A Protestant congregation can affirm that the Bible is its authority and still adopt a way of reading that gives the interpreter the final word. The change becomes visible when a teacher can explain what a passage claims but will accept that claim only if it fits conclusions already reached on other grounds. A resurrection may be allowed to express the disciples’ conviction while the raising of the dead is excluded from consideration. A prophecy may be allowed to describe events accurately while the possibility that Jehovah disclosed those events beforehand is ruled out. In each case, the teacher’s account of what happened depends on a judgment made before the biblical testimony is weighed. Paul’s instructions to Timothy in 2 Timothy 3:14–17 put the authority in a different place. Scripture comes from God, and the minister receives from it the teaching, correction, and training that prepare him for his work.

What Higher Criticism Asks and What It Assumes

Higher criticism has historically examined questions about the authorship, date, sources, and composition of biblical books. These questions are distinguishable from those of textual criticism, which compares manuscript readings and other witnesses to determine what wording the author wrote. An inquiry into whether a line entered a manuscript during copying requires evidence about the transmission of that line. A theory that an entire account arose from a later community’s beliefs makes a different claim and requires evidence about how the account originated. Historical-grammatical interpretation also takes historical questions seriously, since the time, audience, and circumstances of a writing can clarify what its author meant. The decisive issue is what happens when a theory about the origin of a text is permitted to override what the author affirms before adequate evidence for the theory has been given.

The late nineteenth-century work of Julius Wellhausen offers a historical example. He popularized a reconstruction of the Pentateuch in which distinct sources were assigned to different stages in the development of Israel’s religion. Differences in vocabulary, repetition, and the use of divine names figured in the identification of sources, while judgments about the development of Israel’s worship helped determine how the sources were dated and ordered. The difficulty becomes acute when the proposed order of development is used to date a passage and the resulting date is then cited as evidence that Israel’s religion developed in that order. The argument needs independent support for the sequence it proposes. Within the biblical record, Exodus 24:4 expressly attributes the writing of Jehovah’s words to Moses, and Deuteronomy 31:9 attributes the writing and delivery of the law to him. These statements must be accounted for when a reconstruction assigns the origin of the laws to a much later period.

When an Observation Is Asked to Prove Too Much

The opening chapters of Genesis show how to distinguish an observation from the conclusion drawn from it. Genesis 1:1–2:3 presents the ordered work of creation and ends with God resting from His work. Genesis 2:4–25 concentrates on the man and the woman, their surroundings, the command given to the man, and the establishment of marriage. The difference in scope is plainly visible, as is the change from “God” in the opening account to “Jehovah God” in the account of the garden. The question is what those observations establish about the origin of the text. A change in emphasis gives a writer reason to select different details and use different expressions, so the presence of those features cannot establish separate authorship by itself. Any argument for separate sources has to show why those features are better explained by the proposed sources than by the purposes evident in the passages.

Jesus’ answer to a question about divorce makes the relationship between the passages especially clear. In Matthew 19:4–6, He appeals to the creation of male and female in Genesis 1:27 and to the union of husband and wife described in Genesis 2:24. The first passage identifies God’s creation of the two sexes, and the second explains why a man leaves his parents and is joined to his wife. Jesus uses both statements as grounds for His teaching about what God has joined together. The change of focus between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 serves His argument because the passages supply distinct information about the same created order. An interpreter who labels the passages competing accounts still has to explain their actual contents and reckon with the way Jesus reads them together.

When the Conclusion Is Decided Before the Evidence

The resurrection exposes the effect of ruling out divine action at the start of an inquiry. Paul states that Christ died for sins, was buried, was raised on the third day, and appeared to witnesses (1 Corinthians 15:3–8). The references to burial and appearances place the claim in a sequence of events, and Paul identifies individuals and groups to whom Christ appeared. He even states that most of the more than five hundred who saw Christ on one occasion were still alive when he wrote (1 Corinthians 15:6). These details are part of Paul’s testimony and must be weighed as such. If the interpreter assumes in advance that God could never raise the dead, any explanation permitted by that assumption must locate the origin of the proclamation somewhere other than the event Paul reports. The resulting denial expresses the rule governing the inquiry, even if it is presented as the finding of the inquiry.

Paul himself states what would follow if Christ had never been raised. Apostolic preaching and Christian faith would be empty, the apostles would be false witnesses about God, and believers would still be in their sins (1 Corinthians 15:14–17). The force of that reasoning depends on a distinction between believing that an event occurred and the event actually occurring. Sincere conviction on the part of the witnesses could never supply what Paul says would be lost if their testimony were false. A teacher who recasts the resurrection as the disciples’ renewed courage can describe a change in their attitude, but that explanation answers a different question from the one Paul raises. The apostle makes the validity of Christian faith depend on what God did to Jesus, and the interpreter must preserve that claim in explaining the passage.

The same question of method arises in the treatment of predictive prophecy. Isaiah 44:28 names Cyrus and connects his commission with the rebuilding of Jerusalem and the laying of the temple’s foundation. The next passage identifies Jehovah as the One who calls Cyrus by name for the sake of Jacob and Israel (Isaiah 45:1–5). The author presents the naming as part of Jehovah’s declaration of what He will do through Cyrus. An interpreter who assumes that a prophet could never receive advance knowledge will have to explain the naming as an act of human composition after the relevant events were known. The passage’s specificity then becomes grounds for a late date only because the possibility of revelation has already been excluded. Evidence for a proposed date must be weighed on its own merits, and the interpreter must first reckon with the fact that the passage expressly attributes this knowledge to Jehovah.

What Paul Says Scripture Is and Does

Paul tells Timothy to continue in what he had learned and had been persuaded to believe, remembering both those who taught him and the sacred writings he had known from infancy (2 Timothy 3:14–15). The words “You, however” mark a contrast with the preceding description of deceivers who go from bad to worse (2 Timothy 3:13–14). Timothy had a definite body of instruction to hold to in circumstances where others would promote error. The sacred writings he had known from infancy were the Hebrew Scriptures, and Paul says that they can make him wise for salvation through trust in Christ Jesus. The saving purpose Paul identifies therefore governs the way Timothy is to use those writings. Knowledge of the Scriptures is meant to inform his faith in Christ and the way he lives and teaches amid the pressures described in the letter.

Paul then states that “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16, UASV). The Greek adjective theopneustos, rendered “breathed out by God,” describes Scripture and identifies its divine source. Paul has moved from the sacred writings Timothy has known to a statement about what is true of all Scripture. The sentence puts the emphasis on the written product that Timothy can use to teach and correct. Its authority therefore holds when its message exposes an error that a congregation would prefer to retain. The purpose clause in 2 Timothy 3:17 identifies the intended result, that the man of God be fully competent and equipped for every good work. Timothy’s competence in ministry depends on receiving from Scripture the instruction that he will in turn give to others.

Paul’s next charge shows what that dependence looks like in the congregation. He directs Timothy to preach the word, reprove, rebuke, and exhort with patience and teaching, and he warns that some will seek out teachers who speak in accordance with their desires (2 Timothy 4:1–5). That warning locates a source of distorted interpretation in the desires of the hearers themselves. A congregation can reward a teacher for softening a command or turning an unwelcome correction into an observation about another time and place. Paul gives Timothy a different responsibility when hearers resist sound teaching. He must explain and apply the word patiently, with enough clarity that the people can see what requires correction and why. The congregation’s response matters to the teacher, but it cannot determine the meaning he is charged to communicate.

How Historical-Grammatical Interpretation Establishes Meaning

Historical-grammatical interpretation begins with the wording of the passage and asks what the author communicated through it in its original setting. The interpreter follows how words are used in the sentence, how clauses are connected, and how each statement advances the argument. The kind of writing matters because an instruction in a letter and a statement in a historical account do different work, even when they concern the same subject. The historical setting helps identify the people, practices, and questions to which the author refers. In 2 Timothy 3:14–17, for example, the contrast with the deceivers explains why Timothy must continue in what he learned, and the following charge to preach explains why Scripture’s ability to equip him matters. Those relationships are available to readers who follow Paul’s sequence of thought, and they provide a way to assess any explanation offered from the pulpit.

Historical context helps most when it clarifies a detail that the author actually uses. In 1 Corinthians 8:10, Paul describes a believer with knowledge eating in an idol’s temple while another believer sees him. The location matters because the person who sees the meal may be emboldened to eat food associated with an idol even though his conscience is troubled by it (1 Corinthians 8:7–12). Paul identifies both the conduct and its harmful consequence, so the setting helps the reader understand why he calls the Corinthians to consider the welfare of a brother for whom Christ died. A contemporary application follows that reasoning when a believer considers whether exercising a freedom will lead another person to act against conscience. The interpreter can trace the application back through the argument instead of assigning a meaning to the passage based on a conjecture about what members of the congregation privately believed.

How Scripture Corrects the Teacher

Paul’s directions about correcting opponents give an immediate application of the method. In 2 Timothy 2:23–26, he tells Timothy to refuse foolish controversies that produce quarrels and also requires the Lord’s servant to be able to teach and to correct opponents with gentleness. A reading that stops with the prohibition against quarrels can leave a congregation thinking that serious error must be left alone. A reading that isolates the command to correct can give a combative teacher an excuse for treating opponents harshly. Paul places the instructions together and gives a reason for gentle correction in the hope that God may grant repentance leading to knowledge of the truth. A teacher who follows the passage will therefore explain the error plainly, show why it conflicts with the text, and speak with the patience required by the same words he is using to correct another person.

You May Also Enjoy

How You Can Recognize True Christianity

About the Author

CLICK LINKED IMAGE TO VISIT ONLINE STORE

CLICK TO SCROLL THROUGH OUR BOOKS