From: (David M. Williams)


Newsgroups: aus.religion.christian


Subject: Hermeneutical issues [was tongues]


Date: 18 May 1997

I would like to take this opportunity, while waiting for Graeme
to discover my twice-posted response, to make some comments regarding
hermeneutical and exegetical issues, as relating to the "five
stages of discipline" approach he raised in his attempt to
substantiate his worldview that modern-day tongues is a Satanic
deception (his words). The essential concerns of such areas is
the contrast between what Scripture meant when it was written
and what it means to us today.

This covers such concerns as recognising when something that is
culturally conditioned becomes transcultural. In essence, how
does the word spoken then and there, to which we are theologically
committed, become a word to us today? What I wish to comment on,
however, is particularly the influence of traditions on hermeneutical
enterprise. Indeed, Dr. Jack Deere, former professor of Hebrew
and Old Testament at Dallas Theological Seminary, has written
extensively on "the myth of Biblical objectivity". It
is unavoidable that various presuppositions, especially ecclesiastical
and theological presuppositions, affect the exegetical and hermeneutical
endeavours, both positively and negatively. These presuppositions
are derived from one’s traditions, by which I mean the entire
set of experiences and settings that make up one’s personal history.
It is such traditions that one brings to the Biblical text before
a page is even opened.

The honest and sincere exegete will recognise that such influences
exist. The problem arises when traditions are not recognised as
such and intrude upon or impede the exegetical and hermeneutical
enterprise.

By way of example, Dr. Gordon Fee refers to how Walter Bauer (a
New Testament lexicographer) treated the name of Junia in Romans
16:7. Bauer’s own experience of Church simply disallowed that
Paul could include a woman under the title of "apostle"
and so Bauer devoted significant energy into trying to justify
reading the name as Junias (a male name). However, there is no
evidence for such a name in the Roman world.

Equally as often, the impact of tradition in its various forms
is far less innocent and indeed may be judged to be rather conscious
and sometimes pernicious. Graeme’s postings on modern-day tongues
falls into such a category. His initial posts denied directly
that tongues existed after 70 A.D. and he has since stated directly
that modern day tongues adherents are stupid, and that modern-day
tongues is Satanic. However, this is a case where culture and
tradition has not only determined how one reads texts, but does
so at the expense of the clear meaning of the texts themselves.
Graeme has approached presenting his substantiation from the viewpoint
that tongues already have ceased, and this by 70 A.D. His basis
was a scheme for five-stages of discipline, and from this he suggested
that the fifth stage began at 70 A.D. and with its coming was
the cessation of tongues.

The issue of the five stages is an attempt at an analogy based
on the narrative of Leviticus 26. Not only is it most unlikely
that two independent persons could read Leviticus 26 and conclude
the same generalised and ultimate plan, but arguments from Biblical
analogies are especially tenuous. In cases, such may function
well in preaching. However, for theology, they serve far less
well, for at least two reasons. Firstly, the whole question of
intentionality becomes a crucial one. It can seldom be demonstrated
that analogies are intentional in the Biblical text itself, as
it was inspired by the Holy Spirit. It is actually more likely
that they are irrelevant altogether. Secondly, it will be difficult
to gain universal agreement on what, in fact, in the Biblical
text does serve as an appropriate analogy. Analogies are simply
that – analogies. However, they can scarcely be treated as the
substance on which to build Christian theology.

It is without surprise then, that when Graeme comes to supporting
Biblical texts for finding tongues to be of no value, the restructuring
of meaning worsens. It is here that Romans 16:17-18 is made to
refer to "tongues people" which is a superimposition
on the Biblical text. It is here also, that II Corinthians 6:11-12
is made to refer to those speaking in tongues as being immature,
which is so far removed from the teaching in the passage that
Paul would scarcely recognise it. And most certainly, the insistence
of 70 A.D. as the cessation of tongues is without Scriptural foundation.
The sole Bible text which addresses such an issue is I Corinthians
13:10, and there it is incidental to Paul’s real point. However,
in no case does Graeme, nor can he, show that the time of 70 A.D.
was a part of Paul’s intent. Rather, Graeme circumvents this by
suggesting that it was the _divine_ author’s intent – on the basis
of his analogy of Scripture. What is simultaneously so subtle
and devastating about this is that it is cloaked with evangelical
buzz-words and assumes an evangelical posture towards Scripture.

However, here indeed is hermeneutics gone astray where tradition
in the form of one’s worldview has the final word, and God’s strong
and powerful word is blunted at best, and misdirected altogether
at worst. This example is somewhat less helpful because for most
of us Graeme’s flaws are easy to spot. However, it may serve as
a more extreme example so as to help the sincere Christian see
where other forms of tradition, especially ecclesiastical and
theological tradition may have equal capacity to do injustice
to the Word of God. For example, there are many in the Reformed
tradition that argue vigorously about I Corinthians 14:34-35 (that
women must keep silent in Church) that it is an eternal word for
the Church in all places at all times, yet rejecting everything
else in chapter 14 as not permissible for today. This said, though,
it is always much easier for one to note hermeneutical biases
in the works of others. And this is precisely a significant danger
– the biases of others are so clear. One must recognise their
own frameworks that come to the fore when reading the Bible, and
this is a tenuous task indeed.

Having said all this, however, traditions are not necessarily
bad things in all circumstances. For example, there are many Christians
who would be hard-pressed to provide a Biblical defense of the
deity of Christ. In this case they have benefited from the orthodox
traditions of their Church, but the conclusion is not one they
have made from their own detailed study of Scripture. More detailed
reading on these thoughts is easily found in works by skilled
exegetes such as A. Berkeley Mickelsen and Gordon Fee.

David M. Williams