1. The rationalist/inductive approach, as it has come to exist, is untenable and needs to be reevaluated:

First, the view that the three-fold method of interpretation has been more-or-less uneventfully handed down till now is simply incorrect. As a method, it was hammered out in controversy, and was vigorously opposed by conservatives in the mid 19th century. Only in the early 20th century did it become recognized as the orthodox approach to Scripture in Churches of Christ.

Secondly, the view that the three-fold method of interpretation is a Biblical model is incorrect---it is rather based on philosophical principles and on a faulty view of the nature of the Biblical documents. It mitigates against studying the Scriptures in context because in practice it takes as its prime directive the question, "What does the Bible require of us?"rather than the prior question, "What does a text mean in its own context?" In short, it does not recognize in practice the validity of distinguishing between and properly relating what the text meant and what the text means. Thirdly, the rationalist/inductive method is methodologically out-dated. Although Campbell's interest in scholarship, history, and the inductive approach could co-exist (since they all were on the cutting edge of scholarship and scientific studies in the 19th century), it is no longer possible for them to co-exist as they have developed in the last hundred years or so. The interest in thorough -going inductivism as it has been developed by the Rationalist/Inductive School is undermined by the advances in interpretive methodology, namely the literary-historical method. Indeed, the upshot of Ward's and Olbricht's articles is that the restoration plea is not dependent on a 19th century method of interpretation, it actually is being harmed by it by holding back in 19th century forms of argumentation and approaches to the Bible.

None of this means that the concerns of the Rationalist/Inductive School must be completely discarded as valueless; as was mentioned earlier, there are inevitable areas of overlap between this approach and the Scholarship Movement. It does mean, however, that the time-worm approach, as it has come to exist, must be subjected to a thorough reevaluation in light of more contemporary methods.

2. The Scholarship Movement has offered the only viable alternative to date, but has not gone far enough.

If the Rationalist/Inductive School went overboard in neglecting world-wide scholarship advances in hermeneutical theory, the Scholarship Movement has its short-comings as well. For all of its advantages and progress, the Scholarship Movement as a whole on the subject of historical exegesis, is more in touch with the world wide scholarship than it has been able to convey its conclusions meaningfully to the congregations.¹

I don not want to come across negatively, as if no good has been accomplished by the Scholarship Movement. Quite the contrary,. But at this point in our history, church members and many preachers still often do not realize what is at stake in the "new" approach to Scripture they are being taught (in the Living Word Commentary, for example), and have little if any appreciation for how the approach relates to their Restoration heritage. Instead, they are often oblivious that their old, atomistic approach to Scripture is even being challenged at all.²

I am suggesting in other words, that we are shooting ourselves in the foot by continuing to avoid a direct and open comparison between t he two schools of thought. For that reason, some suggestions for future work are in order.

(1) We need to move boldly into a discussion of proper hermeneutic theory and practice. Unfortunately, as a fellowship we are still at the very basic level on the whole interpretative process. Much of our time must be spent on emphasizing that there is a distinction between what the text meant and what it means and on lobbying for the value of the historical approach to the Scriptures.³

(2) As we move ahead to reevaluate older positions and develop new models, we need to keep several items in mind:

(a) When speaking on the subject to "popular" audiences, questions about traditional methods should be accompanied with plausible and well considered answers. Otherwise, the topic should be left alone.

(b) Interpretive models should not force the text into conforming to pre0concceived notions about the text that are foreign to the text.

(c) Interpretive models should maintain a close tie between "what the text meant then" and "what the text means today" and should be built around the intention of the author in any given text.

(d) Interpretive models should be based on Biblical theology and centered in the person of Christ---not an external system placed over the text.

(3) We need to deal with the hermeneutical question specifically as it relates to our restoration tradition. A good place to begin is with the three articles by Ward and Olbricht. Although they are cited at times by individuals doing historical studies, we have not dealt with these articles from a purely hermeneutical point of view.⁴

(4) We need to participate more energetically in the broader hermeneutical debate in biblical scholarship. On the whole, we have neither dialogued in any detail with world-wide scholarship on the question of the interpretation of the Scripture, nor have we related to our constituency on that question---for what ever reason. Concepts such as comparative midrash, reactualization, contextualization, supracultural, the hermeneutical circle, horizon, and others are still "Greek" to us and do not seem to have significant impact on how the Bible is read.⁵ It isn't that we should simply fall in line with everyone else, necessarily , but we should at least be conversant with the current trends.

(5) Finally, we need to deal with the hermeneutical question in its whole range, both from the standpoint of exegesis and appropriation---we need to address the issue of relating the Word to life. It is no longer proper either to pursue exegesis for exegesis sake or to pursue only the question, "What does the bible require of us?", through a three fold system of "commands, examples, and necessary inferences" (sometimes called our hermeneutics⁶). We need more balance.

But the need runs deeper than just methodological balance. It touches who we are as people. It is not sufficient to be simply a "people of the Book"---the Pharisees were that. We must be a "people of the Word." Here the emphasis is different. The Bible is elevated, but not for its own sake. The Word of Life comes to life---and to lives--as we seek the heart of God as well as the instructions of God. the interpretive model which looks for commands, examples, and inferences seeks the instructions of God, but placers the search for the heart of God in the shadows, albeit unintentionally.

We need to ask what God's instructions are for us, but only after we ask what God wants for us, what pleases Him with respect to us as wee seek out and implement his instructions. Jesus himself in Matt. 11-12, shows us that these are the proper questions in the proper order. And in doing so, he puts us at the starting place for developing a "Biblical " hermeneutical model...

Matthew 11-12 is the third of six narrative sections in Matthew⁷ and shows just how blind the Pharisees were to the message of Jesus---they know God's instructions, but did not know what he wanted. The Sabbath day controversy over the disciples' plucking heads of grain and Jesus' healing of the man's withered hand (12:1-14) is the center-point of the section and is will known. It is here that Jesus sets out the principle of interpretation that we ought to pursue. He told the Pharisees that if they "and known what his means, 'I desire mercy and not sacrifice," they would then be able to understand that David and the priests, both of whom specifically broke the law, were innocent because of something higher in the law. It is because the overarching desire of god is for covenant loyalty, justice, love, and righteousness rather than a strict adherence to commands (laws) for the sake of obedience to commands (Hos. 6:6; Amos 5:21-24; Micah 6:6-8). The commands of God are to be sought-out and administered through the broad principles of God's desire. Matthew builds this case of "mercy" in the face of law more directly than any other Gospel. In Matthew, "mercy and not sacrifice" in is the meeting of God's desire and god's law in the lives of people--in the real-life muddle where people need, and hurt, and fail. the phrase is used twice in Matthew (and only in Matthew): in 12:7 for the needy and in 9:10-13 where mercy towards sinners is clearly in view. Te verb eleeo appears seven times in Matthew (compared to three in Mark, four in Luke, and not at all in John), and only Matthew repeats the story of the unforgiving servant who w as told: "You should have had mercy on your fellow servant, as I had mercy on you." (18:23-35).

Most telling of all, however ,is the specific context of Matt. 12:1-14. Immediately preceding this block, Jesus pleads for the weary to come to Him (found only in Matthew): "For the yoke I will give you is easy, and the load I will put on you is light" (11:25-30). And immediately following the block, Jesus appeals to Isa. 42:1-4 (also only in Matthew) to show that the mission of the Messiah is to bring justice to those who need it: " He will not break a bruised reed or quench a smoldering wick till he brings justice to victory" (12:15-20) It is not the Messiah's task to break you or put out your flame, but bring justice! To lift you up! This then is the meaning of "I desire mercy and not sacrifice" in 12:7 (also only in Matthew): the laws (commands or instructions) are to be applied to people in need through higher principles of justice and mercy. Or as put another way, we we must not "tithe mint and dill and cummin, and neglect the weighter matters of the law (also only in Matthew): mercy, and justice and faith" (12:23). ⁸

So, not only is Jesus the authoritative interpreter for His own church, his church is to follow His lead. Indeed, this is what the Pharisees ought to have done.

1This point can be illustrated by a statement from outside our movement. James M. Robinson, at the close of the 1986 SBL Conference in Anaheim California, lamented what he called, "the decline of New Testament critical scholarship as it has come to be known. We all know that the important conclusions of this conference during the last three days will not be preached at the congregations on Sunday. We all know that, but we don't know what to do about it! Based on this concern was with the age-old question of the gap between the technicians and the practitioners mentioned. In response , it is not the churches' fault if they see no relevance in what the scholars are doing. At least part of the responsibility of communicating the value of their results rest with the scholars. (Notes from the conference.)

2Perhaps this at least partially explains what Tony Ash described in 1981 (published in Restoration Quarterly 25 no 4 (1982):220.): "Has the interest on the part of [OT] scholars filtered down to the brotherhood at large?" Investigation of the two best known papers, Gospel Advocate and Firm Foundation, was discouraging for no evidence of the impact of Old Testament studies could be discovered. Ash goes on to point out that influence was between seen in the Sweet Publishing Co., Biblical Research Press, and especially Restoration Quarterly.

3Abraham Malherbe, "How to study the Bible" Pepperdine Lectureship, 1986, .For example, Malherbe, decried the rootless and subjective interiorization of Scriptures, in which Christians are increasingly reading the Bible only to find out what the Bible "means to me" apart from any concern for its historical context. "So, how should we study the Bible? Will, I think it is very fashionable for us today to mention ol' [sic]John Locke and to dump on him. But you know, it would be refreshing to feel again the bracing winds of reason!"

Also, Carroll D. Osburn, "Ephesians" (Christian Scholars Conference [tape], 1986). Osburn gave an extended plea for doing historical exegesis properly {as opposed to atomistic interpretations} and concluded: "While certain limitations do apply, there exist no viable alternative to the literary-historical method in Biblical interpretations) and concluded: That we are still needing to fight these basic battles says something about where we still are as a fellowship on the subject of Biblical interpretation.

4Two excellent recent works do this to some degree. Still they are more pioneering efforts than final statements.: Monroe Hawley, The Focus of Our Faith, (Nashville: 20th Century Christian, 1985) and C. Leonard Allen, Richard t. Hughes, and Michael R. Weed, The Worldly church: A Call for Biblical Renewal, (Abilene: ACU Press, 1988)

5Of course, this criticism does not apply to everyone. but as a fellowship, it cannot be said that significant discussion on the subject, let alone making any impact on one. we are even part of any

6This especially happens in J.D. Thomas, Heaven's Window chapters 9-11, Compare also Kregg Hood "Scriptural or UnScriptural: How can I know?" He proposed his "pyramid" as a model for doing hermeneutics" (as opposed to exegesis) for discovering what is authorized by God and what is not.

7Matthew begins with a narrative section (1-4) and then consist of five teaching blocks (5-7, 10, 13, 18, and 23-25) connected to five narrative sections (8-9, 11-12, 14-17, 19-22), and 26-28). This division is based around the phrase, "And when Jesus had finished....which marks the end of each teaching block (7:28; 11:1; 13: 53; 19:1 and 26:1).

8Contrast this point of view with that of Alexander Campbell: "There is therefore , a low of expediency, as well as the expediency of law. This law of expediency...has been, as in the case of David eating the loaves of the presence, and the priests profaning the Sabbath by labors of the temple, occasionally elevated above the precepts that prescribe the forms of religious and moral action. True, indeed, that such cases are exceedingly rare; and they are rare reasoners who can safely decide when any particular precept prescribing the form of action may, for the sake of action itself, be waived or suspended. It is, moreover, exceedingly questionable, whether, under the more perfect institution of Christianity, the law of expediency can ever clash with any moral or religious precept in the New Covenant." Christian System, p. 72 [emphasis mine]