Hermeneutics: In Search of Pattern or Reality (Part II) — The Watershed

Jump to Comments

Since the Reformation, various, disputing Christian churches, sects and cults have staked their claim to the perfect pattern for the Christian church. One of my daughters entered a talent competition at the New York State Fair one year. After the competition we treated her to a few rides and games on the midway. The midway is enticing even though you know it’s the perfect set up for ripping people off. A perfect pattern or set up for the church is religiously enticing, but the human result is a spiritual rip off.

What really are these perfect patterns? The way church doctrine is generally taught does produce a recognizable pattern that answers the question: “What does your church believe and practice?” Do not all distinctive groups develop their own patterns of doctrine? Indeed, but the spiritual rip off is the claim that a certain traditional pattern is the perfect and authoritative pattern for the New Testament church.

 

Certainly the Pharisees treated the traditions of their elders as the authoritative teachings for observing the Law. Even Jesus urged the Jews to obey their teachings, yet without imitating their hypocrisy (Matthew 23). Nevertheless these traditions were not a perfect pattern, for Jesus often disputed against their traditions. These disputes exposed how the Pharisees judged the righteousness and worthiness of the people by their traditions. Moreover they ripped off the worshipers spiritually by neglecting the most vital areas of their faith and practice according to the Scriptures (Matthew 12 and 15, Mark 7, and John 5 and 7). Only concerned for observance of Sabbath Day traditions and other rituals, they failed to learn that God desired mercy not sacrifice — so judgments were not to be based on mere appearances but righteousness. Although they knew their “perfect pattern”, they did not really know God or the love of God and thus rejected Jesus as the Messiah because of the evil within their hearts.

 

Paul urged Timothy to follow his model or example of sound teaching (2 Timothy 1:13). Although we cannot experience the oral teaching of Paul as Timothy did; Paul’s letters provide a model of sound teaching for us to follow. This is also true of the Gospels, Acts, the other letters, and Revelation. Is Paul’s model of teaching the same as John’s form of teaching? Can the letter to the Hebrews be treated the same as the apocalyptic writing of Revelation? Is it really restoring New Testament Christianity when we gather and organize proof texts from all the different forms of teaching in the New Testament into a new, completely different form? The development of patterns is inevitable; and may be useful in teaching. Yet it is self-deceiving to claim that the evolved form of a movement’s teaching is the perfect pattern of the New Testament church.

 

A faith and practice that is guided more by the evolved form of the teachings of a historical movement is like the carnival game that constructs and slants everything in favor of the carnies. The insiders have their own select and most taught proof texts and well-entrenched habits of reasoning. It is difficult to expose their fundamental fallacy, because they reason so well within the confines of their presuppositions and methodology — just like the carnies who readily demonstrate their ability to easily win their own games. Unless you’re a sharpie, you’re convinced it’s all above board.

 

The fundamental fallacy is frightening. Despite the acknowledgment of the gospel of God’s grace, that which is embraced as the perfect pattern now supersedes the gospel as the standard for attaining righteousness, judging worthiness, and extending fellowship. How different that is from Paul’s pattern of sound teaching. He taught that our start in the covenant is a work of God’s Spirit through faith, not works; and perfection cannot be attained in the flesh by works. It must also be a work of God’s Spirit by faith (Galatians 2:11-3:9). It seems all Christians acknowledge their start on top of the mountain range of God’s grace; but from that peak the streams of righteousness run on different sides of the divide creating two watershed basins, one continuing in the Spirit and one resuming with the flesh. On the divide watered by the rains of the Spirit, the people are a fruitful plain in their knowledge of Christ and imitation of his image. On the divide where the waters of the Spirit evaporate in the desert heat of the flesh, the people are drained of spiritual life and confidence by sectarian self-righteousness, legalism, divisiveness and loss of their freedom in Christ.

 

Think about how this happened under the old covenant from Paul’s argument in Romans 9:30-10:13. He stated that Moses wrote about the righteousness based on law which operates by the principle: “if a person does them, he shall live by them.” (Leviticus 18:5, ESV, and Romans 10:5). But even under the Law God was not looking for the accomplishment of that which was impossible for flesh; but rather a commitment to the Law that was grounded in trust which continued to rely on God’s grace through the word of promise. So Paul distinguished Moses’ words about the righteousness based on faith by use of Deuteronomy 30:11-14 in Romans 10:6-8. Although Paul is here applying this distinction to his present explanation for the Jewish rejection of their Messiah; elsewhere he reasoned that before, during and after the Law, righteousness is by faith, not by works (Romans 4, providing Abraham and David as examples). Tragically, under the first century shepherds of Israel, much of Israel rejected Jesus as their Messiah. Paul’s explanation is: Because they did not pursue it [righteousness] by faith, but as if it were based on works (Romans 9:32). This is, and has always been, the great divide in our relationship with God. There is no “rightly dividing the word of truth” without understanding this fundamental distinction (2 Timothy 2:15, KJV).

 

The measure of faithfulness, fellowship and pursuit of the goal according to a perfect pattern derived from the New Testament is not the reality of the new and living way revealed by the sound doctrine of the New Testament. First, Paul’s form of sound doctrine in Romans contrasts the new way of the Spirit against the old way of the written code (Romans 7-8). Then in 2 Corinthians 3-4 he highlights the confidence of the ministry of the Spirit under the new covenant in contrast to the ministry of the letter under the old covenant. If we seriously embrace this difference we will see the importance of Paul’s own commitment based on the Spirit described in Philippians 3, and his pray and discussion in Ephesians 1-3 that the whole church would gain spiritual understanding into its spiritual wealth in Christ. Hebrews also speaks of confidence based on the high priestly ministry of Christ, our new and living way; and this is contrasted with the old covenant of worship and service to God according to a pattern which consisted of regulations and shadows of the reality we now have in Jesus. Hebrews strongly proclaims that the way of the earthly pattern and regulations was weak, ineffective and temporary. Not only did Hebrews admonish Christians not to go backwards, but to go forward, even from our own first principles. The new and living way cannot be fully known on first principles! Finally, the Gospels are my favorite, especially John’s gospel. Do you want a pattern to follow? John 6 is that pattern. Learn what it means to eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of Man, Jesus. Otherwise, you have no life in you.

Cite as: Buttram, Bryan. In Hermeneutics: In Search of Pattern or Reality (Part II). Bryanbuttram.wordpress.com: 2008/01/23.

5 Comments

Filed under Hermeneutics, Interpretation, New Testament Christianity, New Way

Tags: Hemeneutics, Interpretation, New Testament Christianity, New Testament Pattern, New Way