paulien jon - three approaches
Post on 12-Nov-2014
583 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
1
THREE WAYS TO APPROACH THE BIBLE:Disciplinary Distinctions
Some Suggestions by Jon Paulien
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this paper is to examine various ways that people approach the Bible with
a view toward learning how to discover and respect divine revelation in the midst of pressing real-
life problems. The ideas in this paper were not developed in direct dialogue with the works of
either Biblical or systematic theologians, but arose out of personal practice and dialogue with
many individuals and groups, both here at the Seminary and in many other settings. The ultimate
goal of the method described in this paper is more practical than theoretical, therefore the terms
used should not be understood in their most technical sense, but in terms of the simpler definitions
offered here.
STATEMENT OF THE BASIC PROBLEM
In recent years two texts have become increasingly disturbing to me. One is found in the
proverbs of Jeremiah (Jer 17:5-11):
The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?
Jer 17:9
This text indicates that a fundamental problem of the sinful human condition is self-deception. At
the innermost level we have the natural tendency to lie to ourselves and, therefore, to see what we
want to see whenever we open the Bible. Our self-deception is usually obvious to others, but
quite hidden from ourselves. Like most Adventists, however, I would hold out the hope that we
2
as a corporate body might be spared from such a condition. But that is not what a second text
seems to suggest:
You say, “I am rich;I have acquired wealth anddo not need a thing.”
But you do not realize That you are wretched,
pitiful,poor,blind andnaked.
I counsel you to buy from megold refined in the fire,
so you can become rich; andwhite clothes to wear,
so you can cover your shameful nakedness andsalve to put on your eyes,
so you can see.Rev 3:17-18
Seventh-day Adventists, of course, have long identified themselves with this passage. But
what is Laodicea’s problem? It is the problem of self-deception. What she is and what she thinks
of herself are two different things. It is not a conscious deceit on her part, the remedy of eye
medicine is necessary because she doesn’t even know she has a problem. She needs clear vision
in order to understand the will of God. So I would submit that Adventists have not succeeded in
by-passing the natural human tendency toward self-deception, even in their study of Scripture. If
this is so the tendency to misuse Scripture may be as prevalent among conservative Bible-
believers as it is among Bible-doubting liberals, just more difficult to discern.
There are a number of practical solutions to the problem of self-deception. Authentic
prayer, for example, calls on God to lead us to truth no matter what the personal cost. Journaling
(dialoguing with oneself or with God in writing) can draw out inner thoughts and tendencies that
Those interested in a more thorough outline of the suggestions in this paragraph could1
consult Jon Paulien, Present Truth in the Real World (Boise, ID: Pacific Press, 1993), 191-200.
For purposes of discussion, I include missiology and practical theology under the term2
“systematic theology.” All three are concerned with understanding and carrying out the will ofGod in the contemporary situation. Church history is more of a descriptive discipline along thelines of exegesis as defined here.
3
would otherwise remain hidden from us. And accountability (opening oneself to direct counsel
from others) to fellow Christians, singly or in groups, or even to professional counselors can help
us to see ourselves as others see us, to become more honest about our personal realities.1
Is there a way to read the Bible that can help us grow from self-deception to self-
awareness? How can we bypass the natural defense mechanisms that seek to blind us to the very
truths of the Bible that we so much need? Can our study of the Bible become more of a safeguard
in the church’s formation of its theology? The following system provides insights that have
helped me become more of a learner before God’s Word.
PRACTICAL DEFINITIONS FOR THREE WAYS TO APPROACH THE BIBLE
I would like to suggest that there are three basic ways to approach Bible study; Biblical
exegesis, Biblical theology, and systematic theology. Each of these approaches seeks to answer2
different questions with which we confront the Bible. Each approach should be part of a larger,
interdisciplinary process, yet each part of that process needs to be carefully distinguished, so that
the strengths of each approach might not be lost through amalgamation.
The Approach of Biblical Exegesis
In practical terms, Biblical exegesis (NT and OT) seeks to answer the question, “What
was the Biblical writer trying to say?” What was Paul trying to say when he wrote a letter to the
I realize that this is an oversimplification. My purpose here is practical, not theoretical. I3
am seeking to express the fundamental concerns of each discipline at a level where every Biblestudent can gain a practical grasp of the approach and alter his or her approach to the Bible insuch a way as to gain deeper insight into the mind of the God who inspired His Word. It is easyto reduce the science of hermeneutics to slogans, it is a much more difficult matter to honor theWord of God in practice. At the practical level the stakes are much higher than at the theoreticallevel and the natural mechanisms of defense tend to take over and frustrate our best intentions,often apart from our conscious awareness.
4
Roman church back in the first century. What issues was he trying to address? What language
and arguments did he chose to use? As a basic process, exegesis is appropriate to any written
work, even student papers. It is the process of seeking to understand a writer’s conscious
intention for a particular work.
The Approach of Biblical Theology
Biblical theology, on the other hand, asks the question, “What did the Biblical writer
believe?” What was the underlying belief system that caused each Biblical writer to write the
documents that we find in the Bible? What view of God lies behind the letter to the Romans, for
example? What view of salvation or of eschatology would Paul need to have in order to write the
things that he wrote? Biblical theology focuses less on the text than on the belief system that
brought the text into being, a belief system which can be detected in the writings that inspired
writers left behind. This is a different kind of question than the one posed by Biblical exegesis.
The Approach of Systematic Theology
Systematic theology, by way of contrast, approaches Biblical study from a totally different
direction. It asks questions like, “What should I believe? What should the church believe? What
is God’s will for me, for us? What is truth?” Here the whole direction of approach is concerned3
To belabor the obvious, such truths as who a person should marry, where they should4
live, and how they should employ their time are not addressed in the Bible. God is certainlyconcerned about such issues and has plans for our lives, but has not chosen to reveal such mattersdirectly through His Word.
5
with our need for understanding the mind and will of God in terms of today’s world.
THE SOURCES OF SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY
Biblical exegesis and theology are concerned, by definition, with the world and the ideas
that produced the Bible. But the Bible is not the only source of truth about God and the human
condition. There are many areas of truth that the Bible does not address. So the open-ended4
questions of systematic theology rightly lead to an open-ended search for truth, wherever it can be
found. The Bible must always take priority in such a search. It serves as a yardstick, testing the
validity of “truths” which are discovered from other sources. But it does not contain within itself
the sum total of all that can be known about God or about the human condition.
At this broader level, Seventh-day Adventists highly regard the role of the Spirit of
Prophecy as a source of truth. While the Bible remains the primary source of truth, much can be
learned in the Spirit of Prophecy that clarifies, expands upon, and extends our knowledge of God
and the world in which we live. Science, history, experience and the providences of God have
also been widely cited among Adventists as sources of truth. I would suggest that philosophy,
because it addresses both the fundamental questions of human existence and the nature of God is
certainly a helpful source in the search for truth. No Adventist would take philosophy as the final
word, all philosophical ideas must first be tested by the Bible. But philosophy expands both our
understanding of truth and the sharpness of the questions that we might address toward God and
the realities of existence.
6
I would suggest that psychology is also a source of truth about God. If human beings are
made in the image of God, then anything that helps us to understand the way human beings work
is a potential source of truth about God as well. Likewise, sociology can help us understand how
groups of human beings function under God. Neither source of truth is to be followed blindly
without reference to the Bible. There is much error lurking in the study of psychology and
sociology, not to mention science, history and human experience. But our knowledge of God and
the human condition would be much diminished if we left these other sources out of the equation.
Let’s take, for an example, the important question, “Should a Christian smoke?” This is
clearly a question that cannot be answered from the Bible alone. The subject of tobacco is not
even addressed in the Bible, after all tobacco was only discovered a few hundred years ago.
While the Bible may lay out certain principles of health and fidelity to God that may apply to this
question, it can only be fully settled by the application of science and experience. So “Should a
Christian smoke?” is ultimately not a Biblical question but a systematic one. If scientists should
come up with a smoke therapy that cures cancer, I rather suspect that some confused exegetes
would oppose the use of the therapy on “Biblical grounds,” but they would be sadly mistaken.
We know tobacco to be inappropriate for Christians on scientific grounds more than Biblical ones.
On the other hand, if I were to ask “What is Paul’s view on smoking?” it would not be a
systematic theological question. It would come in the realm of Biblical theology. And I would be
limiting myself to the Biblical evidence. The only possible answer to such a question is, “Paul
didn’t have a view on smoking as we know it. He knew nothing about it.” While the Bible is the
norm or yardstick for truth, it does not contain the sum total of truth.
7
CHARTING THE THREE APPROACHES
I believe that it will be helpful at this point to clarify the issues related to each of the three
approaches to the Bible. We will examine the practical consequences of pursuing answers to the
various questions underlying each approach. The goal is to produce a matrix or chart which can
be used as a reference to maintain the necessary distinctions between each approach. It is only
when all distinctions have been clarified that we can begin the task of examining ways to relate the
disciplines in such as way as not to distort or confuse the process.
The Time of Reference
For students of the NT, to ask the exegetical question, “What was Paul trying to say when
he composed his letter to the church at Rome?” is to locate oneself in the first century of our era.
The exegete seeks to understand the world in which Paul lived, the circumstances to which Paul
wrote, and the language and culture from which he drew the words to express his ideas.
Systematic theology, on the other hand, is a twentieth-century process (soon to be twenty-
first century). The fundamental question of Systematic Theology (“What should I/we believe?”)
directs our attention to today’s world; its needs, concerns, and issues. We frame the questions in
today’s terms to seek answers for today’s issues. And it is entirely right and proper that we
should do this.
Where does NT Theology fit in (“What did Paul believe?”)? It also asks a first century
question. Paul’s beliefs are grounded in the time, place, language and circumstances of his world,
not ours. We need to understand his context before we can safely apply his insights to our world.
8
The Categories of Language
When doing exegesis it is important to use Biblical categories or terminology as much as
possible. In other words, we should seek to explain the text in the terms the original writer used
and according to the meaning the original writer intended. The use of our own terms and word
definitions will inevitably distort the exegetical process.
On the other hand, systematic theology, by definition, utilizes philosophical, rather than
Biblical language. In other words, the language used arises out of the questions asked. We are
seeking to understand God as He relates to our world and our concerns. So in systematic
theology the interpreter sets the categories of language to be used. But it is important to
remember that this approach, while appropriate and necessary for the purposes of systematic
theology, is totally inappropriate for exegesis, where the author’s language and setting is at issue.
Biblical theology here sides with exegesis again. If we ask the question, “What did Paul
believe?” the safest course of action is to answer the question in terms of Paul’s own language
and definitions. We should not impose Luther’s definitions of justification and sanctification, for
example, on Paul. To do so would be to distort Paul’s theological system in the name of Luther.
We must let Luther speak for himself, and let Paul speak for himself.
The Status of the Result
In the ideal sense, at least, the result of NT exegesis is unchangeable. When we have
determined exactly what it was that Paul was trying to say to the Romans, we have an answer that
will not change, as the letter to the Romans has not changed in the last 2000 years. From the
perspective of the exegete, of course, exegesis is a process. We often grope our way toward an
9
understanding of what Paul was trying to say. Text criticism may clarify the exact words that
Paul chose to use. From our side, exegesis is always a process. But rightly handled, the result of
exegesis is unchangeable because the source of study is essentially unchangeable.
Biblical theology, likewise, is unchangeable in the ultimate sense. Paul hasn’t had a new
idea in nearly 2000 years! So while our study of Paul’s theology is a process that may be lifelong
in clarification, the result of a sound study of Paul’s theology is unchangeable by definition. Our
understanding of Paul may change, but Paul himself is not changing. There is something fixed and
stable about the Biblical materials that serve as a foundation for the theological process.
Systematic theology, on the other hand, is changeable. Circumstances alter cases. Our
questions may (and will) change, our needs may change or be clarified, and various cultures may
effect the way God’s infinite truth impacts on a finite setting. The contemporary world is
constantly confronting us with fresh issues which require fresh investigation into the will of an
infinite God. Adventists rightly hold open the right to clarify, reword, and even modify their
statement of Fundamental Beliefs as the study of the Word, the guidance of the Spirit, and the
exigencies of the human condition may indicate.
Here we see a glimpse of the importance of interdisciplinary methodology. By themselves,
Biblical exegesis and theology may be solid and reliable, but unless applied to specific
circumstances they will have little impact on the everyday life of God’s people today. Systematic
theology, on the other hand, while sensitive to changing times and circumstances, needs the solid
anchor that an unchanging Word provides, lest it become lost in a sea of relativism.
No doubt some would extend the process to anything that is spoken as well, and with5
some justification. It is, however, tenuous at best to speculate on the oral traditions that may liebehind the written words of the Bible itself. We have no direct access to such traditions, and thevery existence of written Scriptures are evidence of the tenuousness of the oral traditions even inthe generation immediately after the events recorded in the NT took place.
10
Focus of Interest
The focus of interest in Biblical exegesis is, of course, the text. One can only determine
what a writer was trying to say by reference to the text that person wrote. Systematic theology,
on the other hand, is theme oriented, rather than text oriented. Texts are consulted in the process
of searching out a theme, but the main concern of the process is to understand the ideas that will
answer the question being raised. “Should a Christian smoke?” is a thematic question, not a
textual one.
What is the focus of interest in Biblical theology? In this case it accords with systematic
theology. To ask what a writer believed is to ask a thematic question. We are taken beyond the
level of the text to explore broad ideas. So in this matter the theological disciplines need to be
distinguished from the exegetical one.
Extent of Interest
Exegesis, by definition, is interested in anything that is written down. Students are well5
aware that their grades sometimes depend on the quality of the teacher’s exegesis of student
papers! Anything written is potentially of interest to an exegete. So the exegetical process is
directed toward the entire Bible by definition.
Systematic theology, on the other hand, is selective in its use of texts. The questions
raised and the resulting themes guide the interpreter to texts which address the issue at hand.
11
Texts which do not address the issue are ignored. Once again, there is concurrence between
Biblical and systematic theology. Biblical theology is also selective by definition. If I were to ask
the question, “What is the Biblical perspective on health?” I would certainly not begin my study in
1 Chronicles or even Jeremiah. The question raised and the theme explored determines the
selection of material.
The Level of Significance
Exegesis, by definition, is a descriptive approach. The exegete attempts to describe what
an author was trying to say. The results of exegesis are not threatening to the interpreter since
they concern another time and place. Systematic theology, on the other hand, is normative. If I
ask the question, “What is God’s will for me?” the answer to that question will be normative for
my life. If I learn that a Christian should not smoke, that knowledge will have an immediate effect
on my life. Systematic theology, therefore, is a very threatening process, because the stakes for
the interpreter are extremely high. Defense mechanisms come quickly into play whenever the
stakes are high.
Exegesis, therefore, is a very important safeguard for the study of the Bible. As a
descriptive approach, it bypasses the natural mechanisms of defense to allow the interpreter to
learn from the text without being sabotaged from within. After all, if I am trying to describe what
Paul was saying to the Romans, it is no threat to me. Sam Bacchiocchi may be a Roman, but I am
not. Paul was not writing directly to me. And since Paul was writing to first century Romans,
even Bacchiocchi is off the hook when doing exegesis of Romans! Our defense mechanisms can
relax when exegesis is in operation.
I think it would be inappropriate at this point not to express my debt to Gerhard Hasel,6
whose discussion of the descriptive/normative issue initiated my exploration into this topic. Myfirst inklings along these lines occurred while reading his landmark book New TestamentTheology: Basic Issues in the Current Debate. The product expressed in this paper was refined byclarification with Hasel and subsequent dialogue with seminary classes over a twelve-year period.
12
But here is the exciting thing. When you have done a careful exegesis of Romans, the text
of Romans will never be the same again to you. The things you learned doing exegesis remain in
mind, and they affect the way you read the text when you are seeking to understand the will of
God for yourself. Through exegesis, you have bypassed the defense mechanisms that cause self-
deception and opened yourself in a deeper way to the Biblical text. Over time such study cannot
help but transform the way you address contemporary questions from the Bible.
Where does Biblical theology fit into this descriptive/normative continuum? It becomes a6
median discipline, it partakes of both. Biblical theology is descriptive in the sense that we are
trying to describe what a Biblical writer believed on various topics. But in dealing with the
Biblical writers we are dealing with people whose ideas were shaped under the special guidance of
the Holy Spirit in the process of revelation and inspiration. In a real sense, Paul’s ideas are also
God’s ideas expressed in terms of Paul’s language, time, place and circumstances. To the extent,
therefore, that Paul’s circumstances are similar to ours, his teachings on a particular topic are also
normative for us. So Biblical theology becomes the bridge whereby we can safely move from the
descriptive to the normative, from what the text meant to what it means, from what Paul was
trying to say to God’s will for us today.
The Agency Being Examined
The questions that drive the three approaches to the Bible take us a step further in our
Ellen G. White, Selected Messages, volume 1, page 21: “The Bible is written by inspired7
men, but it is not God’s mode of thought and expression. It is that of humanity. God, as a writer,is not represented. Men will often say such an expression is not like God. But God has not putHimself in words, in logic, in rhetoric, on trial in the Bible. The writers of the Bible were God’spenmen, not His pen.”
13
understanding of the process by which God communicates to His people on earth. Biblical
exegesis is concerned with what Paul was trying to say. Exegesis, by definition, focuses on the
human element in the Biblical text. The exegete tries to understand Paul’s expressions, Paul’s
circumstances, Paul’s intention. God is not on trial in Paul’s choice of language, the text reflects
Paul’s human intention. But if we accept the inspiration of the Scriptures the ideas behind the7
text are more than just human. While Paul’s ideas were his own, they were safeguarded by the
divine process of inspiration. So we would have to say that while Biblical exegesis focuses
directly on the human element in Scripture, Biblical theology is both human and divine. In the
ideas of the Biblical writers we discover also the mind of God.
Systematic theology, then, is clearly focused on the divine side of the equation. When we
ask the question, “What is God’s will for us/me?” we are seeking an answer from God, whatever
the source God may choose to use, Biblical or otherwise. As the three approaches described in
this paper are combined in interdisciplinary fashion, the full weight of both the divine and human
side of the Bible is brought to bear on the issues of life. Once again, it is clear that an
interdisciplinary approach is mandatory to a balanced view of truth.
The above examination of the three approaches to the Bible that are the subject of this
paper leads us to the following chart as a basic reference:
14
METHOD AND BIBLICAL STUDY
Exegesis = What was the author trying to say?
NT theology = What did the author believe?
Systematic theology = What should I believe? What is God's will for me? What is truth?
Exegesis Bibl Theol Syst Theol
Time of 1st Cent 1st Cent 20th CentReference
Language Biblical Biblical Philosophical
Result Unchanging Unchanging Changing
Unit of Study Passage Theme Theme
Field of Comprehensive Selective SelectiveStudy
Level of Descriptive Both NormativeSignificance
Agency being Human Both DivineExamined
15
IMPLICATIONS OF THE THREE APPROACHES
The basic outline of Biblical exegesis, Biblical theology and systematic theology has a
number of implications for Biblical and theological work today. Some of these implications are
discussed briefly in the following.
Triple Validity
It should be self-evident by now that all three approaches to the Bible are valid and
necessary. Biblical exegesis helps us bypass the natural defense mechanisms that often prevent us
from a genuine engagement with the text. It also provides a firm foundation of accurate
knowledge about the how God has revealed Himself in other times and places. Biblical theology
bridges the gap between what the text meant and what it means. It helps us move from the
specific applications of divine truth in the original settings to the larger principles upon which
whose applications were based. These principles then become safeguards and yardsticks for the
necessary theological work of discerning the will of God for us today (systematic theology).
Without systematic theology, the Biblical disciplines become lifeless and sterile. Without the
Biblical disciplines, systematic theology quickly becomes a loose cannon, without meaningful
controls.
I believe it should now also be self-evident that Biblical study is interdisciplinary by
definition. The three approaches need to be distinguished, as we have tried to do here, but they
must never be separated. Unless all three approaches are allowed to interact, the full theological
task will be incomplete and inaccurate.
16
The Ultimate Source of Authority
If we accept the claims of Christian faith, ultimate authority resides in God and God alone.
As the creator of the universe and all the creatures in it, only God has the complete and natural
right to tell us what to do. All other authorities are valid only to the extent that they speak
accurately for God. Living prophets have authority because they have a direct line to God.
Inspiration enables them to speak for God with an authority that you and I do not have.
Likewise, the Bible has authority because it contains the written products of many inspired
people. The Spirit of Prophecy has authority because SDAs believe that Ellen White had the
same kind of direct line to God that the ancient prophets had. All authority under God is a
derived authority.
What of you and me, who have no direct line to God, and who have no access to a living
prophet? You and I have authority only to the extent that we rightly divide the Word of God.
We must never claim to have Biblical authority if we have not been willing to do a thorough work
of exegesis, Biblical theology, and systematic theology. A sociological sermon without Biblical
authority may have a persuasive role in the experience of a church. The Holy Spirit may guide
you to a personal insight through the use of allegory or intuitive analogy. But such insights can
never have the authority over others that the clear teachings of Scripture should have.
Divine and Human Intentions
In the work of inspiration God’s intentions are not limited to the intentions of the human
author. But although the words, the culture, and the setting of the Biblical text may be chosen by
a human writer, God superintends the process and the result in such a way that the text accurately
17
reflects His intentions for that time and place. There is an incarnational process at work in the
Bible. The divine and the human blend in ways that can often be distinguished but must never be
separated.
The Role of Previous Revelation
At the exegetical level, a Biblical writer may be informed by and interact with previous
revelation, but not later revelation. Later revelation is excluded from the task of exegesis for the
simple reason that the human author was unfamiliar with it. By way of example, Ellen White did
not write with the SDA Bible Commentary in mind, so if one wanted to exegete a writing of Ellen
White, it would be inappropriate to do so as if she were interacting with the commentary. By the
same token Isaiah did not write with Matthew in mind, and Matthew’s use of Isaiah is not
necessarily exegetical. A genuine investigation of Isaiah’s intention will explore his use of earlier
revelation, but will not be informed by later revelation unless that revelation is clearly exegetical in
intent.
The Role of Later Revelation
While later revelation is not appropriate to the task of exegesis, it is extremely appropriate
to the task of theology, both Biblical and systematic. Later revelation may expose extended
meanings that God placed in the human author’s choice of language. Though the original writer
wrote with a specific time and place in mind, God is free to use that material for a more universal
purpose, and later revelation is an excellent basis by which that divine intention can be discerned.
18
The Limits of Extended Meanings
While extended meanings are a genuine aspect of the way inspiration works, such
extended meanings will never contradict the plain meaning of the original text. The divine
extension of meaning will be a natural extension of the human author’s intention. If an interpreter
discerns an extended meaning which contradicts the original author’s intention, such an extension
is divorced from the authority of the Biblical text, its authority is limited to the speculative opinion
of a human interpreter.
The Role of Systematic Theology
The purpose of systematic theology, then, it to examine the whole field of truth, inspired
or uninspired, ancient or modern, secular or sacred, for the purpose of discerning, as far as
possible, divine answers to the questions of our time and place. In the ideal situation, this
theological work will be done in interdisciplinary dialogue with the findings of Biblical exegesis
and theology, so that it can be grounded, wherever possible, in the solid foundation of God’s
expressed will. The work of systematic theology will also go back to the Biblical texts and
examine them in the light of later revelation, which may expose valid extended meanings that
might not be self-evident from the process of the Biblical disciplines alone.
The SDA Pioneers and Exegesis
When we examine the work of our SDA pioneers we quickly discover that, with the
possible exception of J. N. Andrews, exegesis as we have described it here was rarely, if ever,
performed by them. We nevertheless have confidence in the results of their labors, because these
labors were validated by the presence of a living voice from God in the person of Ellen G. White.
19
While she herself never originated any Adventist doctrine, her input pruned away many a strange
vine in the process of Adventist theological development. She provided a non-exegetical
safeguard against theological error.
Since Ellen White’s death in 1915, however, there has been an increasing proliferation of
discordant viewpoints among us. In the absence of a living voice among us, exegesis becomes the
primary safeguard against the misuse of Scripture.
The Proof-Text Method
The proof-text method, much used and much-appreciated by SDAs, is, at its best, a type
of Biblical theology. It involves the thematic examination of all that the Bible has to say on a
subject. At its best, the proof-text method builds on the exegetical foundation of each text,
leading to a sound conclusion. At its worst, however, proof-texting can be used, consciously or
unconsciously, to bypass the Biblical author’s intention in order to pursue the interpreter’s
agenda.
The 27 Fundamentals
If we accept the definitions offered in this paper, the fundamental beliefs of SDAs, as
voted in 1980, are much more akin to systematic theology than Biblical theology. For one thing,
they are changeable at any subsequent General Conference. They also contain material that is
based on such sources as science (the stricture on smoking, for example) and the insights of
EllenWhite as well as Scripture. This should not be a problem, a church is wise to utilize all the
tools of systematic theology in its formulation of truth. On the other hand, trying to maintain the
illusion that every Adventist doctrine is based fully and only on the Bible may lead to confusion in
20
our future study of the Bible as well as misrepresentation of the path to truth.
Ellen White and Exegesis
As Adventists we will want to keep in mind, when we study the Bible, that Ellen White
rarely did the kind of exegesis described here. She did not need to. Her theology was
safeguarded by the direct line to God that she was given. Prophets are not judged by the quality
of their exegesis, but by the quality of their connection to God. Like most prophets, Ellen White
was far more concerned about the contemporary impact of her message than she was about the
original intention of the Biblical authors. The White Estate estimates that less than 1% of her
writings are exegetical in nature. Our defense mechanisms being what they are, it might be well to
always follow her own suggestion of consulting her writings on a topic only after careful Biblical
work has been done.
The same interdisciplinary approach that is being suggested here in relation to the Bible
can also be fruitfully applied to the writings of Ellen White. Many misunderstandings of her
intention would be cleared up if we began our study of her intention along the lines of sound
exegetical principles. Moving from exegesis to a broad appreciation of her views in relation to the
issues of the 19 century would set the foundation for a sensitive extension of those views inth
relation to the issues we face today.
CONCLUSION
I would like to conclude this exploratory paper with a playful definition of exegesis I once
presented to an ex-Pentecostal minister, who wondered what “exegesis” was all about:
21
“Exegesis is the process of learning how to read the Bible in such a way as to leave open the possibility that you might learn something.”
The goal of exegesis is not to foist some 20 Century method upon the Bible, it is rather to enterth
into a process of listening and learning from the Word of God, so that we can more and more be
conformed into His image, and less and less be blown about by every wind of doctrine. I believe
that an interdisciplinary approach grounded in the solid rock of God’s Word is the only safe
course as we approach the last days of earth’s history.
top related