|
THE FOLLOWING FOUNDATIONAL TRUTHS ARE ACCEPTED WITHOUT
RESERVATION:
1). God is the Author of the
Bible
All Scripture is inspired by
God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for
training in righteousness (see note
2 Timothy 3:16)
2). The Bible is a
supernatural Book
For the word of God is living
and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far
as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and
able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart. (see note
Hebrews 4:12)
For example, the Gospel writers
treated the OT as prophecy (Matthew
2:14-15) by showing
Jesus is the fulfillment of prophecy (Related resource
Messianic Prophecies)
3). The Bible is a "human" Book
But know this first of all,
that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own
interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human
will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. (See notes
2 Peter 1:20-21)
|
I. SUPER NATURALISTIC
APPROACH TO INTERPRETATION |
McQuilkin writes
that...
the supernaturalistic approach
interprets all Scripture from a supernatural point of view. The
interpreter's task, consequently, is to seek several meanings or
hidden meanings, which are to be uncovered through intuition and
spiritual experience. The "natural" meaning of the text is
downgraded or totally ignored. (Understanding and Applying The
Bible)
This approach is synonymous
with the...
Allegorical method -
allegory searches for a hidden spiritual meaning that transcends the
literal sense of a sacred text and the respected commentator Matthew
Henry plainly states Song of Solomon "is an allegory" and goes
on to add
that after the title of the
book (Song of Solomon 1:1) we have Christ and his church,
Christ and a believer, expressing their esteem for each other.
Clearly, Henry's interpretative
approach does not seek the
literal,
natural meaning of the Song of
Solomon but represents the allegorical
approach.
Mystical approach - Webster defines "mystical" as
having
a spiritual meaning or reality that is neither apparent to the
senses nor obvious to the intelligence.
In other words this approach seeks a divine significance that
surpasses natural human apprehension.
In the supernatural
approach...
• The interpreter seeks to reveal a
hidden meaning.
•
Hidden meaning rules in the author's approach to interpreting the
Scripture
• This method at first glance looks and sounds quite "spiritual"
• The problem is that the obvious (literal) meaning of the passage is
often ignored and thus the interpreter does not take the Author's meaning and purpose seriously
The upshot of this approach is
that the
Bible is not allowed to be its own authority but the authority rests in
the hands of
the interpreter and unfortunately the result is that the
interpretation "adds" to God's intended meaning of the passage.
A notable example of a commentator who approaches the Scriptures
leaning heavily on the supernaturalistic approach is Arthur Pink.
Pink frequently discusses "types" (other than those the Bible
itself specifically designates as "types") in which he uses an OT
event, personage or institution and associates it figuratively with
some truth in the NT. Much of Pink's work is now freely available on the internet and
often has very insightful comments on the Scriptures. However in consulting his works, the
reader is strongly advised to be aware of his supernaturalistic
approach to the Scriptures lest one take away from a passage a
meaning that God never intended. Remember that the most efficacious
application
of Scripture is predicated
upon an accurate
interpretation, lest one be
misapply the Scriptures to their own detriment. Here is an example
of A W Pink's interpretation of passages in Joshua...
Israel's
capture of Jericho unmistakably pre-figured the victories achieved,
under God, by the Gospel. The priests blowing with the trumpets
of rams' horns pictured the servants of God preaching his Word.
The forbidding of "the people" to open their mouths signified
that the rank and file of Christians are to have no part in the oral
proclamation of the Truth—they are neither qualified for nor called
to the ministration of the Word. Nowhere in the Epistles is there a
single exhortation for the saints as such to engage in public
evangelism, nor even to do "personal work" and seek to be "soul
winners." Rather are they required to "witness for Christ" by their
daily conduct in business and in the home. They are to "show forth"
God's praises, rather than tell them forth. They are to let their
light shine. The testimony of the life is far more effectual than
glib utterances of the lips. Actions speak louder than words.
(Arthur W. Pink, Gleanings in Joshua)
Can you discern where Pink has
taken considerable liberty in interpreting the Scriptures in Joshua?
As Peter writes as saints we are to...
sanctify
Christ as Lord in (our) hearts, always being ready to make a defense
to everyone who asks (us) to give an account for the hope that is in
(us), yet with gentleness and reverence (1Pe 3:15-
note)
Robertson McQuilkin
commenting on A W Pink's approach as illustrated in the preceding
quote writes...
It will
not do to excuse that way of handling the Bible by saying that there
is only one meaning but many applications. It is true that a passage
may be applied in many ways to contemporary settings. But to handle
Scripture in that way, deriving a message that is far from the
intention of the author, provides a model for interpretation that
does not take the author and his intent seriously. In such an
approach, the Bible is not its own authority, free to make its own
point and to demand obedience to its own teaching. Rather, it is
used to make some other point the commentator has in mind through
the process of spiritualizing—finding a hidden meaning in the text.
The ingenuity of the Bible student is the only limitation to the
exciting "interpretations" of Scripture in such an approach. When
straightforward history is taken by the preacher to have hidden
implications and exciting spiritual truths, it is no wonder that
many evangelical Christians treat the Bible in the same way for
devotional use and in seeking guidance. Many Christians who are
faithful in reading the Bible devotionally feel "blessed" only when
they find a surprising thought suggested to them by the text, a
thought that bears no direct relationship to the intent of the
author. To them, seeking to know God's will through careful study to
understand the intended meaning of the author seems dry and boring.
(Understanding and Applying The Bible)
Related Resource:
More discussion of A W Pink
as well as
Adam Clarke
and
William Barclay.
In the supernaturalistic approach, the author often seeks to find a
"hidden meaning" for the purpose of divine guidance. This
application amounts in essence to the use of God's Word in a "magical way" to determine God's will.
To be sure, God does often use His Word to reveal His will in our
life, it is not through a "magical" approach. The more
time one is in God's Word, and His Word is in the reader and the
reader is obeys wholly and from the heart controlled by the Spirit,
the more clearly one sees His will for one's life.
Jesus taught on the important
relationship of knowing and doing, declaring that...
If
any man is willing to do His will, he shall know of the teaching,
whether it is of God, or whether I speak from Myself.
(John 7:17)
He
who has My commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves Me; and
he who loves Me shall be loved by My Father, and I will love him,
and will disclose Myself to him.
(John 14:31)
This relationship between
walking in obedience and increasing in true knowledge is seen in
Paul prayer for the saints at Colossae that they...
be
filled with the knowledge of His will in all spiritual wisdom and
understanding, so that you may walk in a manner worthy of the
Lord (obedience), to please Him in all respects, bearing fruit
in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God.
(Col 1:9 -note)
In summary, the danger of the
Supernaturalistic approach is that one may conclude an interpretation
that was never intended by God!
Scripture is God's supernatural word taught by His Spirit and
is to be in its
natural sense unless such sense makes "nonsense". God
usually means what He says. To be sure, God does make frequent use
of
figurative language (such as simile and metaphor) but
even figurative language is subject to rules of
interpretation. For example, when Jesus said
I am the door
clearly He was not declaring that He was a literal door. In context,
Jesus was saying that He was the only Way a sinner could approach
God the Father.
The discerning reader of the Word of Truth, needs to be aware that until the 1500's
the Supernaturalistic approach was the dominant approach used to
interpret Scripture. This approach fell into disfavor with the
onset of the Reformation and a return to "Sola Scriptura".
The Supernaturalistic approach is difficult to
resist because it seems to be so "spiritual"!
The naturalistic approach
limits the meaning to what one can understand. Some who espouse this
approach say "I believe the Bible" but allow for nothing
supernatural in the Bible! Other less strict naturalists allow for
some supernatural elements in the Bible.
McQuilkin writes
that...
the rationalist cannot accept the
miraculous in Scripture because he has not personally experienced
the miraculous, and also because reports of miracles cannot be
verified by experimentation. Therefore, they must be explained
either as a misapprehension of natural events or as myth growing up
around some historical or imagined event. (Understanding and
Applying The Bible)
What is rationalism? Briefly
stated, in rationalism one relies solely on his or her human reasoning.
And so if they cannot verify it in their
experience it is not the Word of God. The Naturalistic approach became the dominant mode of interpretation in the 1600's.
The authority in this interpretative approach is one's own human reasoning.
The rationalist is his or her own final judge and jury on what any
passage of Scripture means.
Those who hold to the Naturalistic Approach see 3 problems with
the Word of God:
1). Certain things they feel are morally unworthy of God.
E.g., they have
difficulty accepting David's imprecatory (invoking evil upon
another) prayers, with Israel's instructions
to take the promised land and to kill obliterate the original
inhabitants (utterly destroy the men, women and children) from the land. Those
who hold the natural approach cannot see that a loving God would
command such
"atrocities".
2). Miracles
3). "Seeming" contradictions in Scripture and "seeming" contradictions
with science.
What is the "natural" result of the Naturalistic approach?
McQuilkin writes
that...
the rationalist cannot accept the
miraculous in Scripture because he has not personally experienced
the miraculous, and also because reports of miracles cannot be
verified by experimentation. Therefore, they must be explained
either as a misapprehension of natural events or as myth growing up
around some historical or imagined event...The end result of the
rationalistic approach to Scripture is simply this: there is no sure
word from God. That is, Scripture has no independent authority, for
human reasoning is the final authority for judging anything that
presents itself as a word from God. (Understanding and Applying The
Bible)
This directly contradicts the
writer of Proverbs who records that...
Every word of God is tested
(refined as the goldsmith refines precious metal, the result being
pure gold without imperfections or contaminants!) (Proverbs 30:5)
These individuals allow human reasoning rather than
context and God's Spirit ("the
Spirit of truth [Who] will guide you into all
truth" John 16:13)
to rules in their
interpretation
of Scripture.
Before listing the three
subdivisions of the Naturalistic Approach, you should understand
that the term Biblical criticism describes the skillful evaluation
("rational") of the data (the Biblical text including the original
Hebrew and Greek manuscripts) to
determine the truth about the Scripture. The practice of "Biblical
criticism" did not arise until the 1800's.
Three Subdivisions
of the Naturalistic Approach
1). TEXTUAL CRITICISM:
Textual criticism is also
known as "lower" criticism (in contrast to "higher" criticism
below). Textual criticism seeks to compare (Greek and Hebrew) extant
copies of manuscripts in order to find the most accurate texts,
since we no longer possess the original Biblical manuscripts or
"autographs".
2). HIGHER CRITICISM
One branch of "higher criticism" takes a "historical approach"
and "seeks to understand the Bible in light of its historical and
cultural backgrounds, that is, as a book arising out of a human
context." (Grenz, S., et al: Pocket Dictionary of Theological
terms. Page 59. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press. 1999) The
historical type of "higher criticism" can have some merit but the
weakness is that it tends to downplay Scripture as a supernatural
book written by God, and instead overemphasizes the humanness of the
Scriptures.
Although such study can have
some merit, "higher criticism" is a dangerous method in the hands of an individual who
is also a naturalistic interpreter. This approach is often referred to as
"destructive higher criticism".
One notorious example of this
"destructive higher criticism" is the so-called "JEDP
theory". In the 1800's Julius Wellhausen (1844-1918), a German OT
scholar transformed the face of OT studies with his work on
the dating of the sources in the Pentateuch. Wellhausen's work led
to popularization of The Documentary Hypothesis which proposes
that the Pentateuch was not written by Moses but that it went
through a "process of composition" over several centuries, in which
various sources were compiled into the final text. Wellhausen
identified four sources in their historical order referred to as
Jahwist (J), Elohist (E), Deuteronomist (D) and
Priestly (P), commonly abbreviated as JEDP. Such
teaching undermines the inerrancy and authority of God's Word (Click
excerpts of the 1561 Belgic and 1978 Chicago confessions regarding
the authority and inerrancy of Scripture)
From this brief overview of
the Rationalistic approach to Scripture, one can readily discern
that it is human reasoning which rules in the interpretation.
Another example of this Rationalistic approach is found in "Harper's
Bible Commentary" which states (a supposition based on "higher
criticism") that
Colossians was most
likely written by a pupil of Paul’s...." and that the "Petrine
authorship very improbable!" (Mays, J.
L., Harper & Row, P., & Society of Biblical Literature. Harper's
Bible commentary. San Francisco: Harper & Row - see note
of
2Peter 1:1).
Thus one can readily
see how important it is to know what approach your favorite
commentary takes in regard to the Word of God. The safest approach is to first, do
your own
inductive Bible study
for only then you will be
equipped to intelligently "comment on the commentaries"!
3). CULTURAL RELATIVISM:
The context of culture is
important in interpreting Scripture but in this aberrant approach,
one's view of culture rules in interpretation.
Culture defines the way a group of people view things or does things.
The problem in this approach to Scripture is that CULTURE is over emphasized and the natural
(literal) meaning
of the Scripture is set aside. Modern examples include what the
Scripture has to say about homosexuality. Another modern example is
the comment in the New Century Bible Commentary which says that wives do
not need to submit to
husbands in our modern cultures but that this practice was advocated
by Paul because it was part of the culture at that time.
In all 3 of these subdivisions of the naturalistic approach, the
main thesis is that man's finite thoughts are substituted for God's
incomprehensible, infinite wisdom!
This approach to
interpretation of Scripture arose in the early 1900's as a reaction to
rationalism which itself was a reaction to supernaturalism!
McQuilkin explains
that...
the existential approach
is an attempt to combine the first two. It accepts the naturalistic
approach, yet goes beyond it by locating the truth of Scripture in
the encounter between the interpreter's response and the witness of
the biblical author to a similar religious experience.
(Understanding and Applying The Bible)
The existential approach teaches that the Bible is not the Word of
God but is the "vehicle" for the
Word of God. They teach that the Bible becomes REVELATION only when properly mixed
with truth and thus MAN is in CONTROL of the interpretation! This
approach teaches that the Bible is not an independent AUTHORITY.
Existentialists use traditional words but with non-traditional meanings.
For example, if one speaks of the demonic they might say it really is
speaking of "evil" in society but not of a specific spiritual being.
Generally however the existential approach does not deny the
supernatural..
Existentialists, like Naturalists and Rationalists, give man the
authority. The existential approach is very subtle and difficult to
detect because it tends to speak so much about "faith".
The result of
Existentialists interpretation is a mixture of belief
and experience. This type of thinking is the often manifest in the
approach to Scripture which asks "What does the passage mean to
you?" This approach therefore tends to bypasses God's intended
meaning of a given passage. This approach is a "serendipity" type of Bible study
where you walk in, read a verse,
and ask what it means to the group! Have you ever been to a Bible
study like that? Probably most of us have.
The important point is that must evaluate the "system" by which you
are interpreting the Word of God because whatever method you are
using will have it's ultimate affect on the way you think and then
the way you behave. As Paul declared...
See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty
deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the
elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.
(See note
Colossians 2:8)
Be a Berean. Don't be taken captive by philosophy, etc.
In this approach, the
Scripture is made to conform to a predetermined system of doctrine
or external authority.
While there is a legitimate use of a system of doctrine, the problem
arises when one's "system" deviates from God's intended meaning.
If the dogmatic approach is carried to the extreme the problem is the independent authority of
Scripture is replaced by a man-made system.
For example, in the study of the sovereignty of God, if one over emphasizes this truth, then man
has no role whatsoever and is little more than a "puppet." If one
follows this dogmatic approach out to its logical conclusion, than
one would conclude that there is no need to send
missionaries since God is sovereign in salvation and man has no
responsibility.
THREE SOURCES OF DOGMATIC APPROACH:
1). TRADITION:
Some tradition is obviously good (eg, the traditional
teaching of the Trinity), but the problem is when the tradition
sneaks in as an "interpretation" which is unsupported by the Scripture. Be very careful making
statements like "I believe whatever the church says..."!
The church sadly has often times been guilty of a short sighted
dogmatic approach on certain issues that would be quite clear if one
approached the Scriptures literally.
2). ANOTHER CHRISTIAN:
We make take a certain interpretative leaning
because we have come to trust and respect a particular individual
teacher or leader. How many times have you heard someone defend
their dogmatic point of view because another well known Christian
has espoused that same view.
3). PERSONAL EXPERIENCE:
"I don't care what the Bible says. That was
not my experience." The result of the dogmatic approach is that one aspect of truth rules in
the interpretation, a practice that can ultimately lead to erroneous
interpretation (and application) in this other area.
McQuilkin adds that...
some believers, with otherwise
sound approaches, may err in dogmatically setting aside the
plain meaning of the text to make it conform to a system of
doctrine, some human authority, or even a personal experience. Few
would admit to espousing this approach, yet it is all too common.
All of us are subject to the temptation. (Understanding and Applying
The Bible) It is interesting to note that
each of these four approaches to interpretation of Scripture has an
element of truth.
| Supernaturalistic |
The Bible is supernatural |
| Naturalistic |
The
Bible is natural |
| Existentialistic |
The
Bible must be applied |
| Dogmatic |
The
Bible is a coherent unit from Genesis to Revelation |
The problem arises when one of the 4 areas above is emphasized to the
exclusion of one or more of the other approaches. The essential error
in each of these faulty approaches to Scriptural interpretation is a
tendency to subjectivism and failure to rely wholly on the
objective truth of the Word. It is as if "you" (or
"me") as a frail, fallen man
who becomes the final arbiter of the Truth of God's Word. Stated
another way, when we approach Scripture subjectively, we as the interpreter become
the ultimate authority for all interpretation. McQuilkin refers to
Joshua 6 (see Josh 6:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14,
15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21) to illustrate the diverse
interpretations possible based on these four basic approaches...
The naturalist may see the
account as an ancient story that was made up (since walls do not
normally tumble before trumpet blasts) to teach the victory of good
over evil against great odds. Since the supernaturalist is
looking for a hidden meaning, he may see the marching around Jericho
in silence as a mandate for Christians to witness by their "walk" in
silence six days a week until the leader (preacher) on Sunday
proclaims the gospel, and the walls of unbelief come tumbling down
and people are converted. Existentialists might focus on the
call to personal religious faith that was at the writer's center of
attention. The story for the existentialist might be only a legend,
the details of which hold no importance. Some dogmatists will
have a problem with the slaughter of the citizens of Jericho at
God's command—a loving God would never order the death of innocent
people. Others might have no problem at all, believing that the
people of Jericho were created for the purpose of damnation anyway.
(Understanding and Applying The Bible) It follows that the discerning
believer must have some idea of how the author or authors of their
favorite Bible commentary approach the interpretation of the
Scriptures. If you are unsure, the book's preface or introduction
might provide some information. If not, you would be well advised to
consult another trusted, mature, Biblically centered, Spirit filled
believer regarding their opinion is of the particular resource you
are reading or listening to.
WHAT SHOULD BE ONE'S APPROACH TO INTERPRETATION?
One should let the Author's
intended meaning rule in interpretation. One of the most objective
methods to fulfill this worthy objective is to become a student of
the
inductive method of Bible Study. It
is not the only method to study the Bible but is certainly one of
the most tested and fruitful for lay persons and without a doubt the
best material for partaking of the "solid food" of inductive study
is available from
Precept Ministries International.
As the writer of Hebrews
declares...
solid
food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses
trained to discern good and evil. (Heb 5:14, 12, 13, see note
Heb 5:14)
The believer must always have the
approach of the Bereans who...
were
more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the
word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily, to see
whether these things were so. (Acts 17:11, 10, 12,13, 14 ) |
