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:

actantial - - - - - - docetism - - - - - paradigmatic

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

If a trustworthy interpretation of Scripture awaits the mastery of the jargon, the common reader is likeley to say "forget about it."

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"?