George
W. Reid, Former Director
Biblical Research Institute
Hardly a more sensitive topic exists among Adventist discussions than the
question of how we will treat the Bible. It lies near the heart of what
matters most deeply but clearly there is variance among us.
Two fundamental questions are
worth examining, both essential to the lifeblood of the Adventist movement.
First, does a Seventh-day Adventist hermeneutic exist? and second, assuming the
first question is answered affirmatively, can we confirm it? Free from commitment
to status quo, we remain ready to examine on a recurring basis any previously
accepted premise providing we keep in mind that our understanding always is partial
if it is compounded with human reason as a component. While we accept that which
God has revealed, with regard to our understanding we must examine the merits
of each case.
Dealing with our first question,
can we say a Seventh-day Adventist hermeneutic exists? Prior to 1950 there
was substantial unity on the essentials, although not always yielding the same
result. One could cite the king of the north, armageddon, and sometimes rambling
discussions on Daniel 11. There was agreement, however, on foundations, agreement
that the Scriptures are valid, authentic reports of God's acts both within human
experience and beyond, that they remain authoritative and the court of final
appeal.
Second, they were understood
quite literally unless coercive evidence suggested otherwise, e.g., obvious
poetic constructions, allegorical passages, literary figures of speech, prophetic
symbols, and typological structures.
Biblical backgrounds received
much attention which produced rapid growth of the Adventist interest in
Middle Eastern history and biblical archaeology, including a number of unfortunate
ark-chasing entrepreneurial ventures. The study of backgrounds was intended to
illuminate the Scriptures and garner evidence of their trustworthiness, not to
provide fodder for reinterpreting or conjectural ideas of biblical origins or
teachings. Theology transcended sociology, anthropology, and critical studies,
all three at that point already 150 years in the making.
Adventists held a high view of
Scripture, approached with a sense of respect at times bordering on reverence.
Its meaning was enhanced by the study of history and grammatical structures.
Bible students accepted the substantive assertions of the Scriptures, allowing
each its due weight.
The influence of Ellen White
was important but not definitive. Where she made firm assertions with respect
to meaning, interpretation was significantly influenced although not determined
by her statement. In general, this was the mainframe of Seventh-day Adventist
hermeneutic.
That described above is today
criticized by internal critics as naive, the observation probably valid
to a point. In many ways Adventist hermeneutic had been hammered out under
fire of non-Adventist critics. Unquestionably we reached certain conclusions
which later measured consideration discontinued, for instance building proof
for modern Sabbath observance on a passage in Hebrews 4 and relying on the
"this generation shall not pass" of Matthew 24:34 as a time marker for
the parousia. Such abuses needed correction and have received
it, but anecdotal problems are hardly grounds for disassembly of the entire
hermeneutical mechanism built upon long experience. The real question is
not, Were there errors? but Was the whole sound? Was it a help or obstacle
to the discovery of God's will?
Today we face a very different
picture. Another school of thought has developed on different premises.
It maintains that although traditional Adventist hermeneutic has good features,
revision is now in order along rather different guidelines. (1) The
new hermeneutic must be designed to cope with troublesome problems, the
"issues" rather than structured to enhance our grasp of the main lines of
biblical teaching. (2) In addition it must factor in newly discovered
challenges drawn from the social sciences and even the physical sciences
and adjust its understanding (interpretation) accordingly. (3) The
new hermeneutic must give greater weight to background cultural influences
as molding elements in the biblical text and its theology. (4) It must
recognize that the text has a developmental history and adjust accordingly
what can be accepted as firm, given the premise that influences on formulation
of the text must be reconsidered at each given stage of development. (5) It
must recognize that our own contemporary biases impose meanings on the text,
calling into question the idea that the reader can study an ancient document
and on that basis reach any specific guidance for today. This requires a
mediating interpretive level between the ancient text and contemporary application,
one that abstracts from the text concepts that upon careful consideration
may be used in the modern context. The mediating level calls for a rational
analysis that all but dismisses the possibility that a teaching might transfer
directly from the ancient text to today. (6) We must cease to allow
doctrine so great an influence on the meaning of the text. Each text must
speak for itself without excess shading drawn from what other texts or biblical
authority figures tell us it should mean. (7) We must give weight to
the changing nature of revealed truth, "present truth" moving in configurations
that oddly coincide well with the contemporary value system so heavily
indebted to Enlightenment humanism.
Unfortunately theology is a fad-ridden
enterprise. Anyone with 30 years' experience with it has witnessed the waxing
and waning of at least five or six "theologies," each acclaimed as the
answer but quietly jettisoned to obscurity a few years later, leaving nevertheless
a residual touch upon those who abandon it. Existentialism, God-is-dead
theology, theology of hope, and others gave way to a theology of liberation,
and now a theology of stewardship (ecology) each resting on revision of
the meaning of the biblical text.
The result is that we have among
us today two hermeneutics, one the historical Seventh-day Adventist approach
with minor modification, the other a hermeneutic based on substantial modification,
one involving modalities prominent in historical criticism but purging its most
obvious humanistic presuppositions such as denial of the supernatural.
The verity of this dichotomy
is well illustrated by the discussion following the 1986 Annual Council
approval of a document entitled "Methods of Bible Study." Although the
bulk of the document was filled with practical suggestions of use especially
for laymen, three paragraphs of the preamble addressed historical criticism.
Within two months following its
approval the document was taken to task publicly at a national meeting of
Adventist Bible teachers, many of whom took strong exception to its rejection
of the historical critical method, especially the sentence, "Even a modified
use of this method that retains the principle of criticism which subordinates
the Bible to human reason is unacceptable to Adventists." For well over
an hour the preamble of the document was peppered with vigorous criticisms,
although a proposed resolution of rejection was abandoned as injudicious.
Several speakers charged that the scholarly community had been denied voice
in formulating this document. However correspondence from these persons
on this subject was found later in the files of the Biblical Research Institute.
The question was not one of non-involvement, rather that in the end another
point of view was adopted.
The crux of the question lies
in whether a blending of the historic Adventist approach with historical
criticism is possible. Some argue that much in historical criticism is helpful
in exegesis and theology. Ultimately a great deal rests on whether historical
criticism is a system or more a pool of isolated techniques that can be drawn
upon pragmatically according to their usefulness.
Comparison reveals that both
systems have elements in common, but there are significant differences
in the way the common elements are used. Note the function of historical background
studies. We must dismiss the most radical position that mythologizes all biblical
reports to the point of disregard for their authenticity. Neither branch of hermeneutic
practice among Adventists defends such extremes. As noted earlier, historic Adventist
hermeneutic maintains high interest in the study of backgrounds as a basis of
understanding customs of the setting from which Bible books come, of value for
the light they throw on the Scriptures.
Historical criticism also devotes
much attention to backgrounds, but there is profound difference between
the usages. Historical Adventist hermeneutics seeks to know how background
contributed to events and teachings as the Holy Spirit transmitted divinely-given
content within a local environment. In contrast the historical critic pursues
how such an interpretation of events as reported in the Bible could have arisen
from the background such as we know it. This is treated as a normal process within
a given culture. Such an approach may be willing to grant an existential or even
mystical insight on the part of the person transmitting the report to us.
Although historical criticism
and traditional Adventist hermeneutics share high interest in background
studies, how much in common do they really have? Only coincidentally, for the
purposes are different. Although historical Adventist hermeneutic performs certain
functions historical criticism also performs, the aim and use to which these
functions are put are so divergent that we can hardly call them shared functions.
Only at the most technical levels do we enter commonality. When interpreting
meaning we enter immediately into areas controled by governing presuppositions,
which for the critical method are in conflict with genuine respect for God's
word. As a system, historical criticism is at such odds with God's self-revelation
that no merger or blend of systems is possible without grave jeopardy to a genuinely
biblical faith.
Two additional elements are worthy
of brief attention. The first is epistemology, in essence how we know something.
Inquiry here leads us into more fundamental questions yet, for it measures the
building blocks of meaning, both at the personal level and that of world view.
Some have labeled this field philosophical theology, a forbidding title if ever
there was one.
Momentous changes are taking
place here. Thought structures of 400 years' standing are coming apart.
Contemporary thinking rests on a philosophical system based on (1) naturalism,
the premise that our environment, properly studied, can yield satisfying
understanding without reference to God, (2) optimism, the premise that
since humans are capable of understanding, understanding leads to inevitable
progress, (3) objectivism, the concept that the study of our environment
must take place in a manner free from subjective opinion, governed by precise
laws, and (4) materialism, in this setting meaning that all that is
important lies within time and space and can be analyzed with high levels
of precision, especially with mathematical tools.
Presently those scientists in
touch with the universe in its extremities, with astronomical physicists
and nuclear physicists in the lead, are presenting reports of a universe of such
proportions that an organizing mind beyond nature must be postulated if what
can be observed is to be coherent. Despite punctuating the equilibria of the
evolutionary scale, biologists remain light years behind.
In addition there is an increasing
sense of human corruptibility. A humanity that can conquer smallpox seems unable
to contain the human greed that draws civilization ever closer to self-annihilation.
Both Michael Polyani and Thomas Kuhn, neither contaminated with born-again Christianity,
have conspired to perform a demolition on the supposed objectivity of science
that demands a new examination of its foundations.
Voices from the contemporary
community are calling now for the return of the supernatural to modern
methodologies. These trends are accelerated with the widespread collapse of Marxist
theory, which was the logical culmination of the modernist system.
Those working in biblical hermeneutics
must take note of these radical changes, for their impact on the immediate future
will be profound. It is ironic that some among us, generations late in boarding
the modernist bandwagon, pull themselves aboard just as the entire contraption
begins to disintegrate.
Ultimately a major criterion
in deciding what hermeneutic should be followed lies in its fruits. Does
our hermeneutic lead to a Christ-centered experience in which the word testifies
of Him? Does it produce a clearer grasp of what the word actually says? Does
it point up the abysmal lostness of humanity and the magnitude of God's rescue,
as well as a grander global understanding of His sovereignty over all?
Does it build a strong sense
of mission and desire for unity in the church, firing zeal for outreach
to our neighbors? Does it lead to numerical and spiritual growth of the family
of God and provide practical strength in meeting temptation? Does it lead to
a resolve to be prepared for Jesus' early return? Such a hermeneutic carries
the marks of being genuinely Adventist and will provide the framework for a growing
understanding of God's will.