Strange Fire on God’s Altar - PowerPoint Presentation

Slide1

Strange Fire onGod’s Altar

Unbiblical Hermeneutics

Applied to God’s Word

Edwin Reynolds, Ph.D.Slide2

Leviticus 10:1-2

Aaron's sons

Nadab

and

Abihu

took their censers, put fire in them and added incense; and they offered unauthorized fire before the LORD, contrary to his command. So fire came out from the presence of the LORD and consumed them, and they died before the LORD. (NIV

)Slide3

Ellen G. White, Review and Herald, April 20, 1897

“And Moses said unto Aaron, This is it that the Lord

spake

, saying, I will be sanctified in them that come nigh me, and before all the people I will be glorified.” The Lord gave all Israel a necessary lesson. It would be well for all to read and ponder over the words contained in the tenth chapter of Leviticus. Is it not of sufficient consequence for us to take heed what we do when we are in God's service? But are not these things forgotten?

Is not a careless view taken of the word of God? Is not strange fire, which the Lord has commanded shall not be used,

put upon the censers, and mingled with the incense which is offered before God?

”Slide4

Ellen G. White, Manuscript Releases

17:224

“In the early Christian church there were men who were true disciples of Christ. They met often together where prayer was wont to be made.

They could only work to advance those principles that bore the signet of heaven.

They first talked with God, ascertained what spirit they themselves were of; then they could closely and critically examine every point, every method, every principle

in the light reflected from the Sun of Righteousness.

(cont.)Slide5

(cont.)

“

They did not accept

strange fire

. They took their fire from the divine altar.

To them holy and just principles were sacred, and by cherishing these they kept themselves unspotted from the world. Ever looking to Jesus, they marked the spirit in which He worked, and followed His example.

They gave to others the pure principles of the Word of God.

This Word was their counsel, their guide, their close companion. To them

the Scriptures were supreme authority

. For every question agitated they had one standard to consult. It was not, ‘What

saith

men?’ but,

‘What

saith

the Lord?’

”

Slide6

Ellen G. White, Signs of the Times, December 25, 1893

“Solemn conviction of sin will lead individuals to tremble at the word of God, and surrender their ways, their ideas, and their will to God. . . .

“

It is only at the altar of God that we kindle the taper with

holy fire. . . . Christ has promised the Holy Spirit to guide us unto all truth and righteousness and holiness. The Holy Spirit is not given by measure to those who earnestly seek for it, who by faith stand upon the promises of God. They plead the pledged word of God, saying, ‘Thou hast said it.

I take thee at thy word

.’”Slide7

Ellen G. White, Testimonies to Ministers and Gospel Workers,

370

“It is no credit to one who has the word of God in his possession, to say: ‘I have no experience; I do not understand these things.’ He will never be wiser until he becomes of much less consequence in his own estimation. He must learn his lesson as a little child. He must make it his first duty to understand the work of God in the regeneration of the soul.

(cont.)Slide8

“This change should take place in every man before he accepts a position as a leader or ruler in connection with the sacred work of God. If one has not a vital connection with God, his own spirit and sentiments will prevail.

These may be well represented as strange fire offered in the place of the sacred

. Man has woven into the work of God his own defects of character, devices that are human and earthly, delusions ensnaring to himself and to all who accept them.”Slide9

Strange FireIf the

altar of God

is the

word of God

, and if holy fire is the Holy Spirit brought to the text, and if holy fire taken from the altar represents the

holy principles

found in God’s word, then . . .

strange fire

is an

unholy spirit

, not from God, and represents

unholy principles

not found in His word.Slide10

2 Timothy 2:15 NASB

Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed,

accurately handling the word of truth

.Slide11

HermeneuticsDerived from the Greek word

hermeneuō

, which means “I explain, interpret, or translate,” hermeneutics is

the science of interpretation

.It is used to refer to both the principles and practice of interpretation.Slide12

Internal vs. External

Internal

principles are those derived from

within

the word of God.They are holy fire

, from the Holy Spirit, and from them we can take away

holy principles

for practice.

External

principles are those derived from

outside

the word of God.

They are

strange fire

, not from God but from another spirit; from them we can take away only

unholy principles

for practice.Slide13

History of Interpretation

Intertestamental

interpretation

Apostolic

interpretationPatristic interpretationMedieval interpretation

Scholastic

interpretation

Reformation

interpretation

Enlightenment/modern

interpretation

Existentialist

interpretation

Postmodern

interpretation

Theological

interpretationSlide14

Intertestamental Interpretation

Assumed an authoritative body of Scriptures

Scribes and rabbis (Pharisees) as interpreters

Interpretation was largely

nomological (read as a legal document), to learn how to behaveRabbinic

midrash

(exposition) tended to be

allegorical

, to draw out the “deeper meaning”

The plain, literal meaning of the text was not the primary goal of interpretation

Qumranic

exegesis (

pesher

) required an

inspired interpreter

, the “teacher of righteousness”Slide15

Apostolic Interpretation

The apostolic period was characterized by a belief that both the word of God through the OT prophets and the testimony of Jesus through the NT apostles were

revelatory

and

authoritative.The text was to be understood historically and

literally

unless there was evidence in the text that it was meant to be taken otherwise.

Jesus taught that the Scriptures were not the source of salvation, but

they pointed to Him

as the key to salvation and eternal life (John 5:39-40).Slide16

Patristic Interpretation—1

The canon was closed during this period, but church

tradition

(the writings of the Fathers and the decrees of church councils) remained as the authoritative interpreter of Scripture.

The issues were distinguishing Christianity from Judaism and from paganism.The means of doing so was to resort to Greek philosophy to create categories for ideas and to search for deeper meanings behind the text.Slide17

Patristic Interpretation—2

Theology was the step-child of a

Neo-Platonic philosophy

, the worldview which provided the lens for interpreting Scripture.

They held that the Jews did not accept Jesus as the Christ because they operated on the level of the letter instead of the Spirit. Scripture has several levels of meaning to be worked out: literal, allegorical,

tropological

, and

anagogical

. The

allegorical

method became the most important method of exegesis.Slide18

Antioch vs. Alexandria

Antioch,

the center of the Eastern church, was distinguished for a

literal

interpretation.Alexandria, the early center of the Western church, was noted for allegorical interpretation.

When the Western church centered in Rome and came to dominate the church, the

allegorical

interpretation prevailed as the method of choice.

Until the Reformation returned to a historical-grammatical (

literal

) interpretation of Scripture, the

allegorical

method dominated interpretation.Slide19

Medieval Interpretation

Latin was now the language of the church, and

the church

controlled the Scriptures and their interpretation. It also controlled the Western world, while Islam dominated in the East.

The Bible became the guide for an entire civilization—as interpreted by the papacy. The pronouncements of the church were the rule, whether for theology, for society, or for science.

The monks were the spiritually enlightened clerical elite who practiced

lectio

divina

(spiritual reading).

Allegory

continued to prevail.Slide20

Scholastic Interpretation

Under scholasticism, the universities promoted exegetical study of the text, with a move toward a more

literal

approach to interpretation.

The discovery of Aristotle’s writings, however, led to the elevation of human reason to an equality with divine revelation.

The elevation of

reason

led to a repudiation of the allegorical method as well as of mystical readings of the text, preparing the way for the

Rennaissance

and the Reformation.Slide21

Reformation Interpretation—1

The Reformers adopted the view that

sola Scriptura

(Scripture alone) sufficed for

interpre-tation and that the plain meaning of Scripture was the only meaning yielding objective truth.The Greek and Hebrew manuscripts brought from Constantinople revived a study of the text in the

original languages

, along with translation into the

vernacular languages

, giving common people access to reading the Bible for themselves.

The printing press made the Bible not only widely available but also more affordable for all.Slide22

Reformation Interpretation—2

Scripture was deemed to be

self-interpreting

(

sui ipsius interpres) and clear in its meaning (the perspicuity of Scripture).

Those parts not clear were to be interpreted according to “

the analogy of faith

,” meaning that all Scripture is in internal agreement, so that unclear passages are interpreted by those that are clear.

Scripture was held to be

infallible

revelation, free from erroneous teaching, believed by faith to be entirely trustworthy in its teachings.Slide23

The Enlightenment and Modern

Interpretation—1

The

Enlightenment

swept in a new era of Deism, humanism, rationalism

, and

skepticism

. It laid the foundation for modern biblical criticism.

Rationalist

thinkers came to despise the church and its teachings, and so also the Bible. They did not trust in supernaturalism, including prophecy and divine revelation, but only in the rational laws of nature and in

human reasoning power

.

The Bible came to be regarded as merely a record of

human beliefs

, to be studied as any other book.Slide24

The Enlightenment and Modern

Interpretation—2

The

History-of-Religions school

taught that religion is evolutionary, that there is a struggle in which more advanced religions replace those that are inferior. While Christianity is now the most advanced religion, it may be superceded when a superior form of religion appears once again.

Rationalism

held that the universe is constructed according to rational principles or scientific laws and that religion and the Bible must be purified of irrational and immoral elements. Belief in the supernatural implies the suspension of natural law. This is irrational and unacceptable.Slide25

The Enlightenment and Modern

Interpretation—3

Scholars believed that any text or religious movement must be understood in its historical context. Textual features were clues to the

historical evolution

of both the texts and the religious beliefs of the communities that produced them. Historical developments became more important than theological teachings.

Historical criticism

developed a method that claimed to be both objective and scientific, that would produce an “assured result.” To do that, the supernatural could not be considered.Slide26

Historical Criticism—1

The historical-critical method has three major

presuppositions

, described by Ernst

Troeltsch, which are supposed to make it scientific:The principle of correlation

The principle of

analogy

The principle of

criticism

These presuppositions are in direct conflict with the claims of the text. They seriously compromise the conclusions of the study if not true. The evidence is that they are not.Slide27

Historical Criticism—2

The principle of

correlation

—History is a closed continuum of cause and effect. No supernatural influence can interfere to alter the cycle of history.

The principle of analogy—Such a fundamental homogeneity exists between all historical events that one can make an analogy from any point to any other point. The past is known by the present.

The principle of

criticism

—We cannot speak with certainty about past events, so we should speak in terms of either greater or lesser probability. Also known as the principle of

methodological doubt

.Slide28

Historical Criticism—3

Historical criticism has employed a variety of methods, all based on these presuppositions:

Source

criticism—Attempts to discern the written sources that purportedly lie behind the text.

Form criticism—Attempts to discover the oral forms that were used to pass on the preliterary traditions.Tradition

criticism—Tries to recover the traditional beliefs of the communities that recorded the texts.

Redaction

criticism—Seeks to discern the work of various redactors (editors) who, with theological motivation, introduced various changes into the text before it reached its final form.Slide29

Historical Criticism—4

Modernism

was interested in establishing matters as scientific fact based on objective, empirical observation with an

assured result

.The historical-critical method promised to provide the assured result of a scientific method.

After 300 years of careful practice of this method, there has been

no assured result

produced.

Although many scholars continue to practice the method, many others have given up on it and are moving on to various

postmodern

methods.Slide30

Existentialist Interpretation

A precursor to postmodern interpretation was the

Heideggeran

existentialist

interpretation of Rudolf Bultmann and his “New Hermeneutic” disciples.In this view, Scripture is

mythological

and has no valid historical content to transmit to modern readers. Rather, the reader has an

existential encounter

with God in the text, a new awareness or consciousness of self that provides insight.

This encounter forms a “

hermeneutical circle

” in which the reader is changed by the text and the text is, in turn, transformed by the reader.Slide31

Postmodern Interpretation—1

Postmodernism

has rejected the assurances of modern scientific attempts to know the truth about reality. Truth is only

relative

, and those who believe they have absolute truth wield an abusive, coercive control of power. It is better to let everyone have their own truth, based on their own experience. It is a very cynical view of life.There are no absolutes. God and “truth” are just concepts used to try to control others. Everything is relative to one’s own

experience

, so no one can dictate what is true and gain control of power. Slide32

Postmodern Interpretation—2

Postmodern

interpretation involves a shift from a diachronic emphasis on the historical development of the text and objective authorial intention to a

synchronic

emphasis on what it means subjectively to the postmodern reader.Various literary methods lack any interest in what the text meant to the author and original readers. The only thing that matters is whether or not it has anything relevant to say to the postmodern reader’s

experience

.Slide33

Literary-Critical Methods—1

Literary methods share similar presuppositions with historical criticism, but they follow

social- scientific methods

rather than historical methods.

The Bible as artistic literature “transmits different information to different readers in proportion to each one’s comprehension” (J. Lotman

, 1977).

The emphasis is on the

text

, not on reconstructing the history of its development, but the methods employed offer no hope of achieving an assured result, as did historical criticism.Slide34

Literary-Critical Methods—2

Structuralism

—The reader finds meaning through (deep) structure and codes built into the text that unlock relationships in the system of language. Russian folklore provides the pattern for the structure and codes for understanding Scripture.

Narrative

criticism—Focuses on narrative struc-ture and composition, plot development, themes and motifs, characters and characterization.

Rhetorical

criticism—Asks how the text functions for its audience to teach, persuade, guide, exhort, reproach, or inspire within its own situation.Slide35

Literary-Critical Methods—3

Reader-response

criticism—Reading the text is a performing art in which the reader is an active agent who imparts “real existence” to the text and completes its meaning through interpretation. The reader, not the author, determines meaning.

Deconstructionism—Believes that all text poses irreconcilable contradictory positions within the same text.  The text cannot be trusted. There are no truths, only rival interpretations. The reader attempts to deconstruct the text to determine the contradictory positions to be found in the text.Slide36

Theological Interpretations

Theological interpretations impose a

framework

on the text that lies outside of the text itself. There are many varieties. A few examples:

Liberation theologyBlack theologyFeminist theology

In each case, some

presuppositions

are adopted that assume that the text should be read in a particular way different from the expressed authorial intention, because the text was written from a particular point of view that is no longer acceptable, like tolerance of patriarchy or slavery. Slide37

Christian Fundamentalism

Christian

fundamentalism

was a reaction against liberal Modernist theology. It subscribes to

five fundamental beliefs that are considered essential to conservative Protestant theology but were denied by liberal theology and historical criticism:The inspiration and inerrancy of  Scripture

The

virgin birth

 of Christ

Christ's death

as the 

atonement

 for sin

The

bodily resurrection

of Christ

The

historical reality

of Christ’s

miraclesSlide38

Evangelical Christianity

Evangelical

Christianity subscribes to the five fundamentals, but may be more liberal in some areas of biblical interpretation.

Seventh-day Adventists subscribe to all but the inerrancy of the Scriptures, which insists that the original autographs of Scripture were free from error of any kind. Adventists hold to infallibility instead, which teaches that the Scriptures are a trustworthy record of doctrinal truth, though mechanical errors may be present in the extant texts.Slide39

SDA Fundamental Belief No. 1“The Holy Scriptures, Old and New Testaments, are the written Word of God, given by divine inspiration through holy men of God who spoke and wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. In this Word, God has committed to man the knowledge necessary for salvation. The Holy Scriptures are the

infallible

revelation

of His will. They are the standard of character, the test of experience, the authoritative

revealer of doctrines, and the

trustworthy

record of God's acts in history.”Slide40

Ellen White’s Hermeneutic

“The Word of God,

just as it reads

, is the ground of our faith. That Word is the sure word of prophecy, and it demands implicit faith from all who claim to believe it. It is authoritative, containing in itself the proof of its divine origin”

(Signs of the Times, June 2, 1898).“Let the Bible explain its own statements. Accept it just as it reads, without twisting the words to suit human ideas” (

Loma Linda Messages,

p. 55).Slide41

Literal Reading vs.

Literalism

Taking the Bible “

just as it reads

” alludes to reading it literally, in a straightforward way, as opposed to allegorically or symbolically or metaphorically, unless other ways of reading the text are implied in the text and it would not make sense read literally.

Some people confuse a literal reading with a literalistic reading, which implies a simplistic mindset that fails to account for such things as grammar, historical and cultural backgrounds, metaphorical or figurative language, and authorial intent.Slide42

“Methods of Bible Study”

The Seventh-day Adventist Church has an official document, adopted at the 1986 Annual Council of the Church in Rio de

Janiero

, Brazil.

In its preamble it rejects even a modified use of the historical-critical method “that retains the principle of criticism which subordinates the Bible to human reason.”One of its presuppositions [2. a. (4)] declares that “the Bible transcends its cultural back-grounds to serve as God’s Word for all cultural, racial, and situational contexts in all ages.”Slide43

Recent Developments—1

One outcome of the Theology of Ordination Study Committee was a proposal by certain elements that a new hermeneutic be adopted for dealing with the issue at hand.

The Bible was declared to be

culturally conditioned

from beginning to end, and the preamble of the “Methods of Bible Study” document rejecting the historical-critical method was not accepted as valid.A new hermeneutic was proposed called the

“principle-based historical-cultural method.”Slide44

Recent Developments—2

Subsequently, the SDA Theological Seminary at Andrews University has used this method to reject the decision made by the worldwide SDA Church in San Antonio, Texas, in 2015.

In May of 2016 they held a study conference in Cancun, Mexico, to discuss the matter of how to sell this new hermeneutic to the Church.

Currently, they are in the process of producing a special issue of

Andrews University Seminary Studies on hermeneutics, potentially as a means of promoting their new hermeneutic.Slide45

The Principle-Based Historical-Cultural Method

The method is “principle-based” because its conclusions are not based on explicit statements in the biblical text but on purported

“principles”

they claim to have discovered which have

“trajectories” that point to changes that will take place in the last days—today’s changed culture.The method is “historical-cultural” because the biblical text is

culturally conditioned

and needs to be read from the new perspective of our own culture rather than from the old perspective of the biblical culture, which was not as socially and culturally aware as our contemporary culture.Slide46

Summary

Throughout the history of biblical interpretation many different philosophies, presuppositions, and methods have been used to interpret the holy Scriptures, including but not limited to

the allegorical method

Neo-Platonist or Aristotelian philosophy

rationalist, antisupernaturalist presuppositionsHeideggeran existentialist philosophysocial-scientific criticismreader-response criticismvarious theological frameworks imposed on the text.

They are unbiblical because they do not derive from within the text but run counter to the text.Slide47

Conclusion

It is our responsibility as Seventh-day Adventists to be serious about practicing hermeneutical principles and methods that are in harmony with the internal claims of Scripture and to reject all presuppositions and methods that come from outside the text (“

strange fire

” on God’s altar).

We must not be naïve regarding the conclusions of those who use a wrong hermeneutic, because a wrong hermeneutic cannot lead to conclusions that are Spirit-led (“holy fire” from God’s altar).