Perrydox.com is devoted to the pursuit of truth, whether plain or paradoxical, whether simple or sublime, or simply absurd yet absolute.
Acts 15 – The New Hermeneutic
Have you ever heard of a “tacit admission?” That occurs someone admits to something, but barely. Or it can be a hint of a truth. For example, the Pharisees never denied that Jesus performed miracles. Their attack foci were on His timing, authority and source (i.e., Beelzebub). That tacit admission proves they could not deny the fact of the miracle itself.
There is a new wind blowing among some churches of Christ. This new wind is called the “new hermeneutic.” As far as I am aware, it is only affecting a minority of congregations among those of the institutional bent. I surmise this is because noninstitutional congregations have always been more conservative in their application of the old hermeneutic. These new advocates, not being satisfied with how authority for action was established in Acts 15 via Command and or Statement; Divinely Approved Example; and Necessary Implication, want to establish a new method. The fact that they reject the method in Acts for a method they supposedly find in the Gospels is a tacit admission that the method does exist in Acts. They never deny it. They just consider it inferior.
The Old Hermeneutic As Used By Jesus
Confession is good for the soul. I confess. I know very little about this so-called New Hermeneutic. I am in awe at all the work others have done on subjects I never find time to digest and understand. One of the tenets for those advocating this New Hermeneutic is that “our hermeneutic is therefore theological and Christocentric…Our beginning point is the general principle of Christ-centeredness, Christocentricity….Remember that everything about the church must pass the `Jesus test’ to be trustworthy….[1] The advocators of this interpretive theory object to using “Acts and the Epistles as architectural”[2] instead of the gospels. Notice this is a tacit acknowledgement that the discarded hermeneutic is found in Acts and the Epistles.
Let’s see if the old hermeneutic can be found in the gospels, and if it can pass the “Jesus test.” Before we do, however, let’s review the old hermeneutic’s use in Acts; and briefly discuss the nature of authority.
Many advocates of the so-called Old Hermeneutic proof-texted using Acts 15, which is a historical record showing the method of solving congregational and doctrinal issues consisted of Divinely Necessitated Implications and Inferences[3]; Divinely Approved Examples or Accounts of Action[4]; and Divinely given Commands and Statements.[5] These three hermeneutical methods gave the first century church authority, that is, permission, to act.
Authority/Exousia “denotes authority (from the impersonal verb exesti, `it is lawful’). From the meaning of leave or permission, or liberty of doing as one pleases, it passed to that of the ability or strength with which one is endued, then to that of the power of authority, the right to exercise power….”[6] The word authority/exousia necessitates a source, either objective or subjective. If God is our authority for all things (Col.3:17), and on this all agree, then outside authority therefore logically excludes silence as permission to act. Unless you have authority that states silence is permissive, which is contradictory for then silence is not the basis for permission, but rather objective authority, then silence cannot be permissive. God’s authority is active, not passive.
Those who advocate some new hermeneutic accuse us of not following Christ because we advocate using Acts 15 as a divinely approved example on how to solve doctrinal and congregational problems. Paul commanded us to follow his example (1 Corinthians 11:1) as he followed Christ’s. We need to ask where did the participants in Acts 15 get their hermeneutic? Was this something humanly created? Or was it divinely sanctioned and evidenced in the life of Christ? If we can find proof that Jesus used the same authoritative method as shown in Acts 15, then we are “therefore theological and Christocentric.”[7] Did the Paul, Peter, and James simply learn this method from Jesus? The thesis of this article is that they did.
Did Jesus infer truths that were necessarily implied by divine mandate? In His discussion with the Sadducees, He divinely sanctioned this method of understanding Scripture in reference to the resurrection of the dead (Matthew 22:23-33). When Jesus quoted “I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob,” He concluded (inferred) that God “is not the God of the dead but of the living (v.32). Ironically we infer that Jesus inferred by using the present tense am that God implied the resurrection of the dead, by stating the continued relationship of Himself to certain Jewish fathers. Although it is always a hermeneutical danger to infer what has not been necessarily implied, that does not eliminate the usefulness and sometimes necessity of this helpful source of receiving information.
Our Lord also practiced that which He saw His father doing. “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner” (John 5:19). Therefore the divine actions of the Father were mimicked by the divine Son. Examples that are approved give permission for action. We may snidely state that Jesus’ example is an example for us to follow in following examples!
Also, Jesus based His authority on what He heard, which is equivalent to us basing our right to act on what we read. “I can do nothing on My own initiative. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is just, because I do not seek My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me” (John 5:30). Jesus therefore taught God-given commands and statements authorize Him. They do us also.
Silence of the Scriptures has long been debated. Is it permissive or prohibitive? What did Jesus think? If Jesus said “the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing” (John 5:19); isn’t He teaching us that God’s silence demonstrated by His non-action demanded non-action by Jesus? Yes! If Jesus said “I can do nothing on My own initiative. As I hear, I judge” (John 5:30); isn’t this a ratification of Jesus’ authority based upon following another’s authority? Yes! And isn’t that therefore a negating of self-authority upon which silence is founded? Yes again! Jesus’ authority was from the word of the Father. If action was based upon God’s silence, then Jesus would have been acting upon His “own initiative” which He denied doing. Silence does not authorize.
What have we tried to accomplish? That authoritative action based upon necessary implications, divinely approved examples, and command or statements was practiced by Christians and Christ. Therefore this old hermeneutic does pass `Jesus test'”.[8]
[1]Rubel Shelly and Randall J. Harris, The Second Incarnation, pp.28,232; via Chris Reeves, “The New Hermeneutic,” Guardian of Truth, vol.xxxviii, October 6, 1994, no.19, p.599.
[2]C. Leonard Allen, The Cruciform Church, p.19; via ibid.
[3]There is a logical distinction to be drawn between implications and inferrences. Speakers imply, listeners infer. Therefore from a Biblical point of view, God implies and man infers. Consequently if God is our authority, then He must necessarily imply. It is inconsequential to the origin of authority whether or not man ever infers.
[4]I prefer the description, God-Approved over Apostolic-Approved because it goes back to the original source of authority. The apostles only had authority to approve if God already approved.
[5]Again there is a logical distinction between commands and statements, but for the sake of simplicity, in this article they will be inclusive of one another.
[7]Rubel Shelly and Randall J. Harris, The Second Incarnation, pp.28,232; via Chris Reeves, “The New Hermeneutic,” Guardian of Truth, vol.xxxviii, October 6, 1994, no.19, p.599.
[8]Rubel Shelly and Randall J. Harris, The Second Incarnation, pp.28,232; via Chris Reeves, “The New Hermeneutic,” Guardian of Truth, vol.xxxviii, October 6, 1994, no.19, p.599.
Comments