[BBC List] don't try this at home

Wed Sep 6 10:00:11 EAST 2006

Don’t Try this at Home: Today’s Interpreter and the “Apostles’ Hermeneutic” 

(By Matt Waymeyer)

One of the most complex issues facing the student of biblical hermeneutics
today is the significance of how the NT authors quote or allude to the OT in
their writings. One popular view is that modern-day interpreters have a
mandate not only to understand, but also to imitate the hermeneutics modeled
by the NT writers in their handling of the OT. 

According to Moises Silva, “If we refuse to pattern our exegesis after that
of the apostles, we are in practice denying the authoritative character of
their scriptural interpretation–and to do so is to strike at the very heart
of the Christian faith.” In similar fashion, S. Lewis Johnson writes, “We
not only can reproduce their exegetical methodology, we must if we are to be
taught their understanding of Holy Scripture.” Curtis Crenshaw and Grover
Gunn agree, writing, “Anything else than the apostles’ hermeneutic is based
on speculative human reasoning.”

These kinds of assertions raise a significant question: Should we seek to
reproduce the hermeneutics of the NT writers? Is this truly the goal of the
modern-day interpreter as he approaches various passages of Scripture? As
John Walton notes, in considering this question, we find ourselves “torn
between following the objective methods that we espouse in theory, or
following the lead of the authors of Scripture and utilizing the methods
they model.”

Although imitating the apostles in this way sounds like a noble path to
travel, several difficulties arise when one considers the issue more
closely. I would like to suggest three. 

First, patterns are not prescriptions. As John Feinberg points out, “Because
something is done a certain way does not mandate it as right or the only
way.” Therefore, the example of the apostles is not necessarily the mandate
for modern-day interpreters. This is a simple point, but one that is often
overlooked in the discussion.

Second, there doesn’t seem to be any one, clearly discernible “hermeneutical
pattern” that the apostles followed in their use of the OT. According to
Silva, “the New Testament writers used the Old Testament at different times
in different ways for different reasons.” In light of this, the question
must be asked: What exactly is the “apostles’ hermeneutic”? What exactly is
this pattern that modern-day interpreters are to follow? What specific
hermeneutical principles are modeled by the NT writers that should guide
contemporary interpretation? Can they be stated propositionally? If so, what
are they?

It seems more accurate to say, along with Feinberg, that “there is no such
thing as the NT pattern of OT usage” but rather that “there are varieties of
NT uses of the OT.” In his book Basic Bible Interpretation, Roy Zuck lists
ten different ways NT writers use the OT, and even those who advocate using
the apostles’ hermeneutic recognize a plurality of ways in which the OT is
used. With so many varieties, one might legitimately ask which pattern is to
be followed, and with which passages they should be followed.

This difficulty seems to have been recognized by some of those who advocate
imitating the pattern established by the NT writers. This recognition
manifests itself in warnings to be careful in how one employs the apostles’
hermeneutic. Silva, for example, warns against “indiscriminate imitation”
and cautions that we are not to reproduce the exegesis “in all its
features.” Douglas Moo writes that “while there is some truth to the
assertion that the New Testament practice of interpreting the Old Testament
should inform our own interpretation, we should be very cautious about
suggesting ‘deeper meanings’ in the text that are not clearly enunciated
within Scripture.” Almost always absent from these kinds of discussions,
however, are any clear, objective guidelines regarding how to heed these
warnings. This poses a major problem for the modern interpreter who is
committed to the apostles’ hermeneutic.

When one recognizes the plurality of ways in which the NT writers use the
OT, it becomes clear that the NT writers often referred to the OT without
seeking to interpret it. Helpful here are the insights of Moo: “Much like
the speech of a person raised on the classics will be sprinkled with
terminology and idioms drawn from those texts, New Testament writers
often–without intending to provide a ‘correct’ interpretation of the Old
Testament text–use Old Testament language as a vehicle of expression.” Silva
notes that the NT writers were so acquainted with the Scriptures that they
would often make “relatively casual references” to the OT. “If they did,”
Silva writes, “these casual references would reveal nothing about their
exegetical method.” I couldn’t agree more. 

John Walton takes this a step further. According to Walton, the “NT authors
never claim to have engaged in a hermeneutical process, nor do they claim
that they can support their findings from the text; they claim inspiration”
(more on this below). With this in mind, it is obvious that the modern-day
interpreter who seeks to imitate the NT writers’ “interpretations” of the OT
will be led astray at times, for often the NT writer is not engaging in the
process of interpretation. 

One area where some have gone astray is typology. As Moo notes, the debate
regarding typology is whether it is prospective or retrospective: “Does the
Old Testament type have a genuinely predictive function, or is typology
simply a way of looking back at the Old Testament and drawing out
resemblances?” Some have understood typology as possessing a prospective
element and have therefore come to some wrong conclusions regarding the
apostles’ method of interpretation. They reach this conclusion because, as
Walton states, they fail to recognize that the NT typologists “did not get
their typological correspondence from their exegetical analysis of the
context of the OT.” As a result, the modern-day interpreter seeks to imitate
“NT hermeneutic,” but, in doing so, he fails to recognize that the NT
typologists are not engaging in a procedure of unearthing a meaning latent
in the Old Testament text. A helpful remedy is found in the words of Walton:
“Since this correlation is not identifiable until both type and anti type
exist, typology is always a function of hindsight. One thing is never
identified as a type of something to come. Only after the latter has come
can the correspondence be proclaimed.”

Third, the difference between human interpretation and divine inspiration
separates the modern-day exegete from the NT writer in such a way that the
former is not able to employ the methods of the latter. As Walton writes,
“We cannot speak of reproducing the methods of the NT authors, for the
subjectivity of their methods is not allowed to those of us whose
interpretation does not enjoy the affirmation of inspiration.” To state it
another way, the NT writers were superintended by the Holy Spirit, and
modern-day interpreters are not. Therefore, as Walton writes, “We do not
wish to reproduce the hermeneutics of NT authors because they, by virtue of
inspiration, accrued authority to themselves by means unavailable to us.”

G.K. Beale challenges this argument, stating that “it is not necessary to
claim that we have to have such inspiration to reproduce their method or
their conclusions. The fact that we don’t have the same ‘revelatory stance’
as the New Testament writers only means that we cannot have the same
epistemological certainty about our interpretation conclusions and
applications as they had.” While Beale’s distinction between exegetical
method and certainty is a helpful one, his argument fails to address the
fact that the New Testament writers’ use of the Old Testament was a function
of divine inspiration, and not simply a matter of human interpretation
carried out in accordance with divinely revealed hermeneutical principles. 

In other words, when the apostle Paul quoted or alluded to the OT in his
epistles, he wasn’t applying God-given hermeneutical principles to various
passages in the Old Testament; he was being superintended by the Holy Spirit
in such a way that he wrote precisely what God was pleased to communicate
through him. The NT writers, then, do not claim a superior hermeneutical
approach to the OT; they claim inspiration. For those who are not able to
claim inspiration, this method cannot be employed. 

posted by Faith & Practice at HYPERLINK
"http://faithandpractice.blogspot.com/2006/08/dont-try-this-at-home-todays.h
tml"12:21:00 AM 

Charis, 

Mike Abendroth 

'God rides forth conquering in the chariot of His Gospel. . . He conquers
the pride of the heart, and makes the will which stood out as a Fort Royal
against Him, to yield and stoop to His grace; He makes the stony heart
bleed. Oh! it is a mighty call! Why then do some men seem to speak of a
moral persuasion? That God in the conversion of a sinner only morally
persuades and no more? If God in conversion should only morally persuade and
no more, then He does not put forth so much power in saving men as the Devil
does in destroying them.'   Thomas Watson

HYPERLINK "http://www.bbcchurch.org"www.bbcchurch.org 

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.7/438 - Release Date: 9/5/2006

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.bbcchurch.org/pipermail/bbc_list/attachments/20060906/ba64127c/attachment.htm