Sunday Sermons
Interpretation
When it comes to interpreting any document there are some terms that need to be defined. “Exegesis: Seeks to determine what the meaning of the text was for its author and its original readers. Interpretation: Or exposition has to do with making application of the meaning to today’s readers. Hermeneutics: Is the term applied to the rules and methodology by which exegesis is first done and then by which interpretation is made” (Romans, Gareth L. Reese, p. xxvii). “The language of the Bible is human language and, as such, is subject to the same principles and laws that govern the interpretation of any other book or writing than the Bible” (H. L. Drumright, “Interpretation”, in Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, Volume 3, p. 297). Now and then someone might claim that they do not “interpret” the Bible, rather they simply read it. The impression left is that there is something wrong or sinister about “interpretation”. The word “interpret” simply means “to explain the meaning of”. Often Jesus and the apostles commanded us to listen to their teachings and “understand” the meaning of what was being taught: “Hear and understand” (Matthew 15:10); “Do you understand what you are reading?” (Acts 8:30). Clearly, in this verse, Philip was not rebuking the eunuch for seeking to interpret the section of Scripture he was reading. “When you read you can understand my insight into the mystery of Christ” (Ephesians 3:4); “So then do not be foolish but understand what the will of the Lord is” (Ephesians 5:17). In this last verse we need to realize that the “will of the Lord” is found in the Scriptures, and this is the will we are to correctly interpret. In addition, such an effort is not meaningless, fruitless, or impossible, for the same Bible clearly teaches that the reader can properly interpret what has been revealed, “Handling accurately the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15). Yet throughout the centuries there have also been inaccurate methods of understanding the Scriptures. Scripture can be properly examined, yet it also can be twisted and perverted, (2 Peter 3:16 “which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction”).
Alexandrian Allegorical Method
“The philosophies of Greece tended to emphasize a mind-body dualism, and before the first century these Greek ideas had been embraced by some in the Jewish community in Alexandria. Though not the first to make an attempt to harmonize explanations of the Old Testament with philosophy, Philo (30 B.C. to A.D. 50) is the best-known representative. He taught that all Scripture contained a two-fold meaning—literal and allegorical, which corresponded to the body and soul of man. As the soul was judged to be more important than the body, so the allegorical meaning of Scripture was more important than its obvious meaning. By way of example, in his commentary on Genesis 2:10-14, Philo made the four rivers of Eden stand for virtues: prudence, temperance, courage, and justice. Many of the same allegorical methods introduced by Philo to Jewish interpretation can be observed in the later ‘Christian’ writers in the school at Alexandria. Clement of Alexandria and Origen are two of the better-known representatives of this school” (Reese pp. xxxiv, xxxv). “To them much in the Bible that was intellectually incredible or morally objectionable if understood literally could be made intelligible and congenial if it was allegorized” (Bruce, Interpretation, p. 566). One problem with this approach is that the interpretation depends so largely on the interpreter’s personal preferences. Secondly, there is nothing morally objectionable in the Scriptures, “So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good” (Romans 7:12). In addition, neither is the Bible intellectually incredible. David noted that God’s Word restores the soul, makes wise the simple, is pure, and enlightens the eyes (Psalm 19:7-8). Paul’s statement before King Agrippa was, “Why is it considered incredible among you people if God does raise the dead?” (Acts 26:8). That is a great question to ask anyone who seems to have a problem with something that the Bible teaches. If there is a God, then what is the problem in believing that there is an absolute standard of truth, or that He parted the Red Sea or created the universe in six days?
Monastic Exegesis (A.D. 650-1200)
“When Gregory the Great established papal supremacy in A.D. 590, the authority of tradition as interpreter of Scripture became an institution” (McCown, Hermeneutics, p. 744). “Monastic exegesis had one purpose, to promulgate the support the dogmas of the Roman church. The task of the interpreter changed. Instead of trying to get at the true sense, he now had to substantiate the imposed interpretation. A passage could be interpreted to mean several things at once, and of course only a priest (or the pope) could tell which was true and which heretical” (Reese pp. xxxvii-xxxviii). Yet long before this, Jesus had rejected religious tradition as an infallible standard of interpretation, in fact He noted that tradition, instead of giving us the correct interpretation, often gives us the wrong interpretation, “And by this you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition” (Matthew 15:6). Added to this, nowhere does the New Testament teach that the word “church” applies to some religious hierarchy or that it is an infallible interpreter. Too many “churches” in the New Testament found themselves in error(Galatians 4:11; Revelation chapters 2-3), to believe the above claim of infallibility.
Luther
Like the Catholic Church before him, Luther erred when he tried to make interpretation of the Scriptures subservient to a particular doctrine. “Luther never explained why his understanding of justification by faith alone was the ‘doctrine of faith’ by which all the Bible should be interpreted. Some parts of Scripture fared badly when Luther applied his rule to them” (Fuller, Interpretation p. 865), especially those verses that teach that one is not justified by “faith alone”, “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone” (James 2:24); “But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless?” (2:20); “Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself” (James 2:17). Catholicism reacted to the growing Protestant Reformation by becoming even more strident about insisting that the Scriptures needed to be interpreted in the light of Catholic tradition. At the Council of Trent in 1546 A.D., it was decreed, “No one shall presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that which the holy mother Church hath held and doth hold” (Fuller, Interpretation, p. 866). But the Protestants did little better, because their theological creedal statements were viewed as authoritative, and anyone who dared interpret Scripture in a way contrary to what the creeds set forth was persecuted.
Historical-critical method
With the advent of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries came the doctrine of rationalism. From this perspective the miracles recorded in the Bible are viewed as impossible, the Bible is not viewed as God’s revelation to man and neither is Jesus viewed as being the divine Son of God. “A proper historical approach had to penetrate behind the gospel portrait of Jesus as a divine being, the incarnate Son of God to reconstruct a purely ‘historical’ portrait, that is, a naturalistic, non-supernatural picture of Jesus of Nazareth” (Reese p. xli). Of course there are many obvious problems with such a method. First it completely denies that either God exists (which is illogical and not rational, Romans 1:20), or that God would speak with man or ever intervene in the natural world. To argue that God would never intervene in His creation is extremely naïve and arrogant, as if we can tell God what He can or cannot do in His universe that He created. Finally, such a method is anything but “historical”, because it rejects the best and most reliable historical evidence that exists for who Jesus is—the New Testament! From the above theory have also come additional erroneous conclusions: That the apostles basically invented the story that Jesus was the Son of God and had risen from the dead, or that Paul invented Christianity, that the gospels were written long after the first century, that they contain contradictory accounts and do not give a picture of the real Jesus. The problem with this point of view is that it ignores history. The apostles were eyewitnesses of Jesus and lived throughout the entire period in which the gospels were written. “Where is the time for the collection, creation, and circulation of these community ‘sagas’ and ‘myths’? The events of Jesus’ life were not hidden from public view (Acts 26:26). There were witnesses both for the defense and the attack on Christianity. The gospel exploded into life in the midst of well-attested history”(Harvie M. Conn, Contemporary World Theology, pp. 31-32).
Evolutionary Theory
“When Darwin’s theory of the origin of the species was transferred from the realm of nature to that of history, it at once introduced a new element into the Historical-Critical methodology” (Reese p. xliv). The assumption is that religion has evolved, including Christianity, and that Christianity is really no different from any other religion in the world, and is simply one more religion on the evolutionary ladder. Thus the Bible is not God’s revelation to man, but rather a record of man’s religious experience. Of course, such an interpretation fails to answer the question that if Christianity was simply a clone of one of the pagan religions, why was it so persecuted and why does it discredit all other religions? (John 14:6; Acts 4:12) In addition, Christianity is not the product of evolution; rather it is the fulfillment of prophecy (Isaiah 2:2-4; Daniel 2:36ff; Jeremiah 31:31-34).
Jesus’ view of Scripture
The true method of interpretation must harmonize with how Jesus and the apostles viewed the Scriptures.
· Jesus accepted as historical facts: the creation of Adam and Eve (Matthew 19:4); the Mosaic authorship of Deuteronomy, Exodus (Mark 10:3-5; Luke 20:37); the inspiration of David (Matthew 22:43; 13:35); Zechariah (Matthew 21:4); Jeremiah(Matthew 2:17); and Isaiah (Matthew 15:7). The Old Testament record of Jonah (Matthew 12:40); the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Matthew 10:15); the flood in the time of Noah (Luke 17:26-27); the predictive nature of Daniel’s prophecy (Matthew 24:15). “Jesus nowhere raised a doubt about the historical facticity of any recorded Old Testament event, but assumed the truth of every Old Testament reference to which He called attention” (Reese p. xxxi).
· Though He accepted the Law, Prophets, and Psalms as Scripture and as authoritative, He rejected the religious traditions of the time, and not only did not view tradition as being equal with Scripture, but even contradictory to it (Matthew 15:1-9). “In light of this truth, He told His audience that they were expected to observe what Moses taught, but should avoid the man-made rules and practices of the religious leaders (Matthew 24:1ff)” (Reese p. xxxi). Which means that Scripture is the only authority, while human tradition, creeds and dogma are not.
· He saw Himself as the focal point of all the rays of Old Testament prophecy (John 5:46; Luke 4:17-19; 24:27). He did not see a hidden meaning in Scripture, but rather there was a plain relationship between what the text said and the historical events of His ministry, death, burial, resurrection, and entrance into glory. Of course the apostles without question accepted the inspiration of the Old Testament (2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:20-21). They attributed Isaiah, chapters 6 and 53 to the same writer (John 12:38-40). In closing we should note that Peter shows that the prophecies concerning the Second Coming and the final judgment are to be taken literally (2 Peter 3:4ff). That what men might erroneously interpret as an unreasonable delay is actually God’s grace in giving men time to repent (3:9), and that an erroneous interpretation leads to eternal ruin ( 2 Peter 3:16ff). “There is, then, a right and a wrong way to understand the Scriptures, and the whole matter we are studying can and does have eternal significance” (Reese p. xxxiii).
