Interpretation of Scripture

Greg

I've noticed that some people will go to a text to argue for a certain theological view, and they seem to think the explanation they offer settles a theological dispute, perhaps on grammatical grounds.  I think it is important to remember that when it comes to a passage of scripture, "scoring (grammar) points" in a few verses of scripture cannot possibly, in and of itself, prove or disprove a theological view.  I'm not knocking the technical work of the grammarians, not at all.  Without their contributions, we would be up a creek without a paddle.  My point is, the grammarians disagree, all the time, so to understand the truth of scripture, we must weigh grammatical arguments with the overall message of scripture.  I think the Bible is a simpler book than what many theologians have made it. What did Moses teach? What did God tell us through Abraham? How did the Hebrews understand God's promises concerning a Messiah? I think it odd that trinitarian apologists have argued that we must interpret the Hebrew scriptures by the NT scriptures, when in fact, the opposite must be true.

Take, for example, the disputed doctrine of the pre-human existence of Jesus.  No matter one's interpretation of the prologue, for example, and one can even bring his interpretation of Hebrews 1 and/or Colossians 1 alongside his interpretation of the prologue, this alone does not determine the truth of who/what Jesus is, whether one is a Trinitarian, Arian, or Biblical Unitarian. I was a Trinitarian, with a brief stop as a Binitarian/Arian of sorts, and I landed on Biblical Unitarianism because I think it is the best paradigm for understanding the totality of scripture.  I don't say that to fight with those of the Arian persuasion.  I admit that some passages of scripture, without taking the totality of scripture into account (which some of them would counter by saying the same in return against the BU view), seem to support the Arian view.  I just don't think it's the best fit with all of the scriptural data. That God is triune, on the other hand, is preposterous, in my opinion.

My point is, I don't think that BU interpretations of the prologue (or Col. 1, or Heb. 1, or some of John's sayings) prove the BU position by themselves, but the same goes for Arian interpretations of those same passages, so I think we should show wisdom and restraint instead of thinking "my" view of a certain passage (or grouping of a few passages), alone "proves my point."  The more I have come to understand the Kingdom message of the scriptures, to me, the BU interpretations fit better, and consequently who/ what Jesus is made more clear.  I think we should all remember, while textual variants and grammatical disputes can be instructive, the Kingdom message of God is bigger than those few disputed passages. What paradigm allows us to look at them as having cohesion with the revelation of God through the Hebrews about the Messiah/Christ, a human being? This, I think, is the proper paradigm for interpreting the passages mentioned above.