The book’s purpose(s) or controlling theme(s) 2. The basic outline of the book

General Rules of Hermeneutics-Prose

1. The book’s purpose(s) or controlling theme(s) 2. The basic outline of the book

3. Parallel passages within the book that deal with the same subject It is helpful, first, to understand the

book’s pwpose(s) or control&z. theme(s).

Knowing why the writer composed the book sets limits on the meaning for its indi- vidual parts. We assume that individual statements or sections contribute in some way to the writer’s goal. Sometimes the writer makes it easier for interpreters by explicitly stating the purpose for the book. For example, at the beginning of his Gospel, Luke precisely states his aim:

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been II- filled among us, just as they were handed to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught (Lk 1:1-4).

Luke lived in a day when multiple written records and oral reports were creating confusion about the details of Jesus’ life. Thus, he purposed to confirm for Theophilus the credibility of the information about Jesus’ life by providing a care- fully investigated and orderly record. In contrast to Luke, the author of the Fourth Gospel waited until near the end of his book to indicate that his purpose was to promote eternal life by generating and sustaining belief in Jesus (Jn 20:30-31).

Other books like Romans and 1 Corinthians have multiple purpose statements at various places in the

book.

The chief helps on this score come from so-called introductions. See the bibliography for su@estions for both testaments.

General Rules of Hermeneutics-Prose I67 For OT books, explicit purpose statements are more difficult to discover (if we can discover them at all). The first two verses of Joshua probably encapsulate the subject matter of the book: the crossing of the Jordan

River

and the conquest of “the land I am about to give to them-to the Israelites” (Josh

l-2). But if we inquire tp& the writer composed the book, that is more difficult to answer. Perhaps the answer is found in the book’s conclusion with all its warnings and reminders to be faithful in serving the Lord-to follow the example of Joshua and Israel during his life. That is, the writer’s purpose could well be to encourage a later generation of Israelites to “Be very strong; be careful to obey all that is written in the Book of the Law of Moses, without turning aside to the right

to the left” (23:6). They needed to affirm along with Joshua’s contemporaries, “We will serve the LORD our God and obey him” (24:24).

So when books lack formal purpose statements, interpreters must infer them Tom the contents. They must observe what the author or editor does in a book and then deduce the purpose from that information. While this approach may prove fairly accurate in finding the writer’s goal, it remains basically conjectural. Bather than speculate about questionable, inferred purposes, we suggest that in such cases interpreters identify the dominant themes of the books. The end product will not differ much on either approach. Interpreters can discover the controlling themes by noting those topics the author emphasizes in the book. For example, in a short book like Obadiah, the dominant theme of God’s judgment against Edom and his vindication and blessing of the house of Jacob is readily discernible.

For the longer book of Galatians, Paul clearly seeks to champion the principle of justification by faith in Christ alone, against the teachings of some “Judaizers” who insisted upon the requirement of following the Law to attain salvation. Then each passage is interpreted according to its contribution to one or more of those subjects.

The

basicplan

of the book is another important part of the literary context of the book. The contribution an individual passage makes to the total message of a book depends primarily on its location. For longer books this involves two main elements:

the~enmul

train-of-thought of the entire book and the specific train-of- thought of the section of the book where the passage occurs. By discovering the theme of each of the main divisions of the book the interpreter can determine whether or not there is any significance in their order. Once an interpreter under- stands how the theme of each major division fits into the book’s overall flow of thought, the focus narrows to a closer look at the specific section containing the passage for study. To summarize: an interpretation is more likely to be the correct one when it explains the passage in a way that is consistent with the theme of the section in which the passage occurs. Then the likely interpretation shows how that section contributes to the overall progress of the book itself.

The final item considered in studying the literary context of the whole book concerns parallelpa~a~esin the book that deal with the same subject as the specific passage under study. When a writer refers to a subject more than once in a book, one or more of the passages may clarify vague aspects in another. The procedure for this study is straightforward. Skim or quickly read the book to locate other passages

168 Introduction to Biblical Interpretation

that deal with the same subject and then study them to discover what they contribute to the understanding of the passage.16

So, for example, to understand “the Day of the LORD” in Joel 2:31 (part of the section that Peter quotes on the day of Pentecost, Acts 2:20), the student must investigate what else Joel says about the Day of the LORD in his prophecy (e.g., 1:15; 2:1, 11; 3:14). Or for insight into what James means by “saving faith” in the section that starts with 2:14, the student must gain insight from other references in the letter to faith (1:3, 5-8; 2:l; 5:15).

But a word of caution is in order. We must always make sure that the passages are truly parallel. Sometimes passages use identical words but with different meanings for those words. This would be only an apparent parallel. Such passages should not be used to interpret each other directly. Even when both passages are true parallels, one cannot simply read the ideas of one passage into the other without proper justification. We must keep ever before us the goal of interpretation: the intention of the text. We become liable to serious errors when we interpret a passage in light of another while ignoring the immediate context of each passage. As a precaution, always interpret each parallel passage according to its own immediate context and the entire book context before comparing the passages. Once we know the contex- tually valid meaning for each parallel passage, we can compare the passages to see if any of them sheds light on specific details in the passage under study.

So for both the examples cited above-from Joel and James-the interpreter would need to be sure that the authors were using the concepts in truly parallel ways before simply imposing the other texts’ features onto the passages under study.

Do Joel’s other references to the “Day of the LORD” have historical (for Joel’s time) or eschatological (some time in the future) significance? We need to be sure of the answer before simply forcing their meanings on his use at 2:31. Does James use

“faith” uniformly in his letter? Each passage must be investigated individually to determine whether the definition of faith in 2:1A-26 is the sense that is employed elsewhere.

Context of the Entire Bible

This final element is more controversial and more difficult to control. As we presupposed, the Bible possesses a unity in its parts in spite of its diversity of human authors. Scripture’s divine inspiration gives continuity of thought to books written over a 1500-year period. Furthermore, the Bible’s human authors participated in the same ongoing Judaeo-Christian religious tradition. Some later writers knew books written previously and drew heavily upon them. In 2 Pet 3:15-16 the author refers to letters written by Paul, even implying their status on a par with other Scrip- tures (i.e., the OT). The OT books of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles probably

160ften a concordance helps in this task, though students must be careful not to trust merely the co-occurrence of common words to locate parallel passages. This would be a grave error as we will discover later in the discussion of words. A concordance may suggest some parallels, but students cannot rely solely on it. See the bibliography chapter for suggestions on concordances.

General Rules of Hermeneutics-Prose 169 drew upon each other to some extent. Psalms 105-106 appear to depend upon sections from the Pentateuch. The most popular theories of Gospel composition suggest that one or more depended upon others. Luke’s prologue ( 1:14) implies that very fact.

Because of this unity, the entire Bible provides a literary context for all passages in it. But here comes the controversy and the difficulty. How do we allow individual authors their unique perspectives- t h e

the Bible’s unity?

Bible’s diversity-and yet affirm We do not expect that all biblical writers on an issue will have the same per- spective or present their views in the same ways. They will have different slants and distinct emphases, depending upon their purposes for writing. But due to the Holy Spirit’s inspiration of the entire Bible, we posit that the correct meaning of every portion of Scripture will be consistent with the rest of the teaching of the Bible on that subject. One passage will not contradict the clear teaching of the rest of the Bible on that subject.

Three groupings of biblical books should be consulted in interpreting a passage according to the context of the entire Bible: (1) parallel passages in other books by the same author (for Paul’s view of the Law in Romans, also consult other Pauline books); (2) passages in books by other authors in the same testament (see what other writers in the NT say about the Law); and finally, (3) passages in books by authors in the other testament (study the Law in the OT).

First, we study parallels in other books attributed to the same author. These writings come from the same mind energized by the Holy Spirit, thus promising the highest level of linguistic and conceptual continuity. There is the highest degree of probability that the same person talking about the same subject in a similar way means the same thing. Furthermore, each biblical writer has a personal understanding of and fairly consistent pattern for articulating an aspect of God’s truth. Thus, to comprehend Paul’s understanding of faith in Rom 3:22 the interpreter is wiser to consult passages in Galatians (e.g. 2:16; 3:8, 11,24) than passages in James. This applies not merely to the words used but even more to the ideas they represent.17

Parallels in books by different writers in the same testament rank second in significance. Writers fkom the same testament have the most in common with others writing fi-om or about the same phase of God’s redemptive program. OT writers used the Hebrew (or Aramaic) language and reflected a Semitic culture in a primarily Israelite setting. They shared a focus on the nation of Israel as God’s special people, on exclusive loyalty to Yahweh as an expression of that relationship, and on the prophetic promises of future blessings. That gave them, diverse as they were, a unique camaraderie .18 NT writers, by contrast, employed the Greek language and

“Of course, we must employ the same guidelines and cautions about using parallel passages we noted above. While we are dealing with the same author, we are now in different books. We must assure ourselves that the passages are truly parallel before simply imposing meaning from one place to another.

“On the harmony of OT theology

(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978). see W. C. Kaiser, Jr., Toward an Old Testament i%eoIoRy

170 Introduction to Biblical Interpretation

resided in the predominantly Hellenistic culture of the Roman empire. They lived in the age of messianic fulfillment and proclaimed the good news of God’s grace made available through the death and resurrection of Jesus.19

Since the writing of the OT covers at least a thousand years, interpersonal relationships were rare among its writers. So the help that other writers or books can provide for interpreting individual passages might appear to be considerably diminished from what we can discover in the NT. Yet a common religious legacy, shared convictions, and a reverence for the Mosaic tradition or the Davidic monar- chy on the one hand and the writings of earlier prophets on the other, provided some unity and sense of continuity. Studying OT parallels requires paying close attention to the time when the writers lived and when the OT books became com- plete. For example, since the ministries of Hosea, Amos, Isaiah, and Micah over- lapped (eighth century ^B.C.), the interpreter can learn about the religious apostasy of Israel and Judah at the time by comparing parallel passages. They provide helpful commentaries on each other at certain points.

The writers of the NT experienced a different situation. Joining as members of the church that included believers from many nationalities, they composed the NT books over a brief period of fifty or so years. The authors, a select group of apostles and their close associates, often had contact with each other. Of course, this does not mean they always agreed with each other, as Gal 2: 1 l-14 shows. How- ever, even allowing for diverse expressions of Christianity within the NT, interpreters can expect a high degree of continuity in the way these early Christians communicated their faith.

The final type of parallel passages are those from the other testament. OT parallels for NT studies prove highly valuable. Because most NT writers knew the OT well, they borrowed theological language and categories from it. After all, the Bible of the early church was the OT, most often its Greek translation (LXX). Just as the English language shows the influence of the Bible,2O so the NT language reflects Greek Septuagintal expressions. 21 In fact, some of the arguments in the book of Hebrews depend upon the formulation of the OT in the LXX version (e.g., 1:6 cf.

Deut 32:43; 10:5-7 cf. Psa 406-8). Furthermore, their entire thought-world, es- pecially the religious concepts in which they formulated their belief system- monotheism, covenant, election, people of God, atonement, and sin, to name a few-derived from OT theological convictions.

190n the unity of NT theology see esp. G. E. Ladd, A 7kology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974); and D. Guthrie, New Testament Y%eology (Leicester and Downers Grove:

Intervarsity, 1981).

2oFor example, even completely secular people refer to their “thorn in the flesh,” “going the extra mile,” or being a “good Samaritan.”

*‘Carson, Moo, and Morris say of the author of the third Gospel, “He starts with a paragraph in classical style (1:lA). The remainder of his first two chapters has a strongly Hebraic strain, while the remainder of the book is in a good Hellenistic Greek that constantly reminds the reader of the Septuagint” (An Introduction to the New Testament [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 19921, 115). In various places readers will encounter the term “Semitisms” to describe these alleged Semitic influences or elements in the NT. Semitisms may come from the Hebrew OT, the Wcx, or the infusion of Aramaic and possibly Hebrew terms or constructions, say from everyday life in first-century Palestine.

General Rules of Hermeneutics-Prose 171 Obviously, in the other direction the NT did not influence the writing of the OT, but NT parallels to OT texts help readers find the total teaching of the Bible on a subject and may draw out fiu-ther implications.22 This demonstrates the rel- evance of the OT teaching as it unfolds, for example, in Jesus’ ministry where he fulfills OT texts.23 In Lk 4:18-21 Jesus explicitly identifies his ministry as the fulfillment of Isa 61: l-2. In Mt 11%5, however, when Jesus says, “Go back and report to John what you hear and see: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cured, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is preached to the poor,” his answer more implicitly expands Isa 35:4-6 and 6l:l.

At the same time, interpreters must exercise extreme caution to avoid an un- due Christianizing of the OT. Parallel NT passages should not be used to make OT passages teach NT truth. The early church had the tendency-one continued by Protestants after the Reformation-to read NT theological concepts into OT passages. We must avoid this error; our first task is always to understand each text on its own terms-as its writer and readers would have understood it.

Early in our careers one of the authors became embarrassingly aware of how prevalent this practice continues to be among Christians. After preaching a sermon on Jeremiah’s call, in which he stressed insights for responding to God’s leading today, a parishioner bluntly admonished him at the door, “Young man (a clear sign of trouble), preach Christ.1” The confident, “But I did, sir!” did not reassure the indignant parishioner who felt that every OT passage had to serve as a springboard for a Christ-centered gospel message. Unfortunately, he, and many others like him, have failed to realize that God’s message in the OT for the Church today must grow out of the intended meaning of the text itself. Its significance for our lives may differ greatly from its significance to its original readers, but not its essential meaning. Many people miss the great truths about God’s character and His relationship with His people to be discovered in the OT because of their well- intentioned but misguided belief that every part of the Bible must convey NT truth.

First and foremost, the OT must stand on its own merits. We must interpret its passages in keeping with the intention of its texts; that constitutes the essential goal of OT interpretation.24

Interpreting passages in light of the context of the entire Bible has a limited scope. Check parallels to see if they contribute to the understanding of the meaning of the passage. The careful use of parallels gives the Bible student an ability to ap- preciate the contribution that the text under consideration makes to the total teaching of the entire Bible on a given theme.

22As noted above, when one interprets Joel 2:28-32 it helps to read Acts 2:14ff. to see what Peter does with the Joel text.

23To repeat the illustration used above, like the modern “colorizing” of old black and white movies, fulfillment in this messianic age adds depth and new perspectives to OT passages. Christians cannot read OT messianic passages apart from their understanding of the texts’ fuller revelation in Christ.

24W. C. Kaiser, Jr., Toward An Exegetical 7heology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981) rightly pro- pounds the principle that he calls the “analogy of [antecedent] Scripture”-that one may interpret 3 Passage only on the basis of what it says or on the basis of texts that preceded it in time (13-37). _

Dalam dokumen Introduction to Biblical Interpretation - MEDIA SABDA (Halaman 95-98)