Hermeneutics: Fear or Love

Thank you for sticking with me this long. We should never be afraid to explore. I am grateful for your willingness to explore with me as we talk about this very important topic. If you did not catch my sermon on Sunday, you can find it here. Unlike my previous sermons in this series, I don't have a much more to say about this one, so let's talk about something else related to our exploration of this topic: hermeneutics.

Hermeneutics is just a fancy $10 seminary word that means the study of interpreting the Bible. How does one go about reading and interpreting the Bible? There is much more to it than just declaring “The Bible says it. I believe it. I do it!” If that were true, we would be greeting each other with holy kisses, gouging out our eyes, praying only in our closets, and women would all be wearing head coverings.

I heard someone once say, “I don’t interpret the Bible. I just read it.”

Well, that sounds good, but it is just not true. Everyone interprets the Bible. 

In my own church heritage, the Restoration Movement, we have traditionally adopted a system of hermeneutics called CENI. We saw in the Old Testament that God was very specific about His commands. He was so specific, in fact, that almost entire books of the Old Testament are dedicated to laying out very specifically what God commanded of His people. There were no questionable areas. Everything was covered.

As we move into the New Testament we noticed that it is relatively absent of the types of specific, clearly laid out commands that we find in the Old Testament. But we still believed that God had a very specific set of practices that He wanted us to follow, and that they were somewhere hidden within the texts of the New Testament. We believed there was a blueprint or a pattern hidden within the text. Over time we created a system of reading the Bible that was supposed to help us discover that pattern. That system is called CENI.

CENI is an acronym:

•     Command

•     Example

•     Necessary Inference

I was raised to believe that God’s blueprint or pattern in the New Testament could be discovered by treating the New Testament like a jigsaw puzzle. I was taught to look for various Commands. If a command could not be found regarding a particular practice, then I was to look for Examples. And, if there was no command or example to be found regarding a specific practice, then what was the Necessary Inference that could be gained from several related passages?

Oh, I forgot to mention that this does not apply to the entire New Testament. It only applies to Acts and the Epistles, because we believed that those were the only places in the Bible that could give us authorization to do or not do certain things in church.

Fear was the driving force behind this type of approach to the Bible. We were afraid of getting something wrong. We were afraid that even though the New Testament was relatively absent of law, there must still be a law somewhere hidden in the text. That is what CENI does. It looks for law. And, in some cases, it creates a law.

Despite the repeated reminders throughout the New Testament that we are no longer under law, but under grace, we have turned the New Testament into another law book.

F.F. Bruce, one of the most recognized scholars of the last century, once commented, “I think Paul would roll over in his grave if he knew that we were turning his letters into ‘torah’” (The Blue Parakeet, Scot McKnight, p. 207). How true!

Not only does CENI turn the New Testament into another torah, it is also flawed and inadequate. What happens when a Command and an Example contradict one another? Some have suggested that the Command, in that instance, outweighs the Example. But what if repeated Examples contradicts a single Command? Do the repeated Examples, because of their number, then outweigh the Command? Who gets to determine what a Necessary Inference is? What if two people disagree on what should be necessarily inferred from a passage?

We also created an additional principal of interpretation. We even called this one a law. It is called the Law of Silence. This principal or law essentially says that if the Bible is silent about something then it must prohibit the very thing it is silent about. This is the hat we hang our traditional a cappella doctrine on. The New Testament is silent when it comes to instruments in the worship services. In other words, we find no example of a church using them in the New Testament. Therefore, God must prohibit them.

Again, in our fear of getting something wrong we have turned the New Testament into another torah, another law. Our hermeneutic has been based in fear.

John reminds us in the very beginning of his gospel account, “Out of his fullness we have all received grace in place of grace already given. For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ” (John 1:16-17).

Paul was constantly reminding the church that they were not under law, but under grace. He told the Romans, “…you are not under law, but under grace” (Rom. 6:14). And, in a similar manner he told the Galatians, “But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law” (Gal. 5:18). He reminded the Corinthians that even he is not under the law: “I myself am not under the law” (1 Cor. 9:20). And he wrote the Colossians asking them why they “submit to regulations - ‘Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch’ - according to human precepts and teachings?” (2:20-21).

Does this mean that we are not under any sort of law? Does this mean that it is a free-for-all type of existence? Absolutely not!

Paul believes that he is under the law of Christ (1 Cor. 9:21). What is the law of Christ?

The law of Christ finds its basis in Jesus’ answer to the question, “What is the greatest command?” We all remember Jesus’ answer to this question: “The most important one is this: ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these” (Mark 12:29-31).

I believe this is the law of Christ that Paul considered himself to be under. He continually points to love in his letters, telling the churches to which he writes that love is the fulfillment of this law. To the Romans he says, “Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law.” And then he goes on to conclude, “Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore, love is the fulfillment of the law” (Rom. 13:8-10). I believe he is talking about a greater law than the torah. He is talking the law of Christ.

In Galatians he writes, “For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Gal. 5:14). To what law is he referring? I believe he is referring to the law of Christ. He continues in the next chapter by writing, “Carry each other’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ” (6:2).

Under the law of Moses, Jews counted over 600 commands that needed to be followed, and followed strictly. In Christ, we have been “set free from the law of sin and death” (Rom. 6:22). We have been set free from that list of over 600 commands. So, Paul reminds the Galatians, “It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery” (Gal. 5:1). We are now under a new law, the law of Christ. This law is not a list of do’s and don’ts. It is not a pattern or a blueprint that we must live in fear of getting wrong. This new law is “summed up in this one command: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself’” (Rom. 13:9).

During my tenure as the Preaching Minister for a church in Indiana, one of my elders would often remind of me what Jesus said to the Pharisee who was outraged at the unorthodox show of affection by a strange woman in his house. Jesus told Simon, “I tell you, her sins—and they are many—have been forgiven, so she has shown me much love. But a person who is forgiven little shows only little love.” (Luke 7:47 NLT). Jesus is clearly focused on love. That is his primary concern: Do we love?

Going back to Paul’s writings, he clearly wanted all people to desire spiritual gifts and to use them, but he also thought that there was a greater way — a greater desire and practice. He writes,

“Eagerly desire the greater gifts. And now I will show you the most excellent way.

If I speak in the tongues of mean and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but I have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails…

Follow the way of love and eagerly desire spiritual gifts…” (1 Cor. 12:31-14:1).

As I think about our approach to the issue of women in public roles of ministry and service, especially during our Sunday morning worship services, I believe strongly that there are very good scriptural arguments that can be made to defend the right of women to participate. I hope that I have adequately shown that up to this point (and I have a few more sermons left in the series), but I can’t help but also think of this in terms of love. If there are questions surrounding this issue and the texts involved, are we going to allow fear to determine our approach? Or are we going to let love determine our approach?

I have heard people concede that there “might be questions surrounding this issue,” so the best thing to do is to just play it safe. By “playing it safe” we mean that we should just continue to do what we have always done. By “playing it safe” we mean to let the fear of getting it wrong determine our actions. Playing it safe is motivated by fear.

I would like to suggest that the fear of getting it wrong is not playing it safe. Playing it safe in a questionable situation is ultimately to love our neighbor.

What is the loving thing to do: restrict someone from using a spiritual gift to build up the body because we are afraid? That does not seem very loving to me. In fact, we are prohibiting someone else from expressing their love for others. I have heard some suggest that women who want to read scripture or pray are just wanting “to be seen up front.” I have heard some suggest that certain women are just seeking their own glory. Surely we should think more highly of our sisters in Christ than that!

It is ironic that when a man read’s scripture or prays, he is simply serving, but if a woman wants to do the same thing, she is seeking her own glory. I find that to be terribly unfair. The law of Christ calls upon us to think more highly of each other. The law of Christ calls upon us to be driven by love, not by fear.