A History and an Evaluation of Pentecostal Biblical Hermeneutics

A History and an Evaluation of Pentecostal Biblical Hermeneutics (changsoung lee).pdf

A History and an Evaluation of Pentecostal Biblical Hermeneutics

 

Chang-Soung Lee

 

jesusgate@daum.net

 

I. Introduction

 

We, Pentecostals, should put the proper basis of Pentecostal hermeneutics that can provide desirable eyes for the cognition and analysis of the Bible. To accomplish this goal, we need not only to look back on the history of Pentecostal biblical hermeneutics, but also to evaluate the hermeneutics.

This article will classify Pentecostal biblical hermeneutics into three types: premodern, modern, postmodern, and then expose that early Pentecostals rejected Historical/higher criticism so that they made the pre-written experiences correspond with the written experiences in the Bible as facts, on the contrary, both modern and postmodern pentecostal scholars have destroyed this correspondence through receiving Historical/higher criticism, so modern hermeneutics and postmodern hermeneutics are both not proper for Pentecostal hermeneutics and theology.

 

 

II. Premodern Pentecostal Hermeneutics

 

A. Precritical/Premodern Hermeneutics of Charles F. Parham

Modern Pentecostal movement, which was started with Charles F. Parham, has been misunderstood as experience centered drive than text centered. But the movement did not begin with an experience. It commenced with a theological Bible study. Therefore, biblical hermeneutics is very important for Pentecostal movement and theology.

The interpretation of Parham made the experiences in the Acts correspond with the experiences of the readers of today. He insisted that the modern experiences of speaking in tongues accompanied with the Spirit Baptism at the Bethel Bible School were the same kind experiences as the experiences in the Acts. He said, “Upon beholding this marvelous restoration of apostolic power in our midst, all became hungry, earnestly desiring a personal realization of the same in our lives,” and “What I am trying to get you people to do is to get an experience that corresponds with the Word of God . . . All we claim is that if you get the Baptism of the Holy Ghost it will correspond to the experience in the Second chapter of Acts.”

He criticized and rejected modern Higher criticism which had destroyed this correspondence. Following Kantian reason which had insisted that pure reason could not know the supernatural, Higher criticism, historical criticism, had degraded the supernatural miracles and the experiences written in the Bible to the unhistorical actually could not happen because all the events occurred in history were ruled by causality. For Parham, such modern Higher criticism was an obstacle between the experience in the Bible and the experience of the readers of today which made the two experiences discorrespondent. So he rejected Higher criticism.

Parham also used un-enlightenment reason and scientific method for his interpretation of the Bible. Bradley said that Parham rejected Rationalism through denying existing doctrines. But, in fact, Parham rejected the results of the wrong readings and interpretation methods on the Bible such as the cessationism of Fundamentals and the Higher criticism of Liberals, and pursued true doctrines restored to the Bible. He also preached, wrote, and made doctrines using reason, but the reason was not of Kantian enlightenment. Parham did not exclude the scientific in his interpretation of the Bible. The usage, “evidence” which he used, according to Spittler, came from popular books discussed about scientific method in the early 20th century.

He mainly interpreted the Bible literally. About such his tendency, K. C. World wrote, “This faith takes the Bible literally, and it is taught in a Bible school called ‘Bethel College’ near Topeka.” After reading the words of the Spirit descending in Acts literally, he raised Pentecostal movement with the presupposition: today the descending of the Spirit can occur literally in accordance with the Bible. His literal reading the Bible meant that he recognized the stories written in the Bible as the reports about events occurred really in history and the prophecies which would be fulfilled in the future.

In conclusion, Parham’s hermeneutic was premodern, precritical and of continuationism. R. Stronstad named Parham’s hermeneutic as “Pragmatic hermeneutic,” and L. W. Oliverio as “The original Classical Pentecostal hermeneutic.” But I call it “Continuation - Premodern Pentecostal hermeneutic.” His approach to the Bible was precritical against Higher criticism, and of continuation against cessationism. Such his hermeneutic made the correspondence of three experiences: pre-written experiences of Jesus and his disciples, written experiences in the Bible, and modern experiences, possible.

 

B. Fundamental - Continuation Hermeneutics of Carl Brumback

 

Carl Brumback asserted that the Pentecost experience in the Bible was the archetype or pattern of modern pentecostal experience. He asked himself saying, “Is the speaking with tongues of today the same as that of the early disciples?” And then he answered, “we believe that the experience of the one hundred and twenty in Acts 2:4 - ‘And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance’ - is the Scriptural patten for believers of the whole Church age.” He analyzed the aspects of the Pentecost, and classified them into two groups: one can not be repeated, the other can be repeated “as a pattern for future believers.” According to him, the repeatable aspects of the Pentecost are three: 1) the personal nature of the Baptism, a direct communication between God and man, 2) the purpose of the Baptism, the enduement of believers with power from on high, 3) the evidence of the Baptism, speaking in tongues.

Brumback defined Pentecostal movement as Fundamental. For him, “the Pentecostal Movement is thoroughly fundamental.” The reason presented by him was that “the great doctrines of the Church - the infallibility of the Scriptures, depravity of man, deity of the Lord Jesus Christ, His virgin birth, vicarious death, literal resurrection, ascension, and second coming, the reality of heaven and hell, etc. - are accepted without question by Pentecostal people as a whole.” It may be said that for him, the ｅxpression, “the Pentecostal Movement is thoroughly fundamental,” can be alternated with “Pentecostals reject Higher criticism on the Bible.” Stronstad evaluates Brumback’s hermeneutics as “Exemplar of the Classical Pentecostal Pragmatic Hermeneutics.” But such evaluation is not legitimate. Because Stronstad accepts Higher criticism as a neutral and legitimate bible inquiry method, he devaluates Brumback’ hermeneutics as a naive pragmatic one. The ground of this conjecture is his utterance through which he reduced early Pentecostal hermeneutics as an “analytical vacuum.” However, Brumback’s hermeneutics was not pragmatic, but actually fundamental rejecting Higher criticism.

On one hand, Brumback adopted Fundamental hermeneutics against Higher criticism, but on the other hand, he threw Fundamental Cessationism away. He said, “in addition to these vital tenets of faith, commonly held by our fundamenatlist brethren, we embrace some beliefs peculiar to us as Pentecostalists.” According to him, the special beliefs were about the continuation of “the supernatural sings and gifts of the apostolic church.” He insisted that the sings and gifts of the ancient time “can be possessed by believers today.”

In sum, Brumback’s hermeneutics was Fundamental - Continuation Hermeneutics which added continuationism to Fundamental hermeneutics rejecting Higher criticism. Such his hermeneutics had a thread of connection with Parham’s hermeneutics which on one hand rejected Higher criticism, on the other hand rejected Cessationism. As Parham’s hermeneutics, Brumback’s hermeneutics made three experiences(pre-written Pentecostal experience before the Bible, written Pentecostal experience in the Bible, and modern Pentecostal experience after the Bible) correspond well lineally.

 

C. Evaluation of Premodern Pentecostal Hermeneutics

 

The hermeneutics of the time from Parham to Brumback was premodern. Archer assorted early Pentecostalism as “para-modernism” on the ground that Parham took “evidence” used in the scientific method at that time. Sheppard placed early Pentecostalism under the name, “para-modernism” because the most members of it belonged to low class and non-mainstream. Such opinions of them were the result of the effort to see early Pentecostalism in the connection with modernism. on the contrary, Cargal saw early Pentecostalism as “precritical” trend. His assertion was the fruit of the comprehension of early Pentecostal hermeneutics in the opposition against modernism. Cargal’s view is more near to the feature of early Pentecostal hermeneutics than Archer’s and Sheppard’s. Because Parham and Brumback rejected modern higher critical approach to the Bible, it can be said that their hermeneutics was premodern.

Premodern Pentecostal hermeneutic process, firstly interpreting the Bible, and then extracting a principle, lastly confirming the principle through an experience, was very similar with the Fundamental hermeneutic system. And it seems that Fundamental hermeneutics mentioned with A. T. Peirson which firstly gathered the teachings of the words of God inductively, and then extracted or deduced a general principle upon which facts can be arranged followed Baconian common sense realism.

For Premodern Pentecostal hermeneutics, it was in its presupposition innately that the supernatural descriptions in the Bible were the record of the experiences which were actually occurred in history before documenting. And the goal of its interpretation was to reproduce or reexperience the experience, which was generated actually in history before writing, in the life of the readers of today. For Premodern Pentecostal hermeneutics, three worldviews: the worldview of persons before writing, the world view of writers and original readers, and the worldview of the readers of today were almost same, not conflicted with each other. In Premodern Pentecostal hermeneutics, there was the distance of time from persons before writing through writers and original readers to the readers of today, but no distance of worldview. In it, the three experiences(pre-written Pentecostal experience before the Bible, written Pentecostal experience in the Bible, and modern Pentecostal experience after the Bible) were correspond.

Premodern hermeneutics which tried to read the Bible literally and confirm that the result through experience was fit for Pentecostal movement and theology. Reading the Bible literally was an effort to keep the historicity of the experience written in the Bible alive. And the hermeneutics to read literally and reexperience the experience in the Bible keeping the historicity was legitimate for Pentecostal movement and theology. Yongnan evaluated premodern hermeneutics which pursued literal reading and reexperience as “inappropriate” in the criterion of modern hermeneutics. And she perceived the inappropriateness as “problem.” But, it was very appropriate that Premodern Pentecostal hermeneutics read the Bible literally and proved the reading through experience. on the contrary, the criterion evaluating the appropriateness as inappropriate is really inappropriate and involves serious problem.

Premodern Pentecostal hermeneutics struggled to exclude or overcome on one hand modern Higher criticism which took enlightenment reason as presupposition, on the other hand cessationism. Premodern Pentecostal hermeneutics read the supernatural Pentecostal narratives of the Bible as the events occurred actually in history against so called higher historical criticism. It was not about the keeping historicity of early Pentecostal hermeneutics that Wacker estimated the hermeneutics as “ahistorical.” His word, “ahistorical” means that early Pentecostal hermeneutics was not higher critical or did not follow historical criticism. Early Pentecostals knew very well that their faith and interpretation could not be mixed with historical criticism built upon enlightenment spirit, and rejected higher/historical criticism. Early Pentecostal hermeneutics can be seen as a resistance against modernity in the point that it provided alternation for meeting the supernatural.

 

 

III. Modern Pentecostal Hermeneutics

In 1942, Assemblies of God(USA), the biggest religious body among Pentecostal denominations, joined in National Association of Evangelicals to escape isolation after its breaking away from Fundamental friends in 1928. But it became a door for academic ones who grew in Pentecostal churches and pentecostal theological colleges or seminaries to step into the dark world of modern critical methods. Unfortunately, they have opened wide a Pandora’s box which Charles F. Parham and William H. Durham vigorously criticized as demonic.

 

A. Genre Hermeneutics of Gordon Fee

 

It seems that it was a New Testament theologian Gordon D. Fee who first introduced modern scientific interpretation methods into Pentecostal hermeneutics. Fee grasps well that in hermeneutics for Pentecostals the decisive issue is upon its distinctives. And he summarizes the distinctives as “(1) the doctrine of subsequence, i.e., that there is for Christians a baptism in the Spirit distinct from and subsequent to the experience of salvation, and (2) the doctrine of tongues as the initial physical evidence of baptism in the Spirit.” According to him, Pentecostals make the baptism in the Holy Spirit subsequent to conversion and evidenced by tongues “the clear teaching of Scripture,” based on biblical historical precedence, the Acts of the Apostles “the normative record” of the normative primitive church, and therefore, the apostolic experience “the normative model for all Christians.”

Fee introduces non Pentecostals’ critique against Pentecostal distinctives. According to Fee, generally those who do not agree with Pentecostals present two objections which are very closely related with each other. First, they argue that reader must distinguish between didactic and historical portions of Scripture, and that for the formulation of Christian doctrine and experience reader must go primarily to the didactic portions, and only secondarily to the historical. Secondly, what is descriptive history(narrative, Acts) of the primitive church must not be translated into normative experience for the ongoing church.

Dividing author’s intention into what is normative and what is normal, Gordon Fee tries to build a middle path between Pentecostal hermeneutics and non Pentecostals’ critique against it. on the one hand, Fee attempts to persuade Pentecostals to accept non Pentecostals’ critique because it is right. In his eyes, Pentecostals have developed a kind of pragmatic hermeneutics instead of scientific hermeneutics, obeyed what should be taken literally, and spiritualized, allegorize, or devotionalized the rest. He thinks that Pentecostals do not take out their distinctive doctrine not from the bible, but from the projection of their experience into the Bible(especially Acts) and normativization applying their pragmatic hermeneutics. Therefore, he advises Pentecostals to consider the grammar, philology, history and literary genre of the text that they want to interpret following so called the axiom of scientific biblical hermeneutics. From the view of author centered hermeneutics, Fee says that in the hermeneutics of biblical history the main duty of an interpreter is to find out the intent of the author, Holy Spirit, which is contained in the historical record. And according to Fee, author’s intent can be divided into two kinds: one is primary, normative, and didactic which can be applied to all christians of all ages, the other is incidental, normal, and repeatable. Using historical precedents to establish a norm is not appropriate in it self. Historical narrative has only illustrative, occasionally “pattern” value. For him, it is primary and normative that believers should be filled with and walk in the Spirit. on the contrary, although it is not unimportant, it has not “normative” attribute that when and how one enters into the dimension of Christian experience. For him, the reason is “when and how” are based upon only precedent or analogy. Therefore, the doctrine of the Spirit Baptism which is subsequent and accompanied by tongues is secondary and incidental. In conclusion, Gordon Fee insists that Pentecostals should not compel all Christian to be receive speaking in tongues as the normative evidence of the Spirit baptism.

On the other hand, Gordon Fee raises an objection against the opinion of non Pentecostals also. He positively agrees to the critique of non Pentecostals against Pentecostals’ normativization of their distinctive doctrine from historical narrative. But Fee does not want to stay at non Pentecostals’ obstructing Pentecostals’ normativization. He tries to go further. Fee thinks that although Acts is a historical narrative, there is the normative in it. According to him, one of the normative in Acts is the presence of the Holy Spirit, so the normative presence of the Spirit is normative to all present Christians too. And he insists that although the historical precedents of speaking in tongues of Acts is not the normative, but the normal which are repeatable thereafter. For him, in the New Testament including both Lukan texts and Pauline texts the presence of the Spirit is the major element of not only Christian conversion, but also the Christian life. “Speaking in tongues, if not normative, is a repeated ｅxpression of the charismatic dimension of the coming of the Spirit.” Fee advices non Pentecostals not only not to hinder speaking in tongues, but also to take part in speaking in tongues normally under the presence of the Spirit.

The hermeneutics of Fee unreasonably divides the Bible into two pieces. The result of his effort to go through a mediating way between theologically divided camps is not successive. And the effort to unite two parties only produces being torn of the Bible. Fee divides the Bible into the primary and the incidental, the normative and the normal, and wants to define the presence of the Spirit as normative, and speaking in tongues as normal. But what is the criterion for the separation? Is there a command to divide the Bible so in the Bible? Does the Bible gives a standard for such division? No! Fee says, “Luke does not seem to specify anywhere that he intends his history to be precedent for the church in some way.” Such his mention has to be applied to his tearing the Bible. Luke never says that his narrative should be torn into the primary and the incidental, and never specify the standard for such tearing. Is there any difference among Fee’s tearing, Liberals’ tearing the New Testament into so called historical Jesus and Christ of faith, and Bultmann’s tearing it into so called Kerygma and Myth unreasonably to search the Canon in Canon? It seems that Fee’s so called “scientific hermeneutics” is not different from the scientific hermeneutics of Liberal, Neo-Orthodox, and Neo-Evangelism.

Baptists will not agree to Fee’s absurd try to tear one baptism into two pieces: the primary essence of baptism and the incidental mode of baptism. The essence of baptism, dying and reviving with jesus and the mode of it, sinking under the water and rising up out of the water can not be separated, because they are two aspects of one baptism. The essence and the mode compose one baptism and one norm. Carrying immersion as the mode of baptism, Pentecostals can not agree to Fee’s arbitrary attempt to broke the unsplittable combination of the Spirit baptism and speaking in tongues into fragments: the normative and the normal. Parham, the father of Pentecostalism, regarded the Spirit baptism and speaking in tongues as an inseparable unit. For Parham, speaking in tongues was the outer evidence of inner Spirit Baptism. He described tongues as “the manifest evidence resulting from this Baptism.” He recognized that Spirit Baptism essentially took place in the spirit of him. So, for him, when the Spirit Baptism(the cause) was granted internally, the outer result and evidence was speaking in tongues. The inner cause and the outer result can not be separated and an inseparable unit. Composing one unit with the normative Spirit baptism, Speaking in tongues is normative also.

The hermeneutics of Fee is not for Pentecostals, but for Charismatic Renewals. Dragging Pentecostal experiences written in Acts down from the normative which should be reexperienced repeatedly to the normal, his hermeneutics tried to destroy the hermeneutics and theology of Parham and Brumback, the readers of today should reexperience the Pentecostal experiences written in Acts.

 

B. Pneumatological Hermeneutics of Howard Ervin

 

Howard M. Ervin opposes the dichotomous hermeneutics which take reason or experience(faith) exclusively with each other. For him, epistemology is fundamental for studying hermeneutics. According to him, there are two ways for knowing: the way of sensory experience and the way of reason. Ervin asserts a theology which is trapped only in one way, will be locked up in eternal dichotomy. To his mind, the solutions of traditional hermeneutics for the dichotomy between reason and faith(experience) are not satisfactory. He says that one side of traditional hermeneutics has given up faith for reason with its strong devotion to historical critical exegesis, or, on the contrary, other side of it has tried to make faith legitimate through an apologetic of propositional theology. And, as a logical expansion of sola fidei, Pietism has attempted to cast away the role of reason for the faith in the directiveness of subjective and personal experience. To his eyes, the results of traditional hermeneutics are either “a destructive rationalism” or “a non-rational mysticism.”

And Ervin evaluates the effort of so called New Hermeneutics to overcome the dichotomy as failed. According to him, although New Hermeneutics based upon Existential theology is sensitive to the mystic, but reconstructing the mystic intension of text, its subjectiveness threatens its hermeneutical enterprise. New Hermeneutics throws critical-contextual historicity and facticity away through demythologizing the Scripture upon the reason that it was deteriorated by mythological world view. So, hermeneutics becomes a personal attempt to reconstruct the meaning of the text. But, for him, what is myth for the people of demythologizing is mystery for orthodoxes, and the difference stems from rejecting the role of the Spirit or recognizing the role of it.

Therefore, he wants to develop Pneumatic epistemology, “firmly rooted in the Biblical faith with a phenomenology that meets the criteria of empirically verifiable but mystical sensory experience (healing, miracles, etc.) and does not violate the coherence of rational categories.” His pneumatic epistemology will meet these criteria, and provide a resolution of “(a) the dichotomy between faith and reason that existentialism consciously seeks to bridge, though at the expense of the pneumatic; (b) the antidote to a destructive rationalism that often accompanies a critical-historical exegesis; and (c) a rational accountability for the mysticism by a piety grounded in sola fidei.”

The ground of Pneumatological hermeneutic is the Bible, the word of God. To him, the Bible is what the author wrote through Pneumatological language about their direct experiences of the Holy Spirit. The essential condition to understand the word is the ontological recreation(being born from above) of anthropos through the Holy Spirit who knows the deep of God. By the recreation, the bridge between the Creator and creatures is established. The bridge is understood as a outcome of the work of the Spirit. When a reader is confronted by the Spirit through the same experiences as Apostolic experiences, the reader can understand the Apostolic witness better. This phenomenon is the pneumatic continuity between the readers of today and the apostolic faith communities which wrote the Bible. He adds vertical Creator-creatures and Pneumatological continuity to horizontal time-space and psychology-sociology-culture-existence continuity.

Ervin suggests pneumatic method for what is known through interpretation, but accepted linguistics, literary, and historical critical method for how to know. He presents four elements which may affects any development of Pentecostal hermeneutic. In his presentation, on one hand, he rejected deteriorating the stories of the Bible to myths and maintained the historical and objective reality of the stories. But, on the other hand, he accepted, so called, all the methodological and actual contributions of critical-contextual exegesis as well as traditional grammatico-historical exegesis. For him, “precisely because of the incarnation, linguistic, literary and historical analysis are indispensable as a first step to an understanding of the Scriptures.” Ervin has seen the Bible through Higher criticism, at the same time, he is saying conclusively that the written experiences in the Bible are what really happened in history before being written, so the readers of today can reexperience the experiences through pneumatological continuity.

Ervin’s division of traditional hermeneutics into reason centered hermeneutics and faith-experience centered hermeneutics and his contrast between them are very wrong. For him, reason centered hermeneutics is the hermeneutics which admits historical criticism, on the other hand, faith-experience centered hermeneutics the hermeneutics which does not admit historical criticism. And he thinks that the middle way is rational hermeneutics which admits a moderate historical criticism which approves mystical experience. But should so called rational hermeneutics be a hermeneutics which admits historical criticism? Does so called faith-experience centered not use reason? Ervin’s presupposition that rational hermeneutics is what admits historical criticism is a mistake. And his presupposition that Pietistic hermeneutics rejecting historical criticism is not rational hermeneutics is a mistake too. Pietistic hermeneutics uses reason also. In fact, a reason which admits historical criticism is Kant’s enlightenment reason. Pietistic hermeneutics uses a reason which rejects historical criticism. Therefore, Ervin should have contrasted between enlightenment reason which admits historical criticism and un-enlightenment reason which rejects historical criticism, not between reason and faith/experience. The impossible fancy middle way, a reason which approves mystery, historical criticism which approves mystery can not exist between enlightenment reason and un-enlightenment reason. The contrast between enlightenment reason and un-enlightenment reason can not be mediated, and can not be reconciled forever.

Ervin’s judgement that the mediation of New Hermeneutics fails because it degrades mystery to myth is wrong too. Ervin criticizes New Hermeneutics downgrades the mystery in the Bible to myth, and brandishes demythologizing sword. He thinks that the demythologizing of New Hermeneutics is just an error of the hermeneutics itself. But it is not a fact. He overlooks that in fact, historical criticism which rational hermeneutics admits degrades the mystery into myth. Fundamentally New Hermeneutics does not downgrade the mystery into myth. It is historical criticism which both so called rational hermeneutics and New Hermeneutics make the useful scientific tool for biblical hermeneutics that downgrades the mystery into myth. According to McCarthy, the reason why Bultmann introduced existential philosophy into biblical hermeneutics was that the mystery was degraded into myth by historical criticism. Bultmann just tried not to discard myth, and to use it by demythologizing existentially. He seems to think that if degrading the mystery into myth can be taken out from New Hermeneutics, its effort to mediate between reason and experience will produce a fruit. After saying that demythologizing placed its argument upon the framework of scientific world view of 18 or 19th century, but the world views of 21C people are not uniform, but diverse, he insists that changing the mystery into myth is not needed to appeal to 21C people. But because New Hermeneutics does not deteriorate the mystery into myth by 18 and 19 century so called scientific world view, but historical criticism itself which he willingly accepts, 18 and 19 century enlightenment reason and epistemology which is the presupposition of historical criticism degrades the mystery into myth, the so called mediative effort of New Hermeneutics is vain, and Ervin’s effort to mediate accepting historical criticism is only futile also.

In spite of his endeavor to establish pneumatic epistemology for arbitration, his hermeneutics will destroy the important basis of Pentecostal movement and theology which have tried to make the readers of today reexperience the experience in the Bible. The biggest problem of his hermeneutics is when we read the Bible through higher criticism which treats supernatural mentions in the Bible as fictions, namely, myths, as expected, whether we can insist that the written experiences in the Bible really happened in history before being written. If we put higher criticism on the Bible, after all, the experiences before being written might be perceived as myths which did not occur in history, and then the biblical records about supernatural experiences might be interpreted as myths, consequently, the readers of today could not reexperience, if they experience something, their experiences might become different experiences which do not resonate with the experiences in the Bible. Ignoring the problem, Ervin, who put higher criticism between the Bible and the readers of today, presupposes easily the written experiences as experiences occurred in history.

 

C. Holistic Hermeneutics of William Menzies

 

William W. Menzies accepted analytic higher criticism which Fee and Ervin had taken, and combined the criticism with scientific method: inductive observation → deducting hypothesis → experiential verification → establishing theory, then proposed a hermeneutic model, holistic hermeneutics for a holistic Pentecostal theology. To cope with Fee’s genre criticism which criticized that Pentecostals have searched historical precedence in Lukan texts Luke and Acts, not in Pauline texts, and made the precedence a norm, William Menzies admitted Redaction Criticism at the step of induction. He said, at the inductive level, “One employs the tools and skills of scientific interpretation to ferret out the meanings and intentions of the biblical writers. Basic rules commonly accepted for biblical interpretation are not here to be overlooked.” “The tools and skills of scientific interpretation” included higher historical criticism. Standing against Fee’s Genre criticism, he emphasized that although Luke-Acts were historical narratives, they contained Luke’s own unique theology which was different from Pauline theology following Redaction criticism.

He said, “If a biblical truth is to be promulgated, then it ought to be demonstrable in life.” According to him, this is one of Pentecostal contributions to worldwide church. He perceived that the Bible study led Bethel Bible School to anticipate Spirit baptism accompanying speaking in tongues, and when the school experienced the baptism, it could be convinced of “the continuity between biblical concept and experiential reality.” For him, this is different from the pragmatic motto, “If it works, that is what makes it true.” What is needed is “verification or demonstration, not origination.”

Although the purpose of W. Menzies’ hermeneutics is to let the readers of today reexperience the experience in the Bible, attaining the purpose is impossible because of its putting an obstacle, higher criticism, between the Bible and the readers. The process of his interpretation is very similar to the process of Bethel Bible School: inductive reading → hypothesis deduction → experiential verification But there is a serious dissimilarity. He drew higher criticism rejected by Parham into the inductive level. The problem of his hermeneutics is that higher criticism imposed by him makes the readers of today can not see the experience in the Bible as event really occurred in history. The result of the fictionization/mythologization is the impossibility of reexperience at the verification level.

It seems that putting higher criticism between the experience in the Bible and the reader of today, he recognized such a weakness. Maybe for that reason, although he put higher criticism, dedaction criticism etc., on Luke and Acts, he might insist the historicity of the experience of the Bible in footnote 12 as follows.

 

However, in attempting to discuss (often speculatively so) the theological purposes and possible editorial activities on the part of the evangelist, one must be carful to preserve the historicity he intended to convey. With regard to Luke’s evident intent to portray historical reality . . .

 

He might be aware well that it is absurd for dedaction criticism to assert the historicity of the narrative or experience in the Bible. Because he knew well that dedaction criticism and historicity could not stand together, he was unable to argue the historicity in the text, added the historicity only in the footnote without any presentation of reason.

 

D. Author Centered Modern Critical Hermeneutics of Robert Menzies

 

Robert P. Menzeis differentiates Lukan pneumatology from Pauline pneumatology, and accepts higher criticism especially dadaction criticism to advocate the distinctiveness of Lukan pneumatology. He see that Pauline theology of Spirit Baptism was mainly conversion-initial and ethical treating the life of believers. on the contrary, according to him, Lukan theology of Spirit Baptism is subsequential to conversion and Lukan Pneuma is the Spirit of Prophecy empowering christians to become the witnesses of Christ. For the purpose of protecting and establishing distinctive Pentecostal theology, he picks writer/editor intention centered modern historical criticism which Neo-evangelicalism accepted.

According to Menzeis, the basic aim of Evangelical hermeneutics is generally to examine the historical meaning of a text. For the evidence of Evangelists’ concern of for historical meaning, he introduces a book of hermeneutics written by three professors of Denver Seminary: William W. Klein, Craig L. Blomberg, and Robert L. Hubbard, Jr. The authors define textual meaning as “that which the words and grammatical structures of that text disclose about the probable intention of its author/editor and the probable understanding of that text by its intended readers.” For them the historical reconstruction of the past is a crucial dimension to explore the meaning of a text.

Robert P. Menzeis mentions two aspects of historicity. one is the historicity of the experiences before being written, the other is that of the traditions, sources and texts till being written. However, according to him, “source and redaction criticism are employed, not to get behind the text to some pristine and authoritative ‘kernel’; but rather, so that we might better understand the text itself (in its final form no less).” The point of his words is that higher criticism: source and redaction criticism etc., does not help to prove the historicity of experiences and stories of Jesus and his disciples before being written, but to grasp the historicity of so called oral tradition, source tradition, and final dedaction stage.

On the one hand he employs higher criticism, on the other hand he simply presupposes the historicity of the experiences before being written as William Menzies did. He asserts that the meaning and actuality of texts, which are intended to become historic, can not be separated from the historicity of them. For instance, it is very important for Paul who recorded about the resurrection that whether the resurrection took place really. In conflict with his own assertion, Robert Menzies admits that a inquiry being performed through higher historical criticism can provide only provability in some measure, but not certainty. He simply presupposes the historicity of the experiences before being written, but says that the meaning and historicity of written experiences investigated through higher criticism are uncertain.

 

E. Evaluation of Modern Pentecostal Hermeneutics

 

Pentecostal scholars who confronted with Fee responded applying the hermeneutic method accepted by Neo-evangelists. None among the scholars who took part in the debate did not suggest a unique pentecostal approach to hermeneutic issues. Instead of that, huge hermeneutic turning toward Evangelical hermeneutics was done by both sides. “Evangelical hermeneutics” referred to in this article is Neo-orthodox hermeneutics of Europe or Neo-evangelical hermeneutics of America based on so called “moderate criticism” which evaluates historical criticism as neutral method, and so accept and use the criticism constructively.

Neo-orthodox takes historical criticism which is the typical method of Liberalism. Karl Barth, the founder of Neo-orthodox, did not want to be an enemy against historical criticism. He regard the criticism as a method which can disclose what is in a text of scripture. And for him historical criticism is “preparation for understanding.” According to him, critical methods makes readers prepare listening to the word of God in the heterogeneous and new world of the Scripture. Unfortunately, Frank Macchia, who is recognized as a Pentecostal systematic theologian by both himself and others, positively evaluates the opinion of Barth as “insight,” and suggests that Pentecostals can be guided by such insight.

Neo-evangelicalism, generally known as Evangelicalism now, accepts historical criticism as Neo-orthodox, and attenuates the infallibility of the Bible. Harold Lindsell analyzes Neo-evangelicalism and says that Evangelicalism of the past advocated the inerrancy of the Bible, but Neo-evangelicalism of today is skeptical about the inerrancy. Neo-evangelists insist that the Scripture is infallible in relation with accomplishing its function for the faith and salvation in Christ, but fallible in the aspect of its statement and instruction about history and cosmology. The view is called “Limited Inerrancy,” and Cornelis P. Venema calls such view “Functional Inerrancy.” Functional inerrracy is a result of historical criticism on the Bible. The theory regards the Bible, written through human language, as a product of accommodation to mankind, and then try to introduce one kind of historical criticism from which so called enlightenment presupposition is excluded. Such a mixture of faith and historical criticism is called as “believing criticism.” American Revival Movement was collapsed by modern Evangelicalism(Neo-Evangelicalism), as Robert Menzies points out, the important doctrine of Pentecostal Theology is under same circumstances. The way through which Pentecostals approach to the Bible, in other words the hermeneutics which should hold up Pentecostal theology, has not developed, but seriously deteriorated. The Hermeneutics of Neo-Orthodox/Neo-Evangelicalism became that of Pentecostalism.

Pentecostal theologians have accepted modernistic hermeneutics through Neo-Evangelicalism, but they have not inspected the philosophical presupposition of Modernism, and the result has been destructive. Enlightenment philosophy has denied miracle, and not seen the supernatural as historical occurrences. It has not recognized in principle the intervention of God in history. Enlightenment thinkers such as John Locke and David Hume regarded the stories in the Bible as myths, like the stories of ancient Greek gods. Agnostic Enlightenment reason, the philosophical presupposition of Modernism came into Pentecostal theology through Neo-Evangelicalism, and then became the hidden presupposition of Pentecostal hermeneutics. The modernistic presupposition of higher criticism which makes the prophecy in the Bible as Vaticinium ex eventu is conflict with Pentecostal experience, experiencing the supernatural and direct intervention of God, and is destroying Pentecostal experience.

Nevertheless, Pentecostal theologians who have followed modern hermeneutics have overlooked the point, and tried to combine the two by force. But the effort has failed. Of course, because of the Bible is composed of two elements: divine and human, both pneumatic interpretation and rational interpretation is needed in biblical hermeneutics. But the assertion that rational interpretation should be done through enlightenment reason is indeed nothing but a coercion. After all, the endeavor of Pentecostal scholars to bind faith and enlightenment reason together shall fail. As R. Seeberg defined, “gläubige Kritik” is no more critic, furthermore is not faith. Already, in Das Ende der historisch-kritischen Methode, Gerhard Maier questioned whether historical critical method fitted with studying the Bible and revelation, and concluded that historical criticism searching for “Kanon im Kanon” contained in the canon was unfit for the study because the whole Bible was the witness of divine revelation.

 

 

IV. Postmodern Pentecostal Hermeneutics

 

The time at which Pentecostals began to receive historical criticism was when at which the theologians in other streams went on the way toward Postmodern hermeneutics to overcome Modern hermeneutics. Historical critical method based on Enlightenment reason failed to satisfy the need of Pentecostal communities. Thereupon a number of Pentecostal theologians picked up Postmodern method which seemed to support Pentecostal faith and experience more well in their eyes. But Postmodern hermeneutics failed to cut off historical criticism, so it is not suitable to Pentecostal hermeneutics too.

 

A. Timothy Cargal’s Mixture of Modern Critic and Postmodern Hermeneutics

 

Timothy B. Cargal criticizes Modern Pentecostal hermeneutics to mix the historicity of the narratives in the Bible with historical criticism destructing the historicity by force. He analyzes Modern Pentecostal hermeneutics and said that it on one hand upholds the historicity of the narratives of the Bible, but on the other hand takes historical critical method as Evangelists. Cargal grasps exactly the fact that modern historical criticism, which Pentecostal scholars is learning from Evangelical institutions and using, eventually demolishes the historicity of the narratives in the Bible. In the eyes of Cargal, after all historical criticism makes the stories and experiences written in the Bible mythic tales, but Modern Pentecostal hermeneutics is kicking the air vainly to interpret these fictional myths as actually occurred histories. So Cargal urged Modern Pentecostals to follow Postmodernism in discarding the historicity of biblical narratives, and rejecting the modernistic concept that “only what is historically and objectively true is meaningful.”

Although Cargal criticizes the using historical criticism of Pentecostal hermeneutics, but he accepts historical criticism too paradoxically. Bradley thought that Cargal threw away historical critical method, but in fact he did not. Cargal says that Postmodern hermeneutics refuses the domination of modern reason and rationality, not enlightenment reason and rationality itself. He suggests Pentecostalists to use historical criticism through enlightenment/modern reason not for verifying the historicity of biblical narratives, in other words for verifying that the narratives in the Bible were the record of the events which occurred actually before being written, but just for the first step of understanding the Bible, viz., understanding the historicity of the tradition, documents, editing, and writing after the events.

He thinks that a half of the truth of the Bible can be found out by Modern historical criticism, and the other half by Postmodern criticism. It seems that what he called “the truth of the first half” is not concerned with the historicity of the experiences before being written, but is concerned with the historicity of the creative additions at the steps of, so called, oral tradition, written tradition, and editing. And “the second half” is related to the truth and meaning which are said to be contained in the biblical texts recognized historically as fictions according to the criterion of critical study on history. For him, “the second half” can be extracted through Postmodern hermeneutics.

Such Cargal’s post critical hermeneutics makes the experience of modern reader different from the written experience in the Bible, and finally removes the foundation of Pentecostalism that modern reader must reexperience the experience in the Bible. For Cargal, the experience and narrative in the Bible did not take place in history actually, so they can not be reexperienced identically today. And the more important thing than the “historical reliability” of the narrative in the Bible is the function of details in the narrative. In other words, because the written experience in the Bible is an invented fiction, what a modern reader experiences can not be identical with the experience in the Bible. Following Mathew S. Clark. true Pentecostals have to raise an objection against such Cargal’s hermeneutics which demolishes the foundation of Pentecostalism through denying the historicity of the experience in the Bible.

Cargal’s differentiating the experience of a modern reader from the written experience through post critical method relativizes Pentecostal experience. And the relativized Pentecostal experience becomes nothing but the experience which is made by a particular group itself. Such a relativization makes Pentecostal experience just one experience among numerous human experiences. For Cargal, human experiences are diverse, for example, the experiences of male and female, those of European, African, and Hispanic American, those of heirs of various different cultures, and those of profiteers oppressing others or of the oppressed etc.. He insists that it is just for interpreters of 20th century to explore the horizon of biblical texts from those experiences. According to him, the variety of those experiences is a legitimate method to appropriate one or many dimensions of biblical texts producing multiple meanings. Mentioning the words of Richard D. Israel, “the focus of hermeneutics is not what the author intended, but what the text—explained in terms of linguistic science—claims about the world and the appropriation of the message of the text by the interpreter in the direction of the text itself,” Cargal says that when readers cut off connections with the emphasis on the author’s intention, they can realize such a possibility of the multiple dimensions of meaning. For post critical interpretation degrading biblical experience to a fabricated fiction, there is no need to absolutize biblical experience and to compel it to readers of today. He seems to suggest that if biblical experiences are fictions, in the opposite direction, it is better to use biblical experiences as a tool to bestow multiple meanings upon the various experiences of modern people through projecting the experiences of modern people on biblical experiences. In such a case, Pentecostal experience will be relativized and then become merely one of various human experiences. And it means that Pentecostal experience is different from biblical experience, in fact, is just an invented experience by a particular individual or group itself, and it can not be distinguished from various experiences which modern people themselves produce.

 

B. Joseph Byrd’s Mixture of Critic and Post Critic

 

J. K. Byrd advocates that the hermeneutics for Pentecostal sermon should be the hermeneutics which can let Pentecostals reexperience biblical texts. For him, when early Pentecostals insisted on appropriating the experience in the Bible in their time, their hermeneutics consistently strengthened the confidence that the spiritual and extraordinary supernatural experiences of Biblical persons were possible to the believers of today. So, considering this confidence, he shouts that Pentecostal sermon needs a hermeneutic theory and method promoting the reexperience of biblical texts.

Byrd sees that Paul Ricoeur’s hermeneutics can mediate between the objective study and subjective appropriation on biblical texts. He regards Ricoeur’s theory a mediation between the interpretation trying to reconstruct objectively the meaning of a text in its original context and the interpretation trying to appropriate a text existentially. According to Byrd, the distance between biblical text and interpreter has been a hermeneutical problem since the time of early Christians, but the distance is more far to modern interpreter who is living in scientific culture. Ricoeur describes the cultural gap between text and interpreter as “distanciation.” Interpreter is captured in the dialectic of distanciation and appropriation. For him, the distanciation corresponds to objective reconstruction, and appropriation will become possible through subjective overcoming the distance. Distanciation recognizes the narrative of the Bible as myth. According to him, since the 19th century because of the birth and propagation of the critical method, myth has not been an explanation for modern people any longer. But myth “consists of that giving worldly form to what is beyond known and tangible reality.” For Ricoeur, symbols is made possible by the “reenactment of the experience made explicit by the myth.”

Following Ricoeur, Byrd permits modern critical method to be used at the steps of interpretation. He insists that critical method should not be avoided by modern hearers to appropriate the meaning of the symbols in the biblical narratives. Ricoeur’s interpretation involves five steps: “the experience of symbols, ｅxpression of the experience, reflection of the ｅxpression, validation of interpretation, and post-critical re-experiencing of the symbol as a second naivete.” Among the steps, reflection and validation are critical steps, and reexperience is post critical step. Ricoeur’s post critical method integrates the reconstruction of the original meaning of the text through modern critical method and post-modern reading of the text.

Because Byrd knows well that Ricoeur rejects the historicity of narratives in the Bible and takes only the symbols in the narratives, suggests to accept just the symbolic side for Pentecostal hermeneutics. Ricoeur became to deny the historicity because of historical critical method. Byrd catches the point that Ricoeur’s words, “myth” and “symbol” are seen as the heterogeneous by Pentecostals. Obviously, Ricoeur’s rigorous modern critical view of the historicity can not be accepted by most Pentecostals. So, Byrd suggests to reject Ricoeur’s denying the historicity, but only to accept his concentration on the symbols, and then to interpret the symbols for pentecostal audiences’ appropriation.

 

C. Evaluation of Postmodern Pentecostal Hermeneutics

 

Someone will think that Postmodernism is similar with Pentecostalism, but the importing Postmodern method into Pentecostal interpretation on the ground of such similarity produces many problems. For example, although “story” is very important to both of Postmodernism and Pentecostalism, for Postmodernsim, story is just a production of imagination of people, so fictitious and unhistorical. As Longman pointed, in modern literary theory, what literary works refer to is not outside the works, but only is and operates inside the works, and “the rupture between the literary and the referential is an axiom of modern literary theory.” Under such a theory, the words or persons in the scripture as a literary production does not have the referential outside the scripture. The concern of Postmodern hermeneutics armed with modern literary theory is not on the historicity of the written experience and objective truth. Naturally for Postmodern interpreters, the experience of the readers of today can not be correspond with the written experience. Consequently, it is very silly of them that modern readers should reexperience the fictitious story. As Matthew Clark said, Pentecostals who consider God’s direct action in history can not admit the pitfall of Postmodern hermeneutics insisting that the Bible includes “historical fiction.”

Postmodern Pentecostal hermeneutics has not overcame Enlightenmental reason which has been the presupposition of modern critical method. Taking historical critical method and made the method as the first step for the understanding the Bible, it degrades the supernatural mention of the Bible to myth which has no historicity or correspondent existence, and then through importing Postmodern hermeneutics at the second step relativizes truth. Such a syncretic and multiple approach gives up absolute truth, and picks up relative truth. It means that the records of the Bible are just invented tales, so a specific individual or group can interpret the Bible freely in this or that way.

Postmodern Pentecostal Hermeneutics can deteriorate Pentecostalism seriously. If a Pentecostal reader follows Postmodern Hermeneutics which accepts the multiple interpretations by various groups, eventually, the reader shall arrive at the point in which he or she can not but agree with revisionism which insists to throw away something valuable for Pentecostals to protect such as the core of Classical Pentecostalism: the Bible evidence of Spirit Baptism is speaking in tongues. Postmodern Hermeneutics can eliminate the content of Pentecostalism and leave only the vacant name, no more true Pentecostalism.

 

 

VI. Conclusion

 

As we examined, Premodern Pentecostals such as Charles F. Parham and Carl Brumback made the experience before being recorded correspond with the written experience in the Bible, and then cause the reader today to reexperience the written experience. But, when even one hundred years have not yet passed, so called Pentecostal theologians: since Gordon D. Fee, both author centered Modern Pentecostal interpreters(Howard M. Ervin, William W. Menzies, and Robert P. Menzies), and reader centered Postmodern Pentecostal interpreters(Timothy B. Cargal, Joseph K. Byrd) have read the Bible through higher/historical criticism which has taken the Enlightenmental/Kantian view of reason and epistemology as the hidden presupposition and has excluded the intervention of the supernatural into history. In consequence, the historicity of the written experience in the Bible has been deprived and the written experience has differentiated from the pre - written experience. And by the deprivation of the historicity, the Pentecostal basis that the reader of today must reexperience the experience in the Bible has been destroyed. Therefore, both Modern hermeneutics and Postmodern hermeneutics are useless for Pentecostal hermeneutics.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bibliography

 

김정숙. “신복음주의를 경계하라.” http://www.reformednews.co.kr/sub_read.html?uid=3014, Accessed 3/7/2014.

김중은. “역사비평의 종말 이후.”『성서마당』(여름, 2008년): 4-10.

. “장신대의신학노선.” http://hopeinx.tistory.com/47, 2010년 2월 9일 검색.

목창균. “신정통주의는 신자유주의인가.”『교회와 신앙』(9, 2003), http://www.amennews.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=1450, Accessed 17/1/2015.

이창승. “태초에 신학이 있었다: 오순절 운동에서 신학 선행, 경험 후행성.”『영산신학저널』32 (2014): 71-96.

. “초기 오순절 지도자 파함과 더함의 두 가지 신학적 전선들.”『영산신학저널』33 (2015): 71-98.

Ahn, Yongnan Jeon. “Various Debates in the Contemporary Pentecostal Hermeneutics.” The Spirit & Church 2:1 (May, 2000): 19-52.

Anderson, Gordon L. “Pentecostal Hermeneutics Part 1.” http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/top/holyspirit_articledisplay.cfm?targetBay=1b574def-b227-4617-bfc7-a02cdb926902&ModID=2&Process=DisplayArticle&RSS_RSSContentID=15177&RSS_OriginatingChannelID=1170&RSS_OriginatingRSSFeedID=4486&RSS_Source=, Accessed December 16, 2010.

Archer, Kenneth J. A. “Pentecostal Hermeneutics: Retrospect and Prospect.” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 8 (1996): 63-81.

. “Early Pentecostal Biblical Interpretation: Blurring the Boundaries.” A paper presented to the 29th Annual Meeting of the Society for Pentecostal Studies (March, 2000).

Barth, Karl. “Foreword to the First, Second, and Third Editions of The Epistle to the Romans.” in James McConkey Robinson, ed., The Beginnings of Dialectic Theology. vol. 1, translated by Keith R. Crim and Louis De Grazia Robinson. Richmond, Virginia: John Knox Press, 1968, 94.

Bird, Michael. The Gospel of the Lord: How the Early Church Wrote the Story of Jesus. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2014.

Bleicher, Joseph. Contemporary Hermeneutics. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1980.

Blomberg, Craig. Can We Still Believe The Bible?: An Evangelical Engagement with Contemporary Questions. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Brazos Press, 2014.

Bovell, Carlos R. “Scriptural Authority and Believing Criticism The Seriousness of the Evangelical Predicament.” Journal of Philosophy & Scripture 3/1 (Fall, 2005): 17-27.

Bradley, Truman Noel. Pentecostal and Postmodern Hermeneutics. Th.D. dissertation, University of South Africa, 2007.

Brumback, Carl. What Meaneth This?: A Pentecostal Answer to a Pentecostal Question. Springfield, Missouri: Gospel Publishing House, 1947, 10.

Byrd, J. “Paul Ricoeur’s Hermeneutical Theory and Pentecostal Proclamation.” Pneuma 15/2 (1993): 203-214.

Cargal, Timothy B. “Beyond the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy: Pentecostals and Hermeneutics in a Postmodern Age.” Pneuma 15/2 (Fall, 1993): 163-187.

Clark, Mathew S. “Pentecostal Hermeneutics: The Challenge of Relating to (Post)-Modern Literary Theory.” The Spirit and Church 2/1 (May, 2000): 67-93.

Ervin, Howard M. “Hermeneutics: A Pentecostal Option.” Pneuma 3:2 (1981): 11-25.

Fee, Gordon D. “Hermeneutics and historical Precedent—A Major Problem in Pentecostal Hermeneutics.” in Perspectives on the New Pentecostalism, edited by Russell P. Spittler. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1976, 118–132.

. “Baptism in the Holy Spirit: The Issue of Separability and Subsequence.” Pneuma 7/2 (1985): 87–99.

. Gospel and Spirit. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 1991.

Gilkey, Langdon B. “Cosmology, ontology and the Travail of Biblical Language.” The Journal of Religion 41/3 (July, 1961): 194-205.

Hampshire, Stuart. The Age of Reason: Seventeenth Century Philosophers. New York, New York: New American Library of World Literature, 1956.

Hey, Sam. “Contemporary Developments in Pentecostal Hermeneutics.” Paper presented at PCBC conference, August 2001, Published in Pentecostal Charismatic Bible Colleges Journal 5/2 (2001). http://webjournals.ac.edu.au/journals/PCBC/vol5-no2/contemporary-developments-in-pentecostal-hermeneut/, Accessed January 10, 2015.

Holden, Joseph M. “Book Review: Craig Blomberg’s Can We Still Believe the Bible?” http://defendinginerrancy.com/book-review-craig-l-blombergs-can-we-still-believe-the-bible/ Accessed December 20, 2015.

Hyatt, E. L. 2000 Years of Charismatic Christianity. Tulsa, Oklahoma: Hyatt Ministries, 1996.

Hymes, David. “Critical Methologies and the Pentecostal Movement: Some Initial Observations.” http://hebrewscripturesandmore.com/CV/Pdf-Articles/Lectureship-2007-CriticalPentecostals.pdf, Accessed June 7, 2011.

Israel, Richard D., Albrecht, Daniel E. and McNally, Randal G. “Pentecostals and Hermeneutics Texts, Rituals and Community.” Pneuma 15 (Fall, 1993): 137-161.

Johns, Cheryl Bridges. “Partners In Scandal: Wesleyan And Pentecostal Scholarship.” in Wesleyan Theological Journal 34/1 (1999): 7-23.

Klem, William W., Blomberg, Craig L. and Hubbard Jr, Robert L. Introduction to Biblical Interpretation. Dallas, Texas: Word Books, 1993.

Lennox, Stephan J. “Biblical Interpretation in The American Holiness Movement, 1875-1920.” Ph.D. dissertation, Drew University, 1992.

Licona, Michael R. Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach. Downers Grove, Illinois: Inter-Varsity Press, 2010.

Lindsell, Harold. The Bible in the Balance. Grand Rapids, Michigan; Zondervan Publishing House, 1979.

Linnemann, Eta.『성경비평 학은 과학인가 조작인가』송 다니엘 역. 서울: 부흥과개혁사, 2010.

. 『역사비평 신학은 과학인가 의견인가』송 다니엘 역. 서울: 부흥과개혁사, 2010.

Longman, T. Literary Approaches to Biblical Interpretation. Grand Rapids, Michigan; Zondervan Publishing House, 1987.

Macchia, Frank D. “The Spirit and The Text: Recent Trends in Pentecostal Hermeneutics.” The Spirit & Church 2/1 (May, 2000): 53-65.

Maier, Gerhard. Das Ende der historisch-kritischen Methode. Wuppertal; SCM R. Brockhaus, 1974, 13-38.

Marshall, I. Howard. Luke as Historian and Theologian. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1971.

ed. New Testament Interpretation. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1977.

McCall, Bradford. “A Contemporary Reappropriation of Baconian Common Sense Realism in Renewal Hermeneutics.” Pneuma 32 (2010): 223-240.

Menzies, Robert P. Empowered for Witness The Spirit in Luke-Acts. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994.

. “Jumping Off the Postmodern Bandwagon.” Pneuma 16:1 (Spring, 1994): 115-120.

. “Evidential Tongues: An Essay on Theological Method.” Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies 1:2 (July, 1998): 111-123.

Menzies, William. Anointed to Serve: The Story of the Assemblies of God. Springfield, Missouri: Gospel Publishing House, 1971.

. “The Methodology of Pentecostal Theology: An Essay on Hermeneutics.” in Essays on Apostolic Themes: Studies in Honor of Howard M. Ervin. ed. Paul Elbert. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 1985: 1-14.

. and Menzies, Robert P. Spirit and Power: Foundations of Pentecostal Experience. Grand Rapids, Michigan; Zondervan Publishing House, 2000.

McCall, Bradford. “A Contemporary Reappropriation of Baconian Common Sense Realism in Renewal Hermeneutics.” Pneuma 32 (2010): 223-240.

McCarthy, Msgr. John F. “Some Rationalist Presuppositions of the Historical-Critical Method.” 1.1 Roman Theological Forum 137 (2008).

McLean, Mark D. “Toward a Pentecostal Hermeneutic.” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 6 (Fall, 1984): 35-56.

Mickelsen, A. Berkeley. Interpreting The Bible. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1963.

Moore, Rickie D. “Deuteronomy and the Fire of God: A Critical Charismatic Interpretation.” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 7 (October, 1995): 7-17.

Noll, Mark. Between Faith and Criticism: Evangelicals, Scholarship, and the Bible in America. Vancouver: Regent College, 1988.

Ockenga, Harold. “Foreword.” in Lindsell, Harold. The Battle for the Bible. Grand Rapids, Michigna; Zondervan Publishing House, 1978.

Oliverio Jr., Louis William. “Theological Hermeneutics in the Classical Pentecostal Tradition: A Typological Account.” Ph.D. dissertation, Marquette University, 2009.

Parham, Charles F. “Baptism of the Holy Ghost.” A Voice Crying in The Wilderness. Joplin, Missouri: Joplin Printing Company, 1902, 1910, 25-38.

. “Life Sketch of Author.” A Voice Crying in The Wilderness, 11-20.

. “The Bride.” A Voice Crying in The Wilderness, 86-89.

. “The Millennial Age.” A Voice Crying in The Wilderness, 134-136.

. “Water Baptism.” A Voice Crying in The Wilderness, 21-24.

. Apostolic Faith (Baxter) 2 (July, 1926): 2.

. “The Baptism of the Holy Ghost,” Selected Sermons of the late Charles F. Parham, Sarah E. Parham, Robert L. Parham ed. Baxter Springs, Kansas: Published by Robert Parham, 1941.

Parham, Sarah E. “Joy and Sorrow at Bethel.” The Life of Charles F. Parham. Baxter Springs, Kansas; 1930, 1969; New York, New York: Garland Publishing, Incorporated, 1985, 69-80.

Pinnock, Clark H. The Scripture Principle. San Francisco, California: Harper & Row Publishers, 1984.

Poloma, Margaret M. The Assemblies of God at the Crossroads Charisma and Institutional Dilemmas. Knoxville, Tennessee: University of Tennessee Press, 1989.

Ramm, Bernard. Protestant Biblical Interpretation. 3rd. revd. ed. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1970.

Reed, D. “Origins and Development of the Theology of oneness Pentecostalism.” Ph.D. dissertation, Boston University Graduate School, 1978.

Roach, William C. “The Resurgence of Neo-Evangelism: Graig Blomberg’s Latest Book and the Future of Evangelical Theology.” Mid-America Journal of Theology 26/2 (Fall, 2015): 231–261.

Seeberg, R. “Frage nach dem Sinn und Recht winer pneumatischen Schriftauslegung.” Zeitschrift fur systematische Theologie 4 (1927): 3-59.

Sheppard, Gerald T. “Biblical Interpretation After Gadamer.” Pneuma 16/1 (Spring, 1994): 121-141.

Smith, James K. A. Thinking in Tongues: Pentecostal Contributions to Christian Philosophy. (Pentecostal Manifestos). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2010.

Stronstad, Roger. “Trends in Pentecostal Hermeneutics.” Parclete 22/3 (Summer, 1988): 3, http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/top/month_holyspirit.cfm, Accessed August 19, 2012.

Spittler, R. P. “Glossolalia.” in Burgess S. M. & McGee G. B. Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1988: 335-341.

Venema, Cornelis P. “Functional Inerrancy: A Neo-Evangelical View of Biblical Authority.” Mid-America Journal of Theology 5/2 (1989): 81-163.

Wacker, G. “Playing for Keeps: The Primitivist Impulse in Early Pentecostalism.” in The American Quest for the Primitive Church. Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press, 1988: 196-219.

 

“신복음주의.” http://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/%EC%8B%A0%EB%B3%B5%EC%9D%8C%EC%A3%BC%EC%9D%98, Accessed June 20, 2015.

“Faculty and Lecturer.” http://www.silhk.org/zh/tutor.php, Accessed June 20, 2015.

“Faith and Mission.” http://spu.edu/about-spu/statement-of-faith, Accessed June 20, 2015.

“Gordon–Conwell Theological Seminary.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon%E2%80%93Conwell_Theological_Seminary, Accessed June 27, 2015.

“Gordon Fee.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Fee, Accessed June 27, 2015.

“Howard M. Ervin.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_M._Erv.in, Accessed July 13, 2015.

“Lead Pastor.” http://www.stewartroad.org/#!leadership/c1hlf, Accessed July 21, 2015.

“Our History.” http://spu.edu/about-spu/our-history, Accessed June 20, 2015.

“Timothy B. Cargal.” https://www.linkedin.com/pub/timothy-cargal/23/10b/797, Accessed June 7, 2015.

“University of Southern California.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Southern_California, Accessed June 14, 2015.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Abstract

 

A History and an Evaluation of Pentecostal Biblical Hermeneutics

 

Chang-Soung Lee

 

Since the birth of modern Pentecostal movement, Pentecostal hermeneutics for Pentecostal theology, by and large, has formed three types. one is pre-modern type, one is modern, and the other is post-modern. The pre-modern hermeneutics of early Pentecostals rejected Higher/Historical Criticism, and read the Bible pre-critically through the Continuation of all spiritual Gifts. Pre-critical bible reading of early Pentecostals made the pre-written experiences correspond with the written experiences in the Bible as facts, and the readers of today be reexperienced the written experiences. That is to say, the pre-critical reading was a proper interpretation for making the pre-written experiences agree with the written experiences, and the readers of today be reexperienced the written experiences.

But, so called modern Pentecostal scholars, both author centered modern interpreters and reader centered post-modern interpreters, have a common feature that they are reading the Bible through Higher/Historical Criticism which presupposes the agnostic enlightenment/Kantian view of reason and excludes the supernatural in-breaking into history. That is, they are laying an obstacle, higher/historical criticism between the Bible and the readers of today. As a result, the written experiences is deprived of the historicity, and they become different from pre-written experiences. And because of the outcome, the basis of Pentecostalism, the readers of today should re-experience the experiences written in the Bible, especially the Baptism in the Spirit with speaking in tongues, is being destroyed. Therefore, both modern and post-modern hermeneutics are not proper interpretation ways for Pentecostal movement and theology.

    

 

 

Key words:

Pentecostalism, Hermeneutics, Premodern, Modern, Postmodern, Higher/Historical Criticism, Historicity, Pre-critical Bible reading, Re-experience

 

    

A History and an Evaluation of Pentecostal Biblical Hermeneutics (changsoung lee).pdf

0.31MB