Bobby, The New Testament is God's revealed will to His people in this dispensation ... The New Testament is not so much in need of our interpretation as it is in need of being believed (Ep. 3:3-5) - I am to preach the Word, (2 Tim. 4:2)
(???) I have no doubt that the New Testament is God's word. For the record I have no doubt that the Hebrew Bible is also God's will and is inspired and good for doctrine and equipping the person of God (2 Tim 3.10-17). But your assertion that we do not interpret the Bible but simply believe or obey it is a matter I disagree with. Paul himself calls us to "handle" the word of God "rightly explaining the word of truth" (2 Tim 2.15, NRSV). The context shows that some are indeed mishandling/misinterpreting the word thus Paul exhorts Timothy to know how to interpret correctly.
I suppose you can claim to simply believe but not interpret. Ok, then (since we have cited a number of passages in the Pastorals I will limit myself to them) do you believe that women are "saved through childbearing" (1 Tim 2.15)? This is quite clearly what the text says, is that what you preach? Do you not call women to faith and baptism or simply to getting pregnant? Though I do not know you I have little doubt that you "explain" this text ... you "interpret" it.
Just a few verses prior we learn that women are not to have braided hair, gold or pearls (2.9-10). That is what Paul actually says. Is that what the text means? Do the ladies in your congregation have "gold" wedding rings? Do any braid their hair? If you claim (in any fashion) that this text does not demand that of them then you are doing more than simply believing you are interpreting.
What about a few verses prior in v.8? The apostle commands men to "lift up holy hands in prayer" and ironically says "without anger or argument." Just try that on Sunday and see if we simply "believe" but do no interpret. See how long it takes for "anger" and "argument" to break out. Some, perhaps you, will say that was "cultural" but brother that is an interpretation for Paul never places a footnote about it being cultural. This claim that we do not interpret the text is simply without foundation in reality. We do and we do every time we open the good book. The question is not whether or not we will interpret, rather the question is whether or not we will give a gospel interpretation.
You cite a lot of problems and controversies over the years ... OK ... I could cite tons more - that accomplishes nothing and proves nothing!! ...
(???) but it does accomplish something. The folks in these controversies were arguing about Scripture ... usually claiming to simply believe and not interpret. Yet they were arguing about hermeneutics. We can say, as you did, we simply "follow the laws of communication" -- ok so be it. Hermeneutics is essential to communication, unconscious or conscious. Those folks, like W. J. Rice, quoted lots of Scripture to support his position. He appealed to the "pattern" revealed in Scripture. Interestingly he called R. L. Whiteside a "liberal" and "digressive" and a "rejector of biblical authority" because RLW did not quite see the pattern as he did. Whiteside accused Rice of having a pattern with details the NT itself did not. This was a debate over which incidental in the tapestry was 'essential' and which was not. But our history is so relevant because it shows clearly that we never simply believed the word but rather we have interpreted it from day one. We can properly ask "did we handle it correctly" or "did we explain it" in a way that the mission of the Lord Jesus was exalted? This we can ask ... and should.
The question is, I repeat, simply what does the Bible say? That's what we want to know - I propose that we use the basic laws of communication ... God revealed His will to us in words ... human language, we therefore need to follow the laws of proper exegesis to come to a knowledge of the truth. Jesus used this method - Paul used this method - if it was good enough for Jesus it is certainly good enough for me. The CENI method is based upon these basic laws of communication ... with all of your objections this truth still remains and cannot be denied.
(???), I agree that we need to know what the Bible actually says. But I also want to know what the Bible means. I think I have demonstrated the necessity of this in our previous exchange. The NT itself indicates we may need "help" in properly interpreting and understanding even some very basic stuff in Scripture. For example in one of our all time favorite texts in Acts you will recall the story of Philip and the Eunuch. We have preached that text hundreds of times. But perhaps we rush to fast past what set up Philip's teaching opportunity. The Ethiopian was dutifully reading the word. I am sure he even believed it. Yet interestingly enough the question Philip asked was not "Do you believe what you read?" but rather he said "do you understand what you are reading?" (8.30). Of course the Eunuch did not understand! Was Isaiah speaking of himself or someone else (v.34). Then he freely confesses (not his disbelief) that he cannot "unless some one guides {explains for} me" (v.31). This shows that the text was not simply believed at all but "interpreted" and in point of fact interpreted Christologically.
You and I are on the same page regarding the "laws" of exegesis. Yet by confessing this you also confess the necessity of hermeneutics. Now it is my contention that we need to be continual students and refine our hermeneutical approach. It is necessary to do this on two fronts: 1) it will continually reflect the nature of the biblical text and the Gospel mission of God in Jesus Christ and 2) it must be able to address the world we live in. Answers to questions that no one asks are irrelevant at best and a hindrance at worst. So, like Philip, we can look for a responsible "guide." The guide the Ethiopian had been using proved useless in understanding the text ... he needed a "new" hermeneutic. If our older way of reading and applying Scripture proves as unhelpful as the Eunuch's is it any wonder that thousands in the pews of Churches of Christ are looking for a helpful guide. It is our responsibility to know the Gospel well enough to prove to be a guide. He who has an ear let him hear.
Here ends the current status of the dialog. I look forward to future conversation ...
Seeking Shalom,
Bobby Valentine
.jpg)
0 comments:
Post a Comment