Three Approaches

THREE WAYS TO APPROACH THE BIBLE: Disciplinary Distinctions Some Suggestions by Jon Paulien

INTRODUCTION The purpose of this paper is to examine various ways that people approach the Bible with a view toward learning how to discover and respect divine revelation in the midst of pressing reallife problems. The ideas in this paper were not developed in direct dialogue with the works of either Biblical or systematic theologians, but arose out of personal practice and dialogue with many individuals and groups, both here at the Seminary and in many other settings. The ultimate goal of the method described in this paper is more practical than theoretical, therefore the terms used should not be understood in their most technical sense, but in terms of the simpler definitions offered here.

STATEMENT OF THE BASIC PROBLEM In recent years two texts have become increasingly disturbing to me. One is found in the proverbs of Jeremiah (Jer 17:5-11): The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it? Jer 17:9 This text indicates that a fundamental problem of the sinful human condition is self-deception. At the innermost level we have the natural tendency to lie to ourselves and, therefore, to see what we want to see whenever we open the Bible. Our self-deception is usually obvious to others, but quite hidden from ourselves. Like most Adventists, however, I would hold out the hope that we 1

as a corporate body might be spared from such a condition. But that is not what a second text seems to suggest: You say, “I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.” But you do not realize That you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked. I counsel you to buy from me gold refined in the fire, so you can become rich; and white clothes to wear, so you can cover your shameful nakedness and salve to put on your eyes, so you can see. Rev 3:17-18 Seventh-day Adventists, of course, have long identified themselves with this passage. But what is Laodicea’s problem? It is the problem of self-deception. What she is and what she thinks of herself are two different things. It is not a conscious deceit on her part, the remedy of eye medicine is necessary because she doesn’t even know she has a problem. She needs clear vision in order to understand the will of God. So I would submit that Adventists have not succeeded in by-passing the natural human tendency toward self-deception, even in their study of Scripture. If this is so the tendency to misuse Scripture may be as prevalent among conservative Biblebelievers as it is among Bible-doubting liberals, just more difficult to discern. There are a number of practical solutions to the problem of self-deception. Authentic prayer, for example, calls on God to lead us to truth no matter what the personal cost. Journaling (dialoguing with oneself or with God in writing) can draw out inner thoughts and tendencies that 2

would otherwise remain hidden from us. And accountability (opening oneself to direct counsel from others) to fellow Christians, singly or in groups, or even to professional counselors can help us to see ourselves as others see us, to become more honest about our personal realities.1 Is there a way to read the Bible that can help us grow from self-deception to selfawareness? How can we bypass the natural defense mechanisms that seek to blind us to the very truths of the Bible that we so much need? Can our study of the Bible become more of a safeguard in the church’s formation of its theology? The following system provides insights that have helped me become more of a learner before God’s Word.

PRACTICAL DEFINITIONS FOR THREE WAYS TO APPROACH THE BIBLE I would like to suggest that there are three basic ways to approach Bible study; Biblical exegesis, Biblical theology, and systematic theology.2

Each of these approaches seeks to answer

different questions with which we confront the Bible. Each approach should be part of a larger, interdisciplinary process, yet each part of that process needs to be carefully distinguished, so that the strengths of each approach might not be lost through amalgamation.

The Approach of Biblical Exegesis In practical terms, Biblical exegesis (NT and OT) seeks to answer the question, “What was the Biblical writer trying to say?” What was Paul trying to say when he wrote a letter to the

1

Those interested in a more thorough outline of the suggestions in this paragraph could consult Jon Paulien, Present Truth in the Real World (Boise, ID: Pacific Press, 1993), 191-200. 2

For purposes of discussion, I include missiology and practical theology under the term “systematic theology.” All three are concerned with understanding and carrying out the will of God in the contemporary situation. Church history is more of a descriptive discipline along the lines of exegesis as defined here. 3

Roman church back in the first century. What issues was he trying to address? What language and arguments did he chose to use? As a basic process, exegesis is appropriate to any written work, even student papers. It is the process of seeking to understand a writer’s conscious intention for a particular work.

The Approach of Biblical Theology Biblical theology, on the other hand, asks the question, “What did the Biblical writer believe?” What was the underlying belief system that caused each Biblical writer to write the documents that we find in the Bible? What view of God lies behind the letter to the Romans, for example? What view of salvation or of eschatology would Paul need to have in order to write the things that he wrote? Biblical theology focuses less on the text than on the belief system that brought the text into being, a belief system which can be detected in the writings that inspired writers left behind. This is a different kind of question than the one posed by Biblical exegesis.

The Approach of Systematic Theology Systematic theology, by way of contrast, approaches Biblical study from a totally different direction. It asks questions like, “What should I believe? What should the church believe? What is God’s will for me, for us? What is truth?”3 Here the whole direction of approach is concerned

3

I realize that this is an oversimplification. My purpose here is practical, not theoretical. I am seeking to express the fundamental concerns of each discipline at a level where every Bible student can gain a practical grasp of the approach and alter his or her approach to the Bible in such a way as to gain deeper insight into the mind of the God who inspired His Word. It is easy to reduce the science of hermeneutics to slogans, it is a much more difficult matter to honor the Word of God in practice. At the practical level the stakes are much higher than at the theoretical level and the natural mechanisms of defense tend to take over and frustrate our best intentions, often apart from our conscious awareness. 4

with our need for understanding the mind and will of God in terms of today’s world.

THE SOURCES OF SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY Biblical exegesis and theology are concerned, by definition, with the world and the ideas that produced the Bible. But the Bible is not the only source of truth about God and the human condition. There are many areas of truth that the Bible does not address.4 So the open-ended questions of systematic theology rightly lead to an open-ended search for truth, wherever it can be found. The Bible must always take priority in such a search. It serves as a yardstick, testing the validity of “truths” which are discovered from other sources. But it does not contain within itself the sum total of all that can be known about God or about the human condition. At this broader level, Seventh-day Adventists highly regard the role of the Spirit of Prophecy as a source of truth. While the Bible remains the primary source of truth, much can be learned in the Spirit of Prophecy that clarifies, expands upon, and extends our knowledge of God and the world in which we live. Science, history, experience and the providences of God have also been widely cited among Adventists as sources of truth. I would suggest that philosophy, because it addresses both the fundamental questions of human existence and the nature of God is certainly a helpful source in the search for truth. No Adventist would take philosophy as the final word, all philosophical ideas must first be tested by the Bible. But philosophy expands both our understanding of truth and the sharpness of the questions that we might address toward God and the realities of existence. 4

To belabor the obvious, such truths as who a person should marry, where they should live, and how they should employ their time are not addressed in the Bible. God is certainly concerned about such issues and has plans for our lives, but has not chosen to reveal such matters directly through His Word. 5

I would suggest that psychology is also a source of truth about God. If human beings are made in the image of God, then anything that helps us to understand the way human beings work is a potential source of truth about God as well. Likewise, sociology can help us understand how groups of human beings function under God. Neither source of truth is to be followed blindly without reference to the Bible. There is much error lurking in the study of psychology and sociology, not to mention science, history and human experience. But our knowledge of God and the human condition would be much diminished if we left these other sources out of the equation. Let’s take, for an example, the important question, “Should a Christian smoke?” This is clearly a question that cannot be answered from the Bible alone. The subject of tobacco is not even addressed in the Bible, after all tobacco was only discovered a few hundred years ago. While the Bible may lay out certain principles of health and fidelity to God that may apply to this question, it can only be fully settled by the application of science and experience. So “Should a Christian smoke?” is ultimately not a Biblical question but a systematic one. If scientists should come up with a smoke therapy that cures cancer, I rather suspect that some confused exegetes would oppose the use of the therapy on “Biblical grounds,” but they would be sadly mistaken. We know tobacco to be inappropriate for Christians on scientific grounds more than Biblical ones. On the other hand, if I were to ask “What is Paul’s view on smoking?” it would not be a systematic theological question. It would come in the realm of Biblical theology. And I would be limiting myself to the Biblical evidence. The only possible answer to such a question is, “Paul didn’t have a view on smoking as we know it. He knew nothing about it.” While the Bible is the norm or yardstick for truth, it does not contain the sum total of truth.

6

CHARTING THE THREE APPROACHES I believe that it will be helpful at this point to clarify the issues related to each of the three approaches to the Bible. We will examine the practical consequences of pursuing answers to the various questions underlying each approach. The goal is to produce a matrix or chart which can be used as a reference to maintain the necessary distinctions between each approach. It is only when all distinctions have been clarified that we can begin the task of examining ways to relate the disciplines in such as way as not to distort or confuse the process.

The Time of Reference For students of the NT, to ask the exegetical question, “What was Paul trying to say when he composed his letter to the church at Rome?” is to locate oneself in the first century of our era. The exegete seeks to understand the world in which Paul lived, the circumstances to which Paul wrote, and the language and culture from which he drew the words to express his ideas. Systematic theology, on the other hand, is a twentieth-century process (soon to be twentyfirst century). The fundamental question of Systematic Theology (“What should I/we believe?”) directs our attention to today’s world; its needs, concerns, and issues. We frame the questions in today’s terms to seek answers for today’s issues. And it is entirely right and proper that we should do this. Where does NT Theology fit in (“What did Paul believe?”)? It also asks a first century question. Paul’s beliefs are grounded in the time, place, language and circumstances of his world, not ours. We need to understand his context before we can safely apply his insights to our world.

7

The Categories of Language When doing exegesis it is important to use Biblical categories or terminology as much as possible. In other words, we should seek to explain the text in the terms the original writer used and according to the meaning the original writer intended. The use of our own terms and word definitions will inevitably distort the exegetical process. On the other hand, systematic theology, by definition, utilizes philosophical, rather than Biblical language. In other words, the language used arises out of the questions asked. We are seeking to understand God as He relates to our world and our concerns. So in systematic theology the interpreter sets the categories of language to be used. But it is important to remember that this approach, while appropriate and necessary for the purposes of systematic theology, is totally inappropriate for exegesis, where the author’s language and setting is at issue. Biblical theology here sides with exegesis again. If we ask the question, “What did Paul believe?” the safest course of action is to answer the question in terms of Paul’s own language and definitions. We should not impose Luther’s definitions of justification and sanctification, for example, on Paul. To do so would be to distort Paul’s theological system in the name of Luther. We must let Luther speak for himself, and let Paul speak for himself.

The Status of the Result In the ideal sense, at least, the result of NT exegesis is unchangeable. When we have determined exactly what it was that Paul was trying to say to the Romans, we have an answer that will not change, as the letter to the Romans has not changed in the last 2000 years. From the perspective of the exegete, of course, exegesis is a process. We often grope our way toward an

8

understanding of what Paul was trying to say. Text criticism may clarify the exact words that Paul chose to use. From our side, exegesis is always a process. But rightly handled, the result of exegesis is unchangeable because the source of study is essentially unchangeable. Biblical theology, likewise, is unchangeable in the ultimate sense. Paul hasn’t had a new idea in nearly 2000 years! So while our study of Paul’s theology is a process that may be lifelong in clarification, the result of a sound study of Paul’s theology is unchangeable by definition. Our understanding of Paul may change, but Paul himself is not changing. There is something fixed and stable about the Biblical materials that serve as a foundation for the theological process. Systematic theology, on the other hand, is changeable. Circumstances alter cases. Our questions may (and will) change, our needs may change or be clarified, and various cultures may effect the way God’s infinite truth impacts on a finite setting. The contemporary world is constantly confronting us with fresh issues which require fresh investigation into the will of an infinite God. Adventists rightly hold open the right to clarify, reword, and even modify their statement of Fundamental Beliefs as the study of the Word, the guidance of the Spirit, and the exigencies of the human condition may indicate. Here we see a glimpse of the importance of interdisciplinary methodology. By themselves, Biblical exegesis and theology may be solid and reliable, but unless applied to specific circumstances they will have little impact on the everyday life of God’s people today. Systematic theology, on the other hand, while sensitive to changing times and circumstances, needs the solid anchor that an unchanging Word provides, lest it become lost in a sea of relativism.

9

Focus of Interest The focus of interest in Biblical exegesis is, of course, the text. One can only determine what a writer was trying to say by reference to the text that person wrote. Systematic theology, on the other hand, is theme oriented, rather than text oriented. Texts are consulted in the process of searching out a theme, but the main concern of the process is to understand the ideas that will answer the question being raised. “Should a Christian smoke?” is a thematic question, not a textual one. What is the focus of interest in Biblical theology? In this case it accords with systematic theology. To ask what a writer believed is to ask a thematic question. We are taken beyond the level of the text to explore broad ideas. So in this matter the theological disciplines need to be distinguished from the exegetical one.

Extent of Interest Exegesis, by definition, is interested in anything that is written down.5 Students are well aware that their grades sometimes depend on the quality of the teacher’s exegesis of student papers! Anything written is potentially of interest to an exegete. So the exegetical process is directed toward the entire Bible by definition. Systematic theology, on the other hand, is selective in its use of texts. The questions raised and the resulting themes guide the interpreter to texts which address the issue at hand.

5

No doubt some would extend the process to anything that is spoken as well, and with some justification. It is, however, tenuous at best to speculate on the oral traditions that may lie behind the written words of the Bible itself. We have no direct access to such traditions, and the very existence of written Scriptures are evidence of the tenuousness of the oral traditions even in the generation immediately after the events recorded in the NT took place. 10

Texts which do not address the issue are ignored. Once again, there is concurrence between Biblical and systematic theology. Biblical theology is also selective by definition. If I were to ask the question, “What is the Biblical perspective on health?” I would certainly not begin my study in 1 Chronicles or even Jeremiah. The question raised and the theme explored determines the selection of material.

The Level of Significance Exegesis, by definition, is a descriptive approach. The exegete attempts to describe what an author was trying to say. The results of exegesis are not threatening to the interpreter since they concern another time and place. Systematic theology, on the other hand, is normative. If I ask the question, “What is God’s will for me?” the answer to that question will be normative for my life. If I learn that a Christian should not smoke, that knowledge will have an immediate effect on my life. Systematic theology, therefore, is a very threatening process, because the stakes for the interpreter are extremely high. Defense mechanisms come quickly into play whenever the stakes are high. Exegesis, therefore, is a very important safeguard for the study of the Bible. As a descriptive approach, it bypasses the natural mechanisms of defense to allow the interpreter to learn from the text without being sabotaged from within. After all, if I am trying to describe what Paul was saying to the Romans, it is no threat to me. Sam Bacchiocchi may be a Roman, but I am not. Paul was not writing directly to me. And since Paul was writing to first century Romans, even Bacchiocchi is off the hook when doing exegesis of Romans! Our defense mechanisms can relax when exegesis is in operation.

11

But here is the exciting thing. When you have done a careful exegesis of Romans, the text of Romans will never be the same again to you. The things you learned doing exegesis remain in mind, and they affect the way you read the text when you are seeking to understand the will of God for yourself. Through exegesis, you have bypassed the defense mechanisms that cause selfdeception and opened yourself in a deeper way to the Biblical text. Over time such study cannot help but transform the way you address contemporary questions from the Bible. Where does Biblical theology fit into this descriptive/normative continuum?6 It becomes a median discipline, it partakes of both. Biblical theology is descriptive in the sense that we are trying to describe what a Biblical writer believed on various topics. But in dealing with the Biblical writers we are dealing with people whose ideas were shaped under the special guidance of the Holy Spirit in the process of revelation and inspiration. In a real sense, Paul’s ideas are also God’s ideas expressed in terms of Paul’s language, time, place and circumstances. To the extent, therefore, that Paul’s circumstances are similar to ours, his teachings on a particular topic are also normative for us. So Biblical theology becomes the bridge whereby we can safely move from the descriptive to the normative, from what the text meant to what it means, from what Paul was trying to say to God’s will for us today.

The Agency Being Examined The questions that drive the three approaches to the Bible take us a step further in our

6

I think it would be inappropriate at this point not to express my debt to Gerhard Hasel, whose discussion of the descriptive/normative issue initiated my exploration into this topic. My first inklings along these lines occurred while reading his landmark book New Testament Theology: Basic Issues in the Current Debate. The product expressed in this paper was refined by clarification with Hasel and subsequent dialogue with seminary classes over a twelve-year period. 12

understanding of the process by which God communicates to His people on earth. Biblical exegesis is concerned with what Paul was trying to say. Exegesis, by definition, focuses on the human element in the Biblical text. The exegete tries to understand Paul’s expressions, Paul’s circumstances, Paul’s intention. God is not on trial in Paul’s choice of language, the text reflects Paul’s human intention.7 But if we accept the inspiration of the Scriptures the ideas behind the text are more than just human. While Paul’s ideas were his own, they were safeguarded by the divine process of inspiration. So we would have to say that while Biblical exegesis focuses directly on the human element in Scripture, Biblical theology is both human and divine. In the ideas of the Biblical writers we discover also the mind of God. Systematic theology, then, is clearly focused on the divine side of the equation. When we ask the question, “What is God’s will for us/me?” we are seeking an answer from God, whatever the source God may choose to use, Biblical or otherwise.

As the three approaches described in

this paper are combined in interdisciplinary fashion, the full weight of both the divine and human side of the Bible is brought to bear on the issues of life. Once again, it is clear that an interdisciplinary approach is mandatory to a balanced view of truth. The above examination of the three approaches to the Bible that are the subject of this paper leads us to the following chart as a basic reference:

7

Ellen G. White, Selected Messages, volume 1, page 21: “The Bible is written by inspired men, but it is not God’s mode of thought and expression. It is that of humanity. God, as a writer, is not represented. Men will often say such an expression is not like God. But God has not put Himself in words, in logic, in rhetoric, on trial in the Bible. The writers of the Bible were God’s penmen, not His pen.” 13

METHOD AND BIBLICAL STUDY

Exegesis = What was the author trying to say? NT theology = What did the author believe? Systematic theology = What should I believe? What is God's will for me? What is truth?

Exegesis

Bibl Theol

Syst Theol

Time of Reference

1st Cent

1st Cent

20th Cent

Language

Biblical

Biblical

Philosophical

Result

Unchanging

Unchanging

Changing

Unit of Study

Passage

Theme

Theme

Field of Study

Comprehensive

Selective

Selective

Level of Significance

Descriptive

Both

Normative

Agency being Examined

Human

Both

Divine

14

IMPLICATIONS OF THE THREE APPROACHES The basic outline of Biblical exegesis, Biblical theology and systematic theology has a number of implications for Biblical and theological work today. Some of these implications are discussed briefly in the following.

Triple Validity It should be self-evident by now that all three approaches to the Bible are valid and necessary. Biblical exegesis helps us bypass the natural defense mechanisms that often prevent us from a genuine engagement with the text. It also provides a firm foundation of accurate knowledge about the how God has revealed Himself in other times and places. Biblical theology bridges the gap between what the text meant and what it means. It helps us move from the specific applications of divine truth in the original settings to the larger principles upon which whose applications were based. These principles then become safeguards and yardsticks for the necessary theological work of discerning the will of God for us today (systematic theology). Without systematic theology, the Biblical disciplines become lifeless and sterile. Without the Biblical disciplines, systematic theology quickly becomes a loose cannon, without meaningful controls. I believe it should now also be self-evident that Biblical study is interdisciplinary by definition. The three approaches need to be distinguished, as we have tried to do here, but they must never be separated. Unless all three approaches are allowed to interact, the full theological task will be incomplete and inaccurate.

15

The Ultimate Source of Authority If we accept the claims of Christian faith, ultimate authority resides in God and God alone. As the creator of the universe and all the creatures in it, only God has the complete and natural right to tell us what to do. All other authorities are valid only to the extent that they speak accurately for God. Living prophets have authority because they have a direct line to God. Inspiration enables them to speak for God with an authority that you and I do not have. Likewise, the Bible has authority because it contains the written products of many inspired people. The Spirit of Prophecy has authority because SDAs believe that Ellen White had the same kind of direct line to God that the ancient prophets had. All authority under God is a derived authority. What of you and me, who have no direct line to God, and who have no access to a living prophet? You and I have authority only to the extent that we rightly divide the Word of God. We must never claim to have Biblical authority if we have not been willing to do a thorough work of exegesis, Biblical theology, and systematic theology. A sociological sermon without Biblical authority may have a persuasive role in the experience of a church. The Holy Spirit may guide you to a personal insight through the use of allegory or intuitive analogy. But such insights can never have the authority over others that the clear teachings of Scripture should have.

Divine and Human Intentions In the work of inspiration God’s intentions are not limited to the intentions of the human author. But although the words, the culture, and the setting of the Biblical text may be chosen by a human writer, God superintends the process and the result in such a way that the text accurately

16

reflects His intentions for that time and place. There is an incarnational process at work in the Bible. The divine and the human blend in ways that can often be distinguished but must never be separated.

The Role of Previous Revelation At the exegetical level, a Biblical writer may be informed by and interact with previous revelation, but not later revelation. Later revelation is excluded from the task of exegesis for the simple reason that the human author was unfamiliar with it. By way of example, Ellen White did not write with the SDA Bible Commentary in mind, so if one wanted to exegete a writing of Ellen White, it would be inappropriate to do so as if she were interacting with the commentary. By the same token Isaiah did not write with Matthew in mind, and Matthew’s use of Isaiah is not necessarily exegetical. A genuine investigation of Isaiah’s intention will explore his use of earlier revelation, but will not be informed by later revelation unless that revelation is clearly exegetical in intent.

The Role of Later Revelation While later revelation is not appropriate to the task of exegesis, it is extremely appropriate to the task of theology, both Biblical and systematic. Later revelation may expose extended meanings that God placed in the human author’s choice of language. Though the original writer wrote with a specific time and place in mind, God is free to use that material for a more universal purpose, and later revelation is an excellent basis by which that divine intention can be discerned.

17

The Limits of Extended Meanings While extended meanings are a genuine aspect of the way inspiration works, such extended meanings will never contradict the plain meaning of the original text. The divine extension of meaning will be a natural extension of the human author’s intention. If an interpreter discerns an extended meaning which contradicts the original author’s intention, such an extension is divorced from the authority of the Biblical text, its authority is limited to the speculative opinion of a human interpreter.

The Role of Systematic Theology The purpose of systematic theology, then, it to examine the whole field of truth, inspired or uninspired, ancient or modern, secular or sacred, for the purpose of discerning, as far as possible, divine answers to the questions of our time and place. In the ideal situation, this theological work will be done in interdisciplinary dialogue with the findings of Biblical exegesis and theology, so that it can be grounded, wherever possible, in the solid foundation of God’s expressed will. The work of systematic theology will also go back to the Biblical texts and examine them in the light of later revelation, which may expose valid extended meanings that might not be self-evident from the process of the Biblical disciplines alone.

The SDA Pioneers and Exegesis When we examine the work of our SDA pioneers we quickly discover that, with the possible exception of J. N. Andrews, exegesis as we have described it here was rarely, if ever, performed by them. We nevertheless have confidence in the results of their labors, because these labors were validated by the presence of a living voice from God in the person of Ellen G. White. 18

While she herself never originated any Adventist doctrine, her input pruned away many a strange vine in the process of Adventist theological development. She provided a non-exegetical safeguard against theological error. Since Ellen White’s death in 1915, however, there has been an increasing proliferation of discordant viewpoints among us. In the absence of a living voice among us, exegesis becomes the primary safeguard against the misuse of Scripture.

The Proof-Text Method The proof-text method, much used and much-appreciated by SDAs, is, at its best, a type of Biblical theology. It involves the thematic examination of all that the Bible has to say on a subject. At its best, the proof-text method builds on the exegetical foundation of each text, leading to a sound conclusion. At its worst, however, proof-texting can be used, consciously or unconsciously, to bypass the Biblical author’s intention in order to pursue the interpreter’s agenda.

The 27 Fundamentals If we accept the definitions offered in this paper, the fundamental beliefs of SDAs, as voted in 1980, are much more akin to systematic theology than Biblical theology. For one thing, they are changeable at any subsequent General Conference. They also contain material that is based on such sources as science (the stricture on smoking, for example) and the insights of EllenWhite as well as Scripture. This should not be a problem, a church is wise to utilize all the tools of systematic theology in its formulation of truth. On the other hand, trying to maintain the illusion that every Adventist doctrine is based fully and only on the Bible may lead to confusion in 19

our future study of the Bible as well as misrepresentation of the path to truth.

Ellen White and Exegesis As Adventists we will want to keep in mind, when we study the Bible, that Ellen White rarely did the kind of exegesis described here. She did not need to. Her theology was safeguarded by the direct line to God that she was given. Prophets are not judged by the quality of their exegesis, but by the quality of their connection to God. Like most prophets, Ellen White was far more concerned about the contemporary impact of her message than she was about the original intention of the Biblical authors. The White Estate estimates that less than 1% of her writings are exegetical in nature. Our defense mechanisms being what they are, it might be well to always follow her own suggestion of consulting her writings on a topic only after careful Biblical work has been done. The same interdisciplinary approach that is being suggested here in relation to the Bible can also be fruitfully applied to the writings of Ellen White. Many misunderstandings of her intention would be cleared up if we began our study of her intention along the lines of sound exegetical principles. Moving from exegesis to a broad appreciation of her views in relation to the issues of the 19th century would set the foundation for a sensitive extension of those views in relation to the issues we face today.

CONCLUSION I would like to conclude this exploratory paper with a playful definition of exegesis I once presented to an ex-Pentecostal minister, who wondered what “exegesis” was all about:

20

“Exegesis is the process of learning how to read the Bible in such a way as to leave open the possibility that you might learn something.” The goal of exegesis is not to foist some 20th Century method upon the Bible, it is rather to enter into a process of listening and learning from the Word of God, so that we can more and more be conformed into His image, and less and less be blown about by every wind of doctrine. I believe that an interdisciplinary approach grounded in the solid rock of God’s Word is the only safe course as we approach the last days of earth’s history.

21