OceanSide church of Christ
Previous | Return to list of sermons | Next |
THE NEW HERMENEUTIC
(1)
Victor M.
Eskew
INTRODUCTION
A.
A
lawyer asked Jesus the question:
“Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” (Luke 10:25). Jesus’ answer was: “What is written in the law? How readest thou?” (Luke
10:26).
1.
Jesus was asking for the
lawyer’s conclusions. Based upon
his studies, he must have formulated some view of this
matter.
a.
The process of coming to conclusions is
“hermeneutics.”
b.
Hermeneutics involves the interpretation of the
Scriptures.
2.
The lawyer gave Jesus his conclusion (Luke 10:27).
And he answering
said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy
soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind: and thy neighbor as
thyself.
2.
Jesus’ response is
interesting (Luke 10:28).
And he said unto
him, Thou hast answered right: this
do, and thou shalt live.
a.
This man had interpreted the Scriptures correctly. His conclusions were
right.
b.
Jesus’ answer also has an implication within it. It is possible for a man to answer
incorrectly, that is, to misinterpret the scriptures.
B.
Everyone who reads and
studies the Bible must interpret it.
1.
Again, the interpreting
process is called hermeneutics.
2.
This process of
interpretation can lead to right conclusions and wrong
conclusions.
I.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A.
For years, members of the
1.
Command.
a.
Definition: A direct
statement that demands an action.
b.
II Timothy 2:15.
Study to shew
thyself approved unto God…
2.
Example.
a.
Definition: An account of an
action that is to be followed.
b.
John 13:14-15.
If I then, your
Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another’s
feet. For I have given you an
example, that ye should do as I have done to you.
3.
Necessary
inference.
a.
Definition: A truth that is
gleaned from another statement of truth.
b.
Matthew 22:31-32.
But as touching
the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by
God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of
Jacob? God is not the God of the
dead, but of the living.
1)
The statement that Jesus noted did not specifically state there will be a
resurrection.
2)
The statement, however, infers a resurrection.
B.
In the late 1980s and early
1990s, many “liberal” brethren began to clamor for a new
hermeneutic.
1.
These men were calling for
change in almost every area of faith and practice.
2.
These changes were
challenged by sound brethren who demanded a proper and accurate interpretation
of the Scriptures.
3.
These men saw that they
could not prevail against the defenders of the faith unless they had a new way
of interpreting the Bible, a new hermeneutic.
4.
NOTE: It is important to understand that these
brethren did not say that a new hermeneutic was needed in order to implement all
the changes they desired. They said
they wanted a new hermeneutic because of the “paradigm” shift within the
churches of Christ.
“I conclude by offering my
observations on what has been called a hermeneutical crisis in our
churches. These have come about, I
believe, because of significant shifts in the driving forces of our
churches. We are no longer
committed in the same manner to the centrality of ecclesiology and soteriology
as I have shown in several specifics above. In some cases a vision that is more
biblical and less dependent on the Swiss Reformation and the Scottish
Enlightenment has emerged. This has
forced us in turn to reexamine our traditional hermeneutics. This has not been easy since our
traditional hermeneutic is more obvious in our theory than in our
practice.
“In the past we have assumed
that the church for which Jesus died and for which he is lawgiver is basically
one of correct structure in polity, worship, and discipline. Salvation results from entering that
church through baptism and maintaining the structure sacrosanct. But now that vision has eroded. The question has arisen whether the
church of the New Testament was a structure or an amicable, sharing,
family-like, fellowshipping community.
If the latter, then the older presumptions and strategies are called into
question. The result has been
considerable confusion, which worries some and leaves others without a
formulated hermeneutic but probably find the majority of church members
indifferent. Members seem currently
more interested in personal struggles than in reflection upon how to interpret
the Scripture” (Restoration Quarterly, Vol. 37/No. 1 (1995),
“Hermeneutics in the Churches of Christ, Thomas H.
Olbricht).
1.
Brother Olbricht refers to a
hermeneutical crisis in the churches.
2.
The reason for this crisis
is supposedly due to significant shifts in the driving forces o four
churches.
a.
From ecclesiology and
soteriology to community.
b.
From proper interpretation
of Scriptures to personal struggle.
c.
From doctrine to practical
living.
d.
From the inner man to the
outer man.
C.
The New Hermeneutic has
never developed into an organized system of thought.
1.
There is no formal work that
exists in our brotherhood that sets forth the tenents of the New
Hermeneutic.
2.
To come to an understanding
of it, one must read the writings of those who contend for
it.
3.
The reality is that they do
not want a hermeneutic at all. They
want to do what they please, as they please, with little or no restrictions from
God’s Word. It reminds this speaker
of Psalm 2:1-3.
Why do the
heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves,
and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against his
anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords
from us.
II. A DISPOSAL OF THE
OLD HERMENEUTIC
A.
When the New Hermeneutic was
first called for, there was no new hermeneutic to replace the old. There was just an all-out attack on the
Old Hermeneutic of Command, Example, and Inference (CEI). The “change agents” in the church needed
to dispose of it.
B.
Quotes.
1.
Michael
Casey: “I want to propose a ‘new hermeneutic’
that grows out of a critique of the ‘old hermeneutic’ of command, approved
example, and necessary inference” (Christian Scholars Conference,
1989).
2.
Paul
Roberts: “One of the major questions, or major
approaches that is so common in our fellowship or our particular group is a
perspective of looking at the Scriptures.
Is our pattern or our plan of biblical exegesis – how do we know what the
Bible really says to do when you go to the Bible? Do we have a little pattern or a little
form? It is called – well, we know
it by three ways: by command, by
example, by necessary inference. If
it commands, you do it. If you find
an example of it in the Scriptures, then that’s binding upon you. If it’s necessarily inferred by
Scripture, then that’s biding upon you.
At least that’s been the perspective of the Churches of Christ for about
a century or more. And, I think
that’s one of the reasons why we are so divided today” (Radio Sermon, Westwood
Church of Christ, march, 5, 1989).
C.
Remember, the old
hermeneutical principles restrict and forbid these men from going in the
direction they desire for the church.
Therefore, it is not surprising that they want to do away with the
old. It is important to recall that
the old ways are not always wrong (Jer. 6:16).
Thus saith the
Lord, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the
good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk
therein.
CONCLUSION
A.
There are several components
of the New Hermeneutic. We will
examine some of these in upcoming lessons.
B.
Most of the things the New
Hermeneutic teach loose the restrictions of the teachings of the New Testament
of Jesus Christ.
C.
It is sad to find so many
within the churches who are giving heed to and following these false
teachings.
D.
We must be well
warned!!!