Toward Holistic Approach to Bible Interpretation

The chapter will discuss some key hermeneutic issues for Bible interpretation that may help us in relating the biblical accounts to the whole context of the Bible.  Here, we will refresh our understanding of contextual principle of Bible interpretation from homiletic, missiological, and theological perspective.
 

Contextual Principle of Bible Study

        Don M. Wagner observes the abuse of theological method of Bible interpretation, especially in using Scripture fragments out of context. Therefore, he suggests the Compbell Morgan’s expository method as a solution to address the issue.  His expository method is, if we summarize in a word, ‘interpretation in the context’—the synthesis of biblical text into its historical and literacy context.  “The essential characteristic of the Morgan method is” he states, “the application of the context principle of Bible Study.”  Each verse of Scripture cut out of its setting must first be understood in relation to what immediately precedes and follows, before one can properly evaluate its relation to theological subject (1957:93, 114).  This principle of Bible exposition is exactly what Spurgeon also supports when he remarks:  “We cannot expect to deliver much of the teachings of the Holy Scripture by picking out verse by verse, and holding these up at random.  The process resembles too closely that of showing a house by exhibiting separate bricks” (Pattison 1902:84).

G. Compbell Morgan has earned fame for his great achievement in expository preaching.  He did not need to make his message too simple to communicate.  His preaching delivered the profound biblical message as abundant as it is without reducing the spiritual meals or cutting the spiritual jewels.  Yet his audience could understand every sentence of his preaching.   He preached so deep, yet so clearly.  His expository preaching delivered the profound biblical message in the language his audience could understand.  He preached profoundly, yet in easy language.

         Don M. Wagner conducted an exhaustive study on G. Compbell Morgan's expository method.  His study is based on the hypothesis that G. Compbell Morgan's expository method is the application of the context principle of Bible study.  A definition of "context principle" indicates that the hypothesis contains a great deal more than which appears on the surface.  Context principle is the interpretation of a given passage in the light of the text which surround it, diminishing in importance as one proceeds from the near to the far context—Two fundamental processes are involved in putting this context principle to work; they are analysis and synthesis.  Analysis takes apart and classifies or describes each other; synthesis assembles the part in a logical order.  The important fundamental process, therefore, is the correlation of parts to a whole, and explains the reason for Morgan's insistence on “survey" for general impression because it makes possible the correlation of the various parts.  One further important factor is the order of importance of the contextual materials.  It is the use of this principle that makes Morgan's method expository (1957:69-70).   

        Ralph G. Turnbull, a historian of preaching, describes Morgan’s contextual  principle of Bible interpretation to the same effect.  As a Bible expositor, Morgan discovered that he had to read and study the entire Bible if he was to be an adequate interpreter of its various parts.  He read and reread book after book of the Bible until he found the scope and message of a book in light of the whole Bible.  As Turnbull summarizes Morgan’s method, he dealt with text, context, background, and style and labored in word study to elucidate and clarify meaning and application (1974:435).

        As Morgan studied each Bible book in relation to the whole Bible so he studied each text in relation to the context.  Accordingly this was the quality which distinguished his sermon preparation from the conventional way of outlining and unfolding a text by itself.  He had to see that text in the light of the context, its related theme, and the whole Bible.  His exposition was based on a  careful exegesis, seen in the light of the whole Bible (Turnbull 1974:435).

Narrative Theology

        Barth (1963), Ebeling (1966), Pitt-Watson (1986), and many others have pointed out that there is a tension between theology and proclamation.  While the task of theology is to serve church proclamation, Scientific theology (or systematic theology) is accessible to only limited audience. What happened was that while theological libraries is growing, the gospel remained unheard to the majority of the mass.  Narrative theology has emerged as a group of theologians reflected and responded to this hermeneutic issue.   

        Grant Osborne points out that narrative criticism was a response to the failure of form and redaction criticism.  This failure is due to fragmentizing the biblical text and failing to see the manning in the whole story.  As Osborne observes it, "The tendency to break the text into isolated units is widely perceived as counter productive, and so scholars turned to the much more literarily aware field of narrative criticism to breach the gap" (1991:153).  Thus, narrative approach to hermeneutics recognize that meaning is found in a text as a whole rather than in isolated segments. 

        Osborne affirms that the biblical narratives contain both history and theology.  According to him, biblical history and theology are brought together via a "story" format.  While the historical basis for the stories is crucial, therefore, the representation of that story is the actual object of interpretation.  Our task is to decipher the meaning of the historical-theological texts in biblical narrative rather than reconstructing the original event (1991:153-54).

    Story as Theology 

        Recently, Charles Van Engen has made an extensive discussion of narrative theology from missiological standpoint.  He advocates the need to develop an evangelically reshaped narrative theology as a way to draw most richly from both the wrap of the contextual particularity of God’s revelation at specific times and places, and the woof of the temporal universality of the mission of God. 

Van Engen expounds narrative theology embedded in biblical stories.  For instance, we need to allow our theology to emerge from the entire narrative of Abraham's life (Gen. 11:27-25:11) so as to understand God's covenantal relationship with him.  Likewise, the story of Jonah is not merely a recital of events in the life of one man—but rather, profoundly, a revelation of what God is like (merciful and gracious, full of compassion), and depiction of God's mission (the salvation of Nineveh), and a call to repentance and transformation on the part of all the Jonahs in Israel who would encapsulate God's grace within the narrow confines of their own selfishness (1996:52).

    Missiological Implication of Biblical Narrative

        Biblical narrative is a theology that has audience in a concrete historical and cultural context, and that has missionary message to the audience, and that has message accessible even to the most unlearned in the audience.  Biblical narrative as a theology has the redemptive message which touches even the felt-needs of non-Christian's heart. 

        Van Engen notes that the biblical narrative intends to teach those inside and outside the community the nature, acts, and purpose of Israel's God.  While systematic theology engages the intellect, storytelling engages the heart and indeed the whole person.[1]  Biblical narrative is both descriptive of events and prescriptive of faith in Israel's (and the church's) God, who is portrayed as intimately associated with those events.  A classical example is seen in Paul's sermons in Acts.  While autobiographically recitals, they are most profoundly an articulation of Paul's faith.  The story of Esther is another example.  It is not merely recital of events that led to an Israelite young woman's role as queen of Persia, but a profound revelatory confession of faith about God who works in seeming coincidences of life through chosen instruments like Esther to preserve and save God's people (1996:52-53). 

    Limitations of Reader-response Hermeneutics

        Highlighting the achievements of narrative theology, yet Van Engen comments that too many of the "pure narrative theologians" tend to reduce biblical narrative to individual and historical relativism, to mere horizontalism, to pure description, and to mostly ethereal image, symbol, metaphor, and fiction.  This will reduce biblical narrative to inspiring life-stories rather than the revelatory faith-pilgrimage of God's people" (1996:53-54).

        Van Engen discusses the weaknesses of what he terms "reader-response hermeneutics":

When the meaning of the narrative is deconstructed too far, all that may be left is the reader's response, which ascribes meaning to the text on the basis of the reader's particular horizon and the reader's personal agendas.  This violates the most basic intent of the biblical narrative itself as that shaped, and was shaped by, the faith community in the text's original horizon.   With reader-response hermeneutics we no longer have biblical narrative, we have merely the imposition of the reader-horizon (:54).

    Narrative Theology and Faith Community

        What characteristically distinguishes narrative theology from systematic theology is, above all, that it grows in the faith community.  Narrative theology is more than dogmatics in that the one is more communal and confessional while the other is rather propositional.  And this is where we find missiological implications in it.

        As Van Engen recognizes it, the Bible's narrative is communal and narrative theology is based in the community of faith.  From the story of Abraham onward, articulation of the revelation of who God is happens in and through the life of Israel and the church.  Hence, one should not attempt to interpret the biblical text apart from the faith community in which it was born, shaped, transmitted, and explained.  And this is where we find the significance contribution narrative theology has made in its emphasis on the place and role of community for the interpretation of biblical text (1996:55-56).

        Narrative theology is intertwined with human history, and this is what makes it distinguished from dogmatics.  Van Engen notes that narrative theology places God's self-revelation in the midst of human history.  It, therefore, recalls our recognition that our understanding of who God is must be historically grounded, happens in history, transforms our history, and reforms the way we participate in history.  He affirms it by stating that theology "must always interact with and be shaped in human history" (1966:56).   

        Van Engen again notes that narrative theology studies the Bible as the narrative of the pilgrimage of God's people over time.  The strength of this hermeneutic approach is that it prevents a reduction of biblical revelation to confessional element of the Israelite, that is,  to the view that God existed only in relation to what Israel said or thought about God.  Rather, narrative theology recognizes that there is development in the way the Scripture portrays Israel's and the church's deepening understanding of God's self-revelation.  Thus God's self-disclosure is seen as taking place in the midst of a faith-journey, that is, through the walk of God's people with God.  Van Engen, therefore, declares that most fundamentally theology flows from the experience of the faith community with God (1966:56-57).  What it would imply to Bible interpretation is that we need to read the Bible entering into the historical situation of the biblical audience.
 

    The Bible as a Realistic Narrative

        Newbigin affirms that the Bible is not that we examine it from the outside, but that we indwell it and from within it seeks to understand an cope with what is out there.  In other words, the Bible furnishes us with our plausibility structure.  The structure is in the form of a story.  It is a "realistic narrative."  He explains:

        Consider what it means to get to know a person.  One can read an account of his character and career such as might be embodied in an obituary notice.  But in order to know the person one must see how she meets situations, relates to other people, acts in times of crisis and in times of peace.  It is in narrative that character is revealed, and there is no substitute for this (19889:98-99).
 

Contextualization of Biblical Narrative

        Grant Osborne views biblical narrative as theology seen in living relationship and enacted in story form.  Naturally, it addressees our own needs today.  He discusses it:

Narrative at the heart is a contextualization of the significance of the life of Israel (Old Testament), and Jesus (the Gospels) or of the early church (Acts) for the community of God.  For the gospels there is the Sitz im Leben Jesu the situation in the life of Jesus) and the sitz im Leben Kirche (the situation in the life of church community for which each Gospel was written).  The latter aspect was the evangelist's inspired contextualization of the life of Jesus for his church (1991:171).  

Contextualization of Preaching

        Grant R. Osborne has developed his spiral hermeneutics which moves from text to context, and then goes back to text.  He aggressively adopts missiological methods and the strength of his hermeneutical approach is in his achievement of the unity of textual and contextual studies. 

        According to Osborne, what missiologists call "contextualization" is identical with what homileticans call "application."  He defines contextualizaion as "that dynamic process which interprets the significance of a religion or cultural norm for a group with a different (or developed) cultural heritage" (1991:318).  Thus, at the heart contextualization entails cross-cultural communication.

        Osborne suggests three basic steps in the process of deciding whether a particular command is normative or cultural, whether it applies at the surface or deep (principal) level.  To summarize his three steps: (1) Note the extent to which supercultural indicators are found in the passage.  (2) Determine the degree to which the commands are tied to cultural practices current in the first century, but not present today.  (3) Note the distinction between the supercultural and cultural indicators (1991:328-329).

        Using the passages on women in the church as a test case, Osborne attempts to note supercultural indicators.  The appeal to creation and the Fall in 1Timothy 2:13:14 would indicate that Paul is appealing to eternal principles in the passage.[2]  This points toward normative force, but in itself it does not solve the issue.  This issue of meat offered to idols in 1Corinthians 8-10 is linked to the principle of the stumbling block (8:7-13).  This points to but is not proof of normative or supracultural force (328-329).

        Now, what Greidanus describes as ‘a continuity between biblical and modern experiences’(1988) may clarify what Osborne means by ‘supercultural indicators.’  For Greidanus, since life experiences are rather universal and “the Ancient Israelites were involved in the same struggle for the coming of God’s kingdom as we are today” (1988:100-101), he puts emphasis on the relevancy of biblical accounts for contemporary application.

        Osborne proposes a six-stage process for the task of contextualization as it moves from the biblical text to our modern context, from original meaning to current significance.  This method blends theoria and praxis with the goal of enabling the church in diverse cultures to affirm and live out biblical truths with the same dynamic power as did the early church (See fig. 2).

______________________________________________________________ Fig. 2.  The Six-Stage Process of Contextualization (Osborne 1991:337)

         In Osborne’s model, the first step of hermeneutics is contextual approach.  The goal of this step is to find the way the original message was communicated, or to determine the surface message as Osborne expresses it.  The second step is to find out the biblical theology or “structure principle.”  The “surface message” is often the contextualized version of the biblical author’s theology.

        1.  Determine the Surface Message.  The Interpreter should determine the original intended message of the passage.  This should be done with contextual approach in mind.  In other words, ask the way the biblical author addressed his original readers.  Biblical books are situational in nature; they were written with a specific message addressed to a particular situation in the life of Israel or the church.  The preacher as interpreter wants to distinguish both aspects: the original message and the way it was communicated to the reader (1991:336).

        2.  Determine the deep structure principle behind the message.  The surface message often contextualizes the deeper principle in order to address a specific problem in the original audience.  For instance, the “alien” and “sojourner” passages in 1Peter (1:1, 17; 2:11) build upon the early church’s teaching on home or citizenship in heaven (such as Phil. 3:20; Eph. 2:19; Heb. 12:22).  Paul and other authors of biblical writings would stress one aspect of a larger theological truth in order to speak to a particular issue. It is helpful for the interpreter to discover the biblical theology behind the print of text and to see exactly what issue is been addressed.  This is a critical aspect in delineating cultural from supercultural passages (:336-337).

        3.  Note the original situation.  We must first know the world behind the text before we can determine its relevance for our world.  The situation behind the text determined why the author chose the particular aspect to stress in the surface message (:330, 337). 

        Earnest Best’s definition of  'situation' may serve to illustrate Osborne’s point here :

By situation is meant the actual circumstances which call out a New Testament writing; these will be circumstances both in the life of the writer and in the community to which he writes. For example the situation of First Corinthians is what was taking place in Corinth and through a visit by some of the church leaders. The situation of Romans consists of these elements: the nature of the church there, the successful outcome of the struggle against the Judaizers in Galatia, Paul's proposed journey to Jerusalem with the collection and possible contribution with the Christians leaders in that church (1978:14-15).

Emphasizing the significance of this stage, Osborne, however, observes that this is not always easy to determine the original situation.  For instance, what are the exact identities of the false teachers in the Pastorals, the heresy in Colossians, or the super-apostles in 2 Corinthians?

        Narrative books require special attention since there are two types the historical situation in them.  One is depicted in the text and the other is Sitz im Leben (“situation in the life of Israel and the church) behind the text.  Osborne finds that the situation in the story itself is more valuable than the Sitz im Leben.  For instance, it is almost impossible to detect the Sitz im Leben behind the Jacob-Esau conflict (Gen. 27), but the situation in the text (rivalry over the blessing but God’s unseen hand in the background) provides tremendous contextualization opportunities (Osborne 1991:330, 337). 

        4.  Discover the parallel situation in the modern context.  A text should be applied in the same way it was used in the original setting.  In other words, we should contextualize our text in parallel situation in our current context.  We study the text not just to increase our cognitive understanding, but more “to act according to all that as written in it” (Jos. 1:8).  Proper contextualization is just as important as proper exegesis (:338). 

        5.  Decide whether to contextualize at the general or the specific level.  There are some issues which make it uneasy to remain true to Scripture yet produce a relevant, dynamic Christianity in the diverse cultural settling around the world.  For instance, missiologists must decide whether to retain a specific image or message (such as the “lamb” in cultures that know nothing about sheep, or substitute a dynamic equivalent.  Or what form should baptism take and how public should it be in Muslim cultures (:338)?

        In the sermon one can often choose to apply the message of the text generally or specifically.  For instance, passage dealing with persecution (James 1:2-4; 1Pet. 1:6-7) apply theology dealing with “trial of the faith” (“various trials” in James 1:2-3 and “test of your faith” in 1Pet. 1:6) to persecution.  The preacher is free to apply the principle in both direction.  For the early church, persecution was a specific type of trial (338).

Personal Involvement in Bible Interpretation

        When G. Walter Hansen read a passage in the diary written by his mother in Uzbekistan just a few days before she passed away, it became a special revelation to his Bible revelation.  There was something in that passage that touched his heart, not only the intellect.  There was something in that passage he could understand because he knew his mother, her faith-pilgrimage, and her missionary heart personally.  For him, it was an illustration of what should be the Bible interpretation about.

        Someone may read the same passage in her diary, study the historical background of that passage, and interpret it.  Others may study the same passage grammatically, analyzing the words.  But will these interpretation methods provide the same effect he had in his heart?  In this case, he could understand what she meant by that passage because he read it with personal involvement.  He himself being a theologian, it became a new revelation for Hansen for his Bible interpretation.  

Bible Interpretation as Convergence of World-view

        In his recent article, Walter Hansen presents an insightful observation that there is a polarization between those who insist that meaning is found in the author's intentions for writing the text and those who say that readers construct their own meaning out of the text.  His analogy is the attempt to bring those two perspectives together.  Meaning is found as the world-view of the author and the reader converge the text.  The text is always in some ways transformed by the reader's own personal point of view (1995:28).

        What Hansen notices is that the text is not only a mirror: it can also be a window.  If we believe that the Spirit of God is the ultimate author of the biblical text, then we believe that God's point of view is expressed in the biblical text.  The Spirit can use the biblical text to enable the reader "to look not at things which are seen, but on the things which are not seen, for the things which are seen are temporal, and the things which are not seen are eternal" (2Cor. 4:18).  Such a transformation of perspective is an ongoing process, an upward spiral that continually enlarges our horizons (28).

   Propositional vs. Personal Interpretation

        According to Hansen, a second false disjunction in contemporary discussion of biblical interpretation is the contrast between propositional and personal.  Some say that the revelation of meaning takes place only in propositional form.  Others assert that the disclosure of meaning is found only in personal encounter.  But Hansen discovers that personal encounter happens through words.  He illustrates that when he read the propositions in his mother’s text, he has the experience of hearing her heart .  He affirms that words from the heart, like letters we write, are the necessary means to personal encounter.  There is a revelation of meaning in the words given by the Holy Spirit through the human authors and the Bible.  But, their meaning will be grasped, Hansen argues only when we engraft what we read into our lives by the heart-opening action of the Spirit.  Then there is the disclosure of meaning found only in a personal encounter with God (1995:28).

        Accordingly, Hansen reaches the point that interpretation of the Bible demands involvement of the whole person.  He puts it:

While we can benefit form the work of scholars to define the meaning of the words, only an interpretation of love will lead to a transforming experience of their meaning.  If we accept the claim of the biblical text to be the word of God who loves us, then the words of that text have power to create, convict, forgive, heal, and empower (:28).

 

Conclusion

        Grant Osborne points out that narrative criticism was a response to the failure of form and redaction criticism.  This failure is due to fragmentizing the biblical text and failing to see the manning in the whole story.  Thus, narrative approach to hermeneutics recognize that meaning is found in a text as a whole rather than in isolated segments.

        In fact, this is what Compbell set forth in his contextual principle of Bible interpretation. Each verse of Scripture cut out of its setting must first be understood in relation to what immediately precedes and follows, before one can properly evaluate its relation to theological subject.

        Context principle is the interpretation of a given passage in the light of the text which surround it, diminishing in importance as one proceeds from the near to the far context—Two fundamental processes are involved in putting this context principle to work; they are analysis and synthesis.  Analysis takes apart and classifies or describes each other; synthesis assembles the part in a logical order.  The important fundamental process, therefore, is the correlation of parts to a whole.  As Turnbull summarizes Morgan’s method, he dealt with text, context, background, and style and labored in word study to elucidate and clarify meaning and application.