Hermeneutics

greenspun.com : LUSENET : The Christian Church : One Thread

I am writing this essay on hermeneutics because of the request of Bro. Lee Saffold, whom I love, though I have never met. Lee wanted me to respond to what he has written about baptism, which I will do. I must say that I will be polemicizing against the view of baptism for which he argues, which I believe NOT to be the correct view, but I have no personal polemics against Bro. Saffold himself.

I realize that in posting this to the forum I am advocating a theological position contra that of the Restoration Movement. I do so with profound respect for the Churches of Christ/Christian Churches. I have some RM ties in my roots. I will also say that I believe no one in all of Christendom has a more biblical view of eccliesiology and polity than the RM Churches. (I believe that some in the RM have made their ecclesiology an idol, but that does not negate the fact that I see it as the most Biblical.) I do not share the view that women are prohibited from pulpit ministry. This is a matter of hermeneutics. I guess I would like to state some basic hermeneutic principles from the outset.

THE ISSUE OF INERRANCY. In a sense this is a non-issue because it only applies to the original documents, which no longer exist.

Inerrancy definition #1: Some define the Bible as inerrant in all matters of history and science as well as faith and practice. This I deny. The Scripture itself does not support this view:

(2 Tim 3:16 NRSV) All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

Nothing is mentioned here of physics, history, mathematics. To hold out for this type of inerrancy is to claim more for the Bible than it claims for itself.

Inerrancy definition #2: Others define inerrancy as within the scope of the intended meaning the author (and ultimately God who inspired the Scriptures.) This I affirm. The two creation accounts in Genesis 1 and 2 are theological, for example, and cannot be taken literally. If taken literally, they contradict in the order of God’s creative acts. For example:

GENESIS 1: 1. Light and darkness. 2. Sky and waters separated. 3. Sea and Land separated. 4. Vegetation. 5. Aquatic animals and birds. 6. Land animals. 7. Humans (male and female evidently created at the same time--according to Genesis 1:27.)

GENESIS 2:4 and following: 1. There is water running in streams at the beginning of this narrative but no vegetation. 2. Man. (male) 3. Vegetation (the Garden) 4. Animals of the field and birds of the air. 5. Woman.

It is apparent when comparing the sequences in this manner that Inerrancy definition #1 cannot possibly be correct. But if we take the two narratives as theological and poetic, which they are intended to be, then Inerrancy definition #2 is very plausible. THE RELATION BETWEEN THE TESTAMENTS: This is a hermeneutical problem which confounds many people. In general, I hold the principle that anything in the OT is valid in the NT as well unless the NT specifically tells us otherwise. For example, in Mark 7:19, Jesus declares all foods clean. Thus the OT dietary laws are superseded. I have demonstrated in other threads that Jesus teachings on non-violence overrule the OT on that issue.

Someone argued that the Sermon on the Mount is a commentary on the Torah. That being so, we must conclude that in his commentary Jesus extends the Torah farther. Over and over Jesus says, “You have heard it said...but I say to you...” Each time he did this Jesus superseded the Legalistic fulfillment of the law by applying it not only to human acts but human motives. In so doing he upheld the law but elevated its demands.

Homosexuality is an issue which some have tried to argue is only in the Old Testament. But Romans 1, 1 Cor 6:9-11 and other passages uphold the prohibition of homosexuality. Now, it would still be prohibited even if the NT was silent, but the NT goes beyond that and expressly upholds this condemnation.

SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS VS. GENERAL PRINCIPLES:

This is another tough one to get handles on. Not every New Testament passage can be taken at face value. Sometimes the theological principle is explicit--sometimes it is implicit. We must ask ourselves whether the verses we are reading state a doctrinal principle or merely the application of the principle. If the latter is so, the principle itself may be larger than the issue at hand in the passage.

For example, Paul says:

(1 Tim 2:9-14 NRSV) also that the women should dress themselves modestly and decently in suitable clothing, not with their hair braided, or with gold, pearls, or expensive clothes, {10} but with good works, as is proper for women who profess reverence for God. {11} Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. {12} I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent. {13} For Adam was formed first, then Eve; {14} and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.

Note that Paul is basing this argument solely on Genesis 2--when in Genesis 1 we do not have “Adam was formed first, then Eve” but rather the two formed at the same time. (Gen 1:27) Also note that Paul does not say God will not allow women to preach or teach. He says “I do not permit it.”

In handling this specific passage one must ask if this is meant to be a general rule or addressed only to a temporal situation. I do not see how anyone can in good conscience can argue except for the latter. Fundamental to hermeneutics is the need to ask whether there are other Scriptural principles to buttress against the passage at hand. In this case there are:

Acts 2 is an important chapter for RM folks, and rightly so. This is the birth of the church. Acts 2:38 is cited in support of water baptism. But Acts 2:17 makes it clear that preaching is a ministry which God intends to be open to both male and female. Galatians 3:28 makes clear that in Christ, there is no distinction between male and female. In light of these passages, which give the general, overarching principles, 1 Tim 2:12 MUST be interpreted as addressing only a temporal situation and not as something normative and binding in the church throughout time.

In a separate thread--I will be writing shortly on how these principles apply to water baptism.

-- Anonymous, May 07, 2001

Answers

Hi, CG.

How is this study coming along?

-- Anonymous, May 11, 2001


Moderation questions? read the FAQ