All:
There was an interesting post on 'Prophecy News Watch' on May 19th by a Kelly Givens. It was entitled "Why aren't we teaching Christians how to study the Bible?" Her reflections and questions are both genuine and reflective of a serious problem that exists in Christendom. Kelly hit the nail on the head when she noted that many church leaders are about telling people what to believe about finance, gender roles, healthy relationships, purity, culture wars, but not about what it says, what it means, and how it should change them. She notes, "or perhaps we have assumed that kind of knowledge isn't really that important." Truth be known, most sermons today are not Biblically based or exposited.
This bright lady's words are insightful, 'So we continue to tell people this is what you should believe about marriage and this is what you need to know about doctrine and this is what your idolatry looks like. But because we never train them in the Scriptures, they have no framework to attach these exhortations to beyond their church membership or their pastor's personality or their group leader's opinion."
She continues, "More importantly, they have no plumb line to measure these exhortations against. It never occurs to them to disagree with what they are being taught because they cannot distinguish between our interpretation of Scripture itself, having little or no firsthand knowledge of what it says."
Another statement that speaks volumes, "but spending time wrestling with Scripture on our own should be paramount. And knowing how to spend time in the Word should be a lesson taught in every Christian church and a priority of every Christian leader to pass on to those whom God has given them to lead."
Her words were music to my ears. In my years of pastoral ministry I was driven in impressing upon my folks it was just as important that they knew why they believed what they believed. The lady who authored the article went on to suggest some sources for people to draw upon, one of which she named was Kay Arthur of Precept Ministries. Kay Arthur is a rock solid expositor of the Word, advocate of the "Inductive Method" of Bible Study. Kay Arthur's web site offers a library of Bible study material and I would encourage the reader to check out her site.- "Precept Ministries" if you are not familiar with her.
In this installment we want to look at the last two primary methods of understanding the Bible. Heretofore I have covered the first three of the most basic methods of hermeneutics.
The fourth method is known as the "Rationalistic" method. It has its seeds in ancient history. The "Rationalistic" method bloomed during the post-Reformation period and is still strong today. Through recent centuries the seat of rationalism has been in Germany, where the schools of higher criticism have attempted to undermine the authority of Scripture. There are many different methods that fall under this category because of their common characteristics. Following the Franco-Prussian War and the devastation of Europe, German schools of theology fell sway to people like Julius Wellhausen. He influenced a whole generation of church leaders that followed a path we know as the "Social Gospel" Emphasis was on "social justice" and "social welfare", and it virtually transformed Europe and America as theologians influenced by Wellhausen filled the academic chairs of America's seminaries.
It was the early 1920's when new Bible colleges and seminaries were founded to counter the Wellhausen doctrines and returning focus to the message of making disciples for the Lord Christ Jesus. Wellhausen from the last few decades of the 19th century and well into the 20th century took the Christian church into what we know as "liberalism". He and his followers could not bring themselve to believe that a loving God would have permitted the devastation of the continent that came with the Franco-Prussian War. He threw out the proverbial "baby with the bath water".
He came up short in answering for himself the four significant questions we all have to ask sooner or later, that being: Who am I? Why am I here? Where am I going? and How am I going to get their?
The rationalistic method presumes that the Bible is not the authoritative inspired Word of God. It interprets Scripture as a human document in the light of human reason. With the rationalist, "nature is the standard, and reason is the guide." If the Bible can be made to harmonize with the knowledge of the interpreter, then it is to be understood as meaning what it says, but if not, it is to be regarded as mythical, or used by way of accommodation to underpin a rational view of something else.
Thus, a sort of educated modern mentality is used to judge and interpret Scripture. As an example of rationalistic thinking/interpretation, and to explain away the supernatural, Lazarus is said to have gone into a coma rather than having died, and Jesus is said to have only appeared to have walked on water; to undermine the authority and the veracity of Scripture, historical events such as the crossing of the Red Sea and the Transfiguration of Jesus Christ are explained as either fanciful exaggerations or contrived myths. We now know this to be not true, and since the mid-1990's that Exodus crossing of the Red Sea is factual and based upon the work of Dr. Lennert Moller, documented in his book 'The Exodus Case' Surprisingly, many of the Rationalist school of interpretation of the Bible do not want to even read the work of Dr. Moller because it is revolutionary scholarship. Prior to the publishing of his book the world did not have one stitch of evidence to prove the Bible story of the Exodus was factual. Belief of the Exodus event had to be strictly on or by faith! Pastors of this line of hermeneutics refuse to look at the evidence. I will share an example of my experience on this issue.
After leaving full time pastoral ministry in 1998, I went non-denominational after leaving the United Methodist Church. I pursued a non-traditional form of evangelism. Because my style was unique, it was difficult at first to open pastors up to it. I offered a presentation to churches within about a 75 mile radius of my home. The presentation is called "Mining the Diamonds and Nuggets of the Bible." As I developed it and built the presentation it became such that I had to develop several formats for its presentation. Most pastors open to it were troubled by the length, saying their people would not sit for longer than 45-minutes. The reality was that people would not only sit for 45-minutes, they would sit for two hours, and then at the close, they would stay around for two more hours of questions and answers. The full-blown presentations were such that I had to do it in a variety of weekend or week long format almost like the old days when a revival service lasted a week or two. I have a 13-block program that proves the Bible is Truth, and is the Word of God.
The point of this is to note that in the Rationalistic method pastor's mindset, the "Supernatural" is dismissed or rejected completely. The evidence relative to the Exodus crossing event, is so profound that the "Supernatural" cannot be denied. The key thing about the crossing at Yom Suph at the Waddi Watel, there is a underwater landbridge that spans the eleven miles across the Red Sea point where the Jews crossed over. The underwater landbridge is approximately 250 meters below the surface of the water, and on either side of the half-mile wide landbridge the water depths drops off between 5,000 and 8,000 feet in depth on the other sides of the landbridge. When you consider the landbridge portion is still 250 meters below the surface, you still have to explain away the issue of how could the water be parted to permit the crossing at all. Dr. Moller's book is filled with hundreds of color photos, including those taken by underwater remote cameras showing chariot wheels, and other debrise of the Egyptian period of the time of the Exodus. As I said, until Dr. Lennert Moller's research came to light, we had absolutely no proof of or evidence that the Exodus crossing was a historical event. You simply believed by faith.
No longer is that the case. What I discovered about pastors was they aren't interested in knowing the whole story because it upsets their theological construct. They were so engrained with the "Rationalistic" concept of interpreting the Bible they were tripped up by what was obviously "Supernatural".
Several generations have proven this method to be little more than the method of unbelief. In fact, rationalistic exegesis could be better termed "Exit-Jesus". If you ever heard of the "Jesus Seminar" group that used to meet in the 1990's; they used color balls to vote upon what Jesus said and what Jesus did not say, is a manifestation of this Rationalistic school of interpretation. When the Jesus Seminar group concluded their many meetings, they had concluded that most of what Jesus said, recorded in the Scripture, He never said!
Although claiming the title "Rational," this method is probably the most irrational. It is virtually uninterested in what the writers literally said, but cares only for what the interpreter thinks they should have said. It exalts the god of reason above the authority of the Word of God. By it the interpreter sets himself up as the standard of truth and only sees value in Scripture as it confirms his conclusions. For the interpreter who views Scripture as the inspired Word of God, the rationalistic method in all its forms must be rejected.
My wife works as a part-time church secretary for a United Presbyterian church that has a woman pastor. Her constant theme is being an "open-accepting-loving" church. With her "tolerance is a virtue". She is a case-study in why the UPCUSA is in rapid decline. The UPCUSA headquarters are in Louisville, KY. Several years running now they have announced staff layoffs. Things are so bad, that last year the UPC moved out of the National Council of Churches facilities in NYC, and the NCC itself is in rapid retreat for its very existence. It moved last year out of New York to a United Methodist office in Washington, DC as I recall.
The fifth basic method of Hermeneutics is the "Literal" method. In terms of Scripture, the Literal method of interpretation of the Bible is the oldest in existence. It is said to have originated with Ezra, and called the father of hermeneutics. The progress of its history tracks through the Palestinian Jews, Jesus Christ, the Apostles, the School of Antioch, the Reformers, to the Fundamentalist Conservatives of today.
The "Literal" method of interpretation assumes that the words of Scripture in their plain evident meaning are reliable; that God intended His revelation to be understood by all who believe; that the words of Scripture communicate what God wants man to know; and that God based the communication of Truth on the regular law of governing written communication, thereby intending for it to be interpreted by those same laws. This is not to deny the Holy Spirit's involvement in both the production and interpretation of the Bible.
The expression "literal sense" may be defined as: The usual, customary, and socially accepted meaning conveyed by words or expressions in their particular contexts. It involves that which a particular word meant to the original writers and readers. It recognizes that a word may have different meaning in different contexts and thus be interpreted in light of its contextual usage. It contends that though a word may possibly have several meanings, in any one particular usage it generally will have but one intended meaning. This method is also called the Grammatico-Historical method because, in order to determine the normal and customary usage of Bible language, the accepted rules of grammar and rhetoric must be considered and the historical and cultural aspects of Bible times must be taken into consideration.
The literal sense does not exclude the figurative aspects. Some interpreters have used the term figurative in opposition to the term literal, as though the figurative meaning of words were opposed to the literal sense. However, in that figurative language is a part of normal conversation, it also is encompassed by the literal system of interpretation. In fact, the figurative such a idioms, idiomatic expressions are quite common in the Greek and Hebrew. This is an aspect of understanding the Bible that few Christian have any knowledge of, something that comes from who they learn the Bible from. Ferreting out the "hidden in plain site" meanings is a challenge to the pastor, as a result of inadequate training or the absence of learning in the Biblical languages. It becomes a real challenge because Bible colleges and seminaries simply have downgraded curriculum and excluded this aspect of Bible teaching. You have people who attack the "Hebrew Roots" movement of teaching the Torah. We have much to learn, however, it does not imply we are to become like Jews of old in order to benefit from the rich material available to the student of the Word. Recently, Jim Bramlett posted a post that linked to a video revealing the Virgin Birth in the Hebrew text. If you haven't viewed it, do so, go back to the posts of Memorial Day weekend and take advantage of the deeper study of the Hebrew text. We can benefit greatly, despite that few of us have the functional working use of the Hebrew the speaker has. I have been studying Hebrew and Greek for thirty years and it would likely be at least thirty more years before I could teach as the gentlemen on the video that Bro. Jim linked the Doves to.
The Literal method does not exclude the spiritual meaning. Some interpreters have used the term spiritual in opposition to the term literal as though the spiritual meaning of Scripture were opposed to its literal meaning, Under the title of the "Spiritual" method, some interpreters have "spiritualized" Scripture to mean something other than what it says. The Literal method, while rejecting "spiritualization", does admit the spiritual substance and nature of the Scriptures. The criticism of those that "spiritualize" Scripture is due to their extending it to virtually mean every word and passage, when that is obviously incorrect. The fact is the Bible is a spiritual book conveying spiritual Truth and therefore must be spiritually interpreted. This can be done by accepting as sufficient the luminated literal meaning of the words.
The Literal method does not exclude application. Some interpreters confuse interpretation with application. The task of the literal interpretation is first to discern the meaning of God's Word, and then, upon that basis, to apply it. A general rule of the literal method is: "There is one interpretation, but many applications." While as I understand the Bible, in particular, any book, this is not a hard and fast rule. I say this in light of the deeper understanding the Hebrew "PARDS" concept of unpacking the text. This is a subject for later explanation once we have got enough foundational understanding under our belts.
The Literal method does not exclude depth of meaning. In that God is the virtual author of Scripture, some Truths therein are patent, outward, and obvious, while in others are latent, inward, and hidden. Historical events do have spiritual significance, like the Exodus, and certain figures of speech, such as Types, Symbols, Parables, and Allegories, do have hidden meanings is solidly based on the earthly sense of the words and necessitates that interpretation remain within the proper boundaries of Truths plainly revealed in God's Word.
In conclusion, the Literal method stands out among the rest as the only sound, safe, sensible approach. It is much maligned, largely because it is so correct in bringing people to a place where they can know God. What else could we expect from God's nemesis Lucifer, but to attack anything that would lead us to the Father, through the Son. Each of the other methods have proven inadequate in that they lack God-given and well-defined boundaries.
As you can see, from learning the five basic methods of interpretating Scripture is not an art nor a science, one or the other situation, it is both a science and an art. Many people will argue for one or the other, but one has to maintain a balance or tension, such as to avoid falling into a trap. We have looked at the major theological interpretative methods used by the Christian world. I was going to take up next the more controversial methods being used throughout the church around the world, but upon second thought, I decided to side step that topic for later. Most of those came on the scene in the last seventy years or so. This includes the "Word-Faith" movement; the Prosperity movement, the "Charismatic" movement, the Purpose Driven" movement, the "Emergent" church movement, the "Kingdom-now" movement, its sister the "Dominion" movement, and so many more that you should be aware as not to be duped or drawn into cult-like groups. I do hope this series of posts are helpful in broadening your understanding of how the Bible is understood by different people and for the reasons they do so.
God bless until the next time,
Pastor Bob