Understanding Gods Word An Apostolic Approach To Interpreting The Bible

Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars

Click to get our FREE MOBILE APP and stay connected

| PentecostalTheology.com

Pneuma 29 (2007) 131-178

Book Reviews

David K. Bernard, Understanding God’s Word: An Apostolic Approach to Interpreting the Bible (Hazelwood, MO: Word Aﬂame Press, 2005). 288 pp., $14.00, paper.

David Bernard is a Oneness Pentecostal pastor and theological educator who serves the United Pentecostal Church, International. He has a doctor of jurisprudence from the Uni- versity of Texas and a master of theology in New Testament from the University of South Africa. He is member of the Society for Pentecostal Theology. Bernard’s monograph was writ- ten for his denomination’s laity.

Bernard seeks to establish two primary goals. Tese goals are “(1) to contribute to the development and enunciation of Apostolic hermeneutics and (2) to demonstrate how the careful study and application of hermeneutics supports the distinctives of the Apostolic message” (11). He is concerned to use only “biblically based hermeneutics” as a means of understanding the full meaning of Scripture, which for him means the modernistic grammatical-historical method as used from the Oneness theological perspective.

Understanding God’s Word has ten chapters that illuminate a familiarity with hermeneuti- cal concerns. The work opens with a chapter on the Protestant Bible as the inspired inerrant word of God. Two chapters lay out ten general biblical principles of interpretation, with the grammatical-historical as the ﬁrst principle, as well as the biblical method. T en Bernard addresses the theological and practical distinctives of the Oneness Pentecostals. Chapters six through nine explain the grammatical-historical method, and the ﬁnal chapter gives rules for applying the Bible to contemporary life.

Bernard aﬃrms the need to examine presuppositions, has an appreciation for the herme- neutical spiral, and wrestles with the distance between the biblical text and contemporary interpreters. He provides helpful information such as a discussion on translations, rejects the dictation theory of inspiration, appreciates diﬀerent voices of Scripture, and includes an appendix of suggested hermeneutical resources for beginning exegetes. The book expresses many conservative modern evangelical values: the importance of objectivity that is con- trolled by the author’s intent, the clear distinction between what the passage meant (prin- ciple) and what a passage means (application), and a heavy emphasis on rationalistic argument from a commonsense perspective. The monograph unitizes strong rationalistic judicial arguments that are philosophically grounded in an uncritical commonsense real- ism. This is most evident in his discussions of truth, rules of logic (based on Greek philo- sophical categories), validation of Scripture, and engagement with historical doctrines.

Bernard thinks that his theological explanations are simply restatements of what the apos- tles have already clearly taught in the NT. For example, when he applies the grammatical- historical method to Mathew 28:19 as an example of practicing the method, Bernard writes,

PNEU 29,1_f9_131-178.indd 131PNEU 29,1_f9_131-178.indd 131

33/30/07 8:48:21 PM/30/07 8:48:21 PM

1

132

Book Reviews / Pneuma 29 (2007) 131-178

“Jesus spoke to his disciples who were monotheistic Jews and who had not been exposed to trinitarian terminology, for it was not invented until the third century. . . . To the contrary, Jesus had recently taught them that He was the visible manifestation of the Father and that the Holy Spirit was Himself coming in another form (John 14). Acts shows us they obeyed his command by baptizing in the name of Jesus” (158). Nowhere in the NT do we ﬁnd such a statement made by or about Jesus. However, Bernard runs into the same problem we all do — our explanations of Scripture are theological interpretations.

The major concern is his argument for the scriptural origin and NT writers’ employment of the grammatical-historical method. The reader learns that the method of the Apostles was none other than the grammatical-historical method (46)! This is misleading for Ber- nard’s readers, because NT writers used common interpretive methods of their day and not the modern grammatical-historical method he is using. His understanding of the grammatical-historical method is based upon the modern age. T us Bernard would have been better oﬀ to argue for a method emerging out of communication theory and linguis- tics while aﬃrming that the NT writers oﬀer helpful guidance to Christians on how to interpret the OT.

In conclusion, Understanding God’s Word is a window into the concerns of an Oneness Pentecostal educator. I do recommend the book to Pentecostal educators, especially trinitari- ans, because it articulates the basic arguments for Oneness’ beliefs and practices. By reading this book one becomes familiar with Oneness doctrinal interpretation of biblical passages and the arguments against trinitarian doctrine. Also a trinitarian may be surprised by how much the two communities have in common — especially if the Pentecostal trinitarian shares Bernard’s modernistic commonsense rationalism. Due to the numerous illustrative engage- ments with Scripture, Oneness Pentecostals will probably ﬁnd it to be a helpful reference resource for responding to theological questions concerning their beliefs and practices.

From the point of view of Pentecostal scholarship, however, Bernard’s monograph is not helpful for understanding biblical hermeneutics. He basically articulates a traditional evan- gelical historical grammatical method as the means to understand Scripture. His actual pre- sentation of the method is inadequate even for beginner exegetes. Also his modern method aﬃrms that Scripture’s value for today is really found in the principles — the unchanging abso- lutes. For Bernard, the ultimate goal of grammatical-historical method is to get at the objective truth principle so you can apply it to today’s context (see pp. 35-36, 40-42, 59, especially 227- 34). If the repetitive arguments against trinitarian doctrine followed by arguments in favor of the “Oneness” Pentecostal doctrine were omitted, it would basically read like a conservative modern and popular evangelical argument for traditional historical grammatical exegetical method. T us, it is hard to ﬁnd any “apostolic” contribution to biblical interpretation.

Reviewed by Kenneth J. Archer

PPNEU 29,1_f9_131-178.indd 132NEU 29,1_f9_131-178.indd 132

33/30/07 8:48:21 PM/30/07 8:48:21 PM

2