Grammatic-Historical vs Redemptive Historical

More and more factors are beginning to introduce themselves as my study for pastoral preparation continues. I have already voiced the concern that an approach to the text of scripture that assumes some kind of neutrality or even some kind of merely contextualized truth is a wrong approach that leads invariably to a critical mind concerning the Scriptures and will, at least at some level, evaluate the text with an external criterion for knowledge.

This will at first seem problematic to the process of hermeneutics. We are used to the popular approach to hermeneutics called "grammatic-historical". This process stresses the first way to read the text is as one in the original audience would. Then explore the grammar for its most basic and common meaning with in that context. However, this would seem to be importing the socio-or cultural context as the governing principle over the text, therefore the process should be abandoned for a better model. A model that allows for significant contribution to be made by such contexts - but not as an ultimate or primary principle.

Now, adherents to the grammatical-historic hermeneutic will not easily give in to such a paradigm shift. Especially, those who have used this process well for some years. Again, I must stress that we are not seeking to abandon historical context - but merely to put historical context in its proper place before we let it have sway over our understanding of revelation. In a sense you could say that historic context is contextualized by a greater principle itself - and that principle the Bible teaches is redemption. You might be thinking that this sounds just like "redemptive-historical" hermeneutics, and you'd be correct. But the problem as far as I can see, is that there is not a good codification of "Redemptive-Historical" process. Most often we learn about Biblical Theology, that it is an over arching organizing and evaluating principle applied to exegesis - or as BB Warfield would say 'Biblical theology is the final and complete result of exegesis', which would clearly put the science of RH hermeneutics after an exegetical attempt to understand the text. Exegeses itself seems to pose problems - at least if we use the definition: "The word exegesis can mean explanation, but as a technical term it means "to draw the meaning out of" a given text..." and "Traditional exegesis requires the following: analysis of significant words in the text in regard to translation; examination of the general historical and cultural context, confirmation of the limits of the passage, and lastly, examination of the context within the text" which puts the explanation grounded upon the grammatic-historic information. So, either "exegesis" should be redefined with a primary goal of finding the redemptive meaning both in broad and narrow contexts and then the grammatic-historic events that give playground to such revelation should be explored - almost a reverse definition, or the order of exegesis - biblical theology should itself be reversed. But how is this possible?

An Issue of Translation...

Today in Hebrew class the topic was brought up: "was the language of Abraham the Hebrew which we have?" To which the professor and the class seemed to agree that it was not. The implications of this rather sticky issue can lead to a lot of speculations, but one thing stood out to me that may be a helpful thought when considering the confidence we can have in our Bibles being the "very" word of God.

I have always been a little bothered by the easy way out of textual difficulties which says "Its a problem of translation!". Even the BCO has a troublesome oath for members in that it states this question " Do you believe the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as originally given, to be the inerrant Word of God, the only infallible rule of faith and practice? " it is the "as originally given" part that causes trouble, because, frankly we don't have the originals - in fact the very languages that we study in seminary as "the originals" are really translations of the original, at least in the case of Hebrew. Far from being a problem for canonicity it actually seems a vindication on the highest level of the doctrine of Scripture in the modern age. Why? Because, we see a process of God's superintendence as always normal to the preservation of the Word of God and we see no problem with the translations. This is not to say that all translations are equally valid, nor am I trying to deny the difficulty of translation, but it is at least worthy to note that Christ would have had a Hebrew text that was not exactly the "original" and he did not mind one bit - nor did he ever say "well if you knew the original you'd understand". Some times it seems we are more in love with the idea of education than we are in revelation. I mean that we can be swept away by the thought that the Hebrew or the Greek hold some sort of secret meanings that the english simply cannot convey and that why God delivered it in those languages, all the while ignoring the very vivid display of the Gospel in our own tongue! Now, don't get me wrong, I like Greek and Hebrew a lot more than English and the Hebrew text is quite beautiful, but trust me, or rather trust God, the Gospel is just as much in the BHS as it is in the ESV!

I believe that this is an important step in having the confidence in the Word of God that we hold in our hands that we need. It also lends credence to the historical process and the vast difficulties of translation being subservient to the Lord just as everything else is.

Brief and Untechnical

A digest of B.B. Warfields essay "A Brief and Untechnical Statement of the Reformed Faith"

In this short essay Warfield simply recaps the essence of the "reformed faith" by stating a series of beliefs which generally follow the systems of the Westminster confession of faith or the Westminster catechisms. Which may be summed up like: "God's creation reveals - but not enough, we need Scripture, where in we find how to live and serve the one true God. This scripture was brought about supernaturally and completed. The God that created and revealed himself is triune and truly God, having all the attributes of "divine" - and he is such a God that is both transcendent and imminent - which is clear in that He predestined all that comes to pass, yet He also sustains all that is. He created man to worship Him, but man disobeyed and thrust the whole of creation into rebellion. Thus all mind kind are children of wrath in their natural condition, but God in His mercy chose a (great) people for Himself. God redeemed these elect through Jesus Christ the eternal Son of God - who was both man and God by the incarnation. This redemption was by virtue of Christ being a substitution for the sins of His people. Now this substitution frees us to walk according to the Spirit and fashions us according to Christ - who was righteous not sinful. Thus creating an assembly of redeemed "the church" which is "one an the same in all ages" display the riches of the grace of God to the world. This church may be broken into smaller parts (denominations) but it is not destroyed. This Church is not for the government of this world but for the purpose of redemption of His people, and thus should not be mixed or confused with the state. And that Christ will come again and receive all His church for an eternity".

So I suppose this serves as my summary of Warfields summary of Westminsters summary of what the "Faith" is. Enjoy.

Handling the text

Today I had a conversation with a friend of mine on the hypostatic nature of the Word. I was intrigued by the notion that Christ who is the Word, has both a human and a divine nature, and that the two are not in conflict or competition but harmony. Though Christ grew and learned, he never set aside omniscience. And like wise the Word of God has both a divine nature and a human. Just as with Christ our great high priest, the human part of the union is not the fallible part, but rather the humbled "state" for the greater glory of God part. Consider Philippians 2 - Christ put on the form of total humiliation, with the result of total or ultimate exultation in the glory of God, with nothing or no one exempt (every knee...every tongue). And in the same manner the Word which is from God and is itself a perfect revelation of God by the Holy Spirit, with out error or contradiction, put on the form of humiliation and was handled by men, was protected by scribes, was burnt and lost, was hidden at times and often disputed - and still to this day scholars seem to work more diligently in finding her difficulties than her glories. They search carefully to find a humanness to the text that is not perfect. A humanness that is not like Christ - but like us. Yet as Christ, who endured even to the point of death on the cross by the very creatures that He created to worship Him, and yeah even worse by the very covenant children that He bound Himself to with His whole heart - was utterly humiliated, still we have this faith that God declared Him to be the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead and that Christ humiliation is not worthy to be compared to His exultation.

This is not to say that the written text of scripture is our savior. Or that the bible will follow in every detail the path of Christ, but rather to declare it normal in the economy of God to deliver His richest beauties to us in humble forms. Contemptuous by our standards, but perfect and powerful by God's. It is no wonder then that so many would love to find fault with the text of scripture. And my contention here is that perhaps we can see that this is not only to be expected, but that it is also to be part of the vindication of God's Word itself.

These are at this point merely reflections and random thoughts, but at some point I hope they can deal with the true grandeur of the Scripture even if they only serve as a spring board to the more refined discussions. But I should like to remember this during my studies, that the Apostle Peter saw the canon of scripture as a more reliable more sure word of testimony than when God himself spoke directly to him... and surely that is an awesome thought!

A good friend of mine once asked; "Why doesn't anyone say 'Thus says the LORD' anymore?"

The question was not ment to grapple with continuing prophetic gifts, but was in response to the fad of modern day preachers to be intentionally non abrasive. To stay as far away from sounding like there just might be authority behind what they say.

I say - the question is a good one. Preachers, you are wheelding a sword not a spoon! We need a sharper edge...please!

So, as I study to one day by the grace of God become yet another preacher in this spiritual hodge-podge America - perhaps this small corner might provide a good wet stone.