Bernard Muller's Theological Method

[Guest]

Hi, TK,

Thanks for your response.

if the scripture is inspired by God (which i take to mean that it is exactly what God wanted to be written) then i dont see how these other considerations make a difference. if scripture is truly inspired (which i believe to be the case) then regardless of culture, prejudices, education etc of the writers, the writing is still correct as written because God wanted it that way.

On the one hand, the matter will hinge upon one's theory of inspiration. To what extent does the process of inspiration interact with the agency of the writer? If the writer is God's agent, rather than his finger-puppet, then the writer may express the inspired message in ways that are expedient to God's purposes, without being fully indicative of God himself. The writer may be God's best agent for revelation in a certain time and place, while yet limiting the potential character of the revelation itself.

This may be all the more relevant to texts that are considered "inspired," yet make no explicit claim to prophetic authority. If there is no "thus saith the Lord," then the dynamic of inspiration may vary beyond a straight divine quotation.

But in any case, even if an inspired text is completely "correct," it is correct within its context, as a message from God to a particular audience in particular relational circumstances. The words of the text do not exist as some Platonic ideal, removed from space and time (although at times they are revealing truth that is universal across space and time). For an external audience to properly translate the significance of an inspired text to their external circumstances, they must first understand its meaning in its own setting. Elsewise there is the danger of misapprehending what God was really trying to communicate.

Shalom,
Emmet

[Guest]

Hi, Rick,

Thank you for your response.

Emmett, I'm not sure what you mean by "take issue with interpretive strategies of NT authors".

I'll try a slightly harsher approach: if we cannot validate the interpretive methods used by New Testament authors, then why should we accept the fruits of their interpretive labors?


You had written earlier:

They didn't always quote from the OT in ways that we would, do, or even can!

Shalom,
Emmet

[Guest]

I'll try a slightly harsher approach: if we cannot validate the interpretive methods used by New Testament authors, then why should we accept the fruits of their interpretive labors?

We accept their interpretations because Christ opened their eyes to the scriptures. Matthew, John, Peter and James all knew him quite well. He gave them, as a parting gift, the holy spirit, which further enlightened them. Paul was aquainted with the resurrected Christ and Luke was his close companion. If you wish to cast doubt on the authority of Jesus, that's another story. Since Christians believe the testimonies about Jesus are true, it would only make sense that he'd choose competent men to bring light to the scriptures.

I agree with you that they didn't follow the historical method of interpretation. They lived in first century Palestine and were quite familiar with Jewish culture and history, which means they could've very well used the historical method of interpreting the Law and Prophets. They chose a very different type of interpretation and I accept their words as valid. Jesus said that those who accept their words accept the one who sent them. I simply take Jesus at his word. I don't really care if the New Testmament is inspired or not, so long as it's truthful.

[Guest]

Emmett,

Quote:
Emmett, I'm not sure what you mean by "take issue with interpretive strategies of NT authors".

I'll try a slightly harsher approach: if we cannot validate the interpretive methods used by New Testament authors, then why should we accept the fruits of their interpretive labors?

(I now don't understand what you mean by "harsher" . . . we may not be on the same wave length?).

As a believer I don't have a need to validate NT authors' interpretive methods before accepting their writings as legitimate and/or true. In other words, I believe what they wrote though I may not always understand what they meant. This is why I have to study hermeneutics; to try to "really get inside their minds". And prayer, in my experience, has been a very helpful hermeneutical tool too (not kidding) . . . .

Back to your question: This "literal validation approach" is taken by some non-believers (in debate with believers). They may say something like, "Isaiah 7:14 was about Isaiah's son, not about the birth of Jesus. This prophecy was fulfilled when Isaiah's son was born", etc. etc. While it is true Isaiah's initial prophecy was about a son he was to have, this doesn't prove that it couldn't have another fullfilment (see Matt 1:23).

You had written earlier:
Quote:
They didn't always quote from the OT in ways that we would, do, or even can!

I just saw an example of this on another thread:
Matthew 2 (NKJV):
13. Now when they had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream, saying, "Arise, take the young Child and His mother, flee to Egypt, and stay there until I bring you word; for Herod will seek the young Child to destroy Him."
14. When he arose, he took the young Child and His mother by night and departed for Egypt,
15. And was there until the death of Herod, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, "Out of Egypt I called My Son" (Hosea 11:1).

If we were to just look at Hosea ch. 11 while following the rules of the historical-grammatical method, we would see that it is talking about the Jews being delivered from Egyptian slavery. Matthew, however, saw another fullfillment of this text in the life of Christ. My point was: we don't interpret the Bible in this way. (We interpret the entire Bible from the viewpoint of NT authors).

JC touched on 1st century Jewish culture and customs, etc., which is part & parcel of the historical-grammatical method. It wasn't real unusual for the Rabbis to seek other than literal-historical meanings of "OT" texts. They employed the alleghorical method at times. But the NT authors, to my knowledge anyway, were quite unique in how they quoted the Scriptures. Perhaps what we see with Matthew's quote from Hos. 11:1 (above) is a typological fullfillment? The Jews who historically came out of Egypt would be the type and Jesus would be the anti-type (?).

Lastly for now, I don't know if I could say the NT authors were merely "interpreting" OT texts when they quoted them. To be sure they offered new meanings to them. These new meanings were presented as fact but were done in a "style" (for lack of vocab.) that we don't, or at least shouldn't, use today. We may find inspiration from some text when we see it alleghorically. As long as we recognize we are doing this, no harm done, I suppose. But in theological matters we can't bend the rules (as this is where false teaching and/or heresy comes from), imo.
Thanx,
Rick

[Guest]

Hello, JC,

Thank you for your reply.

So.... We accept the testimony of these men because Jesus enlightened them.

How do we know that Jesus enlightened them? Well, because they said so.

How do we know that Jesus validated what they have said? Well, because they said so, and as we have already observed, Jesus validated what they said....


I agree that the writers of the New Testament could have chosen to interpret the Hebrew bible in historical terms. And the Alexandrian fathers could have chosen to interpret the bible without resorting to allegorical methods. And Tertullian could have chosen to theologize without employing lawyerly paradigms. And Joseph Smith could have chosen to found his faith community without resorting to charlatanry. But each chose methods that came naturally to them. We need not be surprised by this, but neither need we add our endorsement.

Shalom,
Emmet

[Guest]

Hello, Rick,

Thank you for your reply.

As a believer I don't have a need to validate NT authors' interpretive methods before accepting their writings as legitimate and/or true. In other words, I believe what they wrote though I may not always understand what they meant. This is why I have to study hermeneutics; to try to "really get inside their minds". And prayer, in my experience, has been a very helpful hermeneutical tool too (not kidding) . . . .

Trying to get inside the mind of a source is very important. And I would emphatically validate prayer as an essential interpretive technique.

A responsible believer will still think critically about their beliefs; this is a necessary part of having a commitment to truth, as by it we may be disabused of erroneous beliefs. Assessing the interpretive techniques of the New Testament writers helps us to gauge the types of witnesses that they are, and this is an important part of having a commitment to truth, too.

While it is true Isaiah's initial prophecy was about a son he was to have, this doesn't prove that it couldn't have another fullfilment (see Matt 1:23).

Yet should we not be equitable, here? If a cultist tried to claim such a prophetic "fulfillment" for their esteemed leader, they quickly would be swatted for it and their overall claims would be discounted - because their method reveals their tendentiousness. Is every child born of a young woman and named Joshua a "fulfillment" of that prophecy? All the more so, how about every one who is actually named Immanuel? So the willingness of the writer to introduce such an observation is revelatory about his mindset, in a useful but not exceptionally flattering way.

Lastly for now, I don't know if I could say the NT authors were merely "interpreting" OT texts when they quoted them. To be sure they offered new meanings to them. These new meanings were presented as fact but were done in a "style" (for lack of vocab.) that we don't, or at least shouldn't, use today. We may find inspiration from some text when we see it alleghorically. As long as we recognize we are doing this, no harm done, I suppose. But in theological matters we can't bend the rules (as this is where false teaching and/or heresy comes from), imo.

So you would justify the New Testament writers using a style that theologians should not use today. But perhaps in their context it was justifiable. Perhaps.

Your key comment here is "As long as we recognize we are doing this, no harm done, I suppose." And if the New Testament writers' audience properly understood what they were doing, then there might have been no harm done. And likewise, as long as we realize what the New Testament writers were doing, then there is no harm done, I suppose. I think, though, that many readers did/do not realize what the New Testament writers were doing, and as such there was/is in fact harm done.

Shalom,
Emmet