The nineteenth century witnessed what Alan Richardson has called a "revolution in historical thinking.''1 For the first time, history became a disciplined science. Under the impact of this revolution in historical thinking, Christian scholars began to appreciate the significance of the historical content of Scripture.
In recent years great attention has been given to this historical element in biblical faith. As never before, it is now recognized that the heart of biblical faith is the saving acts of God in history. Rather than thinking that divine revelation is mediated in abstract theological propositions, Christian scholars now understand that historical events are the "stuff" through which God has revealed himself to humanity.2
In the past, Christian scholasticism, whether Catholic or Protestant, had the tendency to dehistoricize the Bible. The task of theology was to arrange the inspired propositions ("proof-texts") into an ordered system of theology. In this approach the actual history surrounding the text of Scripture was treated like a useless husk which contained the essential kernel of truth.
We are now witnessing a revolutionary method of reading the Bible. It is called the historical method. It represents an advance over the method used by the Reformers. They used the grammatical method, which was a great advance over the allegorical method of medieval theologians. The grammatical method looks at the language of the Bible and tries to adhere as closely as possible to the plain and obvious meaning of the passage. It also assumes that this plain and obvious meaning can be applied directly to the life of the contemporary Christian.
The historical method is more sensitive to the fact that the Bible was written in another age and from within a culture quite different from Western civilization. Those who follow this method do not assume that the Bible writers shared concerns identical with ours. Instead of asking, "What is the plain and obvious meaning that this passage has for me?" the historical method asks, "What did these words mean to those to whom they were first addressed?" This method recognizes that the history and the culture behind the text determine its real meaning. The historical method treats with great seriousness the historical circumstances in which the text was written.
The historical method has driven biblical scholars and researchers to lay aside their dogmatic presuppositions (at least to a greater extent than ever before) and to painstakingly reconstruct the history behind the biblical text. Astounding progress has been made in this area. It has been estimated that more progress has been made in such biblical knowledge since World War II than in all the previous centuries of Christian history combined.3
Under the impact of the historical method, many favorite proof-texts which have bolstered various systems of theology have been called into question. The historical method is an objective biblical science which respects no religious tradition, whether Catholic or Protestant. It often shows that both sides in great religious controversies have been wrong--for each has wrested the text of Scripture from its original historical setting and made it speak to the controverted concerns of Western man.
Christians are suffering from a serious time lag. We are trying to live in an era which no longer exists. The way we try to read our Bibles is as outmoded as the Flat Earth Society. We will not correct this problem merely by more piety and prayer.
Unfortunately, the habit of praying before reading the Bible often functions as a mechanism for reinforcing our religious prejudices. We would generally make more progress in reading the Bible if we could discard our religious glasses and forget our commitment to some theological system. If we would simply read the Bible with the common sense we would apply to any other book from another era of history, we might be astonished by numerous discoveries--especially if we were bold enough to exercise some healthy doubt with respect to our own religious traditions. God never damns the honest doubter. He only damns the dishonest ones.
The Historical Method Illustrated
A number of examples illustrate how the historical method makes a significant difference in the way we interpret the Bible.
1. "So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith" (Gal. 3:24). Following the grammatical method of interpretation, the Reformers used this scripture to support the pedagogical or second use of the Law. The plain and obvious meaning of Galatians 3:24 seemed to be that the Law must first be preached to prepare us for the hearing of the gospel. But when we use the historical method of interpretation, this text yields the opposite meaning. 4
First, "the law" in the historical context of the controversy in Galatia means the Jewish Torah--the entire Law of Moses, with no distinction between the so-called ceremonial and moral parts. Paul is not arguing that Gentile Christians then, much less now, need to come to Christ by way of the Jewish Torah--for that was the heresy of the Jewish Christians against whom Paul hurled his anathemas.
We should pay attention to the "we's" and the "you's" in Paul. In most instances, "we" means "we Jews" and "you" means "you Gentiles." Paul does not urge any pedagogical use of the Law today. Galatians 3:24 should not be interpreted existentially but historically. Paul is simply talking about the function of the Law in Israel's history between Moses and Christ. The apostle's point is that the Jewish Torah served the temporary function of guarding Israel until the coming of Christ (Gal. 3."19). Now that the Messiah has come, the Law has served its function in history. The age of the Law has been superseded by the age of the Spirit (Gal. 3:25; 5:18). Yet Christians who stand in the Reformation tradition are still writing books urging the preaching of the Law today as a necessary preparation for the gospel. Their great proof-text for this is Galatians 3:24. Yet the historical method of interpretation makes plain that Paul wrote this passage to oppose the very thing these Christians have set out to prove.
Paul stands in clear and harsh opposition to that Lutheran demand (also reflected in Reformed liturgies), that every man must be pulled through the narrowness, the slavery, the curse, or the preaching of the law and must thereby be led or driven to inner bankruptcy and despair, in order to be properly prepared for the reception of grace and for the acquittal of God. The apostle calls such a methodology whether carried on and practiced from the side of Jews or Gentiles--a distortion of the Gospel, an apostasy from Christ, a fall from grace, or more briefly with a harsh term: "damned" (Gal. 2:11; 1:7; 5:4). Whoever today wishes to construct his exegesis and sermon exclusively or mainly according to the pattern law-gospel, whoever wishes to drive his fellow-men into heaven by means of fear, whoever wishes to proclaim the presence of a definite self-acceptance and the break with the latter as a prerequisite to the transition into authentic existence--for such a person the same hard judgment may presumably be expected. In a bold essay the Scandinavian Lutheran K. Stendahl has laid his finger exactly on this paradox: the demand that every man must have a conscience crushed by the law, before he is ripe for the blessing of grace, results from falling into that very "judaizing" which Paul by all means wanted to be prevented. 5
2. For centuries Christians have argued whether Romans 7:14-25 describes the experience of a regenerate or an unregenerate person--or even the experience of a Christian before he is filled with the Holy Spirit. Such confusion results from trying to interpret this scripture existentially instead of historically.
Since the historical method of interpretation has been applied to Romans 7, the traditional psychological-autobiographical interpretation is "now relegated to the museum of exegetical absurdities.''6 Like its parallel passage in Galatians 3, Romans 7 describes how the Law functioned in Israel's history. The 'T' of Romans 7, like the 'T' in Galatians 2:19, 20, is "I, the Jew." The 'T' is symbolic, referring to the history of Israel under the Law. The very Law in which the Jew boasted was the Law which proved he was a sinner in solidarity with Adam and the entire race of Gentile sinners.
3. When Luther despaired over his ability to find a gracious God by his own piety and asceticism, he found consolation in Paul's doctrine of justification by faith alone apart from the deeds of the Law (Rom. 3:28). But the historical method warns us to be careful not to read Luther's experience back into Paul. Paul did not travel Luther's route of despairing over his ability to keep the Law (see Phil. 3:3-6). The apostle's doctrine of justification by faith was not the fruit of his own existential struggle with the introspective conscience of Western man. 7 Rather, it was the fruit of his struggle against Jewish Christians who refused to accord Gentile Christians equality in the one family of God. Paul realized what God was doing in history. When the apostle saw that God was pouring out his Spirit on those who paid no attention to the Jewish Torah and including these Gentiles in the Messianic community, he was fully convinced that Torah-observance had nothing to do with God's justification. The biblical doctrine of justification by faith illustrates that the truth of salvation by grace is not learned by immersing ourselves in our own existential struggle to get right with God. It is learned by seeing how graciously God deals with our neighbor -- especially the one who does not subscribe to our religious practices. This makes us realize that our religious practices have nothing to do with our inclusion in the family of God.
Following the grammatical method, Luther used the doctrine of justification by faith to find a gracious God. Yet the historical method shows us that Paul used the doctrine in his fight for Gentile rights. In the Reformation, justification by faith was a very individualistic doctrine. In the New Testament it is very much a social event. Far from being an encouragement to crass individualism and ecclesiastically embellished egoism, Paul's doctrine is the repudiation of them.
Paul's work can be seen as a fight for equality for all men .... There is no personal justification by God without justification of fellow-men by God..
Justification by Christ, is, therefore, an event which ties man and man together. It is a social happening· · . . There is no justified life without community ....
Paul fights for the justice established in Jesus Christ· It is a justice that gives the Gentile an equal right as a child in the household of God .... Justification in Christ is thus not an individual miracle happening to this person or that person, which each may seek or possess for himself. Rather justification by grace is a joining together of this person and that person, of the near and the far, of the good and the bad, of the high and the low. It is a social event. No one is joined to Christ except together with a neighbor .... Seen in this fashion, justification is a public festival which no one can accept and celebrate for himself alone.8
4. Surprisingly, it is only in recent years that the historical method has been seriously applied to the book of Romans. From Melanchthon to modern times, Romans has been regarded as a theological treatise with little connection to any historical situation among the Roman Christians. But this traditional approach to Romans is now being challenged.9 Dedication to the historical method has driven scholars to make a significant advance in reconstructing the historical situation of the primitive Roman Christians. The entire book of Romans has come alive with new meaning for Christians today because we can understand what it meant for the first Christians living in Rome. We will have to leave a full discussion of this to a subsequent Verdict essay.
5. In the past, different Christian groups have appealed to Paul's pastoral epistles (Timothy and Titus) in support of either an episcopal or a presbyterian form of church government. At one time this controversy led to civil and religious warfare in England and Scotland. But when we interpret Timothy and Titus according to the historical method, there is no proof that Paul particularly cared whether there were to be three orders of ministry, or two, or even one. He was concerned about maintaining a respectable standard for the ministry, not with presenting dogma on religious orders in the church.
The historical method resolves many contentious issues which have set Christian against Christian. Often both sides in longstanding controversies have been shown to be fighting over nonissues as far as the New Testament is concerned. We are all too prone to press Scripture into the service of our own religious concerns. We hunt for proof-texts to buttress our theological prejudices. But we need to make a conscious effort to come to Scripture, asking, "Given the historical circumstances and the culture out of which this passage was written, what would be the plain and obvious meaning to those to whom it was addressed?" If we will be courageous enough to do this, there will be many embarrassed faces all around. Again and again we have been guilty of passing Scripture through the grid of our dogmatic traditions. A ruthless, objective honesty may cause us much trauma as "precious" theological edifices begin to fall down around us. But let us determine to deal faithfully with the text even if it kills us--which it surely will! (see Gal. 2:19, 20).
The Historical Method and the Gospel
Biblical faith is rooted in history. The Bible is the record of God's saving acts in history. In the Old Testament the Exodus was the great event which stamped itself upon every feature of Israel's religion. Whether the Old Testament authors wrote about the past (creation) or the future (the last days), they saw everything in terms of what God had done in the Exodus. The Exodus determined their view of everything. Israel's religious and ethical existence was all structured and colored by what God did in delivering his people from Egypt. Every activity of Israel was designed to remember and celebrate God's saving act.
The Old Testament promised that in the end-time God would recapitulate and consummate his saving deeds in one glorious new exodus drama. The New Testament announces that God has fulfilled this Old Testament promise in the history of Jesus of Nazareth. The gospel or good news is not news about some existential or mystical happening in my heart. It is not about some theological system that one must believe in order to be saved. It is about a unique historical event in which God's end-time act of salvation has been accomplished for all who believe.
The whole sweep of salvation history must be seen as moving toward and climaxing in the death and resurrection of Christ. The focus of the entire New Testament is here, and it never moves away from this. The Christian's religious and ethical existence is all structured and colored by the new exodus event. Every activity of the Christian community should remember and celebrate God's saving act in Christ.
It is not enough to affirm that the Bible is true. Many heretics do that. We need to affirm that the truth of the Bible is the gospel about the saving history of Jesus of Nazareth. A "flat Bible" approach which treats the Scripture as if it were an assortment of infallible truths to be believed in the same way not only obscures the great gospel event, but promotes useless contentions, dividing believer from believer. All parts of the Bible are not of equal value. The Bible does not contain many truths so much as it contains one Truth. Every part of the Bible has value only by virtue of where it stands in relation to the gospel.
There is no need to fear that the historical method, in shattering our religious illusions, will leave us with no real security. Rather, it enables us to cut away the religious accretions and useless controversies which have almost obliterated the genuine treasure contained in the Bible. That treasure comes to us in the form of a story about God coming to this earth in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. The historical method recognizes that the New Testament authors read the whole Bible and lived out their entire lives in the light of that story. Moreover, the New Testament proclaims that only faith in the Man of this story makes a person a Christian. Whoever withholds any Christian rights from such a believer walks contrary to the gospel of Christ.
Notes and References
Unless otherwise indicated, Scripture quotations are from the New International Version.
7. See Stendahl, Paul among Jews and Gentiles, pp. 78-96.
8. Barth, "Jews and Gentiles," pp. 241, 245, 251, 252, 255, 259, 263.,