Some thoughts by others on interpreting using historical narratives and formulating doctrine:
Proper biblical hermeneutics
(1) always plays a major part in biblical interpretation. One primary hermeneutical principle that is especially germane to this discussion is historical narrative versus didactic (teaching) portions of Scripture.
(2) Since there are different genres of literature in Scripture, each must be seen in its own context and interpreted in light of its own literary principles. To be sure, there is a difference between historical narrative and didactic genres, and it is important to know which is which and to know how to interpret them accordingly. But, an oversimplified view is that doctrines can only be derived from didactic portions of Scripture while historical narratives serve only to show us what transpired for others in those historical events. Perhaps the best way to clarify this is to give examples of each.
Historical Narrative Example- When the historical narrative in Exodus tells us that Moses struck a rock with his staff and water came out, are we then to assume that all believers can strike a rock to have water? God is speaking to Moses, and he says:“I will stand there before you by the rock at Horeb. Strike the rock, and water will come out of it for the people to drink.” So Moses did this in the sight of the elders of Israel (
Exodus 17:6).
However, one narrative does not a doctrine make. Something must be repeated to establish a norm (a “have-to pattern”). Furthermore, this “thing” must be consistent each time it is repeated. It is interesting that this “water from a rock” did not happen only once. It happened again.
In the book of Numbers, it says:Then Moses raised his arm and struck the rock twice with his staff. Water gushed out, and the community and their livestock drank (
Numbers 20:11).(3)However, even with two separate accounts of Moses striking a rock to retrieve water, this narrative description of what happened should not be treated as though it were a prescription for “the way to get water.” And, as far as I know, no thoughtful Christian believes that we can simply take a stick and hit a rock for our water needs.Though this is an extreme example of how not to build doctrines on narratives, the point should be clear.
Narrative passages of Scripture are often only descriptive, i.e., describing how some people did something and not prescriptive, i.e., prescribing how all people must do something.
Didactic Example- Now, let’s review a didactic portion of Scripture. If anyone speaks in a tongue, two—or at the most three—should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and God (
1 Corinthians 14:27-28).In this didactic (teaching) portion of Scripture, Paul is addressing the Corinthians, and he is explaining to them how they should conduct their worship service. Since this is a direct teaching, we can see and accept its universal application for all Christians for all times. When something is for all Christians for all times, then we call that a “norm” (or “normative”). It is something that should (must) be done by all Christians, and when they do not do it, they are out of line.
However, in our narrative passage of Moses and the rock, we would not see that as a norm. The water-from-the-rock situation was unique to Moses. Nowhere is there a didactic portion of Scripture that commands all Christians to strike rocks for water. Therefore, it is not a “norm.” It is simply a record (narrative) of how God dealt with Moses in particular times at particular places.
Two More Examples - It appears that Peter had a particular ministry that was unique to him. The historical narrative of the book of Acts gives us this account:As a result, people brought the sick into the streets and laid them on beds and mats so that at least Peter’s shadow might fall on some of them as he passed by (
Acts 5:15).Peter had a “Shadow Ministry,”(4) and no one assumes that this is a norm. This passage is not prescribing how Christians are to heal the sick; it is simply recounting this unique experience in Peter’s life.
Speaking of Peter, he himself, however, writes didactically to all Christians when he says,Therefore, rid yourselves of all malice and all deceit, hypocrisy, envy, and slander of every kind. Like newborn babies, crave pure spiritual milk, so that by it you may grow up in your salvation, now that you have tasted that the Lord is good (
1 Pet. 2:1-3).In this passage Peter gives instructions that are normative for all Christians for all time. Unlike Moses’ rock-and-water experience, which is only descriptive, Peter’s instructions are prescriptive. Here is a simple table that may help clarify the two.
NARRATIVE ------------------ and ------------------ DIDACTIC
A story ------------------------------------------------- A teaching
Descriptive -------------------------------------------Prescriptive
Normal for some ----------------------------------- A norm for all
The Twist - However, it is not as simple as saying, “Doctrines can only be derived from didactic portions of Scripture and never narrative portions of Scripture.” If the discussion were that simple, we would be able to simply state that the book of Acts is a historical narrative, and, thus, no doctrines can be built from it. That then, would end the debate. But, the church has legitimately established some of its doctrines and practices via historical narrative.
As Fee points out, the Baptists (and some others) insist on baptism by immersion. This practice, however, is not based on any clear didactic portion of Scripture, but rather upon a word study of the word baptize and upon historical narrative. Why does the church meet each Sunday for services? What didactic portion of Scripture establishes that routine for our church practice? Upon what New Testament didactic portion of Scripture does the church teach and support the practice of tithing?
Furthermore, New Testament writers did use Old Testament narratives for didactic instruction. In fact, Paul seems to imply as much when he says, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work” (
2 Timothy 3:16-17).
Also, in
Romans 15:4, Paul says, “For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through endurance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.”
So, historical narrative does have didactic value; the issue is how do we legitimately exegete doctrine and practice from historical narrative?If we conclude that doctrines may be derived from historical narrative (and I do), we cannot then simply say, “Well, there you go. Since we can use that hermeneutical principle, then speaking in tongues is the initial, physical evidence of the baptism in the Holy Spirit.”
You see, even when we conclude that doctrines can be built from historical narratives, shall we then institute the “water-from-rocks ministry,” or the “shadow-healing ministry”? Obviously not.
In Paraclete, Roger Stronstad gives a weighty argument for “The Biblical Precedent for Historical Precedent”(5) (i.e., building doctrines from narratives). However, in the same issue of Paraclete, Gordon Fee supplies a strong rejoinder in which he offers several cautions concerning this hermeneutical principle.(6) In essence, if doctrines are to be built upon narrative portions of Scripture, many caveats come into play. After an ongoing discussion on this topic, Gordon Fee eloquently expresses my concern:At issue, as I perceive it, is whether historical precedent may serve in a normative way for the establishing of Christian doctrine. I have expressed concern on this issue; and as Roger [Stronstad] has indicated, “considerable criticism” has been levied against my articulation of things. But I must confess that in all of that criticism, I have failed to find a hermeneutical articulation that took me by the hand and showed me how one goes about doing this—that is, establishing something normative on the basis of historical precedent alone (emphasis added).(7)So, while there may be legitimacy in building doctrine from narrative passages alone, there is yet to be a definitive hermeneutical statement on how that is properly done.
http://www.columbiaseminary.org/coffeetalk/091.html
My soul followeth hard after thee....Love one another with a pure heart fervently. 
Hybrid Mode
