Graeme Goldsworthy writes, “Neutrality and complete
objectivity are the presuppositional myths of the modern secular outlook, and
they are also the assumptions, sometimes unexamined, of many Christian
thinkers.”[1]
The art and science of biblical hermeneutics is by and large a task within the
discipline of Christian theology. This unavoidable fact has significant implications.
To begin with, hermeneutical method is a derivative of theology. This is the
same problem of the criterion the philosopher encounters in
epistemology. Our theology is supposed to be shaped by a sound biblical
hermeneutic. But theologically speaking, we must know something about
hermeneutics if we are to know how to formulate a model of hermeneutics that is
biblical, and hence, up to the task. In other words, we must already have in
mind that which constitutes a good hermeneutic model before we embark on the
hermeneutic enterprise. But how can we have such a model in mind prior to
engaging in theology, the progenitor of hermeneutics to begin with? I am not
going to settle this matter here, in a blog post. What I am going to do is talk
about how Christians ought to approach the Bible in order to better understand
why God gave us what we have and how we can best understand it and allow it to
change our lives.
This post is mostly in response to my very good friend Paul
Henebury’s post over at Dr. Reluctant on the subject of replacement theology. [CLICK HERE] The point I am
attempting to make is that if one approaches the Old Testament by looking at it
through or in the brighter, clearer light of the New Testament to which it
points, it is much easier to understand! I will then defend the idea, as Dr.
Henebury calls it, of “reading the Bible backwards.” In fact, that sounds like
a great book title to me. My thesis is that the New Testament is the accurate
and proper interpretation of the Old Testament. The New Testament is that to
which the Old Testament points again and again. Second, another presupposition
I will defend is my view that the entirety of Scripture centers around the
Christ event. Everything we read in the Old Testament, at the upper level of
revelation, is pointing to Christ. In other words, nothing revealed in the Old
Testament should be understood as an end in itself. The Old Testament is the
servant of the fuller revelation of God we would see in the Christ-event. The
Old Testament shares with the gospel of John, the same purpose for its
existence: but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the
Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name
(John 20:31). The Old Testament is given to us so that we may believe the gospel!
The documents that make up the Bible are about God. The
Bible contains a set of documents, best viewed as one book, given to reveal
things about God. Theologians often call the Bible the history of redemption.
Through this unfolding drama of redemptive history, God reveals himself to his people.
Hence, the Bible is divine communication. It is God speaking. Communication,
like teaching a class, describes not only what is transmitted by the
text, or the source of the subject matter, but also what is conveyed to,
and understood and appropriated by, the reader or “target”
audience.[2] In
the Bible, God communicates to an audience. From an interpretive standpoint,
there are two audiences: the primary target and the secondary target. The
primary target is the audience to first receive the divine communication in its
immediate historical setting. The secondary target audience is everyone who is
not in the primary target audience. The work of interpreting the text comes
with varying degrees of difficulty. While the primary target audience has some
advantages from a cultural and social standpoint, from a language standpoint,
it may sometimes have disadvantages due to the spiritual aspect of the text in
question. The virgin birth of the Messiah may be more difficult for the
original audience to interpret than it is for the secondary target audience for
the simple reason being that the secondary target audience has more light when
that audience has been 1) enlightened by the Holy Spirit and 2) are situated
after the brighter revelation of the New Testament text. The primary target
audience may understand the historical Moses more readily than someone in the secondary
target audience while the reverse is likely true in terms of Christ being the
actual anti-type to which Moses was the type.
For hermeneutics to be gospel-centered, it must be based on
the person of Jesus Christ.[3]
This begins at the fall of man where God immediately issues the protoevangelium.
Genesis 3:15 informs us that the seed of the woman would crush the head of the
serpent. An overly literal reading of this text would never lead one to believe
that God was actually informing Adam and Eve of a bloody cross where the Messiah
would atone for the sins of his people. It is only from the vantage point of
New Testament revelation that we can read that wonderful text and understand
what God meant. From the beginning of history itself, it was redemptive. Sandwiched
between the gospel of grace first announced and the last words of the divine
communication, which read, The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with all, are
the unfolding acts of God in redemptive history as He makes himself known to
his chosen people. From beginning to end, the Bible is about the grace of the
Lord Jesus Christ. Grace reveals, redeems, and resurrects God’s people. Grace
provides for the conditions necessary for all these things. The Bible is a
display of God’s amazing grace!
With this approach to the Bible in mind, we are in a much
better position to understand and interpret the acts of God not only in Acts,
but in Nehemiah, Kings, Exodus and everywhere else. The Genesis account of the
curse and the promise of redemption is clear once we read the gospels back into
Genesis 3. In fact, it couldn’t be clearer for the enlightened mind. And that
brings me to my first point: biblical hermeneutics requires regeneration. In
order for one to understand the revelation of God in Scripture, their mind must
be opened to the supernatural revelation therein. This would not be necessary
if the standard dispensational view of interpreting the Scripture were true.
The Nature of Divine Communication
Divine communication comes to us by way of what is termed “special
revelation.” God especially, and supernaturally reveals himself to his people.
But this is not as simple as you and I communicating with one another. The
supernatural aspect of divine communication must not be overlooked. Poythress
was right when he wrote, “The Bible gives us not merely information, but a knowledge
of God. This knowledge, in turn, influences how we read and understand the
Bible.”[4] The
Bible is not just a natural piece of literature or literary communication. It
is a miracle. It is supernatural communication and it requires supernatural
reception. Luke is clear about what is required for a proper interpretation of
Scripture: Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, and
said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the
third day rise from the dead, and that repentance for the forgiveness of sins
should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. (Lu.
24:45-47) My mind does not have to be opened in order for me to read
grammatically correct words on a page. If the grammatico-historical method is
correct, why does one need to have their mind opened? It seems to me that there
is something much more to interpreting Scripture than grammar and syntax and
philosophy of language. Much more. What I am saying is that while it is true
that grammar and syntax are necessary for the proper understanding of
Scripture, they are not, in and of themselves sufficient for the proper
understanding of Scripture. The cognitive function of human beings has been
damaged by the noetic effects of sin. This makes it impossible for the natural
mind to receive the things of the Spirit of God. (1 Cor. 2:14) A radical change
is needed.
The promise begins in a garden, thousands of years ago. From
that point in time, onward, everything that would unfold in the history of
Scripture would center around and point to the movement of history toward the
fulfillment of that promise. Far too often we get entangled in the details of
the history, forgetting that much of those details may be intended for the
primary target rather than the secondary target. What the Ark was for Noah’s
culture it is not for ours. But we both have the same story. To be sure, there
are components of that revelation that are shared with both audiences, but not
all these components are the same and they are not always shared equally by
both audiences. God’s word is sufficient to the audiences for which it is
intended and it is doing something specific with those audiences. Too often
Christians fail to take this into consideration when reading the text.
The promise in the garden is restated to a man specifically
selected by God to be the father of the faithful: Abram. God renewed his
promise to our first parents when he promised Abraham that through his seed,
all the nations of the earth would be blessed. Failure to understand the
Abrahamic covenant as anything other than God’s promise of a New Covenant that
was to come has led to unnecessary confusion. The physical seed of Abraham was
never the end game in the divine council. All one has to do is examine Romans
4, 9-11, Gal. 3-4 and Hebrews to see that God’s covenant with Abraham was much
more than an agreement concerning his physical seed.
We see Israel’s calling out of Egypt, through the waters
into the wilderness, and eventually into the promised land as the foreshadow of
Christ who would be called out of Egypt as a babe, baptized, driven into the
wilderness, only to finally take his place after his resurrection and
ascension. The covenant given to Moses was a covenant designed to tutor the Jews,
pointing them to Christ as its main goal. The Davidic covenant and God’s promise
that David would always have a Son who would sit on his throne is clearly fulfilled
in Christ. Repeatedly we see Israel, a predominantly idolatrous nation, for
most of her history rejecting God, rejecting God’s law. This they did
repeatedly.
From Noah, to Abraham, to Moses, to David, to the exile and
return, the entire Old Testament is pointing men to the Messiah. If we read the
acts of these men through the lens of the New Testament revelation, we are able
to see the lessons from the Old much more clearly than we could have otherwise.
A interpretive grid that places physical Israel at the center of the Old
Testament and that insists on removing the typology that even the New Testament
writers clearly see leads to a gross misunderstanding of the redemptive work of
God in the earth. I will provide a second part to this post that will aim to
provide numerous examples of this method of reading the Bible backwards and why
I think it is the best way to understand the divine revelation therein.
No comments:
Post a Comment