(amended May 2011)
1. A
PROBLEM OF REALITY
WHICH ONE IS CLOSER TO REALITY?
Actually neither one is very realistic. The
colored one "seems" more real to us because it contains colors that are
closer to what our eyes see in natural light. The other is taken from infra-red
sensitive film and is actually a "translation" of what we cannot see
(IR wavelengths) into our visible range. As we see the colored one, some
creatures perceive black and white, IR, UV or a mix -and for them that
represents reality.
Added is the aspect that we "see" 3- D ; and that involves
actually two separate and different pictures, plus the larger
"screen" of our wide field vision. To that add the actual way the eye physically
breaks up the image and the brain processes it, and we are still a long way
from being able to say just what we see. But we propose that, "The truth is out there".
How to access it is the question. Now apply this to reading the Scriptures with
some ancient words and, -"how in the world can we ever know anything for sure?"
(The Post-Modern question)
2. A Not So Simple Start
Hermeneutics exists as a man-made tool to enable one to interpret written texts, in our case, The Scriptures of the Christian Bible. If intellectual honesty is to prevail, this is not always an easy task. Although the vast majority of scripture is relatively simple, as the first lesson illustrates our finite ability to unpack and understand issues can be quite complicated. We bring to our study not only human limitations of observation, but also have language, our particular cultural perspectives and background, and presuppositions which must be considered. These are unavoidable but not insurmountable. Honesty requires us to acknowledge apparent inconsistencies within a number of texts, however considering the enormous volume of words and authors, as well as the thousands of years spanned, its unity and consistency testifies of our recognition and faith of its divine origin.
Of these and other issues involved in our interpretation, one in particular has undergone recent changes which impact our past solutions to textual problems. Although ancient in its inception, present advances in science have opened up a reconsideration of something much of the Church has taken as "a given", and that involves our logical systems inherited from the Enlightenment Period. Along with our presupposition that Scripture is inerrant is the necessity of defining the concept of inerrancy, which has been particularly emphasized among Evangelicals in the past several hundred years. Given that scriptures are true and divinely inspired is one thing, that our concept of "inerrancy" has the same "Divine Truth" essence is quite another; and that the Church has faith in Divine Revelation is one thing, for her to have a necessarily identical faith in science ___especially "older" modern thinking about it, is the issue. Our understanding of scientific inquiry has been a continually changing discipline, and these implications are now shaking some Christians, formidable scholars as they are, with what is a general term of Postmodernism. The reaction of some is not because their faith in the scriptures has been questioned, but their faith in their mathematical models of logic are now disputed. Even
among scholars there can exist a fleshly root of "having to be right".
Here is an example of how this has impacted past fundamentalist academia.
When apparent logical inconsistencies, usually defined as contradictions or contrary interpretations arise, theologians have been compelled by their own faith in their logic construct to find or even generate ways of closure. These may not be wrong, but they are fallible. A well know example involves "free will" and God's sovereignty. Another is the question whether God loves the unbeliever. There are scriptures that seem to say opposing things about this, even within the New Testament. (Reconciling the Old and the New Covenants was even a problem some of the Apostles battled through.)
Our logic system has difficulty holding "truths" in tension. In order for systematic theologians to arrive at the logical consistency they assume to be necessary, in the case of God's love, they formulated divisions, such as one kind of love for the unbeliever (who scriptures say "unloving things about"), and another kind of love for those who are "the elect" (a definite legitimate word in the NT). They then build their theology as a closed system determined by their own grasp of what (their) logic allows or doesn't; that mankind's concept of understanding scripture spiritually (which a natural or soulish man cannot do -1Cor 2:14) is a result of their inability to either be logical or a refusal to accept what logic compels because of their still fallen nature. What some fundamentalists think is faith in the scripture is often actually faith in their "science, falsely so called (1 Tm 6:20)."
As the first lesson was given to show the difficulty in knowing with accuracy, even if one's logic could be infallible, our own observations cannot give us perfect truth. We know only in part and see things slightly distorted in this fallen universe. We will look more closely at this in lesson 5.
Walter Brueggemann states on page 10 of Texts Under Negotiation, that
our faith stands no longer on logic or fact, but on our very life's commitment
of who we are, at cost and at risk.
For more on this specific issue of Fideism,
see- faith_reason.htm
As a young Christian I understood this, because the Lord I fell in love with
was a transcendent God, well beyond the confines of the limited natural world. But
it was only in my later years, as I began to realize that truth would not always come
from science or theology, that I again found my rest in my faith. After all,
"faith is for resting in." (Heb 4)"
3. Adventure Land
As we start our adventure I would like to
paraphrase what I think Leonard Sweet said, and that was that we could plan a
journey, but only prepare for an adventure. Many of us have been on numerous
journeys, and after finding some profit, might better identify with the now
trite saying, “been there, done that”. But an adventure evokes a fresh
challenge and youthfulness that even some of us older travelers find impossible
to ignore.
When Alice, in Alice in Wonderland, asked directions, she in turn was
asked where she wanted to go. When she said that she did not know, the reply was
that it then did not matter which way she set off. We do not want an adventure
in “wonderland”, which is a place where some theologians seem quite
comfortable. We must state the place of our exploration, and ours will be the supernaturally
inspired Scriptures. There are other alternatives some consider, but this
must be the primary presupposition for us, even though there are many that
claim such a land does not exist, - at least in reality. As mentioned, the
second presumption is that “the Truth is out there", providing reward for
those who diligently seek and find it (Him).
Ours, or in fact, anyone’s starting place must be an act of belief, and for
us – faith. An excellent text on this problem is "Theology
and the Justification of Faith" by Wentzel
van Huyssteen. Belief is really empty and passive; - a "posture" of
our mind and thoughts, -like sitting in a chair and going through a check list,
marking, "yes, yes, no, yes, no". There is no substance in it, unlike
Faith which is "the substance---". It is that which causes an
incarnated step into the adventure.
4. A Sample of Places
Ahead
Before we actually start into
the problems and expectations of Truth and Hermeneutics, an example showing the
value of this discipline in a positive perspective is in order. (As opposed to
“keeping us from error”) Hebrew thinking –
compared to Greek thinking, OT/NT - both worldviews. (not rules but tendencies)
a. Holistic comp to Greek reductionist (look at parts)
b. Parallel comp to Greek linear
c. Natural comp to Greek humanistic
d. Historical comp to Greek mythological
e. Intuitive comp to Greek abstract
f. Poetic comp to Greek literal
g. Experiential comp to Greek analytical
h. Macroscopic comp to Greek microscopic
i. Story tellers comp to Greek Propositional
j. The Land comp to Greek the city
k. The Traditions comp to Greek future
l. Conversational comp to Greek argumentative, confrontational
m. Inductive comp to Greek deductive
n. Relational comp to Greek doctrinal
o. Metaphorical comp to Greek scientific
p. Community comp to Greek Individual
q. Discipleship comp to Greek didactics
The above means that the
"glasses" the Hebrews looked through gave different views than the
way the Greeks saw things. The Western world today is very much Greek. For a
Jew to say Jesus was in the tomb for 3 days was sufficient. Today we would want
to quibble over - 'now was it 3 or 2 3/4 days?' Joshua said the sun stopped in
the sky. Jews were not interested in scientific explanations, that - indeed- is
how it appeared to them! Period. Even if someone could have explained it
scientifically to them, they would have probably responded, "Like I said,
the sun stopped!" To miss this is to try to make the Scriptures say
something they don't.
Here is an example of how this can give valuable insight into Scripture.
The Hebrews used what we call parallelism extensively. In order to describe a
complex thing, they wouldn't try to say it precisely- but would say it in
several different ways. This could be by showing similarities or contrasts.
-The meaning being the sum of statements. Where the Greeks (and in our Western
tradition also) would pick the following verses apart to derive many different
points, the Hebrews meant it to be looked at as a whole. Consider the following
verses in Psalm 19.
Psalm 19:7-9
7 The law of
the LORD is perfect, converting the soul:
the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.
8 The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart: the
commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes.
9 The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring for
ever: the judgments of the LORD are
true and righteous altogether.
This is not saying six different things, but the same thing, six different
ways. Allow me to lay it out this way:
The Law of the Lord
is perfect
converting
the soul
The testimony of the Lord
is sure
making
wise the simple
The statutes of the Lord
are right
rejoicing
the heart
The commandment of the Lord
is pure
enlightening
the eyes
The fear of the Lord
is clean
enduring
forever
The judgments of the Lord
are true
altogether
righteous
Each of the three colors is saying something about a complex thought. In a
sense, everything in each same color is about the same thing. That is:
There is something from the Lord that we call law, testimony, statutes,
commandments, fear, and judgment that are all the same unknown eternal word.
The law of the Lord is also the testimony of who He is. David delighted in the
law of the Lord. To him, thou shall not kill revealed to him that God is not a
life taker, but is for life. And it is sure and able to prevail. It is not
tainted or mixed with compromise or special interests. It is representative of
truth. It is all of the above mixed together into an “unknown word” of God.
That unknown word is all of those attributes, -wrapped up into another unknown
word. (perhaps “Holy” comes close. Here is also a clue to the problem of evil,
or theodicy. Goodness, as opposed to evil, is not an arbitrary fiat made by
God. It is defined by an intrinsic element of God's own nature.)
And look at what it does! It not only changes our mind and emotions, it makes
the simple wise. (the Hebrew word rendered “simple” is not retarded, but used
in describing a new unfolded or virgin piece of cloth). It brings joy to the
heart that is even able to shine from our eyes – the windows of our soul. (a
witness) And it is something that is fit and proper to be ours forever.
Words Adam heard from God in the still of the evening before "The
Fall" can again be like rivers of clean cool waters to us who live in
this desert land of torment and pain, manipulated and choked by evil and
corruption. How precious are those unknown spiritual words*, and yet there are
some – even Christians, that use the Law as an instrument of flesh, or even
despise it as a constraint against what they see as their personal rights and
agendas. What treasures are still denied us because we refuse to humble
ourselves and admit that there is so much more, and God has His servants
working – even now – to mine the gold from the places God Has it hidden.
*1
Corinthians 2:12-16 Now we have
received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that
we may know the things freely given to us by God, which things we also speak, not in words
taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words. But a soulish man does not accept the things
of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand
them, because they are spiritually discerned.
But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is judged
by no one. For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, THAT HE WILL INSTRUCT HIM?
But we have the mind of Christ.
5.
The Place of Absolute Truth
systems
of reference
Above is a picture of
eyeglasses and a pen placed on a tablet. The cap from the pen lies on the
table. The question I put forward is: If the tablet is gently moved to the left
without disturbing the glasses, the pen, and its cap; is the pen moving?
I have asked this in numerous classes and the answers always differ. If one
says, “no”, then I point out that the pen and its cap are no longer close
together. Something had to have moved. If the answer is, “yes”, I point out
that as far as the tablet, pen and glasses were affected, nothing changed.
After we talked around this rather old demonstration of relativity, I would
stand back from the table and again ask if anything was moving. Usually one or
two would say it was, while most of the students would take a minute or two
before it dawned on them that, of course the earth is rotating, and then the
other cosmic movements of our solar system and on.
The answer is, indeed, that it is relative to the place or grouping where “you
ask the question”. To a microbe on the pen, it is certainly a static world. So
everything within a grouping, or let’s call it a system, has different relationships
from those things in other systems. What does this have to do with
hermeneutics?
Let’s look at systems a little. As bottom line basics for Christians, we
believe in at least two systems; the natural world. Which includes “outer
space”, and a spiritual “world”. Scripture calls these heavenly places, or the
unseen world. The use of the word heaven in the Bible seems to indicate three
heavens; the first -in the natural world, the second -where the spiritual
conflicts and activities occur, and finally the third heaven -where the throne
of God is over all else. We will go into these later in our studies. I would
like to suggest that there are other systems we need to acknowledge. (Please
note that I am not endorsing the foundationalist, dualistic system of
Descartes, which is a non-biblical concept of knowledge in the tradition
of Enlightenment.)
Some Christians become very agitated when confronted with a concept of
relatively, partly because today our societies have made morality, values, and
even truth to be only an issue of relativity. There are other systems that are
not so obvious, but just as significant in our quest to find direction on this
journey. We have already observed how space changes relationships. There is
space (in miles) between the Western culture and the Eastern, as well as the
thousands of smaller communities in the earth. Time, which is inter-related
with cultural issues also separates us, particularly when dealing with words
written thousands of years ago.
Thinking follows the understanding of that which one encounters within a
culture. People outside of a technological culture think differently than those
within it. Thoughts and words are constructed and built from what we have
encountered in life. It builds as we try to make sense and integrate our
experiences. Scripturally these issues span thousands of years, and yet we all
struggle with this in daily life. We call it a generation gap, or differentiate
and feel differently based on ethnic differences. Countries that were our enemies
years ago, are today our friends, and even behavior that would have been
illegal and seriously judged is now acceptable. All of this and more can occur
within a single lifetime. Parents find themselves living with children that
already are in a different culture even while they still live at home.
Communications breaks down, it seems at every turn; so how can we expect to
bridge such huge gaps when we seek to understand the Scriptures?
In the beginning lesson we explored the problem of knowing truth with any
certainty, and now we complicate the problem even more. If everything is so
subjective and relative, what hope do we have? With the exception of
mathematics, there is very little we can do to cross from one system to
another. But even there, traditional logic with its mutual exclusiveness fails,
for “things” can be both true and false when seen from our inevitably limited
reference place. Our “arms” are not long enough to reach the places we need to
touch. We probably can never know anything with absolute certainty from our
limited place within a system which is within other systems.
This is why we affirm that there is one who sits outside of all other systems.
We have evidence because that Absolute Ancient of Days has, in His initiative,
reached down and touched us. We have given a name to that evidence, even though
it is unseen; and it is - faith. And - we didn't access it; it bridged all the
gaps and found us.
