Articles
An Article Written by Dr. Neil Chadwick
Page 2 of 2
Question #3.
Who is adequately qualified to make an authoritative judgement regarding
the interpretation of a Biblical passage? Is there any commentator who has
come to a perfect awareness of the original author's intent? Isn't
"intent", like motives, an internal matter not easily scrutinized by
sensory tools? And what of Paul's admission, "now we see through a glass
darkly"? In line with this, isn't it possible for equally astute scholars
to come up with a differing "original intent"?
When a commentator "spiritualizes" the text, fear is aroused because we
wonder who is spiritual enough to be qualified. But doesn't "original
intent" succumb to this same pitfall? Now, instead of having an elite of
"spirituals", we have an elite of "scholars". Only those who have mastered
the languages, history, etc. can speak with confidence. The rest of us may
well be tempted to neglect the reading of the Bible because of the same
fear blamed on the leaders of the Roman church, the fear of heresy - "leave
the Bible to the experts". And then we must ask, how is this different
from the situation in Jesus' day? He certainly wasn't very complementary
of the "experts in the law". On the other hand, "the common people heard
him gladly" because His words were spoken out of an internal authority, not
one which would be supported by previous generations of scholarly research
and comment. To deny that we have available the same authority may well do
damage to our acceptance of Jesus as fully human, and certainly will
diminish our faith in the availability and power of the Holy Spirit who has
been sent to be an "exhorter" like Jesus so as "to lead us into all truth."
Question #4.
As Pentecostals, who lead the way in honoring the role and activity of the
Third Person of the Trinity, we must get to the very important question,
what about the "intent" of the Holy Spirit? After all, isn't He the
ultimate author of Scripture?
When the group assembled in Jerusalem to decide an extremely important
question for the entire church, James, after listening to the arguments,
declares a decision to not impose circumcision on Gentile converts. In
making his point, he quotes from Amos 9:11,12, a text which contains a
promise for the restoration of "David's fallen tent" following the
Babylonian captivity. (Note verse 14, "I will bring back my exiled people
Israel".) If we had not the wording and interpretation of James, we would
not know it could apply to God's acceptance of the nations. And certainly
his Jewish contemporaries would not have interpreted it this way. So what
gave James the authority to declare a decision not in conformity to the
hermeneutic of "original intent"? The answer is clearly spoken in Acts
15:28, "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us." James and the others
were keenly aware that their interpretation of the Scripture was molded by
the direct influence of the Holy Spirit, and Gentile believers ever since
are extremely grateful.
When it comes to understanding the revelation of God, what would we ever
do without the aid of the Spirit? We must not yield to the temptation to
rely merely on the exegetical skill of even the most scholarly among us.
We need the Spirit. The point made by Paul in I Corinthians 2:6-16 would
suggest that using the wisdom of the world will not yield the understanding
we seek. To the contrary, it is because we have the Spirit that we can
"understand what God has freely given us." The Spirit interprets spiritual
truths to spiritual men and women. When it comes to interpreting
Scripture, is it not possible that the intent of the Spirit may be
different from the intent of the human author? And if so, which should
always take precedence? Why then are we so quick to trust in the products
of our own intellectual search rather than that which is revealed by the
Spirit?
While promising the Spirit (known as "Comforter in John 14:26 and 15:26)
Jesus indicates that it is He who will teach the disciples. Was this
promise only for the Twelve? Certainly not. To say that Jesus meant that
this teaching of the Spirit would be limited to writings yet to be codified
is to speculate far beyond the plain reading of the text.
If "original intent" is the proper pathway to correct interpretation of
the Bible, where then is the place for the inspiration of the Spirit on the
reader? When Jesus states, "He (the Holy Spirit) will lead you into all
truth", He in no way limits His audience to those who may be capable of
cognitively recognizing "original intent". This must be what John later
refers to. Wanting to guard his churches from false teaching, the Apostle
reminds them that it is the "anointing" which teaches about all things. (I
John 2:26, 27) John's safeguard against false teaching is not to offer
sholasticly correct interpretation, but rather to urge the believers to
trust the Holy Spirit to guide them in their steadfast abiding in Christ.
Question #5.
Is "original intent" the same as "final intent"? If not, who is to say
that one is superior to the other? And, even if "original intent" could be
declared with certainty, does that mean that all other interpretations are
in error? On the other hand, if it is possible that there be acceptable
"secondary interpretations", why is it necessary to establish a priority?
There are two words which are commonly employed to distinguish between
types of Biblical interpretations. "Polyvalence" is the word used to
indicate that Biblical texts have more than one meaning. This was the
understanding throughout the church's history up until the time of the
reformation, and was based on the understanding that God was the author of
Scripture, and as such, He could be free to communicate a variety of
messages through a single passage. "Univalence", on the other hand,
requires that Biblical texts have only one meaning. This understanding
came in with the reformers. Calvin said, "the true meaning of Scripture is
the natural and simple one." Contemporary Evangelicals generally hold to
this view as put forward in the "Chicago Statement of Biblical
Hermeneutics" (Article 7) "We affirm that the meaning expressed in each
Biblical text is single, definite and fixed." (However, it should be
pointed out that both Luther and Calvin believed in a subjective element in
interpretation - what Calvin called "the internal witness of the Holy
Spirit" - to confirm in the Christian's heart that an interpretation was
correct. Quoted from Grant and Tacy, A Short History of the Interpretation
of the Bible, p.96.)
But one might ask, is our demand for "univalence" coming out of our unmet
need for security? If we, by understanding the "original intent", and
thereby fully embrace the assumption that this means we have come to the
"correct" interpretation - if we can be perfectly sure of the
interpretation, then all ambiguity is gone, and we can rest in confidence,
all doubts fleeing away. But is this a security of mental assent, or a
simple heart felt trust in God who is behind the Word? Is it possible that
for us, trust in our interpretation of the Bible will become our substitute
for trust in God?
A number of other questions should be raised.
Is the "hermeneutic of original intent" a complete and exact science?
Many of the ancient manuscripts are still being studied and debated, and
while the results of archaeological digs answer some questions, they often
end up raising others. (Jericho being a prime example.) All of the
scholarly hard work notwithstanding, it needs to be honestly admitted that
we still have relatively scanty historical information, and sometimes the
information is subjectively interpreted. That is, those who are most
intensely motivated to involve themselves and their resources in the
research efforts are clearly predisposed to interpret the findings
according to assumptions previously held.
It is usually accepted that establishing an understanding of the audience
is part of discovering "original intent". If we believe that the Word has
been ordained to be read by all people, is not the contemporary church in
the audience? Am I not also in the audience? Is a prior audience
preferred? On what basis? What is in the message for this audience? Who
can tell other than the original author?
Is the search for the "original intent" a necessary, and/or judicious use
of the Christian disciples' use of time? There are far more unsaved people
in the world today than at any previous moment in history, and the gap is
widening. Once the Gospel is embraced, the commission of Jesus is not to
analyze it, but to broadcast it. We might go so far as to suggest that the
preoccupation with concerns about "original intent" is nothing short of
diversion or avoidance.
Is it possible that the desire to come up with the "right interpretation",
i.e., one that allegedly perfectly matches the original intent of the
author, is little more than slipping into the arrogance of correct dogma?
Those who are most capable in presenting the arguments for their
interpretation will be "King of the Hermeneutic Mountain".
Furthermore, won't discovering "original intent" tend to cause us to call
off prayerful meditation, and the search for personal messages from the
Scripture? After all, utilizing the modern day grammatical historical
tools may be successfully utilized regardless of disciplines such as prayer
and meditation. Will insecurity about whether or not we have uncovered the
"original intent" keep us from opening our hearts to what the Spirit is
saying to us through the Word?
If third world preachers do not have access to the tools necessary for
"original intent" discovery - Greek, Hebrew, Historical, Archaeological and
Geographical knowledge - are they to be advised not to read or preach from
the Word?
Proponents of "original intent" often urge us not to use narratives to
formulate or support doctrine. Whatever may be the authors' purpose for
these accounts, certainly it would not be to convey doctrine, it is said.
What does this do to the so called "Pentecostal" experience of speaking in
tongues? It would appear that those who ascribe to the "hermeneutic of
original intent" will be forced to abandon the one doctrine which they
claim as their "distinctive". The Scriptural backing which supports the
need for speaking in tongues to accompany Spirit baptism, is what is found
in the narrative of Acts. While elsewhere Paul gives teaching about
glossolalia, he no where specifically teaches that this is a sign of Spirit
baptism.
The Scripture does not say "He that hath Greek and Hebrew, let him hear".
Or, "He that hath well developed exegetical tools, let him hear." The
science of hermeneutics has now become so technical as to frighten the
regular reader of the Bible. For example, glancing through a standard text
on this subject, one will be confronted, confused and confounded by the
technical jargon of the trade, words which are understood only by the
experts. Consider this sampling:
allegorical - - - - - - ecclesiastical - - - parallel stichs
anthropomorphism - - epideictic - - - - -parenesis
apocryphal - - - - - epiphany - - - - - pesher
apodictic law - - - - exegesis - - - - - phonologic
apologetic - - - - - figurative - - - - pietist
apocalyptic - - - - - genre - - - - - -preterist
apophthegm - - - - gloss - - - - - - - proof-texting
aretalogy - - - - - haustafeln - - - - pseudonymity
atomization - - - - hermeneutics - - - - redaction
canon - - - -- - - -homily - - - - - - scholasticism
casuistic law - - - - imprecatory - - - - sensus plenior
catena - - - -- - - kerygma - - - - - sola scriptura
chiasmus - - - - - -lexical-semantic - - source criticism
chreia - - - - - - - liturgy - - - - - - structuralism
christological - - - - locus - - - - - - - synecdoche
cognitive - - - - - - merismus - - - - - synopsis
contextual - - - - - metonymy - - - - syntax
corpus - - - - - - - midrashic - - - - thematic
decipher - - - - - monadic - - - - - - triadic
demythologize - - - morphology - - - - tropological
denotive - - - - - nuance - - - - - - typological
diatribe - - - - - -orthopraxy - - - - univocal
dispensational - - - parable - - - - - verificationalist
So, where does this lead us? Some would be quick to conclude that we are
now set adrift on the sea of personalized, speculative, arbitrary
interpretations. We can only expect to be driven by every wind of
heretical doctrine that happens to blow across the bow of our storm tossed
ship of subjective, emotional experience. While it would be foolish to
suggest that we are free from this danger, we must note that there is
another kind of wind, the wind Jesus spoke to Nicodemus about, the Wind of
the Spirit. We sincerely want this Wind to be the driving force.
If the "hermeneutic of original intent" were to leave the Body of Christ,
what will keep seven others from taking its place, leaving the Body in a
much worse condition? The answer should be obvious - the Spirit of God.
You see, if there is potential for misinterpretation, the problem cannot be
solved by a claim to some final authoritative hermeneutic approach. There
is no such thing, and to find security in the shade of such a tree would
only be false security nesting in the arrogance of human scholarship. The
only safe place is that which is found in the intimate knowledge of God
made known through the communion between His Spirit and ours. There is a
problem with our too ready excepting of individualism, and a corresponding
disintegration of the Biblical sense of Community captured in the metaphor
"Body of Christ". In much of the Church, members are being reduced to a
passive audience of lecture listeners, sitting at the feet of studious
scholastics who proclaim themselves to be the authorized interpreters of
the Book. The close-knit fellowship of earnest seekers who carefully and
prayerfully read the texts in the context of brother-love and fervent
prayer is a seldom realized entity. The answer to the extremes of
subjectivity - the only people who are totally free from subjectivity are
called corpses - is not a sterile scholarship supported by contemporary
"experts in the law." Rather, it is in the formation of a caring community
of faithful Christians whose practice of a Holy Spirit inspired compassion
is much more noticeable than any worry about being trumpeted as orthodox
with regard to the Book which reveals and directs this very love.
Pentecostals stand at the cross roads. Wanting to bask in newfound
respectability, we are too quickly abandoning the historic identity of
"People of the Spirit". We want to be known as having arrived among the
ranks of the knowledgeable. Writing our own theology is now important;
creating a viable apologetic is now vital to our survival. Using all the
well honed tools of responsible exegesis and acceptable hermeneutics, we
want to prove that we are right. But in the process, is there a chance
that we might lose the powerful presence of the Holy Spirit which is
absolutely necessary to effectively proclaim the Gospel and edify the
Church? The familiar legend of Augustine comes to mind. Reportedly, when
shown the wealth of the Roman church with the accompanying comment, "We no
longer need to say 'silver and gold have I none'", Augustine replied, "but
neither can we say, 'in the name of Jesus rise up and walk.'" Pentecostals
are no longer characterized by a back woods Bible thumping ecstacy; we can
now boast in a scholarship that proudly demands the respect of
Evangelicalism. But are we approaching the day when neither can we say,
with a confidence born of the Spirit, "Thus saith the Lord"?
Download
Please Take A Moment To Sign The Guest Book
[ Hymns ]
[ Leaders ]
[ Marriage ]
[ Church ]
[ Humor ]