The Heart of Hermeneutics: Part 1
What did the text mean? To look at the text and learn what it means requires that we cross a big gap and go “back then” in our minds. But then we must also cross that divide to “today” and progress to Live! This is the application stage of seeing the life impact of the text. What difference does the text make to my life today?
Something is missing. Too much training in Bible handling is missing something critical. Either we get the technical interpretation elements well: such as recognizing the distance between the world of the text and the world of the contemporary reader, and seeing the gaps that need to be crossed (linguistic, cultural, geographical, religious, etc.). Or, we dump the technical process and lose both textual accuracy and authority as we treat the Bible like an ancient source of contemporary devotional material.
To put that another way, while some are stronger on the “back then” nature of the text, others are too quick to rush to a “for today” impact. Good Bible handling requires both a “back then” and a “for today” mindset.
We Must Cross the Divide
The traditional inductive approach to the biblical text requires that we cross the divide. We begin with Look! This is the observation stage of seeing what is actually in the text.
Related Posts:
You Might also like
-
Updating the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy: A Proposal
Written by Derek J. Brown |
Friday, March 25, 2022
The CSBI has enjoyed over four decades of usefulness due to the care the original framers took to articulate the doctrine of inerrancy within a broader doctrine of Scripture. In light of contemporary challenges to inerrancy, however, it is time to exercise that same care and re-formulate the CSBI to strengthen it for future generations.Over a fall weekend in Chicago in 1978, approximately 300 evangelical scholars, pastors, and laymen gathered in the Hyatt Regency O’Hare to discuss and hear presentations on the issue of inerrancy. These presentations corresponded with the writing of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (CSBI), a 4,200-word document consisting of a preface, summary statement, 19 articles of affirmation and denial, and an accompanying exposition.
While the CSBI proved to be a useful document after its original publication, its influence has waned over the last two decades. Even so, some notable voices have sought to reclaim the CSBI as a theological touchstone for the doctrine of inerrancy. Recently, the late Norman Geisler labored to recover the CSBI as evangelicalism’s standard definition of inerrancy in his coauthored volume, Defending Inerrancy. In this book, Geisler argues for the adequacy of the CSBI by defending its various affirmations and denials in theological and philosophical detail, concluding that the document is in no need of revision or amendment.
But should we concur with Geisler that the CSBI is in no need of revision? Has there been no positive advance in the doctrine of Scripture since 1978 that may help strengthen the CSBI for future theological and ecclesial use? Even the framers of the CSBI left open the possibility of future updates. The document states, “We acknowledge the limitations of a document prepared in a brief, intensive conference and do not propose that this Statement be given creedal weight.” Carl F. H. Henry included the CSBI in volume 4 of his God, Revelation, and Authority, while also conceding that the statement was “subject to future revision.” Most recently, biblical scholars Robert Yarborough and G. K. Beale have gone on record suggesting the CSBI could use some updating.
But how might we update a document that has enjoyed more than four decades of theological and ecclesiological usefulness? Over the last few years as I’ve pondered this question, my research, writing, and academic engagement have led me to conclude that the best approach is not to wipe our slate clean. Instead, CSBI reframers should work with the document in its present form, modifying existing articles and proposing new ones where appropriate. Furthermore, because the articles of affirmation and denial serve as the “heart” of the document, it will be most fruitful to focus our energy there and then address the exposition and short statements after the articles are complete.
To give you an idea of how such a project might proceed, I will offer modifications to one of the existing CSBI articles while also proposing one new article.
Article IV: The Adequacy of Human Language for Divine Revelation
We affirm that God who made mankind in His image has used language as a means of revelation.
We deny that human language is so limited by our creatureliness that it is rendered inadequate as a vehicle for divine revelation. We further deny that the corruption of human culture and language through sin has thwarted God’s work of inspiration.
In this article, the CSBI directly confronts a problem that many opponents to the doctrine of inerrancy have exploited over the past several decades: the matter of human language as an adequate vehicle for revelation in light of human finitude and fallenness.
Article IV clearly affirms that God has used language to communicate his revelation to his creatures, while also contending that human corruption and our inherent limitations do not render language insufficient to convey divine truth. Although a human being is sinful and thus prone to error, it does not follow that one must err, or, much less, that one must err every time one speaks. Yet, while error is not a necessary property of existing as a human (it is an accidental property), it’s true that human beings have a tendency to lie and err. God’s work of inspiration (mentioned in the last sentence of Article IV) nonetheless overcomes the human propensity to lie and secures a text free from error.
Although helpful in answering some of the challenges related to the nature of revelation and the adequacy of human language, I contend that Article IV would benefit from some modification.
First, I would strengthen the affirmation statement by wording it in such a way as to highlight God’s intention in designing human language specifically for the purpose of divine revelation. As it stands now, the affirmation statement, while acknowledging that some relationship exists between God, the creation of mankind in his own image, and the adequacy of human language, is neither sufficiently clear nor strong enough in these matters. The original statement makes it appear as though God has chosen merely to use language to communicate; it does not indicate unambiguously that he has designed human language for the very purpose of providing a sufficient vehicle for divine revelation. I suggest, therefore, the updated affirmation statement reads as follows:
We affirm that the God who speaks created man in his image and designed human language for the very purpose of conveying divine revelation.
By establishing the starting principle of God’s intention in creating human language, this updated affirmation statement immediately precludes arguments that suggest human language is somehow inadequate for divine communication. In my judgment, by merely affirming that God used human language to reveal himself, the original affirmation statement is left vulnerable to the claim that God, in delivering his revelation to his creatures, simply utilized what was available to him.
Accordingly, it becomes easy to suggest that the divine work of inspiration, beleaguered as it was by the inherent weakness and insufficiency of human language, ultimately faltered in securing an inerrant text. If, however, God fashioned human language with divine revelation in mind, then it becomes far more plausible that language is a sufficient vehicle for divine communication.
Read More -
A Christian Alternative to Optimism and Pessimism
Both optimism and pessimism describe ways of looking at the future, and both are unhealthy in some respects. I’ll offer the lens of Biblical hope as a robust alternative. Hope is the eager expectation that God will keep his promises. This means that if we are to be hope-filled people, we need to know what God has promised, not just what we think or wish he had promised.
Optimism and pessimism are sometimes portrayed as two ends of a one-dimensional spectrum, with “realism” as the rational, sensible midpoint. A good Christian alternative to optimism and pessimism is to ditch the spectrum entirely and focus on hope.
We all have tendencies toward and moments of optimism and pessimism, and I suspect this is due to our personalities and experiences. What I’m critiquing below is the extreme versions of optimists and pessimists.
The Optimist
An optimist will always “expect the most favorable outcome.” They see good things around every corner and are quick to point out the silver lining to the storm cloud.
When combined with Christianity, this sort of optimist can be hard to talk to. They know God has a purpose behind every difficult turn of events; they urge others to think about the ultimate good God has in store, even when the suffering is great.
While well-intentioned, this optimistic approach leaves little room for lament and grief in the face of sadness and suffering. An optimist is so uncomfortable with pain that they rush themselves and their friends through it. But God may have holy intentions in that pain.
Taken to its extreme, optimism blunts the effects of sin and the curse, and this leaves little need for Jesus. If everything is going to turn out well, why did the Son of God become a man? Why did he suffer and die?
Counsel for the Optimist
Christians can affirm some of the optimist’s instincts: for those who trust in the Lord, there certainly is good ahead! However, God has not promised good at every turn.
Read More
Related Posts: -
This is What You Were Made For: Genesis 1 & Your Calling
The idea behind the cultural mandate is that God entrusts us with something and expects us to do something worthwhile with it, something he finds valuable. This mandate implies an expectation of human achievement.
“God has created us in his image so that we may carry out a task, fulfill a mission, pursue a calling.” — Anthony A. Hoekema, Created in God’s Image
When most people think about the book of Genesis, certain questions usually come to mind:Did God create the world in six ordinary days?
Were these “days” great ages or epochs?
How should we understand the theory of evolution in light of Genesis 1?
Moses was probably not concerned with these questions when he wrote the opening chapters of Genesis. He was trying to prepare God’s people for the mission they were created to carry out—a mission Christians in the twenty-first century are also called to carry out.
In Genesis 1, God describes the purpose for which he created man:
Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” (Gen. 1:26)
In the next verse, he relates this mission to Adam and Eve:
God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.” (Gen. 1:28)
This passage, often called the cultural mandate, calls all Christians to partner with God in his work. We are to fill the earth with God’s redeemed images and subdue it.
Writing about this passage in her book Total Truth, Nancy Pearcey explains:
The first phrase “be fruitful and multiply,” means to develop the social world: build families, churches, schools, cities, governments, laws. The second phrase, “subdue the earth,” means to harness the natural world: plant crops, build bridges, design computers, and compose music.
Read More
Related Posts: