- Oct 2, 2011
- 37,457
- 26,886
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Lutheran
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- US-Others
I am posting this here, rather than in the Scripture forum, for two reasons:
1) I am interested in critique, criticism, and input by other traditionally-minded Christians on this subject.
2) This isn't really about a particular Scripture, but rather about an interpretive methodology.
So in another thread elsewhere I mentioned a hermeneutic I try to abide by, and that got me thinking about how I, in various ways, approach Scripture and try and understand it. And while I don't think I have a systematic approach, I do have various approaches and was curious to see what the general thoughts of others here are--do you agree, do you disagree, are there things I should consider that I haven't considered yet? That sort of thing.
1) Christocentrism. I consider of chief importance the theological assumption that Jesus is the point of Scripture. The whole point of the Bible isn't as a means unto itself, it doesn't ultimately point to itself, but points to Jesus. Jesus is the Bible's central theme, He is its main subject, He is its chief point. The Bible, therefore, exists chiefly to point us--the Church--toward Him. St. Augustine says that there is a single Utterance in all of Scripture, and that Utterance is Christ. Martin Luther describes Scripture as the manger which presents Christ to us, and that we believe the Scriptures for Christ's sake, but we do not believe in Christ for Scripture's sake
"You recall that one and the same Word of God extends throughout Scripture, that it is one and the same Utterance that resounds in the mouths of all the sacred writers, since he who was in the beginning God with God has no need of separate syllables; for he is not subject to time." - Augustine
"Here you will find the swaddling clothes and the manger in which Christ lies." - Luther
"It is for Christ's sake that we believe in the Scriptures, but it is not for the Scriptures' sake that we believe in Christ." - Luther
2) Clarity over ambiguity. I hold that where Scripture is most clear it should be the presiding focus for how we understand Scripture; for there are many places in Scripture which are ambiguous, unclear, or uncertain and these should not be our starting point for understanding what Scripture wants to tell us, but instead we should look to the clear and unambiguous statements of Scripture and, in light of the clear and unambiguous then tackle the less clear and ambiguous. So, for example, the Apostle writes in 1 Corinthians 15:29, "Otherwise, what will those people do who receive baptism on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf?", by this we should not say "Ah, proxy baptism for the dead is a practice which we must do" because this statement is altogether unclear--indeed even in this translation "baptized on their behalf" is in other ways translated "why also are they baptized for them?" What, precisely, is the Apostle talking about here is open to a great deal of investigation and scrutiny; we should not use this as governing our understanding and teaching when there is so much uncertainty here. But elsewhere we are always seeing what Baptism does and what Baptism is for--that we who are baptized are baptized into Christ (Galatians 3:27), baptized into His death (Romans 6:3), buried with Christ in baptism (Colossians 2:12).
3) Homolegomena > antilegomena. I do not question the canonicity of the historic antilegomena; but I do think that the homolegomena should take precedence. Our starting place for Christian teaching and practice should not begin with e.g. James or Hebrews, but instead with the Gospels and also the Epistles of St. Paul. The proper reading and understanding of the antilegomena must be in light of the homolegomena. For the historically undisputed writings of the New Testament probably should hold a greater importance than the historically disputed writings. This is perhaps one approach I have which may be the most controversial. And of first importance in the homolegomena being the Gospels--the very words of Christ-God Himself.
4) Literary context. I maintain that each book of Scripture must be understood in light of its literary sense: poetry, history, gospel, epistle, apocalypse, prophecy, etc. That understanding what kind of text we are reading is vitally important, because poetry is a very different kind of writing than, say, historical narrative. The Apocalypse of St. John is a very different kind of book than the Gospel of St. Luke; and thus different considerations must be taken, I can read in Luke that Jesus did X and believe that Jesus literally did X, but that doesn't mean that I should read in the Apocalypse where Jesus descends upon a white steed with a sword protruding from His mouth that our Lord literally has a white steed and a sword in His mouth. This literary consideration is essential and vital.
5) General context. Here are general concerns about context, that it is critical and essential to ask questions such as, "When was this written?" and "To whom is this written" or "For whom is this written", and other similar questions. Because if we fail to understand the historical context in which, say, St. Paul is writing to the Church in Rome then we miss a large point of the epistle and will inevitably miss out on what Scripture is telling us.
6) Description is not proscription. Simply because Scripture describes something as happening does not mean that this is proscribed for us. A common road block I have found many atheists and other non-believers having difficulty with is that they are under the assumption that because Christians regard Scripture as holy and divinely inspired that every jot and tittle is to be taken as guidance for living, and so they will mention horrific events described in the Bible as though that were evidence of a defect of the Bible itself. But that's simply not the case, because simply because the Bible describes something doesn't mean it is proscribing it--there are countless examples of Scripture recording horrific things, done by both "bad guys" and "good guys" and the point isn't "Do this also because it's in the Bible" but is instead quite the opposite, it is highlighting something awful to show us that it is, in fact, awful. Further, this principle does not mean only that such horrific things are not proscribed, but even generally neutral things. That David danced before the Lord when the Ark was returned from battle is not a proscription that we, as Christians, are to engage in undignified dancing in gathered Christian worship--it is simply describing what David did, and what David did wasn't wrong, but it's neither a proscription either. Description is not proscriptions, whether the description is of something good, bad, or neither--it is critical to make a distinction between where Scripture is describing a thing and where Scripture is proscribing a thing; and based upon earlier points (namely context) that proscription is not everywhere and always universally applicable. That God commanded this or that judge, king, or prophet to do a thing does not mean it is applicable as a universal rule--God did not command all His people to marry a prostitute, He commands this only of Hosea, to marry Gomer, as a prophetic illustration of Israel's unfaithfulness toward God.
7) Tradition. Fundamentally the Bible did not come to us in a vacuum, but is the result of the historical consensus of faith of the Christian Church over many centuries; and there are two millennia worth of Christian exegetes and theologians who have poured themselves into the study and application of Scripture for the good of the Church. We should therefore never read the Bible in a vacuum, but always with an ear toward the grand symphony of voices belonging to the Church. This also means that the Bible should be read in the context of community, the Bible was--after all--primarily heard by the people of God for most of history because the Bible came into existence as those writings recognized and received by the Church to be read in worship, for the sake of the Faithful that we be exhorted and taught and hear God's word and receive Christ our Lord, that our faith be built up and nurtured as God's people. Thus no one should approach the Bible as a lone individual, but as another with others. And we should therefore always be mindful of what has been said before us, and that our thoughts and opinions not deviate greatly from what has come before us.
-CryptoLutheran
1) I am interested in critique, criticism, and input by other traditionally-minded Christians on this subject.
2) This isn't really about a particular Scripture, but rather about an interpretive methodology.
So in another thread elsewhere I mentioned a hermeneutic I try to abide by, and that got me thinking about how I, in various ways, approach Scripture and try and understand it. And while I don't think I have a systematic approach, I do have various approaches and was curious to see what the general thoughts of others here are--do you agree, do you disagree, are there things I should consider that I haven't considered yet? That sort of thing.
1) Christocentrism. I consider of chief importance the theological assumption that Jesus is the point of Scripture. The whole point of the Bible isn't as a means unto itself, it doesn't ultimately point to itself, but points to Jesus. Jesus is the Bible's central theme, He is its main subject, He is its chief point. The Bible, therefore, exists chiefly to point us--the Church--toward Him. St. Augustine says that there is a single Utterance in all of Scripture, and that Utterance is Christ. Martin Luther describes Scripture as the manger which presents Christ to us, and that we believe the Scriptures for Christ's sake, but we do not believe in Christ for Scripture's sake
"You recall that one and the same Word of God extends throughout Scripture, that it is one and the same Utterance that resounds in the mouths of all the sacred writers, since he who was in the beginning God with God has no need of separate syllables; for he is not subject to time." - Augustine
"Here you will find the swaddling clothes and the manger in which Christ lies." - Luther
"It is for Christ's sake that we believe in the Scriptures, but it is not for the Scriptures' sake that we believe in Christ." - Luther
2) Clarity over ambiguity. I hold that where Scripture is most clear it should be the presiding focus for how we understand Scripture; for there are many places in Scripture which are ambiguous, unclear, or uncertain and these should not be our starting point for understanding what Scripture wants to tell us, but instead we should look to the clear and unambiguous statements of Scripture and, in light of the clear and unambiguous then tackle the less clear and ambiguous. So, for example, the Apostle writes in 1 Corinthians 15:29, "Otherwise, what will those people do who receive baptism on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf?", by this we should not say "Ah, proxy baptism for the dead is a practice which we must do" because this statement is altogether unclear--indeed even in this translation "baptized on their behalf" is in other ways translated "why also are they baptized for them?" What, precisely, is the Apostle talking about here is open to a great deal of investigation and scrutiny; we should not use this as governing our understanding and teaching when there is so much uncertainty here. But elsewhere we are always seeing what Baptism does and what Baptism is for--that we who are baptized are baptized into Christ (Galatians 3:27), baptized into His death (Romans 6:3), buried with Christ in baptism (Colossians 2:12).
3) Homolegomena > antilegomena. I do not question the canonicity of the historic antilegomena; but I do think that the homolegomena should take precedence. Our starting place for Christian teaching and practice should not begin with e.g. James or Hebrews, but instead with the Gospels and also the Epistles of St. Paul. The proper reading and understanding of the antilegomena must be in light of the homolegomena. For the historically undisputed writings of the New Testament probably should hold a greater importance than the historically disputed writings. This is perhaps one approach I have which may be the most controversial. And of first importance in the homolegomena being the Gospels--the very words of Christ-God Himself.
4) Literary context. I maintain that each book of Scripture must be understood in light of its literary sense: poetry, history, gospel, epistle, apocalypse, prophecy, etc. That understanding what kind of text we are reading is vitally important, because poetry is a very different kind of writing than, say, historical narrative. The Apocalypse of St. John is a very different kind of book than the Gospel of St. Luke; and thus different considerations must be taken, I can read in Luke that Jesus did X and believe that Jesus literally did X, but that doesn't mean that I should read in the Apocalypse where Jesus descends upon a white steed with a sword protruding from His mouth that our Lord literally has a white steed and a sword in His mouth. This literary consideration is essential and vital.
5) General context. Here are general concerns about context, that it is critical and essential to ask questions such as, "When was this written?" and "To whom is this written" or "For whom is this written", and other similar questions. Because if we fail to understand the historical context in which, say, St. Paul is writing to the Church in Rome then we miss a large point of the epistle and will inevitably miss out on what Scripture is telling us.
6) Description is not proscription. Simply because Scripture describes something as happening does not mean that this is proscribed for us. A common road block I have found many atheists and other non-believers having difficulty with is that they are under the assumption that because Christians regard Scripture as holy and divinely inspired that every jot and tittle is to be taken as guidance for living, and so they will mention horrific events described in the Bible as though that were evidence of a defect of the Bible itself. But that's simply not the case, because simply because the Bible describes something doesn't mean it is proscribing it--there are countless examples of Scripture recording horrific things, done by both "bad guys" and "good guys" and the point isn't "Do this also because it's in the Bible" but is instead quite the opposite, it is highlighting something awful to show us that it is, in fact, awful. Further, this principle does not mean only that such horrific things are not proscribed, but even generally neutral things. That David danced before the Lord when the Ark was returned from battle is not a proscription that we, as Christians, are to engage in undignified dancing in gathered Christian worship--it is simply describing what David did, and what David did wasn't wrong, but it's neither a proscription either. Description is not proscriptions, whether the description is of something good, bad, or neither--it is critical to make a distinction between where Scripture is describing a thing and where Scripture is proscribing a thing; and based upon earlier points (namely context) that proscription is not everywhere and always universally applicable. That God commanded this or that judge, king, or prophet to do a thing does not mean it is applicable as a universal rule--God did not command all His people to marry a prostitute, He commands this only of Hosea, to marry Gomer, as a prophetic illustration of Israel's unfaithfulness toward God.
7) Tradition. Fundamentally the Bible did not come to us in a vacuum, but is the result of the historical consensus of faith of the Christian Church over many centuries; and there are two millennia worth of Christian exegetes and theologians who have poured themselves into the study and application of Scripture for the good of the Church. We should therefore never read the Bible in a vacuum, but always with an ear toward the grand symphony of voices belonging to the Church. This also means that the Bible should be read in the context of community, the Bible was--after all--primarily heard by the people of God for most of history because the Bible came into existence as those writings recognized and received by the Church to be read in worship, for the sake of the Faithful that we be exhorted and taught and hear God's word and receive Christ our Lord, that our faith be built up and nurtured as God's people. Thus no one should approach the Bible as a lone individual, but as another with others. And we should therefore always be mindful of what has been said before us, and that our thoughts and opinions not deviate greatly from what has come before us.
-CryptoLutheran