Elasticity – In Interpretation As In Rubber Bands

You ever use a rubber band that was old and it snapped?

It’s a relatively small inconvenience.

However, elasticity is important not just in binding office supplies but also in biblical interpretation.

If you’ve been following this series you know that the relationship between the Old and New Testaments is complicated, that the science of biblical interpretation is called hermeneutics, and that Jesus himself says the whole Bible is about Him.

Well, today let’s add one more tool to our tool belt.

It looks a bit like a rubber band, but it’s far more important.

It’s nearly impossible to be a student of the Bible for any length of time without beginning to impose a system or a grid upon Scripture in order to help make sense of it.

If that word “impose” triggered you a bit…good!

We should be hesitant to want to impose a system over Scripture. We should want to allow Scripture to speak on its own terms.

Yet, it’s inevitable that as we read, we begin to synthesize and harmonize what we’re taking in. We are, by nature, interpreters. While Scripture is trustworthy and without error (Psalm 18:30) our interpretations are not. And some are far better than others.

We want to do our best to avoid imposing our own meaning upon Scripture and the first step towards solving any problem is admitting you have a problem.

When it comes to hermeneutics the “system” or “grid” that one overlays upon Scripture to make sense of the whole is also called a “hermeneutic.” For example a “covenant hermeneutic” is one that attempts to make sense of the whole of Scripture by using the covenants as the “interpretive key” to the whole of Scripture.

Get it?

This is where “elasticity” becomes a very helpful tool.

Since it’s pretty much unavoidable that we’re going to be utilizing some sort of system when we try to make sense of the whole of Scripture the metric we should use to measure the system’s worthiness is important.

Elasticity is the metric that helps in this regard.

Confused yet? Let me explain:

For our purposes let’s try out an insufficient hermeneutic. Some theologians have proposed that the “key” to making sense of the tension between the Old Testament and the New is to recognize that God deals with two distinct peoples: Israel and the Church. For those who care about labels this “hermeneutic” is called “dispensationalism” (that’s a link to a long boring article in defense of this hermeneutic, I don’t recommend it, but want to make sure I represent it fairly and cite my sources. I hold two degrees from the Institution that published this article, despite my strong disagreements with their theological bent).

There are a number of reasons why it’s insufficient as a hermeneutical grid. But the primary reason could be summed up as its lack of elasticity.

It’s a rigid grid to impose upon Scripture.

It seeks to interpret all of Scripture through a lens that asks, “is this promise or command directed at Israel (God’s primary chosen people) or the Church (God’s secondary chosen people)?”

The nail in the coffin for this way of interpreting Scripture comes from Scripture itself. Here are just two examples of why this hermeneutic is contradicted by the Bible:

For he is our peace, who made both groups one and tore down the dividing wall of hostility. (Ephesians 2:14)

The “both groups” mentioned in this text are Israel and all of the “gentile nations.” God’s chosen people in the Old Testament have been expanded to include people from all tribes, tongues, and territories (Rev. 5:9) and not just those physically descended from Abraham.

Israel has been expanded (see that: elasticity!) to reverse the curse that divided us (see Genesis 11). Here is the other Bible verse I promised:

For both circumcision and uncircumcision mean nothing; what matters instead is a new creation. May peace come to all those who follow this standard, and mercy even to the Israel of God! (Galatians 6:15-16)

See that? Circumcision once marked God’s chosen people, Israel. But now, circumcision has been made obsolete. The cross of Christ opened the way for those outside of the Old Covenant to now be welcomed into the New Covenant. A new creation has come, and the Old is fading away. He scandalously calls the Church the “Israel of God!”

Israel has been expanded to include the Church. So the “dispensational hermeneutic” fails the elasticity test of the Bible.

So that’s an example of an inflexible hermeneutic. Next time we’ll look at a more elastic, and more suitable hermeneutic for understanding Scripture.

Are you starting to see a little more how these Old and New Testaments fit together?