" helped the woman. Here is a further allusion to the Exodus and to Israel's experience i n the desert. The desert protected Israel from the "flooding waters," both o f the Red Sea and o f the Egyptian army. I f "sea" also represents the settled populations o f the earth, "earth" here may represent more desolate places i n which the true people o f God obtained refuge from deceptive and from persecuting opponents; the Alps i n Europe during the Middle Ages and places such as North America and South Africa afterward. Toward the end o f the 1260 years (the sixteenth through the eighteenth centuries), many forces came together to elevate the Bible and to end the persecution o f God's people: the Reformation, the Enlightenment, the American and the French Revolutions, and the beginnings o f the great missionary expansion o f the nineteenth century. During this period o f relative calm, the dragon prepares for his final attack (Rev 12:17).

Having been cast out o f heaven, the dragon pursues the woman into the desert (Rev 12:13). I n apocalyptic language, we learn that, after Jesus' ascension to heaven, the church took the brunt o f Satan's wrath on earth (12:13-16).

The language o f Revelation 12:13-16 is reminiscent o f several accounts in the OT; the vision o f Daniel 7, the Exodus from Egypt, and the temptation and the Fall i n the Garden o f Eden. The language o f "a time, times and half a time" recalls Daniel 7:25 as do the seven heads and the ten horns o f the dragon who pursues the woman. I n Daniel 7, the breakup o f Rome into ten parts was followed by a little-horn power that was to persecute and "oppress God's saints for a time, times and half a time." (Dan 7:25) The only time i n history that comes near to matching this description is the Middle Ages during which the Roman Papacy dominated the Western w o r l d and drove competing forms o f Christianity into obscurity.

Stage 3: The Final Attack on the Remnant. Revelation 12:17 is a summary introduction to Revelation's portrayal o f a great final crisis at the conclusion o f earth's history. I t indicates that there are two sides i n the final conflict, represented by the dragon, on the one hand, and the remnant on the other. But the dragon does not immediately act on his anger. Instead, he "went away" to make war. Why? Because he was frustrated by repeated failures i n the course o f apocalyptic history. He failed to destroy the man-child o f the woman (Rev 12:3-5); he was not strong enough to last i n heaven (12:8); and he failed to destroy the woman herself (12:16). Because o f his repeated failures, he realizes that he lacks the strength to defeat God's purposes by himself, so he decides to enter the final conflict w i t h allies, a beast from the sea and a beast from the earth (Rev 13:1-18). The remnant ultimately is confronted, therefore, w i t h three opponents: (1) the dragon, (2) the sea beast, and (3) the land beast.

"The mouth o f the serpent" (Rev 12:15) reminds the reader o f the deceptive words o f the serpent i n the Garden o f Eden (Gen 3). The flooding waters that attack the woman i n the desert (the faithful church), therefore, imply deceptive and persuasive words, as w e l l as persecuting force. I n the Middle Ages, unbiblical teachings were fed to the people i n the name o f Christ.

I n the book o f Revelation, God is often spoken o f i n three's—representing Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Rev 1:4-5). So the dragon, the sea beast, and the land beast i n Revelation 13 w o u l d seem to be a counterfeit o f t h e holy three, an alternative to the true Godhead. Revelation 13 indicates that there is to be a great, final world-wide deception i n which a counterfeit "trinity" stands i n the place o f the true God. The purpose o f

264

265

The Hermeneutics of Biblical Apocalyptic

The Hermeneutics of Biblical Apocalyptic the counterfeit is to deceive the world. Revelation 12:17 summarizes the final stage o f earth's history in a nutshell and the remainder ofthe book o f Revelation elaborates on that summary introduction.

Revelation 12, therefore, clearly demonstrates the successive stages o f prophetic history, characteristic o f the historical type o f apocalyptic found in Daniel 2 and 7. Observing carefully the markers i n the text, the author's use o f character introductions, and the way i n which the OT is utilized, we have detected three stages o f Christian history, running from the time o f Jesus and o f John to the end o f all things. When we note that at least two o f the main characters i n the chapter were active i n the time before the birth o f Jesus (which later we w i l l call Stage Zero), there are a total o f four successive stages o f apocalyptic history. These can be summarized as follows:

1) Stage Zero: Before the Time ofthe Vision (Rev 12:1-4) The original war in heaven (4) The dragon embodies the kingdoms of the earth (3) The woman represents OT Israel (1-2) 2) Stage One: The Time of Jesus and John (12:5, 7-12) The woman gives birth to the male child (5) He is snatched up to heaven (5) War in heaven (7-9) Enthronement and victory (10-11) Transition (12) 3) Stage Two: The Serpent Attacks the Woman (12:6,13-16) The woman, from here on, represents the church (6) The dragon pursues the woman (13) She flees into the desert and is protected for 1260 days (6, 14) The serpent spews water to sweep her away (15) The earth helps the woman (16) 4) Stage Three: The Dragon and the Remnant, (Rev 12:17, etc.)

The dragon is angry and goes away to make war (12:17) He calls up allies forthe conflict (13:1-7, 11) The unholy trinity deceives and persecutes (13:8-10, 12-18) The remnant responds (14:1-13) The return of Jesus (14:14-20)

• r

! s

‫יי‬

; ‫׳‬ , s

: \ ! \ '

o f Revelation 17, therefore, are future from our perspective; they have to do w i t h the closing events o f earth's history. A woman, designated as prostitute Babylon, rides on a scarlet beast w i t h seven heads and w i t h ten homs (Rev 17:3). This woman is also described as sitting on many waters (17:1), committing adultery w i t h the kings o f the earth, and causing the inhabitants ofthe earth to become intoxicated w i t h the wine o f her adulteries (17:2).

After John describes the appearance and the behavior o f the woman that he sees in vision (Rev 17:4-6), the angel addresses John once more by way o f explaining the vision. I n the process, the angel slips i n an interesting detail o f historical sequence. Speaking o f the seven heads o f the beast, verse 10 says, "They are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come " The remainder o f the chapter involves further explanation o f the characters and o f details o f the vision (Rev 17:3-6) and o f the events that follow the vision (17:11-18).

The crucial question is how to interpret the sequence o f the seven heads o f the beast (Rev 17:10). When is the time o f the "one is," the head that comes between the five that are fallen and the one that is "not yet come?" Is it the time o f John, who received the vision, or is i t the time o f the vision itself, the time o f the plagues during which the woman rides the beast and then meets her destruction?

The answer lies i n the principle o f vision and its interpretation, articulated earlier. " I n a vision, the prophet can travel from earth to heaven and range back and forth from time past to the end o f time. The vision is not necessarily located in the prophet's time and place. But when the vision is explained to the prophet afterward, the explanation almost always comes i n the time, place and circumstances o f the visionary." I n the case o f Revelation 17, the vision is limited to verses 3-6a. The remaining section o f t h e chapter, including verse 10, involves explanation to John by his interpreting angel, one o f the seven angels who had the seven bowls (17:1). I n Scripture, such explanations are always given i n the time, place, and language o f the one receiving the vision.

Revelation 17, as a whole, is not a historical sequence text. The guiding angel ofthe vision is one o f the seven-bowl angels o f chapter 16 (Rev 17:1); so the chapter is an elaboration o f aspects o f the previous chapter, which occurs after the close o f human probation (Rev 15:5-8). The events

So the five that "are fallen" already are in the past when John writes the book o f Revelation. These were probably to be understood as the five OT superpowers that oppressed the people o f God, Egypt, Assyria, BabyIon, Persia and Greece. The one that is would be the empire o f pagan Rome, which dominated the w o r l d o f John's day, the one we saw i n action in Revelation 12. The one yet to come would be the beast o f Revelation 13, which arises after the beast o f Revelation 12 (Rev 13:1). That leaves the "eighth" king (17:11), which is " o f the seven" and w o u l d seem to represent the final stage o f the beast, the one outlined in Revelation 17 itself.

While not everyone w i l l agree w i t h the above solution for this difficult

266

267

ţ

Si

Revelation 17

The Hermeneutics of Biblical Apocalyptic passage, the solution is at least consistent w i t h sound principles o f interpretation drawn from the biblical evidence itself.

Conclusion This study underlines two important points. First, through the use o f sound principles o f interpretation we can have more reliable insight into the meaning o f an apocalyptic prophecy than would otherwise be the case.

We can identify things that are clear and things that are less clear. We can unite on the things that are clear and patiently learn to respect one another's views regarding areas that are less clear. Recovering the meaning that these apocalyptic texts had for their original readers and hearers can provide a clearer picture o f the truths that God w o u l d have us draw from these texts for today.

Second, no matter how carefully one works w i t h apocalyptic texts, some puzzles and questions w i l l remain. These stimulate curiosity and invite further effort to unlock God's fascinating revelations. They also compel us to humility i n the way we share our views o f difficult apocalyptic texts. We must confess that, where Daniel and Revelation are concerned, we have not fully attained, that we are travelers together on a journey toward truth that has not yet ended, and, in fact, w i l l only reach its conclusion w i t h the return o f Christ.

Third, the historicist view remains the best approach to apocalyptic prophecy. For instance, Revelation 12 begins w i t h the generation o f Jesus and John and moves to the final events o f earth's history. As history progresses and the time o f fulfillment comes, the sequences and their historical fulfillment become more apparent (John 13:19; 14:29).

It is probably true that none o f the biblical writers foresaw the enormo us length o f the Christian era. The passage o f time has opened up new vistas i n terms o f the Lord's patience and purpose. Having foreseen such a delay, w o u l d not God prepare His people to understand the great events by w h i c h He is bringing history to its climax? Historicism is grounded i n the conviction that God knows the end from the beginning and cares enough for His people to share an outline o f those events (Isa 46:9-10; John 16:13). W h i l e i t is only from the perspective o f t h e Second Coming that history w i l l speak w i t h perfect clarity, there is a blessing available to everyone who attempts to understand and to follow the things written in Daniel and in Revelation (Rev 1:1-3, cf. Dan 2:28, 45).

268

The Hermeneutics of Biblical Apocalyptic References Unless otherwise noted, biblical quotations are from the New International Version.

1. The apocalyptic portions of Daniel include the visions of Daniel 2, 7-9, and 11-12. Isaiah 24-27 is often thought of as "proto-apocalyptic" along with Zechariah 9-14.

2. See Kai Arasola, The End of Historicism: Millerite Hermeneutic of Time Prophecies in the Old Testament, University of Uppsala Faculty of Theology (Sigtuna, Sweden: Datem Publishing, 1990).

3. G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on tire Greek Text.

(Grand Rapids, M I : William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1999), pp. 55-58.

4. William H. Shea, Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation, rev. ed.

Daniel and Revelation Committee Series, vol. 1 (Silver Spring, M D : Biblical Research Institute, 1992), pp. 67-110; idem, Daniel 7-12. (Boise, I D : Pacific Press Publishing Association, 1996), pp. 40-44.

Selected Bibliography Arasola, Kai. The End of Historicism: Millerite Hermeneutic of Time Prophecies in the Old Testament. University of Uppsala Faculty of Theology. Sigtuna, Sweden: Datem Publishing, 1990.

Aune, David E. Revelation. 3 vols. Word Biblical Commentary, eds. David A. Barker and Glenn W. Hubbard. Waco, TX: Word Publishers, 1997-1998.

Aune, David E., Evans, Craig Α., and Geddert, Timothy J. "Apocalypticism." In Dictionary of New Testament Background, eds. Craig A. Evans and Stanley E. Porter. Downer's Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000.

Beale, G. K. The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text. The New International Greek Testament Commentary, eds. I . Howard Marshall and Donald A. Hagner. Grand Rapids, M I : Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co..

1999.

Collins, John J. "Apocalyptic Literature." In Dictionary of New Testament Background, eds. Craig A. Evans and Stanley E. Porter. Downer's Grove, I L : InterVarsity Press, 2000.

Holbrook, Frank B., ed. Symposium on Daniel. Daniel and Revelation Committee Series, vol. 2. Washington, DC: Biblical Research Institute, 1986. . Symposium on Revelation. 2 vols. Daniel and Revelation Committee Series, vols. 6 and 7 Silver Spring, MD: Biblical Research Institute, 1992.

Paulien, Jon. What the Bible Says About the End-Time. Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1994.

Rodriguez, Ângel Μ. Future Glory: The 8 Greatest End-Time Prophecies in the Bible. Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 2002.

Shea, William H. Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation, rev. ed. Silver Spring, MD: Biblical Research Institute, 1992.

269

The Hermeneutics of Biblical Apocalyptic . Daniel. 2 vols. The Abundant Life Bible Amplifier, ed. George R. Knight. Boise, ID: Pacific Press Publishing Association, 1996.

Stefanovic, Ranko. Revelation of Jesus Christ: Commentary on the Book of Revelation. Berrien Springs, M I : Andrews University Press, 2002.

CHAPTER XV

HERMENEUTICS AND CULTURE Lael O. Caesar

Introduction In the past, anthropologists defined culture as all learned behavior that is socially acquired. More recently, the emphasis has shifted from learned behavior to the communication o f learned and o f unlearned behavior. Lesslie Newbigin defined culture as "the sum total o f ways o f living developed by a group o f human beings and handed on from generation to generation." Since religion is part o f the sum total o f ways o f living, Christians have to ask themselves how the message o f Scripture can best be passed on to different cultures and different generations. This chapter w i l l introduce the reader to some o f the gender- and-culture based approaches to the interpretation o f Scripture.

1

1. Presuppositions in Biblical Hermeneutics In the discipline o f biblical studies, the issue o f presuppositions can hardly be ignored or even minimized, for differing presuppositions consistently lead to radically contrasting conclusions.

A l t h o u g h personal presuppositions do not determine what reality is, they define the way an individual experiences that reality. I n this chapter we consider h o w the issue o f personal presuppositions relates to the biblical interpretive principle o f sola scriptura. Presuppositions matter far more i n the search for saving truth and for eternal life than they do i n abstract logic or ball games. A coach's w r o n g assumptions about the best strategies and personnel to field against the opposing team may lead to the loss o f a game or a series. B u t i n biblical studies an incorrect mental set can lead to the loss o f truth and o f life. Despite the urgency o f this fact, there seems to be no end to the variety o f mindsets present i n biblical interpretation today.

Leaders who serve the w o r l d church confirm, by personal observation, what many contemporary believers already k n o w from experience.

270

271

Hermeneutics & Culture

Hermeneutics & Culture

The local congregation, at least as much as the national or international church headquarters, is now truly the theology-defining, perceptionshaping, conscience-educating, and identity-giving agent i n their lives.

B y way o f example, "conservatives" may cluster together to reinforce their preferred culture, "a culture o f reverence." A t the same time, their psychological and sometime chronological opposites, labeled perhaps as "more enlightened liberals," may assemble elsewhere to establish and to affirm their o w n worship code. Through this ongoing process, the faith and the practice o f two Seventh-day Adventist congregations o f similar ethnic or racial composition w i t h i n N o r t h America may differ as widely as might be found between one congregation from N o r t h America and another i n West Africa.

Such differences show up i n local congregations i n a variety o f regional, national, economic, or gender-based approaches, currently employed in interpreting the Bible. This variety includes Latin American, AfricanAmerican, South Korean, Indian, feminist and other predispositions. A l l o f these options w i l l not be explored here, but by conversation w i t h some o f t h e significant voices i n this concert o f multicultural, biblical interpretation, we seek to highlight certain valuable benefits o f culture-, class-, and gender-based Bible reading i n relation to the sola scriptura principle, while guarding against possible pitfalls.

Meaningful Conversation

o f denial o f cherished ideals, they feel and cry w i t h greater intensity. The sensed pain these theologians live through forms a real part ofthe logic o f their arguments.

2. Multicultural Definitions ofthe Biblical G o d : Selected Examples Black [African-American] Theology

3

James Cone finds it appropriate to define Black theology i n relation to Black history and Black power. Black history revives a past and ereates new symbols to replace those destroyed b y slavemasters. Black power means that Black people accept the ineffectiveness o f divine worship and appeals to human conscience for bringing an end to their oppressed condition. Prayers, hymns and sermons, passive resistance and appeals to reason and philosophy w i l l never truly improve the lot o f the exploited.

"We wait i n vain for the H o l y Spirit on this matter!" Why? Because "Oppressors have no conscience except that o f defending their o w n interests."

Black power, therefore, must terminate the master's oppressive control over Black life, history, and destiny.

4

5

Black theology simply places these efforts toward Black liberation in a theological context. A n d because liberation is the dominant theme o f Black theology, Israel's Exodus story serves as Black theology's most powerful narrative and symbolic expression. For Cone, "To speak o f the God o f Christianity is to speak o f him who has defined himself according to the liberation o f the oppressed." I n summary, Cone means to establish that the God o f Scripture defines Himself as Savior.

6

The value o f this exploration may be measured on two counts: (1) its respect for the sincerity and for the intensity o f all points o f view represented; and (2) the degree to that the dialog o f all involved produces clearer theological understandings that glorify God, truly honor His Word, and bring spiritual benefit to the human participants. As to the first o f these, many theologians who speak w i t h i n the multicultural context are voices crying out against the pain o f injustice. Commenting on the sense o f subjugation that provokes such protest Albert Camus wrote that "There is, i n fact, nothing i n common between a master and a slave; it is impossible to speak and communicate w i t h a person who has been reduced to servitude." Sympathetic listening does not typically occur i n a master-slave relationship. To best appreciate the perspectives shared i n this hermeneutical dialog, the reader must be w i l l i n g to hear its participants as colleagues rather than as superiors or inferiors.

7

Our conversation treatment cannot be exhaustive. We may overlook certain nuances o f minjung, Black, feminist, or liberation theology. From intensity o f passion, deeper wells o f sensitivity and compassion, or a sense

Cone's insight into salvation as the transcendent dimension o f the Bible's God generally typifies a broad range o f cultural readings o f Scripture. A review o f other regional and indigenous theologies highlights the unifying force o f this concept. This understanding o f a God who liberates constructs the platform o f biblical interpretation i n which South Africans, African-Americans, and subcontinental Indians may stand together. It is the scarlet cord to which Korean minjung and mestizo Indian both cling, a faith that unites Latinos i n Chicago and N e w York w i t h West Indians in London. The anchor o f all these theological ships is a security i n allegiance to a God who sets women, slaves, and children free from each one's peculiar oppression and from their common tyranny, a Deity who cares enough about justice to defend and to vindicate the cause o f the world's despised, downtrodden, rejected, and forgotten.

272

273

2

Hermeneutics & Culture

Hermeneutics & Culture Minjung

15

Theology

Minjung theology reads the Bible from the point o f view o f the minjung, identified as those "politically oppressed, socially alienated, economically exploited and kept uneducated in cultural and intellectual matters." A h n Byung-Mu, pioneer o f minjung theology, reassesses the crowd [ochlos] in the gospel o f M a r k as synonymous w i t h the minjung. A h n concludes that Jesus' words i n Mark 3:34, "Behold M y mother and M y brothers!" constitute the crowd as a new community or family, a replacement for His original familial connections. Mathew 12:49 reports Jesus as pointing to His disciples [mathetai] rather than to the crowd [ochlos] as He makes the statement. But because ochlos is crucial to Ahn's theology, He asserts that mathetai has been substituted for ochlos i n Matthew i n order to reduce the unpalatability o f Jesus' radicalism. B y the same token, says A h n , the parallel passage i n Luke has completely deleted the statement "Behold M y mother and M y brothers."

8

9

10

11

Ahn's sympathies w i t h the minjung are seen to be expressive o f Jesus' sympathies w i t h the crowds who followed H i m . Consistent w i t h this quasi-revisionist reading o f Scripture, A h n is able to interpret wandering Israel, Moses' wilderness congregation ( N u m 27:17), as a crowd o f needy followers, hungry, and following h i m but alienated from their rulers.

12

Feminist Theology 13

I n her article "Women's Rereading o f the B i b l e , " Elsa Tamez laments the sanctification o f "old-time antiwomen customs o f Hebrew culture."

Idealizing these ancient customs as "Thus says the L o r d " now makes marginalized womanhood a normal part o f daily life. Tamez identifies three problems that issue, she says, from misreading the Bible: First, the deleterious effect on women and men who have internalized anti-woman biblical readings; second, the legitimacy o f texts that command the marginalization o f women; and third, mainly among Protestants, the principle o f biblical authority as traditionally received.

elation works always in favor o f those who have least." Understanding this, women would know that they are called "to deny the authority o f those readings that harm them."

16

Instead o f rejecting the Bible, as is the case w i t h some first-world feminists, which she criticizes as "an exaggerated reaction," Tamez discovers a reading key that cancels and disallows the texts found to be hostile to women. Her key opens the Bible from a woman's perspective and welcomes i n the w o r l d o f the poor. I t functions through the core theme o f liberation, underscoring the principle that "God is on the side o f the oppressed." Because Tamez has no doubt that God "has a preferential option for the poor," her perspective makes no distinction between feminist needs and the crisis o f poverty.

17

18

Every liberation reading from the perspective of Latin American women must be understood within the framework that arises from the situation o f the poor. In a context of misery, malnutrition, repression, torture, Indian genocide, and war—in other words, in a context o f death—there is no greater priority than framing and articulating the readings according to these situations.

19

Like those o f other gender- and culture-based hermeneutics, Elsa Tamez' voice, in all its moderation, interprets the message o f Scripture in much the same way—from the perspective of the poor and oppressed, whether women, Blacks, or Indians, and for the sake o f their liberation.

Multicultural Bible Readings

14

There is interesting congruity between Tamez' views on the Protestant problem o f biblical authority and her solution for all three dilemmas just mentioned. Protestants balk before the classic Pauline texts that "demand women's submission to men," because, however unacceptable this requirement may seem, they encounter it i n a book that they define as being without error. B u t neither the Protestant problem nor any o f the others would exist i f all readers took the Bible for what i t really is: "a testimony o f a Judeo-Christian people w i t h a particular culture, for w h o m holy rev274

The foregoing examples o f African-American, South Korean, and ferninist hermeneutics may be multiplied both w i t h i n each o f those fields and across the spectrum o f multicultural biblical readings. They offer glimpses o f the w o r l d as seen by certain specialized interpreters whose perspective differs from, and strongly contrasts with, the traditional articulations that dominated Christian theology before the middle o f the twentieth century.

They also suggest how Scripture and the God o f Scripture, specifically Jesus, are viewed as relevant to that world. I n some cases, these readers express concern for the Bible's influence in advancing the colonializing process. I n Stanley J. Samartha's b i g question the foreignness o f European interpretation, compounded by that o f Semitic origins and oral traditions, heightens the hermeneutical distance: How can the Bible, a Semitic book formed through oral and written traditions in an entirely different geographic, historical, and cultural context, appropriated and interpreted for so many centuries by the West through 275

Hermeneutics & Culture

Hermeneutics & Culture

hermeneutic tools designed to meet different needs and shaped by different historical factors, now be interpreted in Asia by Asian Christians for their own people?

3. Biblical Evaluation

20

Yet, the matter is not simply a question o f Asian versus Western scriptures. Even more than the Bible itself, the English language is seen as a major instrument o f a theological colonizing process. Although it is the language o f almost all Asian Christian theology, it acts mostly as a second language for Asian Christians who are, therefore, constrained to theological interaction in a medium one stage removed from their instincts and primary culture. "The decolonization o f speech is far more difficult than the decolonization o f the land."

Andrea Ng'weshemi's social-psychological analysis further extends this enquiry into the authority o f Western biblical traditions. She finds the very process o f Christian conversion seriously wanting. She notes that the questions aimed at baptismal candidates require them to deny themselves, their religion, and their cultural practices, in order "to appropriate the religion, culture and civilization ofthe missionary." Ng'weshemi argues that in antithesis to this self-denial the candidate's new destiny was to become like the missionary. "This meant that to be like the missionary meant to be human." She believes African-liberation theology to be the natural and logical reaction against this dehumanizing o f the African through Christian conversion. It is through such liberation o f African humanity and the African psyche that God demonstrates the presence and the working o f His kingdom in the world. For as Jesus' ministry shows, God's kingdom stands for "the complete reversal o f alienation, total change, sovereign life, the life 'to the f u l l ' willed by G o d . " 21

22

23

24

The immediately preceding definition o f God's kingdom, taken from an influential book on liberation theology, is drawn from a chapter entitled "From Out o f the Oppressed: A N e w Humanity." Expanding upon the significance ofthe w o r d "liberation," authors Leonardo and Clodovis B o f f remark that it is a w o r d that embraces at once both the salvation o f the whole person and that ofthe whole w o r l d . B o f f and B o f f evidently know o f an o l d humanity and o f a lost world. Somewhat surprisingly, cultureand gender-based theologies make short shrift o f the origins o f the old humanity and the original condition o f the now lost world. W i t h due regard for the value o f contextualization, it seems that at the very minimum, issues o f human orientation and destiny should include the question, H o w did we get here?

25

26

276

Unawareness o f roots often produces disorientation. Meaningful gospel conversations, therefore, must involve awareness about roots. Even as -his ministry showed full sensitivity to multicultural issues, Paul's work provides strong support for this position. He was all things to all people, "to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might w i n Jews: to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might w i n those who are under the law; to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might w i n those who are without law; to the weak I became as weak, that I might w i n the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might b y all means save some" (1 Cor 9:20-22). This passage indicates that every effort should be made to proclaim the gospel i n an appropriate and meaningful way to today's subgroupings, whether gendered, continental, or ethnic. Yet, his contextualization o f the gospel message on Mars H i l l (Acts 17) shows that Paul understood the importance o f anchorage.

Five facts particularly stand out in Paul's Athenian discourse that relate directly to the present discussion. Paul introduces his God to the sophisticated but spiritually ignorant Athenians i n terms o f (1) His personhood, (2) His creative and sustaining power, (3) His inclusiveness, (4) His judicial authority, and (5) His redemptive purpose.

On these five we may only briefly comment here. (1) Paul intends that the Athenians come to know his God as a personal being. His use o f the neuter in reference to the god o f their conception "what you worship" clearly contrasts w i t h his choice o f the masculine singular to describe the deity whom he means to present to them (Acts 17: 24). (2) Creation is God's hallmark. B y virtue o f His creative power we know He is God. His daily provision for the entire creation is but a constant reiteration o f that deity which is uniquely His. Needing nothing, He is not served by human hands, but all depend on H i m . He Himself [emphatic i n the Greek] gives all creation its life, its breath, its everything. (3) God is inclusive. Paul must know that this affirmation jars Greek exclusiveness to the bone. But neither his learning, sensitivity, nor flexibility permit h i m to modify the full force o f this fact. He tells it plainly, unadomedly: God made us all o f "one blood" (17:26).

The belief was one that no Greek, and especially no Athenian, was likely to accept. For such, the distinction between Greek and barbarian was radical and essential. The one was by nature meant to be the slave of the other (Aristotle, Politics i. 2. 6). But there was no place in Paul's theology for a "superior" race. He believed the Genesis account o f the creation of man.

He saw the oneness o f physical structure, o f potential or actual develop277

Hermeneutics & Culture

Hermeneutics & Culture ment, which forbids any one race or nation—Hebrew, Hellenic, Latin, or Teutonic—to assume that it is the cream and flower of humanity.

27

It stands to reason that as surely as Greek and barbarian are united in origins, so are all the peoples o f today's world. A n y disregard for, or diminution of, this fact i n favor o f economic, ethnic, or gender difference militates against the resolution o f humanity's common dilemma.

(4) Because He is L o r d o f all, because He sustains all by His continuous providences, God may call all to account. He is Judge o f the whole world.

(5) God's judicial authority is confirmed by His redemptive miracle, a miracle available to every one who is w i l l i n g , "to feel after H i m " (Acts 17:27, K J V ) . He guarantees that we w i l l find H i m i f we w i l l search w i t h all our heart (Jer 29:13). Jesus, Son o f God and Savior by the resurrection from the dead, is the climax ofthe gospel. His saving work, His creation o f a new humanity—these climactic possibilities issue from who He is.

A Comparison Paul, the great gospel preacher, was ever committed to contextualization. As such his methodology validates current attempts to construct theologies o f specific relevance to specific people. His approach is exemplary and his starting point significant. He differs i n this regard from today's indigenous voices who would speak liberation grounded i n biblical categories. A comparison between Paul's and current theological departure points reveals the following contrast: A)

The starting point for James Cone's contextualization is his Blackness The starting point for Paul's contextualization i n Acts 17:24 is God

B)

The starting point for Cone's theologizing is liberation The starting point for Paul's theologizing is Creation

Multiculturalism and Biblical Authority

Eurocentrism, should feminism or Africanism then replace the forces that they oppose? Would erasing patriarchy not make feminism guilty o f the same violence for which male domination is criticized?

One supreme question overrides all others: Given the hostility o f their rhetoric against one another, which o f these competing perspectives is supposed to be the correct one from which to read the Bible? We cannot deny that these hermeneutics have a major point in common. It is the theme o f privilege versus non-privilege. Still, it is noteworthy how consistently adversarial relationships o f sacred Scripture favor me, the particular exegete, while condemning whomever I find to be m y politico-economic or sociocultural rival or enemy. To a laudable extent culture- and gender-based Bible exegetes discover a message from God for themselves and their people through Bible study. A t the same time, it is difficult to concede the good o f Bible reading that consistently works for m y personal or group vindication and for m y neighbors' denunciation. Such results by their apparent self-serving character may serve to invalidate the study that produces them. Moreover, they suggest that interpretation and application may be more linked, in such instances, to external and to visible elements that distinguish culture from culture than to aspects o f human nature that we all share.

Whereas the externals matter and material artifacts also are expressions o f our culture, and because people and societies are knowable "by their fruits" (Matt 7:16), exegesis should not ignore them. Nevertheless, sound scholarship w i l l not undermine the Bible's moral authority by designing "us and them" categories in which we are vindicated by virtue o f our gender, race, or wealth while they stand condemned for theirs.

Again, conscious, subconscious, or unconscious a priori commitments to self-vindication and against the other i n Bible reading challenge the authority o f sacred Scripture and compromise the transcendency o f the sola scriptura principle. I t is both predictable and proper that Bible reading be grounded i n one's o w n experience. I t is both dangerous and distorted that one's o w n experience become the basis or litmus test for Scripture's vindications. Multicultural readings often are understood this way even i f it is not necessarily their intent. Often enough they are responding to perceived imbalances i n theology. Whether they blame the church or the Bible for these flaws, they wish to redress existing wrongs and to correct existing imbalances by adding the weight o f perspectives long ignored.

Personal experience is the point o f departure for practicing theology, whether Asian, African, Latino, or feminist. While not universally the case, it is predominantly so. Arguments for South Asian versus Semitic and European, Latino feminist versus anti-woman Scriptures, or AfricanAmerican versus Caucasian provoke significant questions: I f feminism, for example, is right to oppose patriarchy, or Africanism is right to oppose

But i f the point o f departure is personal experience rather than divine revelation, their conclusions can hardly be balanced or ultimately beneficial to themselves or anyone else. The irony o f such culturally bound hermeneutics turns out to be that their inordinate emphasis on Jesus as

278

279

Hermeneutics & Culture

Hermeneutics & Culture

Savior, rather than Creator, emerges as the most significant theological weakness o f multicultural biblical interpretations. Lacking the foundation o f confidence in the revelatory authority o f Genesis 1-11, they are forced to scramble for moorings.

The theme o f the seventh assembly o f the World Council o f Churches may be taken by some as affirming a clear creation theology. "Come H o l y Spirit," it invited, "Renew the Whole Creation." Added to this was a prayer that challenged delegates, from time to time, w i t h the plea, "Giver o f Life—Sustain your Creation!" However, Presbyterian theologian and feminist Chung H y u n K y u n g cast into doubt the true significance o f this language. Charged w i t h addressing the plenary session on the assembly's theme, Professor Chung began her address by invoking a variety o f spirits—of martyrs, students o f Tiananmen Square, spirits o f Earth, A i r , and Water, and "The spirit o f the Liberator, our brother Jesus, tortured and killed on the cross." There may be those o f the W C C who exalt the Bible's infallible authority, but given Chung's conspicuous role and her exposition o f the assembly's theme, it seems reasonable to wonder to what extent the Creator God o f Genesis 1-11 is the L o r d o f such a theology. I n Professor Chung's explanation, those who accuse her o f syncretism are part o f Western, male intellectualism and power wielding, individuals who have set the limits o f the Spirit's work for 2000 years. But "Third-world theologies," she contends, "are the new paradigm." Whatever its newness, Chung's paradigm w i t h its plurality o f converging spirits is neither Bible-based nor intended to affirm Scripture's transcendence and uniqueness.

Though God spoke to specific generations . . . He saw to it that future generations reading the Word of God would understand therein a body of thought, teaching, and doctrine that goes beyond the local and limited circumstances during which they were produced.

33

Moreover,

28

29

30

God's Word is infallible and endures forever. Christ declares, "Verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled" (Matt 5:18). God's Word will endure through the ceaseless ages of eternity (UL 96).

Conclusion M u c h remains to be said on the topic o f personal and/or group-based presuppositions i n a context o f ethnic, gender, and other readings o f Scripture. Our conversation has not been exhaustive either for the range o f hermeneutics or for the scholarship o f any particular hermeneutic among them. Decades ago, speaking o f Black theology, M a r k Chapman noted that " A t no point i n its development has [ i t ] been a monolithic enterprise."

The same is no doubt true o f each o f the culture- and gender-based hermeneutics here reviewed. Matters may have been oversimplified. Also, the theologies produced by these hermeneutics are not static theologies. As Tinyiko Sam Maluleke observes, "The African poor are pouring scorn at 'liberation-rhetoric' regardless o f the quarters from where it emanates because . . . they remain poor . . . . " Neither politico-economic nor theological flourish o f phrase has brought them what they hoped. O f necessity, then, theologians continue the search for something that w i l l work.

Emerging new paradigms may soon date this critique. Holistic perspectives i n the spirit o f the seventh World Council o f Churches assembly give significantly greater attention to ecological matters, linking them to issues such as feminism and indigenous spiritualities. Gaia and queer theology also gather under this holistic shelter.

34

35

Turning to the views o f Tamez and Samartha, it must be insisted that Protestant confidence i n biblical authority is neither a reaction against papal authority nor the source o f interpretive problems. Protestants are not reactionary, because they know that the H o l y Spirit, not the church, is the supernatural parent o f Scripture. Tamez' view that the Bible's antiwoman texts must be disregarded or reinterpreted; Samartha's deference to Hindu and Buddhist scriptures, his citing o f oral Semitic traditions as a difficulty for Bible interpretation; Ahn's view that Lukan theology required deletion o f a Jesus statement—all o f these expressions betray a limited and inadequate view o f the Bible's authority. Their statements are not totally surprising, since editor Sugirtharajah explains that his authors use historical-critical methods o f interpretation. These methods reduce the Bible to the status o f a document, however venerated, produced by mortals, over which we their fellow mortals may stand as judge. But human involvement i n the Bible's composition does not authorize us to see it as conditioned by all the feelings o f our infirmities:

A n d yet, we are able to offer summarizing comments o f relevance to the field. Generally speaking, the starting point for scholars' contextualization is self and the group o f selves. Even i n Maluleke's vision o f its future, African theology remains grounded i n the collective self, however disparate and varied that self may be. But Paul shows that our starting point must be God as He has made Himself known to us. The Bible is our authoritative source o f information, God's unique revelation o f Himself to us. Again, the starting point for the scholars discussed above is the here and now. Paul shows that our starting point must be the beginning i n which

280

281

31

32

Hermeneutics & Culture

Hermeneutics & Culture God made all things superlatively good. Although sin has marred His perfeet creation, He is committed to its restoration.

In God's program o f restoration, the role o f the Seventh-day Adventist church's assignment continues to be to repair the breach in God's law and i n His Word. I t is to finish the Reformation work o f turning from human means o f salvation to God's way and to His Word alone. It builds on biblically derived understanding. Disoriented humanity must recover the indispensable truth o f its origin at the hand o f a loving Creator God. Only when viewed from this perspective can Christ's salvation appear i n its true majesty. To reach these goals requires the firmest adherence to the principle o f sola scriptura.

References Unless otherwise noted, all biblical quotations are from the New King James Version.

1. Lesslie Newbigin, Foolishness to the Greeks: The Gospel and Western Culture (Grand Rapids, M I : Eerdmans, 1986), p. 3.

2. Albert Camus, The Rebel: An Essay on Man in Revolt. With a foreword

by Sir Herbert Read; L Homme Revolte, rev. & trans., Anthony Bower (New York, NY: Vintage Books, 1956), p. 283.

3. We acknowledge the distinction between African-American and African theology discussed by John Mbiti and Desmond Tutu. See J. Mbiti " A n African Views American Black Theology," in James H. Cone and Gayraud S. Wilmore, eds., Black Theology: A Documentary History, 2 vols. (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1993); 1:379-384. Mbiti holds that "Black Theology cannot and will not become African Theology" (p. 382). By contrast, Desmond Tutu sees Black (AfricanAmerican) Theology as the inner circle of something wider, encompassed by African theology. See Desmond M . Tutu, "Black Theology/African Theology—Soul Mates or Antagonists?," in Cone and Wilmore, 1:385-392.

14. Ibid., p. 50.

15. Ibid., p. 51.

16. Ibid., p. 52.

17. Ibid.

18. Ibid., pp. 55-56.

19. Ibid., p. 55.

20. Stanley J. Samartha, "Scripture & Scriptures," in Sugirtharajah, p. 21.

21. Ibid., p. 23.

22. Andrea Ng'weshemi, '"Who A m I? Who Are We?' Religious Conversion and Identity Crisis: Case of Africa," in Africa Theological Journal, 24, no. 2 (2001): 25.

23. Ibid., p. 30.

24. Leonardo Boff and Clodovis Boff, Introducing Liberation Theology, (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1987), p. 90.

25. Ibid., pp. 90-95.

26. Ibid., p. 91.

27. F. D. Nichol, ed., Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, rev. ed., 7 vols. (Washington, D . C : Review and Herald, 1980), 6:352-353.

28. See Michael Kinnamon, ed., Signs of the Spirit: Official Report of the Seventh Assembly of the World Council of Churches, Canberra, Australia 7-20 February 1991 (Geneva: WCQ1991), pp. 54-59.

29. Chung Hyun Kyung, "Come Holy Spirit—Renew the Whole Creation," in Kinnamon, p. 39.

30. Kinnamon, p. 16.

31. For adequate discussion of the so-called 'anti-woman texts,' see Richard M . Davidson, "Headship, Submission, and Equality in Scripture," in Nancy Vyhmeister, ed., Women in Ministry: Biblical and Historical Perspectives (Berrien Springs, M I : Andrews University Press, 1998), pp. 259-295.

32. R. S. Sugirtharajah, "Introduction: The Margin as a Site of Creative Revisioning," in Sugirtharajah, p. 4.

3 3. Gerhard F. Hasel, Understanding the Living Word of God (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1980), p. 72.

34. Mark Chapman, "Annotated Bibliography of Black Theology: 19661979," in Cone & Wilmore, 1:441.

35. Tinyiko Sam Maluleke, "The Rediscovery of the Agency of Africans: An Emerging Paradigm of Post-Cold War and Post-Apartheid Black and African Theology," Journal of 'Theology for Southern Africa 108.1 (2000): 26.

4. Cone and Wilmore, 1:108.

5. Ibid.

6. Ibid., 1:109.

7. Ibid.

8. From the editorial introduction to the essay by Ahn Byung-Mu, "Jesus and the Minjung in the Gospel of Mark," Voices from the Margin: Interpreting the Bible in the Third World, ed. R. S. Sugirtharajah (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1995), p. 85.

9. Ibid., pp. 84-104.

10. Ibid., p. 90.

11. Ibid.

12. Ibid., p. 88.

13. Elsa Tamez, "Women's Rereading of the Bible," in Sugirtharajah, pp. 48-57.

Boff, Leonardo and Boff, Clodovis. Introducing Liberation Theology. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1987.

Cone, James H., and Wilmore, Gayraud S. eds. Black Theology: A Documentary History. 2 vols. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1993.

Kim, Kirsteen, "Post-Modem Mission: A Paradigm Shift in David Bosch's Theol-

282

283

Selected Bibliography

Hermeneutics & Culture ogy of MissionTJnternational Review of Mission 89, no. 353 (April 2000) 172-179.

Maluleke, Tinyiko Sam. "The Rediscovery of the Agency of Africans: An Emerging Paradigm of Post-Cold War and Post-Apartheid Black and African Theology." Journal of Theology for Southern Africa 108.1 (2000) 19-37.

Sugirtharajah, R. S., ed., Voices From the Margin: Interpreting the Bible in the Third World. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1995.

CHAPTER XVI

INTERPRETING AND APPLYING BIBLICAL ETHICS Ron du Preez

Introduction The task o f ethics is to examine the moral aspects o f human nature and o f human behavior, to clarify issues i n moral decision-making, and to facilitate the formation o f moral character. I n brief, ethics is the study or science o f morality. However, in line w i t h contemporary usage, the general terms "ethics" and "morality," as well as other related words, w i l l be used interchangeably in this chapter.

1

Christian ethics, primarily through an examination o f the Bible, explores the kind o f moral character that Christians need to develop, the nature o f the moral agents, the moral behavior expected, the purposes for which ethical action is required, and the means available for its performance.

In the Scriptures, we find an abundance o f ethical material. While a cursory reading shows the biblical concern for ethics, unfortunately, some have ignored the variety o f biblical literature that relates to ethical concents. These include commands, laws, warnings, exhortations, prohibitions, vice- and -virtue lists, wisdom sayings, proverbs, etc.

While tradition, experience, and reason all can come into consideration for ethical reflection, the Word o f God is "the norm to evaluate all other sources."

2

A t times sincere believers have become confused when reading the specific commands o f Scripture. For example, on reading his Bible, a new believer came across the matter o f circumcision (see Gen 17:10; Exod 12:48; Lev 12:3; et al.) and was wondering whether this practice was still mandatory. I n one place the church board voted to purchase hats for wornen who showed up at church without head-coverings (see 1 Cor 11:5-7).

A n d what o f the regulation that states, " D o not wear clothing woven o f two kinds o f material" (Lev 19:19)?

Various scholars have commented on the challenge o f moving from the specific words in Scripture to living out the text in daily life. Despite these perceived problems, it is clear that the overall ethical teachings o f Scripture have enduring relevance for at least the following four reasons: 3

4

284

285

Interpreting and Applying Biblical

Interpreting and Applying Biblical Ethics 1) Though centuries have passed since the time o f the Bible writers, human nature is still subject to the same basic temptations o f pride, lust, greed, etc.

2) Although contemporary Christians may face new difficulties, such as A I D S and terrorism, the Bible still offers guidance and hope i n the midst o f these problems.

3) Biblical laws can be kept by God's power (Phil 1:6; 2:12-13), for, "whatever is to be done at His command may be accomplished i n His strength" ( C O L 333).

4) The call to the Christian to form a Christlike character (see 1 Cor 11:1; 1 Pet 2:21; etc.), is just as valid today as it was two millennia ago.

1. The Fivefold Task of Interpreting Biblical Ethics To explore and to understand the moral themes ofthe Bible the interpreter must engage in various overlapping and integrated critical operations.

These undertakings can be identified through an examination ofthe life and teachings o f Jesus. I n addition to His personal example and His explicit exhortations regarding prayer, practical guidance for extracting ethics from Scripture can be found in two encounters Jesus had, one o f which specifically dealt with matters o f morality (see Luke 10:25-28; 24:27; cf. 24:44).

A n analysis o f the essential methods used by Jesus on these occasions brings to light a vital fivefold task, incumbent on every interpreter o f the Word.

Supplication—The Submissive Task Jesus' words and works show the indispensability o f prayer (see M a r k 6:46; 14:38; Luke 5:16; 6:12; 9:28; 18:1). Ellen G. White cautioned: "Never should the Bible be studied w i t h o u t prayer," for "without the guidance o f the H o l y Spirit we shall be continually liable to wrest the Scriptures or to misinterpret them" (SC 9 1 , 110). Interpreters must be submissive to the guidance o f the H o l y Spirit in order to have their thoughts and their lives shaped by the Word. This submissive task responds to the vital question, "What does the Spirit desire to teach usl" Observation—The Descriptive Task

Law?" (Luke 10:25-26). His repeated referral to the written Word o f God as the basis for life and as the foundation o f His work is a significant feature o f the ministry o f Jesus (Matt 4:4, 7, 10; 12:1-7; Luke 24:44). Therefore, the observation phase calls for reading the text carefully. This descriptive task answers the query, "Wliat does the specific passage say?"

Synthesization—The Integrative Task But reading must not be done in isolation from the rest o f H o l y Writ.

In fact, the importance o f seeing texts w i t h i n the larger canonical context was emphasized by Jesus i n His trip to Emmaus. Here, Jesus "explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning h i m s e l f (Luke 24:27; cf. 24:44). This expanded reflection upon Scripture represents the synthesization phase. B y placing individual texts w i t h i n their larger canonical context the interpreter can find coherence in the moral vision o f Scripture.

This integrative task answers the broader query, "What do the Scriptures, as a whole, say?"

Interpretation—The Hermeneutical Task Returning to Jesus' encounter w i t h the expert i n the law, He asks, " H o w do you read it [i.e., the Law]?" (Luke 10:26). This second question o f Jesus was not merely a restatement o f His first query, "What is written in the Law?" In the immediate and broader usage o f the phrase "have you not read?" (Matt 12:3, 5; 19:4; 21:16, 42), this question is more than simply enunciating words—it deals with meaning. The interpretation phase has to do with understanding the passage for ethical reflection. This hermeneutical task answers the basic question, "What does this text mean for us?"

Application—The Pragmatic Task After the expert in the Law had appropriately responded by quoting two pivotal passages, Jesus challenged h i m , "Do this and y o u w i l l live" (Luke 10:28). After telling the story o f the Good Samaritan, Jesus essentially repeated this charge, saying, "Go and do likewise" (Luke 10:37).

This stage is the application phase. This pragmatic task that has to do with living out the Word i n concrete everyday life responds to the essential question, " What then shall we do?"

When Jesus was first approached by "an expert i n the L a w " with a question, He responded w i t h a counter-question, "What is written i n the 286

Ethics

287

Interpreting and Applying Biblical Ethics 2. Character Development as the Goal of Christian Ethics As a "lamp on m y path" (Ps 119:105, CJB), God's Word provides guidance for life's decisions. I n an expanded manner, 2 Timothy 3:16-17 indicates that " a l l Scripture is given by God and is useful" for "showing people what is wrong in their lives," and "for teaching how to live right" ( N C V ) . It is to these Scriptures that we now turn, i n order to understand why and how God wants to restore His moral image in humanity.

Restoration of the Image of God Solomon notes that thought processes influence action: "For as he thinks w i t h i n himself, so is he" (Prov 23:7, N A S B ) . This cause-effect relationship makes this call urgent: ' " D o n ' t even think o f doing evil to someb o d y ' " (Zech 7:10, N C V ) .

A similar linkage o f thinking and o f ethical action appears in Peter's counsel in which he says, "Therefore, prepare your minds for action; be self-controlled" (1 Pet 1:13) and "as obedient children, do not conform to the evil desires you had when you lived in ignorance. But just as he who called you is holy, so be holy in all you do; for it is written, 'Be holy, because I am h o l y ' " (vss. 14-16). Here we find the basic call o f biblical ethics, the call to be holy, to be like God, to have the image o f God restored in us.

"The goal o f Christian ethics is to help restore the image o f God in the human lifestyle." This call to holy l i v i n g begins i n the mind.

Hence the charge, "Be transformed by the renewing o f your m i n d " ( R o m 12:2). W i t h right thinking as the basis for right action, adherence to the norms articulated i n Philippians 4:8 w i l l foster restoration o f the image o f God. 5

Interpreting and Applying Biblical Ethics What does it mean to be "conformed to Christ"? I t emphasizes humility (Matt 11:29), love (John 13:34), and forgiveness (Col 3:13). It includes always doing "those things that please h i m [i.e., G o d ] " (John 8:29, N E T ) and being "obedient to the point o f death," as Jesus was (Phil 2:8, N K J V ) ; indeed, the believer is to "think and act like Christ Jesus" (Phil 2:5, N C V ) , fearless o f the future, faithful. I n every way, Jesus is the model o f moral behavior for Christians.

I n his focus on Jesus Christ as the core o f Christian ethics, R. E. O. White says, This is Christianity's unique contribution to ethics: the identification of the moral ideal with a historical person; the translation of ethical theory into concrete terms in a real human life; the expression of moral obligation in the language of personal loyalty; and the linking o f the highest moral aspiration with the most powerful motives of personal admiration, devotion, gratitude, and love.

6

The F r u i t ofthe Holy Spirit The N T places a large emphasis on the twofold role o f the H o l y Spirit in Christian ethics. First, He brings about a transformation o f character in believers so that they spontaneously manifest ethical virtues, such as love, j o y , peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control (Gal 5:22). Second, the H o l y Spirit guides believers i n ethical decision-making: "He w i l l guide you into all truth" (John 16:13), Jesus promises. B y the enlivening power o f t h e H o l y Spirit, a believer is transformed, sustained, and guided in the Christian walk (Gal 5:25).

A Relational Response of Love

Christian ethics focuses on the imitation o f Christ, w h o m we know only through the biblical record. Scripture's central purpose points us to Jesus (John 5:39; 2 T i m 3:15-17), the Savior o f the w o r l d and L o r d o f all life; One who reforms and transforms the sinner (2 Cor 5:17). Thus, "the person o f Jesus Christ becomes normative for Christian ethics." Since "imitation" can appear as a mere external conformity, it has been suggested that the phrase "being conformed to Christ" be used, since it speaks o f an internal process o f transformation by which the real presence o f Christ gradually changes the individual.

A study o f Scripture reveals the close tie between doing and being.

James admonishes believers, "Be doers o f the word, and not hearers only" (Jas 1:22, N K J V ) . According to Jesus, this "doing" ofthe Word w i l l be an automatic reaction—a response o f love (John 14:15). This type o f "loveresponse" can already be seen in the O T i n which God promises mercy to those "who love M e and keep M y commandments" (Exod 20:6, NKJV, emphasis supplied). Moreover, this relational response o f love is implied in the very manner i n which the Decalogue is introduced. God reminded His people that He had led them "out o f the land o f slavery" (Exod 20:2); and only then did He lay down His moral requirements. Thus, covenant morality reflects profound gratitude for undeserved deliverance. I n the same way, Christians respond to the divine initiative o f salvation w i t h a response

288

289

Conformed to Christ

Interpreting and Applying Biblical Ethics

Interpreting and Applying Biblical Ethics

o f love based i n their conformity to God's w i l l i n day-to-day living (Matt 7:15-23; Rom 6:1-4; Jas 2:14-16; 1 John 2:3-6). I n other words, the evidence o f genuine faith is obedience motivated by gratitude and by love.

3. Intra-Scriptural Guidelines to Distinguish Absolutes F r o m Cultural Rules There is a strong tendency among most ethicists to argue against the idea that the Bible prescribes moral absolutes. There could be many reasons for this beside the fact that many do not accept the Bible as authoritative for their lives. For one, humans do not like being told what to do by anyone, including God. Also, some avoid absolutes for fear o f "legalism," or for the alleged conflict between the "spirit" and the "letter" ofthe law.

Some theologians do not feel that it is possible or even legitimate to identify universal moral absolutes i n Scripture.

7

For the Bible-believer, however, there are sufficient reasons to believe in universal moral absolutes. To begin with, Christian morality is based on the unchanging nature o f God (e.g., M a i 3:6; 1 Pet 1:15, 16). Moreover, since humans are sinful by nature, there is a need for absolutes i n order to live together i n some sort o f harmony. Without absolutes, eventually there w o u l d be anarchy.

The astute Bible reader w i l l soon see that there are many biblical regulations that different Christian communities, i n varying degrees, no longer keep. The question thus arises: Are there any intra-scriptural guidelines to aid the interpreter i n discerning which regulations are cultural practices, thus no longer binding, and which are transcultural absolute norms still required o f all believers? Several proposals can help facilitate this process o f interpretation.

Discerning Transcultural Moral Absolutes

8

are forbidden to take it (vs. 13). God is truth; therefore, His image-bearers must emulate this character trait (vs. 16); and so forth. Since the Decalogue so fundamentally reflects a part o f God's nature, it is not surprising to find it repeated so often throughout Scripture. Because God does not change, the universal moral norms, grounded i n His nature, w i l l transcend time and culture.

An Overarching Biblical Theology. The interpreter must observe the morality and the theology that undergirds each law as a means o f determining its permanence. This w o u l d include noting the immediate and the larger contexts, the explicit reasons given for the legislation, the direct or the indirect references to earlier teaching, comparisons w i t h similar legislation, and the principle o f legitimate inference. Take for example, the issue o f the intentional abortion o f a human fetus, which is never explicitly addressed i n Scripture. M o r a l perspectives, however, can be extracted from the study o f c i v i l laws given to the Israelite theocracy i n w h i c h the unborn is accorded the status o f a l i v i n g person (Exod 21:22-25). Legitimate inferences also can be drawn from the interchangeable terms used for pre- and post-natal human life (e.g., Luke 1:41; cf. 2:12), from the concern shown for the vulnerable (e.g., Deut 24:17; Ps 10:14-18; Isa 1:17), and from a comparative study o f the overall sanctity-of-life theme i n Scripture (e.g., Gen 9:6; Deut 19:4-13; Rev 21:8).

9

10

The Ethical Patterns of the Creation Order. Universal moral norms are identifiable by their basis i n the Creation order. While some practices in Eden were obviously culturally relative, such as farming or the apparel o f the first family, the moral practices established there have a clear transcultural application. For example, regarding marriage we find Jesus taking His questioners back to the created order (Mark 10:6, 9). Similarly, as confirmed in the Decalogue, the seventh-day Sabbath is rooted i n the Creation order, and, therefore, has enduring moral significance.

Opposition to the Immoral Practices of Surrounding Cultures."

When practices intrinsic to pagan culture are forbidden i n Scripture, they are forbidden to all believers, as well. For example, the Bible openly condemns bestiality, which to varying degrees was part o f some ancient pagan cultures (see Lev 18:3, 23-28). Thus, when Scripture speaks directly against an ancient cultural practice, this indicates a transcultural norm.

The interpreter seeking to find the sometimes troublesome boundaries between divine mandates and cultural practices w i l l find several approaches and concepts helpful.

Reflection on the Moral Nature of God. Universal moral absolutes can be identified by their basis i n the moral nature o f the Creator. For example, the Ten Commandments have an obvious connection w i t h God's own nature. Since He is the only true and living God, who created humanity, He alone is to be worshiped, His name reverenced, and His day o f rest hallowed (Exod 20:1-11). Because He is the Giver o f human life, humans

Behavioral Expectations for Foreigners Living Among Israel. When specific activities are mentioned as being required o f both Israelites and o f the stranger that sojourns among them, such laws have a universal import.

For example, Leviticus 17 and 18 forbid certain practices to both Israelites and to foreigners: eating food offered to idols, eating blood or strangled

290

291

12

Interpreting and Applying Biblical Ethics

Interpreting and Applying Biblical

animals, and sexually immoral activities (including incest, adultery, polygamy, homosexuality, and bestiality). The early church saw these same practices as absolute norms and thus outlawed them (Acts 15:29).

Severity of the Penal Code for Infractions of Certain Laws. Comparison o f various laws in Scripture demonstrates that the more severe the penalty for the infraction o f a regulation, the more likely it is that the practice w i l l be transcultural. I n Israel, approximately twenty-five cases carried the death penalty. For example, striking (Exod 21:15) or cursing (Lev 20:9) or disobeying a parent (Deut 21:18-21), sacrificing children (Lev 20:1-5), kidnapping (Exod 21:16), witchcraft (Lev 20:27), and rape (Deut 22:25) all called for capital punishment. Furthermore, all o f these regulations are related i n some way to the Decalogue, which is universal in application.

13

Comparison of the Immediate Contextual Groupings.

A text or something w i t h i n it may be transcultural to the degree that other elements in a specialized context are transcultural. For instance, Scripture has many "vice- and -virtue lists" which usually represent a listing o f core values, practices, attitudes, and character traits that the author wants the reader either to avoid or to embrace (e.g., Prov 6:16-19; Jer. 7:9; Mark 7:21; 1 T i m 1:9-10). Out o f the hundreds o f items i n these vice- and -virtue lists, basically, all reflect transcultural values.

14

Foundation in Careful Theological Analogy. A n aspect o f a text w i l l be transcultural i f its basis is rooted in the character o f the Godhead through theological analogy. For example, the Bible instructs believers to love others as God has loved them (1 John 4:11), to be holy as God is holy (1 Pet 1:16), and to forgive "just as in Christ God forgave y o u " (Eph 4:32).

Since these attributes o f God's character are transcultural, they are to be exhibited i n the lives o f believers.

Expectations of a New Creation Community. A passage may be transcultural i f it is rooted i n new-creation material. For example, the various statements relating to "Jew and Greek/Gentile" (1 Cor 12:13; Gal 3:28; Col 3:11), provided certain profound sociological implications o f equality for the early church—implications that must continue to affect the conduct o f believers. Also, texts such as the Great Commission o f Matt 28:18-20 are likewise transcultural.

15

Ethics

Moreover, these universal laws w i l l not only be consistent w i t h one another but also through all periods o f human history.

17

Determining Culturally Relative Regulations Directly Expressed, or Clearly Implied, Statements in Scripture Itself. The most obvious culturally-restricted practices are identified by the context. I n reporting the complaint o f the Pharisees and o f the scribes regarding the manner in which Jesus' disciples were eating bread (Mark 7:123), the author includes a parenthetical statement (vss. 3-4) to indicate that such things were according to the "traditions o f the elders" ( N A S B ) . Similarly, regarding hair-length, Paul talks about the "practice" i n the churches at that time (1 Cor 11:16), which could be interpreted as an issue that is culturally relative.

Acknowledgment of the Temporal Nature of Ceremonial Regulations. M u c h o f the book o f Leviticus and considerable portions o f some other O T books deal with the cultic regulations given by God to Israel.

The very order and the context i n which the moral, civil, and ceremonial laws were first given in Exodus 20^40 implies that only the moral laws are transcultural absolutes. Moreover, Scripture itself indicates that the ceremonial practices foreshadowed the great acts o f salvation history, climaxing i n the sacrificial death o f Jesus Christ. M a n y N T passages recognize this, thus indicating that these cultic stipulations were temporal in nature (e.g., John 1:29; 1 Cor 5:7; Col 2:14-17; Heb 10:1-10).

Modification of the Original Cultural Norm by Scripture. A text may be bound to culture i f the Bible modifies the cultural norms. Consider, for example, inheritance rights. Only males had this right until the daughters o f Zelophehad bravely requested the inheritance o f their family land in view o f their father's dying without sons ( N u m 27:1-11; 36:1-13).

Incorporation of a Redemptive "Seed-bed" in the Text A practice may be seen as cultural i f "seed ideas" are present w i t h i n the rest o f the Bible to encourage further movement on a particular issue. The seed idea describes something at an early stage, although not fully developed, but merely suggestive o f what could be. For example, on the surface certain texts in Scripture appear to support slavery. Yet, texts such as the following actually incorporate a "seed-bed" that undermines the practice, thus suggesting its cultural relativity: "We were all baptized by one Spirit into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free" (1 Cor 12:13).

Consistency throughout the Revelation of Scripture—Universal norms can be identified also by their consistency throughout the progressive revelation o f the divine w i l l . This consistency is based on the fact that these laws are a transcript o f God's consistent and flawless character. I f we encounter an apparent conflict, it is because we have not understood the norms properly.

A Break Away From Other Biblical Regulations.

Scripture may, at times, reveal some variance in the treatment o f a subject, w h i c h on the surface may appear to be even a contradiction. However, this radical breakout

292

293

16

Interpreting and Applying Biblical Ethics

Interpreting and Applying Biblical

shows that the practice is merely cultural. For instance, the privileges and the rights o f the firstborn are theologized so frequently i n OT redemptive patterns (e.g., Exod 13:1-10; N u m 3:11-13) and i n N T Christology (e.g., Rom 8:29; Col 1:15) that one might think that this is a transcultural value.

However, several passages related to birth order, which consciously abandon the norm, suggest the likelihood that firstborn prominence is a culturebound custom (e.g., Gen 25:23; 48:12-20; 1 Sam 16:6-17:14).

Recognition of Purpose/Intent Statements in the Legislation. Sometimes the original purpose or intent o f legislation is related to a cultural practice. Then, even though the intent may continue and the purpose be fulfilled i n a different context, the original cultural practice appears to be time-bound. Consider, for example, the N T statement that Christians are to "submit" to the king (1 Pet 2:13). Does this mean that the Bible requires a monarchial system o f government? This passage immediately provides the purpose for the admonition "that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk o f foolish men" (1 Pet 2:15). I n other words, while the underlying principle o f respect toward political leaders and submission to the law still applies, the aspect o f monarchy-type submission itself should be classified as a culture-bound element o f the text.

18

19

Specificity of a Limited Recipient or Cultural Situation.

Specific commands to individuals i n Scripture are more culturally confined than general statements. For instance, Jesus commanded the rich young ruler to "go, sell everything y o u have and give to the poor ' (Mark 10:21). Similarly, "gleaning" laws o f an agricultural society (e.g., Lev 19:9-10) are time-bound, even though the principle o f concern for the poor, as seen i n both examples noted, is a transcultural obligation.

5

20

In brief, when one takes into account all the guidelines for determining whether a command has cultural or has transcultural significance, the absolute norms o f the Bible can be identified appropriately. Since God's "commandments are not burdensome" (1 John 5:3, N A S B ) , and since we know that we "can do a l l things through Christ" (Phil 4:13, N K J V ) , the challenge is "to live soberly, righteously, and godly, i n this present w o r l d " (Titus 2:12, KJV). A n d when God's laws are written i n our inmost being (Ps 119:11), w i t h the Psalmist, we w i l l be able to say " I delight to do Thy w i l l , O m y God" (Ps 40:8).

Discovering M o r a l Norms in Bible Stories Since much o f the biblical material takes the form o f narrations and stories, they deserve specific attention, beginning w i t h several precautionary suggestions. What shall we do, for instance, w i t h Bible stories i n 294

Ethics

which believers break God's law? Some have referred to 1 Corinthians 10:11 ( N K J V ) : " N o w all these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for our admonition." O n this basis they have claimed that the manner i n which OT people lived provides us w i t h "God-approved examples o f how He wants us to behave i n similar moral conflicts." This verse, however, is a summary o f the preceding passage, where Paul reminds the Corinthian Christian " N o w these things became our examples, to the intent that we should not lust after evil things as they also lusted" (1 Cor 10:6, N K J V ) . Then Paul enumerates some o f these evils, such as idolatry and sexual immorality (vss. 7, 8), together w i t h some o f God's judgments (vss. 8-10). Instead o f mimicking Scripture stories, the immediate and broader contexts must be considered i n order to distinguish between what the Bible actually teaches and what it simply reports i n order to show how far believers drifted from God and His holy law.

21

In other words, there are examples i n the Bible that we should not follow. Therefore, 1 Corinthians 10:11 is a summons to all believers, as Ellen G. White noted, to "avoid the evils recorded and imitate only the righteousness o f those who served the L o r d " (4T 12).

When it comes to using Bible narratives to instruct others, we face the danger o f wrenching a "line from its scriptural context as a 'proof-text' for a moral stance that actually was formed on different grounds." This penchant for moralization can turn Bible stories into instruments o f condemnation that cause despair without hope, thus degrading Scripture to the level o f an instrument o f social control. Moralization also can prevent us from understanding all that the biblical passage might have to say to us.

22

23

A n equally grave danger faces interpreters when for personal use we select only "safe stories that make no demands and expect nothing i n return, and that fit comfortably w i t h the stories we already have chosen for ourselves." Furthermore, there is the distinct danger "that w e may use stories and incidents i n Scripture to justify almost any action." For example, some may argue that since David who was a "man after God's own heart" had many wives, the practice o f polygamy should not be condemned.

24

25

26

Recognizing the dangers o f simplistically imitating Scripture stories, the following two biblically sound cautions have been suggested: 1) Commendation o f a person or notable action need not imply commendation o f every element o f the men and o f the women cited.

2) Reporting or narrating an event i n Scripture is not to be equated w i t h approving, recommending, or making that action or characteristic normative for emulation by all subsequent readers.

27

295

Interpreting and Applying Biblical Ethics

Interpreting and Applying Biblical Ethics Therefore, each story must be analyzed for literary progression, dramatic structure, and stylistic features.

4. Proposals for Reliably Interpreting Scripture Narratives Biblical narratives are crucial i n that they cause us to reflect on ourselves and to ask deeper questions about ourselves. Indeed, they provide an interesting vehicle for the message o f Scripture. As Frank Holbrook noted, " N o serious interpreter o f the Bible can fail to recognize the significance o f the principles by which the N T writers interpreted the OT. Although the principles are seldom explicitly stated, they can be derived by careful analysis."

28

Consistency with Available Information In an attempt to prove that it is right to ignore a moral law as long as, in so doing, one keeps the "higher law," one ethicist claims, "David and his men who broke into the temple and stole the consecrated bread were declared guiltless by Christ (Matt 12:3-4)." ° Then, based on this assertion, the following idea is promulgated, "Perhaps 'stealing' bread from the temple (that is taking it without permission o f the proper authority) is not morally wrong when starvation o f God's servant is the other alternative."

A meticulous reading o f the original story as found i n 1 Samuel 21 sheds valuable light on the brief comment by Jesus i n Matthew 12:3-4. Fleeing from Saul, David and his men arrived at Nob where he requested food from the priest; Ahimelech. Since the only available food was the consecrated bread reserved for priests exclusively, Ahimelech, after receiving guidance from God (1 Sam 22:10), gave them the bread. Thus, when this chronicle o f the consecrated bread is interpreted i n a manner consistent w i t h the scriptural account, it becomes clear that "this incident cannot be used to show that Christ approved o f breaking O T [moral] laws because o f expediency."

3

31

32

Consideration of the Complete Narrative Take, for example, the story o f Joseph. Based on the biblical narrative, it can be interpreted as one o f relentless faithfulness to the living God. But is it possible that Joseph suffered from the sin o f pride, as indicated by his flaunting o f his second dream before his family or his later statement about " a l l o f my glory i n Egypt" (Gen 45:13, N K J V ) ? Furthermore, what about Joseph's several deceptive actions toward his brothers over an extended period o f time?

29

True, there is no direct statement in the narrative specifically condemning Joseph for these misleading actions. However, careful examination o f Scripture reveals that a lack o f direct condemnation of conduct i n a chronicle is no indication o f the tightness o f the deeds performed. Rather, the moral acceptability o f the actions of Bible characters must be assessed on the basis o f whether or not their conduct "violates a clear comment o f God." Therefore, in the case o f Joseph, the complete narrative as recorded in the Bible leads to at least the following conclusions: that Joseph is an example o f one who stood firmly against temptation because o f the relationship he had w i t h God (Gen 39:8-10); that he displayed a forgiving spirit towards his brothers (Gen 50:15-21); and that, despite the evidences o f Joseph's moral lapses into pride, a contra-faith marriage, and repeated deception, a gracious God was still w i l l i n g to work i n and through h i m to accomplish His w i l l for His people. Seen this way God is the hero o f the story, and no human is placed on a pedestal as the paragon o f perfection.

As Scripture declares, Jesus alone is our perfect ethical example, the sinless model o f morality (1 Pet 2:21-22; Heb 4:15; 2 Cor 5:21).

296

33

Clear Contextual Implications On occasion, when Bible accounts omit some details, one might be lured into conjectural interpretation. For example, it has been asserted, "No doubt Obadiah the prophet engaged i n some deceptive activity to save the lives o f one hundred prophets o f God (1 Kgs 18:13)." Thorough investigation ofthe biblical record indicates that there is no evidence that Obadiah engaged i n "deceptive activity." The passage simply records that, while Jezebel was murdering the prophets o f the Lord, Obadiah hid one hundred o f them, "and fed them w i t h bread and water" (1 Kgs 18:13). I f one is to surmise, as alleged, that Obadiah engaged i n some type o f deception in order to protect the lives o f these men, then one could speculate that he probably stole the bread and water for them, since commodities were certainly i n short supply during a famine. But speculation beyond the context is unacceptable; it is far wiser to accept the text as it reads—as a story o f a fearless, faith-filled believer.

34

35

36

Chronological Readings of the Text I n the Bible, we obviously do not have complete stories that record every detail. Rather, we find interpreted accounts o f historical events. For 297

Interpreting and Applying Biblical Ethics instance, John explicitly admits that his Gospel does not include "many things that Jesus d i d " (John 21:25, N K J V ) . Nevertheless, the selective nature o f his account does not impinge on its truthfulness.

Unfortunately, some have conflated various Scripture stories so that crucial information is distorted. Take the case history o f David. Frequently, in the discussion on polygamy one hears the argument: " D a v i d had many wives; yet, the Bible records that he was 'a man after God's o w n heart.'"

A chronological interpretation o f the David chronicle reveals the following: Coming immediately after Saul had presumptuously officiated as a priest, Samuel informed h i m that he would lose his kingdom (1 Sam 13:814). I n this context, Samuel stated: "The L o r d has sought out for Himself a man after His o w n heart" (vs. 14). The young David, selected by God to replace Saul, was handsome, healthy, and l i v i n g according to God's w i l l (1 Sam 16:7, 12). When read chronologically, the narrative shows that it was while David was unmarried and before he became embroiled i n polygamy that God called h i m as "a man after His o w n heart." I n accord, Ellen G. White notes, Skeptics have assailed Christianity [sic], and ridiculed the Bible, because David gave them occasion. They bring up to Christians the case of David, his sin in the case of Uriah and Bathsheba, his polygamy, and then assert that David is called a man after God's own heart, and i f the Bible record is correct, God justified David in his crimes.

I was shown that it was when David was pure, and walking in the counsel of God, that God called him a man after his own heart. When David departed from God, and stained his virtuous character by his crimes, he was no longer a man after God's own heart (4SG 87, emphasis supplied).

37

Compatibility W i t h the Decalogue

Interpreting and Applying Biblical Ethics viously, in this case, just as in Rahab's, one must determine whether such behavior is compatible with God's eternal moral law, the standard in the judgment (James 2:12; Eccl 12:13-14). As Jesus puts it, " D o not be afraid o f what you are about to suffer.... But be faithful, even i f you have to die" (Rev 2:10, N C V ) . Put simply, " I n deciding upon any course o f action we are not to ask whether we can see that harm w i l l result from it, but whether it is in keeping w i t h the w i l l o f G o d " (GC 609-610).

Comparison with God's Character A perplexing story occurs i n 1 Samuel 16:1-4. On the surface, i t seems that God tells Samuel to deceive Saul. This is labeled "at best a half-truth" which had "divine authorization." What are we to make o f this story?

38

The passage immediately preceding 1 Samuel 16 carries the account o f Saul's rejection o f God, followed by God's removal o f the kingdom from h i m (1 Sam 15:26-28). Describing God as consistent and trustworthy, Samuel then says, " A n d also the Glory o f Israel w i l l not lie" (1 Sam 15:29, N A S B ) . I t appears significant that this affirmation o f the truthfulness o f God comes a mere seven verses before the problematic passage under consideration here. As such, it forms the correct, contextual background for comprehending this confusing chronicle. Furthermore, the broader testimony o f the biblical canon is that God cannot lie (Titus 1:2; cf. Heb 6:18) and does not deceive ( N u m 23:19). I t must be taken into account when dealing w i t h the unchanging character o f the God whose "words are truth" ( M a i 3:6, 2 Sam 7:28). Since the "deceitful deity" interpretation o f 1 Samuel 16:1-4 contradicts the clear biblical pronouncements that it is impossible for God to deceive, it becomes clear that we understand the story incorrectly.

A satisfactory solution appears i f the first part o f verse 2 is seen as an interruption by Samuel in the middle o f God's instructions. Evidently, Samuel was not averse to interrupting someone (see 1 Sam 15:15-17).

Thus, when one removes this interjection the directions form a cohesive unit. Ellen G. White seems to support this.

When discussing moral matters, the issue o f consequences often arises. For example, it is often claimed that i f Rahab had not lied when hiding the Israelite spies, they would have been captured and executed. Reasoning thus, that negative results must be avoided rigorously, Rahab has been applauded for her deception. Does this "silence" o f direct condemnation o f Rahab in Scripture mean that such action is morally acceptable? I n another example, nowhere is there any condemnation o f the incest o f Lot's daughters w i t h their father (Gen 19). Since the oldest daughter had a son named Moab, an ancestor o f Ruth, and ultimately o f Jesus, should one conclude that this case o f incest was morally right because o f its ultimate consequence—the birth o f Jesus centuries later through this lineage? Ob-

When one takes account o f the character o f God as indicated i n the immediate and i n the larger contexts, then it is possible to understand this story contextually as one that upholds the standard o f truth o f a God "who cannot l i e " (Titus 1:2, N A S B ) and o f One who requires His people to emulate His character o f veracity by similarly conducting themselves truthfully (see Exod 20:16; Lev 19:11; Prov 12:22; Eph 4:25; Col 3:10, etc.).

298

299

39

Interpreting and Applying Biblical Ethics

Interpreting and Applying Biblical

Ethics

40

Conformity to the Example of Christ

Divine Design for Human Dilemmas: A Corporate A p p r o a c h

Some have justified the use o f deception by a logic along the lines o f " B u t Abraham and D a v i d used deception, and they were God-fearing men." However, this ignores the fact that the call in 1 Peter 2:21-22 to " f o l l o w i n his steps" identifies Jesus as the only moral standard for all.

In Colossians 2:8, Paul cautions, "See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles o f this w o r l d rather than on Christ" (NIV).

When the early Christian believers were first confronted w i t h a major ethical problem, a special church council was called (see Acts 15). Insights from this session provide procedures that the church can use as it helps believers to address the ever-increasing moral concerns o f contemporary life. Recognizing the seriousness o f the issue, these first-century Christians based their deliberations on scriptural principles, under the H o l y Spirit's guidance.

The polygamy o f Gideon and Joash, the prostitution engaged i n by Samson and Judah, the prevarication by Abraham and Rahab, the murders

by Moses and David, the deceptions by Jacob and Joseph are not models to emulate, even though these records were preserved for our instruction.

Furthermore, Bible stories also show us honestly how faithful people actually lived.

5. Application of Scripture to Issues not Addressed in the Bible A pastor once shared the following concern: One o f the unmarried women i n his congregation had come to h i m for counsel. She felt a strong urge to fulfill her mothering instincts, but she was still single and her healthy child-bearing years were ticking away. There were no unmarried Adventist men available. Since she did not want to adopt or commit adultery to have a child, w o u l d it be ethically appropriate to conceive a child by means o f artificial insemination?

Although not " o f the w o r l d " (John 17:16), Christians still live i n the w o r l d (vs. 18). As a result, many are faced w i t h an astounding array o f relatively new ethical quandaries ranging from abortifacient drugs to zygote manipulation—including genetic engineering, cloning, gender selective abortions, surrogacy, organ transplantation, female circumcision, child pornography, homosexual marriage, physician-assisted suicide, suicidal terrorism, urban terrorism, ethnic cleansing (genocide), overpopulation, w o r l d hunger and widespread starvation, nuclear weapons, biological and chemical warfare, the depletion o f natural resources, species extinction, and animal rights. H o w is the Christian to respond to such new ethical quandaries not directly addressed i n Scripture? Various approaches have been suggested, two o f which we w i l l explore briefly.

A t issue i n the apostolic church was the matter o f Christian self-identity, especially significant i n light o f the accelerating growth o f converts from pagan backgrounds. While honoring the Jewish Scriptures as from God, how should Christians regard specifically Jewish practices, such as circumcision?

Acts, chapter 15, provides an example o f how to deal w i t h questions not explicitly addressed in the Scriptures. Several principles can be identified. We note that the entire church leadership was involved rather than simply allowing each believer to follow personal preference. The unity o f the church is important. Free discussion was encouraged rather than a monolithic decree imposed. We observe that the Council searched for biblical guidance. Following a wide-ranging discussion, based on consideration o f ancillary biblical passages (e.g., vs. 15, A m o s 9:11-12) and the experiences o f the apostles, the H o l y Spirit guided the Council to a concurrence clearly based on provisions found i n Leviticus 17 and 18. I n fact, they follow the same order (Acts 15:29). A n d how did they deal w i t h the issue? While all Christians share the same standards o f moral conduct, by the glaring omission o f circumcision, the Council inferred that i t was no longer required.

To share the decision w i t h the church i n Antioch where the issue had become divisive, the Council sent several delegates, among them Paul and Barnabas, who, after spending considerable time w i t h the believers there, proceeded to carry the decision to Gentile believers i n Syria and i n Cilicia (vs. 23). Although later references make it clear that the circumcision issue remained for a time among certain Christians o f Jewish heritage, w i t h the massive expansion o f Christian work into the Greco-Roman w o r l d and beyond, the church came to agree that circumcision was no longer an issue.

Although the Jerusalem Council met almost 2000 years ago, this corporate approach to resolving a major moral matter is still relevant today.

Their Bible-based, Spirit-guided paradigm is worthy o f emulating for "the potentially divisive issues o f our time."

41

300

301

Interpreting and Applying Biblical Ethics Making Decisions When the Bible Is Silent: A n Individual Approach

Interpreting

and Applying Biblical

Ethics

relevant biblical principles? What obstacles need to be overcome to implement the decision? When and how would it be best to proceed with action?

Due to the complexities o f life, Christians may at times feel ambivalent about certain courses o f action. However, i f the decision clearly accords w i t h the basic overall world view o f Scripture, as w e l l as w i t h fundamental biblical principles, then the believer can courageously proceed, k n o w i n g that God w i l l provide for every need.

Evaluate the Effects. N o human is infallible. Thus, everyone needs to evaluate carefully and honestly the effects o f the decision taken and the action carried out. Again, this process must not be done i n isolation; the community o f believers can be o f great benefit, since they could provide a much more objective assessment. Christian humility requires that we learn from past decisions, recognize any mistakes, as far as possible rectify any negative effects, and refine, adjust, discard, or even reverse the previous decision i f the available evidence necessitates it. Since God graciously continues to work w i t h and through us even when we err, none need despair. For the Christian who is secure i n the salvation provided i n Christ, contemporary ethical decision-making regarding these issues i n which the Bible is silent is part o f an often painful yet vital character-transforming experience.

Obviously, at the rate at which new ethical problems are arising, it is not feasible for the corporate church to spend much o f its time developing behavioral standards at the expense o f its primary function o f spreading the gospel o f salvation. Bearing i n m i n d the preceding material i n this chapter, especially the fivefold task o f interpreting biblical ethics, and the sections dealing w i t h character formation, transcultural moral absolutes, and Bible stories, the following step‫־‬by‫־‬step procedure is recommended as a way o f reading, reflecting, reasoning, and responding to these contemporary concerns.

Analyze the Issue. To begin, it is vital to define clearly the basic concern. For instance, i n the above example regarding artificial insemination for single Adventist women, one needs to ask questions, such as: Is this method o f conception a form o f "adultery"? What values and relationships are to be considered here? Who are the proper moral agents to make decisions? The woman? The church? The doctor? The community? The government?

Brainstorm for Options. God has bestowed on humans the ability to reason carefully, to consider, to imagine, and to evaluate alternative courses o f action as well as the possible effects o f such actions. Consider, for example, what better courses o f action might exist for the single Adventist woman to fulfill her mothering instincts. Could she take i n a foster child or adopt a child already in need o f a home? W h i c h action might be a better witness to the non-believing community: Becoming pregnant outside o f marriage just to fulfill a natural instinct, or, perhaps, selflessly to provide significant assistance to a needy child?

Consider Biblical Principles.

As the committed Christian humbly and prayerfully searches the Scriptures for guidance, the H o l y Spirit w i l l provide the discernment to discover relevant principles. Regarding artificial insemination, questions such as the following could be asked: What family situation is portrayed in the Bible as God's ideal? Is it fair or just to bring a child intentionally into this w o r l d into a single-parent family?

Would the financial cost o f this procedure be a proper use o f stewardship? Moreover, it would be unwise for the individual believer to do this reflection i n isolation. The faith community, operating i n an atmosphere o f mutual respect and trust, can be helpful. This would include examining the results o f research by other Bible-believing Christians, current and throughout history.

Decide What to Do. A t this point a prayerful decision needs to be made. Ask questions such as: What decision w o u l d best comply w i t h the

1. Miroslav M . Kis, "Authority, Bible, and Christian Ethics," Christ in the Classroom: Adventist Approaches to the Integration o f Faith and Learning, vol.

26-B (Silver Spring, MD: Institute for Christian Teaching, Department of Education, General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, 2000), p. 428. See also Miroslav Μ. Kis, "Teaching Ethics: Why Is It Important? How Should It Be Done?"

302

303

42

Conclusion The words o f the prophet Micah fittingly summarize much o f what this chapter has been addressing: "What does the L o r d require o f you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly w i t h your G o d " (Micah 6:8).

Or, as Paul counsels believers to imitate the loving, humble Savior, "Your attitude should be the same as that o f Christ Jesus" (Phil 2:5, emphasis supplied). Ultimately, the ethical challenge to every Christian is: "Whatever you do, do it all for the glory o f G o d " (1 Cor 10:31, emphasis supplied).

References Unless otherwise noted, biblical quotations are from the New International Version.

Interpreting and Applying Biblical Ethics

Interpreting and Applying Biblical Ethics

vol. 8, Christ in the Classroom, (1993), p. 150; Christopher Marshall, "The Use of Scripture in Ethics" Evangelical Review of Theology, 18.3 (July 1994): 222.

2. John Brunt, Decisions: How to Use Biblical Guidelines When Making Decisions (Nashville, TN: Southern Publishing Association, 1979), p. 83. See also, Richard B. Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament: Community, Cross, New Creation (New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 1996), pp. 296297.

3. See Larry L. Lichtenwalter, "Living Under the Word: The Pragmatic Task of Moral Vision, Formation, and Action," Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 9/1-2 (1998): 98.

4. The first three are a brief summary and restatement of points made by Kis, "Authority, Bible, and Christian Ethics," pp. 446-448.

5. Miroslav M . Kis, "Christian Lifestyle and Behavior," Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist Theology, ed. Raoul Dederen, Commentary- Reference Series, vol. 12 (Hagerstown, M D : Review and Herald, 2000), p. 675.

'6. R. E. 0 . White, Biblical Ethics, vol. 1 (Exeter, NY: Paternoster Press, 1979). p. 231. For a more in-depth treatment see his chapter 6, "The Son of God and the Life of Imitation" (emphasis author's).

7. This false dichotomy is based on a misreading of Romans 7:6. The broader context shows that while Paul is rejecting mere external obedience, he is calling for a spirit-empowered allegiance to God's eternal law. Paul affirms that "the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good" (Rom 7:12), and calls for "faith working through love" (Gal 5:6, NLV).

8. Some have inverted the proscriptions of the Decalogue into positive commands; e.g., "You shall not kill," has thus been restated: "You shall protect human life at all costs." This speculative inversion of the sixth commandment falsely elevates the preservation of physical life and can result in so-called moral conflicts.

However, when read as stated in the Decalogue, such a "conflict" cannot arise. As Ellen White challenges: "Death before dishonor or the transgression of God's law should be the motto of every Christian;" (5T 147). Indeed, Ellen G. White writes that "Even life itself should not be purchased with the price of falsehood" (4T 336).

9. Many English Bibles render this a "miscarriage," which calls for only a fine i f the fetus dies while life is required i f the mother dies (e.g., N A B , RSV, NEB, JB). However, the Hebrew text shows that a "premature birth" is in view here in Exodus 21:22 (for which the fine is levied) while the death of either fetus or mother calls for the death ofthe offender, thus placing the fetus on par with the mother (for example, see the new NASB, NIV, ESV, NET).

10. In accordance with its contextual biblical usage, the Greek term brephos is defined as "new born, or unborn," or even "babe" (see Acts 7:19), by Robert Young, Young's Analytical Concordance to the Bible, newly revised and corrected (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1982). A similar interchangeability is obvious from the use ofthe Hebrew word yeled (rendered "child" or "lad, boy") in many Old Testament texts (e.g., Exod 21:22; cf. 2:6).

11. While many view jewelry as merely cultural, the study by Ângel Μ. Rodriguez on the biblical materials on jewelry and its moral implications shows oth-

16. Compare for example texts dealing with the character of God (e.g., Lev 19:9; Deut 32:4), and those dealing with the character ofthe moral law (Rom 7:12; Ps 19:7).

17. See Ron du Preez, " A Holocaust o f Deception: Lying to Save Life and Biblical Morality," Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 9/1-2 (1998): 210-216.

18. Webb, p. 94. Similarly, while long hair served as part ofthe Nazirite vow, showing commitment to God (Num 6:1-21), Paul speaks of long hair as a disgrace to men (1 Cor 11:14).

19. Ibid., 105-107.

20. See Ron du Preez, "Epics & Ethics: Vital Biblical Principles for Interpreting Scripture Stories," Journal of the Adventist Theological Society (10/1-2 (1999): 121-122.

21. Norman L. Geisler & Paul D. Feinberg, Introduction to Philosophy: A Christian Perspective (Grand Rapids, M I : Baker Book House, 1980), p. 417.

22. William C. Spohn, What Are They Saying About Scripture and Ethics?

(New York: Paulist Press, 1984), p. 5.

23. Brunt, Decisions, p. 72.

24. Bruce C. Birch, Let Justice Roll Down: The Old Testament, Ethics, and the Christian Life (Louisville, KY: Westminster Press, 1991), p. 63.

25. Brunt, Decisions, p. 67.

304

305

erwise: see Ângel Μ. Rodriguez, Jewelry in the Bible: What You Always Wanted to Know but Were Afraid to Ask (Silver Spring, M D : Ministerial Association, General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, 1999).

12. See Gerhard F. Hasel, "The Distinction Between Clean and Unclean Animals in Lev 11: Is It Still Relevant?" Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 2/2 (1991): 103-104.

13. See Ron du Preez, Polygamy in the Bible, Adventist Theological Society Dissertation Series, vol. 3 (Berrien Spring, M I : Adventist Theological Society Publications, 1993), 70-81, in which after an in-depth examination of both the literal and idiomatic interpretations of the passage, the following conclusion is drawn: "Lev 18:18 distinctly prohibits polygamy"; p. 80.

14. See also, Ezekl8:5-9; 18:10-13; 18:15-17; 22:6-12; Hos 4:2; Matt 5:3-10; Rom 1:24-32; 13:13-14; 1 Cor 5:9-11; 6:9-10; 12:20-21; Gal 5:19-20; 5:22-23; Eph 4:31-32; 5:3-4; Phil 4:8; Col 3:5-9; 3:12-14; 2 Tim 3:2-5; Jas 3:17; 1 Pet 4:3; Rev 9:20-21; 24:8; 21:15.

15. The practice of foot-washing can be included here as a transcultural norm.

Webb notes, that though foot-washing was a practice of the culture, "it was unthinkable for a master to wash a slave's feet. Thus the reversal of roles, modeling a servant spirit for leaders, is a major transcultural component to the text. What gives us a credible read on the transcultural application of the passage is not where it has the support of former tradition, but where it breaks with the Old Testament and with the surrounding cultures." William J. Webb, Slaves, Women & Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2001), p. 204.

Interpreting and Applying Biblical Ethics 26. See, for example, A. O. Nkwoka, "The Church and Polygamy in Africa: The 1988 Lambeth Conference Resolution," Africa Theological Journal 19 (1990): 147; Douglas E. Welch, " A Biblical Perspective on Polygamy" (M.A. thesis, Fuller Theological Seminary, 1970), p. 60.

27. Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., Toward Old Testament Ethics (Grand Rapids, M I : Zondervan, 1983), p. 283.

28. Frank B. Holbrook, "Inspired Writer's Interpretation of Inspired Writings" in A Symposium on Biblical Hermeneutics, ed. Gordon M . Hyde (Washington, D . C : Biblical Research Committee, 1974), p. 127. Several times in the New Testament, narratives from the Old are told; e.g., Acts 7; 13; Heb 11-13; 2 Pet 2; Jude. The proper way of interpreting inspired stories was already evident in Old Testament times; see for example, DeutlO; Neh 9: Isa 7; Hos 12.

29· See, for example, Genesis 42:7, 9, 12, 14, 16, 20, 23; 43:29; 44:4, 5, 15, 17, 19.

30. Norman L. Geisler, Christian Ethics: Options and Issues (Grand Rapids, M I : Bake Book House, 1989), p. 120. For a comprehensive response to these hierarchical ethical theories, see Ronald A. G. du Preez, " A Critical study of Norman L. Geisler's Ethical Hierarchicalism" (Th.D. dissertation, University of South Africa, 1997), available at the James White Library, Andrews University, Berrien Springs, Michigan, USA. 31. Geisler, Christian Ethics,^. 107.

32. Moreover, the restriction of the temple bread was a ceremonial and not a moral law; see, O. Palmer Robertson, "Reflections on the New Testament Testimony Concerning Civil Disobedience," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 33 (September 1990): 334.

33. Erwin W. Lutzer, The Morality Gap: An Evangelical Response to Situation Ethics (Chicago, IL: Moody Bible House, 1972), p. 77.

34. N . L. Geisler, The Christian Ethic of Love (Grand Rapids, M I : Zondervan, 1973), p. 79.

35. Furthermore, there is no evidence that this Obadiah was a "prophet," as also alleged. While the issue considered above is whether or not it is ever right to use deception, it must be noted that Obadiah's action can be seen as a courageous and selfless, biblically justifiable act of civil disobedience (see, for example, Dan 1; 3; 6; Acts 5:29).

36. Incidentally, there is nothing innately immoral in the simple act of hiding.

This can be observed by comparing God's truthfulness (e.g., Num 23:19) with God's hiding of people (e.g., Jer 36:26), as well as a consideration of the times in which Jesus Christ, our sinless Savior, and one in whom there is no "deceit" (1 Pet 2:22), concealed Himself (Mark 6:30-7:24; John 8:59).

37. Admittedly, some texts are difficult. For example, 1 Kings 11:4-6 and 15:5 seem to say David was "always" a man after God's heart (except as regards his adultery). However, in addition to overlooking the chronological setting of that early commendation of David, such a conclusion ignores the immediate and broader contexts of the comparison frequently made between the kings of Israel or Judah and David or Jeroboam. In brief, it appears that the only issue was that 306

Interpreting and Applying Biblical Ethics David did not worship idols or promote idolatry, whereas Jeroboam did (see, for example, 1 Kgs 11:2-8, 33; 12:25-33; 14:7-16; 15:11-13; 16:25-26, 31).

38. Richard Higginson, Dilemmas: A Christian Approach to Moral Decision Making (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 1988), p. 64.

39. "And the Lord said unto Samuel, How long wilt thou mourn for Saul, seeing I have rejected him from reigning over Israel? fill thine horn with oil, and go, I will send thee to Jesse the Bethlehemite: for I have provided Me a king among his sons.... Take an heifer with thee, and say, I am come to sacrifice to the Lord.

And call Jesse to the sacrifice, and I will show thee what thou shalt do: and thou shalt anoint unto Me him whom I name unto thee. And Samuel did that which the Lord spake" (PP 637).

40. For a more comprehensive study, see Ron du Preez, "Divine Designs for Dealing with Ethical Issues," Ministry, September 1996, 18-20.

41. Gerald R. Winslow, "Christians and Bioethics: Can the Bible Help?"

Christ in the Classroom: Adventist Approaches to the Integration of Faith and Learning, vol. 18 (Silver Spring, MD: Institute of Christian Teaching, Department of Education, General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, 1997), p. 408.

42. The five step process followed here has been somewhat modified from the "Christian Framework for Bioethical Decisions" proposed by Winslow, p. 407.

Selected Bibliography Clark, David K , and Robert V. Rakestraw. Readings in Christian Ethics, vol. 1: Theory and Method. Grand Rapids, M I : Baker Books, 1994. du Preez, Ron. "Divine Designs for Dealing with Ethical Issues." Ministry, September 1996, 18-20. . "Epics & Ethics: Vital Biblical Principles for Interpreting Scripture Stories." Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 10/1-2 (1999): 107140.

Kainer, Gordon. Faith, Hope and Clarity: A Look at Situation Ethics and Biblical Ethics. Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1977.

Kaiser, Jr., Walter C. Toward Old Testament Ethics. Grand Rapids, M I : Zondervan Publishing House, 1983.

Kis, Miroslav M . "Authority, Bible, and Christian Ethics." Christ in the Classroom: Adventist Approaches to the Integration of Faith and Learning, vol. 26B. Silver Spring, MD: Institute for Christian Teaching, Department of Education, General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, 2000. 427-456. . "Christian Lifestyle and Behavior." Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist Theology, edited by Raoul Dederen. Commentary Reference Series. Vol. 12. Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 2000. 675-723.

Lichtenwalter, Larry L. "Living Under the Word: The Pragmatic Task of Moral Vision, Formation, and Action." Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 9/1-2 (1998): 96-113.

Lutzer, Erwin. The Necessity of Ethical Absolutes. Christian Free University Curriculum Series. Grand Rapids, M I : Zondervan Publishing House, 1981.

307

Interpreting and Applying Biblical Ethics McQuilkin, Robertson. An Introduction to Biblical Ethics. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1989.

Tiessen, Terrance. "Toward a Hermeneutic for Discerning Universal Moral Absolutes." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 36/2 (June 1993): 189-207.

Webb, William J. Slaves, Women & Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2001.

Wilkens, Steve. Beyond Bumper Sticker Ethics: An Introduction to Theories of Right & Wrong. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1995.

CHAPTER XVII

ELLEN G. WHITE AND HERMENEUTICS Gerhard Pfandl

Introduction Seventh-day Adventists believe that God called this church into existence for a special purpose, the proclamation o f the Three Angels' messages o f Revelation 14. Adventists also believe that the Seventh-day Adventist Church is the remnant church o f Revelation 12:17 and that God has graciously provided it w i t h the gift o f prophecy as manifested i n the life and i n the w o r k o f Ellen G. White.

Ellen White understood her role to be that o f a special messenger o f God to the Seventh-day Adventist Church, pointing men and women to the Bible as the inspired and authoritative Word o f God ( F L B 293).

Throughout her writings, she emphasized that the Bible is "God's voice speaking to us, just as surely as though we could hear it w i t h our ears" (6T 393). It is "the only rule o f faith and doctrine" (FE 126) i n the church.

1

Since the church does not accept degrees o f inspiration, it must acknowledge that her inspiration, though not her authority, is o f the same type as the inspiration ofthe O l d and N e w Testament prophets. Therefore, when using and interpreting what she has written, we must apply the same hermeneutical principles to her writings as we do to Scripture. Both are inspired literature; therefore, both must be interpreted by the same principles. This chapter deals not only w i t h the question o f how Ellen G. White used Scripture, but it also provides guidelines for the interpretation o f the Ellen G. White writings.

1. Ellen G . White and the Interpretation of Scripture I n 1906, Ellen G. White wrote a series o f twenty short articles for The Signs of the Times, entitled "Our Great Treasure-House" i n which, in some articles, she refers to the way that the Bible should be studied.

Several thoughts recur repeatedly in these articles: (1) The Bible must be studied prayerfully and w i t h reverence (ST, March 2 1 ; June 6; Sept.

2

308

309

Ellen G. White and Hermeneutics

Ellen G. White and Hermeneutics 19: Oct. 3, 1906); (2) the Bible is its own expositor; therefore, scripture should be compared w i t h scripture (ST, March 2 1 ; Sept. 5; Sept. 19; Oct. 3, 1906); and (3) we should study one text or passage until its meaning is clear rather than read many chapters with no definite purpose i n view (ST, March 26; Oct. 3, 1906). The last point is o f special importance in the age o f computers and CD-Roms in which everyone can become an expert in w o r d studies i n Scripture and i n the writings o f Ellen G. White without really understanding what either is teaching.

General Guidelines of Interpretation Apart from the articles mentioned, interspersed through Ellen G. White's writings are many practical and insightful statements regarding the study o f the Bible. When taken together, it becomes apparent that she had a balanced view concerning the interpretation o f the Scriptures. While she rejected the methods o f higher critical scholars ( A A 474; R H March 16, 1897), she also rejected extreme literal interpretations o f Scripture, as w e l l as o f her o w n writings. Several general principles for the interpretation o f Scripture appear in her writings: 3

4

Invite the Holy Spirit to Guide in the Study. Ellen G. White was a firm believer in the inspiration o f Scripture. Therefore, to understand it correctly, she believed, we need the same Spirit that inspired it. " A true knowledge o f the Bible can be gained only through the aid o f the Spirit by w h o m the w o r d was given" (Ed 189).

Be Willing to Obey the Truth. Anyone studying the Scriptures must be w i l l i n g to obey the truths found in them. "Whenever men are not seeking, in w o r d and deed, to be in harmony w i t h God, then, however learned they may be, they are liable to err i n their understanding o f Scripture, and it is not safe to trust to their explanations" (5T 705).

Be Open-Minded.

The student o f the Bible must be open-minded, w i l l i n g to surrender previously held positions. " I f you search the Scriptures to vindicate your o w n opinions, you w i l l never reach the truth. Search in order to learn what the L o r d says" ( C O L 112). While Ellen G. White was very clear on the correctness o f the pillars, or landmarks, o f Adventism, she was open to new truths found i n Scripture, and she chided those who refused to consider that some expositions o f Scripture held by Seventhday Adventists could be in error.

not make error into truth, and truth can afford to be fair. No true doctrine will lose anything by close investigation (CW 35).

Guard Against Extreme Interpretations.

I n the early years o f our church, Ellen G. White frequently had to confront fanaticism i n the church. Later, when the health message was introduced into the church, certain people adopted extremes in their understanding o f what the health message was trying to achieve. Ellen G. White was alarmed, and wrote, "When those who advocate hygienic reform carry the matter to extremes, people are not to blame i f they become disgusted. . . . These extremists do more harm in a few months than they can undo in a lifetime. They are engaged in a work which Satan loves to see go on" ( C H 153-154). W i t h regard to health reform, "we would better come one step short ofthe mark than to go one step beyond it. A n d i f there is error at all, let i t be on the side next to the people" ( C H 438).

Work Together With People of Experience.

Throughout her life, Ellen G. White advocated the biblical principle o f taking counsel (Prov 11:14). Addressing the issue o f new light, she said: 5

Let none be self-confident, as though God had given them special light above their brethren. . . . the only safety for any of us is in receiving no new doctrine, no new interpretation ofthe Scriptures, without first submitting it to brethren of experience. Lay it before them in a humble, teachable spirit, with earnest prayer; and i f they see no light in it, yield to their judgment; for "in the multitude of counselors there is safety" (5T 291, 293).

There is no excuse for anyone in taking the position that there is no more truth to be revealed, and that all our expositions of Scripture are without an error. The fact that certain doctrines have been held as truth for many years by our people, is not a proof that our ideas are infallible. Age will

Use Common Sense. I n every avenue o f life, Ellen G. White emphasized the importance o f common sense. "We are to be guided by true theology and common sense" (CT 257), she wrote. This is also true in the interpretation o f Scripture. For example, when we read i n Exodus 20:15, " Y o u shall not steal," most o f us take this literally. I t means just what it says, " Y o u shall not steal." We do not say, " B u t sometimes it is a l l right to steal." We k n o w it means, "Do not steal at any t i m e . " However, when we read Matthew 5:29, " I f your right eye causes y o u to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one o f your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into h e l l , " common sense tells us that this is not to be taken literally. We understand Jesus is not really talking about the gouging out o f eyes. He is referring to our sinful thoughts. He is not asking us to mutilate our bodies but to control our thoughts. Common sense often w i l l help us avoid extreme interpretations. Taken together, these principles provide an excellent foundation for a spirit-filled interpretation o f God's messages i n Scripture and in the writings o f Ellen G. White. Nevertheless, these are only general guide-

310

311

Ellen G. White and Hermeneutics

Ellen G. ttfyite and Hermeneutics lines for the interpreter, more specific principles are needed i n dealing w i t h the biblical text.

Specific Principles of Interpretation The hermeneutical procedures followed by exegetes today were not commonly followed in the time o f Ellen G. White. Nevertheless, in her writings she recommended a number o f specific principles for the interpretation o f Scripture.

Scripture Interprets Itself. The self-interpretation o f Scripture was one o f the hallmarks o f the Reformation. Where the Roman Catholic Church insisted that it alone could correctly interpret Scripture, the Reformers argued that Scripture is its own interpreter. This means that the Bible, as a whole, governs interpretation o f any part o f itself; therefore, no part o f Scripture can teach anything that is against the teaching ofthe whole Bible. Ellen G. White repeatedly affirmed this principle. Scripture is its o w n interpreter.

The Bible is its own expositor. One passage will prove to be a key that will unlock other passages, and in this way light will be shed upon the hidden meaning ofthe word. By comparing different texts treating on the same subject, viewing their bearing on every side, the true meaning ofthe Scriptures will be made evident (FE 187).

Because o f her understanding o f inspiration as thought inspiration rather than verbal inspiration, Ellen G. White saw the diversity and the differences among the biblical writers as something good and useful, i n contrast to others who considered them as a source o f problems and o f difAcuities.

The Literary Context. The literary context refers to the text(s) immediately preceding and following a text or passage under investigation.

Interpretation o f a text without attention to the immediate context often leads to wrong conclusions. Ellen G. White was w e l l aware o f the importance o f paying attention to context. Therefore, she wrote: " I n order to sustain erroneous doctrines or unchristian practices, some w i l l seize upon passages o f Scripture separated from the context, perhaps quoting half o f a single verse as proving their point, when the remaining portion would show the meaning to be quite the opposite" (GC 521). Interpreters o f Scripture always must be on guard not to wrest a text or passage out o f its literal context. Many heresies or false views have arisen in Christian churches because little attention has been paid to the immediate context.

The Meaning of Words. Scripture is given in the language o f mankind, which is imperfect. Words take on several meanings, depending on the context. Ellen G. White recognized this and counseled Bible students to pay close attention to the meaning o f words and o f symbols, i n order to understand their "deep spiritual meanings" (SSW, January 1, 1891). She emphasized that "The language o f the Bible should be explained according to its obvious meaning, unless a symbol or figure is employed" (GC 599).

The "obvious meaning" refers to the plain meaning o f a w o r d in its context.

In Philippians 1:22-24, for example, the word "flesh" refers to the physical body; i n Romans 8:12-13, however, where "flesh" is contrasted w i t h "Spiri t , " it has the meaning o f carnal desires. I f symbols were used, she advised that they be explained from the Bible itself. Speaking o f some Christians who interpret figures and symbols to suit their fancy, she says, they do so " w i t h little regard to the testimony o f Scripture as its o w n interpreter, and then they present their vagaries as the teaching o f God's w o r d " (4SP 344).

Recognizing the differences i n time, i n background, and i n individual characteristics among the biblical authors, Ellen G. White nevertheless perceived an overall unity i n Scripture. Therefore, she counseled that different texts or passages speaking to the same topic should be brought together to provide a complete picture o f what the Bible has to say on a particular issue.

The Historical Context. Ellen G. W h i t e recognized the importance o f the historical and the cultural setting o f a passage. " A n understanding o f the customs o f those who lived i n Bible times, o f the location and time o f events, is practical knowledge," she said; " i t aids i n making clear the figures o f the Bible and i n bringing out the force o f Christ's lessons" (CT 518). She also understood that the meaning the text had for the original recipients was a prerequisite for a deeper understanding o f the text today. "Understanding what the words o f Jesus meant to those who heard them, w e may discern i n them a new vividness and beauty, and may also gather for ourselves their deeper lessons" ( M B 1). The fact that different writers wrote i n different styles was seen as something positive ( P M 100).

Biblical texts can be used in different ways. A n interpreter may use a text exegetically, theologically, or homiletically.

The exegetical use o f Scripture focuses on what the text means to the original reader. Thus, when exegeting a text, the interpreter w i l l investigate the historical circumstances that lead to the writing o f the text, to w h o m i t was addressed, and what the author really wanted to say.

312

313

The Interpretations of Biblical Texts

6

Ellen G. White and Hermeneutics

Ellen G. White and Hermeneutics

To interpret a text theologically means to look for the implications the text has for the larger theological scheme contained in Scripture. The text is seen not only in its literary and historical context but also in the context o f the divine revelation, as a whole. For example, the words, " M y God, m y God, w h y have you forsaken me?" i n Psalm 22:1, were originally spoken

by David some time during the period i n his life when, in desperation, he was fleeing from Saul (1 Sam 23:25). Exegetically, therefore, these words refer to David's experience; but since David was a type o f Christ, Jesus cites these words i n His experience on the cross (Matt 27:46).

To use a text homiletically, or pastorally, means to apply the language o f a text to a modern, present-day situation. Preachers frequently use texts in a pastoral way to move people to action in a worship setting. They apply the message o f a biblical text to a current problem or situation even though the message o f the text i n its historical context was addressing a different situation.

For instance, i n M a r k 1:17, Jesus says to Simon and to Andrew, "Follow me and I w i l l make you become fishers o f men." Exegetically, the text applies to Simon and to Andrew, since the words were addressed to them, but homiletically it can be applied to every Christian. Jesus wants us all to be "fishers o f men." Both uses are legitimate, but we must distinguish between them; any teaching or doctrine o f Scripture must be based on a careful exegesis o f the text, not on a homiletical application o f it.

2. Ellen G . White's Use of Scripture

7

M . Davidson, however, has argued that these texts, w h i c h seem to be used out o f context, are really pointing to the larger context ofthe OT texts, and this larger context is in harmony w i t h the N T use o f these texts.

10

A Test Case In 1 Corinthians 2:9, Paul writes, "But as it is written, Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor have entered into the hearts o f man the things which God has prepared for those who love H i m . " I n the book The Great Controversy, Ellen G. White wrote: Those who accept the teachings of God's word will not be wholly ignorant concerning the heavenly abode. And yet, "eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love Him." 1 Corinthians 2:9. Human language is inadequate to describe the reward of the righteous. It will be known only to those who behold it. No finite mind can comprehend the glory ofthe Paradise of God (GC 675).

I n this passage, she clearly applies 1 Corinthians 2:9 to the new earth.

When we study the text in its context, however, we discover that Paul is not speaking about the new earth but about salvation (2:1-8). I n verses 1-5, Paul speaks about the wisdom o f man. He calls it human wisdom i n verse 4. Then, in verses 6 and 7, he speaks about the wisdom o f God " i n a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages for our glory."

The hidden wisdom, "the mystery" that God ordained before the ages, is Jesus and the plan o f salvation (Col 2:2; 1 T i m 3:16). A n d this wonderful mystery none o f the rulers o f this w o r l d knew, says Paul, "for had they known, they w o u l d not have crucified the L o r d o f glory" (1 Cor 2:8).

Then follows the passage under consideration. I n verse 10 Paul says, "But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things o f God." What d i d God reveal to the apostles through His Spirit? Heaven? No, from the context we learn that what no eye had seen nor ear had heard was the wonderful plan o f salvation, which, o f course, includes heaven; but the focus in 1 Corinthians 2:9 is on the Cross, not on heaven. To be fair to Scripture, we must first o f all let the text say what the writer intended it to say.

Ellen G. White frequently used Scripture homiletically. She was steeped in the language o f the Bible, and whenever she spoke or wrote on a topic, she would use biblical language and biblical texts to convey the message that she had received.

Some Adventist scholars feel that we have a similar situation i n the N T i n which the Gospel writers use OT texts seemingly out o f context.

For example, Raymond F. Cottrell cites Matthew's use o f Isaiah 7:14, "Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel," in Matthew 1:23, and his use o f Hosea 11:1 "Out o f Egypt I called M y Son," i n Matthew 2:15, as instances i n which the biblical writer is giving the O T text a meaning not apparent in its O T context. Herbert E. Douglass also cites Matthew 1:23 and 2:15 and adds Paul's use ofDeuteronomy 25:4, "You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain," in 1 Corinthians 9:9-10 as evidence that biblical writers used Bible texts " i n a manner that may seem to be out o f harmony w i t h its context." Richard

Why, then, d i d Ellen G. White apply the language o f the text to the new earth? Because the wording o f it also fits the new earth. The homiletical use o f the text allowed her to use the passage in reference to the earth made new. The message she was to communicate to God's Church was

314

315

8

9

Ellen G. White and Hermeneutics

Ellen G. White and Hermeneutics that God has something wonderful prepared for His people, something beyond our imagination. To do this, under inspiration she chose to use the wording from 1 Corinthians 2:9.

It is important to note that while Ellen G. White used 1 Corinthians 2:9 homiletically many times, she also explained the text exegetically. I n the book The Desire of Ages, Ellen G. White speaks about Peter's confession in Matthew 16:16 that Jesus is the Messiah.

The truth which Peter had confessed is the foundation of the believer's faith. It is that which Christ Himself has declared to be eternal life. But the possession o f this knowledge was no ground for self-glorification.

Through no wisdom or goodness of his own had it been revealed to Peter.

Only the spirit of adoption can reveal to us the deep things of God, which "eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man." "God hath revealed them unto us by His Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God." 1 Cor 2:9, 10.

"The secret ofthe Lord is with them that fear Him;" and the fact that Peter discerned the glory of Christ was an evidence that he had been "taught of God." (DA 412).

Here, she applies 1 Corinthians 2:9 to Jesus as the Savior o f the w o r l d , who is the foundation o f every believer's faith. I n other words, she correctly reflects the original meaning that the text had when Paul wrote it.

Homiletical Interpretations When reading through the books o f Ellen G. White, we come across many other examples i n which she uses the language o f a biblical text or passage to express the message that God has given her for the church. The fact that she uses these texts does not mean that she is thereby interpretÂŹ ing them exegetically, i . e., explaining what the author meant to say. The meaning that the original author intended the text to have may be quite different from the message that Ellen G. White is conveying through her use o f its language. To understand this difference becomes important when some people try to use her writings as the last word on the meaning o f a particular text.

discourses on the meaning o f biblical texts. This becomes quite evident i n these examples: John 5:39. I n the K i n g James Bible, the text reads "Search the ScripÂŹ tures; for i n them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify o f me." I n the N K J V and in all modern translations, the first part o f the text reads "You search the Scriptures." While the Greek ereunate can be a present indicative or a present imperative, the context clearly favors the indicative meaning: " Y o u study the scriptures diligently, supposing that in them you have eternal life; their testimony points to M e " (REB).

Many Jews believed that knowledge o f the law would assure them eternal life. But Jesus reminds them that the Scriptures in which they thought to find eternal life were the very writings which testified o f H i m .

Ellen G. White frequently used the phrase "Search the Scriptures" as an admonition to study the Bible. " B y carefully and closely searching His word we shall obey the injunction o f Christ, 'Search the Scriptures; for i n them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify o f M e . ' This search enables the student to observe closely the divine Model, for they testify o f Christ" (CSW 17, also pp. 2 1 , 29).

In The Desire of Ages, however, in which she relates the situation as we find it in John chapter five, Ellen G. White uses a different translation and gives the text its exegetical meaning.

Instead of apologizing for the act o f which they complained, or explainÂŹ ing His purpose in doing it, Jesus turned upon the rulers, and the accused became the accuser. He rebuked them for the hardness of their hearts, and their ignorance of the Scriptures. He declared that they had rejected the word of God, inasmuch as they had rejected Him whom God had sent.

"Ye search the Scriptures, because ye think that in them ye have eternal life; and these are they which bear witness of Me." John 5:39, R. V. (DA 211).

Clearly, this is the meaning that the text had i n its original setting. A rabbinical saying stated that " I f a man . . . has gained for himself words o f the Law, he has gained for himself life in the w o r l d to come." Jesus was responding to this kind o f superstition. A t the same time, he was chastising the Pharisees for their stubborn rejection o f H i m .

11

Some Seventh-day Adventists think o f Ellen G. White's writings as an inspired commentary on the Bible. I f so, it is vital to recognize that in her writings, we find homiletical applications o f biblical passages in addition to exegetical comments. While there are many exegetical gems in her books, especially i n the Conflict of the Ages series, the bulk o f her writings contains God's message for the remnant church, not exegetical

Colossians 2:20-22. "Wherefore i f ye be dead w i t h Christ from the rudiments o f the world, why, as though living i n the w o r l d , are ye subject to ordinances, (Touch not; taste not; handle not; which all are to perish w i t h the using;) after the commandments and doctrines o f men?" ( K J V ) .

316

317

Here, Paul speaks o f an unhealthy asceticism that diverts attention from Christ. I n verses 21 and 22, he gives an example o f these doctrines o f men,

Ellen G. White and Hermeneutics

Ellen G. White and Hermeneutics "Touch not; taste not; handle not." The reference is to various human requirements that these teachers urged upon the Colossian Christians. Ellen G. White uses the words from Colossians 2 but places them i n a completely different context and applies the language o f the text i n a positive way.

In relation to tea, coffee, tobacco, and alcoholic drinks, the only safe course is to touch not, taste not, handle not. The tendency of tea, coffee, and similar drinks is in the same direction as that of alcoholic liquor and tobacco, and in some cases the habit is as difficult to break as it is for the drunkard to give up intoxicants (MH 335).

ancient languages. With the writings o f Ellen G. White no so such hurdle needs to be overcome. Except for occasional archaic words here and there, all her writings can be understood readily by those fluent i n English. Those who read her translated books i n other languages usually read what she wrote i n a current, up-to date language.

M u c h controversy and misunderstanding i n the church concerning her literary works can be avoided, if, i n the interpretation o f her writings, we always follow the guidelines mentioned below.

Consider the Historical Context

What she says is an important part o f our health-reform message, but she is not explaining what Paul was saying to the Colossians.

The lesson we need to learn from these examples is that, when we quote Ellen G. White i n support o f a particular interpretation o f a text, we must be certain she is actually using the text exegetically and not i n some other way. Raoul Dederen once wrote: As interpreter of the Bible, Ellen White's most characteristic role was that of an evangelist—not an exegete, nor a theologian, as such, but a preacher and an evangelist.. . . The prophetic and hortatory mode was more characteristic of her than the exegetical.... The people to whom she was preaching—or writing—were more the object of her attention than the specific people to whom the individual Bible writers addressed themselves.

12

Perhaps, a note o f caution is appropriate at this point. The fact that Ellen G. White used the language o f t h e Bible to convey God's message to the remnant church does not give modern Adventist preachers license to use biblical texts out o f context any time they feel the wording o f a biblical text w o u l d fit nicely w i t h their particular point. As a prophet, Ellen G. White wrote under divine inspiration, but as far as we know, we do not have a modern-day prophet at the present time. The homiletical or the pastoral use o f a text should be handled carefully. Before using a text this way, the preacher should make sure that he, along with the congregation, has understood the exegetical meaning o f the text first. Only then should a homiletical or a pastoral application be made. A n d this application should be based on the exegesis and the original message o f the passage.

A t the General Conference o f 1901, i n Battle Creek, Ellen G. White, in her opening address on A p r i l 2, spoke o f the need to reorganize the General Conference. "There are to be more than one or two or three men to consider the whole vast field," she said. " G o d has not put any kingly power i n our ranks to control this or that branch o f the work. The w o r k has been greatly restricted by the efforts to control i t i n every line." She called for a complete reorganization: "power and strength must be brought into the committees that are necessary" ( L D E 53).

What had happened? Looking at the development o f our church during the last few decades o f the nineteenth century, we observe that the General Conference Executive Committee, beginning w i t h three members in 1863, had increased to thirteen i n 1899; but most o f these men were widely scattered and did not often meet for a full meeting. Six o f the thirteen men were spread out across North America, and two resided overseas.

This left five members o f the General Conference Executive Committee resident i n Battle Creek. These, w i t h the secretary and the treasurer o f the General Conference, who were not members o f the Committee, "carried the day-to-day responsibilities o f the operation o f the church."

13

Having considered the way i n which Ellen G. WTiite used Scripture, we turn now to the use o f her writings i n our church. I n the interpretation o f Scripture, the first problem w i t h which the exegete must wrestle is the

To make matters worse, O. A . Olsen, elected president at the 1888 General Conference, i n Minneapolis, had chosen A . R. Henry and Harm o n Lindsay as his key advisers. Ellen G. White repeatedly warned h i m against the counsel o f these men ( E G W ' 8 8 1421; 17MR 181). "Because o f their strong personalities, they were able to sway the various boards and committees to follow their line o f t h i n k i n g . " I n 1891, Ellen G. White, wrote, " M a n y o f the positions taken, going forth as the voice o f the General Conference, have been the voice o f one, t w o , or three men who were misleading the Conference" ( 1 7 M R 167). Ten years later, i n her opening address at the 1901 General Conference, she told the delegates "That these men should stand i n a sacred place, to be as the voice o f God to the people, as we once believed the General Conference to

318

319

14

3. Interpretation ofthe Ellen G . White Writings

Ellen G. White and Hermeneutics

Ellen G. White and Hermeneutics

be,—that is past. What we want now is a reorganization" ( G C B , A p r i l 3, 1901 par. 25).

Her appeal d i d not go unheeded. A t the 1901 General Conference session, a reorganization was effected that largely corrected the "kingly-power" problem.

I n that same year, her son Edson, who had run into difficulties w i t h the Review and Herald publishing house prior to the Minneapolis General Conference o f 1888, sought compensation from the church leadership. I n presenting his case, he quoted from his mother's pre-1901 writings. Upon hearing o f it, she wrote to Edson: I am again much burdened as I see you selecting words from writings that I have sent you, and using them to force decisions that the brethren do not regard with clearness. I have received letters from Elder Daniells and Elder Kilgore asking me to send them instruction at once, if I have any light in reference to the points you have quoted from my letters. Your course would have been the course to be pursued i f no change had been made in the General Conference. But a change has been made, and many more changes will be made and great developments will be seen. No issues are to be forced (19MR 146).

The situation had changed, and she no longer wanted her pre-1901 statements applied to the new situation at the General Conference. The lesson from all this is that we need to look at the historical context, the time, and the place i n w h i c h a particular statement was written. What she wrote addressing a particular situation i n her time cannot be made into a universal statement applicable today, unless there are valid reasons for it.

Study the Immediate Context The immediate context refers to what comes before and what comes after a particular statement. What is she referring to i n the paragraph or chapter from which a statement is taken?

I n the book Christ's Object Lessons, Ellen G. White makes the statement that "those who accept the Saviour, however sincere their conversion, should never be taught to say or to feel that they are saved" ( C O L 155). M a n y Christians then and now believe i n the biblically unsupportable doctrine o f "once saved always saved." Ellen G. White clearly opposed this teaching. I n context, she says, There is nothing so offensive to God or so dangerous to the human soul as pride and self-sufficiency. Of all sins it is the most hopeless, the most incurable. Peter's fall was not instantaneous, but gradual. Self-confidence led him to the belief that he was saved, and step after step was taken in the 320

downward path, until he could deny his Master. Never can we safely put confidence in self or feel, this side of heaven, that we are secure against temptation. Those who accept the Saviour, however sincere their conversion, should never be taught to say or to feel that they are saved. This is misleading. Everyone should be taught to cherish hope and faith; but even when we give ourselves to Christ and know that He accepts us, we are not beyond the reach of temptation (Ibid., 154-155).

The context makes it clear that she is addressing the issue o f self-confidence and o f temptations after conversion. Because we are never secure against temptations, we can never say that we cannot fall, that we are saved and, therefore, secure from temptation; but this does not mean that we cannot have assurance o f salvation; day by day, we can have the confidence that i n Jesus we are saved (1 John 5:12-13).

Study the L a r g e r Context The large context refers to other statements Ellen G. White has written on a particular topic. To illustrate this principle we w i l l look at the Adventist health message, which, to a large extent, is based on the health visions o f Ellen G. White. She has written profusely on the topic, and, often, some o f her statements are taken out o f context and are misused.

Because o f the vast amount o f material on this topic i n her writings, we need to consider all that she has written on a particular issue. O n the issue o f meat eating, for example, she has very absolute sounding statements but also modifying statements that need to be considered before conclusions are drawn.

In 1903, Ellen G. White made what seem to be fairly absolute statements. Concerning our diet she wrote, "Vegetables, fruits, and grains should compose our diet. Not an ounce o f flesh meat should enter our stomachs. The eating o f flesh is unnatural. We are to return to God's original purpose i n the creation o f man" (CD 380). Reading this statement by itself one would have to come to the conclusion that under no circumstances are we to eat meat. However, a few pages further i n the book, we find a modifying statement from the year 1890 on the same topic.

Where plenty of good milk and fruit can be obtained there is rarely any excuse for eating animal food; it is not necessary to take the life of any of God's creatures to supply our ordinary needs. In certain cases of illness or exhaustion it may be thought best to use some meat, but great care should be taken to secure the flesh of healthy animals. It has come to be a very serious question whether it is safe to use flesh food at all in this age of the world. It would be better never to eat meat than to use the flesh of animals that are not healthy. When I could not obtain the food I needed, 321

Ellen G. White and Hermeneutics

Ellen G. White and Hermeneutics

I have sometimes eaten a little meat; but I am becoming more and more afraid of it (CD 394).

The modifying circumstances referred to are cases o f illness or when other food was not readily available. She herself, she noted, had, from time to time, eaten meat. Therefore, i n a very balanced statement made before the delegates at the General Conference, i n 1909, she said: We do not mark out any precise line to be followed in diet; but we do say that in countries where there are fruits, grains, and nuts in abundance, flesh food is not the right food for God s people. I have been instructed that flesh food has a tendency to animalize the nature, to rob men and women of that love and sympathy which they should feel for everyone, and to give the lower passions control over the higher powers of the being. I f meat eating was ever healthful, it is not safe now. Cancers, tumors, and pulmonary diseases are largely caused by meat eating. We are not to make the use of flesh food a test of fellowship, but we should consider the influence that professed believers who use flesh foods have over others (9T 159). ,

We certainly should aim for a vegetarian diet, but we should never make it a test o f fellowship. I n some circumstances, a diet which includes some meat may even be best, but this should never serve as an excuse to continue eating meat when there is no real necessity. " A meat diet is not the most wholesome o f diets, and yet I would not take the position that meat should be discarded by every one. Those who have feeble digestive organs can often use meat, when they cannot eat vegetables, fruit, or porridge" (CD 394-395 [1894]).

When we look at the total corpus o f what she has written on a given topic, a balanced picture emerges which is invaluable for every Christian who takes his or her religion seriously, but particularly for Seventh-day Adventists w h o m God has called to be His witnesses i n these last days.

Look for Principles Prophets convey God's truth as principles or applications. Principles are universal and apply to all people, i n all places, and at all times. Applications o f principles refer to particular situations. They may change w i t h different circumstances and look different i n varying cultures and places.

"That which can be said o f men under certain circumstances, cannot be said o f them under other circumstances" (3 Τ 470). Several examples from the writings o f Ellen G. White come readily to mind.

" A n d i f girls, i n turn, could learn to harness and drive a horse, and to use the saw and the hammer, as well as the rake and the hoe, they would be better fitted to meet the emergencies o f life" (Ed 216-217). The principle in this statement is that girls should be "fitted to meet the emergencies o f life." Applied to our time it could mean that girls should learn how to drive and look after a car.

The Bicycle Craze. I n 1895, Ellen G. White was i n Australia. In a vision, she was given a view o f happenings i n Battle Creek. A m o n g the scenes shown to her was one involving bicycles used for racing. Toward the end o f the nineteenth century, the bicycle was sufficiently developed to support a fad that made it a rich man's toy. The best, early bicycle cost $150, an investment comparable today to an automobile. People were mortgaging their income for months i n advance to buy what was at the time an expensive luxury item.

On February 6, 1896, she wrote from Australia to the brethren at Battle Creek saying, among many other things: The money expended in bicycles and dress, and other needless things, must be accounted for. As God's people, you should represent Jesus; but Christ is ashamed of the self-indulgent ones. M y heart is pained, I can scarcely restrain my feelings, when I think how easily our people are led away from practical Christian principles to self-pleasing (TM 398).

Within a few years' time, the bicycle became a useful and inexpensive means o f transportation, and Ellen G. White never commented on it again.

Her policy on bicycles was based on the biblical principle o f good stewardship. I f she were alive today, doubtless, she would apply this principle to the way people spend money on expensive cars, boats, or electronic gadgets.

In summary, context is all important. The historical and the literary context w i l l help us i n our interpretations o f the Spirit o f Prophecy to navigate safely between the Scylla and the Charybdis o f too literal an interpretation and one that is so far removed from the intent o f the author that it becomes meaningless.

Look for Growth in Her Understanding

Teaching Girls to Drive a Horse. I n 1903, at a time when the general availability o f cars was still a thing o f the future, Ellen G. White wrote,

Apart from the principles o f interpretation listed above we need to remember that prophets did not receive all the light at one time. They, too, experienced a growth i n their understanding o f heavenly things. I n Daniel 8:27, the prophet says, " I was appalled by the vision, and did not understand i t " (RSV). About ten years later, the angel Gabriel comes and explains to h i m the full import o f the vision. Similarly, Ellen G. White

322

323

Ellen G. White and Hermeneutics

Ellen G. White and Hermeneutics experienced growth i n her understanding o f what God revealed to her. I n 1904, she wrote, "Often representations are given me which at first I do not understand, but after a time they are made plain by a repeated presentation o f those things that I did not at first comprehend, and i n ways that make their meaning clear and unmistakable" ( 3 S M 56). Two years later, she made a similar comment, "For sixty years I have been i n communication w i t h heavenly messengers, and I have been constantly learning i n reference to divine things" ( 3 S M 71).

When comparing earlier writings o f Ellen G. White w i t h her later works, we find that she, at times, modified, expanded, or shortened her earlier writings, reflecting a deeper insight into God's messages. This can be best illustrated by her treatment o f the great-controversy theme i n the course o f her ministry. Her two-hour vision at Lovett's Grove, Ohio, i n 1858, became known as the "Great Controversy vision." The first account o f what she saw i n this vision appeared i n 1858, occupying about 200 pages i n Spiritual Gifts volume 1. The 420 pages o f Spiritual Gifts volumes 3 and 4, published i n 1864, enlarged on the great-controversy theme i n the OT. This was followed by the four-volume Spirit of Prophecy series, published between 1870 and 1884, which presented a much more detailed account o f the Great Controversy story, in almost 1700 pages o f text. In time, the four Spirit of Prophecy volumes were replaced by the five volumes o f the Conflict of the Ages series, which, i n more than 3500 pages, recounts in even greater detail the great-controversy story. As she developed this theme over the course o f her lifetime, she grew i n understanding and expanded the theme under the guidance o f the Holy Spirit. Her understanding o f this issue came to permeate almost all her books, even those that, on the surface, deal with other matters, such as the books Education and The Ministry of Healing.

15

Acknowledge Limitations

o f land from the children o f Hamor, the father o f Shechem. Yet, God did not see fit to correct Luke; nor did He correct Matthew when He wrote that the words " A n d they took thirty pieces o f silver . . ." (Matt 27:9) are from Jeremiah when, i n fact, the principal source is Zechariah 11:13. God, obviously, did not consider these historical details sufficiently important to give a vision for their correction.

When at the 1919 Bible Conference, W. W. Prescott asked A . G. Daniells how Ellen G. White should be used to "settle historical questions," Daniells replied, Sister White never claimed to be an authority on history, and never claimed to be a dogmatic teacher on theology. She never outlined a course oftheology, like Mrs. Eddy's book on teaching. She just gave out fragmentary statements, but left the pastor and evangelist and preachers to work out these problems of scripture and of theology and of history.

16

In 1912, W. C. White wrote a letter to S. Ν Haskell i n w h i c h he stated that Ellen G. White had never wished our brethren to treat them [her writings] as authority on history. When 'Great Controversy' was first written, she often times gave a partial description of some scene presented to her, and when Sister Davis made inquiry regarding time and place, Mother referred her to what was already written in the book of Elder Smith and in secular histories. When 'Controversy' was written, Mother never thought that the readers would take it as an authority on historical dates and use it to settle controversies, and she does not now feel that it ought to be used in that way.

17

A t the end o f this letter, Ellen G. White wrote, " I approve o f the remarks made i n this letter" and signed her name. I n v i e w o f her own understanding o f this matter, we should be careful in using the historical narratives i n her books to settle details o f history. This does not mean, o f course, that we can push Creation back tens o f thousands or millions o f years or that the prophetic dates such as 1798 or 1844 can be changed. I n regard to the age o f the earth, she wrote, "Infidel geologists claim that the w o r l d is very much older than the Bible record makes it. They reject the Bible record, because o f those things which are to them evidences from the earth itself, that the world has existed tens o f thousands o f years" (3SG 91-92). She herself always referred to the age o f the earth i n terms o f about six thousand years (3SG 92; PP 51; D A 413; etc.).

18

19

Prophets are God's mouthpieces, not scientists or historians. Thus it happened that i n using history books, on occasion, Ellen G. White inadvertently incorporated some o f their historical errors into her o w n writings, and God did not see fit to give her a vision to correct the error. This does not detract, however, from her inspiration or authority. Similarly, historical inaccuracies i n Scripture do not detract from its inspiration or its authority.

For example, i n Acts 7:16, Stephen says that Abraham bought the cave o f Machpelah from Hamor, the father o f Shechem. When we read the account o f this purchase in Genesis 23:7-17, however, we discover that Abraham bought the cave not from Hamor but from Ephron the Hittite.

Furthermore, from Genesis 33:18, 19, we learn that Jacob bought his plot 324

325

Ellen G. White and Hermeneutics

Ellen G. White and Hermeneutics Conclusion In the interpretation o f Ellen G. White we need to apply to her writings the same hermeneutical principles that we use for Scripture. I n particular, we need to take into consideration the time and the place in which.a statement was written and look at the immediate and larger context o f a passage. The immediate context helps us to see what she really is addressing, and the larger context makes us aware o f what else she has written on a particular topic.

Because these principles o f hermeneutics often are forgotten or not applied, the writings o f Ellen G. White are frequently misused. Sentences are taken out o f context, and people maintain that she teaches something that in fact, she does not. B y not using proper hermeneutical principles, that which was intended to be a blessing for the church may become a bone o f contention and a source o f division i n the church.

This certainly is not what she w o u l d have wanted. She saw her mission in uplifting Christ and the Scriptures before the people. A t every opportunity, she pointed her listeners and readers to God's word. "Brethren, cling to your Bible, as it reads," she wrote in 1888, "obey the Word, and not one o f you w i l l be lost" ( I S M 18). A t a time when every w i n d o f doctrine is b l o w i n g through the church, and postmodern thinking threatens the very foundations o f Christianity, we do well to heed her counsel as a church and as individuals.

References

nents ridiculed her for it she responded by saying, " I do not state that grapes were growing on silver wires. That which I beheld is described as it appeared to me. It is not to be supposed that grapes were attached to silver wires or golden rods, but that such was the appearance presented." ( I S M 65-66).

5. A classic example is the story of Dr. Kress, who in the early years ofthe twentieth century, worked at our sanitarium in Sydney, Australia. When he read in Testimonies for the Church (2:400), "Eggs should not be placed upon your table," he decided to do away with all dairy products. As a result he became i l l , with a serious case of anemia. In vision Ellen White saw his hands—as white as i f he were a corpse (A. L. White, The Early Elmshaven Years [Washington, D . C : Review and Herald, 1981], p. 120). In a letter she counseled him "Do not go to extremes in regard to the health reform. . . . Get eggs of healthy fowls. Use these eggs cooked or raw. Drop them uncooked into the best unfermented wine you can find. This will supply that which is necessary to your system. . . . Eggs contain properties which are remedial agencies in counteracting poisons" (CD 204).

6. See Jon Paulien, "The Interpreter's Use of the Writings of Ellen G. White," in Symposium on Revelation, ed. by Frank B. Holbrook, DARCOM Series, vol. 6 (Silver Spring, MD: Biblical Research Institute, 1992), pp. 163-174.

7. This has been long recognized. Robert W. Olson, former director of the Ellen G. White Estate, wrote in 1981, "Ellen White's writings are generally homiletical or evangelistic in nature and not strictly exegetical" (Robert W. Olson, One Hundred and One Questions on the Sanctuary and Ellen White [Washington, D.C: Ellen G. White Estate, 1981], p. 41). Herbert Douglass, commenting on Ellen White's use of John 5:39, says, "In a 1900 letter she made a homiletical point by using that text to encourage serious Bible study" (Herbert E. Douglass, Messenger of the Lord [Nampa, ID: Pacific Press Publishing Assoc., 1998], p. 420.

See also Paulien, pp. 166-167.

1. Arthur L. White, Ellen G. White: The Early Elmshaven Years (Washington, D . C : Review and Herald, 1981), p. 354.

2. The first appeared in the March 21 issue, the last on October 17, 1906.

3. She recognized that Scripture uses symbols and figures that must not be interpreted literally. See GC 599.

4. In a vision concerning the end of the 2300 days (EW 54-56) she saw Satan and a group of people beside the throne of God. When some people understood this to describe reality she wrote, " I never had the idea that these individuals were actually in the New Jerusalem. Neither did I ever think that any mortal could suppose that I believed that Satan was actually in the New Jerusalem. But did not John see the great red dragon in heaven?" (Ibid., p. 92). In the 1847 pamphlet^ Word to the Little Flock (reprinted, Washington, D . C : Review and Herald, p. 16) she describes what she saw in heaven and says, " I saw two long golden rods on which hung silver wires, and on the wires were glorious grapes." When her oppo-

8. R. F. Cottrell, "Ellen G. White's Use ofthe Bible," A Symposium on BibHeal Hermeneutics, ed. Gordon M . Hyde (Washington, DC: Biblical Research Committee, 1974), p. 160.

9. Douglass, p. 424, n. 37.

10. Richard M . Davidson, "New Testament Use of the Old Testament," Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 5.1 (1994): 14-39.

11. Pirke 'Aboth, 27, quoted in George R. Beasley-Murray, John, Word Biblical Commentary (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1999), p. 78.

12. Raoul Dederen, "Ellen White's Doctrine of Scripture," in "Are There Prophets in the Modern Church?" Supplement to Ministry (July, 1977): 24 H. 13. A. L. White, The Early Elmshaven Years, p. 72.

14. George E. Rice, "The church: voice of God?" Ministry (December 1987): 5.

15. The great controversy theme in the Old Testament, which took up only three chapters in Spiritual Gifts volume 1, was expanded to 36 chapters in Spirit of Prophecy volume 1.

16. "The Use of the Spirit of Prophecy in Our Teaching of Bible and History, July 30, 1919," Spectrum 10.1 (1979): 34. Similarly, in 1911, before the General Conference assembly, W. C. White said, "Mother has never claimed to be an au-

326

327

Unless otherwise noted, biblical quotations are from the New King James Version.

Ellen G. White and Hermeneutics thority on history" (A. L. White, The Ellen G. White Writings [Washington, D . C : Review and Herald, 1973], p. 188).

17. W. C. White to S. N . Haskell, October 31, 1912. E. G. White Estate Correspondence File.

18. A. L . White, Ellen G. White: The Later Elmshaven Years (Washington, D . C : Review and Herald, 1982), p. 365.

19. A t issue here are details, not milestones of history. For example, in the 1888 edition of The Great Controversy, in describing the St. Bartholomew Massacre, she says, "The king of France, urged on by Romish priests and prelates, lent his sanction to the dreadful work. The great bell of the palace, tolling at dead of night, was a signal for the slaughter." When it was brought to her attention that it was not the great bell of the palace that gave the signal, she had it changed to " A bell, tolling at dead of night, was a signal for the slaughter" (GC [1911] ed., p.

272, emphasis supplied).

Selected Bibliography Brand, Leonard and Don S. McMahon. The Prophet and Her Critics. Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 2005.

Douglass, Herbert E. Messenger of the Lord. Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 1998.

Knight, George R. Reading Ellen White. Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 1988.

Paulien, Jon. "The Interpreter's Use ofthe Writings of Ellen G. White," in Symposlum on Revelation, ed. Frank B. Holbrook. DARCOM Series, vol. 6. Silver Spring, M D : Biblical Research Institute, 1992, pp. 163-174.

Olson, Robert W. One Hundred and One Questions on the Sanctuary and on Ellen White. Washington, D . C : Ellen G. White Estate, 1981.

APPENDIX A

METHODS OF BIBLE STUDY Introduction The following document was written by the "Methods o f Bible Study Committee" o f the General Conference w i t h input from the various w o r l d divisions. The concerns that have given rise to this document are primarily the inroads the historical-critical method o f Bible study has made and is making i n the area o f biblical research.

A t the 1986 Annual Council meeting in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, this report, submitted by the "Methods o f Bible Study Committee," was approved. The document was subsequently printed i n the Adventist Review (January 22, 1987), pages 18-20. The full text o f the document is reprinted below.

Bible Study: Presuppositions, Principles, and Methods

1.

Preamble

This statement is addressed to all members o f the Seventh-day Adventist Church w i t h the purpose o f providing guidelines on how to study the Bible, both the trained biblical scholar and others.

Seventh-day Adventists recognize and appreciate the contributions o f those biblical scholars throughout history who have developed useful and reliable methods o f Bible study consistent w i t h the claims and teachings o f Scripture. Adventists are committed to the acceptance o f biblical truth and are w i l l i n g to follow it, using all methods o f interpretation consistent w i t h what Scripture says o f itself. These are outlined in the presuppositions detailed below.

I n recent decades the most prominent method i n biblical studies has been k n o w n as the historical-critical method. Scholars who use this method, as classically formulated, operate on the basis o f presuppositions which, prior to studying the biblical text, reject the reliability o f accounts o f miracles and other supernatural events narrated i n the Bible. Even a 328

329

Methods of Bible Study

Methods of Bible Study

modified use o f this method that retains the principle o f criticism which subordinates the Bible to human reason is unacceptable to Adventists.

The historical-critical method minimizes the need for faith i n God and obedience to His commandments. I n addition, because such a method deemphasizes the divine element i n the Bible as an inspired book (including its resultant unity) and depreciates or misunderstands apocalyptic prophecy and the eschatological portions o f the Bible, we urge Adventist Bible students to avoid relying on the use o f t h e presuppositions and the resultant deductions associated w i t h the historical-critical method.

In contrast w i t h the historical-critical method and presuppositions, we believe i t to be helpful to set forth the principles o f Bible study that are consistent w i t h the teachings o f the Scriptures themselves, that preserve their unity, and are based upon the premise that the Bible is the Word o f God. Such an approach w i l l lead us into a satisfying and rewarding expertence w i t h God. 2.

Presuppositions Arising F r o m the Claims of Scripture

a. Origin (1) The Bible is the Word o f God and is the primary and authoritative means by w h i c h He reveals Himself to human beings.

(2) The H o l y Spirit inspired the Bible writers w i t h thoughts, ideas, and objective information; i n turn they expressed these i n their o w n words.

Therefore the Scriptures are an indivisible union o f human and divine elements, neither o f which should be emphasized to the neglect o f the other (2 Peter 1:21; cf. The Great Controversy, v, v i ) .

(3) A l l Scripture is inspired by God and came through the work o f the H o l y Spirit. However, it did not come i n a continuous chain o f unbroken revelations. As the H o l y Spirit communicated truth to the Bible writer, each wrote as he was moved by the H o l y Spirit, emphasizing the aspect o f the truth which he was led to stress. For this reason the student o f the Bible w i l l gain a rounded comprehension on any subject by recognizing that the Bible is its o w n best interpreter and when studied as a whole it depicts a consistent, harmonious truth (2 T i m 3:16; Heb 1:1, 2; cf. Selected Messages, B o o k 1,19, 20; The Great Controversy, v, vi).

o f God, and it alone is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested (2 T i m 3:15, 17; Ps 119:105; Prov 30:5, 6; Isa 8:20; John 17:17; 2 Thess 3:14; Heb 4:12).

(2) Scripture is an authentic, reliable record o f history and God's acts in history. I t provides the normative theological interpretation o f those acts. The supernatural acts revealed i n Scripture are historically true.

For example, chapters 1-11 o f Genesis are a factual account o f historical events.

(3) The Bible is not like other books. I t is an indivisible blend o f the divine and the human. Its record o f many details o f secular history is integral to its overall purpose to convey salvation history. While at times there may be parallel procedures employed by Bible students to determine historical data, the usual techniques o f historical research, based as they are on human presuppositions and focused on the human element, are inadequate for interpreting the Scriptures, which are a blend o f the divine and human. Only a method that fully recognizes the indivisible nature o f the Scriptures can avoid a distortion o f its message.

(4) Human reason is subject to the Bible, not equal to or above it. Presuppositions regarding the Scriptures must be i n harmony w i t h the claims o f the Scriptures and subject to correction by them (1 Cor 2:1-6). God intends that human reason be used to its fullest extent, but w i t h i n the context and under the authority o f His Word rather than independent o f it.

(5) The revelation o f God i n all nature, when properly understood, is in harmony w i t h the written Word, and is to be interpreted i n the light o f Scripture.

3.

Principles for Approaching the Interpretation of Scripture

a. The Spirit enables the believer to accept, understand, and apply the Bible to one's o w n life as he seeks divine power to render obedience to all scriptural requirements and to appropriate personally a l l Bible promises. Only those following the light already received can hope to receive further illumination ofthe Spirit (John 16:13, 14; 1 Cor 2:10-14). b. Scripture cannot be correctly interpreted without the aid o f the H o l y Spirit, for it is the Spirit who enables the believer to understand and apply Scripture. Therefore, any study ofthe Word should commence w i t h a request for the Spirit's guidance and illumination.

(4) Although it was given to those who lived i n an ancient Near Eastern/ Mediterranean context, the Bible transcends its cultural backgrounds to serve as God's Word for all cultural, racial, and situational contexts i n all ages. b.

Authority (1) The sixty-six books o f the O l d and N e w Testaments are the clear, infallible revelation o f God's w i l l and His salvation. The Bible is the Word

c. Those who come to the study o f the Word must do so w i t h faith, in the humble spirit o f a learner who seeks to hear what the Bible is saying. They must be w i l l i n g to submit all presuppositions, opinions, and the conclusions o f reason to the judgment and correction o f the Word itself.

330

331

Methods of Bible Study

Methods of Bible Study

W i t h this attitude the Bible student may come directly to the Word, and w i t h careful study may come to an understanding o f the essentials o f salvation apart from any human explanations, however helpful. The biblical message becomes meaningful to such a person. d. The investigation o f Scriptnrre must be characterized by a sincere desire to discover and obey God's w i l l and w o r d rather than to seek support or evidence for preconceived ideas.

4.

Methods of Bible Study

a. Select a Bible version for study that is faithful to the meaning contained i n languages i n which the Bible originally was written, giving preference to translations done by a broad group o f scholars and published by a general publisher above translations sponsored by a particular denomination or narrowly focused group.

Exercise care not to build major doctrinal points on one Bible translation or version. Trained biblical scholars w i l l use the Greek and Hebrew texts, enabling them to examine variant readings o f ancient Bible manuscripts as well. b. Choose a definite plan o f study, avoiding haphazard and aimless approaches. Study plans such as the following are suggested: (1) Book-by-book analysis o f the message

f.

Study the context o f the passage under consideration by relating it to the sentences and paragraphs immediately preceding and following it. Try to relate the ideas o f the passage to the line o f thought o f the entire Bible book. g. As far as possible ascertain the historical circumstances i n which the passage was written by the biblical writers under the guidance o f the H o l y Spirit. h. Determine the literary type the author is using. Some biblical material is composed o f parables, proverbs, allegories, psalms, and apocalyptic prophecies. Since many biblical writers presented much o f their material as poetry, it is helpful to use a version o f the Bible that presents this material in poetic style, for passages employing imagery are not to be interpreted in the same manner as prose. i.

Recognize that a given biblical text may not conform i n every detail to present-day literary categories. Be cautious not to force these categories i n interpreting the meaning o f the biblical text. I t is a human tendency to find what one is looking for, even when the author did not intend such. j.

Take note o f grammar and sentence construction i n order to discover the author's meaning. Study the key words o f the passage by comparing their use i n other parts o f the Bible by means o f a concordance and w i t h the help o f biblical lexicons and dictionaries. k. I n connection with the study o f the biblical text, explore the historical and cultural factors. Archaeology, anthropology, and history may contribute to understanding the meaning o f the text.

1. Seventh-day Adventists believe that God inspired Ellen G. White.

Therefore, her expositions on any given Bible passage offer an inspired guide to the meaning o f texts without exhausting their meaning or preempting the task o f exegesis (for example, see Evangelism, 256; The Great Controversy, 193, 595; Testimonies, v o l . 5, pp. 665, 682, 707-708; Counsels to Writers and Editors, 33-35).

(2) Verse-by-verse method (3) Study that seeks a biblical solution to a specific life problem, biblical satisfaction for a specific need, or a biblical answer to a specific question (4) Topical study (faith, love, second coming, and others) (5) Word study (6) Biographical study c. Seek to grasp the simple, most obvious meaning o f the biblical passage being studied. d. Seek to discover the underlying major themes o f Scripture as found in individual texts, passages, and books. Two basic, related themes run throughout Scripture: (1) The person and w o r k o f Jesus Christ; and (2) the great controversy perspective involving the authority o f God's Word, the fall o f man, the first and second advents o f Christ, the exoneration o f God and His law, and the restoration o f the divine plan for the universe.

These themes are to be drawn from the totality o f Scripture and not imposed on it. e. Recognize that the Bible is its o w n interpreter and that the meaning o f words, texts, and passages is best determined by diligently comparing scripture w i t h scripture.

m. After studying as outlined above, turn to various commentaries and secondary helps such as scholarly works to see how others have dealt w i t h the passage. Then carefully evaluate the different viewpoints expressed from the standpoint o f Scripture as a whole. n. I n interpreting prophecy keep i n mind that: (1) The Bible claims God's power to predict the future (Isa 46:10).

(2) Prophecy has a moral purpose. I t was not written merely to satisfy curiosity about the future. Some o f the purposes o f prophecy are to strengthen faith (John 14:29) and to promote holy living and readiness for the Advent (Matt 24:44; Rev 22:7, 10, 11).

332

333

Methods of Bible Study (3) The focus o f much prophecy is on Christ (both His first and second advents), the church, and the end-time.

(4) The norms for interpreting prophecy are found w i t h i n the Bible itself: The Bible notes time prophecies and their historical fulfillments; the N e w Testament cites specific fulfillments o f O l d Testament prophecies about the Messiah; and the O l d Testament itself presents individuals and events as types o f the Messiah.

(5) I n the N e w Testament application o f O l d Testament prophecies, some literal names become spiritual: for example, Israel represents the church, Babylon apostate religion, etc.

(6) There are two general types o f prophetic writings: nonapocalyptic prophecy as found i n Isaiah and Jeremiah, and apocalyptic prophecy as found i n Daniel and the Revelation. These differing types have different characteristics: (a) Nonapocalyptic prophecy addresses God's people; apocalyptic is more universal i n scope. (b) Nonapocalyptic prophecy often is conditional i n nature, setting forth to God's people the alternatives o f blessing for obedience and curses for disobedience; apocalyptic emphasizes the sovereignty o f God and His control over history. (c) Nonapocalyptic prophecy often leaps from the local crisis to the end-time day ofthe Lord; apocalyptic prophecy presents the course o f history from the time o f the prophet to the end ofthe world. (d) Time prophecies i n nonapocalyptic prophecy generally are long, for example, 400 years o f Israel's servitude (Gen 15:13) and 70 years o f Babylonian captivity (Jer 25:12). Time prophecies i n apocalyptic prophecy generally are phrased i n short terms, for example, 10 days (Rev 2:10) or 42 months (Rev 13:5). Apocalyptic time periods stand symbolically for longer periods o f actual time.

(7) Apocalyptic prophecy is highly symbolic and should be interpreted accordingly. I n interpreting symbols, the following methods may be used: (a) Look for interpretations (explicit or implicit) within the passage itself (for example, Dan 8:20, 2 1 ; Rev 1:20). (b) Look for interpretations elsewhere i n the book or i n other writings by the same author. (c) Using a concordance, study the use o f symbols i n other parts o f Scripture. (d) A study o f ancient Near Eastern documents may throw light on the meaning o f symbols, although scriptural use may alter those meanings.

(8) The literary structure o f a book often is an aid to interpreting it.

The parallel nature o f Daniel's prophecies is an example.

334

Methods of Bible Study 0. Parallel accounts in Scripture sometimes present differences i n detail and emphasis (for example, cf. Matt 21:33, 34; M a r k 12:1-11; and Luke 20:9-18; or 2 Kings 18-20 w i t h 2 Chron 32). When studying'such passages, first examine them carefully to be sure that the parallels actually are referring to the same historical event. For example, many o f Jesus' parables may have been given on different occasions to different audiences and w i t h different wording.

I n cases where there appear to be differences i n parallel accounts, one should recognize that the total message o f the Bible is the synthesis o f all o f its parts. Each book or writer communicates that w h i c h the Spirit has led h i m to write. Each makes his o w n special contribution to the richness, diversity, and variety o f Scripture (The Great Controversy, v, v i ) . The reader must allow each Bible writer to emerge and be heard while at the same time recognizing the basic unity o f t h e divine self-disclosure.

When parallel passages seem to indicate discrepancy or contradiction, look for the underlying harmony. Keep i n mind that dissimilarities may be due to minor errors o f copyists (Selected Messages, Book 1, p. 16), or may be the result o f differing emphases and choice o f materials o f various authors who wrote under the inspiration and guidance o f the H o l y Spirit for different audiences under different circumstances (Selected Messages, Book 1, pp. 2 1 , 22; The Great Controversy, v i ) .

It may prove impossible to reconcile minor dissimilarities i n detail which may be irrelevant to the main and clear message o f t h e passage. I n some cases judgment may have to be suspended until more information and better evidence are available to resolve a seeming discrepancy. p. The Scriptures were written for the practical purpose o f revealing the w i l l o f God to the human family. However, i n order not to misconstrue certain kinds o f statements, it is important to recognize that they were addressed to peoples o f Eastern cultures and expressed i n their thought patterns.

Expressions such as "the L o r d hardened the heart o f Pharaoh" (Ex 9:12) or "an evil spirit from God . . ." (1 Sam 16:15), the imprecatory psalms, or the "three days and three nights" o f Jonah as compared w i t h Christ's death (Matt 12:40), commonly are misunderstood because they are interpreted today from a different viewpoint.

A background knowledge o f Near Eastern culture is indispensable for understanding such expressions. For example, Hebrew culture attributed responsibility to an individual for acts he d i d not commit but that he allowed to happen. Therefore the inspired writers o f the Scriptures commonly credit God w i t h doing actively that which i n Western thought we 335

Methods of Bible Study

Methods of Bible Study w o u l d say He permits or does not prevent from happening, for example, the hardening o f Pharaoh's heart.

Another aspect o f Scripture that troubles the modern mind is the divine command to Israel to engage i n war and execute entire nations. Israel originally was organized as a theocracy, a c i v i l government through which God ruled directly (Gen 18:25). Such a theocratic state was unique. I t no longer exists and cannot be regarded as a direct model for Christian practice.

The Scriptures record that God accepted persons whose experiences and statements were not in harmony w i t h the spiritual principles o f the Bible as a whole. For example, we may cite incidents relating to the use o f alcohol, polygamy, divorce, and slavery. Although condemnation o f such deeply ingrained social customs is not explicit, God d i d not necessarily endorse or approve all that He permitted and bore with in the lives o f the patriarchs and in Israel. Jesus made this clear in His statement w i t h regard to divorce (Matt 19:4-6, 8).

The spirit o f the Scriptures is one o f restoration. God works patiently to elevate fallen humanity from the depths o f sin to the divine ideal. Consequently, we must not accept as models the actions o f sinful men as recorded i n the Bible.

The Scriptures represent the unfolding o f God's revelation to man.

Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, for example, enlarges and expands certain Old Testament concepts. Christ Himself is the ultimate revelation o f God's character to humanity (Heb 1:1 -3).

While there is an overarching unity in the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and while all Scripture is equally inspired, God chose to reveal H i m s e l f to and through human individuals and to meet them where they were i n terms o f spiritual and intellectual endowments. God Himself does not change, but He progressively unfolded His revelation to men as they were able to grasp it (John 16:12; The SDA Bible Commentary, v o l .7, p.

945; Selected Messages, Book 1, p. 21). Every experience or statement o f Scripture is a divinely inspired record, but not every statement or expertence is necessarily normative for Christian behavior today. Both the spirit and the letter o f Scripture must be understood (1 Cor 10:6-13; The Desire of Ages, 150; Testimonies, vol. 4, pp. 10-12).

5.

Conclusion In the "Introduction" to The Great Controversy Ellen G. White wrote: The Bible, with its God-given truths expressed in the language of men, presents a union of the divine and the human. Such a union existed in the nature o f Christ, who was the Son of God and the Son o f man. Thus it is true ofthe Bible, as it was of Christ, that "the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us." John 1:14. (p. vi)

As it is impossible for those who do not accept Christ's divinity to understand the purpose o f His incarnation, it is also impossible for those who see the Bible merely as a human book to understand its message, however careful and rigorous their methods.

Even Christian scholars who accept the divine-human nature o f Scripture, but whose methodological approaches cause them to dwell largely on its human aspects, risk emptying the biblical message o f its power by relegating it to the background while concentrating on the medium. They forget that medium and message are inseparable and that the medium without the message is as an empty shell that cannot address the vital spiritual needs o f humankind.

A committed Christian w i l l use only those methods that are able to do full justice to the dual, inseparable nature o f Scripture, enhance his ability to understand and apply its message, and strengthen faith.

October 12, 1986 General Conference Committee Annual Council

q. As the final goal, make application o f the text. A s k such questions as, "What is the message and purpose God intends to convey through Scripture?" "What meaning does this text have for me?" " H o w does it apply to m y situation and circumstances today?" I n doing so, recognize that although many biblical passages had local significance, nonetheless they contain timeless principles applicable to every age and culture.

336

337

Γ

APPENDIX Β

THE USE OF THE MODIFIED VERSION OF THE HISTORICAL-CRITICAL APPROACH

BY ADVENTIST SCHOLARS Â n g e l M . Rodriguez

1. Critical Scholarship and the Adventist Faith From its very inception, the use o f the historical-critical approach i n the study ofthe Bible faced strong opposition from Christian communities but was able, through a long process o f conquest, to become the reigning king i n biblical interpretation. Today, only a few Christian communities remain opposed to it. Adventist opposition, like that o f other denominations, is determined by its understanding o f the nature and the authority o f the Scriptures. Adventist doctrines and life style were formulated as a result o f the study o f the Bible, considered by the church to be a revelation o f God's grace and w i l l for the human race. The church always has had a high view o f the Bible, based on a number o f fundamental convictions related to its nature and purpose. Such convictions had a direct impact on the way the church came to interpret the Scriptures.

Foundational Premises 1. We believe that the Bible is essentially a religious document, a revelation from God to the human race that answers the fundamental questions of human existence: Who am I? Where do I come from? What am I doing here? Where am I going? Without that revelation we would be lost and disoriented i n this world. Actually, it is the phenomenon o f revelation, the divine origin o f the Bible, that makes it unique (2 T i m 3:16). Such conviction forces us to ask ourselves to what extent a particular methodology used i n the interpretation o f the Bible w i l l support or perhaps undermine our view o f Scriptures. I f the Bible is treated like any other book, to be analyzed like any other book, we should expect tension and conflict between the church and modern scholarship.

2. We believe in the unity of the Scriptures. This unity is based on the fact that the real Author o f this holy document is God Himself, that Christ 338

339

Adventists and the Historical Critical Method

Adventists and the Historical Critical Method is its very center, and that the same message o f salvation is proclaimed throughout the Bible. I n modern biblical scholarship, the unity o f the Bible is usually rejected or questioned. It is considered to be a diverse and at times, contradictory collection o f theologies, promulgated by its different authors. Consequently, the concepts o f divine revelation and inspiration are denied or re-defined i n such a way as to make the human element more determinative than the divine i n the formation o f the final product.

3. We believe that, although the Bible is not primarily a book of history or science, when it intentionally addresses historical and "scientific " issues, it is reliable. Consequently, we are interested i n the historical dimension o f the Bible. However, we have rejected historical methodologies used to reconstruct the history o f Israel i n open contradiction to the historical picture found i n the Bible itself. Here, authorial intent is extremely important and must be taken into serious consideration i n the hermenutical process. We want to retain the obvious meaning o f the text unless the Scriptures themselves point i n a different direction.

the Bible a unique status in terms o f its origin—it is not a revelation o f God—considering it to be a book like any other book.

Critical scholars presuppose that historical certainty is impossible, because any conclusion is always subject to revision (methodological doubt).

Therefore, what one finds in any document cannot be considered to be true unless submitted to critical analysis. Second, their method dismisses the idea o f singular events i n history. The laws o f nature operating i n biblical times were the same ones we have today (principle o f analogy). This rules out the miraculous. Third, the flow o f history is the result o f the cause-effeet continuum. Every historical event can be explained b y looking into the immanent causes that produced it (principle o f correlation). This rules out divine intervention i n human affairs.

4. We believe that the Bible is its own interpreter. The basic question o f hermeneutics is to be solved by allowing the Bible to interpret itself. I n other words, Scripture is to be interpreted from w i t h i n Scripture itself by listening to it and comparing a passage w i t h similar ones. Even i n cases o f discrepancies, we must begin w i t h the Bible i n seeking to understand or clarify them. I n some cases harmonizations are possible; i n other cases, one may perceive that the biblical author was omitting information i n order to make a particular point. Archaeology may provide information that clarifies an apparent discrepancy, but the Bible is the final arbiter o f meaning. I f there is not enough evidence to explain or harmonize the discrepancy, we must simply acknowledge it.

Some Adventist scholars have been interested i n the use o f the historical-critical method, making it a topic o f debate since the late 1960s. Few have argued for the use o f the method i n its classic form; most have argued for a modified use that, supposedly, excludes the presuppositions that traditionally accompany i t .

Historical, religious and cultural contexts are useful i n interpreting the Bible, but the ultimate arbiter o f meaning is the Bible itself. Modern biblical scholarship seeks to place the Bible i n its o w n cultural milieu, which i n itself is appropriate, but, i n many cases, it uses archaeological and epigraphic materials to reconstruct the history behind the text or to determine the meaning o f the biblical text. This approach tends to create tensions w i t h the church, because it seems to presuppose that almost everything i n the Scriptures is culturally determined and consequently tends to undermine the normativeness o f the Bible for us today.

1

2. Adventist use of the Modified Historical-Critical Methodology

2

The fundamental question has been: Is it possible to use the historicalcritical method without being influenced by its critical presuppositions?

Some have answered i n the affirmative while others deny it. One could perhaps say that, at the theoretical level, it could be possible to postulate the possibility o f separating the method from its presuppositions. Some evangelical scholars claim to have been able to do precisely that. The question is whether in practice it is possible to fully separate presuppositions from methodology.

Our concern i n this appendix is to evaluate the claim that a modified use o f the historical-critical method is compatible w i t h the Adventist understanding o f the Bible. We w i l l do this by looking at the results o f studies made by Adventist scholars, using the modified method, rather than by dealing w i t h abstract methodological arguments for, or against, its use.

Critical scholars are sincerely interested i n understanding and interpreting the biblical text. They use a system o f interpretation that they feel is the correct one. I n fact, they base their system on a very simple conviction: The Bible is the result o f the historical, religious and cultural contexts in which the biblical writers lived and wrote. Hence they do not assign to

One o f the problems we face i n our task is that those who argue for the modified system have not stated clearly the modifications they are making to the historical-critical method. The tendency is to argue that the most significant difference is located i n the fact that now the interpreter presupposes that God does intervene i n human affairs. I n a few cases the modifications made to the method are so significant that it is questionable

340

341

Adventists and the Historical Critical Method

Adventists and the Historical Critical Method

whether one should still call it the historical-critical method. Let me cite a couple o f examples.

Jerry Gladson examined the role o f form criticism i n Adventist scholarship to explore the extent to which it could be used by Adventist scholars. First, he recognized the problem: Probably no one would question the fact that i f Seventh-day Adventist theology were to incorporate the Form Critical method into it, with all its presuppositions, Adventist theology as we now know it would cease to exist, only to be supplanted by an evolutionary methodology.

3

For Gladson, form criticism in its modified form meant willingness to acknowledge that there are different literary genres i n the Bible: "Probably no Seventh-day Adventist would quarrel w i t h the identification o f specific literary genres w i t h i n the Bible per se," Glason writes, "Very plainly, the Bible contains literary genres. . . . I t would be very reasonable— w i t h an inspirational model—to see God giving a revelation o f Himself and His truth i n the accepted literary forms o f the day." But, can this acknowledgment be called a type o f form criticism? Gladson was aware o f the problem: " I t would be one thing, however, i f form criticism stopped w i t h the mere labeling o f genres. But critics are not content w i t h this. I n fact, the descriptive process is only a prelude to the real objective—to get behind the text and to trace the development o f the genre." Hence, his final conclusion was that an Adventist theologian "should not disregard the evidence brought to view by Form Criticism. He is w i l l i n g to accept the classification o f genres generally, but distinguishes between this and the presuppositional origin o f the genres." What he is suggesting had, in principle, been done by Christian interpreters long before there was a historical-critical method; hence one must ask whether i t is correct to call it form criticism.

4

5

6

7

A second example is found i n a paper written by Niels-Erik A . A n dreasen on the use o f tradition criticism by Adventist scholars. He recognized the problem that we confront: "The tradition critical emphasis on the primacy o f the pre-literary ( i n the sense o f pre-Scriptural) traditions would undercut our view o f revelation and would thus be unacceptable as a method." Then he suggested,

The suggestion is a good one, but, is i t proper to call the study o f c o m m o n customs and practices i n Israel and the ancient Near East "Tradition Criticism"?

Douglas R. Clark and John C. Brunt have edited t w o volumes o f an introduction to the Bible for college-level teaching i n w h i c h we seem to find the full application o f a modified historical-critical approach to the study o f the Scriptures. These volumes were written to be used not only

by Adventist students but by others who "take seriously both up-to-date scholarship and an affirming faith stance."

The two possible audiences made the writers careful not to promote an Adventist position throughout the documents. That makes it difficult to know at times where the authors stand on some o f the methodological issues. Nevertheless, i n most cases, the methodology o f the authors is quite clear. Here we have a good opportunity to examine the results o f the use o f a modified historical-critical method and its impact on certain important areas o f Adventist biblical interpretation.

10

11

It must be clearly stated that Adventist theologians who use the modified historical-critical approach (those w i t h a more critical attitude, that is to say, who, in some cases, and for some logical reason do not accept at face value what the Bible says) believe that the Scriptures are inspired

by God and that they contain a message o f salvation for the human race.

But i n order to reconcile a critical approach w i t h the revelation/inspiration o f the Bible, they have to define revelation and inspiration in a way that allows a critical attitude w i t h respect to the Scriptures. They make some concessions to the postulates o f critical scholarship, because they believe that to some extent such scholarship is useful for the proper interpretation o f the Bible. It is their firm conviction that, i n using this approach to the Scriptures, they are not attempting to destroy the church and/or its message. That commitment should be acknowledged.

3. Modified Historical-Criticism and Basic Biblical Teachings

We accept the existence of common near Eastern parallets [sic] to OT laws, social customs, religious practices, and literary formulations. It would thus be proper for us to ask about "traditions" behind or parallel to OT customs, practices, and literary formulations with the understanding that the revelatory/inspirational quality of such parallels lies in the OT adoption or usage of them.

We explore briefly three main areas o f biblical interpretation that are extremely important i n Adventist theology and doctrine: Creation, law, and apocalyptic prophecies. Those areas have a direct impact on how we understand the origin o f human existence on this planet, the doctrine ofthe law and the Sabbath, the Adventist prophetic interpretation, the church's self-understanding, and its mission and message to the world. We explore the results o f how applying the modified historical-critical approach affects those specific areas.

342

343

8

9

Adventists and the Historical Critical Method

Adventists and the Historical Critical Method 1. Creation Narrative. Several Adventist scholars have applied the modified historical-critical method i n the study on Genesis 1. A m o n g them is Larry Herr, whose goal was to show "how might the use o f the 'historical-critical' method o f Bible study affect the interpretation o f Genesis l . " The biblical writer, he argues, was addressing an issue important to his audience and used imagery and language that could be easily understood.

Herr places the chapter within ancient Near Eastern history and culture and concludes that the author is using ancient cosmology (organization and operation o f the cosmos) to communicate a particular message, a cosmogony, or an understanding ofthe ultimate origin ofthe world.

1 2

Therefore, the key for the interpretation o f the Creation narrative is found, according to Herr, i n the cosmologies o f the ancient Near East.

Cosmologies, he adds, "change through history as knowledge changes, so that we can distinguish the cosmology o f Genesis 1, for example, from the cosmology prevalent today."

Most o f his analysis o f the biblical text serves the purpose o f showing that the cosmology o f Genesis is ancient and incompatible w i t h modern scientific knowledge. This particular perspective seems supported by Douglas R. Clark when he writes that Genesis 1 and 2 "celebrate the creation o f the earth and universe as the ancients perceived them."

13

14

This means there is no fundamental difference between the results ofthe traditional historical-critical approach and the modified one. They both relegate the narrative to the category o f ancient Near Eastern creation stories.

However, Herr w i l l argue that the cosmology o f Genesis 1 is meaningful in the sense that it is the vehicle used by the biblical writer to communicate a permanent and valid truth, namely that "the cosmos was created by the one true God in a miraculous and ordered way."

It is the cosmogony o f Genesis 1, what it says about the ultimate origin o f the world, that is to be preserved and not its cosmology. Herr would probably argue that it is there that the elements o f revelation and inspiration are to be located in the story.

15

I n a sense Herr has gone beyond what most traditional historical-critical scholars would be w i l l i n g to state. He modified the method only by finding a place in the narrative in which the divine is still active. He rejected one o f the presuppositions o f t h e method but the method itself remains the same. The tendency is to argue that the Creation narrative is not describing how God brought everything into existence but rather that He is the Creator o f an orderly world. This was also the conclusion reached by Richard L . H a m m i l l . He argued that

made things to be which had no existence before. . . . A division must be made between such cosmogonic, theological truth and cosmological details taken from the culture of the time.

16

Clark summarized the issue, stating, "The biblical record addresses the ' w h o ' o f creation more than any other concern." A n d Raymond F. Cottrell prefers to use the terms "message/revealed truth" and the "historically conditioned form" o f the Creation story. The message is that God is the Creator and Sustainer o f the universe and not how He created.

17

18

OT scholars usually acknowledge that the biblical writer believed that what he was writing in Genesis 1 happened the way he was telling i t . But the modified use o f the historical-critical method does not seem to take authorial intent at face value. I t is in using the critical aspect o f the method that the interpreter is forced to raise questions about the trustworthiness o f what the text is clearly saying (Content Criticism). I t is to be expected that the church w i l l resist the application o f the modified version o f the historical-critical approach to the Creation narrative or the story o f the fall o f A d a m and Eve (Gen 3).

19

2. The Origin ofthe Law. Critical scholarship has rejected the biblical description o f the giving o f the law to Israel on M o u n t Sinai. The prevailing view is that the law is probably o f post-exilic origin, although some elements o f it may go back to pre-exilic times. The formulation o f the law codes i n their final form developed through an extended process.

The historical-critical scholar, using the appropriate critical tools, claims to be able to reconstruct that history. I n that process, the origin and the development ofthe Israelite legal system is reconstructed along the lines o f sociological processes that do not take God's intervention i n human affairs into account.

Adventist scholars who use a modified version o f the historical-critical method have not described in detail how it is to be applied to the legal material o f the OT. Douglas R. Clark has addressed the issue, but it is difficult to know to what extent his views are representative. We really are dealing w i t h the question o f the composition o f the Pentateuch, but our present focus relates to the legal material.

Clark be gins his discussion on the law by pointing out that what we find in the O T in its present form concerning the origin o f the legal material is not unique to Israel. The ancients believed that " a l l laws derived directly from the deity, no matter what their content or nature. I n fact, most law codes from the ancient world depict either narratively or graphically the divine source o f the material."

He seems to i m p l y that it is against this ancient Near Eastern practice that we need to interpret the narrative o f the giving o f the law recorded in Exodus.

20

through the inspiration-revelation process, God gave truth about creation which could not be learned by human observation and reason—namely, that everything that exists owes it origin to God who by his spoken word 344

345

Adventists and the Historical Critical Method

Adventists and the Historical Critical Method

Clark accepts that God spoke to Moses at Sinai and that some ofthe material that we find i n the Pentateuch goes back to that experience.

But he does not inform us concerning how much o f that material goes back to Moses. Concerning the Ten Commandments, he states, 21

Most scholars feel the Ten Commandments as written on the stone tablets were likely extremely brief: "You shall have no other gods before me•" "Remember the Sabbath day;" "You shall not murder;" etc. A comparison with the list in Deut 5 indicates enough variation to support the idea.

22

Here is the historical-critical developmental approach to legal formulations, according to which, simple laws developed through a long period o f time into more complex ones, crafted to address the social needs ofthe people. The implication is that it is impossible to know exactly the laws that God gave to the Israelites at Sinai. The historical account ofthe origin ofthe law as recorded in the Bible is significantly modified and a historical reconstruction is made, using a historical-critical methodology.

The present form o f the book o f Exodus testifies that all the laws recorded there were given to Moses by God. But the modified use o f the historical-critical method concludes that there is behind the text a long history o f development. For instance, most o f t h e laws o f t h e Covenant Code "assume settled existence i n agrarian communities like those o f earhest Israel during the period o f the judges." The implication is that they hardly could have existed i n the form we have them in the Bible during the time o f Moses and that, therefore, they were not given by God to Moses just as the biblical text states.

23

W i t h respect to the legal material found i n Deuteronomy, Clark finds attractive the position o f Moshe Weinfeld: It is beyond doubt that the book of Deuteronomy contains ancient laws from the period of the Judges or even from the time of Moses. But it also contains an element from the period o f Hezekiah-Josiah, and this is the element connected with the centralization ofthe cult. Finally, there is also a Josianic element that finds expression in the final literary edition ofthe book.

24

Clark comments, " I f this is the case, we likely have another illustration o f ancient, inspired 'authorship' as a c o m m u n i t y project or c o l l e c t i o n (perhaps over a l o n g p e r i o d o f time) rather than s i m p l y the creative efforts o f a single i n d i v i d u a l . " Due to his respect for the Scriptures, he introduces the element o f d i v i n e inspiration, w h i c h most c r i t i c a l scholars w i l l s i m p l y ignore.

against what the biblical text itself explicitly states, he is forced to broaden his definition o f inspiration. God is no longer revealing His w i l l to a prophet; He is inspiring a community as it creates laws based on the challenges i t confronts. He seems to be talking about divine guidance but not about divine inspiration. Niels-Erik A . Andreasen states, SDA's see a much closer and direct tie between the OT materials and the authors of their literary formulations, and we presuppose or imply a view of revelation which places great emphasis on the individual author. In our view, the Scriptures are inspired because o f a revelatory experience of individual authors, not a revelatory experience of a people at worship, of their leaders of such worship, nor in the process o f Israel's remembrance of past history, etc.

26

From the Adventist perspective the fundamental question when dealing with this issue is the authority o f the law. O n what grounds can we say that the Ten Commandments as we find them i n the Bible came from the Lord and, therefore, have absolute authority over us? The suggestion that God was speaking through the community or the process o f codification is too nebulous and lacks clear biblical support to provide a solid and permanent foundation for a divine law that is authoritative across time and culture.

The m o d i f i e d version o f the critical method has p r o v i d e d for us a sociological description o f the o r i g i n o f the Israelite law, supposedly under d i v i n e guidance. I f that conclusion is right the normativeness o f that law is seriously threatened.

27

3. Apocalyptic Interpretation.

I n Adventist thinking, the interpretation o f biblical apocalyptic texts is o f extreme importance. I n fact, Adventists define themselves as an apocalyptic movement, proclaiming the future irruption o f God i n human history i n a majestic way that w i l l bring to an end modern oppressive and corrupted social and religious institutions.

Apocalyptic thinking is so entrenched i n our consciousness and identity as a church that to try to extricate it is to risk the existence o f this movement. A n y system o f interpretation that would appear to threaten our understanding o f biblical apocalyptic literature w i l l meet sincere opposition from the church. I t has always been the church's position that our system o f interpretation is the one provided by the biblical text itself and that it is, therefore, non-negotiable.

But since Clark accepts the basic conclusion o f critical scholars concermng the historical development o f t h e legal material o f t h e OT, over

The historical-critical approach to biblical apocalyptic deprives it o f any predictive element. I n this view, the nature o f that type o f literature is determined by the cultural needs o f the people to w h o m it was addressed.

According to this sociological approach, oppressed people found hope i n the formulation o f a future i n which oppressive powers w i l l be totally destroyed and a divine system o f government established. The authors o f

346

347

25

Adventists and the Historical Critical Method

Adventists and the Historical Critical Method books such as Daniel and Revelation were writing to their own communities, encouraging them and instilling hope where there was hardly any.

Those books, it is said, bear no divine revelation o f future events i n w o r l d history.

The modified historical-critical method shares most o f those.sentiments and conclusions. I t is fundamentally preterist i n its focus. Richard Coffen argues vigorously for a preterist approach in the interpretation o f Revelation. John was writing to the church o f the first century A . D . , and not describing the history o f the church during the coming centuries. Coffen is careful to point out that the book has been o f value to future generations: 28

This does not mean that the Revelation had no significance for generations future to John's day. It appears that each succeeding generation of Christians took John's apocalyptic message seriously and gathered hope from it. However, because John has written the Revelation for his friends, the biblical scholar will look for the current events ofthe early centuries for possible seed fulfillments of John's vision.

29

This is an intriguing statement. Coffen believes that the message o f hope encoded in the symbolism o f Revelation is still meaningful to us, but he does not explain what that message is. He seems to consider the book to be a prophetic one whose prophecies were fulfilled i n the early centuries but calls the fulfillments "seed fulfillments." Does that mean that the apocalyptic prophecies o f Revelation have multiple fulfillments?

He does not answer that question. Nevertheless, Coffen invites Adventists "to reevaluate and reformulate the presuppositions they take to the Apocalypse."

A c c o r d i n g to h i m , i f this is to be done, i t should be done along the lines o f preterism.

30

31

ship and idealist interpretations o f Daniel is nothing new for Adventists.

Desmond Ford made a herculean effort to merge the t w o , but the church rejected his views. Adventists believe that Daniel and Revelation contain prophecies that cover the full span o f history and reveal God's plan for His church, particularly at the end o f the cosmic conflict. The merging o f preterism w i t h historicism weakens and could even destroy the Adventist understanding o f the message o f those books and the role o f the church today.

Summary and Conclusions Our exploration o f the use o f the modified historical-critical method

by Adventist scholars revealed that the modifications they introduced are minimal and consist mainly o f the recognition that God is still active in the production o f the final form o f the text. When this new approach is applied to key Adventist doctrinal issues, the result becomes damaging to Adventist doctrines and to the biblical understanding o f the nature o f the inspiration and authority o f the Scriptures.

36

Adventist scholars who argue for the modified version have accepted some o f the most important results produced by the historical-critical method. The existence o f the four hypothetical sources (JEDP) used in the production o f the Pentateuch seems to be acknowledged.

Redaction criticism appears also to be accepted as the process through w h i c h the text reached its present f o r m .

This could lead to the conviction that the Bible is not always historically reliable, making it necessary to reconstruct the history o f Israel. One gets the impression that those using the modified critical methodology also w o u l d argue for the social evolution o f most, i f not all, o f the Israelite institutions. There is a strong tendency to consider much o f the Bible to be culturally determined.

In some cases, we even detect a tendency to reject the historicity o f a biblical narrative because o f its strong emphasis on miracles (e.g., the story o f Jonah).

37

38

Alden Thompson wrote the chapter on Daniel i n Introducing the Bible and provides another opportunity for comparison and analysis.

In terms o f the dating o f the book, he seems to lean toward a sixth-century date.

He describes the different approaches used i n the interpretation o f Daniel, without explicitly aligning himself w i t h any of them. Yet, he sympathizes very much w i t h the position taken by the evangelical scholar John E. Goldingay in his commentary on Daniel.

According to Thompson, Goldingay incorporated into his preterist interpretation idealist elements; that is to say, he accepted critical presupposition, according to which, the book o f Daniel contains a message for the post-exilic community, and it should be interpreted in the light o f the history o f that period. But at the same time, Goldingay allowed for multiple applications o f the prophetic material.

It is difficult to k n o w to what extent Thompson is w i l l i n g to appropriate Goldingay's views. But the combination o f critical scholar-

It is true that many evangelical scholars who have a high view o f the Bible have been using a modified historical-critical method in their study o f the Bible. But it is much more difficult for Adventists to follow their example because o f the centrality o f Scripture i n Adventist thinking and lifestyle. A m o n g Adventists the absence o f a creedal statement o f a permanent and unalterable nature makes our doctrinal statements vulnerable to significant change and modification i f our hermeneutic changes. This is not the case i n most Christian denominations. Therefore, the use o f the

348

349

32

33

34

35

39

Adventists and the Historical Critical Method historical-critical method has posed less threat to churches w i t h creedal documents. The fact that the Bible is our only creed means not only that we believe in the principle o f sola scriptura, but also that we recognize the Scriptures to be unique. They should judge not only doctrines and lifestyle but also any biblical methodology.

References 1. For a recent summary of principles used by historical-critical scholars, see John J. Collins, "Is a Critical Biblical Theology Possible?" in The Hebrew Bible and its Interpreters, eds. W. H. Propp, B. Halpern and D. N . Freedman (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbraun, 1990), p. 2.

2. See, Jerry Gladson, "Taming Historical Criticism: Adventist Biblical Scholarship in the Land of the Giants," Spectrum 18.4 (1988): 19-31; Larry Herr, "Genesis 1 in Historical-Critical Perspective," Spectrum 13.2 (1982): 51; John Brunt, " A Parable of Jesus as a Clue to Biblical Interpretation," Spectrum 13.2 (1982): 35-43; and Robert M . Johnston, "The Case for a Balanced Hermeneutics," Ministry 72 (March 1999): 10-12.

3. Jerry Gladson, "Form Criticism and the OT: A Critique," unpublished paper, Oct 1974, p. 40.

4. Ibid.

5. Ibid., p. 41.

6. Ibid., p. 44.

7. M . J. Buss, "Form Criticism, Hebrew Bible," in Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation, vol. 1, ed. John H. Hayes (Nashville: Abingdon, 1999), pp. 406-409.

8. Niels-Erik A. Andreasen, "Tradition Criticism: A Seventh-day Appraisal," unpublished paper, Oct 1974, p. 7.

9. Ibid., p. 8.

10. Douglas R. Clark and John C. Brunt, eds., Introducing the Bible, 2 vols.

(Lanham, M D : University Press of America, 1997).

11. Ibid., vol. 1, p. xvii.

12. Herr, p. 51.

13. Ibid., p. 52.

14. Douglas R. Clark, "Genesis," in Introducing the Bible, vol. 1, p. 94.

15. Herr, p. 61.

16. Richard L. Hammill, "Creation Themes in the OT Other than Genesis 1 and 2," in Creation Reconsidered: Scientific, Biblical, and Theological Perspective, ed. James L. Hayward, (Roseville, CA: Association of Adventist Forums 2000), p. 260.

17. Clark, "Genesis," p. 103.

18. Raymond F. Cottrell, "Inspiration and Authority ofthe Bible in Relation to the Natural World," in Creation Reconsidered, pp. 195, 196, 199, 203.

19. See for instance, Claus Westermann, The Genesis Account of Creation (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1964), p. 5.

350

Adventists and the Historical Critical Method 20. Douglas R. Clark, "Formation of the Old Testament," in Introducing the Bible, vol. 1, p. 5.

21. Idem, "Leviticus," in Introducing the Bible, vol. 1, p. 131.

22. Idem, "Exodus," in Introducing the Bible, vol. 1, p. 118.

23. Ibid., pp. 118-119.

24. Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1-11 (New York: Doubleday, 1991), p. 84.

25. Douglas R. Clark, "Deuteronomy," in Introducing the Bible, vol. 1, p.

160.

26. Andreasen, pp. 7-8.

27. For a similar comment see the Adventist scholar Giovanni Leonardi, "Alia ricerca di una lettura comune della Bibbia," Adventvs 9.1 (1996): 34.

28. Richard W. Coffen, "John's Apocalypse: Some Second Thoughts on Interpretation," Spectrum 8.1 (1976): 27-31.

29. Ibid., pp. 28-29.

30. Ibid., p. 30.‫׳‬ 31. Ernest J. Bursey, who wrote the chapter on "Revelation," in Introducing the Bible, vol. 2, endorses the historicist system of interpretation even though he does not explicitly state it (pp. 278-279).

32. Alden L. Thompson, "Apocalyptic: Daniel," in Introducing the Bible, vol. l , p p . 525-44.

33. Ibid., pp. 536-537.

34. John E. Goldingay, Daniel (Dallas: Word, 1989), pp. xxxvii-xl.

35. Thompson, "Daniel," p. 531.

36. It is true that Adventist hermeneutics has some common elements with historical criticism, "but there are significant differences in the way the common elements are used. Note the function of historical background studies Historical Adventist hermeneutics seeks to know how background contributed to events and teachings as the Holy Spirit transmitted divinely-given content within a local environment. In contrast, the historical critic pursues how such an interpretation of events as reported in the Bible could have arisen from the background such as we know it" (George W. Reid, "Another Look at Adventist Hermeneutics," BRI Shelf-Document, p. 2). It is also important to remember that many of the procedures used in historical-critical studies were used before there was a historical critical scholar, but they were not used to do content-criticism ofthe Bible.

37. Cf. Clark, "Genesis," pp. 90-91; and Alden L. Thompson, Inspiration, (Hagerstown, M D : Review and Herald, 1991), p. 158.

38. See, Thompson, Inspiration, p. 168.

39. This is a foundational conviction for Alden Thompson, and it leads him to conclude that the Bible is a casebook, not a codebook (see Inspiration, pp. 202, 208, 180-183).

351

Selective Scriptural Index Genesis 3:15...148, 186, 189, 197, 201 9:20-24 122 12:2-3 193 14:19,21 189 15:16 191 17:8 197 22:17-18 148 45:13 296

2:1-13 2:3

157 158 1 Samuel

13:8-14 15:29 16:1-4 16:15 22:10

298 299 299 335 297

Exodus 9:12 19:6 20:2 20:6 20:15 24:7

2 Samuel 335 193 289 289 311 92

Leviticus 17-18 19:19 20:1-5, 9,27 25:4-5 25:8-12

291 285 292 258 139

7:12-16 11:27 15:1

197 157 155 1 Kings

1:5 10:24 14:15 15:34 18:13

155 193 92 155 297 2 Kings

23:3

92

Numbers 14:34 22:1-24:25 27:17

258 65 274

1 Chronicles 33 92 2 Chronicles

79 84 225 314 196 84 86 92 169 189

9:29

131 Nehemiah

8:9

92 Job

4-27 29:1-31:40 31 38

175 175 175 169

Joshua 7:24-26 Judges 7:18, 20

168

21:25

155 Ruth

1:16-17

352

Psalms

140

168

2 2:9 3:7 18:2 19 22 22:1

128, 187 263 168 166 169 170 168,314

353

229 167 165 168 166 166 168 166 200 294 165 167 168 168 168 129 167 116 128 166 165 35 288 169 169 Proverbs

29:17 29:29

Deuteronomy 6:4 8:3 18:15-19 25:4 28 29:29 30:19-20 31:26 32:35 33

23:1 26:10 28:6 28:7 29:1-2 30:8 30:12 34 37:11 40:8 42:1 47:8 51:4 57:4 61:5 73:3 78:27 91:11-12 110 119 119:9 119:18 119:105 121:1 137:9

1-31 1:7 1:20 1:20-33 2:6 3:18 5:15-23 8:1-3 8:33-36 9:1-6, 13-18 9:10 11:18 14:11 14:30 16:25 23:7 24:10 30:5 30:6

172-173 171 165 172 171 173 167 172 173 172 121 167 129 165 165 288 167 78 79

Ecclesiastes 1:1 1:2

176 177

Selective Scriptural Index 1:4-11 12:8 12:9 12:9-14

177 177 177 177

Song of Solomon 4:5 4:15

179 229

Selective Scriptural Index Hosea 1:4-5 2:15 5:1 5:8 6:2 11:1 Joel

Isaiah 2:17 5:1-5 6:9-10 7:14 8:20 14:12-14 24:5 40 40:8 42:1 42:6 49:6 49:1-5 49:2-13 50:4-11 52:10 52:13-53:12 53 55:11 56:7 59:2 61:1-3 65:17-25 65:17-18 66:23

165 167 234 314 79 30 190 215 78 188 190 190 143 188 188 215 188 128, 188 108 194 31 139 118 195 195

Jeremiah 3:17 17:9 18:7-10

194 17,31,253 191 Ezekiel

4:4-8 38-39

258 199 Daniel

2 2:44 2:45 7

139 139 139 139 144 226, 314

128, 250-251,254, 260 254 255-256 128, 251-252, 259ÂŹ 261,264 7:25 264 8:11-12 8 8:14 5-7 8:16 18 9:22-23 18 9:24-27 257 9:26 187

2:28-32

249 Amos

1-2 5:4-6 9:8

192 121 139 Jonah

3:4

191

12:14 12:15-21 12:40 12:49 13:12 13:34-35 15:6 19:1-12 19:4-8 21:4-5 24 26:27-28 26:28 27:9 27:9-10 28:18 28:18-20 28:19

214 143 335 274 124 143 2 126 116 143 128 144 144 325 143 76 292 2 Mark

Micah 6:8

303 Zechariah

4:6 7:10

21 288 Malachi

3:6

299 Matthew

1:1-17 1:22-23 2 2:1-18 2:5-6 2:14-15 2:15 2:16 2:17-18 2:23 4:4 4:14-16 5:14 5:17-18 5:17 5:18 5:20 5:21-22 5:21-32 5:29 5:33-34 7:12 7:16 7:29 8:17 11:23 12:3-4

213 143 227 262 100 226 143 144 143 143 76,84,93,98 143 229 !41 127 2, 143,281 141 137, 142-143 130 311 96 127 279 78 143 124 297

354

1:1 1:17 1:22 1:24 3:34 4:11-12 4:33-34 7:1-23 7:13 7:33 8:23 10:5 10:21 12:37

213 314 !42 144 274 234 234-235 293 142 206 206 142 294 198 Luke

1:1 1:1-4 1:32-33 3:4 3:6 4:14-27 4:16-19 6:11 10:25-26 10:26 10:28 10:37 12:15-21 12:16-21 15:1-2 15:11-32 16:19-31 18:8 19:40 22:25-27 23:4 24:6-7

207 209 144 !00 215 126 114 214 287 287 287 287 120 130 236 236 238 82 124 77, 137 145 18

24:19 198 24:25 34, 84 24:25-27 137 24:27 37, 76, 112, 188,287 24:32 Ill 24:44 37, 76 John 1:1 1:14 3 3:6 3:8 3:16 5:26-27 5:39 5:39-40 6:14 6:31-35 6:67 7:17 7:46 8:29 8:36 8:58 9:6 9:39-41 10:35 14:26 14:29 16:13 17 17:16 17:17 18:36 18:37 20:31 21:25

210 145 225 21 21 240 76 38, 148, 189,317 83 124 144 211 33 78 289 144 124,210 206 30 78, 96, 112 23 185 20, 289 2 300 78 78 78 83 205,298 Acts

1:5 7:16 7:56 7:59 7:60 10:34-35 15 15:29 17 17:2-3 17:4 17:11 17:26 17:27 17:28 20:27 24:14 25:25

22 324 145 145 145 160 301 292 277 28 28 21,38 277 278 123 84 84 145

Philippians

Romans 3:1-2 3:23 3:25 5:14 8:7 8:12-13 11:5 11:17-24 11:26 12:2 16:20

75 120 144 124. 224 22 313 199 146 199 17, 22, 288 186

1 Corinthians 2:9 2:11, 14 2:12 2:14 2:15 2:16 6:9-10 9:9-10 9:20-22 10:6 10:11 10:20-21 10:31 11:2 11:16 12:13 15 15:29

118,315-316 112 21 17,21, 114 70 22 221 314 277 127, 224, 295 127, 295 222 304 101 293 21,293 128 217-218

2 Corinthians 3:12-17 3:14 3:14-18 3:16-17 4:3-4 4:4 10:5 12:13

148 23 22 23 19 143 17, 70 124 Galatians

1:14 3:16 4:21-26 5:17 5:22

101 120, 147 229 125 289 Ephesians

2:20 4:32 5:3-4 5:8 6:12

84 292 17 17 19

355

:22-24 2:5 ...

2:7...

2:8...

3:17.

4:8...

4:13 .

125,313 .22,289,304 78 289 224 221 294 Colossians ...32 .300 ...22 .317

2:4 2: 2 18 2 20-22.

1 Thessalonians

...78 .125

2:13 .

4:15 .

1 Timothy

.19 .38

4:1 .

5:18 2 Timothy 3:1 3:2-3..

3:15 ...

3:16..

4:3-4.

12 30 83 .37, 45 , 84, 92, 288 30 Titus .299 .123 .294 ...17

1:2...

1:12.

2:12.

3:5 ...

Hebrews

.144 .143 ...78 ...77 29,34 100 127 158

2:17 4:8-9 4:12 6:13 11:6 11:35 12:1-2 13:5 James 1:5 1:22 2:8-13 4:6 5:12

114 289 130 35 123 1 Peter

1:10-12

112

! ; ! ! ! ! ' . ' . ' . ‫ י‬J !

I

J

°

h

n

1 2

1:610

2:9

1

9

‫־‬

9

2

2:13 2 : 1 5

2:21 2:21-22...

9

3:15-16

263

5 : 3

J

u

d

1

1 2 : 1 4 I

2

2 9

3nn 7 30

1

1

4

6

2

‫־‬

1

5

0

0

1

123 31

2

l

A

dQ

256

3

; ; ; ; ^ i i

2

;

?

• 254

I 0

2

356

1

6

1 7

•

0

:

5

2

' ' ‫־‬

7

9

2 6 3 - 2 6 4

6

261,265 « 2

Index of Authors

64 264

;

Z

^

Z

‫ך‬

1 0

21:4.

8

2

‫־‬4:6-12

5

7

2

:

12:12-16 12:15 ^

1

2

i

294

! ,‫ף‬

e

Revelation

1:20-21

121

4

2

294;;;;;;;;;;;.;;

3:15 5:5.

1:20

123,261-262,266

1 2 : 5

267 ‫״‬

22!

200

Ahn, Byung-Mu 274, 282 Aichele, George 12 Althaus, Paul 45 Andreasen, N . A 342, 347, 350-351 Angeles, Peter A 44 Arasola, Kai 13,269 Augustine 2, 52, 72 Baker, David L 150 Balz, Horst , 219 Barrett, C. Κ 242 Barth, Karl 25 Bartsch, H . W. 25 Beale, G. Κ 150,256-257, 269 Beasley-Murray, George R 327 Belleville, Linda L 108 Birch, Bruce C 305 Black, David A 150 Blanco, Jack 132 Blomberg, Craig L 12 Boff, Clodovis 276, 283 Boff, Leonardo 276,283 Branson, W. Η 13 Bromiley, Geoffrey 82, 88 Bruce, F. F. 231,243 Brunt, John 304-305, 342, 350 Buhlmann. Walter 45 Bullinger,E. W. 45 Bultmann, Rudolf.

25 Bursey, Ernest J 351 Buss, M . J 350 Calvin, John 4,81,88 Campbell, Edward R 161 Camus, Albert 272, 282 Carson, D. A 109 Chapman, Mark 281, 283 Charlesworth, James Η 109 Charly, J. W. 102, 109 Chisholm, Robert Β 133 Chung, Hyun Kyung 280, 283 Clark, Douglas R 343-346, 350-351 Clement of Alexandria 93, 108, Clement o f Rome 93, 108

Coffen, Richard W.... 348, 351 Cohen, Abraham 206. 222 203 Collins, Jack 350 Collins. John J Cone. James 273, 278, 282 150 Corley, Bruce 314.

Cottrell. Raymond F 327, 345, 350 13 Couperus. Μ 44 Cupples, David 73 Damsteegt, Gerard Ρ 8. 13, Daniells, Arthur G 325 13.

Davidson, Richard M 43-44, 132-133, IS 0, 203, 242, 283,315,327 Dederen, Raoul. , 43, 57, 6162,72-74,109,304,318,327 Dockery, David S. 108, 150 314.

Douglass. Herbert Ε 327 305-307 du Preez. Ron 161 Duval. J. Scott Elwell, Walter A 109 132 Engel, James F Evans, Craig 233-234, 243 Fee, Gordon D 161, 180, 220,222 Feinberg, Paul D. ,, 305 218 Findlay, G. G 44 Fowler, John M .

Freedman, David Noel 109.

350 243 Friedrich, J 133 Fritsch, C. Τ 12 Froom, LeRoy Ε Gadamer, Hans-Georj1 73 45 Gaybba, Brian 305-306 Geisler, Norman L Gladson. Jerry 342, 350 Goldingay, John Ε 348, 351 108 Goodspeed, Edgar J. 109 Graf, David F 45 Grenz, Stanley J 88 Grimm, Harold Gugliotto, Lee J 13 73 Guy, Fritz 350 Halpern, Baruch 161 Hals, Ronald M .

357

Hammill, Richard L . .344,350 Hanson, R. P. C. 230, 242 Harrington. Daniel J 109 Hasel, Frank Μ 25, 44-45, Hasel, Gerhard F.... 13, 43, 45, 203,283,305 Hayes. John Η 350 Haynes, Carlvle Β 55, 73 Havs, J. Daniel 161 Hays, Richard B. 304 Hayward, James L 350 Heppenstall, Edward ....54, 56, 72-73 Herion, David F. 109 Herr. Larry 344, 350 Higginson. Richard 307 Hill, Andrew E. 109 12 Hoerth, Alfred J 14, 73, Holbrook. Frank B. 203, 296, 306, 327 12, 161 Hubbard. Robert L .

Hughes, Philip E. 25 243-244 Hultgren, Arland Hyde, Gordon M .

306, 327 Jeremias, Joachim 206, 222 350 Johnston, Robert Μ 94. 243 Josephus Juel, Donald 150 161, 180, Kaiser, Walter C 306 109 Keck, Leander Ε 179-180 Keel, Othmar 283 Kinnamon, Michael 303-304 Kis. Miroslav Μ 12 Kitchen, Kenneth 219 Kittel, Gerhard 12 Klein, William W. 13 Knight, George R. 12 Krentz, Edgar Ktimmel, Werner Georg 45 227, 242 Lampe, G. W. H .

44 Larkin, William J. 203 LaRondelle, Hans Κ 13 Lee, Frederick 150 Lembke, Steve W. 351 Leonard!, Giovanni Lichtenwalter, Larry L. 304 246 Lindsey, Hal Linnemann, Eta 228, 242

Index of Authors Longenecker, Richard N . . . . 12, 242 Lovejoy, Grant I 150 Lowth, Robert.... 164-165, 180 Luther, Martin 3-4, 19, 37, 40-41,45, 52, 80-81,86, 88, 100-101, 104 Lutzer, Erwin W. 306 Maier, Gerhard 12 Maluleke, Tinyiko Sam....281, 283 Marshall, C 304 Mathews, Kenneth A 108 Maxwell, C. Mervyn 7, 13 Mbiti, John 282 McRnight, Edgar V. 12 McRay, John 12-13 Michaelson, Victor 14 Miller, William 5-6,13,19, 250 Moo, Douglas J. 109 Morris, Leon 109 Moskala, Jiri 203 Muller, Ekkehardt 132 Mulzac, Kenneth 203 Murphy, Roland Ε 180 Neufeld, Don F 7, 13 Newbigin, Lesslie 271,282 Newman, Carey C 150 Ng'weshemi, Andrea 276, 283 Nichol, F. D 13,283 Nickelsburg, G. W. E. 109 Nicole, Roger 150 Nkwoka, A. 0 306 Ojewole, Afolarin 0 203 Olson, Robert W 327 Osborne, Grant R. 180

Packer, James 1 45 Paulien, Jon 25, 327 Payne, J. Barton 202 Pfandl, Gerhard.... 14, 132-133 Pipim, Samuel Koranteng... 73 Plantinga, Alvin 25 Propp, W. Η 350 Quilligan, Maureen 242 Ramm, Bernard 78, 88 Rasmussen, Steen R 13 Rice, George Ε 327 Robertson, O. Palmer 306 Robinson, Haddon W. 133 Rodriguez, Ângel Μ 180, 304 Sailhammer, John Η 203 Samartha, Stanley J 275, 280, 283 Scherer, Karl 45 Schneider, Gerhard 219 Schwarz, R. W. 8, 13 Shea, William Η 14, 257, 269 Silva, Moises 161, 180 Sloan, Robert B. Jr.... 108, 150 Snodgrass, Klyne R 242 Spicq, Ceslas 219 Spohn, William C 305 Stadelmann, Helge 44 Stein, Robert 243 Stockhouse, John G 44 Stuart, Douglas 161, 180, 220, 222 Sugirtharajah, R. S 282-283 Tamez, Elsa 274-275, 280, 282 Tappert, Theodore G 88 Thiselton, Anthony C 12

Thompson, Alden....57-58, 73, 348,351 Tillich, Paul 25 Timm, Alberto R 13, 72-73 Tutu, Desmond 282 Unger, Merrill 19,25 van Bemmelen, Peter Μ 44, 109 Van, Dolson 72-73 VanEngen, John 109 Vanhoozer, Kevin 44 Vine, W. Ε 219 Vyhmeister, Nancy 283 Walton, John 109 Webb, William J 305 Weeks, Noel 84, 88 Weinfeld, Moshe 203, 346, 351, Weiss, Herold 60, 73 Welch, Douglas Ε 306 Wenham, John 45, 76, 88 Westermann, Claus 350 White, Arthur L 326-328 White, Ellen G. ...8, 16-21,23, 30, 32-33,35,41,44-45, 5556, 58-59,61-66,71-72,74, 83,85-87,206,208-216,295, 298-299, 304, 307, 309-328, 330, 333, 335-337 White, James 44 White, R. Ε. 0 289,304 White, W. C 325, 327-328 Wilmore, Gayraud 282 Winslow, Gerald R 307 Woolcombe, K. J 242 Young, Robert 304

Subject Index 1888 Minneapolis, 7, 320 1901 General Conference, 320 1919 Bible Conference, 8, 13,325 1952 Bible Conference, 9 1974 Bible Conferences, 10 1986 Rio Document, 10 A Abortion, 291, 304 Abraham, 190-191, 193, 197, 324 Adventist scholars, 339, 341 and apocalyptic interpretation, 347-349 and biblical laws, 345-347 and creation, 344-345 use of historical-critical method, 341-349 Allegorical method, 2-4, 178 Allegories, 123, 178, 223, 227, 229,231,241-242 interpretation, 231 Allegorization, 228-231, 242 Analogy o f Scripture, 7 Antiochus Epiphanes, 11, 258 Apocalyptic prophecies, 245, 247-249 1260 years, 261,265 2300 years, 5-6 and historical criticism, 347 and postmodernism, 246 characteristics, 248 Daniel 7, 259-261 historical sequence, 253254 historicism, 4, 249, 268 interpretation, 250-253, 347 OT roots, 255 principle o f recapitulation, 259 Revelation 12, 261-266 Revelation 77,266-268 sequence markers, 253, 261 speculations, 245

358

symbolism, 126, 255-256, 258,262 use of numbers, 257 Apocryphal writings, 94-95, 100, 102-103, 105, 109, theological errors, 100 Apotelesmatic principle, 11 Archaeology, 5, 36, 333 Artificial insemination, 300, 302 Athanasius, 95, 108 Authority, divine, 77, 86 of the interpreter, 32 Authority o f Scripture (see also Scripture) biblical evidence, 79 Β Babylonian Talmud, 95 Bible (see Scripture) Bible characters and ethics, 296-300 Biblical doctrines, 128 Bible readings, 275, 279 Bible study, 329-337 and Near Eastern culture, 335 discrepancies or contradictions, 335 methods, 332-337 presuppositions, 330 principles of interpretation, 331 Bible translations, 39, 86, 115-116 Biblical criticism, 83 Biblical ethics, 285-307 Acts 15 council, 301 application, 285, 300 David at Nob, 297 David's polygamy, 298 descriptive task, 286 ethical quandaries, 300 hermeneutical task, 287 Joseph story, 296 imitation of Christ, 288 the integrative task, 287 interpretation, 285

359

moral absolutes, 290-292 Obadiah saves 100 prophets, 297 pragmatic task, 287 Rahab's deception, 298299 Samuel's "half-truth", 299 submissive task, 286 transcultural absolutes, 290-295 when the Bible is silent, 302 Biblical narratives, 153, 296 example, 157-160 guidelines for interpreting, 154-156, 296-300 levels of operation, 156 literary features, 154 Black theology, 273 C Canon o f Scripture, 91 and authority, 91 and tradition, 101-102 Catholic, 98-99, 101 definition, 92-93 Hebrew, 94-95 in the church fathers, 9698 Melito, 95, 100 Muratorian fragment, 104 NT canon closed, 103-104 NT-history of, 96 OT canon closed, 103 OT-history of, 94 Orthodox Church, 99 Protestant, 98-99 Synod ofLaodicea, 108 Canon ofthe L X X , 94-95, 100 Canon within the canon, 4 1 , 104-105 Canonical criticism, 104 Canonization, 93, 103, 107 criteria and process, 102104 Character development, 288 Chiasm (see Interpretation of Scripture)

Subject Index Christ and Scripture, 40-43 center of Scripture, 42, 148 earthly ministry, 200 first advent, 198 his teachings, 17 our example, 300 second advent, 187, 200, 202 Christian self-identity, 301 Christological principle, 40 Christianity, 1, 4 origin, 2 post-apostolic, 2 Church medieval, 2 Circumcision, 285, 301 Codex Sinaiticus, 94 Codex Vaticanus, 94 Community of Faith, 37 Context (see Interpretation o f Scripture) Contextualization, 276-278, 281 Cosmic conflict, 18 Council o f Jamnia, 95, 103 Council of Trent, 4, 100-102 Covenant Abrahamic, 197 ancient Near Eastern, 197 curses, 196 lawsuit, 137 morality, 289 promises, 192, 196, 199 theologians, 196 Creation. narrative, 344 purpose, 29 Culturally relative regulations, 293 Culture, 36, 113, 128,272, 276, 290-291,305,340, 344 accomodations to, 2 biblical evaluation, 277 Culture based theology, 276

Daniel, date of, 261 Daniel 12, futuristic interpretation, 11 Daniel and Revelation, 245 futurism, 246 historicism, 249 interpretation, 250 preterism. 246

Subject Index Daniel and Revelation Committee (1982-1992), 11 Day ofthe Lord, 193,201 Dead Sea Scrolls (see Qumran) Death penalty in Israel, 292 Deism, 55 Demonic influences, 20 Determinism, 184 Difficult Passages (see Interpretation o f Scripture) Dispensationalism, 195, 246 Divine Guidance, 24 Divine Truths, nature of, 69

Ε Ecclesiastes interpretation, 176 purpose, 176-177 Eck, Johann, 80, 88 Encounter Revelation (see Revelation and Inspiration) Enlightenment, 4 Epistles application of content, 220-221 content, 217 historical context, 219-220 interpretation, 216-222 principles of interpretation, 221 Eschatology, 7, 200 OT, 193-195 Ethics (see biblical ethics) F Faith, 15-17, 24,331 evidence, 16, 290 seeking understanding, 24 Feminism, 274, 278-279 Figures of speech, 166-168 allegory, 167 hyperbole, 124, 167 metaphor, 167, 229 metonymy, 167 parable, 167 paronomasia, 167 simile, 166 synecdoche, 167 French revolution, 265 G Genealogies, 136 Gender based theology, 276 Gift of prophecy. 309 Glacier View Committee

360

(1980), 11 Gnostic literature, 98 God, 29 authority of, 77 character of, 299 knowledge of, 32 Gog and Magog, 199,. 202 Gospels discrepancies, 207, 210, 213-216 interpretation, 205, 212216 John's Gospel, 210-211 passovers, 211 sources, 208-209 Synoptics, 212-216 Synoptic problem, 207208 Great controversy, 24, 63, 72 Great disappointment, 6 Η Having the mind o f Christ, 21 Head coverings, 285 Hebrew poetry, 164, 168 acrostic, 166 hymns, 168 imprecatory psalms, 169 interpretation guidelines, 169-170 laments, 168 love songs. 168 parallelism, 164-166 war songs, 168 Hellenistic Judaism, 2 Hermeneutical challenge, 27 Hermeneutical key, 41 Hermeneutical principles, 7,36 Christ centered, 40-42 clarity of Scripture, 39-40 context, 38 Scripture interprets Scripture, 36 sola scriptura, 3, 5-8, 36, 40, 43, 55, 81-83, 85, 101, 271-272 sufficiency o f Scripture, 37 tota scriptura, 6, 8, 38, 42, 83-85 unity of Scripture, 37 Hermeneutical Spiral, 28 Hermeneutics, 15, 17-20, 51, 245, 287, 309 and culture, 271-282 and holy angels, 18

and evil angels, 19-20 cosmic conflict, 18 nonbiblical, 3 presuppositions, 62, 271 priority o f faith, 17 role of Holy Spirit, 20-21 sanctified reason, 17 Historical-critical method. 5, 8, 329-330 form criticism, 111, 342 inAdventism, 60, 339, 344-348 redaction criticism, 111, 349 tradition criticism, 111, 342 Historical criticism, 4-5 and creation, 344and God's lawf345-346 presuppositions, 341 Historical-grammatical method, 5 Historical narratives (see biblical narratives) Historicism (see apocalyptic; Daniel and Revelation) Holy living, 288 Holy Spirit, 15-16, 20-21, 23, 40, 42, 56, 286, 289, 301,331 illuminates interpreter, 23 role in inspiration, 29, 6365 role in interpretation, 20, 24 work of, 22 Huss, John, 3 I Image of God restoration of, 288 Innerbiblical Interpretation, 135-149 and the Holy Spirit, 137 in the book of Acts, 145 defined, 135 evidence of. 136 foundations, 138 guidelines, 148-149 in prophetic writings, 139 Jesus'example, 137 Jesus, the center, 141-145 led by the Holy Spirit, 137 legitimacy, 136, 146 method, 139-140 reasons, 146-148 Inspiration, 50, 63, 309, 336

and evangelicalism, 52 goal of, 65 Thompson's view, 57 thought inspiration, 55-56, 58-59,61, 67 thought inerrancy, 56 verbal inspiration, 8, 5253, 55, 61, 67 verbal errancy, 56 Interpretation of Scripture (see also apocalyptic, Scripture, Daniel and Revelation, and hermeneutical principles) 47, 113-132 allusions, 123 analyzing the text, 120 and culture, 128 and prayer, 114 application o f the text, 127, 130 basic steps, 113 biblical narrative, 129 chiasm, 119, 121 compare Scripture with, Scripture, 112, 126 context, 38, 116, 118, 287, 291,293,295,297, 312,318, 340 difficult passages, 40 effects of sin on, 30 E . G . White counsel, 310313 etymology of words, 125 exegetical, 313 historical-biblical, 111 historial-grammatical, 3-4 homiletical, 314 in the Middle Ages, 3 literary context, 117,313 literary genre, 119 literary forms, 122 necessary attitudes, 33 faith, 34 honesty, 33 humility, 34 love, 35 obedience, 35 openness, 33 prayer, 35 parallel accounts, 123, 132,335 presuppositions, 111-112 role o f faith, 34 seeming discrepancies, 132-133 text structure, 118, 120-

361

121 theological, 314 theological analysis, 126 translating the text, 115 using resources, 131 using the best text, 114 what the text meant, 112 wisdom passages, 129 Irenaeus, 2-3 Israel, 190-200 God's plan for, 193-195 spiritual, 199 State of Israel (1948), 196

Jerome, 95 Jesus authority, 76 ethical example. 296 and hermeneutics, 137 Messianic authority, 147 the model, !45 the new Adam, 143 the new Israel, 143 resurrection of, 113 Savior of the world, 145 Jesus ben Sirach, 94-95 Jewish folk medicine, 206 Job interpretation, 174-175 John the Baptist, 215 Judaism, post-exilic, 1 Justification by Faith, 40 Κ Kant, Immanuel, 54 Kress, D. H., 327 L Laws i n Scripture, 292- 294, 297, 345-347 and culture, 293-294 Decalogue, 291-292, 298, 304, 346-347 origin, 345-347 Legalism, 290 Liberation theology, 272, 276 Little horn, 260 Μ MelitoofSardis, 95 Messiah, 187-189, 194, 196, 198,316, 334 as servant, 188, 190 His resurrection, 188 Messianic prophecies (see

Subject Index

Subject Index prophecy) Metaphors (see figures o f speech) Millennium, 199 Minjung theology, 274 Miracles. 349 Modernism, 55 Modified historical-critical method, 343-349 Moral norms, 294 Moralization, 295 Multicultural Bible Readings, 275, 279 Multiculturalism, 278 Ν NT interpretation of the OT, 146, 296 Norma Normans, 36 Norma Normată, 36 O Once saved always saved, 320 Origen, 2-3, 230 1, Γ

Papacy, 3, 261, 264 Parables, 223-224, 232-242 interpretation, 235-236 Jesus' purpose, 234-235 Jewish, 233 the prodigal son, 236-238 rich man and Lazarus, 238-240, 243 Philo, 2, 230-231 Polygamy, 295, 298 Postmodernism, 11, 221, 246 Presuppositions in biblical interpretation, 27, 33, 62 and culture, 271-273 biblical, 29 faith, 34 humility, 34 love, 35 modified by Scripture, 28 necessary, 33 obedience, 35 openness, 33 prayer, 35 Prevenient providence, 158 Progressive revelation, 292 Proof-text method, 38, 112, 295 Prophecies, 128-129, 183-202 acted out, 185 apocalyptic, 184-185, 334 concerning Israel, 192-195

conditional, 185, 197 of Balaam, 65 classical, 184-185, 196, 200, 248-249 eschatological fulfillment, 200 foreign Nations, 189-192 genre, 184-185 guidelines of interpretation, 201-202 kingdom, 192, 202 Messianic, 143, 186-189, 201 nonapocalyptic, 334 unfulfilled, 185, 195 Proverbs, book of, 171-174 interpretation, 172-173 purpose, 173 Psalms, 163-164 Messianic, 170 Pseudepigrapha. 103 Q Qumran, 2, 95, 105, 107 Qur'an, 115 R Rabbinic exegesis, 137, 150 Rabbinic Judaism, 2 Reason, 15-17,35-36, 54 as a tool, 23 Recontextualization, 54 Reformation period, 3, 102 Reformers, 4, 80-82, 86 and Biblical authority, 8082 Religious experience, 36 Remnant Church, 265, 309, 316 Restoration o f the Jews, 5 Revelation, 47, 57, 63 research model, 63 Revelation, book of, meaning in John's day, 348 Revelation and inspiration (see also inspiration), 47-72 Adventist discussion, 54 and hermeneutics, 51 and history, 70 biblical evidence, 48, 50 biblical model, 66-67 biblical understanding, 60 encounter revelation, 5354, 60-61 general revelation, 47

362

hermeneutical effects, ‫־‬68 71 method, 49 models, 52 presuppositions, 51 the problem behind R - l , 49 reaches the words o f Scripture, 58-59 special revelation, 47 Roman Catholic Church, 43, 81 and tradition, 43 S Sabbatarian Adventists, 6-7 Sabbath, 291 Samaritan Pentateuch, 107 Satan, 18-19, 24 Schleiermacher, Friedrich, 53 Scripture analogy of, 112 approaches to,2 author of, 48 authority, 2-3, 32, 35-37, 40-43, 70-71,75-80, 82-85, 278-280, 290, 330 clarity of, 39-40, 112 cultural readings, 8, 274275, 279 determines methodology, 28 determines presuppositions, 28 distortions of, 32 historical composition, 6869 historical discrepancies, 324-325 history and science, 85, 340 human reason, 331 imperfections in, 67 inspiration, 48-49, 339, 346 its own interpreter, 21, 36, 312, 332, 340 languages, 115 multicultural reading of, 275-276 nature o f its authority, 77 phenomena of, 50, 58, 64 presupposition, 48 primacy of, 43 purpose of, 83 reliability, 70

sufficiency of, 37, 85 threats to its authority, 82 unity of, 37, 112, 150, 336, 339 Septuagini ( L X X ) , 94. 100, 107, 114 Seventh-day Adventists, 5-8, 107,272, 282,329,339 and thought inspiration, 55,58,71 and verbal inspiration, 8, 55 Bible commentary, 9 doctrines, 339 health message, 321 hermeneutical challenges, 10 interpretation of Scripture, 9 methods o f Bible study, 10 hermeneutical principles, 7 theologians, 55, 58-59, 71, 341-342, 345, 349 Sin definition of, 30 effects of, 30 disobedience, 32 distance, 31 doubt, 31 pride, 30 self-deception, 30 origin, 30 power of, 29 sola scriptura (see hermeneutical principles) Song of Solomon, interpretation, 178 Spiritual Powers, 24 Spiritual Remnant, 198 Slavery, 293 Τ Textual criticism, 105-107 Thought inspiration (see inspiration) Torah, 138, 149 tota scriptura (see hermeneutical principles) Tradition, 3-4,36,41,80, 112 and Vatican I I , 102 Tyndale, William, 86 Typology, 7, 123, 140, 185, 201,223-227,240-241

interpretation of, 225-226

U Understanding o f Scripture role of faith, 34 V Valentinus, 98 Vegetarian diet, not a test of fellowship, 322 Verbal inspiration (see inspiration) Vulgate, 100 W Waldenses, 3 Warfield, Benjamin, B., 52 War in Heaven, 263 timing, 263 White, Edson, 320 White, Ellen, 7-8 age ofthe earth, 325 and the Song of Solomon, 178 Bible: divine and human, 78,337 Bible study and prayer, 286 biblical criticism, 32, 83 bicycle craze, 323 David, a man after God's heart, 298 difficulties o f Scripture, 32 evidence and faith, 16 gospel discrepancies, 212 great controversy vision, 324 growth in understanding, 323 her own inspiration, 65 her use of Scripture, 314 higher critical scholars, 310 historical errors, 325 homiletical interpretation, 314,316,318 influence o f angels, 19-20 influence o f Satan, 20 inspiration of Scripture, 55, 58,64,309-310 inspired commentary, 316 interpretation of Ellen White's writings

363

acknowledge limitations, 324 historical context, 319 immediate context, 320, 326 larger context, 321, 326 look for principles, 322 interpretation o f Scripture, 309-313 be opened minded, 310 historical context, 312 invite the Holy Spirit, 310 guidelines, 310 guard against extreme interpretations, 311 literary context, 313 meaning o f words, 313 obey the truth, 310 use common sense, 311 meat eating, 321 not an authority on history, 325 not an exegete, 318 on creation, 85 on John 5:39, 317 on 1 Cor 2:9, 315 on Col 2:20-22, 317 on Nicodemus, 208 open to new truths, 310 role o f Holy Spirit in her inspiration, 65 Scripture interprets itself, 312 sin o f pride, 30 study truth in light ofthe cross o f Calvary, 41 study with prayer, 20 Wisdom Literature, 163, 170171 World Council o f Churches, 280 Wycliffe, John, 3, 80, 86 V Year-day principle, 257-258

Ζ Zwingli, Ulrich, 4,81