|
VOW
|
THE CASEBOOK
I returned recently from a week-long study leave during which it was my pleasure to work my way through a stack of long-neglected books. One of those books was Jack Rogers', Reading the Bible & the Confessions. To a large degree, I found myself agreeing with Rogers, but will wait for another venue to comment more specifically on his hermeneutical theses. by Edward John Carnell Chapter IV
HERMENEUTICS defines the rules that one follows when searching out the meaning of Scripture. These rules are not peculiar Christianity. They differ in language, but not in substance, from rules that educated people follow when searching out the meaning any system of thought. The doctrines of Scripture can be apprehended only as we apprehend the text with a spirit of meekness. Humility before the facts is the precondition of all learning, whether of Christianity or botany. We must submit to the system. To "submit to the system " means to be fair and honest with the manner in which the controlling concepts are related. A novel is led by a plot, a dictionary by alphabetical sequence. A novel should be read from the beginning; a dictionary can be opened anywhere. But in either case the system must be respected. This is particularly true in the case of great books. The reader immerse himself in the text; the system does not jump out at him. Melville was pleased that Hawthorne understood Moby Dick, for the general public missed the point. Since the Bible is a work of art, its system is easily corrupted by the cultic mind. " So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you ding to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in is letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures." (II Peter 3:15?16.) The Bible is vulnerable to cultic thinking because it was written by no less than thirty authors, from every rank and class of society, over a span of nearly fifteen centuries. Progressive Revelation The concept of "progressive revelation" is the key to Biblical hermeneutics. Revelation is not complete all at once. If the light with which it starts is dim, it grows clearer as the ages advance. The world into which it comes is one deeply sunk in sin, and in the evils which sin brings with it. Revelation has to take up man as it finds him, with his crude conceptions, his childlike modes of thought and expression, his defective moral ideas and social institutions, and has to make the best of him it can. Imperfect conditions have to be borne with for the time, while germs of truth and principles are implanted which, in their development, gradually throw off the defective forms, and evolve higher." For example, Lot violated parental duty by offering his daughters to be polluted. (Gen. 19:8.) His conduct was prompted, though not excused, by the sacred rites of hospitality that prevailed in Eastern nations at that time. (Cf. Judg. 19:22-24.) Each stage of divine revelation must be interpreted from within the
spiritual and cultural level of the people being addressed. "The Mosaic
stage of revelation, e.g., did not clearly condemn polygamy or slavery,
though it held in it . . . ideas and principles which effectively wrought
for the abolition of both. The Song of Deborah is an inspired production
Deborah is a `prophetess ' but parts are on the lower key of the rude
age of the Judges. There are portions of the Psalms prayers for the destruction
of enemies and imprecatory psalms, which no Christian congregation could
now sing, or use in any form without excessive spiritualization
Jesus disclaims the imitation by his disciples of the example of Elijah.
What was suitable to the age and circumstances of that prophet (Jesus does
not condemn Elijah) might not be suitable to a higher dispensation. All
this does not detract from the sufficiency of the Biblical record, taken
as a whole; it detracts only from the
Even the apostles had to grow in knowledge. Although Peter prophesied the breakdown of the wall between Jews and Gentiles, it was only after a shameful bout with pride that he conceded the very thing he prophesied. "Though this calling of the Gentiles was announced by so many testimonies, yet when the apostles were about enter upon it, it appeared to them so novel and strange, that they dreaded it, as if it had been a prodigy: indeed it was with trepidation and reluctance that they at length engaged in it." This is clear enough. But apparently it is not clear enough for the cultic mind. Cultic thinking tends to impose a uniformity on Scripture that Scripture itself disavows. Since the Bible is plenarily inspired, the cultic mind assumes that all verses in the Bible are equally normative. No allowance is made for the part that a particular verse plays in the analogy of faith. Open the Bible anywhere, and a "promise? for the day " can be claimed. Two principles must be kept in delicate balance: first, the whole of Scripture is inspired; secondly, some parts of Scripture are subject to the illumination of other parts. If a Christian neglects the second principle, out of a zeal to honor the first, his conduct hardly conduces to a healthy Biblical faith. Five rules govern Biblical hermeneutics: first, the New Testament interprets the Testament; secondly the Epistles interpret the Gospels; thirdly, systematic passages interpret the incidental; fourthly, universal passages interpret the local; fifthly, didactic passages interpret the symbolic. If any rule is neglected, the harmony of Scripture is disrupted. First, the New Testament Interprets the Old Testament Although the Abrahamic covenant is one covenant, it is administered in two economies. The Old Testament is the "economy of preparation"; the New Testament, the "economy of fulfillment." The Old Testament is a shadow of better things to come. (Heb. 10:1.) And since the shadow derives from the substance, the old economy derives from the new economy. The prophets look forward to Christ; the apostles are eyewitnesses. Therefore, in no case does the Old Testament enjoy primacy over the New Testament. Moses is a servant in the house, while Christ is the Son. A neglect of this principle accounts for much of the present blindness in the Jewish nation."Yes, to this day whenever Moses is read a veil lies over their minds." (II Cor. 3:15.) Moses received his authority from Christ, not the other way around. Roman Catholicism is cultic when it rests its distinctives, such as prayers for the dead, on apocryphal elements in the Septuagint canon. It forgets that the limits of Christian theology are decided by the New Testament, not the Old Testament. Seventh?day Adventism is cultic when it converts an Old Testament ceremony
into a New Testament principle. The apostles worshiped on the first day
of the week rather than on the seventh, because the first day commemorated
both the Lord's victory over death and the Pentecostal outpouring of the
Spirit. God requires a seventh of our time; that is the principle. The
day in the week is the ceremony. The apostles kept the principle but dropped
the ceremony. Seventh?day Adventism separates itself from the church by
siding with the Jewish rather than with the Christian tradition.
Cultic thinking often crops up where one would least expect it. For example, Matthew Henry tried to justify seventeenth?century laws on witchcraft by an appeal to the Old Testament. " By our consulting, covenanting with, invocating, or employing, any spirit, to any intent whatsoever, and exercising any enchantment, charms, sorcery, whereby hurt shall be done to any person whatsoever, is made felony, without benefit of clergy; also pretending to tell where goods lost or stolen may be found, or the like, is iniquity punishable by the judge and the second offense with death. The justice of our law herein, is supported by the law of God here." This confidence is misdirected, for the Mosaic laws against witchcraft perished with the old economy. Cultic thinking also tinctures the classical theologies. For example,
Calvinism seldom appreciates the extent to which the New Testament ethic
judges the truncated ethic of the Old Testament. Although Jesus plainly
says, "A new commandment I give to you, to love one another " (John 13:34),
Calvinism judges the law of love as nothing but a religious summary of
the Ten Commandments. "The Ten Commandments are summed up by Christ into
the se two: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and soul,
and might; and thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." This
an erroneous judgment, for the Ten Commandments do not take in Christ's
active obedience. Christ is righteous because he loved with perfection,
not because he eschewed murder and theft. Whereas the Ten Commandments
negate, love affirms. Moses gave form to law of love (Lev. 19:18; Deut.
6:5), but only Christ could give it substance.
The New Testament abrogates everything that does not materially
advance the Abrahamic covenant. When the Pharisees inquired about
the Mosaic law of divorce, they were told that the law was written for
their " hardness of heart " and that it was contrary to the creative
order. (Mark 10:2?6.) The same can be said about slavery. The Jews could
make slaves of other people, but not of fellow Jews (Lev. 25:39 ff.) ;
capital punishment was enforced, but not against a man who killed
a slave (Ex. 21:20?21). This ethic, in and of itself, is no higher than
that of Plato and Aristotle. And the New Testament stands in judgment
on it, for the law of love negates
It is important to observe, however, that the New Testament fulfills
the Old Testament; it does not reject it. The Old Testament is a
storehouse of instruction because it a adumbrates the New Testament. "
Now these things happened to them as a warning, but they were written
down for our instruction, upon whom the end of the ages has come." (I Cor.
10:11.) The principles in the Old Testament are eternal; their mode of
administration is temporal. God used fire from heaven to reveal his
displeasure with unbelief. The displeasure is eternal; the use of fire
is temporal. " During that period, in which he gave the Israelites
his covenant involved in some degree of obscurity, he intended to signify
and prefigure the grace of future and eternal felicity by terrestrial
blessings, and the grievousness of spiritual death by corporal punishments."
Secondly, the Epistles Interpret the Gospels In liturgical churches it is customary for the laity to rise when the Gospel is read, while remaining seated when the Epistle is read. This is cultic, for it implies that the Gospels are entitled to more reverence than the Epistles. But we are assured, on very clear evidence that the fullness of revelation came after the Gospels. " I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth." (John 16: 12-13) The Synoptic Gospels contain a few very cryptic elements. These elements are easily corrupted by the cultic mind. Jesus said it is better to mutilate the body than to go to hell (Mark 9:43?47) ; Zealots gouge out their eyeballs. Jesus said that some are made eunuchs for the Kingdom's sake (Matt. I9:i2); Origen castrated himself. Jesus spoke of spiritual powers without telling whether these powers could claimed by future generations (Luke ioa9); the Dolly Pond cult handle venomous snakes as a proof of faith. Jesus reviewed the last times without distinguishing between the destruction of Jerusalem and the events accompanying his own return (Matt., ch. 24); Anabaptists set up an earthly kingdom. Jesus forbade his disciples take an oath or resist an evil person (ch. 5:33?42) ; Tolstoy constructed a lofty social ethic which disregarded the distinction between personal and official conduct. Jesus did not develop a systematic theology for at least two reasons.
First, a normative interpretation of his life, death, an resurrection could
not be given until these events had actually happened; secondly, the Holy
Spirit could not be sent in the name of Jesus until that name had been
earned. (John 7:39.) Jesus completed the Old Testament while he ushered
in the New Testament ; he submitted to the ceremonial law that he might
have a base from which to terminate the ceremonial law. But Jesus did not
connect his own Messianic office with the promises made to Abraham. This
work work was bequeathed to the disciples. For example, when Jesus told
the rich young ruler to sell his possessions (Mark 10:17?22), or when he
depicted scenes from the Final Judgment (Matt. 25:31?46), he implied that
sinners are justified by works. This seems to conflict with Paul's teaching
that sinners are justified by faith (Rom. 4:16-25). But the conflict
exists in the cultic mind, for it was never Jesus' intention to develop
a systematic theology.
This principle is often offended. When the liturgical churches read, " Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God " (John 3:5), they promptly conclude that Jesus is teaching baptismal regeneration. The conclusion is cultic. If a Christian wants to settle the relation between baptism and regeneration, he must turn to passages that have this question in view; and the Lord's discourse with Nicodemus is not one of these passages. Nor is the discourse on the " bread of life " (ch. 6:25?59) a relevant base from which to defend the medieval view of the Eucharist. Thirdly, Systematic Passages Interpret the Incidental Though all parts of the Bible are connected with the Abrahamic covenant, not all parts are directly connected; for it is only as we reach the systematic sections of the Epistles that a theological effort is made to trace the relation between this covenant and Christ's Messianic office. Christ is the federal head of a new and holy race; he invested human nature with perfection by loving God with all his heart and his neighbor as himself. The human nature was then offered on the cross to satisfy divine justice. Being propitious toward the world, God forgives all who repent. This is the gospel, and its nerve center is justification by faith. There are only two places in Scripture where justification is treated in a systematic, didactic form. These are Romans and Galatians. This does not mean that justification is concealed elsewhere, for God's Word is one. Abraham was justified by faith, even as we are. It only means that justification is implied in some places, while in others it is systematically developed. Paul touches on justification in Phil. 3:6 ff., Titus 3:5 ff., and elsewhere; but it is characteristic of Paul not to return to a subject that he has treated at length in a particular epistle or group of epistles. John develops the plan of salvation; so does the book of Hebrews. But only Romans and Galatians make a didactic effort to connect the blessings of the covenant with the gift of God's Son. Therefore, if the church teaches anything that offends the system o f Romans and Galatians it is cultic. Since the concept of progressive revelation touches all portions of the Bible, however, not everything in the Epistles is systematic. For example, Paul speaks of " baptism for the dead " in a highly doctrinal chapter (I Cor. 15:29). The import of this passage is admittedly obscure. But theology is not affected, whatever the import may be, for theology draws on systematic, not incidental passages. Mormonism is cultic when it elevates proxy baptism to a cardinal doctrine. If there were any connection between baptism for the dead and the Abrahamic covenant, Paul would have reviewed this in Romans and Galatians. But the cults do not have a monopoly on the cultic mentality. For example, Baptists often limit fellowship to those who have been immersed. This is unfortunate. If the mode of baptism had any connection with the Abrahamic covenant, Paul would have reviewed this in Romans and Galatians. The same can be said about the Lutheran view of the real presence, the Anglican view of succession, and the Methodist view of subjective holiness. Liturgical churches place considerable emphasis on the rite of baptism itself. This is cultic, for Romans and Galatians name faith, not baptism, as the instrumental cause of justification. Roman Catholicism sees the cultic elements in Protestantism, but not in Roman Catholicism. Yet, the theology of Mary rests on data that are not even found in Scripture. The appeal is to "unwritten tradition." But if there were any connection between the Abrahamic covenant and the intercessory work of Mary, Paul would have reviewed this in Romans and Galatians. We look in vain for any such connection. Roman Catholicism says we are saved by what we do, not by what we believe;
and in saying this it appeals to what looks like very clear evidence: "
You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone" (James
2:24). But James is correcting an abuse of faith; he is not developing
the plan of salvation. He says that when faith is alone, not having good
works, it is not vital faith at all. Paul says the same thing: " For it
is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers
of the law who will be justified "
Roman Catholicism defends the sacrament of extreme unction by
an appeal to the oil passage in James (ch. 5:14?15). But the ap peal is
cultic, for James is talking about sick, not dying, people. Furthermore,
if anointing with oil had any connection with the Abrahamic covenant, Paul
would have reviewed this in Romans and Galatians. t:
The third canon of hermeneutics needs no special defense, for it is only an extension of the kind of procedure that educated people follow when any system of thought is under examination. For example, the Platonic system connects such concepts as God, the world of Ideas, the Demiurge, the theory of reminiscence, and the space?time receptacle. But not everything in the dialogues advances this system; obiter dicta are abundant. The dicta do not disturb Platonic scholars, however, for scholars have more sense than to subordinate systematic passages to incidental. If the church had exhibited a measure of this same sense, the Reformation might have been avoided. Fourthly, Universal Passages Interpret the Local Scripture often communicates universal principles through local ceremonies. But this very artistry exposes Scripture to the abusive tactics of the cultic mind. Observe, for example, the skillful manner in which Jesus taught the principle of love and humility: he washed the feet of his disciples. The principle is universal; the ceremony is local. Since foot washing has no relevance outside a culture of sandals, it cannot be imposed on the church universal. It is particularly necessary that right procedure be followed when the
Epistles are studied, for not everything in the Epistles is normative.
For example, Peter tells women how to adorn themselves; and his advice
is remarkably precise: " Let not yours be the outward adorning with braiding
of hair, decoration of gold, and wearing of robes" (I Peter 3:3).
When enthusiasts cite this passage to control women's fashions, they render
Christianity trivial and offensive. The apostles taught the principle of
modesty through counsel which
The First Letter of Paul to the Corinthians contains a baffling mixture
of universal and local elements, as illustrated by chapter sevem. Here
Paul advanced general truth by answering particular questions (v.1); and
among such questions was that of marriage. Since the church was on
the eve of an " impending distress," Paul
Again, Paul tells the Corinthian women to respect the federal headship of the male by wearing a veil (I Cor. II:2?9); and in giving this advice he appeals to existing social mores: "That is why a woman ought to have a veil on her head, because of the angels " (v. 10). When Roman Catholicism insists that women cover their heads when entering a church, it is cultic. Since Occidental societies do not require external evidence of female subordination, a modern woman honors the principle by wearing a veil over her heart. On another occasion Paul tells Philemon how to treat a runaway slave: Philemon should be just and considerate. The principle is eternal; its application to a slave economy is circumstantial. When critics chide the apostles for not attacking the institution of slavery, they betray a very unimaginative grasp of Christian social action. The apostles attacked slavery in the same way they attacked the tyranny of Caesar with grace and dignity, not grossly and frontally. Love is the law of life, and love stands in judgment on any static subordination of life to life. The apostles chose a subtle course because the existing order suffered from " hardness of heart." Unless social changes are introduced gradually, revolution is invited. In such a case the gospel would be identified with an ideology and the promised blessings would be obscured, if not destroyed altogether. Pentecostalism tries to revive the charismatic gifts, but it does not reckon with the economy that made these gifts necessary. Speaking in tongues served as a public demonstration of the Holy Spirit's presence among the Gentiles: " For they heard them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared, `Can any one forbid water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have? "' (Acts 10:46?47). When the wall of partition between Jews and Gentiles was demolished, the charismatic gifts yielded to love as the "more excellent way" (I Cor. I2:31). Paul delineates this more excellent way in his later Epistles; reference to the charismatic gifts vanishes. Whereas love edifies, speaking in tongues can be enlisted in the service of pride. Some may object that a precise line cannot be drawn between universal and local elements in the New Testament. The objection is valid, but irrelevant. A line must be drawn; the task is not optional. For example, Paul says, "Greet one another with a holy kiss." (Rom 16:16) this is a command; it is apostolical; and it falls within the book of Romans. Yet, there is only one way in which the church can honor this command, and that is by distinguishing between the principle of Christian fraternity and the fires-century ceremony of a holy kiss. The fourth rule of hermeneutics may explain why some of Paul's letters are not in the canon. While no final proof is possible, the missing letters may have been too local in character to profit the church universal. Fifthly, Didactic Passages Interpret the Symbolic Some sections of the New Testament are systematic in form, though symbolic in substance. The Olivet discourse and the book of Revelation are the most prominent examples. In such cases the symbols must be illuminated by didactic passages, for symbols share in the general limitations of Biblical prophecy. Prophecy, let us remember, is not its own interpreter. Whereas didactic language is open and plain, symbols are shadowy and ambiguous. The fifth rule of hermeneutics is a functional extension of the first rule. Just as the Old Testament is subject to the New Testament, so the symbolic passages in the New Testament are subject to the didactic passages; and for precisely the same reason. To reverse this order is cultic. Roman Catholicism often uses Biblical symbols to sustain its "counsels of perfection" For example, the book of Revelation implies that virginity is a better moral state than marriage: "It is these who have not defiled themselves with women, for they are chaste" (Ch 14:4). But moral theology must look to passages that have moral theology in view, and the book of Revelation is not one of these passages. Love is the law of life, and love enjoins an equal obligation on all men, factory worker and monk alike. whether a person marries or remains single depends upon the call of God. Dispensationalism used Biblical symbols to defend a pretribulation view of the rapture. But if the church were to be raptured before the tribulation, Paul would have taught this in First and Second Thessalonians. In these Epistles he traces the events of the Last Times in plain, didactic language; and he says that the hope of the church is the return of Christ, not deliverance from tribulation ((IIThess. 2: 1-12). Dispensationalism is anxious to have the church raptured in order that
an earthly Semitic kingdom might be founded. But this anxiety is
fathered by a capital theological error. Unless the future of saved
Jews falls within the general life of the church, we replace the spirit
of the gospel with the spirit of Old Testament Judaism. "Now if all
these things were to come to pass, the determined expectation of which
caused the Jews to reject Christ if he should actually appear, with miraculous
splendor, as the restorer of the Jewish nation, and city, and Temple, reigning
over the whole world as a great earthly sovereign, and reserving peculiar
privileges for his own nation if, I say, all these expectations should
be fulfilled, to which the Jews have so long and so obstinately clung,
surely this would not be so much a conversion of the Jews to Christianity,
as a conversion of Christians to Judaism; it would not be bringing
the Jews to the gospel by overcoming their national prejudices but rather
carrying back the gospel to meet the Jewish prejudices; it would
be destroying the spiritual character of our religion, and establishing
those erroneous views which have hitherto caused the Jews to reject it.
We may conclude, then, that all the promises and predictions in Scripture
relative to the future glories of the Jews and Jerusalem, are to be understood
of the Christian church, of which the Jewish church was a figure; and all
that is said of feasting, and splendor, and wealth, and worldly greatness
and enjoyment, is to be interpreted spiritually of the inward comfort and
peace of mind, and joy of the Holy Ghost which is promised to sincere Christians
in this life and of the unspeakable happiness prepared for them after death."
|