# The Role of Church History/Tradition in Hermeneutics?



## InSlaveryToChrist (Nov 16, 2011)

What is the role and authority of church history and tradition in the interpretation of Scripture?


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Nov 17, 2011)

Any help here would be greatly appreciated.


----------



## KMK (Nov 17, 2011)

In regards to the church's authority over the interpretation, it has none.

LBC Chapter 1



> Paragraph 9. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself; and therefore when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which are not many, but one), it must be searched by other places that speak more clearly.20
> 20 2 Pet. 1:20, 21; Acts 15:15, 16
> 
> Paragraph 10. The supreme judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Scripture delivered by the Spirit, into which Scripture so delivered, our faith is finally resolved.21
> 21 Matt. 22:29, 31, 32; Eph. 2:20; Acts 28:23



That is not to say that the church does not have a 'role'.

LBC Chapter 26



> Paragraph 4. The Lord Jesus Christ is the Head of the church, in whom, by the appointment of the Father, all power for the calling, institution, order or government of the church, is invested in a supreme and sovereign manner;
> 
> Paragraph 8. A particular church, gathered and completely organized according to the mind of Christ, consists of officers and members; and the officers appointed by Christ to be chosen and set apart by the church (so called and gathered), for the peculiar administration of ordinances, and execution of power or duty, which he intrusts them with, or calls them to, to be continued to the end of the world, are bishops or elders, and deacons.
> 
> Paragraph 10. The work of pastors being constantly to attend the service of Christ, in his churches, in the ministry of the word and prayer, with watching for their souls, as they that must give an account to Him;



The head of the church is Jesus Christ and he has entrusted certain men (elders and pastors) to minister the word and prayer and watch for the souls of the congregation. This would include helping them to properly interpret Scripture according to the mind of Christ. 

2 Cor 1:24 Not for that we have dominion over your faith, but are helpers of your joy: for by faith ye stand.


----------



## py3ak (Nov 17, 2011)

Every believer has a right of private judgment; perhaps we could say then that the churches have a right of public judgment. They can declare, with binding authority _in their own sphere_, what they confess to be the teaching of Scripture.
Naturally, since the meaning of Scripture is but one, such declarations are not to be lightly ignored, though they are not infallible.


----------



## Peairtach (Nov 17, 2011)

The Spirit of God has been illuminating the minds of godly scholars over the past 1,900 years so that we can get a more clear grasp of Scripture.

Progress has been made in theology by God's grace, so that with documents like the WCF, the Church has the possibility of being more mature than she was, if she will avail herself of the light that has been given.


----------



## Hebrew Student (Nov 17, 2011)

InSlaveryToChrist,

I would say that church history and tradition do two things for you; first of all, they help you understand where the church is at, and how it got there, so you can understand how to best minister the word of God in that situation. Another thing church history and tradition does is it can help you understand the history of interpretation of a particular passage. This is very helpful in giving you ideas as to what the correct interpretation of the passage is.

For example, one scholar I was reading when I was doing a paper on the Sennacherib invasion tried to argue that Isaiah 28 took place during this invasion, because Isaiah 28:15 talks about a "covenant with death" which he takes to be the treaty which Israel made with Egypt. He then tries to use it to make the Bible contradictory. However, I noticed that there were tons of wisdom vocabulary in the text of Isaiah 28, and it made me wonder exactly how this term covenant is used in a wisdom context. I noticed a passage in Job 5:23 which speaks of being in a treaty with the stones of the field. I then started wondering if having a covenant with death might mean something like "toying with death." In other words, death and the grave have been personified such that they think that because they have made a "covenant with death," they can do whatever they want, and death will not take them because they have have an agreement with death.

This is where church history and tradition comes in. I was unsure about this interpretation, until I found it in the writings of John Calvin in his commentary on Isaiah:



> 15. Because ye have said. The Prophet next assigns the reason why he called them “scorners;” it was because they had thrown off all fear of God. He likewise describes the manner in which they acted, by saying that they promised to themselves that they would escape punishment amidst all their crimes and enormities, and became the more daring, and, as if they had obtained greater liberty to pursue wicked courses, rushed forward without dread wherever their unruly passions carried them.
> We have struck a league with death, and with hell have we made a compact. This is what he means by the league into which they had entered with death and the grave; for by despising and boldly ridiculing all God’s threatenings and chastisements, they thought that they were out of all danger [Calvin, John. Commentary on Isaiah. Available online at: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom14.xvii.i.html]



What is interesting is that this interpretation also survived. I found it in the commentaries of Christopher R. Seitz, Walter Brueggemann, and Otto Kaiser. I was then able to go on to show that it fit the context much better than a treaty with Egypt as well. Hence, although this was not a popular interpretation amongst the commentaries, I was able to see that good, sound commentators, both old and new, agreed with me, and hence, I was not off the mark, and had a position that could be defended.

I would say, though, that history and tradition always needs to be subject to the Bible. Wherever history or tradition are shown to contradict what is found in the scriptures, the scriptures are always given priority. James White said something excellent one time: our forefathers were not idiots, but they were not infallible either. There are many ways in which we can learn from them, and there are many ways in which the advances in the study of linguistics, Northwest Semitic Philology, and Greek and Hebrew grammar and exegesis can help to correct or clarify what they were saying. Hence, I would say that there needs to be a balance between recognizing the value of those that came before us, but also recognizing that they were men, and as men, they had a lot of good things to say, but were also fallible and limited in their knowledge.

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Nov 18, 2011)

Thank you all for sharing your knowledge with me!

I've been slowly reading Moises Silva's "Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics" during this year, and I'm now reading chapter 5. There has been no discussion on the role of history in hermeneutics, however, but today I looked at the index of the book, and chapter 7 was named, "Why Get Entangled with Historical Interpretation? The Role of History." I think it will make a good complementary resource to all the information that has been given here on this topic.


----------



## Peairtach (Nov 18, 2011)

Liberal Theology puts Man's finite, fallible and fallen reason and Liberal received wisdom (tradition) above Scripture in interpreting the Bible.

Romanism puts tradition above Scripture and reason.

Evangelical and Reformed Theology puts Scripture above tradition and "reason".


----------



## KMK (Nov 18, 2011)

That  is worth at least a dollar, Richard. Nice quote.


----------



## CharlieJ (Nov 19, 2011)

Samuel, I look at it this way. If Scripture is the infallible source of theology, then history is the context in which theology happens. The interpretation of the Scriptures has been entrusted to the Church as a whole; thus, it's a group project. It doesn't work well if someone takes the Bible into their room, shuts the door, and doesn't work with others. That's how must of the North American cults got started (see Nathan Hatch's _The Democratization of American Christianity_). The sharpening of others, both living and dead, is an important part of the process.

The difficult thing is that if we take history really seriously, we can't just limit it to "our" history. We can't take Calvin and Owen and forget the rest. We have to listen to and weigh the claims of Thomas and Bonaventure, Rahner and Schleiermacher, Luther and Chemnitz, etc. We have to be willing to acknowledge these voices, even when we differ with them.


----------



## Peairtach (Nov 19, 2011)

KMK said:


> That  is worth at least a dollar, Richard. Nice quote.



Well I'm sure it could be expressed in a more accurate and refined way, but I think the basic idea is gleaned from, and more clearly expounded in, James Packer's little book "Fundamentalism and the Word of God"

james packer - fundamentalism - AbeBooks


in which he shows that our Lord and His apostles followed what Liberals call a "Fundamentalist" approach to God's Word.


----------



## dudley (Nov 29, 2011)

py3ak said:


> Every believer has a right of private judgment; perhaps we could say then that the churches have a right of public judgment. They can declare, with binding authority _in their own sphere_, what they confess to be the teaching of Scripture.
> Naturally, since the meaning of Scripture is but one, such declarations are not to be lightly ignored, though they are not infallible.



Amen brother Rueben and I would like to add....
The church within the guide of the confession of faith that they follow may offer an interpretation as an individual can also. But the final point however as Protestants to keep in my mind that the scriptures are in fact our final authority. 

We must be on guard to never become in any way like the Romanists who we Protest against. “"And where they disagree with Scripture, I deny Pope and council and all. A simple layman armed with Scripture is greater than the mightiest Pope without it.”- Martin Luther

WCF
IX. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture, is the Scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it may be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.
X. The Supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture. 

Remember always as Protestants we adhere to the authority of the Bible and the doctrines of he early creeds. Protestants are distinguished by their emphasis on the doctrines of "justification by grace alone through faith, the priesthood of all believers, and the supremacy of Holy Scripture in matters of faith and order."!!!!


----------

