The Sense of Scripture: Studies in Interpretation . . .

THE BASIC PRINCIPLE: THE SPIRIT OF CHRIST

No one has seen God at any time; the only-begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, He has revealed Him. --Jn. 1:18

    While this series will set forth various rules and principles of Biblical interpretation, it will first of all contend for an ideal that is usually ignored in the study of hermeneutics, which is the science of interpretation. This rule is that Scripture must be judged by the spirit of Christ and not the other way around. If Christ is the Lord of the sabbath and of heaven and earth, then he is certainly the Lord of Scripture. This means that if any interpretation is in basic conflict with the life and ideals of Christ that interpretation is suspect.

    The above Scripture is staggering in its implications, especially in reference to the Christ being the exegete (interpreter) of God. Here we have the most important lesson we can learn in hermeneutics. Jesus Christ as the interpreter of God is certainly the interpreter of all Scripture. No one has ever seen God, the apostle insists, and yet he implies that this fact does not leave the Father unrevealed, for "the only-begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father" is his exegete (interpreter, revealer). How exciting that is! We can look into the life of a human being like ourselves and see what God is like! Jesus is God's exegete. And so, I conclude, Jesus is also the exegete of Scripture.

    This does not mean, of course, that Jesus tells us what every passage means, but it does mean that every passage is to be seen in reference to Christ. Jesus is not to be warped and twisted so as to fit our doctrinal system. Neither can we wrench from the Bible a spirit of intolerance, self-righteousness, and insensitivity, which are often cloaked as "sound doctrine,'' when these are so contrary to the spirit of the loving, compassionate, forgiving Christ.

    This means that there are some things in the Bible that we will consider flawed since they do not measure up to our one sure standard of evaluation, the spirit of Christ. Take these lines from Jer. 18 where the prophet makes a vitriolic response to those who have "dug a pit for my life":

        Therefore deliver up their children to famine;
             give them over to the power of the sword,
        let their wives become childless and widowed.
             May their men meet death by pestilence,
             their youths slain by the sword in battle.
        May a cry be heard from their houses,
             when thou bringest the marauder suddenly upon them!

    Must we find some way to approve of the prophet's desire that God should cause the children of his enemies to starve and be put to the sword? Here is a man of God pleading that women be tortured and widowed, that their youth be slain with the sword, that they be struck by pestilence, and that the cry of pain and distress be heard from their homes.

    As I read such things as this in the Bible I am to remember that there was One whose enemies "dug a pit for his life," but "when he was reviled reviled not again." And while Jeremiah went on to pray to God, "Forgive not their iniquity, nor blot out their sin from thy sight" (verse 23), there was one to come who would pray, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."

    Some commentators have sought to delete these words from Jeremiah, while others try to soften his words by one device or another. Why can't we just admit that the prophet is in this instance wrong, not only by the standard of Christ himself, which he could not yet know, but by the deeper insights of the Old Testament itself, such as Is. 53:7, where the suffering servant is described as one "who was oppressed and afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth." Jeremiah was oppressed and afflicted but he did open his mouth, and he screamed out curses upon his oppressors. And so, as responsible interpreters of Scripture, we conclude that in this case a prophet of God does not measure up to the loftiest of attitudes in Scripture toward one's enemies, a weakness which is not all that unusual for men of God. What we see here is the grace of God. God knew what was in Jeremiah, took him as he was, warts and all, and used him as a prophet for many troubled years. If it were not for such grace on God's part in using sinful human beings, there would be no place in his service for any of us.

    In the same book of Jeremiah we find such God-glorifying words as these: "God has made the earth by His power, He has established the world by His wisdom, and has stretched out the heavens at His discretion" (Jer. 10:12). And the prophet knew how to speak words of hope: "This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put my law in their minds, and write it upon their hearts; and I shall be their God and they shall be My people" (Jer 31:33), and he goes on to speak of God's forgiveness: "I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more."

    Here we see something important about the nature of Scripture: some passages in the Bible are far more significant than other passages. Scriptures can be equally true without being equally important. And some things in the Bible are far more relevant to our lives and more helpful in our spiritual pilgrimage than other things. It does not edify us to hear a prophet rave and rant against his enemies, asking God to remember their sins and curse their children, but we are lifted up when he speaks of God's glory and points to the hope of forgiveness.

    Sometimes even in the same chapter there is both a pearl of great truth and a vitriolic outburst, such as in Ps. 137 where we have such majestic language as only captive people could utter, "By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down and wept when we remembered Zion," and yet that great psalm is marred by such a hateful line as, "Happy shall he be who takes and dashes your little ones against the rock." Can you imagine a situation, even in Communist Russia or Nazi Germany, where you would bless the person who would dash innocent babies against the rocks?

    And where in all the Bible is there such glorious poetry and sublime truth as these lines from Ps. 139:

        Where can I go from Your Spirit?
        Or where can I flee from Your presence?
        If I ascend into heaven, You are there;
        If I make my bed in hell, behold you are there.
        If I take the wings of the morning,
        And dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea,
        Even there Your hand shall lead me,
        And Your right hand shall hold me.
        And yet the same psalm has these words:
        Do not I hate them, O Lord, who hate You?
        And do not I loathe those who rise up against you?
        I hate them with a perfect hatred;
        I count them my enemies.

    If you took an unbeliever to church with you, which of those passages would you want him to hear in the public readings? Can we not say that God, yea the spirit of Christ, speaks to us through one but not through the other? This illustrates how all the Bible is Scripture but not all Scripture is the word of God. I dare say that you will find much in the speeches of Zophar, Bildad, and Eliphaz in the book of Job that could not be the word of God, and there are five chapters in that book, the speeches of Elihu (chap. 32-37) that are so "human" that many scholars consider them later additions. And yet overall there is much in the book of Job that is the word of God to us. This means that while all of Job is Scripture it is not all the word of God.

    And how do we determine what is the word of God and what is not? By God's exegete, Jesus Christ. When something in the Bible is contrary to the spirit of Christ or does nothing for us in terms of enlightening us about God and his will for us and is thus wholly irrelevant to our lives, then it cannot be the word of God to us. I find this to be the case with one entire book of the Bible, Zephaniah, a book that says next to nothing to me. The difference between that book and, say, Malachi or Hosea or even Habukkuk, to name other minor prophets, in terms of relevance is staggering. But still Zephaniah is Scripture, and if I can bring myself to keep reading it may one day be the word of God to me. We must realize that some Scripture may have been meaningful to the ones to whom it was addressed but not meaningful to us. This must be the case with many of the symbols in the book of Revelation, which leave most modern readers lost in the fog. But to be sure, to refer to our basic rule once more, the Apocalypse of St. John exudes with the spirit of Christ.

    Our basic rule of interpretation also applies ethically, causing us sometime to say, "He should not have said that," even when it is in the Bible. I do not think, for instance, that Paul should have ever written what he wrote in Gal. 5:12, a passage that may slip by us in its offensiveness since translators are reluctant to render it as it should be. While the KJV says no more than "I could wish that those who trouble you would even cut themselves off!," the Good News gets closer with "I wish that the people who are upsetting you would go all the way; let them go on and castrate themselves." Or in his anger he may be urging them to cut off their male organ if they are so gung-ho on using the knife. While Barclay defends such language on the ground that Paul may have had some pagan temple priests in mind who castrated themselves, we can justly criticize the apostle for going too far in this instance, for every Biblical writer must be judged by the spirit of Christ.

    If it is argued that Jesus himself called some folk such names as "Fools and blind" and "Serpents, brood of vipers," it is enough to say that his doing so made it right for him when it might not be right for us. He knew men's hearts while we do not, and he had no such sin while we do. What really matters is when those same people nailed him to the cross, he prayed for their forgiveness and did not lash out against them.

    The rule of the spirit of Christ must control all of our interpretation of Scripture. However logical our conclusions from Scripture about divorce and remarriage may appear to be, they must be held suspect if they cause us to treat the divorced contrary to the spirit of Christ. The eminent Christian apologist, C. S. Lewis, fell in love with a woman late in life in what was a beautiful love story, but since she was a divorcee his Episcopal priest would not marry them. When Lewis explained that she had been bruised and battered by her husband and was driven to divorce, the priest was unrelenting, saying, "You know what the Bishop would say, she is still a divorced woman." Never mind about how many proof-texts may be quoted, when the church makes unbending laws that run contrary not only to the spirit of Christ but good common sense as well, we can question those laws. The spirit of Christ transcends law! Lewis at last found a priest that believed that and he married the woman he loved.

    And so we are to judge people (if we must judge!) in terms of the spirit of Christ. When we see the spirit of Christ in the likes of Mother Teresa, we are to thank God and acknowledge that that is what it is all about, despite doctrinal errors such people may sincerely believe. What is crucial is that we be right about what matters most, and that is being right about Jesus. When we see Christ in people who may not go to church as often as we do and not even the "right" church when they do go, we should sit at their feet and learn what it really means to be a Christian.

    This basic outlook should guide us in our reading of the Bible, which should be devotional instead of critical. We should read the Bible so as to see Christ in truth and beauty. He is what the Bible is all about, "the wonderful Person of the Bible," as he may be referred to. We do not have to bother with questions about miracles, science and the Bible, or with what certain difficult passages may mean. The Old Testament leads us to Christ, the New Testament introduces us to Christ. And let us not sin against the mystery of this Person, for he is more than we can ever comprehend. The Bible cannot even begin to contain him and it can barely reveal him. But if we read devotionally and if our desire is to see Jesus, we will get a glimpse of him who is nothing less than the Lord of glory.

    So if the first rule of interpretation is ours, we may need no other. Jesus Christ, who is the exegete of God, is also the exegete of Scripture. All Scripture and all our interpretations must be brought to the judgment bar of the spirit of Christ. --the Editor

____________________________________

    All the distinctive features and superiority of our republican institutions are derived from the teachings of Scripture. --Edward Everett