The Reasoning

The Reasoning for a Reinterpretation

Previous Home Next Table of Contents

Section II

The Gospel Re-Interpreted

I marvel that ye are son soon removed from

him that called you into the grace of Christ

unto another gospel:

Which is not another; but there be some that

trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of

Christ. But though we, or an angel from

heaven preach any other gospel unto you than

that which we have preached unto you, let

him be accursed.

As we said before, so say I now again, If

any man preach any other gospel unto you

than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

Galatians 1:6-9 KJV

4. The Reasoning for a Re-Interpretation

Attempts to pervert the gospel message of Jesus Christ is not a new problem facing the church. As Paul would encounter at the church at Galatia, Judaizers were trying to insist upon the new converts that in addition to their faith in Jesus Christ, they were also to perform ceremonial acts, such as circumcision, to be assured of their salvation. In effect, the gospel was changed from faith as being the sole basis of salvation to a works salvation in which certain rituals or customs would be done in connection with faith. The basic problem with this “other gospel” was that it attacked the very foundational truth of what Jesus Christ did on the cross of Calvary and the efficacious result it has upon the believer. The Judaizers had re-interpreted the truth of Jesus’ work on the cross to include their understanding of what salvation involves. The results were obvious. Many were being misled by the reasoning and beliefs of the Judaizers as to what salvation consisted of.

In view of what has been stated, it is clear the same misleading is occurring within the church today. As has been seen, much of the academic “freedom” in Scriptural interpretation has been directed at making the Word of God understandable for the modern reader. Instead of the Judaizers, theologians and teachers are attempting to interpret the work of Jesus Christ with current popular philosophical teachings. As was shown in Section I, many individuals feel that the existential modal, when it is applied to the message of Scripture, is an appropriate manner to make Scripture meaningful, and thus, define the way of salvation for man.

The problem with the Judaizers, as well as the existentialist and humanist, is that all of these groups are guilty of interpreting the efficacy of Jesus’ work by some standard other than that revealed. For the Judaizers, interpretation was hopelessly guided by their devotion to religious ceremonialism and the requirements of the Law. Their modern counterparts are hopelessly guided by their assumptions that Scripture is meaningless as it stands. They equally assume that the events or “myths” are only recorded to point to some further existential meaning. Looking at these last two assumptions, however, will show the problem with this type of argumentation.

The first assumption states that for the modern individual, when a preacher or teacher is speaking about such concepts as hell, heaven, everlasting life, Jesus as divine, demons, judgment day, repentance, regeneration, justification, and so on, these concepts do not make relevant connection to man’s modern way of understanding the world. Consequently, when these concepts from Scripture are heard, the are unintelligible unless they are somehow reinterpreted for the listener. The second assumption is that events, such as Jesus’ miracles, His resurrection from the dead, His virgin birth, His second coming, the miracles his apostles performed, etc., cannot be accepted as fact due to modern understandings of life. Furthermore, theologians will maintain that these events were not necessarily recorded to be taken literally, but represent the archaic myths of the first century, which express the religious interpretations and impressions of the writers. Thus, the resurrection is truly meant to describe the new life or new understanding the apostles gained from being around Jesus of Nazereth. This is similar to the frequently stated idea that a person lives on, even though he has in reality died, in the memories and works and works that are remembered.

The evidence and the facts of reality indicate that both of the above assumptions are erroneous and not sufficient grounds for a reinterpretation of Scripture. Throughout the history of the church, whenever the gospel has been preached truthfully and authoritatively, people have responded to its proclamation. If you ask a sinner who is groping about in their sin, under the conviction of the Holy Spirit, searching for justification and meaning, having grown weary of the good works, all attempts at self-improvement and trying to please God, if the gospel is meaningful, the answer is that it is not only meaningful but life-saving. This was demonstrated in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost when Peter stood up and proclaimed that Jesus had physically risen and was the Messiah. This made incredible sense to 3,000 individuals who should have been extremely skeptical given their closeness to the events. They no doubt could have very easily checked the truthfulness of the proclamation.

If it be argued that this is the first century understanding and that ours has changed, what is to be made of all who have responded to the gospel since the first century? If the gospel is not intelligible, how can one explain the great revivals under John Wesley and Jonathon Edwards? How can one explain the many who were touched by the faithful exposition of Charles Spurgeon? Even more recently, how do you explain the untold thousands who have responded to the gospel of Jesus Christ under the ministry of men like Billy Graham? How do the skeptics explain the revivals in other parts of the world today? What about those who have responded in the local church? All of these situations are examples where the gospel has not been reinterpreted. Do all of these responses indicate that the gospel of Jesus Christ is unintelligible? I think not! If anything, these examples are a continuing testimony to the efficacious nature of God’s Word when it is preached in its simplicity. Thus, if a reason for reinterpreting the Scriptures rests on a need to make it meaningful, the reasoning is faulty.

It may be charged at this point that you have to give present illustration and life situations and expression to make sense of what sin and other biblical concepts represent. Thus, all the reinterpretations are doing is to provide this type of hermeneutical assistance. It is true that application has to be made to the contemporary situation. However, when this type of concern is expressed, I wonder if a person’s faith and confidence are truly directed toward God. Do you not know that the saints are called to be ambassadors to the entrusted gospel which has been received? Do you forget that the Spirit of God is the best applier of scriptural truth? Do you not see that it is God’s work to bring the sinner to repentance? Do you not see that the many illustrations found in Scripture are sufficient to direct and guide the Christian in many contemporary situations which he finds himself in? Man has not changed since the fall. Sin still dominates. Satan is still the deceiver. Man still rebels against the truth of God. If man, those chosen and called, would give himself to a faithful proclamation of the gospel, put away their psychology books, their quotations from self-help guides, the 1011 illustrations, man might see the power of the gospel efficaciously applied to the hearers around them. Some preachers are trying so hard to do the Spirit’s work of application that they can read a passage of Scripture and never refer to the Bible again during the balance of the message. What kind of interpretation and proclamation is this? My dear friend, whether you use 1011 illustrations or the existential philosophy to reinterpret Scripture, you have simply denied the efficacious ability of the gospel to reach souls by its own dynamic. The charge that reinterpretation is needed to make the gospel meaningful is groundless.

Neither will the need for reinterpretation rest on the belief that the events recorded need to be re-aligned with modern understandings of the world. Has man understood every process in this world to such a degree that he can explain every phenomenon? When miraculous healing occurs in the present day, can they be dismissed as archaic understandings of reality? When people who are possessed with all kinds of bondage’s and demons are set free by the name of Jesus, can a rational explanation be provided? In fact, if a person believes that these healing’s and deliverance’s are superstitious, even when they have been well-documented, then he is more naive than the one he calls superstitious. These contemporary events do not need to be reinterpreted any more than the events in the life of Jesus or His apostles.

The biblical events were recorded to be taken literally. This is seen in the significance that were given to these events (Acts 2:22). If these events were not written to be taken literally, this implies that the Scripture writers were either liars or wishful dreamers bordering on insanity. Did the writers have to resort to deceit and fantasy to express truth? Such logic is not only ridiculous, it is lazy scholarship. First century individuals were not fools. They knew what was ordinary and what was not natural or occurring very often. How could walking on the water by symbolic of anything else but an actual walk on water? How could healing a blind person be taken symbolically or viewed as a myth when the truth of the matter could have been easily checked? No doubt these events and truths are to be taken literally. The argument that they are unintelligible because they have not been experienced personally is equally not a reason for reinterpretation. There are many experiences of God’s people that I have not experienced. However, by faith I accept them as fact. Equally, there are some experiences that I have no desire to experience, such as being stoned to death. They are still actual events nonetheless. They stand on their own as recorded facts for our benefit. Consequently, this reason cannot be used to demand a reinterpretation of Scripture.

If the above assumptions are not sufficient grounds for a reinterpretation of Scripture, what is the motive behind such a move? What is the drive that moves this cry for “academic freedom?” Is it to provide philosophers and theologians another opportunity to write a book or demonstrate their wisdom? Are men trying to come up with something new so they can make a name for themselves and get on the speaking circuits? Is it to make another buck and heap to themselves wealth? Is it to provide another mental exercise for those who have nothing else to do “but either to tell or to hear some new thing?” Some of these motives might have some credibility, but they are in themselves not sufficient to explain the extent which subjective and liberal scholarship has leaven the church. Some would suggest that this type of scholarship is an attempt to explain the tension between modern understandings of the world and those found in the Bible. This may be one explanation, but I could only accept this as true if modern ideas and opinions were being subjected to Scripture. This is not the case, however. Since the Age of Enlightenment, the Scriptures have been subject to the reasoning of man, his fallible understanding. Thus it does not seem that there is a true synthesis occurring between science and Scripture. On the contrary, the trend is toward a continued discrediting of more portions and truths of Scripture for the modern philosophical ideas. In reality, this synthesis is the result of reinterpretation and not the underlying reason for beginning a reinterpretation. What then is the purpose for reinterpretation of Scripture?

While I have not found an adequate answer among proponents of reinterpretation, I do believe there is a subtle underlying social reason for this approach. Part of the reason has to do with a desire to make use of contemporary world views. The more key reason has to do with the current crisis which man is facing with regard to his continued survival and progress. The result of the great era of reason and philosophy has left man confounded and uncertain about the future. After several hundred years of the age of reason and an over reliance on the ability of man, current scientists, philosophers, theologians, and the like, sense that in all their wisdom and optimism the world is steadily growing more chaotic and insecure.

Has this not been demonstrated in the present generation where psychology, with all its ideas on counseling, being open, theories of development, and thousands upon thousands of research projects and analysis, has yet to stem the tide of teenage suicide? Why is it that depression is rising among the young people, even those of elementary school age, with all the promise and potential of our world laid before them? Has not the chaos begun to show up as we examine the results of humanism in our schools? This is the decision that we should allow our young people to shape their own values while not giving them guidelines. Indeed, having no firm guide and discipline in their formative years, gangs of youth are getting out of control. Secondary teachers fear for their life and spend more time trying to control and entertain the class than they do in quality education. Furthermore, the decisions that the youths are making are reaching tragic proportions. Young teenage girls are getting pregnant by the thousands and aborting them with equal frequency. Many others are pursuing their desires to the danger of their own health and the welfare of society. With regard to families, the age of reason has left an almost irreparable scar on family life in the future. Thousands of families have been torn apart by divorce and separation. The results have been deep “scars” upon the children and lives of those involved. There is no doubt that many of these families, desiring to get the most out of their life, have developed their own moral existence. In many cases, the educational system is becoming the “family” for thousands of lonely and rejected children as their parents pursue their “dreams.” Without a doubt, something must be done to address this type of chaos.

This is, however, only a small portion of the chaos which surrounds man. For those who are fortunate enough to escape some of the above curses of man’s self-direction, the question becomes can anyone say they have escaped the curse of materialism and its effects? Look at what the great quest for the “American dream” has become. It is interesting that the so called service industry is the largest growing aspect of the economic sector. What this translates to in common terms is that industry and businesses are catering to every desire and whim that man can dream up. This includes the most self-destructive and disgusting desires, as dope and pornography, to the most glamorous and expensive desire, as the ultimate boat or car. Take a look at television and see how much time is spend on trying to promote different life-styles and products. Equally, let the reader be warned that this promotion is not just limited to the commercials either. In fact, there is a channel for just about any moral system a person desires to live under. As always, there are experts to not the advantages and desirability of each product or system of value. Then there is the affect of materialism on the environment. Just about every night, the news media presents another story on the damage which is being done to this world. With these stories are estimates on how long it will be before a cataclysmic effect will result. Events which present technology knows little on how to deal.

That there is a serious crisis facing man with regard to his continued survival and progress is an accepted fact. The question is how is man going to deal with this crisis? My suggestion is to return to the sound principles and truths of salvation by faith in Jesus Christ. This would involve a return to an authoritative approach to Scripture. Unfortunately, this view is looked upon with scorn and reproach. As the Word of God stands now, it is looked upon as filled with “incongruities” to be accepted with such authority. Furthermore, the issue involves more than just one group of people. To impress Scripture on a world-wide scale could result only in “inauthentic living” by the multitudes. Then how does man deal with this problem? The answer it to attempt a synthesis of values and beliefs from all the major religious expressions and draw from them the existential value. Afterall, Christianity is only one religious tradition which has had an affect on the course of man’s history. However, its value is seen in the principle and ethics which Scripture expresses which are expressive of the most deepest yearning s which society is attempting to achieve. These values are also accepted by believers and unbelievers alike. Thus its value in giving direction for man out of his crisis is the impetus for some scriptural acceptance.

Why then the reinterpretation of Scripture? Because the issue is one of reality and survival. The reality that no other system of logic and value has been successful in moving man toward the goal of “utopia.” What is suggested is that when the Scriptures, as well as other traditions of the world, are stripped of their mythical attachments, via the existential modal, there remains a lively and useful interpretation whereby man can move himself to his highest potential, and thus usher in the “Kingdom of God,” to use biblical terminology. In fact, what better authority could be used to accomplish this than those which have been associate with God. The intention is to make Scripture meaningful for man to survive and reach his potential. Afterall, the religious expressions of the Bible are simply first century ways of expressing the answer they found to the same chaos they faced. This was particularly true in the case of the Jewish nation which was facing political extinction and looking for a Messiah. Thus, the job of the modern interpreter is to use Scripture, even when he can deny the divinity of Jesus, his redemptive purpose on the cross and other truths, as an existential textbook which radically moves man toward the goal of “authentic existence” or “responsible existence.” Jesus simply provides the impetus that man can rise above his chaos and not be defeated by it.

The only problem with this type of goal is that it does not have the glory and honor of God as its goal. The glory of man is the goal. God is not honored, man is honored. God is not the center of the proclamation, man is the center. Yet is this not the most fundamental aspect of existentialism, man being the center? Thus man and his religious thought from all ages and all traditions are evaluated to see what the vision or goal is represented as the end. When this is found, a common vision is derived which will be a goal which man can strive in unity toward. This point will be examined more closely in the third section.

Therefore, the only possible reason for reinterpretation is to try to develop society to its highest potential. This is something which man has failed to accomplish in history. While the goal may be a worthy one, the use of the gospel in this manner is frightening. It is to preach another gospel, one which Jesus and His followers never intended. It is to offer man a different salvation than the salvation offered by Jesus Christ. As a result, it is not surprising that the issue of Jesus’ divinity is so easily dismissed or not stressed. What is important is what He said and did while alive. This becomes the key to understanding Jesus’ significance for modern man. As will be seen, Jesus becomes the figure of one who shows mankind that actualization is possible.

Equally, it is not surprising that the second coming of Jesus Christ physically in the world is not emphasized. The existentialist is more concern with using the tension and uncertainty of the future, the threat of “non-being,” as a means of moving people toward a response to their description of “authentic living.” The eschatological nature of the gospel is interpreted to mean the future ideal of man reaching his potential, man actualizing in society. As will be shown, the “authentic lifestyle borrows heavily from the teachings of Scripture and Jesus as they give value to what man considers as authentic values.

At the same time, however, the historicity of the Bible becomes unimportant. In fact, this is why the reinterpretations are mostly limited to the New Testament. The Old Testament deals with historical facts and the growth of the people of Israel. Since it deals with historical fact, it does not offer the existential freedom that the New Testament does. However, parts have been demythologized when objectionable to modern understandings, such as the creation story. It is not uncommon for interpreters to say that it does not matter whether the world and man’s fall occurred as the Bible states. What is important is the message or existential meaning of Genesis 1-6. Many times, however, the existential reinterpretation does not view Adam’s sin as an actual rebellion against God and His commands. Rather, Adam being faced with the possibility of non-being, choose to hide himself in the world rather than courageously moving out and having dominion over the world, and thus, reaching the God-given potential he was created with. The interesting thing about this type of interpretation is that it sounds a lot like the opposite of what really happened. Adam and Eve both were very courageous in defying the commands of God. If there ever had been a way for man to reach his potential, surely it would have been to be like God, as Satan deceived them in believing. The problem was not “non-being” but too much of Adam’s self will. Such reinterpretations do nothing but attempt to use God’s revealed will and word for a purpose alien to its design.

If the reason I have given as the justification and cause for a reinterpretation sounds as if I am suggesting some type of theological plot to deceive, let this be far from the truth. No doubt a large part of this move to reinterpret has come through individuals who have backgrounds in the Judeo-Christian heritage. It is more likely that motives of many sincere thinkers desiring to synthesize their rational understanding of the world with the cherished values of their heritage, have been attempting to answer the chaos which man faces. This process in theological thinking is actually one which began in the Age of Enlightenment. For those who have desired to maintain connections with both the religious heritage and the scientific community, especially the skeptical and unbelieving, this type of reinterpretation becomes a necessity. No doubt it is thought by such a synthesis man may well find his “salvation” from the present chaos which he faces. Equally, this would not be the first time this type of accommodation has occurred in the theology of the church.

An example of this type of accommodation is found in the doctrinal positions of the church at Pergamos (Revelation 2:12-17). As Scripture states, this church had those who held firmly to the name of Jesus and did not deny the faith. In fact, they clung to the gospel so closely that it brought about the martyrdom of Antipas. Amazingly, among this group which had learned first hand the cost of faith, a couple of false doctrines had been allowed to flourish within the congregation. Jesus calls them the doctrine of Balaam and the doctrine of the Nicolatians. Both of these doctrines have an element of libertine or antinomian views in which the believer is able to sin without it affecting their status and relationship with God. The argument was that since salvation is of grace, it would not matter if individuals had fellowship with idolatrous neighbors or even if they partook of their pagan feasts. The reason for the popularity of this type of theological accommodation is clear. In a time when the gospel was already offensive to the general pagan populace, with the threats of being starved to death (to which Jesus counters He will give hidden manna to eat if they are faithful), facing the possibility of being condemned by the local courts (to which Jesus counters He will give them a white stone which means acquittal), it would be easy for the church and its members to accept and accommodate their faith to ensure acceptance by the larger pagan population and yet assure themselves of acceptance with God. Unfortunately, the accommodation amounted to compromise and untruth to which Jesus responds He “hates.” It is interesting that while these beliefs went uncensored, the members were able to accommodate both the Christian faith and those of the pagans. This occurred to such an extent that marriage to the pagans was viewed as acceptable and encouraged. Jesus, however, says He will fight against them if they do not repent. Equally, the weapon He will use is the “sword of his mouth” which is always associated with Scripture. Thus, His Word becomes the authoritative instrument which will expose their false doctrines and practices.

The accommodations or reinterpretations of today are no doubt hated as much by Jesus as those at Pergamos. I will not suggest that existentialists and theologians have reinterpreted the doctrines because their lives are at stake. However, it is very likely that their academic reputation and status would be in serious doubt if they choose not to accommodate man’s reasoning in some manner. Somehow they must address the questions of the skeptics and make Scripture relevant to the chaos which man is facing. The pressing issues which mankind is facing are too serious not to address in rational terms which all can accept. Simple faith in Jesus Christ and a looking for him to establish His Kingdom are too superstitious for man to honestly base his whole view of the future upon. I would like to believe, that given the subtlety of the deceiver, that this accommodation has been allowed to foster without the deliberate intention of departing from truths of Scripture. Whatever the case, these reinterpretations and accommodations destroy the true and authoritative status of God’s written Word. They must be exposed for what they truly are and what they truly represent.

Of equal concern is the fact that many ministers and preachers of God’s Word are ever subtly being drawn and influenced by these reinterpretations. This is due in part to the fact that existentialism and humanism are taught regularly in seminaries and colleges across this country. One of the most prominent ways this influence has manifested itself is at the local church level where discipleship has become emphasized over evangelism. While the emphasis on discipleship is a needed and wanted aspect of church life, much of the discipleship training seems to support the goals and beliefs of existentialism and the reinterpretations which are made of Scripture. For example, there has been increase training in the area of interpersonal relationships and the so-called “lifestyle” witnessing. While obligations to others and how we are seen by others are important, Christians are not called to be ambassadors of ourselves or of a lifestyle. Christians are called to be ambassadors of the gospel of Jesus Christ. What is missing in much of this type of teaching is the humbling and crucial truth that Christians are people who are called by God into service to Him. It is a recognition that they have been literally taken hold of by the Spirit of God to be a separated people in service to God. When this is recognized, the issue becomes what the believer is called to do as a servant, rather than a question on whether our relationships are responsible and constructive. When the emphasis is on the later, evangelism dwindles, even though time is growing short for millions of individuals on the path to hell. In the meantime, believers are being discipled on how to get along with each other, how to succeed with the family, how to use all their gifts and potentials to make the most this life and live abundantly, how to quit complaining about their situation, and how to love the sinner into heaven.

I must ask, is this the essence of the Christian calling? I wonder what Paul would write to the church today if he heard what is proclaimed in most pulpits every Sunday. The self-denying aspect of the gospel is not the idea of learning how to live responsibly with others and helping others to reach their potential by affirming their carnal desires. On the contrary, the call to take up the cross involves a total given of oneself to the proclamation of the precious gospel which is the only means that any person in this world can be saved. It was this type of calling the apostles understood and gave their lives for, even after being imprisoned and tortured. The apostles would not leave any stone unturned in their desire and zeal to carry the Word of God into the world. To say the least, if this type of zeal was evident today, there would not be a reduction in giving, nor problem in sending an army of believers to every spot upon this world. Equally, what would be preached at the point of outreach would be Jesus Christ and Him crucified! I can only pray and fast to see the day when such zeal will be found in the churches of Christianity again.

Let the reader be warned, Jesus did not just leave us an ethical system. Nor did He indwell the believer so that man might be able to reach his potential or self-actualize. Jesus called His followers to be ambassadors of the gospel. A gospel which Satan in his great and cunning deceit is successfully reinterpreting so that instead of bringing many souls to God, it is used existentially to help man “become,” to self-actualize. Is this the purpose for which Jesus died on the cross of Calvary? Nonetheless, let us look at the existential modal more closely to see what its basic assumptions are and to see the validity of reinterpretations that are being offered to man.

Previous Home Next Table of Contents