The Bible: Did God intend it for the original hearers only, the Israelites?

[Kurieuo]

The historical-grammatical method "is a Christian hermeneutical method that strives to discover the Biblical author's original intended meaning in the text."

Though, many lay Evangelicals will often cite their favoured interpretation as the literal inerrant Word of God, within Evangelical scholarship interpretations arrived at through the historical-grammatical are often referred to as a "literal interpretation". And then, each one competes for being the correct "literal interpretation", the single meaning that the original author intended when writing.

Now then, here is what I see as a catch that to the Historical-Grammatical method which could challenge inerrancy of Scripture. If, as some suggest, we are reading accounts in Scripture over the shoulders of the ancient Israelites to whom it was addressed, then we must assume God is using their limited knowledge, understanding and language.

Thus, if we're extremely strict in performing this method, we must assume Scripture can also incorporates inaccuracies Israelites has of the world at the time. Yet, what imperfections the Israelite had morally, linguistically and knowledge-wise, God was able to use to convey His intended message to the Israelites at that time -- if we still cling to inspiration thereof.

Now, unless Scripture is first intended for people at all times, which can only be had via Divine inspiration and guidance, then a main tenet of the Historical-Grammatical method for correct interpretation is overthrown. Only when this happens, can Biblical inerrancy I think be logically preserved.

As I see matters, we need to take our pick from something like the three of the following positions:

1) Scripture is intended for the Israelites only, it was given by God to instruct the Israelites in their time and place. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume God worked with Israel, their knowledge and beliefs of the time, language and the like, in order to convey important spiritual truths.

2) Scripture is intended for all people (the primary audience is everyone), someone only God could be behind given the 66 books by multiple authors spanning 100s of years and even millennia. As the author then, God ensured the messages within could be read by all, historical events are truthful, God isn't just working with Israel but ensuring the recordings are accurate and relevant to future readers also (i.e., us).

3) Scripture is dual intentioned, firstly for the Israelites, secondly for the world at large in other times. So then, we understand the the primary message was for the Israelites, but can pick up still upon the greater spiritual truths and theological truths that were fulfilled in Christ.

Now, depending on your position, it seems to be only #2 presupposes Biblical inerrancy.

Jac, I'd like your input. Given your acceptance of the Historical-Grammatical method, you evidently would find #1 appealing. Now, it doesn't necessitate that God still couldn't preserve historical events as truth, but neither it is necessary that God MUST preserve truth if the Scripture is intended for Israel alone. God could simply be making use of imperfect knowledge and beliefs, working with an imperfect nation that He made a covenant with, to get across His points. It could even add to highlighting just how imperfect we when compared with God.

As for me, I often took position #2. Partly, this is due to my upbringing and very experiential form of Christianity I was brought up with. God is about us in the here and now. Living along side us in life. He is the Living God. Very Evangelical in nature right? Of a strong Pentecostal persuasion. That is my starting point in life, in my Christian walk, and so from there I've strongly pursued testing all doctrine and sought rational grounding.

However, if #3 is correct... why then we could assume that main events written about by the author, such may have been what was believed by people in the day it was written, may even contain legend, but God is simply using such to make known theological truths. Therefore, we shouldn't be surprised to find ancient beliefs of the time spoken of like truth in Scripture... nonetheless we can discern what were beliefs held by people in older times, to discern spiritual truths God was wanting to convey through the light of Christ who we now recongnise as the fulfillment of Scripture. BioLogos would be one place who accept #3, for example, with their understanding of Noah's flood.

You (Jac) and I have discussed the importance of understanding methods of interpretation, however foundational to such is first identifying who Scripture is primarily intended for. Who did "God" as the one who inspired Scripture, actually intend it primarily to be for? The actual audience of the time it was written, to the ancient Israelites? Perhaps we in the future are meant to understand this fact, and yet make the theological connections since we understand the fuller significance and revelation that Christ provides us with.

Interested in your thoughts here.

[RickD]

To-the specific people it was written to at the time.

For-all mankind.

[Kurieuo]

To-the specific people it was written to at the time.

For-all mankind.

So that would be #3?

[RickD]

To-the specific people it was written to at the time.

For-all mankind.

So that would be #3?

Not exactly. NT scripture wasn't only to Israelites.

[Jac3510]

I can't pick any of the options because I challenge the basic premise of your argument. The word "intend" really ought not be applied to God at all, because the unintended (ha!) consequences is that we are implying that some of God's actions had unintended consequences. I'm sure you can immediately see the problem with that. I know we've both used that word a bit, but we've done so loosely; given that it is now the crux of your argument and analysis, I think it deserves are more precise statement.

The question I think you are getting at is the importance of the original recipients of the Scriptures. Must we regard their perspective/worldview/etc as deterministic of the meaning? To put it differently, let's start by granting that, at least in the case of Scripture, God has chosen to reveal Himself through the written word, and those words were without exception were occasional in nature. That is, God never gave humans (generally, a nation, or a particular person) a systematic theology. Rather, what God revealed in the written word was always in response to some particular reality. Given this, the question can be stated: for those interpreters who wish to understand God's written self-revelation, are they required to understand that self-revelation from within the perspective of the historical context of the original writing? That the writings are historically conditioned is indisputable. The real question is whether or not that historical conditioning is necessary for understanding the meaning of the text.

The answer, put simply, is yes. Now, sometimes, that historical conditioning provides no problems whatsoever, so little, in fact, that it is easy to forget it is even to be considered. This case arises when the issue being addressed is of universal human concern such that culture and context play almost no role in differentiating or nuancing meaning. So the prohibition against murder is fairly universal, as is the command to trust God in all things. The promise that God will vindicate His people is pretty universal, although having an appreciation of how the original audience might have emotionally reacted to that message might help deepen our own emotional appreciation of the promise; so in a case like that, the message isn't contextually determined, but the way in which the original audience would have applied it would have. But now we're talking about the difference in interpretation and application. The former is usually, but not always, largely driven my historical context; the latter, however, is always and without fail driven by historical context.

Anyway, so to bring this around to your point: those truths (side note: I'm not terribly comfortable distinguishing between spiritual truths and . . . what, non-spiritual? I also don't like the reference to relevance--that's confusing interpretation with application) that are strongly historically conditioned simply cannot be understood apart from that historical conditioning. Ever. Hermeneuticians sometimes refer to this problem as the ladder of abstraction. Some truths can be taken from the biblical context and interpreted directly with little to no thought as to the culture. Some truths must be abstracted a little from the historical context (which requires understanding that context). Others must be abstracted significantly from the historical context. To give an example of the final category, consider many of the pre and proscriptions in the Mosaic Law. Or just consider one: the command not to wear mixed clothing. That can be interpreted applied today, but it requires a lot of abstraction from its historical context.

The problem that a lot of people have is that they don't want to do the hard work of historical abstraction. They like the language when taken in their own times, and so they wish to simply interpret it without the original reference. Or they take a later theological idea and use it to reinterpret the language in question and actually abstract in a different way entirely, such that they replace the original context with a new theological construct. OT prophecy is usually treated this way. So the promise to Abraham that he and his descendants will always have the land of Canaan is reinterpreted without reference to the original historical context. Instead, we take a NT theological construct--that Jesus is the Seed and that the church is in Christ and therefore in some sense the descendants of Abraham (spiritually speaking)--and then we replace the original historical context (the land deed) with the new theological construct and thereby reinterpret the passage and come to a new meaning entirely (in this case, "the land" is now taken to refer in a spiritual way to the realm of God's blessing, the will of God, etc).

As you can tell, I'm sure, from the tone of my words, I completely and utterly reject that approach. It has all the problems I raised in my original argument.

So to sum up, I don't think we should talk about the Bible's relevance or about God's intentions. I think we should talk about the HUMAN author's intended audience, and what the HUMAN author intended to say, and then we should simply accept that to be God's self-revelation (again, we cannot, on my view, distinguish between God's meaning and the human meaning without destroying the very character of revelation). Sometimes the human author's meaning is clear regardless of historical context. Sometimes it is completely conditioned and determined by it. But in absolutely every case, we must understand the passage the way a reasonable, original reader would have read it.

And how does that affect inerrancy? In short, it doesn't. If, in your view, that interpretive method leaves us with ideas that are now held to be false, then we cannot hold to an inerrant Bible--not because our method kills inerrancy, but because the Bible as written has errors. If, on the other hand, we adopt a method that screens out those errors by replacing the original historical context with some later theological or scientific context (whatever our motives for doing so), then inerrancy is a meaningless doctrine, anyway. It's not inerrant because God is sovereign and perfect. Rather, it is inerrant because as soon as we find an error, we identify the problematic context and replace it with another that yields a meaning we do not regard as to be in error. And therefore, the Bible's accuracy (and thus ultimately it's doctrine) becomes subject to our authority and not vice versa.

Those are my initial thoughts, anyway.

[Kurieuo]

Thanks Jac.

True, there are things that we ought to be careful with what we mean. I was loose with my words. Nonetheless, you dealt with some points, and ended pretty much with the position I'd liken you to even if the question was imprecise. That position I believe is captured best in your words:

I don't think we should talk about the Bible's relevance or about God's intentions. I think we should talk about the HUMAN author's intended audience, and what the HUMAN author intended to say, and then we should simply accept that to be God's self-revelation (again, we cannot, on my view, distinguish between God's meaning and the human meaning without destroying the very character of revelation). Sometimes the human author's meaning is clear regardless of historical context. Sometimes it is completely conditioned and determined by it. But in absolutely every case, we must understand the passage the way a reasonable, original reader would have read it.

Given this, in what way for what reason do you consider Scripture to be inspired. That is, such that we ought to consider Scripture divinely orchestrated... a source of "special revelation" when there really isn't anything special?

Re: inerrancy:

And how does that affect inerrancy? In short, it doesn't. If, in your view, that interpretive method leaves us with ideas that are now held to be false, then we cannot hold to an inerrant Bible--not because our method kills inerrancy, but because the Bible as written has errors. If, on the other hand, we adopt a method that screens out those errors by replacing the original historical context with some later theological or scientific context (whatever our motives for doing so), then inerrancy is a meaningless doctrine, anyway. It's not inerrant because God is sovereign and perfect. Rather, it is inerrant because as soon as we find an error, we identify the problematic context and replace it with another that yields a meaning we do not regard as to be in error. And therefore, the Bible's accuracy (and thus ultimately it's doctrine) becomes subject to our authority and not vice versa.

Again, I agree that your method doesn't necessarily touch upon inerrancy. One could use it and either beelieve the Scripture to be completely true or not always true.

I'm sure BioLogos and many Historical-Critical scholars, source criticism and the like, would agree with you that we should perform some hard work with historical abstraction. Real historical abstraction, and not simply on a grammatical level.

This hard work of separation, to truly understand what the human author and original hearers would have understood (believed at the time) and therefore intended when for example they something like say, "God stretches out the heavens like a tent."

In reality, the heavens aren't stretched out as such, yet I think it is safe to conclusion the people at the time had a different more archaic understanding of earth, heavens and the like than what we know via modern science today. For example, take a read of what Neo-X wrote here:

I am quite aware of what its taken to mean but I also think that this is being overseen that to the Hebrew author writing it down, this phrase meant practically, what I already said it did, heaven, the dome that is, the plane on which humans are and the underworld beneath. No matter how scientifically accurate they may have been, they certainly did not know many things, including that the earth was spherical and that it revolved around the sun and that the universe was far and wide and quite big, much big than what they knew it off. That is one of the reasons why the author mentions the creation of lights in the firmament, sun, moon, stars on day 4, rather than day 1. As it shows that the author does not view the two to be the same.

My point was that the idea of all universe or all creation was quite different for the author. Today you can read into it 13 billion years of universe but that is not what the author meant when he wrote it down. You can say its neutral, that it allows for whatever was created was included, regardless of the acknowledgement of the author, but I think it makes the writing vague.

As a teenager for the longest time I struggled with the tower of Babel story, I could not wrap my head around the idea that these people did not know that no one can reach heaven by building a tower/staircase, its so idiotic, I mean it is pretty much religion 101. But I understood it later and I think it explains pretty much why they thought they could do that. To them it was a plain of existence, somewhere where God was and that is why worship on high places was thought of such importance throughout the early biblical times. Even God descended on a mount Sinai, a high place. A place of power and authority.

Then read some of my response back to Neo-X:

Thanks neo-x.

You bring some interesting ideas with spiritual plains and what not. Sounds a bit eastern mysticism like.
These spiritual plains are normally tied into gods and the like right? So as a Scriptural apologetic, perhaps more shows how far wrong people in the tower of Babel story were, that they thought God was like gods they could reach on some other spiritual plain -- if only they built their tower high enough. Nonetheless, that story too did always sound odd to me. So your idea does sound true, although we probably really have no idea about what they thought. It doesn't take modern science to realise that such is a tad strange, so it sounds very plausible that they must have had some odd spiritual beliefs.

Here I'm also detecting a danger with the Historical-Grammatical method which tries to get at the author intentions and audience at the time. The issue is how far do we read their beliefs into their intentions. ,

For example, in Genesis 1 do we accept their words at face value? Such that no matter how scientifically incorrect their beliefs may have been about how a "day" works, nonetheless they experienced "day" and so that is what we accept as intended without their wrong beliefs?

Or for a better example perhaps with "the heavens and the earth" in Gen 1:1. Should we take this as a phrase for the whole universe (regardless of the fact they may have been entirely incorrect about how the universe worked); or should we also read into the intent of language their wrong and archaic beliefs? (mind you note Isaiah 40:22 says the "circle of Earth" so it seems to me that they did have some idea, and stretches out the heavens like a canopy and spreads them out like a tent to live within -- a bit more ambiguous and could be read archaic-like or neutral to modern science like RTB read it).

So the question is: How far do we read in the author's beliefs into their intent for a given text?

Really, unless they specifically touch upon it, I don't think it should be read into the text at all.
Here's a thought, maybe rather than just accepting one understanding, we should pay attention to three different understandings?

• 1) Man's beliefs at the time (as we understand them) - including what the human author believed with their intent,
  2) Neutral understanding - where we accept text at face value without injecting modern science or achaic beliefs into the text
  3) Modern understanding - whether what we know is true via modern science an the like can be supported by the text (for example, Day-Age proponents, and RTB in particular really love pulling out Scripture that they apply scientific understanding to).

Given we accept there is also a divine author at play (I know you likely don't believe this), but then we would have God working with fallible man.
Therefore, while the authors would have had a wrong knowledge about this and that on deeper levels, Scripture must not incorporate those wrong ideas specifically. That said, Scripture can work with those ideas so long as it doesn't specifically endorse those ideas as correct.

Now while accepting what the author believed and as such intended in a particular text doesn't necessarily challenge the inerrancy, it does do so where the author had "wrong beliefs" without any superintendence (i.e., of a Divine author). Because then we are to understand those wrong beliefs were in fact what was intended in Scripture itself, for example, that people of the Tower of Babel and writer perhaps seriously thought that a tower could reach God's heavenly kingdom. Or, the plains of existence of which Neo-X talks. This is just an example.

So then, on factual worldly matters where the author clearly wouldn't have a modern scientific understanding, if their beliefs are to actually be read into the words of Scripture, then as you say "the Bible has errors." Neo-X has a valid and very strong challenge.

Now I do know you embrace the truthfulness of Scripture, but then, your method as you say doesn't presuppose anything about inerrancy. Using your method one might accept the Bible has errors, or one can ignore any and reject such.... it's an entirely separate issue.

Yet then, such is also a little naive I think. Face-to-face with beliefs people at the time evidently appeared to have (which were wrong), then it seems to me one must simply affirm the Bible has errors if the sole determinant is the author's beliefs behind the text.

Given my response to Neo-X, which I encourage to be read more fully in that thread alongside the exchange that we had, you and I clearly diverge here Jac.

And again, I'm puzzled and do not understand why, or for what reason, you might believe Scripture to be inerrant given your strict application of the Historical-Grammatical method doesn't presuppose such. As I asked previously, in what way do you consider Scripture to be divinely inspired, what room is there for God if it is only what the author intended that matters?

[Jac3510]

I actually remember that exchange between the two of you--whether I read it at the time or much later, right now I can't recall. Peaked my interest, not surprisingly, because of the hermeneutical piece.

But enough of that, to your points.

1. The role of inspiration and inerrancy, I downplay it quite a bit. These are not doctrines I propose at the beginning of the process, but something I simply take on faith that will be demonstrated upon a proper analysis of all texts. For me, the great apologetic here is actually that inerrancy "falls out" of Scripture, out of the results of careful study. It isn't study we start with and make sure our results uphold.

2. The basis of inspiration and inerrancy, this is really just nothing more than the biblical testimony about itself. I believe it because the Bible says it. Actually, to be more precise, I believe it due to two distinct witnesses. The first is the testimony of Christ and the second is the miraculous nature of fulfilled prophecy. Regarding the former, since I believe that Jesus is God, it seems to me I ought to affirm whatever He affirmed, and since He affirmed inerrancy and inspiration, so too should I. Regarding the latter, if the prophecies turn out to be true, then they are clearly more than human. That which comes from God is inspired by definition and ought not to have any errors. And, of course, the Bible goes on and affirms its own inspiration and inerrancy, and all that is enough for me to conclude that I should uphold the doctrine as well. To be clear with reference to the point just above, while I don't, then, use these ideas at the beginning of my exegesis, I use them very much at the beginning of my theological reflections. I exegete the Bible the same way that I do Aristotle, or you for that matter. Just just because Aristotle or you say it, it doesn't make it true; still less does it mean that I'm somehow obligated to submit to what you have declared in my own life. But if the Bible says it, then, having completed the exegesis of the passage, I am now--precisely because of these doctrines--required to go further, to bow down if you will, and to say, Amen.

3. On how God inspires given the focus on human meaning, I hope this is clear from my comments just above. To be a bit technical about it, I say that God determined not only the end but also the means. That is, He used human beings and caused them to freely, completely by their own power and will, to write the words of Scripture. They are inspired because He is the one who enabled them, who superintended the process. But in the end, the work is still a human book--fully human. But unique in that it is the one work that God Himself has seen to ensure that it reveals His character, His goals, His plan, etc. Moreover, the Holy Spirit uses these words of Scripture--and this precisely because they are the words of Scripture--to draw people to the truth. We know, for example, that Paul wrote books not in the New Testament. Are they lost Scripture? No, of course not. Now, perhaps some of those lost books contained theological truth. Perhaps they were inerrant in the sense that they had no errors. But that doesn't make them Scripture. The Holy Spirit simply didn't choose to use them in the same way He has chosen to use, say, Romans, and so we're not surprised when the church recognized that they were not being so used and didn't take special care to preserve them. And so it is with all sixty-six books of the inspired and inerrant Bible.

4. Lastly, on the extent of affirming erroneous worldviews or ideas of the biblical authors, I simply say that unless the author intended to teach those views to be true then we are under no obligation to accept them. Take to ToB example. It is certainly the case that Neo is correct in terms of the worldview--the cosmology, anyway--the story represents. But does it follow, then, that Moses himself believed that cosmology to really be true? Or is he simply reporting the story? And even if he did believe the worldview to be true, does that mean that Moses is saying that the cosmology itself was true? Of course not. We may certainly take from Moses' account that people believed in a cosmology such as Neo is describing. That's part of the explicit and intentional teaching of Moses. And the story is told from within that framework--God is said to "come down" to see what is going on. But is that sufficient to say that the story itself is actually saying that cosmology is true? It seems to me, obviously not. To use an easy example, I have little doubt that Moses probably really did believe that the sun revolved around the earth. So when he described the sun rising and setting, he probably literally meant that. But does that mean that the Bible is teaching that the sun literally revolves around the earth? No, of course not. It's just phenomenological language. It's not an error in the text simply because that is exactly what it looked like was going on, and Moses in so describing the rising of the sun is not actually teaching that the sun revolves around the earth. That is a deduction (or perhaps an inference, depending on how you approach it) we would have to draw from the text. And valid or invalid, the point is the deduction is not the intended meaning of the text. It's simply an accidentally related corollary. And this is key: we are under no obligation to accept or to expect that corollary concepts are inspired or inerrant. In fact, we only have to accept them as true if they are logically necessary corollaries!

But now I think we're getting a bit too far afield from your question. My position is just that we must understand the text as the audience would have understood it. That does not mean that we have to affirm the audience's world view by which they interpret the text as true. We simply must affirm what the text means in light of that worldview as true. The related worldview may be true, or it may be false. That's no matter. It would only be important if that worldview is essentially related to the truthfulness of the text's claim. So, for instance, we couldn't on my view take Jesus' discussion about angels as a mere accommodation to a superstitious culture, because while His point was not "angels exist" (but rather, say, that angels rejoice and therefore so should people when sinners repent), the existence of angels would, in fact, be essentially related to the point He is making. On the other hand, while Joshua clearly believed that the sun literally revolved around the earth, and while this belief was certainly the motivation for his request that the sun stand still in the sky, that belief in and of itself was not the point of the text. The miracle itself is the point of the text and could still be true even if Joshua was wrong on the mechanics of it. And who knows the mechanics of it anyway? I've no interest in trying to provide an answer--it could have been just that great of a miracle, or perhaps it was a miracle of perception. My point is just the mechanics, the sun revolving around the earth, is not essentially related to the point of the text (that God intervened miraculously in a specific way to bring Israel victory) and so that that idea may be true or may be false. In this case, we know that it was false. But that's irrelevant to the text because it has nothing to do with the actual exegesis of the passage in question.

I hope those examples help clarify my ideas a bit.

[DBowling]

There are a couple of general areas of interest to me where the growth and development of theology in both Judaism and Christianity has resulted in OT passages gaining additional meaning and significance within the context of 1st century Judaism and Christianity than the Original author would have intended or even understood within his immediate context.

Two areas of interest for me where I've seen significant change are:
1. The afterlife and resurrection
2. Messianic expectation
(NT Wright does an excellent job of tracking and documenting this theological development in his Christian Origins and the Question of God series)

For me I see at least three mechanisms that have provided expanded meaning for the OT Scriptures beyond original intent of the original author.
1. New or 'clarified' meaning due to theological growth within Judaism itself.
2. New or 'clarified' meaning (for both Judaism and Christianity) resulting from the Greek Septuagint translation.
3. New or 'clarified' meaning resulting from Apostolic interpretation of the OT Scriptures.

Understanding the original intent of the author within his original context is important to understanding the OT of course, but I think understanding the meaning of OT passages within the context of 1st century Judaism (the context of Jesus) and Apostolic teaching (ie the NT) is also important in understanding the full meaning of the OT Scriptures.

In Christ