Four Views on Moving Beyond the Bible to Theology

Zondervan, Stanley N. Gundry,Gary T. Meadors

• Éditeur: Zondervan Academic
• Année: 2009
• ISBN:
  9780310302490
• Sujet: Theologie & Religion
• Sous-sujet: Biblische Studien

Learn to identify, evaluate, and refine your approach to forming theological conclusions based on the biblical text.

The Bible has long served as the standard for Christian practice, yet believers still disagree on how biblical passages should be interpreted and applied. Only when readers fully understand the constructs that inform their process of moving from Scripture to theology--and those of others--can Christians fully evaluate teachings that claim to be "biblical."

In this book--part of the Counterpoints series--scholars who affirm an inspired Bible, relevant and authoritative for every era, present models they consider most faithful to Scripture

• Walter C. Kaiser, Jr.: Principlizing Model
• Daniel M. Doriani: Redemptive-Historical Model
• Kevin J. Vanhoozer: Drama-of-Redemption Model
• William J. Webb: Redemptive-Movement Model

Each position receives critiques from the proponents of the other views. Moreover, due to the far-reaching implications this topic holds for biblical studies, theology, and church teaching, this book includes three additional reflections by Christopher J. H. Wright, Mark L. Strauss, and Al Wolters on the theological and practical interpretation of biblical texts.

The Counterpoints series presents a comparison and critique of scholarly views on topics important to Christians that are both fair-minded and respectful of the biblical text. Each volume is a one-stop reference that allows readers to evaluate the different positions on a specific issue and form their own, educated opinion.

CHAPTER ONE

A PRINCIPLIZING
MODEL

Walter C. Kaiser Jr.

ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT INTERPRETIVE TASKS, but the one most laypeople, teachers, and pastors often have had little training in, is the move from determining what a text meant in its original setting and context to applying that text in one’s own day and culture. That move is filled with potential for great power in one’s teaching and preaching, but it also possesses an equally great potential for mischief and harm to both the speaker and the audience. These moves are especially sensitive when the original text of Scripture involves cultural elements that are different from cultural elements in our own day. But as we will see, rather than viewing these elements as obstacles to understanding the text fairly, they are meant to actually help us in the task of applying that text to other times and places. The textual illustration of this kind of move used in a former day opens up the potential for our determining what the principle of the same issue being illustrated would be in our own day.

One proposal for bridging this gap between the “then” of the text’s ancient context and the “now” application of that same text in our day was entitled “ethnohermeneutics,”¹ which recognized three horizons in this delicate cross-cultural interpretation: (1) the culture of the Bible, (2) the culture of the interpreter, and (3) the culture of the receptor. It is important to note that all three horizons have to be brought into the discussion of a scriptural text, yet without allowing the second and third horizons to override, or dictate, to the first horizon a new meaning; one that no longer serves as the basis for a common communication on the subject first introduced by the original context.

In the early church fathers, cultural matters in the Scripture were discussed under the topics of “condescension,” “accommodation,” and “acculturation.” From their standpoint, the biblical writers did not make the interpretation of the text more difficult when they introduced cultural aspects; instead, they made it more accessible by showing us how it could be applied. To illustrate this point, notice how easily readers and interpreters of Philippians 4:2 handle “I plead with Euodia and Syntyche to agree with each other in the Lord.” The particularization of the names and the specificity of some altercation that had taken place between these two ladies in the context of the church at Philippi should not cause us to pass over that statement in Paul’s letter and say in effect, “Oh, neither Euodia nor Syntyche is a relative of mine, and I am not part of the church at Philippi, so that word is not for me in my day.” Instead, most will see it for what it is—a good illustration of the principle Paul talked about in his letter to the Ephesians (4:32): “Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you.” If that is a legitimate way to handle this particularismus in the New Testament, should not that same procedure work for the Old Testament, which has many more instances of that same particularity and specificity involving people, places, times, and issues?

Therefore, what happens in this and similar cases where cultural issues intrude on the text can be handled by principlizing the text.² For example, in some cases in interpreting the Bible, we will keep the principle affirmed in the theology taught, along with the cultural-historical expression of that principle where the cultural expression remains similar to its meaning in our times as well. Such would be the case when Scripture taught lines of responsibility between husband and wife—both the theology of marriage and the cultural illustrations of it are rather closely proximate to one another.

On other occasions, we will keep the theology of the passage (i.e., one that is now embodied in a principle), but replace the behavioral expression with some more recent or meaningful expression from our contemporary world.

To illustrate this instance, we would appeal to 1 Corinthians 5, where a mother and son were guilty of incest (a violation of the moral law of God), but the sanction for that law of stoning (as was true in the law of Moses) was replaced by temporary excommunication from the body of believers until there was genuine repentance and restoration to the church once again. Principles, then, must be given priority over accompanying cultural elements, especially when directed to the times and settings in which that text was written—times now different and separate from the contemporary manner of expressing that same principle.

Over twenty-five years ago I had occasion to put down in print what I meant when I had repeatedly urged Bible readers, teachers, and preachers to “principlize” the text of Scripture. My emphasis then, as now, was that the task of interpreting a text was not concluded until the reader or interpreter had carried what the text meant over to the present day and said what it now means. I had written in the past:

To “principlize” is to [re]state the author’s propositions, arguments, narrations, and illustrations in timeless abiding truths with special focus on the application of those truths to the current needs of the Church.³

Later, in that same textbook, I explained:

Principlization seeks to bridge the “then” of the text’s narrative [or any other biblical genre] with the “now” needs of our day; yet it refuses to settle for cheap and quick solutions which confuse our own personal point of view (good or bad) with that of the inspired writer.⁴

This method of “principlizing” I had attempted to distinguish from several older and newer ways of making the biblical text contemporary and relevant to our own times:

Unlike allegorizing or spiritualizing, the method of principlizing seeks to derive its teachings from a careful understanding of the text [of Scripture]. Rather than importing an external meaning into the Bible (this includes pre-maturely using the analogy of subsequent doctrines [usually called “The Analogy of Faith”] and assigning these new meanings to the details of the earlier narrative, meanings which were not in the mind of the original author), we must receive only those meanings authoritatively stated by the authors themselves.⁵

The first step in principlizing a passage from the Bible is to determine what the subject of the focal point of that passage is. My colleague Haddon Robinson has called this focal point “the big idea of the passage.” Usually this focus can be found expressly stated in the heart of the text selected (in a summarizing verse or clause thereof) for teaching or preaching. It is necessary to get a fix on this first lest we are tempted to impose a mold over the Bible by forcing it to answer one of our favorite questions, but one the text never encompasses in its purpose. A greater temptation is to introduce a truth taught in the New Testament and to read the Bible backwards (as in “eisegesis”) and claim here was a “deeper truth” or something that is a sensus plenior, presumably encrypted between the lines and not in the grammar or syntax per se. Surely that imposition has given “eye-popping” New Testament types of truth to the Old Testament with plenty of contemporary relevancy, but the question is this: Did the Holy Spirit come to the same use of that text?

Once the topic/subject has been identified, then the emphasis must be sought from any terms that are repeated or are a key or part of the important words used in developing that same subject. Notice simultaneously has to be given to the connecting words in that pericope that link the phrases, clauses, and sentences, such as “because,” “since,” “therefore,” or the like.

Once we have identified the subject, the emphasis, and the ways in which the passage is connected, we can move to see how each paragraph (in prose genres), scene (in narratives), or strophe (in poetical passages) can be expressed in propositional principles. It is always best to avoid using all proper names/nouns in stating the principle for each of these units of thought (e.g., the paragraph in the prose sections, the scene in narrative sections, or the strophe in poetical sections of the Bible) except divine names, for all such references to all other persons, places, or historic events will only lock the text into the past and handicap its application to the contemporary scene.

Likewise, all use of third person pronouns has the same inhibiting function on formulating useful principles for our day; instead of using third person pronouns, one is better advised to express the newly devised principles in terms of first person plural pronouns that have a hortatory function in the preaching and teaching situation—“Let us …, “ “it’s our job …, “ or “we must. …” Of course second person pronouns can likewise be used, but for teaching and proclamation purposes, it is always better if the speaker identifies with the audience rather than pontificating from on high against all of “you”!

Finally, it is likewise best if we use present tense verbs, present participles, or imperatives for our principles rather than past tenses, for once again putting the action descriptively in the past severely limits the statement of the principles’ ability to lead the reader or interpreter into the present and the future or to view the text as directed to each one personally.

Before I leave the whole discussion of what is principlization and how it functions, it is important to mention as another illustration the use of the “Ladder of Abstraction.”⁶ The Ladder of Abstraction may be defined as “a continuous sequence of categorizations from a low level of specificity up to a high point of generality in a principle and down again to a specific application in the contemporary culture.”

A good example of this is the appeal to the reason behind a case law (ratio decidendi) that on the surface (prima facie) appears to be no more than a prohibition for farmers, that they should not muzzle an ox treading out the husks on the grain (Deut. 25:4). Most of today’s readers of Scripture do not own oxen, and even if they did, they would not use them in our day in place of combines for thrashing and separating the husks from the grain. Surely, therefore, here is a verse that apparently is culturally and contextually frozen in ancient times and not at all relevant to us in our day—unless there was a principle behind this specific illustration.

Nevertheless, Paul dared to use this text not just once but twice (1 Cor. 9:9–12 and 1 Tim. 5:18), to teach that persons who were ministered to with the Word of God should pay their pastors. How did Paul get from allowing oxen to take a swipe of grain as they went round and round tramping out the grain to paying pastors?⁷ Paul could have gone to Deuteronomy 24:14–15, which taught, “Do not take advantage of a hired man … pay him his wages”; instead, Paul appealed to a text about oxen and then claimed that that text in Deuteronomy was not written for oxen (of course, oxen cannot read!), but it was written “for us.”

What was Paul’s point? Some scholars quickly concluded that the apostle was indulging in allegorical interpretation.⁸ But to claim that Paul used an allegorical interpretation involved for most ignoring its original meaning and giving it a sense that was purely arbitrary. Others thought Paul used a rabbinic type of argumentation, or even a Hellenistic Jewish exegesis, but Paul did not suppress the historical or natural meaning of the text. His argument was a well-grounded, a fortiori type of logic that went from the lower relations (of the oxen themselves to the owners of the oxen) to insist that the same principle was true of the higher relations (of others who were being served and ministered to) as well.

Here is how the Ladder of Abstraction works: from the ancient specific situation (oxen that tread out grain) we move up the ladder to the institutional or personal norm (animals are God’s gifts to humanity and should be treated kindly), to the top of the ladder, which gives to us the general principle (giving engenders gentleness and graciousness in those mortals who care for and can minister back to those who serve them as well, whether they are animals or people). As we descend the ladder on the other side, we meet the theological and moral principle behind our general principle (“love your neighbor” or just the injunction in the ninth commandment), to the contemporary or New Testament specific situation (pay those pastors ministering to you, including Paul, 1 Cor. 9:9–12).⁹

In this movement on the Ladder of Abstraction, we must move from the ancient specificity of the text (taking pity on those muzzled oxen who are going crazy walking round and round over top of grain they long to take a swipe at) up to the overarching general principle that applies and generalizes the particularity of the Scripture before we can once again apply that abstracted general principle in a new contemporary specific situation. Paul’s point is not only one of being kind to animals; rather, it is about the special work of grace and generosity that takes place in the hearts and lives of those who express special concern and love for those who are ministering to them (whether as oxen threshing out the grain or as ministers of the gospel feeding the people the Word of God).

WHY GO BEYOND THE OBVIOUS?

If the Reformers correctly taught us that sola scriptura was the proper boundary for authoritative teachings for the believing community, why are some now suggesting that we must go “beyond the sacred page” to get modern answers currently pressing for resolution in what is popularly called our postmodern era? If the Bible was able to communicate authoritatively in the day in which it was originally written, why must we in our day raise so many questions that seem to take us off, or beyond, the biblical page?

The answer to that query is readily at hand: because, so it is claimed, there is so much complexity in contemporary life that continues to pose more ethical, moral, doctrinal, and scientific questions than the Bible seems, at least at first glance, to be able to answer in a direct way for our generation. There are so many terms and so many new issues that were never even directly contemplated when the Scriptures were written that it would appear as if the biblical theologian and exegete is left with more questions than answers in this postmodern world.

Accordingly, in recent years, a new literature has arisen that suggests how, under carefully defined guidelines, it is possible, indeed necessary, to go “beyond” the sacred text to meet the challenges of our day. Some of the topics that fall under the category of cultural assessment involve the current fashion of wearing tattoos, involvement in transvestism, using reproductive technologies to compensate for infertility, advocating animal rights, treating the environment more carefully than before, revising names and functions of church officers, trying new hairstyles, advancing clothing taboos, insisting on new head coverings, and the like. But if going “beyond” is to be the recommended track for answering questions such as these, then what becomes of our much valued sola scriptura (“Scripture alone”)?

Our problem is not with our praiseworthy desire to offer help to a baffled church and laity on contemporary questions not directly dealt with in the Bible, but it now is: How can we establish procedures of interpretation that will take us outside of the boundaries of Scripture (if that is what it might take) while claiming the security and safety of possessing an authoritative source within those recently transgressed boundaries? Even if this is not the correct way to put the question, the point is this: How do we move from the day and times of the Bible to our day and age? How can we claim the biblical text for ourselves in a way that it applies to the problems we face in this present day with all of the new complexities, cultures, and content? Contemporary interpreters of the Word of God are said no longer to be content with moving from the specificity of the biblical text followed by a generalizing principle to apply to different types of people in different times and situations (as we have just advocated in the Ladder of Abstraction).

It is for this reason, then, that we are called upon to supply some examples of how the method of principlization is to be preferred over competing suggestions for helping us answer the very same questions.

IS EUTHANASIA MURDER?

The term euthanasia was coined by H. E. W. Lecky in 1869, meaning “good” (Gk. eu) and “death” (Gk. thanatos). Thus, this form of death was viewed as an easy death or the act or practice (either actively or passively) of letting or helping people die, especially those suffering from some incurable condition or disease. Scripture, however, does not directly mention, or give explicit guidance, on the issue of the active use of this form of death. Therefore, it is a good candidate for us to ask...