1

1

AUTHORITYOFSCRIPTUREANDHERMENEUTICMETHODASHISTORICALANDCONTINUALBASESFORCHRISTIANUNITY

ANDTHECOLLABORATIVEAVENUESTHEYIMPLYChristopherCone,Th.D,Ph.D,Ph.D1

President,ResearchProfessorofBibleandTheology,CalvaryUniversityPresentedtoTheFlorovskyWeekSymposium,NewmanUniversity,July11,2018

www.drcone.comwww.calvary.edu

ABSTRACT

WhiletherearepersistingdifferencesbetweenCatholicandProtestantviewsof(1)whatconstitutesScripture,(2)thelevelofexclusivityinauthorityofScripture,and(3)whatconstitutesappropriatehermeneuticmethodology,therearecommonlyheldprinciplesthatprovidebasesforChristianunityandfertilegroundforcollaborativeresearchandpracticalministry.Thispaperbriefly(1)examinesboththedifferencesandcommonalityinthesethreeareas,(2)investigatestheinherentpotentialwithinthecommonalitiesforappliedunityinpractice,and(3)considersa

1ChristopherCone,Th.D,Ph.D,Ph.D,servesasPresidentofCalvaryUniversityandasResearchProfessorofBibleandTheology.HehasformerlyservedinexecutiveandfacultyrolesatSouthernCaliforniaSeminaryasChiefAcademicOfficerandResearchProfessorofBibleandTheology,andatTyndaleTheologicalSeminaryasPresidentandProfessorofBibleandTheology.HehasservedinseveralpastoralrolesandhasalsoheldteachingpositionsattheUniversityofNorthTexas,NorthCentralTexasCollege,andSouthernBibleInstitute.Heistheauthorandgeneraleditorofmorethanadozenbooks,including:–PriorityinBiblicalHermeneuticsandTheologicalMethod–ForgedFromReformation:HowDispensationalThoughtAdvancestheReformedLegacy(co-editedw/Dr.JamesFazio)–LifeBeyondtheSun:WorldviewandPhilosophyThroughtheLensofEcclesiastes,2ndEdition–AppliedBiblicalWorldview:EssaysonChristianEthics–Gifted:UnderstandingtheHolySpiritandUnwrappingSpiritualGifts–IntegratingExegesisandExposition:BiblicalCommunicationforTransformativeLearning–ProlegomenaonBiblicalHermeneuticsandMethod–AnIntroductiontotheNewCovenant–RedactedDominionism:ABiblicalApproachtoGroundingEnvironmentalResponsibility–AConciseBibleSurvey:TracingthePromisesofGod–DispensationalismTomorrowandBeyond:ATheologicalCollectioninHonorofCharlesC.Ryrie–PracticalAspectsofPastoralTheology–BiblicalSufficiencyAppliedHisarticlesarepublishedatwww.drcone.com.ChristopherlivesintheKansasCityareawithhiswifeCathy,andtheirtwodaughters,Christiana,andCaraGrace.

2

2

text-basedstrategy for increasing thecommonalitiesofunderstanding,and thuspromotingahigherdegreeoflike-mindednessandcollaborativeimpact.

DIFFERENCESANDCOMMONALITIESOnWhatConstitutesScripture?2

“GodinthepastusedvariousmethodstocommunicateHiswordtoman,as…Hespokelongagotothefathersinmanyportionsandinmanyways.”3Althoughthemethodsvaried,theGiverofrevelationisalwaysthesame.Theclaimofinspirationismade4regardingthe(1)originofScripture,asproceedingfromthemouthofGod,andregardingthe(2)purposeofScripture,asfortraininguntobeingfullyequippedforlifeandministry.5TheScripturesaretherevelationofGod,givenviainspirationofGod.TherevelationiswhatGodsaid;inspirationistheinstrumentofrevelation.

Old Testament revelation was delivered to prophets, although not exclusively so, asKuyperobserves,

Thedivinespeakingisnotlimitedtoprophecy.Godspokealsotoothersthanprophets,e.g., toEve,Cain,Hagar,etc.To receivea revelationoravisiondoesnotmakeoneaprophet,unless itbeaccompaniedbythecommandtocommunicatetherevelationtoothers.Theword“nabi,”theScripturaltermforprophet,doesnotindicateapersonwhoreceivessomethingofGod,butonewhobringssomethingtothepeople.Henceit isamistaketoconfinethedivinerevelationtothepropheticoffice.6

All that is revealed in Scripture is divine revelation, and is inspired, or God-breathed(theopneustos)bytheHolySpirit.TherearetwodistinctcategoriesofrevelationidentifiedintheOldTestament:speakinganddreams/visions/trances.

Withrespecttospeakingasarevelatorytool,acomparisonofIs.6:1-10andActs28:25showsthattheHolySpiritisequatedwithGodandistheOnespeaking.Itisvitaltounderstandthattheliteralinterpretationofthismethodwouldrequireaudiblecommunicationinlinguisticterminologyunderstandablebytherecipient–inotherwords,theuseofhumanlanguageandwords.7

Dreams,visions,andtranceswerevalid,althoughsecondary,methodsforthereceiving

2PortionsofthissectionarefromChristopherCone,ProlegomenaonBiblicalHermeneuticsandMethod,2ndEdition(FortWorth,TX:TyndaleSeminaryPress,2015),77-94.3Heb1:1b.42Tim3:16.5Thereareover150referencesinScriptureto“theLordspoke”or“Godspoke”andoverfourhundredreferencesto“ThussaystheLord.AlsoseeCol3:16,Heb1:1-2,etc.6AbrahamKuyper,TheWorkoftheHolySpirit(GrandRapids:Eerdmans,1975),70.7NoteEx19:9and1Sam3:1-14.

3

3

ofrevelation.8Godspecificallyidentifieddreamsasavalidmethodofrevelation.9Incontrasttodreams,visionscomprisedrevelationgivennormallywhiletherecipientwasawake.10TrancesusuallyweresimplyaconditioncreatedbyGodtofacilitatethedeliveringofrevelationviadreamorvision.

IntheNewTestamenttherearesomespecificpurposesandlimitationsidentifiedinGod’srevelatoryprogram:(1)thepersonofChrististheapexofGod’srevelation,11andalloftheHolySpirit’sworkinginrevelationpointstoHim.12(2)RevelationthroughScripture–atthecompletionoftheNewTestamenttext,13therevealingworkoftheHolySpiritinthisera–intermsofnewrevelation–iscomplete.

Whilerevelationisthecontentofthemessage,inspirationisthemeansoftherecordingofthemessage.InregardtoScripture,inspirationreferstothequalityofbeingGod-breathed–from the verymouth of God. Theremust be, at this point, a reminder that indeed it is theScripturesthemselvesthatareinspired,14whilethemenwhowrotethewordsweremovedbytheHolySpirit,andthusspokethewordsofGod.15ChristaffirmedtheHolySpirit’sroleinbothrevelationandinspiration,16asdidtheapostles.17Apostles,therefore,makeauthoritativeclaimsfortheirwritings.18

WithouttheHolySpirit’sworkofinspiration,wecouldnotknowtherevelationofGod,andanyexaminationoftheidentity,character,andworksofGodwouldbepurelyspeculative.Asitis,wehaveanauthoritativerevelationfromGod,viatheHolySpirit’sworkofinspirationofScripture.VerbalPlenaryInspirationseemsthemostaccuratedescriptionofthisinstrument.

InspirationisverbalinthesensethattheHolySpiritstronglyinfluencedtheselectionoftheverywordsusedby thehumanwriters,utilizing theirpersonalitiesandvocabulary,whileavoidingtheintrusionoferror.19Inspirationisplenary(fromtheLatinplenus,meaningfull)inthesensethatinspirationextendstoeveryaspect(notjustinregardtothe‘doctrinal’elements)andeventheverywordsofScripture.

Canonicity deals with the church’s recognition of Divine authority of the books ofScripture.Inthissense,canonicitydoesnotitselfprovidetheauthorityofScripture(Goddoesthat),butrathergivestestimonytoit:

theoriginalmeaningorthetermcanoncanbetracedtotheancientGreeks,whousedit

8Gen20:3-7,31:10-13,24,37:5-20,40:5-16,41:11-13,15-32,42:9,etc.9Num12:6.101Kin22:19;Is.1:1,6:1;Ezek1:3,etc.11Heb1:1-2.12Jn5:39,15:26.131Cor13:10;Eph2:20-21;4:12-13;Heb2:2-3;Rev22:18-19.142Tim3:16.15Is59:21;Jer1:9;2Pet1:20-21.16Mt22:42-43;Mk12:36.17Acts1:16,4:25,28:25;Heb3:7,9:6-8,10:15.18E.g.,notePaul’sclaimsin1Cor2:13;14:37;Gal1:7-8;1Thes4:2,15;2Thes3:6,12,14.19LewisSperryChafer,SystematicTheology(GrandRapids,MI:Kregel,1993),1:71.

4

4

inaliteralsense:akanonwasarod,ruler,staff,ormeasuringrod.TheGreekwordkanonisprobablyaderivativeof theHebrewkaneh (reed),anOldTestament termmeaningmeasuringrod(Ezek.40:3;42:16)…Galatians6:16comesclosesttothefinaltheologicalsignificanceoftheword,asPaulsays,“Thosewhowillwalkbythisrule[kanon],peaceandmercybeuponthem.”20

Duringtheearlygenerationsofthechurchtheideaofthecanonreferredprimarilytotheruleoftruthortheruleoffaith21asdescendingfromChristandtheapostles.Soonthereafterandalsomore recently the term has come to refer to the list of books considered authoritative asScripture. Theideaofaclosedcanonisemphasizedinseveralcontexts:Deuteronomy4:2and12:2highlightthecompletenessoftheLaw;Amos8:11revealsastoppageinnewrevelationforanextended period of time; 1 Corinthians 13:9-12 outlines that there would be a final end torevelatorygifts;andRevelation22:18-19underscoresthecompletenessofGod’srevelationtoman.F.F.Bruceemphasizestherealityofaclosedcanon:

Thewords “towhich nothing can be added…and fromwhich nothing can be takenaway”…seemcertainly to imply theprincipleofa closedcanon…Such languageaboutneitheraddingnortakingawayisusedinrelationtoindividualcomponentsofthetwoTestaments.22

Whiletherearemanyevidencesforthevalidityofthecanon,perhapsthemostsignificantandmostresoundingisChrist’sstampofauthorityonbothTestaments:TheHebrewBible(OldTestament)

The24-bookHebrewOldTestamenthascometobeknownastheTaNaKh(anacronymfortheTorah,theNevi’im,andtheKetuvim).TheTorah(Law)iscomprisedofGenesis,Exodus,Leviticus,Numbers,andDeuteronomy(Deut31:24-26indicatesacompletedlaw[fivebooksofMoses],andisalludedtoinJosh8:31;Neh8:1-9:38,etc.).TheNevi’im(Prophets)consistsoftwogroups:(1)TheFormer:Joshua,Judges,Samuel,Kings;(2)TheLatter:Isaiah,Jeremiah,Ezekiel,and the Twelve (Minor Prophets) which include Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah,Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. (Prophets recognized theauthorityofotherprophets:Zechariahreferencesformerprophets[1:4;7:7]asthoseprecedingtheexile;alsonoteJer7:25;Ezek38:17.Dan9:2indicatesthatbytheearlysixthcenturyBCtherewasacollectionofpropheticbooks.23)TheKetuvim(Writings)includesthreegroups:(1)Psalms,Proverbs,andJob;(2)TheMegillot(scrolls):SongofSolomon,Ruth,Lamentations,Ecclesiastes,

20GeislerandNix,AGeneralIntroductiontotheBible(Chicago:Moody,1986),203-204.21F.F.Bruce,TheCanonofScripture(DownersGrove:IL:IntervarsityPress,1988),18.22Ibid.,22.23Ibid.,39.

5

5

andEsther;(3)Daniel,Ezra-Nehemiah,andChronicles.Jesus’testimonyinLuke11:50-51indicatesthatthisbasicstructureoftheHebrewBible

asGenesis-Chronicleswasrecognized inJesus’day.AlthoughChronicles isnotchronologicallythe last book of the Old Testament (the events of Ezra-Nehemiah followed those of theChronicles),itapparentlywasthelasttobeaddedtothecanon.NoteJesus’observation:“Theblood of all the prophets since the foundation of the world may be charged against thisgenerationfromthebloodofAbeltothebloodofZechariahwhowaskilledbetweenthealtarand thehouseofGod.”24Abelwas the first identified inScripture tohavebeenkilled forhisfaithfulness;25Zechariah,whilenotthelastchronologically,isthelastlistedinChronicles,26whichtraditionally has been the final bookof theHebrewBible. Jesus, therefore, by his statementemphasizes thepresent (at the timeofHis statement) generation’s accountability for all themartyrsoftheOldTestament.Wenham’sobservationsofChrist’svalidationoftheOldTestamentareespeciallyhelpful:

JesusconsistentlytreatsOldTestamenthistoricalnarrativeasstraightforwardrecordsoffact.He refers toAbel (Luke 11:51),Noah (Matt. 24:37-39; Luke 17:26,27), Abraham(John 8:56), the institution of circumcision (John 7:22; cf. Gen. 17:10-12; Lev. 12:3),SodomandGomorrah(Matt.10:15;11:23,24;Luke10:12),Lot,(Luke17:28-32),IsaacandJacob(Matt.8:11;Luke13:28),manna(John6:31,49,58),thesnakeinthedesert(John 3:14), David eating the consecrated bread (Matt. 12:3, 4;Mark 2:25, 26; Luke6:3,4),Davidasapsalmwriter(Matt.22:43;Mark12:36;Luke20:42),Solomon(Matt.6:29;12:42;Luke11:31;12:27),Elijah(Luke4:25,26),Elisha(Luke4:27),Jonah(Matt.12:39-41;Luke11:29,30,32),andZechariah(Luke11:51).ThelastpassagebringsoutJesus’senseoftheunityofhistoryandHisgraspofitswidesweep.Hiseyesurveysthewhole course of history from ‘the creation of the world’ to ‘this generation.’ HerepeatedlyreferstoMosesasthegiveroftheLaw(Matt.8:4;19:8;Mark1:44;7:10;10:5;12:26;Luke5:14;20:37;John5:46;7:19).Hefrequentlymentionsthesufferingsofthetrueprophets(Matt.5:12;13:57;21:34-36;23:29-37;Mark6:4[cf.Luke4:24;John4:44];12:2-5;Luke6:23;11:47-51;13:34;20:10-12)andcommentsonthepopularityof thefalseprophets(Luke6:26).HesetsthestampofHisapprovalonsuchsignificantpassagesasGenesis1and2(Matt.19:4,5;Mark10:6-8).ThesequotationsaretakenbyourLordmoreorlessatrandomfromdifferentpartsoftheOldTestament,andsomeperiodsofits history are coveredmore fully than others. Yet it is evident that Hewas familiarwith…theOldTestamentandthatHetreatedallpartsofitequallyashistory.27

24Lk11:50b-51a.25Gen.4:8.262Chr24:20-22.27JohnWenham,“Christ’sViewofScripture,”inInerrancy,NormanGiesler,editor,(GrandRapids,MI:Zondervan,1980),6-7.

6

6

ThevalidityoftheOldTestamentrevolvesaroundtheauthorityandtestimonyofJesusChrist.28TheNewTestament

Further,Christ,inpromisingthecomingoftheHolySpirit,identifiedHisroleinrevelationandinspirationofNewTestamentwritings,29andcommissionedtheapostlestobearwitnessofthetruthHewouldreveal.30Apostles,therefore,makeauthoritativeclaimsfortheirwritings.31Those specifically referenced as apostles account for the greatest volumeofNewTestamentwritings.

Writer N.TBook(s) IdentifiedasApostleMatthew GospelofMatthew Mt.9:9John GospelofJohn,1,2,and3John,Revelation Mk.1:19Paul Romans,1and2Corinthians,

Galatians,Ephesians,Philippians,Colossians,1and2Thessalonians,1and2Timothy,Titus,Philemon

Acts9:4-6

James EpistleofJames Gal.1:19Peter 1and2Peter Mt.4:18

However,notalloftheNewTestamentbookswerewrittenbyapostles.Thosewriters

whodidnothaveapostleshipmostcertainlymusthavehadthegiftofrevelatoryprophecy(asidentified in1Cor13:8-13), andeachhad significantministries indirect associationwith theapostles.

Writer N.T.Book(s) Identifiedw/Apostle(s)JohnMark GospelofMark 2Tim.4:11;PaulLuke GospelofLuke,BookofActs,(Hebrews?) 2Tim.4:11;PaulApollos?Barnabus?Luke?

Hebrews 1Cor.16:12;PaulActs4:36;theapostlesActs11:24-26;Paul(Saul)

Jude Jude Jude1;James

28Alsosee:2Sam23:2;Ezek2:2;8:3;11:1,24;Mic3:8;Mt22:43;Acts1:16;4:25;28:25;Heb3:7,9:6-8,10:15;Lk24:44,etc.29Jn16:12-15.30Mt10:14,15;28:19;Lk10:16;Jn13:20;15:27;16:13;17:20;Acts1:8;9:15-17;compareEx4:15and1Cor14:37;Rev22:19.31Again,notePaul’sclaimsin1Cor.2:13;14:37;Gal.1:7-8;1Thes.4:2,15;2Thes.3:6,12,14.

7

7

BecausethebooksoftheBiblehavethestampofdivineauthority,andbecausetheywererecognizedasauthoritativeveryearly,theNewTestamentwasfinallyrecognizedinitscurrentformbytheThirdCouncilofCarthage(397AD).GregBahnsenillustratestheimportanceofthisdivinestamp:

TheChristianfaithisbaseduponGod'sownself-revelation,nottheconflictingopinionsoruntrustworthyspeculationsofmen.AstheApostlePaulwrote:"yourfaithshouldnotstandinthewisdomofmen,butinthepowerofGod"(ICor.2:5).TheworldinitsownwisdomwouldneverunderstandorseekGod(Rom.3:11)butalwayssuppressordistortthe truth inunrighteousness (Rom.1:18,21).SoPaulconcluded that"theworld in itswisdomdidnotknowGod"(ICor.1:21),andhesetinsharpcontrast"thewordswhichman'swisdomteaches"andthosewhich"GodrevealeduntousthroughtheSpirit"(ICor.2:10,13). In lightof thatcontrast,weneed tosee that theapostolicmessagedidnotoriginate inpersuasivewordsofhumanwisdomor insight(ICor.2:4).The lightoftheknowledgeofGod'sgloryinthefaceofJesusChristwas,astheysaid,"ofGodandnotfrom ourselves" (II Cor. 4:6-7). Paul thanked God that the Thessalonians received hismessage"notasthewordofmen,butasitisintruth,thewordofGod"(IThes.2:13).AsPeterwrote,"noprophecyevercamebythewillofman,butmenspakefromGod,beingmovedbytheHolySpirit"(IIPeter1:21).Paulsaidofthesacredwritingswhichmakeuswiseuntosalvationthateveryoneofthemis"God-breathed,"inspiredbyGod(IITim.3:15-17).ItisforthisreasonthattheScripturesareprofitableforourdoctrine,correction,andinstruction.32

Likewise,inCatholicthought“theentirebookswithalltheirparts,astheyhavebeenwonttoberead intheCatholicChurchandarecontained intheoldvulgateLatinedition,aretobeheldsacredandcanonical.”33PopePiusXIIexpressedthevalueofScriptureforthepopulace,arguingagainst “the idea that the Church is opposed to or in any way impedes the reading of theScripturesinthevernacular.34

“Catholic”exegetesdefinedboththedirectionandthemethodtobefollowedinthetaskof understanding the Scriptures,35 which entailed investigation and explanation through thestudyoforiginallanguagesandrelianceonoriginaltexts.36HoweverPiusXIIacknowledgedthatespeciallyduringthemiddleages, theologians lackedtherequisiteknowledgeofHebrewandGreek,andfoundthemselvesreliantontheLatinVulgate.37Insteadofavailingthemselvesof“the

32GregBahnsen,“TheConceptandImportanceofCanonicity”inAntithesisVol.1,No.5.33SessionIV,decr.1;Ench.Bibl.n.45.34PopePiusXII,“DivinoAfflanteSpirito,”Paragraph9,viewedathttp://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_30091943_divino-afflante-spiritu.html.35Ibid.36Ibid.,14.37Ibid.

8

8

aidswhichallbranchesofphilologysupply,”38scholarsduringthattimehadlimitedresourcesandlimitedknowledge.But,assertsPiusXII,likeJerome,weoughtto“explaintheoriginaltextwhich,havingbeenwrittenbytheinspiredauthorhimself,hasmoreauthorityandgreaterweightthananyeventheverybesttranslation,whetherancientormodern;thiscanbedoneall themoreeasilyandfruitfully,iftotheknowledgeoflanguagesbejoinedarealskillinliterarycriticismof the same text.”39 Thus attention to thebiblical languages and to textual criticismbecomecentraltounderstandingScripture.PiusXIIwasemphaticregardingthenecessityofanddemandforsuchscientificstudyofthetext:

thisprolongedlaborisnotonlynecessaryfortherightunderstandingofthedivinely-givenwritings, but also is urgently demanded by that piety bywhich it behooves us to begratefultotheGodofallprovidence,WhofromthethroneofHismajestyhassentthesebooksassomanypaternalletterstoHisownchildren.40

PiusXIIiscarefultomentionthattheVulgatestillhasgreatvalue(asemphasizedintheCouncilofTrent),41andwasperhapsevenpreferableinsomesense,sinceithadbeen“approvedbyitslongcontinueduseforsomanycenturiesintheChurch.”42BecausetheVulgatewas“freefromanyerrorwhatsoeverinmattersoffaithandmorals…itmaybequotedsafelyandwithoutfearoferror…soitsauthenticityisnotspecifiedprimarilyascritical,butratherasjuridical.”43Still,forthe making clear of doctrine, the authority of the Vulgate “almost demands either thecorroborationandconfirmationofthissamedoctrinebytheoriginaltextsorthehavingrecourseonanyandeveryoccasiontotheaidofthesesametexts.”44

BecauseJeromeincludedapocryphalbooksinhisVulgatetranslation,(possiblybasedontheirinclusionintheGreekCodexSinaiticus)thosebooksremainanesteemedcomponentoftheCatholic Bible. These texts are typically rejected by Protestants on grounds that they arehistoricallyseparatedfromtheHebrewOT,andbasedonsomeofthedoctrinalconclusionstheapocryphalbooksderive.45ThesedisputedtextsrepresentapointofdivisionbetweenCatholicandProtestant,astheCouncilofTrentin1546codifiedtheApocryphatobeinspired,cementingthataspectofdisagreement.

38Ibid.,16.39Ibid.40Ibid.,19.41Ibid,20.42Ibid.,21.43Ibid.44Ibid.,22.45E.g.,2Maccabeesconsidersprayerandsacrificialofferingsforthedead,themeritsofthemartyrs,andintercessionofsaints;Tobit12:9and14:11seemstosuggestthatalmsgivingpurgessin;1Maccabees2:52suggeststhatAbraham’spassingthetestwasreckonedtohimasrighteousness,nothisbelieveintheLord(asinGen15:6);2Maccabees12:41-45presentsthedoctrineofpurgatory;and2Maccabeesalsoconsiderssacrificialofferingsforthedead,themeritsofthemartyrs,andintercessionofsaints,etc.

9

9

ImplicationsWhileEnglishtranslationsoftheOTcontainaround600,000words,andtheNTcontains

around175.000words,theApocryphaincludesabout160,000.BecausetheApocryphaisnearlythesizeoftheNT,thetextualbasisforCatholicandProtestantdisagreementisnotinsignificant,norarethedoctrinaldistinctionsunimportant.ThemostsevereofthesedifferencesisevidentinthecontextofhowapersonisjustifiedbeforeGod.

VirtuallyeverysingleoneofLuther’s95Thesespertaintoissuesrelatingtohowoneisjustified, and the implications for remission of sins, purgatory, papal authority, the use ofindulgences, etc. Lutherwas largelyprotestingwhatheperceived tobe a taughtdoctrineofsalvationbyworks,andaddedtohistranslationofRomans3:28theword“alone,”inordertoensuretheunderstandingthatjustificationcomesbyfaithalone.

Ontheotherhand,Catholicsoteriologyagreesthat“BelievinginJesusChristandintheOnewhosenthimforoursalvationisnecessaryforobtainingthatsalvation,”46and”withoutfaithnoonehaseverattainedjustification.”47Still,that“Wecanlosethispricelessgift”48illustratesthatjustification,intheCatholicsoteriologicalsystem,isnotbyfaithalone.OnTheExclusivityofAuthorityinScripture49

Asbelieverstherearecertainprinciplestowhichwemustbethoroughlycommitted.Forexample, our experience cannot determine our theology. Instead, we must submit ourexperienceandourtheologytoGod’srevelation.Peterillustratesthisprincipleforuswhenheexplains that even though he had witnessed Christ in His glory at the transfiguration,50 thepropheticwordregardingChrist–orGod’srevelation–confirmedtheissue.51

What Peter says on this subject is important, because even if God did presently useexperientialorsensorymeans,itwouldbesecondarytoHisword.Peteralsodescribesinthoseverses howGod spoke to people – the Holy Spiritmovedmen to speak theword of God.52Certainly,Goddidspeaktopeopleindreamsandotherways.53AndPaulagreesthatallScriptureisGod-breathed.54Still,in1Corinthians13Pauldescribeshowtheconfirminggiftsoftongues,prophecy,andknowledge–giftswherebyGodspoketopeople–wouldfulfilltheirpurposeandcometoaconclusion.

Ina contextdescribing the superiorityof love,55Paulexplains that thegiftof tongueswouldceaseonitsown.56TongueswasagiftwhichenabledpeopletospeakGod’swordinactual

46Catechism,161.47Ibid.48Ibid.,162.49PortionsofthissectionarefromChristopherCone,Gifted:UnderstandingtheHolySpiritandUnwrappingSpiritualGifts(Raymore,MO:ExegeticaPublishing,2016),121-125.50Mt16:28-17:2;2Pet1:16-18.512Pet1:19-21.522Pet1:21.53E.g.,Heb1:1.542Tim3:16-17.551Cor13:1-13.5613:8.

10

10

languagesthatthespeakerdidn’tunderstand.ThisisillustratedinActs2:9-11,apassagewhichincludesalistofatleastsixteendifferentlanguagesordialectsbywhichGodusedthedisciples(andthosewhowerewiththem)toproclaimGod’sgospel.

Thisgiftservedasasigntounbelievers,57toshowthatGodhadsentHisHolySpirit.58PaulrebukedtheCorinthianchurchfornotutilizingthegiftproperlyattimes,andchallengedthemregardingtheimportanceoflove.Afterthatcommentaryin1Corinthians,writteninabout51AD,theBiblenevermentionsthegiftoftonguesagain–notevenintheletterPaulwrotetothatsamechurchjustafewmonthslater.Veryearlyinchurchhistory,thegiftoftongueshadfulfilleditspurposeandceasedonitsown,justasPaulindicateditwould.

Partial prophecy and knowledge,59 on the other hand, would continue until thecompletewouldarrive,60atwhichtimethepartial–orincomplete–wouldbeended.ConsideringtheGreek terminology and syntax of 13:9-10, the issue is not that prophecy and knowledgewould be fulfilled by the coming of the complete,61 but rather that partial62 prophecy andknowledgewouldbeendedbyit.ThesimplestunderstandingofthesecommentsbyPaul,isthattherewouldcomeatimewhenGod’srevealingthroughprophecyandwordsofknowledgewouldcometoaconclusion–thatHewouldhavesaidallHehadtosay.ItisevidentthatmilestoneisachievedattheconclusionofthebookofRevelation,whenJesusleavesthereaderexpectingnofurthercommunicationfromGod,andwithonlytheremainingexceptionofthetwoprophetsofRevelation11,untilthereturnofChrist.63

Hebrews 1:1-2 tells us that while God used many methods in former times tocommunicate,intheselastdays,He“hasspokentousinHisSon.”JesuspreparedHisdisciplesforHisascension,tellingthemtheHolySpiritwouldcometoguidethemintoallthetruth.64UponHis departure, He reminded them to “make disciples…teaching them to observe all that Icommandedyou.”65TheHolySpiritfulfilledthatministryofguidingthedisciplesintoallthetruth,as Peter says, “menmovedby theHoly Spirit spoke fromGod.”66 Froma textually verifiablestandpoint,Jesus’communication,throughtheHolySpirittoHisdisciples,wasfinishedattheendofthebookofRevelation.

WhilebothCatholicandProtestantteachingaffirmtheauthorityoftheBible,therearetwosignificantdistinctionsbetweentheCatholicandProtestantunderstandingsofhowexclusivetheBible’sauthorityactuallyis.Firstisfoundintheextenttowhichtheanalogyoffaithapplies.InProtestantmethodology,theanalogyoffaithisunderstoodasScriptureinterpretingScripture,

571Cor14:22.58Acts2:36-38,10:45-46,19:5-6.591Cor13:9.6013:10.61Greek,totelion.62Greek,ekmerous.63Rev22:18-20.64Jn16:13-14.65Mt28:20.662Pet1:21.

11

11

whereas in Catholic methodology, there is a higher opinion of extra-biblical material – “theexplanationsanddeclarationsoftheteachingauthorityofthechurch.”67Onthis,theCatechismexplainsthat,“Thewholebodyofthefaithful…cannoterrinmattersofbelief,68andbecausetheChurchisourmother,sheisalsoourteacherinthefaith.69“TheChurch...doesnotderivehercertaintyaboutallrevealedtruthsfromtheholyScripturesalone.BothScriptureandTraditionmustbeacceptedandhonoredwithequalsentimentsofdevotionandreverence.”70

The second major difference is in the related ideas of ex cathadra and apostolicsuccession.InCatholicunderstanding,theChurchisbuiltonPeter,theunshakeablerockofthechurch.71ThusfromPeterthechurchgainsherauthority,andthePopesderivetheirexcathedraauthority.InProtestantunderstanding,Jesusistherockuponwhichthechurchisbuilt,beingtherockofoffense,andafulfillmentofIsaiah8:14,asacknowledgedbyPeterin1Peter2:8.Thisvarianceininterpretationsetsdistincttrajectoriesforbothgroups–Catholicsfindingrevelationtoextendbeyondthebiblicaltext,andProtestants,assertingthatrevelationgoesnofurtherthanthe completed texts that Jesus affirmed and commissioned. Consequently, the divergentepistemological moorings contribute to the disparate (and at times violently so) theologicalconclusions.OnHermeneuticMethodology72

InordertoarriveatareliableandpredictableapproachforinterpretingScriptures,theinterpretivemethodoughttobeexegeticallyderivedfromwithintheScripturaltext.Otherwise,there can be no claim to hermeneutic certainty, because any externally derived interpretivemethodcanbepreferredandappliedsimplybyexertingpresuppositionsuponthetext.Inthecase of an externally derived hermeneutic, presuppositions leading to that hermeneuticconclusioncreateapre-understandingthatpredeterminesmeaningindependentoftheauthor’sintentions.Theoutcome,insuchacase,canbewildlydifferentthanwhattheauthorhadinmind. IftheBibleismerelyacollectionofancientstories,legends,andmyth,interspersedwithmildlyhistoricalaccounts,thenthestakesarenotparticularlyhigh.Thegreatestdamagewecaninflictbyafaultyhermeneuticmethodisofthesameweightasmisunderstandingthemotivationsand activities ofMark Twain’s adventurous character, Tom Sawyer, for example. In such aninstancewewouldsimplyfailtorecognizetheaestheticvirtuesofacreativework.However,iftheBibleconstitutesanactualrevelationfromGod,thenitbearstheveryauthorityoftheAuthor,Himself–anauthoritythatextendstoeveryaspectoflifeandconduct.Thesearehighstakes,indeed.IfwefailtoengagethetextwiththeinterpretiveapproachintendedbyitsAuthor,then

67Ibid.,24.68Catechism,92.69Ibid.,169.70Ibid.,82.71Ibid.,552.72PortionsofthissectionarefromChristopherCone,PriorityinHermeneutics(Raymore,MO:ExegeticaPublishing,2017),17-37.

12

12

wefailnotjusttoappreciateaestheticqualities,butwefailtograspwhoGodis,andwhatHeintendsforustodo.

Itisincumbent,then,uponreadersofthetexttocarefullyderivehermeneuticmethodfromtheScripturesthemselves.Yet,thisresponsibilityiscomplicatedbyanobviousabsenceofprescriptive material within the Biblical text that if present could direct readers toward aparticular interpretive stance. In theabsenceof suchprescriptivematerial,weexamineheresomedescriptiveelementsfromthebookofGenesis,inordertodiscoverwhetherornotthereisactuallyaprevailinghermeneuticembeddedinthetextitself.

FromtheopeningofGenesistoitsconclusion,thebookrecordsroughlytwothousandyearsofhistory.Further,Genesisalleges that thesetwothousandyearsare the firstyearsofhumanhistory.73Withinthatframeworkofchronology,theeventsinthebookofGenesisaccountforthefirst33%ofourrecordedsixthousandyearhistoryandthefirst50%ofthefourthousandyearsofBiblicalhistory.IfGenesiswereunivocalregardinghermeneuticmethod,thatsinglevoicewouldgoalongwayinhelpingusunderstandhowtheAuthorintendedforustointerprettheScriptures. Genesis would be a guiding light, providing the time-tested descriptive modelfoundationaltoourScripturalhermeneutics.

InordertoassessthehermeneuticmethodappliedwithinGenesis,duringthetimeswhichthe book describes, we simply examine in Genesis the occurrences of God speaking and theresponsesofthosewhoheard.ThequestionsaddressedhereincludewhetherornotGod’sinitialaudiences took Him only literally or whether they instead or additionally perceived that Heintended a deepermeaning thanwhat would be normally signified by the words that wereverballyexpressed.Theresponsesarecategorizedasfollows:Category1(C1)responsesarethoseproviding evidence that the initial speech act was intended for literal understanding only;category2(C2)responsesarethoseprovidingevidencethattheinitialspeechactwasintendedforanyunderstandingbeyondtheliteralmeaningofthewordsverballyexpressed.

TheSpeechActsofGodandResponsesinGenesis

TherearefourkeyphrasesthatintroducethespeechactsofGodinGenesis:“Godsaid”74(thirty-sixverses),“theLordsaid”75(nineteenverses),“theLordGodsaid”76(fiveverses),and“Hesaid(twenty-fourverses).77WithonlytheexceptionoftenversesinthebookofJob,theseeighty-fourversesconstituteallScripturallyrecordedinstancesofGodverballycommunicatingduringthe first two thousand years of human history. The passages in Job are considered at the

73C.f.,Gen1:27and5:1.74Generally,Heb.wayyomerelorwayyomerelohim.75Generally,Hebwayyomeryahweh.76Generally,Hebwayyomeryahwehelohim.77The“Hesaid”passageslistedhereemploythepronountoinstancesinwhich“God,”“theLord,”“theLordGod,”orinsomecases,“theangeloftheLord”werementionedinnear-contextversesastheantecedenttothepronoun.

13

13

conclusionof thispaperasacomplement toandconfirmationof thehermeneuticevident inGenesis.78GodSaid(thirty-sixverses/atleasttwenty-sevenC1’s)

– Genesis1:3–Godcommandslightintoexistence.LightrespondswithaC1.– Genesis1:6–Godcommandsanexpanseintoexistence.GodrespondswithaC1in1:7,

makingtheexpanse.– Genesis1:9–Godcommandsdrylandtoappear.ThedrylandrespondswithaC1.– Genesis 1:11 – God commands into existence vegetation to function a specific way.

VegetationrespondswithaC1,bothbybeginningtoexistandbybeginningtootherwisefunctionascommanded.

– Genesis1:14–Godcommands intoexistenceheavenly lights todistinguish timesandseasons.HeavenlylightsrespondwithaC1,bothbybeginningtoexistandbyservingthepurposeprescribed.

– Genesis1:20–Godcommands intoexistencecreatures inwaterandabovetheearth.CreaturesrespondwithaC1,bothbybeginningtoexistandbyfunctioningasprescribed.

– Genesis1:24–Godcommandsintoexistencecreaturesontheearth.CreaturesrespondwithaC1,bothbybeginningtoexistandbyfunctioningasprescribed.

– Genesis1:26–GodstatesHisintentiontocreatemankind.Godrespondsin1:27withaC1,executingexactlywhatHehaddescribedin1:26.

– Genesis1:28–Godcommandsmankindtomultiplyandexercisedominion.Thereisnodirectresponserecordedintheimmediatecontext.

– Genesis1:29–Godaddsexplanationtothecommandof1:28.Thereisnodirectresponseintheimmediatecontext.

– Genesis3:1–SatandistortswhatGodsaidinordertocauseEvetoquestionGod’sword.EverespondswithaC1in3:2-3,asshecorrectsSatan’smisquote

– Genesis3:3–EverespondstoSatan’squestionwithaliteral,thoughnotentirelycorrectrestatementofGod’scommand.SatanrespondswithaC1in3:4,ashedirectlycontradictscontent of God’s command. This contradiction of God’s word is the only suchcontradictionrecordedinallofGenesis.79

– Genesis3:9–GodcallstoAdam,askingwhereheis.AdamrespondswithaC1,answeringthequestionin3:10.

– Genesis6:13–GodtoldNoahofHisplanstodestroylifeonearth,andcommandedhimtomakeaboat(6:14-16).NoahrespondedwithaC1,buildingaboat(6:22).

78TheeventsofJobaregenerallyrecognizedtohavetakenplaceduringthepatriarchaltimesrecordedinGenesis,inpart,duetothegenealogicalinformationconnectingEliphazandJobab(e.g.,Gen36:4,33;Job2:11),ofthelandofUz.79WhileAbramandSarairespondedtoGod’swordwithdifferingdegreesofdoubtinGenesis16-18,therewasnooutrightcontradictionastherewasbySatanin3:4.

14

14

– Genesis9:1–GodcommandsNoahandfamilytomultiply,fillingtheearth.80Thereisnodirectresponseintheimmediatecontext.

– Genesis9:12–Goddiscussedtherainbowasthesignofthecovenant(9:13).Whilethereisnodirecthumanresponseintheimmediatecontext,onecouldinterprettheoccasionalpresenceofrainbowsasaC1responseonthepartofnature.

– Genesis 9:17 – God concludes His discussion of the sign of the covenant. No directresponse.

– Genesis 15:13 – The proper noun “God” is in the NASB,81 but not in the BHS.82 GodprophesiesafourhundredyearenslavementofAbram’sdescendants.Theprophecyisfulfilled literallyasaC1,as Israel isenslaved inEgyptforfourhundredyears,dwellingthereforfourhundredandthirty(Ex12:40-41).

– Genesis 17:1 – God introduces Himself to Abram as God Almighty.83 This addresscontinuesthrough17:1-16,andhasnodirectresponseuntil17:17.

– Genesis17:9–GodcontinuesHisaddresstothenewlynamedAbraham.– Genesis17:15–Godcontinuesthemonologue,renamingSaraiSarah.Abrahamresponds

in17:17withaC1evidencedbytwoactions:(1)laughingindisbelief,84and(2)callinghiswifebythenameGodhadgivenher.

– Genesis17:19–God reiterates thatSarahwouldbeara son, thathisnameshouldbecalledIsaac,andthatGodwouldkeepHiscovenantthroughIsaac.GodrespondswithaC1, asHeprovided a child through Sarah (Gen21:1-2). Abraham respondswith a C1,namingthechildIsaac(21:3).

– Genesis17:23–ThisisAbraham’sC1response(withIshmaelandeverymaleofAbraham’shousehold)toGod’searlierprescriptionofcircumcision(17:10).

– Genesis 20:3 –God speaks toAbimelech in a dream, addressing himdirectlywithoutmetaphoricallanguage,indictinghimfortakingthewifeofanother.AbimelechrespondswithaC1,askingGodafollow-upquestion.

– Genesis20:6–GodrespondstoAbimelech’squestionwithaC1,answeringAbimelech’squestion.

– Genesis 21:12 –God discusseswith Abraham the plight of Ishmael and the covenantblessingofIsaac,commandingAbrahamtodowhatSarahtellshim.AbrahamrespondswithaC1,byfulfillingSarah’srequesttosendIshmaelandHagaraway(21:10,14).

– Genesis21:17–(Theangelof)GodspeakstocomfortHagar,tellinghertolifttheboyupandtakehimbythehand.Hagar’sresponseistogiveIshmaelwaterthatGodprovides,butthetextdoesnotindicatehowsherespondedspecificallytothecommandof21:18.

80Notably,thedominionmandateisabsentfromthepost-diluvianimperative.81NewAmericanStandardBible:1995Update(LaHabra,CA:LockmanFoundation,1995).82KarlElligerandWilhelmRudolph,BibliaHebraicaStuttgartensia(Stuttgart:GermanBibleSociety,1997).83Heb.,elshaddai.84Laughterwouldbeanunnaturalresponsetoapreposteroussoundingpredictioniftherewasanalternative(totheplainsenseofwhatwasverballyexpressed)hermeneuticmethodavailable.

15

15

– Genesis22:1–GodtellsAbrahamtoslayIsaac.AbrahamrespondswithaC1,tothepointofkillingIsaac.

– Genesis26:4–TheLordappearstoIsaac,GodspeakstoIsaac,introducingHimselfasGod.IsaacrespondswithaC1byworshippingandcallinguponthenameoftheLordwhospoketohim(c.f.,26:24and25).

– Genesis31:11– Jacobrecounts inaC1,how(theangelof)Godappears to Jacob inadream,andhowthedreamcorrespondstowhathadactuallyhappenedearlier(31:7-9).

– Genesis31:24–GodtellsLabaninadreamnottospeaktoJacobfor“goodorbad.”LabanrespondswithaC1,citingGod’scommandasheaddressesJacobcarefullysoasnottodisobey(31:29).

– Genesis35:1–GodcommandsJacobtogotoBethelandmakeanaltar.JacobrespondswithaC1,firstrecountingthecommand(35:3)andthenfulfillingit(35:6-7).

– Genesis35:10–GodchangesJacob’snametoIsrael.ThewriterofGenesisrespondswithaC1,referringtoJacobasIsraelin35:21-22.Thenamesareusedinterchangeablyfromthatpointforward.

– Genesis35:11–GodreintroducesHimself toJacobasGodAlmighty.85 JacobrespondswithaC1,asheworshipstheGodwhospoketohim(35:14-15).

– Genesis46:2–GodcallsouttoJacobinnightvisions.JacobrespondswithaC1,answeringthecall.

– Genesis46:3–GodinstructsJacobinanightvisiontogotoEgypt.Jacob’sresponseisaC1,ashetravelstoEgypt(46:5-7).Whilenotevery“Godsaid”passageincludesadirectresponseintheimmediatecontext,

ofthetwenty-eightdirectresponsesthatareimmediatelyrecognizable,allbutpossiblyoneareobviousC1’s,withonlyHagar’sresponsein21:18notmatchingexactlythecommandgivenher.Hagar’sresponsetheredoesn’tprovideevidenceforeitheraC1orC2.Further,wenotefrom46:3thatevenwhenGodusesdreamstocommunicate,theintendedhermeneuticmethodisconsistentwithintendedinterpretivemethodologyforthingsverballyexpressed.TheLordSaid(nineteenverses/atleastseventeenC1’s)

– Genesis4:6–TheLordasksCainwhyheisangry.Cainrespondsin4:8bytellingAbel.BecausewearenottoldwhatCaintoldAbel,thisisnotevidenceforaC1orC2.

– Genesis4:9–TheLordasksCainwhereishisbrother.CainrespondswithaC1,answeringthequestion.

– Genesis4:15–TheLordputCainunderHisownprotection.TheLordHimselfrespondswithaC1,appointingasignforCain’sprotection.

– Genesis6:3–TheLordlimitshumanlifespan.ThesetlimitisgraduallyenactedinaC1,asbyMoses’lifetime(Deut34:7),lifespansgenerallybegintofitwithinthatlimit.

85Heb.,elshaddai,asin17:1.

16

16

– Genesis6:7–TheLordpronouncesthatHewilldestroyman,animals,creepingthings,andbirds.Hereiteratesin6:13,andmakesitapparentthatHewillmakesomeexceptions,byremovingsomefromthepathofjudgment,includingNoah’sfamily,andtwoofeverylivingspecies6:18-20.TheLordrespondswithaC1asHebringsaboutthejudgmentandprotectslifein7:1-23.

– Genesis7:1–TheLordtellsNoahandhisfamilytoentertheark.NoahrespondswithaC1ashedoesallthattheLordhadcommandedhim(7:5).

– Genesis8:21–TheLordtellsHimselfHewillneveragaindestroyeverylivingthingasHehaddone.Sofar,HehasrespondedwithaC1.

– Genesis 11:6 – The Lord acknowledges that a united language provides uniqueopportunitiesforhumansuccess.TheLordrespondswithaC1,recognizingtheneedforandexecutingtheconfusingofhumanlanguage(11:7-8).

– Genesis12:1–TheLordtoldAbramtogo.AbramrespondswithaC1:hewent(12:4).– Genesis13:14–TheLordtellsAbramHewillgivetoAbramallthelandAbramcansee.

TheLordrespondswithaC1,reiteratingandprovidingdetailforthispromisein15:18-21.– Genesis16:9–The(angelofthe)LordtoldHagartoreturntoSaraiandsubmit.Hagar

respondswithaC1,acknowledgingthatitwastheLordwhospokewithher(16:13),andreturningtoAbramandSarai(16:15).

– Genesis16:10–The(angelofthe)LordpromisedamultiplyingofIshmael’sdescendants.TheLordrespondswithaC1,asevidencedbytheearlygenealogyin25:12-18.

– Genesis16:11–The(angelofthe)LordidentifiesHagar’spregnancyandprescribesthenameIshmaelforthechild.AbramrespondswithaC1,namingthechildIshmael(16:15),whichimpliesaC1responsealsoonHagar’spart,asitisapparentsherelayedtheLord’swordstoAbram.

– Genesis18:13–TheLordquestionsSarahregardingherlaugh.SarahrespondswithaC1,denyingtheaccusationbecauseoffear(18:15).

– Genesis18:26–TheLordagreestospareSodomifHefindsfiftyrighteouswithinthecity.TheLordrespondswithaC1,asthereweren’tfifty(18:32).

– Genesis22:11–The(angelofthe)LordcallsouttoAbraham.AbrahamrespondswithaC1,answeringthecall.

– Genesis25:23–TheLordpredictstoRebekahthattherearetwonationsinherwomb,andthattheolderwillservetheyounger.HeretheLordemploysametaphor(thereweretwobabiesinherwomb,nottwopeoples),butonethatwouldbequiteobvious.ThereisnodirectresponsefromRebekahrecordedinthecontext.

– Genesis28:13–TheLordappearstoJacobinadream,identifyingHimselfas“theLord,theGodof…Abraham…andIsaac.”Jacobrespondsinworship(28:16-19),anapparentC1.

– Genesis31:3–TheLordtellsJacobtoreturntothelandofhisfathers.JacobrespondswithaC1,returningtoCanaan,thelandofhisfatherIsaac(31:18).

17

17

Again, not every “the Lord said”passage includes adirect response in the immediatecontext.Still,oftheseventeendirectresponsesthatareimmediatelyobvious,theyareallC1’s.InGenesis25:23thereisanotablemetaphoremployed(twonationsinRebekah’swomb),withnodirectresponsefromRebekah.Whileitwouldseemthatthemeaningofthemetaphorwouldbeentirelyobvioustoanylistener,itisworthnotingthatthepredictioncametopassinaliteralwayatleastduringDavid’srule(2Sam8:14).Thisinstanceillustratesthatwhenmetaphoricallanguageisusedinthetextitisusedinsuchawayastobereadilydiscernibleasmetaphor,andfigurativeusagedoesnotaltartheintendedhermeneuticmethodortheoutcome.TheLordGodSaid(fiveverses/atleastfourC1’s)

– Genesis2:16–TheLordGodprohibitsthemanfromeatingofthetreeoftheknowledgeofgoodandevil (2:17).Eve responds in3:2-3withaC1, thoughsheaddsacondition(touchingalsoprohibited).Adamrespondsin3:12withaC1,acknowledgingthatGodwasspeakingofaliteraltree,fromwhichAdamhadeaten.

– Genesis2:18–TheLordGodannouncedHewouldmakeahelperforAdam.TheLordGodrespondedwithaC1,creatingEve(2:22).

– Genesis 3:13 – The Lord God asks Eve what she had done. Eve responds with a C1,answeringthequestionaccordingtotheeventsthatoccurred.

– Genesis3:14–TheLordGodpronouncesjudgmentontheserpent:itiscursed,willtravelon itsbellyandeatdust;and in3:15, therewillbeenmitywithwomanandher seed(singular), it will crush seed on the heel and be crushed on the head. Each of thesejudgmentsappearstobeliterallyfulfilledasC1’s,thoughtheseedreferencesaresingularand may reference an individual (Messiah?) rather than simply men in general. Inprovidingtheonlydirectresponsetotheentirejudgmentpassage,EveseemstorespondwithaC1,assheseeminglyanticipatesliteralfulfillmentintheformofaspecificindividualwhensherejoicesthataseedseemstobeprovided(Gen4:1).

– Genesis3:22–TheLordGodobservesthepotentialdangerofmaneatingfromthetreeoflifeandlivingforeverinacursedstate.TheLordGodrespondswithaC1,asHedrivesmanoutofthegarden,andprohibitshisreturn(3:23-24).

“TheLordGodsaid”referencesareallfoundinthesecondandthirdchaptersofGenesis.

Though3:14-15presentssomespecialchallenges,thestatementsmadethereseemtobebestunderstoodasC1’s.AttheveryleastwecansaythereisnoevidenceinthatpassagesupportingaC2understandingbyanyoftheoriginallisteners.EachoftheotherfourreferencesprovidesobviousC1responses.

18

18

HeSaid(twenty-fourverses/atleasttwenty-threeC1’s)– Genesis3:11–HeasksAdam86ifhehadeatenfromthetree.AdamrespondswithaC1,

answeringintheaffirmative(3:12).– Genesis 3:16–Hepronounces judgmenton thewoman:multipliedpain in childbirth,

“uponyourmanshallbeyourlonging,”and”itshallbethatheshallruleinyou.”ThepainsoflaborwouldseemtosupportaC1understanding.Thewomanwoulddesireherman.Theexactmeaningof“heshallruleinyou”isnotclear.Toclarify,theNASBtranslatestheprepositionas“over”ratherthan“in”–implyingeitherasexualconnotationoranon-egalitarianposition(notprescribedhere,justdescribed,ifthatisthemeaning),butthatseemsnot tobeanaccurate translation. In any case, there is noevidence to suggestanythingotherthanaC1meaninghere.

– Genesis3:17–Adam–groundcursed,providingfoodbutwithdifficultyforAdam,Adamwillreturntotheground(indeath).Experiencedemonstratesthedifficultyofgrowingfood.Further,Adamphysicallydied(5:5),supportingtheideathatthesejudgmentsalsoareintendedasC1’s.

– Genesis4:10–HeasksCainwhathehaddone,andpronouncedjudgment(4:11-12).CainrespondswithaC1,lamentingthatthepunishmentwastoosevere(4:13).

– Genesis15:5–Hepronounces thatAbraham’sdescendantswouldbemorenumerousthanthestarsAbrahamcouldcount.AbrahamrespondsfamouslywithaC1bybelievingintheLordandbeingcreditedwithrighteousness(15:6).

– Genesis15:7–HeidentifiesHimselftoAbrahamastheLordwhobroughtAbrahamoutof Ur. The statement is a C1 interpretation of 12:1-4, which described Abraham’sdeparturefromUr.

– Genesis15:9–HetoldAbrahamtobringHimspecificanimals.AbrahamrespondswithaC1,asAbrahambringsthosespecificthingstoGod(15:10).

– Genesis 16:8 – He asks Hagar from whence she came. Hagar responds with a C1,answeringthequestiondirectly.

– Genesis18:10–Heannouncedthat the followingyearSarahwouldhaveason.SarahrespondswithaC1, interpreting theprediction literallyand laughingat thepossibility(18:12).GodrespondswithaC1,asHeprovidedforSarahasonattheappointedtime(21:1-2).

– Genesis18:15–HereiteratedthatSarahdidlaugh.HiscommentwasaC1interpretationof18:12,forsheindeeddidlaugh.

– Genesis 18:28 – He said He would not destroy the city if there were forty-five. HisresponsewasaC1,asHeapparentlyknewthatthenumberwaslessthanten(18:32).

– Genesis18:29–HesaidHewouldnotdestroythecityiftherewereforty.HisresponsewasaC1,asHeapparentlyknewthatthenumberwaslessthanten(18:32).

86Asindicatedbythesecondpersonsingularmasculinepronominalsuffix.

19

19

– Genesis18:30–HesaidHewouldnotdestroythecityiftherewerethirty.HisresponsewasaC1,asHeapparentlyknewthatthenumberwaslessthanten(18:32).

– Genesis18:31–HesaidHewouldnotdestroythecityifthereweretwenty.HisresponsewasaC1,asHeapparentlyknewthatthenumberwaslessthanten(18:32).

– Genesis18:32–HesaidHewouldnotdestroythecityiftherewereten.HisresponsewasaC1,asHedestroyedthecity,becausetherewerenottenrighteousinthecity(19:13,24-25).

– Genesis22:2–HetellsAbrahamtotakeIsaactoMoriahandtoofferhimasasacrificeonamountainHewouldspecify.AbrahamrespondswithC1’stoallthreecommands(22:3,9),stoppingonlyatthepointtheangeloftheLordcallsouttohim(22:11).

– Genesis22:12–HetellsAbrahamnottoIsaac.AbrahamrespondswithaC1,locatingandalternativeofferingofGod’sprovision(22:13-14).

– Genesis 31:12–Hedirects Jacob to considerhowHehasprovided for Jacob, as aC1interpretationof31:10.

– Genesis32:26–HeasksJacobtoletHimgo.JacobrespondswithaC1,refusingtoletHimgounlessHefirstgivesJacobablessing.

– Genesis32:27–HeasksJacobwhatishisname.JacobrespondswithaC1,replyingwithhisname.

– Genesis32:28–HechangesJacob’snametoIsrael.ThewriterofGenesisrespondswithaC1,acknowledgingthenameIsraelforJacobin35:21-22.

– Genesis32:29–AsaC1responsetoJacob’squestion,HequestionsinreturnwhyJacobwantstoknowHisname.

– Genesis46:3–HeencouragesJacobnottobeafraidtogotoEgypt.JacobrespondswithaC1,ashegoestoEgypt(46:6).

– Genesis48:4–JacobrecountsGodAlmighty’sappearingtohimatLuz,andHispromiseofblessingtohisdescendants.JacobrespondswithaC1,asheclaimstwoofJoseph’ssonsashisown,sothattheywillbeblessedunderthepromiseGodhadgivenhim(48:5).

Inalltwenty-fourinstancesof“Hesaid”thataredirectlyattributabletoGod,wediscover

C1responsesthatarereadily identifiable.Only3:16offersanychallengeatall,andeventhatpassage,describingEve’s judgmentcanbeviewedasunderstoodbyherwithaC1approach,particularly in lightofherresponse in4:1. Itcanat leastbesaidhereaswellthatthere isnoevidence of any C2 responses. Thus the “He said” passages constitute at least twenty-threeadditionalclearC1responses.TheSpeechActsofGodandResponsesinJobConfirmtheInternalHermeneuticofGenesis

Other than the eighty-four verses in Genesis evidencing a model for interpretingScripture, there are ten similar passages in Job that provide a secondary support to the

20

20

monolithichermeneuticmethodevidentthusfarinGenesis.IneachinstanceofDivinespeechactsinJob,thespeakerisidentifiedas“theLord.”87TheLordSaid(tenverses/tenC1’s)

– Job1:7–TheLordasksSatanfromwhencehecame.SatanrespondswithaC1(“Fromroamingaboutontheearthandwalkingaroundonit.”).

– Job1:8–TheLordasksSatanifhehasconsideredJob.Satanrespondsin1:9withaC1(animpliedyes,andasuggestionofwhyJobwasrighteous).

– Job1:12–TheLordcommissionsSatantodoallbutharmJobphysically.Satanrespondsin1:12-19withaC1,bothindepartingtofulfillthecommission,andalsoinonlyharmingJob’sbelongings.

– Job2:2–TheLordasksSatanagainfromwhencehecame.SatanrespondswiththesameC1responseasin1:7.

– Job2:3–TheLordasksSatanagainifhehasconsideredJob.Satanrespondsin2:4withaC1,addingthatJobwasonlyrighteousbecauseofhishealth.

– Job2:6–TheLordgivespermissionforSatantoharmJob,butnottotheextentoftakinghislife.Satanrespondsin2:7withaC1,smitingJobwithboils,butnottakinghislife.

– Job38:1–TheLordansweredJobinchapters38-39usingaseriousofgraphicillustrationsofGod’ssovereigntyovernature.ThereisnoresponsefromJob,atthispoint.

– Job 40:1 – The Lord challenges Job to respond. Job responds in 40:3-5 with a C1,recognizinghisowninsignificanceincomparisontotheLord.

– Job40:6–TheLordanswersJobagain,inchapters40-41reiteratingHissovereigntyovernature, using some metaphorical language to describe creatures He designed. Jobrespondsbyrepentingin42:1-6withaC1,indicatingthatherecognizedthepurposeofthemetaphoricallanguageassupportiveofGod’sthesisthatHegovernsnature.

– Job42:7–TheLordcommunicateshisangertowardJob’sthreefriends,andcommandsthemtotakeanofferingtoJob.Thethreerespondin42:9withaC1,doingexactly“astheLordtoldthem.”Further,GoddemonstratedaC1responsebyacceptingtheiractionsin42:9.

Inthesetenverses,wefindtenC1’sandzeroC2’s.Notably,oneoftheC1responsesis

fromGod,Himself. Job’s recordofGod’sspeechactsandtheresponses indicates there isnodeviation from the pattern modeled in Genesis. Further, Job’s response to God’s use ofmetaphoricallanguageinchapters40-41indicatesthattheDivineuseoffigurativelanguagedidnotchangetheexpectationthatwhatwasverballyexpressedshouldbeinterpretedinabasic,face-value,common-senseway.Inshort,theadditionoffigurativelanguagedidnotresultinanyadjustmenttothehermeneuticmethod.

87Heb.Yahweh.

21

21

TheHermeneuticPrecedentofGenesisandJobInexaminationoftheninety-fourpassagesinGenesisandJobthatrecordDivinespeech

acts,theevidenceisoverwhelming(eighty-oneC1’stoabsolutelyzeroC2’s)thatGodintendedfor His words to be taken at face value, using a plain-sense interpretive approach. Thehermeneuticmethodthatreflectsthisstraightforwardmethodologyhasbecomeknownastheliteralgrammaticalhistoricalhermeneutic.Thismethodrecognizes thatverbalexpressionhasmeaningrootedinandinseparablefromthegrammaticalandhistoricalcontextofthelanguageused,andthatthesecomponentsrequirethatreadersbeconsistentinapplyingtheinterpretivemethodintheirstudyoftheScriptures.

Becauseofthetwo-thousand-yearprecedentevidentinGenesisandJob,anydeparturefromthesimplicityofthismethodbearsastrongexegeticalburdenofproof,requiringthattherebeexplicitexegeticalsupportforanychangeonemightperceiveasnecessaryinhandlinglaterScriptures.Absentanysuchexegeticaldata,wecanconcludethat(1)hermeneuticmethodologyfor understanding Scripture is not arbitrary but is insteadplainlymodeled, and that (2) laterScripturesshouldbeunderstoodinlightofthehermeneuticprecedentprovidedbyGenesisandJob.SummaryofCatholicHermeneutics TheCatholichermeneuticalsohasat its corea commitment to the literalmeaningofScripture.PiusXII’sexhortationtothatendprovidesnolackofclarity:

Beingthoroughlypreparedbytheknowledgeoftheancientlanguagesandbytheaidsaffordedbytheartofcriticism,lettheCatholicexegeteundertakethetask,ofallthoseimposedonhimthegreatest, thatnamelyofdiscoveringandexpoundingthegenuinemeaningoftheSacredBooks.Intheperformanceofthistasklettheinterpretersbearinmindthattheirforemostandgreatestendeavorshouldbetodiscernanddefineclearlythat sense of the biblical words which is called literal. Aided by the context and bycomparisonwith similarpassages, let themthereforebymeansof theirknowledgeoflanguagessearchoutwithalldiligencetheliteralmeaningofthewords;allthesehelpsindeedarewonttobepressedintoserviceintheexplanationalsoofprofanewriters,sothatthemindoftheauthormaybemadeabundantlyclear[emphasismine].88

Still,justasthereisattentiongiventotheliteralaspectofthetext,thereareotherhermeneuticcommitmentsthatdistinguishtheCatholichermeneutic.TheSecondVaticanCouncilprescribesthreecriteriaforinterpretingScripture:“1.BeespeciallyattentivetothecontentandunityofthewholeofScripture…2.ReadtheScripturewithinthelivingTraditionofthewholeChurch…3.Beattentive to the analogy of faith.”89 In these three criteria is evident the value attributed totraditionasavitallensthroughwhichtoviewScripture.Further,theProtestanthermeneuticis

88PopePiusXII,“DivinoAfflanteSpirito,”Paragraph23.89Catechism,112-114.

22

22

wellrepresentedbyLuther’sassertion,quotedbyFarrar,that“TheliteralsenseofScripturealoneis thewholeessenceof faithandofChristiantheology,”90whereastheCatholicmethodologyupholdsapluralityofsensesinScripturalmeaning:“Accordingtoanancienttradition,onecandistinguish between two sense of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter beingsubdividedintotheallegorical,moral,andanagogicalsenses.TheprofoundconcordanceofthefoursenseguaranteesallitsrichnesstothelivingreadingoftheScriptureinthechurch.91Implications In each of these three contexts – understandings of what constitutes Scripture, theexclusivityofbiblicalauthority,andhermeneuticmethodology,theessentialsourceofauthorityisultimatelynotthesameforProtestantismandCatholicism.IfinabiblicalworldviewthesourceofauthorityisGodasrevealedintheBible,thentheBibleisthefinalandunaugmentedrecord

ofGod’soutlineforworldview,includingdescriptiveaspectsofepistemologicalandmetaphysicalconcepts,andprescriptiveaspectsoftheethicsandsociopoliticalthought.

InaCatholicworldview,thesourceofauthorityisstillrecognizedasthebiblicalGod,butHerevealsHimselfinmorediversewaysthansimplythepagesoftheBible.Consequently,thereare differences between Catholicism and Protestantism in both the descriptive elements ofworldview (epistemology andmetaphysics) and the prescriptive elements (ethics and socio-90FredericFarrar,HistoryofInterpretation(London:McMillanandCo.,1886),327.91Catechism,115-117.

23

23

political).Thechallenge,thenistounderstandwhetherornotthelevelofagreementregardingthesourceofauthorityandthesubsequentdescriptivecomponentsofworldviewissufficienttowarrantunifiedeffortandcollaborationintheprescriptivecomponents.Anotherwaytoframethequestionisthis:DothedifferencesinCatholicandProtestantepistemologyandmetaphysicsprecludecollaborationinethicsandsocio-politicalactivity?

INHERENTPOTENTIALFORAPPLIEDUNITY

Despite the substantial differences in theworldviewbases of Catholic and Protestant

thought, there is commonality and overlap in at least nine aspects of epistemology andmetaphysics: (1) the Bible as a significant epistemological base for truth, (2) the TrinitarianunderstandingofGod(includingthedeityofJesus),(3)GodascreatorhavingsovereignrightsoverHiscreation,(4)sanctityoflifebasedontheimagoDeiinhumanity,(5)thefallennessofhumanity, (6) urgency in humanity’s need to relate properly toGod, (7) faith as a necessarycomponentinrightrelatingtoGod,(8)auniversalassemblyofbelievers,and(9)aneschatologywhich includes eternal consequences for humanity. These foundational and descriptivecommonalitiesallowforadegreeofappliedunityinseveralareasofethicsandsocial-politicalcontexts.

The Bible is foundational and is a first point of commonality between Catholic andProtestant.Itisthefirsttextualbaseoftruthinbothsystems,ifnotthefinalone.AssuchtheBibleprovidesfertilegroundfordiscoveringandassessinggreatercommonalitiesasbothgroupsseektoalignmorecloselywiththeBiblicalrevelation.

TheTrinitarianunderstandingofGodasFather,Son,andSpiritensuresthatbothsystemsareengagingthebiblicalGod,andnotacounterfeitversionWhoisdiminishedoraugmentedbeyond recognition of the biblical revelation. In particular, the centrality of Christ’s deity isunderstoodinbothsystems,anddistinguishesthetwosystemsasuniquely“Christian,”unlikeanyotherreligiousorphilosophicalsystemontheplanet.

TherecognitionofGodasCreatorandsovereignauthorityoverHiscreationprovidesadivine-command model of ethics in both systems. While there are significant differencesregardingthemodeandextentofthatdivine-command,therearealsocommonalitiesthatallowforpracticalcollaborationsinanumberofethicalapplications.Theenvironmentalethicsofthetwosystemsaremorealignedthantheyaredifferent.CatholicenvironmentalethicsrelyonadominionistunderstandingofGenesis,whileProtestantenvironmentalthinkinghastendedtobemorealongthelinesofstewardshipofredacteddominionism.Still,bothacknowledgetherightof God as sovereign, and the creature’s obligation to treat the other not as belonging tohumanity,butasbelongingtoGod.Further,inacknowledgingGod’srightsoverHiscreation,bothsystemshistoricallyhaverecognizedHisauthoritativedesigningender,sexuality,andmarriage,andthushavesharedcommonalityinrelatedidentityissuesandtheirapplicationsinthepublicdiscourse,evenwhileshowingloveandcompassionforLGBTpersons,whowouldhaveaverydifferentunderstandingfromhistoricCatholicandProtestantthinking.

24

24

Thesanctityof lifebasedonthe imagoDeioverlapsbothsystems.ThusthereismuchagreementinapplicationspertainingtobasicfreedomsimpliedbytheimagoDei,abortionissues,euthanasia,compassionfortheill,theimprisoned,andtheneedy,andracialrespectandjustice.While compassion and charity are the stated baseline for both groups, both have struggledhistorically to follow through. So not only is there commonality in the underlying principlesregardingthesanctityoflife,butthereiscommonalityinthehistoricfailurestoliveuptothosestandards.

TheunderstandingofhumanityasfallenandinurgentneedofrightrelationshipwithGodhashistorically groundedbothgroups in aprimarily spiritual rather than temporal emphasis.WhileProtestantgroupshavebeenmorenotably“evangelical,”bothgroupshaveacknowledgedavitalroleforfaithinJesus,andhavenothiddenfromproclaimingtheirunderstandingofthegospelinthepublicsquare.

Thechurchconceptforbothgroupsincludesbothauniversalandalocalexpression.Inthiscontexttherehasbeenahistoricallyrecognizedcommunityof“Christians.”Consequently,even though there are stark disagreements on significant issues, neither group wouldautomaticallyassumetheexclusionofanotherfromthechurchcommunitybasedsolelyonone’sCatholicorProtestantaffiliation.

Despite grand eschatological distinctions (amillennialism vs. premillennialism, forexample),bothCatholicandProtestantrecognizeafutureinwhichGodwins,andinwhichthereareeternalconsequences.Thiscommonalityispivotalforallaspectsofethics,particularlyinthesensethattheeternalisvaluedoverthetemporal,whenthetwoareinconflict.

INCREASINGCOMMONALITYFORCOLLABORATIVEIMPACT

Thegreatestchallengesforcollaborativeimpactarerootedinthetwomajorareasof(1)biblical components, authority, and interpretation, and (2) the resulting differences in theunderstandingofwhatcomprisesthegospel(faithplusworksorfaithalone).Whilesomehaveconsidered thegospel tobe thecentralandmostessential componentofChristian theology,arguably, it can be said that if the glory of God is the highest purpose, then everythingcontributingtothedoxologicalpurposeisessential.Still,evenwiththatappropriatedoxologicalpriority,thereremainsonlyonedoctrinethatPaulspecificallycallsoutasbeingworthyofacurseifonegetsitwrong:

Butevenifwe,oranangelfromheaven,shouldpreachtoyouagospelcontrarytowhatwehavepreachedtoyou,heistobeaccursed!Aswehavesaidbefore,soIsayagainnow,ifanymanispreachingtoyouagospelcontrarytowhatyoureceived,heistobeaccursed!92

92NewAmericanStandardBible:1995Update(LaHabra,CA:TheLockmanFoundation,1995),Gal1:8–9.

25

25

Thechallengeistoquantifyhowsignificantarethedisagreementsinthesetwoareasrelativetothe broader commonalities in the areas of social concerns and efforts. Admittedly, this hasprovennottobeasimpleexercise,especiallyinlightofPaul’semphasisonjustificationbyfaithandnotbyworksoflaw.93Still,bibliologyandsoteriologyarecentralandworthypointsofentryfordialogueandconsideration,startingwithconsiderationofthefoundationalideasandthenproceedingtotheapplicationsofthoseideasinpractice.

Such interactions should be engaged with a commitment to truth and love, with nocompromiseineitherdynamic.InthewordsofPaul,“NowIexhortyou,brethren,bythenameofourLordJesusChrist,thatyouallagreeandthattherebenodivisionsamongyou,butthatyoubemadecompleteinthesamemindandinthesamejudgment.94Pressingontowardthiskindoflike-mindednessisbestpursuedwithopenBibles,openminds,andopenhearts.

93Gal2:16.94NewAmericanStandardBible:1995Update(LaHabra,CA:TheLockmanFoundation,1995),1Cor1:10.