However, the historical-critical method is not without its own faults, as it inevitably leads to exactly what it claims to be: criticism of history. At this point, we hear the voice of Gerhard von Rad, who argues that the Old Testament does not see itself as a history textbook, but rather, a history of Israel's religion, or, more helpfully, a story of God's faithfulness to his people Israel. This does not automatically eliminate historicity, but rather opens up a helpful way to view biblical narrative.
Given that the Bible is the inspired Word of God and that it tells a narrative story, we can conclude that in the Bible, we are essentially given a history book from the perspective of God. Not only does it contain the meta-narrative of salvation history, but (particularly in the prophets) we are given divine interpretations of historic events.
When confronted with difficult times of hurt or confusion, the Bible does not often have a one-to-one parallel that provides a pat answer. However, by seeing how God has responded to and interpreted events in the past, we can know God's character and discern the proper perspective for our own situations.
There are no easy answers for the couple that has lost a child, or the mother facing cancer, or to those who lose loved ones to war, disease, disaster or age. But we do have a record of God's faithfulness, and thus, legitimate reason for hope. It is hope in God's word (Psalm 119:147)—and He has promised to make all things right.
1 comment:
Certainly, guessing at authorial intent is often wishy-washy at best. E.g. Mark Rothko, my favorite painter. Critics have found intense meaning in his paintings. Some have come close to calling him a prophet. Others have said his work is beauty incarnate. He has gone on record, however, stating that his abstract paintings have NO INTENDED MEANING. I say this to illustrate the problem with intoning Authorial intent. People have read great intentions into his work, and yet, those intentions are not real. As one philosopher once said, highly misunderstood, "Man is the measure of all things," which is to say, we cannot ever hope to remove ourselves from our own biases when coming to... well... anything. Art, literature, or even an argument with someone we love. All we can hope to do is limit our potential for error, which is precisely the point, as I see it, of the acceptance of Reader-response hermeneutic. But also, the only way this actually works is in open discussion of reader-responses. (If we were each to allow our own responses to determine our doctrine, we would be lost; depth of others' experience is important.)
Let us also believe that God is trustworthy enough to have given us a Bible that can speak to us in any of our inconstant states. When happy, when sad, when angry, when feeling agnostic... at any time, the Bible can and does speak to us.
Post a Comment