(The following comprises Part Twelve of the Saturday series on Secondary Illuminations of Scripture.)
I believe that only when our handling of the Living Word grants it both the space to breathe and an environment in which it can retain its shape, will our stewardship be healthy and maximize its power to multiply in sustenance. So I have grown unashamed in my support for secondary illuminations even as I try to learn more about how to be responsible with their hermeneutics.
As I hope I’ve made clear by now, when I indulge in secondary illuminations, I am trying to keep a good handle on the historical and geographical facts and to honor those literal and metaphorical interpretations and spiritual applications which are already broadly recognized for the passages I reference. I would hope that when I present a teaching, those who are leery of my hermeneutical approach would find ample reason to believe that I fully respect the Word and its orthodox intents even if they feel I err on some points in my extrapolations.
Although I’ve already gradually covered some of the guardrails that are necessary with secondary illuminations, I wanted to throw in one more.
One danger to look out for is that of giving too much weight to matters that reflect ancient Near East custom or law rather than a fuller revelation of God’s Kingdom ethics or to details which are, as in Jesus’ parables, thrown in for local color. To take one obvious example, the Father is compared to a selfish judge in one New Testament parable, but naturally we cannot use the judge’s nature to determine the Father’s character (Luke 18:1-8). That is not the comparison that is being made; rather, it is an argument from minor to major (as in, if even he will attend to the widow then surely the great and loving Father will). The unjust nature of the judge is a detail thrown in for local color.
Other obvious examples include how we should not take on the selfish attitude of the bridesmaids who had saved oil but then refused to share it (Matt 25:1-13) or the deceiving nature of the servant who is commended for thieving in Luke 16:1-8. These are not examples to emulate even if Jesus did use their characters to portray the wisdom of preparing in advance and thinking things through (p. 56, Robert H. Stein, The Method and Message of Jesus’ Teachings). If we start finding hidden directives for the church in details that are not intended to be signposts of His ways, we will stray from the message.
Most evangelical scholars recognize that Israel’s laws were directed at their ancient Near East setting, moving them toward God’s ethics without always revealing God’s highest ideals. Laws regarding slaves and wives are great examples of this. They generally offer more humane and more self-actualizing possibilities for slaves and wives without bringing the entire Near East way of life into question. If we start finding hidden directives for the church in details that reflect concessions more than the fullness of His ways, we will again stray from the message.
Another ready example in the Old Testament could be when we find ideals or doctrines regarding marriages and the seeking of marriage in the story of Ruth. It’s a rich story with contemporary applications, and its Messianic connection redoubles its import (Matthew 1:5, 16). It is also clear that God honors Ruth and Boaz for their decisions. However, occasionally people make whole complicated doctrines out of details never explicitly sanctioned as “the way,” much less a full explanation of the way, by God. For instance, those of us who are single may be chastised for lacking God’s mindset if we are not apt to consider men who are radically older than we—despite the fact that there are not just selfish reasons but also practical, relational, and wise reasons why this is often not the best idea for most Western couples today. Since the well-being of young women and widows is generally not so gravely dependent on male relatives as it was when Ruth made her bold and sacrificial move, this may further limit its applicability.
Another common misapplication from Ruth is where Boaz’s spreading his blanket over Ruth in a Near East custom becomes the key text for a doctrine wherein women today need to be “covered” by their husbands and do not hold spiritual authority to pray for their household without his unique covering. This causes, for instance, women whose husbands are deployed in war to feel unduly afraid, as they’ve been taught not to fully trust their own authority in Christ. I’ve also known women whose husbands are stateside to cower until their husband comes home for the evening so that he can pray a prayer regarding something evil that she thinks has come against the house against which she doesn’t have quite enough power as the woman to pray. The reason given is that his blanket is the covering both for her and for the house so that he needs to handle the big things. Well, what about the covering that comes from God? For that matter, Proverbs 12:4 indicates that a good wife is a crown on her husband, another image of covering and blessing. As beautiful as the blanket imagery is and as phenomenally powerful as a united stand between husband and wife (or any gathering of individuals) is and as true as it is that we “cover” one another in a variety of relational commitments and sometimes need to draw on those coverings for united prayer, I’ve seen this particular one-way notion of “covering” wreak some havoc.
It’s rather amusing that we sometimes make much of the supposed ongoing commands and truths in details of this treasured narrative while completely ignoring that part of the story wherein the woman proposes to the man—something most Christians would frown upon if done today. We need to be careful not to let our own context pick and choose what details to enshrine as immovable, or we’ll do violence to the message. In sum, we want to hold our creative musings on cultural details with a loose hand and a critical eye, always asking if the details reflect God’s full and timeless ideal or something else.
I hope this discussion of secondary illuminations of Scripture encourages you to be all the more careful in developing primary historical-grammatical interpretations. And I hope it frees you to use that solid foundation to explore the text more. Perhaps God will sometimes impress the import of proper names or flesh out metaphors that may not be inherent to the interpretation of the genre in which they appear but which ring true to God’s message. Maybe you’ll notice inspired patterns and connections between stories and symbols even when they do not sit right next to each other in the text. Or you’ll discover more glorious hints of the story of redemption in Old Testament passages that may not yield these on first glance. Many Christians already allow the Spirit to apply Scripture prophetically to their circumstances whether or not they’ve named it as such and whether or not they generally favor “secondary illuminations.” When you recognize the need to check these prophetic applications against the context (to make sure the context is not in opposition) and against the rest of Scripture and when you are submitting these prophetic applications to other believers for confirmation, your safety net is up so that this listening relationship with the Spirit can grow in freedom.
I will spend the next four—and final—weeks looking at two passages of Scripture in which I hope to provide positive examples of secondary illuminations.
Excellent post! Interpretation of the scripture is both faithfulness to the revelation of who God is in His unchanging character and a listening ear for what He is speaking into our situation today. Here’s a question, how much freedom should we allow for “secondary illuminations” in public worship?
Thanks, Paul! Good question. I’m not sure, however, what you’re referencing by “public worship” here nor by “secondary illuminations.” I don’t know if you’ve been reading along on Saturdays or not, but with secondary illuminations, I’m referencing text-based illuminations rather than most manifestations of prophecy. I’m not accustomed to much in the way of s.i.s being introduced in praise and worship times. If you mean sermon times or perhaps prayer times when a minister might feel that they have a verse for the person to hold onto as a prophecy, that would probably coincide more w/ what I’m speaking about. I think any secondary illumination sermon that has been tested with the rest of Scripture according to the sorts of guardrails I’ve sought to establish the last 11 wks is fair game for a sermon–but not when it is shared to boost one’s ego as super-spiritual. One of the things I have yet to sort out is when “teaching” is best and when “preaching” is best; typically when I have a secondary illumination, it would be indepth. It would potentially comprise a teaching sermon. But not every church is primed for indepth messages. I noticed that one church I visited typically had simple preaching in the mornings and secondary illumination teaching at night w/ a smaller crowd, members of whom told me it took them awhile to learn to mentally track w/ the pastor on scripture at that level, and I think that arrangement worked well for that church. And I do think we have to be very careful w/ personal ministry time; as with any prophecy, God in dialogue with that individual and the rest of scripture must confirm it. But sometimes prophetic/prayer ministers make the person feel like they must assume their words as truth.
So, I read this post and then figured I should read through the rest of the series as well, which I did. That turned into a lot of thinking, which turned into a lot of typing. So… this is long. Apologies have been given :).
One of the first things I appreciated is that it isn’t necessarily presented as a “yes or no”, “right or wrong” issue, even though Deborah, your position comes across quickly. In my early Christian years this sort of probing discussion might have frustrated me to no end :)… can I please just get a straight answer?! However, the more familiar I am becoming with scripture, the more I’m finding the need to work out balances and harmonies in various thematic tensions. So I can relate completely with the feeling of hanging suspended between polarized ideas, e.g. Alexandria and Antioch. That said I’ve tried to summarize some of the ideas I came away with and could relate to:
Deborah, I think you made a solid case for the validity of secondary illuminations in scripture in that there is 1) a precedent in scripture itself for them, 2) a precedent in church history for them and 3) already a common acceptance in that “many Christians already allow the Spirit to apply Scripture prophetically to their circumstances.” However, as you went on to describe, they should be categorized separately from the literal meaning of the text, or what I will call the primary revelation (a hybrid of two of the terms you used: primary illumination and ultimate and sole revelation). The end result of these two methods of scriptural interpretation will be two (maybe more) distinct meanings/applications of the text. Ultimately, they have different purposes and different methodological approaches.
“All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness.” To me it is fairly obvious that Paul is speaking to the author’s intended meaning when he says this. Primary revelation is to be taken as authoritative in disciplines such as the formation of doctrine. However, should secondary illuminations hold the same level of authority? I agree with the case you make that they should not. You mention Thomas Aquinas’ concern that “many different senses in one text produce confusion and deception and destroy all force of argument” and his view that “no essential arguments (nothing necessary to faith) should be built out of the ‘spiritual sense’ but only the ‘literal sense.'” So then, what role should secondary illuminations play? They serve to support the primary revelation. They are not for new or additional revelation or for enlightenment, but rather for edification and enrichment.
Well, what should be my approach towards them? Should I abandon hermeneutics completely and throw caution to the wind? ABSOLUTELY NOT, although here is where I think many people fail when it comes to secondary illuminations… yes, I’m looking at you TBN. What happens during secondary illuminations is we relax some of the standard rules of hermeneutics that would ordinarily constrain us to the primary revelation. However, this does not mean that there are NO rules and that we now operate in a realm in which there are no parameters and where ANYTHING is possible. Deborah, you had mentioned that you’ve grown bolder in your support for secondary illuminations while try to “learn more about how to be responsible with their hermeneutics.” I find that to be key. One of the biggest challenges in finding a proper method can be determining which hermeneutical rules still apply. But rather than compile a list, I find your approach to be superior where “Antiochene hermeneutics [are] the necessary starting point from which to make further (Alexandrian) observations.” In other words, we first need a solid hermeneutical foundation on the primary revelation. As you said, “…be all the more careful in developing primary historical-grammatical interpretations. And… use that solid foundation to explore the text more.” So, the more rooted and chained we are to good hermeneutics and the more familiar we are with the entirety of the primary revelation of scripture, the less likely we are to be led into error when we approach secondary illuminations.
Finally, what are some “guardrails” we can set up to keep us from going off on the deep end? I like that you addressed the faulty logic that we can avoid error by avoiding secondary illuminations altogether. You said, “We might avoid some errors by foregoing spiritual senses for literal senses alone, but we lose some of the text’s life—life that we need. And this is in itself something of an error.” So, then the best option is to erect our guardrails and proceed with caution. The first I will mention (which I actually cannot remember if you address) is fellowship with knowledgeable believers. I can personally testify that there have been a number of egregious heresies that Luke has saved me from as I’ve looked to deepen my theology (haha… Luke, thanks by the way!). So, that sort of accountability has been extremely beneficial for me. However, there are also other safeguards that we can set up to keep ourselves honest. The next two we’ve already dealt with; a proper purpose and proper approach. If I do not understand the correct purpose of secondary illuminations (in that they do not supersede or add to, but instead only compliment primary revelation) then it’s only a matter of time before I am led into error. As you said, “Just as we cannot have illuminations that directly oppose primary historical-grammatical interpretations, we also cannot have secondary illuminations that add to scriptural truths either in the sense that they are perceived to hold similar revelatory weight as Scripture or add ideas nowhere else deduced from and confirmed by a sound systematic or historical-grammatical reflection on Scripture.” Here as well, “…nothing necessary to faith is contained under the spiritual sense which is not elsewhere put forward clearly by the Scripture in its literal sense.” Also, if I do not understand the correct approach to secondary illuminations I am asking to run off into error. This begins with a solid hermeneutical foundation, coupled with an overall solid grasp of the primary revelation of scripture. Here again you say, “If the secondary illumination is in complete opposition to the primary interpretation, it cannot be a true illumination. As far as a primary interpretation can be ascertained, that has to be our basic starting point.”
What are some additional guardrails? A proper motive in approaching scripture. You give as an example, “We are apt to make mistakes if we search the scriptures for the sake of finding something special.” Here is a case where pride as a motive might possibly override good hermeneutical sense. Any motive that is self-centered or self-seeking can easily become a slippery slope towards hermeneutical error. This most definitely would include approaching secondary illuminations with presuppositions or a bias. As you warn, “We need to be careful not to let our own context pick and choose what details to enshrine as immovable, or we’ll do violence to the message.” And of course, of most importance is the Spirit of God who indwells us. I will keep this point short, only to insist that the person who truly fellowships with God everyday and nourishes himself in the Bible will be spared from error.
Just one more thought of why it’s critical that we stay within the scope of primary revelation when exploring secondary illumination.. and that is because when we miss the purpose of God’s word we miss the power of it as well. The words in the Bible are a framework for God’s eternal truth. When those words are taken to give a meaning that no longer represents that truth, then in a very real sense, the word of God is nullified.
So Deborah, thank you for taking the time to collect your thoughts. It was an interesting subject to think through today. I’ll end off with another thought of yours which I think wrap this up appropriately. “In sum, we want to hold our [secondary illuminations] with a loose hand and a critical eye, always asking if the details reflect God’s full and timeless ideal or something else… When you recognize the need to check these [secondary illuminations] against the context (to make sure the context is not in opposition) and against the rest of Scripture and when you are submitting these [secondary illuminations] to other believers for confirmation, your safety net is up so that this listening relationship with the Spirit can grow in freedom.”
Wow, Joe! Thanks for this! I think you pretty accurately summed up this series so far. Aquinas does decide in his writing that, in some manner, spiritual senses could be another sort of literal/primary sense just b/c of God’s multi-tasking genius, thus amending his point on the multiplicity of meaning creating confusion. However, he absolutely returns to the necessity of the most clear literal sense being the basis for all essential doctrine.
I love that you brought up the necessity for a fellowship of believers checking one another not just for prophecies but also for secondary illuminations of the scripture’s message. I would add that it helps if they are growing in good hermeneutics and basic reading comprehension. Without both of these in place, I’ve seen clusters of believers run off the cliff like a bunch of lemmings even if they are spending time in the Word. On that note, returning to my very first post here on Luke’s blog, I mentioned how, after a season of writing, I had gotten many prophetic confirmations that made it clear to me that there was purpose in what I was doing and that I could not place those projects on a backburner indefinitely (although they did end up on a backburner for a few years). Those were HUGE in affirming my call to look at those scriptures. However, there was nothing quite as grounding for me as passing a book manuscript on to a smart pastor’s wife from a solid Baptist background who was unused to considering secondary illuminations and to have her totally psyched by what she was learning (and even trying to get me to keep some insights that I was hesitant about and wanting to remove). When she told me about ways she was discussing and applying some of what she learned with her husband, I knew in a deeper and more relational way that this could and would build up the body of Christ. And that was really important for me to know amid all the “interesting” results of exploring secondary illuminations on TBN, et. al. So I want to underscore and amen your point there.
Thanks for taking the time :).
So I’m at a place where I’m mostly confused. Is that good or bad?
Ha ha ha ha!
In trying to figure out why I’m confused, I think it finally dawned on me. I’m mostly looking for some terms and definition I’m familiar with! ha ha!
That and I just want some detailed examples of this secondary illumination at work so I can evaluate that process a bit more. Ha ha…
I wonder how much this has in common with the Theological Interpretation of Scripture hermeneutic that is fast becoming popular… hmmm.
Good stuff to think about!
I was wondering what you were thinking, as you’ve been quiet lately. I did spread the net wide in grouping under s.i. And I’m not that surprised in retrospect that it would be a bit maddening to you. Apart from the fact that I do not have a seminary degree, I wonder if the terms and defs as I’ve seen them for hermeneutics can be consistently applied in this area precisely b/c intellectual pastors tend to either avoid most s.i. (even though I think some are inconsistent in this… otherwise some of the negative examples I provide would not make it mainstream) or (from a lower view of scripture) accept almost any and all ruminations on the text. So I think some of the terms as they’ve been developed and discussed tend to exclude at least a portion of what I’m talking about. Some of what I’m talking about could partially be listed under typology, application, canonical theology, or prophecy and its protocol. But I don’t really think (and I could be wrong) that most scholars would find those terms amenable the scope of s.i. as I’m considering it (and certainly not as our allegorical forebears used them). But you’ll get to pick apart some examples soon ;).
Theological Interp of Scripture? Who represents this approach?
D
I’m sure if I’m maddened yet 🙂 I’m just trying to get a grasp on what exactly this looks like! I want to see it in action. In my experience, many charismatic types tend to have lots of categories and break-downs regarding what I generally just call “prophecy.” So I’m seeking to understand how those break-downs and categories are developed and understood, etc. So this has been interesting to say the least!
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2012/02/23/carson-tis/ would be a good place to begin, as would Plummer’s intro to hermeneutics and I think Osborne discusses it too…
Osborne discusses the prophetic in relation to hermeneutics (I mean, apart from those books that are explicitly prophetic)? I’ve been thinking of getting his Hermeneutical Spiral but need to be healthier before trying to read more theology at this point. I’ve read up on hermeneutics but only at a certain level.
Oh… you mean Theological Interp of Scripture. Ok. I’m familiar w/ the idea but not of it as particularly new or as something that separate from another given approach (narrative, grammatical-historical) which makes me wonder if I’m really familiar, lol….
Btw, I would have called secondary illuminations “revelatory teachings” or “prophetic teachings” prior to attempting to write about them. That was the language I had heard. I felt “revelatory” was more appropriate for the scope but abandoned that as well for the reasons cited when I quoted Gabriel Fackre even if I might agree w/ the term in casual use for discussion purposes. Also revelatory does sound a bit more self-important to me than secondary illuminations (which I think should inherently remind the reader that there is a primary interp to be discerned and had). I agree that charismatic break-downs are an intriguing and difficult area to observe from the vantage of typical contemporary conservative protestant training. I’ll be interested to understand what readings of scripture you consider valid and whether you’d still group them all under primary interps and prophecy at the end of the day/series.