The topic at hand is to consider what is the nature of Old Testament Studies in a Wesleyan mode. From a strictly scientific perspective the interpreter's theological outlook should make little difference in his analysis of the Biblical text. Nevertheless, most scholars concede that no interpreter approaches the text with a blank mind. Since each one brings to the text his preconceptions and his frame of reference, those who adhere to the Wesleyan tradition will reflect their biases by being more sensitive to certain themes and issues present in the Bible than a person from a different tradition. If this is true, I would think that some nuances and inclinations of perspective would be detectable in the OT work of Wesleyan scholars. Affirmatively stated Wesleyan Biblical scholarship may articulate some important insights contained in the Biblical message that have been bypassed or underrated by some scholars.

The question then is a hermeneutical question. Therefore, I shall begin by considering the nature of hermeneutics in a Wesleyan context. Afterwards I wish to look at two selected themes prominent in the OT as illustrative of how the results from Biblical research may enrich Wesleyan theology.

The dominant hermeneutical method in the conservative wing of the Wesleyan movement is the inductive method.1 This method may be contrasted on the one hand to a traditional approach that seeks to indoctrinate through the exposition of the Scriptures and on the other to a historical-critical approach that analyzes the text by precise scientific methods. Both of these approaches are more directional than the inductive method which encourages the student to read the text first hand for what it says. Though the inductive method arose in another setting, it has found widespread adoption in the colleges and seminaries in the Wesleyan tradition, for it is compatible with the Wesleyan doctrines regarding the Scripture, the Holy Spirit and the believer's responsibility.2 This fact is a fine illustration of how a tradition sets the climate for the flourishing of certain approaches. A great advantage of the inductive method for Wesley studies is that it allows room for the work of the Holy Spirit in the interpretation process, a major interest in Wesleyan theology. At the door of this strength a potential danger lies. If the Spirit's role in the interpretation process has not been adequately defined, the outworking of this emphasis may lead to a very subjective interpretation and also encourage treating the text quite superficially. Instead of spending long, laborious hours in exegetical study, the student may rely on his emotions to give him the sense of the passage. This fault is too prevalent among Wesleyans. In their desire to win conversions and affect social change they tend to read the text in support of their particular bias. Consequently the best Biblical work has been done outside of our circles. This state does not always have to exist. With the rise of a host of Wesleyan scholars trained in Biblical studies my hope is that we as a whole may make some significant contributions to Biblical scholarship, but more importantly, that we shall have a powerful impact on the Wesleyan movement itself, to buttress a serious weakness in its present manifestation.

I. THE INDUCTIVE METHOD

To address the question of what OT studies in a Wesleyan mode consists, I shall begin with the inductive method and its potential as a broad hermeneutical umbrella that may cover multiple critical approaches to the Biblical text. A distinct advantage of the inductive method is that it begins the interpretation process in a manner that anyone can use. Also it provides a framework that may lead to the most comprehensive interpretation of the text. The steps in the inductive method from the simple to the complex, are usually three: survey, concentration and comprehension.

A. Survey

In the first step labeled survey the student only needs a Bible, a pencil and some paper. The emphasis lies on personal observation. Unencumbered by past interpretation the student studies a portion (usually a book or a major segment of a larger book) of Scripture to discover all that he can about that portion. While simple in nature, this step is most demanding. A problem is that before realizing its fullest results the student usually languishes and seeks relief from commentaries or other secondary sources. Nevertheless, he who perseveres benefits greatly, for he begins to control a large portion of a book, before he analyzes specific passages in conjunction with other interpretations of those passages. Another problem is that teachers too often prevent the student from realizing the fruits of this method. This may happen in one of two ways. The teacher lets the students share their observations, usually only preliminary ones, without demanding more detailed observation as illustrated in the story about "The Student, the Fish and Agassiz"3 or he presents a host of information as though he too received it from observation without showing the student all of the methods he employed to wrestle such insight from the text. Thus he leaves the faulty impression that they came primarily from his own observations. Be that as it may, observation is a crucial initial step in interpretation.

B. Concentration

The second step in the inductive method may be labeled concentration or analysis. Traditionally in conservative Wesleyan circles this step has consisted mostly of linguistic exegesis. Linguistic analysis is certainly vital, but it is only one important step in the long process of interpretation. After careful grammatical exegesis, the various critical methods must be applied to the text.

Of course, some among us may reject categorically the different critical methodologies such as literary criticism as antagonistic to a high view of inspiration. While readily admitting that not all assured results presented in any critical method may be trusted-for they are only assured if one accepts all the presuppositions of that method-we need to remember that an earnest interpreter must be willing to employ any method that will nudge truth from the text. Conversely no critical method may be engaged categorically, for each critical procedure is founded on a naturalistic epistemology that denies the divine transcendence witnessed to in the Biblical text.4

At this point a digression may be helpful. I believe it is essential that a hermeneutic be developed that takes into account both the divine initiative and the responding creative human talent that produced the written text. Such a hermeneutic will establish principles for understanding both dimensions in the Biblical text. The results won by the application of this hermeneutic will present information for the scholarly discussion in OT studies and at the same time formulate ideas that will nourish the church. Of course, the construction of such a hermeneutic is viewed as untendable to those residing at the extreme poles; on the right those who hold to literalistic approach and on the left those who pursue higher critical methods. The literalists believe that any critical methodology robs the Scripture of its spiritual value, and scientific scholars assume that the acceptance of a transcendental force robs scholarship of its greatest asset, objectivity. Consequently, anyone who works in the middle ground between these extremes will be anathematized from both sides as being either unspiritual or unscholarly. Those on the right will claim that the scholar is tampering with God's word, while those on the left will say that the critical methodologies are not used properly or in a thorough manner. But a balanced methodology is necessary to avoid the fallacies inherent in both extremes, namely religious bigotry on the right and secularized faith on the left.

By contrast I believe that Wesleyan theology, of all systems, permits, yea, encourages the formulation of a balanced hermeneutic.5 In Wesleyan theology God and man are accorded great worth. Theological truth is constructed from the dynamic interchange between the Word of God and Christian experience. Both reason and faith contribute to spiritual understanding.6 This approach is clearly visible in a Wesleyan teaching on the dynamics of faith. Faith is synergistic: man working out his own salvation with God's assistance. A believer grows in grace by striving to incarnate the Scriptures in his personal existence, trusting in God's guidance. This view means that one must conduct his daily life by drawing heavily on his own inner resources. Planning is an essential, responsible act of obedience to God. As the believer lives each day he has faith that God is blessing and directing his responsible efforts. Then on special occasions his Christian walk is punctuated by God's presence, imparting his life dynamically. That kind of encounter, however, is the exception, rather than the rule. The Christian life thus consists of a dialogue between the believer and God who is present in the believer's life through the Holy Spirit.

This synergistic understanding of Christian experience may be carried over, I think, to the area of hermeneutics, for the study of Scripture is a central construct of divine-human communication. It means that in a synergistic hermeneutic the interpreter must apply all of his rational faculties in studying the text and at the same time he must be jealous for the inner illumination of the Holy Spirit.7 Through this kind of an approach the interpreter will discern in a given passage both the natural and the transcendental forces that have led to its composition. Especially in historical passages he will perceive God's use of natural forces to accomplish His purpose. Then in his exposition the interpreter will expound on both the natural and the supernatural and will consider how these elements have interfaced to accomplish God's purpose. The results of his study will enable the Scriptures to instruct, reprove, correct and train the faithful in righteousness (II Timothy 3:161, addressing both their relationship to God and their cultural setting. The resulting interpretation will build faith, not decimate it; and the resulting faith will be an informed, thoughtful conviction, not a blind naivete.

1. Critical Tools

If a synergistic approach is possible, a believer may use every critical method to study the Scripture and expect significant results. Since the Bible is God’s Word written in the words of men in history, critical methodologies are not inherently destructive of faith.8 However, analyzing the text completely by a single critical method will lead to negative results from the standpoint of faith. Not only does every method have its limitations by definition, but critical methods usually assume a naturalistic viewpoint. The conflict arises between certain categorical presuppositions of a critical method and faith, but not necessarily between faith and the way a critical methodology addresses a specific phenomenon inherent to Scripture as a literary and historical work. But if the presuppositions of the methodology may be altered to allow for dynamic transcendence, the believing scholar may apply each methodology to the aspects of the text addressed by that methodology and gain insight from his study. To put it another way, in order to function primarily within the context of the church all critical methodologies need to be made compatible with the implications of the church’s conviction that the personal has interacted with mankind in word and in event to achieve salvation for all men. It should also be noted that a modern historical approach in itself has proven inadequate for interpreting fully the Bible, for the results from such study stand in conflict with the testimony of Scripture itself, namely God himself has acted uniquely in history to establish his kingdom. To put it another way, in order to unlock the spiritual truths contained in the Word a valid hermeneutic must also have a theological orientation. Fortunately, we stand at a point in the history of modern Biblical interpretation when the locking grip of historical criticism is being broken. We are fortunate for this turn of affairs, since the preoccupation with historical criticism has created an impasse for constructing a Biblical theology and hence for being true to the Scripture's own intent. Nevertheless, since we are rational creatures, we must continue to use various critical methods adapted to the hermeneutic called for above in order to acquire historical and cultural perspective reading of the text.

In summary no other position save that taken in the middle ground is adequate for serious Biblical research. Unless the text is thoroughly analyzed its message remains hidden, and unless the study leads to an awareness of the divine message, the results won will not offer a word from God valid for the contemporary age. I am convinced that a group of Wesleyan scholars from the disciplines of Biblical studies, theology and philosophy could work out such a synergetic hermeneutic and that they would win recognition, though of course, not adherence from both extremes. With the current, widespread interest in the questions of interpretation and methodologies the present climate in Biblical studies will encourage such an effort on our part.

The benefits from working a synergistic hermeneutic to the Wesleyan tradition would be immense. Such a hermeneutic will pave the way for a more thorough investigation of Scripture within our tradition. The results from this study could anchor the tradition more firmly to the Scriptures and discourage the spawning of vastly divergent movement from its midst that range all the way from dogmatic fundamentalism to social humanism. Neither of these spinoffs remain within the perimeter of Wesleyan theology. Positively the dialogue between the results of sound Biblical interpretation and the theological heritage of the Wesleyan tradition would help keep our tradition vital in an era of rapid change.

2. Form criticism

After the above digression that argues for a synergistic hermeneutic, I wish to demonstrate that form criticism is an apropos tool for use by Wesleyan scholars in the analytic stage of the inductive method. In Biblical studies, form criticism has proven to be a most valuable interpretative tool. Form criticism is able to penetrate into the text's meaning, for it works with the way the mind, both of the individual and of the community, sets up categories to evaluate, synthesize and record information as well as compose and express ideas. The analysis of the structure of a genre results in clearer definition of its words and phrases, which have numerous possible meanings. That is, the classification of a genre greatly narrows the semantic field of its words. For example, the word "run" has scores of meanings; but its meaning is often clarified by the form in which it appears: a baseball score sheet, an article in a sports magazine about track and field events or a political essay. Form analysis then assists greatly in determining the precise meaning of key words in a pericope. Another asset of form criticism is its awareness of the close relationship that exists between language and society. In this it treats the role that "a word" has in giving structure to community functions. The form critic thus studies ancient literature to reconstruct the different genres contained in that literary piece, and then he describes the social setting that gave rise to each genre.

For example, form critical work on the Psalms has been most fruitful. The Psalms have been classified into many genres and their place in Israel's national life has been described. The results of this study offer a clearer perspective of the faith and practice of an ancient Israelite. As a result of this research, I may still read the Psalms in all of their poetic beauty, but with the added dimension that now as I recite them I have a sense of their importance in Ancient Israel. By discovering a Psalm's original function, a modern person has a richer appreciation of its intended meaning. It is instructive to note that even the ancient community felt the need for both a historical perspective and a generic classification of the Psalms, for at a very early date titles were appended to many Psalms. The elements contained in the titles vary, including musical direction, classification of the Psalm, the cultic context and the historical setting for the Psalm. Is it too bold to say that the purpose of form criticism, i.e., to learn the origin of a Psalm and its use in the community, moves in the same tradition that led to the titling of the Psalms?

From the outset form critics centered on reconstructing the oral form of the epic narratives and poetic passages found in Scripture. It was assumed that much Biblical literature had a long oral stage before it was written down and that numerous genres functioned as vehicles for this oral tradition. As a corrective to the over emphasis on the oral stage of other literature form critics now acknowledge that written communication may be classified into generic types as much as oral literature. As a result more attention is given to the structure and content of a passage in seeking to classify its genre.9 Since the creative ability of the literary artist is taken into account, mixed genres are accorded equal weight with pure types and a socio-historical context is sought for these blends. R. Knierim, a leader in form criticism, calls for flexibility in defining the form critical task so that both the typical patterns and the peculiar parts of a pericope may be treated.10 Now it is recognized that a genre may function differently in a context removed from its original setting. Particularly significant in interpreting the Bible is the final literary context of each genre. These advances in the form critical methodology enable the method to yield a more holistic understanding of each pericope. And as a hermeneutical tool it now fits more appropriately in the framework of the inductive method.

After the original setting has been ascertained the tradition history of a passage may be investigated. The critic attempts to describe the growth and development of a tradition that resulted in the final written form of the pericope. From this aspect of the study much insight into community patterns that existed in various eras in Ancient Israel is attained. The picture of the social setting ascertained reveals the dynamic interplay between "the word" and the community. The effect "the word" had in shaping the community's customs and destiny becomes visible. This point is a most beneficial result of form critical study. In discovering the effect a word has on the community the interpreter places himself in a better position to translate that ancient message to a contemporary setting. Such interpretation focuses on God's word as addressed to the people of God functioning as a community, rather than as a special word addressed primarily to individuals singled out from the congregation. A product of this method then is understanding the Biblical words as addressed to a community of believers. In this we are reminded of a central tenet of Wesleyan theology, that believers must fellowship together around the Word of God in order to strive for entire sanctification. I wish to suggest that awareness of the form critical approach to Scripture will give us insight into ways the Word of God should function in that community fellowship. From the other side, I would think that the community orientation and the concern for social redemption espoused by the Wesleyan tradition would sensitize its Biblical scholars to have a special interest in and inclination for applying the form critical method to the Biblical text. With this twofold conviction I believe that properly teaching our students in this method will raise their sights to the scriptural concern for ministering to society as a whole. I also think this method will highlight the principle that the fullest potential for spiritual growth exists in the context of a small group fellowship. An obvious tie can be made between such a group and the old class meeting.

Further, I am convinced that a proper application of form criticism in a synergistic hermeneutic will make the student be more alert to his own social setting. This sensitivity will encourage him to go beyond historical exegesis to translate the ancient word to his social context. Since the Wesleyan movement has a strong concern for the redemption of society, especially to bring healing to social ills that multiply suffering for the masses, the results of seeing the social implication of the Biblical text will encourage this concern and suggest judicious ways to effect social healing. This direction will also serve as a corrective to the over-emphasis on individualism and conversionism in contemporary evangelical Christianity.

Of course, every critical methodology has its limitations and the singular application of any method is fraught with problems.11 In regard to form criticism we need to consider some of the problems that attend its use. Not every passage in the Bible is cast into a generic form and too often form critics try to force texts into an artificial category. One example is the analysis of the book of Job. Though Westermann argues that the book is a lament12 and Richter a lawsuit,13 the book defies strict form analysis. While these two genres are dominant in the book of Job, the poet draws on a wide variety of genres to address the issue of suffering from many perspectives. Thus it is impossible to show that one genre is so primary that it is determinative for understanding the whole work. There is no question that the book of Job in world literature is sui generis.

By looking at a given pericope as a generic type the form critic may miss the unique literary style and artistic construction of that unit.14 Often using a specific genre, an ancient writer created an image in the audience's mind, and then in order to highlight the idea he wished to communicate he altered the structure of that genre in places and/or he placed it in a literary setting that was different from its original setting in life.

Employed in this way a genre no longer has its original significance; now its literary context more prominently colors its meaning. Therefore, the full nuance of a pericope is discovered by investigating the text's structure and the author's literary use of that structure. Today form critics recognize the need for literary analysis and assign more importance to individual texts.15

When form critics are preoccupied with small units and literary fragments in Scripture, they tend to miss the central theological issue that the passage addresses. Thus a pericope must not only be interpreted in light of its life setting, but also in its contextual setting. In some passages these two settings are at play with each other. The final author or editor employs the various genres at his disposal and gives them a final shape by the context in which he places them. Form critics are now treating literary forms and are interested in larger units and entire books.16 By placing form criticism in the framework of the inductive method the broadest application of this method will emerge.

A more serious critique of form criticism must consider the implication of the assumption that the community created the text rather than that God communicated His word to the community. While the community did have a powerful role in the selection and preservation of the Biblical material, its formative role was perhaps secondary, after God had spoken. In other words, the community played a significant role in the formation and the preservation of these words, but it may have been preserving what it heard and saw rather than creating a word for some special need or occasion as often assumed by form critics. Part of the problem is that form critics usually assume a closed universe. But I think it is possible to employ this methodology free from that assumption. Nevertheless, what the consequences of an openness to the belief in a dynamic transcendence will be for form critical methodology will require careful investigation within the program for a synergistic hermeneutic called for above.

3. Beyond Form Criticism

Form criticism is but one hermeneutical tool. Other methods need also to be employed in order to unlock the fullest meaning of the text. Particularly important for a synergistic hermeneutic will be any method that looks at the Scriptures as a whole, for it is the entire canon that is the Church's authoritative word. That is, in order to rightly divide the Word of God each passage must be set within the context of the whole, the canon.17 This view assumes that each pericope must be judged in the light of the whole in order to learn what its authoritative word is for the contemporary church.18 Scholars trained in the form critical method have developed other methods to deal with whole of Scripture in its final form, e.g., redaction criticism,19 tradition criticism20 and canonical criticism.21 Through use of these tools they seek to discover how pericopes and themes fit within the canonical context.

The tradition critic studies the origin and historical development of a theme. Insights about the growth of a tradition provide a better perspective from which to interpret the passage in its final form. One method that treats the development of Biblical themes is called inner- Biblical interpretation.22 This method investigates how an authoritative word is understood in a new cultural-historical context that demands some alteration of the original word to be relevant in the new setting. A great result from this study will be the discovery of hermeneutical principles employed by the Biblical writers themselves. Another approach called redaction criticism devotes itself to the final form of the text. This method seeks to uncover the various stages of editing, compiling and arranging of passages that have led to its canonical form. By employing these critical methods the interpreter will find what the ancient word meant in its original setting and will ascertain its meaning in its canonical setting. The rich perspective gained from these methods will greatly enhance our understanding of the role of the Word in the formation of Israel, the people of God.

As argued, critical methodologies may be conducted in the framework of the inductive method, but this possibility has not been adequately pursued, in my opinion, by conservative Wesleyan scholars. In too many circles these critical methods have been unduly shunned or even anathematized. When we overcome our resistance to critical methodologies and use them correctly in the challenging task of interpreting the Scriptures, we will have gathered the material necessary for the third step in the inductive method, a statement of the theology taught in the unit under study.23

C. Comprehension: A Biblical Theology

This statement leads us to the third step of the inductive method, namely to state the aim or intent of the passage exegeted. While the synthetic nature of the third step has long been recognized by exponents of the inductive method, I have seldom seen evidence of its adequate application. In my studies I was encouraged to write a paragraph about the meaning of the text. This assignment moves the student in the right direction, but it does not go far enough. In my presentation of the inductive method in my classes I assign an essay that is to present the Biblical theology of the passage. This theological essay is to consist of three inter-related parts: the passage’s theological intent, the value orientation (or ethos) inferred from that theology and some suggested ways for integrating the theology and the ethos of that passage with contemporary culture.24

A descriptive statement of theology inherent in a passage is the most basic synthesis, for it joins together the results of philological exegesis, historical-critical investigation and a theological understanding of the spiritual intent of the themes or concepts in the text. Made within the framework of a synergistic hermeneutic the description will recognize both the historical dimension of the text and its theological witness. By working with the tensions of these two forces the full dimension of God's communication with man will be displayed. By avoiding the tendency to either historicize the Biblical text or spiritualize the resulting theological statement will be authentic, dynamic and relevant. This step may be taken for each pericope studied, as illustrated by the format of the Biblischer Kommentar series.25 More demanding and more profitable is the presentation of the theology of an entire book. An interesting example is the third volume of H. J. Kraus's commentary on the Psalms in the above mentioned series entitled Theologie der Psalmen.26

Once Biblical theology is recognized as the goal of Biblical studies, we may produce from our own circles a Biblical theology covering the entire OT or more ambitiously the entire Bible as an intermediate step, a series of monographs treating specific theological motifs found in the OT needs to be written. Although there is available excellent insight into the OT idea of the "holy" in George Turner's A Vision that Transforms28 and various articles on the topic as David Thompson's "Old Testament Basis of the Wesleyan Message"29 a thorough study of this concept by a Wesleyan scholar would strengthen our emphasis on holiness and also correct some inaccuracies in the way we develop this dogma. Another one could investigate the concept of the Holy Spirit in the OT.30 With all the tantalizing ideas about apocalypse floating about, a description of the impact of Biblical eschatology and its teaching within the context of Biblical thought would be most beneficial. Such treatises will expound specific OT themes by tracing their origin, development and alteration through the various ages covered in the OT.

After the exegetical and thematic work has been accomplished, a volume on OT theology could be worked out. In that work the various theme, inherent in the OT tradition would be integrated around the theological center of the OT, even if that center has many facets. The work will need to recognize the rich diversity of theological thinking within the OT tradition Also there must be a dialogue carried on between the divergent views and the unifying factors that tie the OT tradition together-if nothing else the unifying factor may be the continuous confession through Israel's history that Yahweh is God, His name is one and His people are one. By working with the tension between the diverging theologies in the OT and the unifying principles, the Biblical scholar will produce a holistic work that addresses the multiple aspects of diverse human existence before God. Further, the Biblical theologian needs to articulate the values inherent in the OT message and to translate them for the people of God functioning as community in a modern cultural setting. A Biblical theology done in the Wesleyan mode cannot omit this crucial aspect of a theological expression for the working out of faith in daily life has always been a primary interest of those in the Wesleyan tradition. When that tradition has been on course it has sought to affect society as a whole. With this interest in the social dimensions of the Scriptures, Wesleyan scholars will discern principle from the interaction between God and His people recorded in the OT.

In summary, the goal of Biblical studies within a Christian confession is a Biblical theology, namely a descriptive statement of the teaching of the passage under consideration. A right understanding of the inductive method leads in this direction. This procedure is congruent with the Wesleyan tradition for Wesley himself was interested in the study of theological themes in his own Bible study, as he writes,

In order to know the will of God, there should be a constant eye to the analogy of faith: the connection and harmony there is between those grand, fundamental doctrines-Original Sin, Justification by Faith, the New Birth, Inward and Outward Holiness.31

There are limitations, of course, to any work on Biblical theology. Since it is expressed in twentieth century language conditioned by contemporary cultural interest and a specific philosophical outlook, it will become archaic with time, just as Wellhausen's works function now more as documents in the history of OT interpretation than as sources for understanding the OT. So many of his ideas have been changed, altered or negated by continue research. In addition, further research into the historical background of the Biblical text, clearer understanding of Biblical language, more comprehensive knowledge about the growth of the Biblical tradition will prove a better perspective from which to view the Biblical text and alter former insights. The point is that modern interest and world views have a profound effect on the insight of the Biblical theologian and will color his theological work. The wide variance among the OT theologies produced in the last quarter of this century continues to bear witness to fact that an interpreter’s outlook is conditioned by his setting, his traditions, his training and his hermeneutic. While the works of Eichrodt and von Rad have long been paramount among OT theologies, Terrien's recent work The Elusive Presence in which he emphasizes the multiple experiences of the divine presence witnessed to in the OT reveals how refreshing and enlightening a different perspective can be.32 Surely a Wesleyan scholar using the resources of his own setting, tradition and training could produce a Biblical theology that would be refreshing and spiritually invigorating. Let us at least get into the contemporary discussion, which as attested at the last SBL meeting is in creative ferment.

When the Biblical scholar has done his work well, the results of his study will reach the general church through the labor of the theologian and the preacher. The theologian will integrate the results of Biblical theology into a Wesleyan theology. The preacher will be the spokesman that proclaims a Biblical message to the congregation. To facilitate this diffusion the Biblical scholar must present his findings in a lucid, exciting style in order to inspire the preacher's thinking. When the preacher becomes thoroughly familiar with the themes and ideas contained in Scripture, he will have found a rich source material from which he may draw an abundance of food for his congregation. In so doing he will feed the people of God the meat of the word and afford the opportunity for significant spiritual growth, a desperate need in the Wesleyan movement. Too often adults in congregations of the Wesleyan tradition become dry from lack of Biblical teaching. A turning to the Scriptures will inspire new life into dormant congregations and will improve significantly the health of living bodies of believers.

To illustrate the advantage for Wesleyan theology that may accrue from scholarly work let us consider the themes of covenant and sin.

II. THE TWO EXAMPLES

A. Covenant

A major theological theme that is central to the OT, but that receives little or no emphasis in the Wesleyan tradition, is covenant.31 From the initiation of redemptive history with Abraham to its fulfillment in Christ covenant plays a central role. God first entered into a covenant with Abraham (Gen. 15). God fulfilled the promises of that covenant by forming Abraham's descendants into a nation through the events of the Exodus and by entering into a covenant with the entire nation at Mt. Sinai. Later God established a royal line to rule Israel and backed His purpose by making an eternal covenant with the house of David (II Sam. 12; Ps. 89; 132). But dismayed by Israel's disobedience under the covenant encouraged by the weak and sometimes corruptive leadership of David's descendants on the throne, the prophets looked for a new covenant (Jer. 31:31-34). Jesus initiated that new covenant with His atoning death (Heb. 8). The covenant concept is so fundamental to the divine plan of redemption that our Bible is divided into the Old and New Covenants or Testaments. Why then is there so little emphasis on this truth in Wesleyan circles? No doubt it is a reflection of our biases. We sense that too much emphasis on covenant will support the doctrines of predestination, election and eternal security and downplay our emphasis on experience, free will and the possibility of falling from grace.

A study of the covenant theme however, reveals the manner in which God prefers to work with man and makes clear the relationship between law and promise. Also man's responsibilities in relationship to his privileges in grace and the assurance that God is with him in his daily life are described in the Bible in covenantal language. Therefore, the knowledge about the theology of covenant will strengthen a believer's understanding of the way God relates to man.

Let us look at the problem of the relation between covenant and the cherished Wesleyan dogma of "backsliding." If God enters into a covenant with man, can man by his own deeds annul that covenant? This is a difficult question. In order to gain some perspective on this question let us consider the multiple metaphors found in both Testaments that represent the dynamic relationship between God and man:

father—son

husband—wife

shepherd—sheep

king—servant

master—slave

Some of these metaphors certainly suggest that the relationship between covenant partners is not subject to change and thus would, on the surface, exclude the possibility of a believer backsliding, e.g. shepherd-sheep and father-son. The latter has become a central metaphor in Arminian-Calvinistic debates. Perhaps, though, another metaphor is more germane for the question at hand, particularly if its use coincides with the issue being investigated. A study of the OT reveals that the metaphor of "husband — wife" is a dominant in passages concerned with Israel's unfaithful ways (e.g., Jer. 2-3; Ezek. 18; 23). The ancient marriage relationship was solemnized by a covenant, but it was a relationship that could be broken. There were recognized grounds for granting a divorce, i.e., the breaking of the covenant relationship. In reference to Israel's unfaithfulness to her covenant with Yahweh, the prophets drew heavily on language associated with husband-wife to warn Israel about her sinful ways. Reproachfully they called Israel an adulteress. This name means that she has spurned love and must bear her shame. But is Israel's covenant actually annulled? That is a moot point. Again a consideration of the covenantal structure is helpful. Whoever enters into a covenant comes under the blessings and the curses enumerated therein (cf. Lev 26; Deut. 28). Those who are faithful are blessed and those who violate the statutes are cursed. In Israel's case being a nation, the ultimate curse was captivity. Eventually God had to activate that final curse and send Israel into Babylonian captivity for her rebellious ways. While in captivity Israel was still under the covenant but under its curses. So in one sense the covenant was broken, but in another sense it was still alive, but as an instrument of punishment.

These principles may be transferred to the new covenant in Christ. It, too, has blessings and curses as seen in the beatitudes and woe sayings of Jesus' Sermon on the Mount recorded in Luke 6:20-26. Whoever becomes a member of this covenant through faith in Jesus Christ places himself under its blessings and curses. Should a covenant member violate the standards of the covenant, he will experience the woes and continued denial of his Lord will lead him to eternal separation from God. That is, God may judiciously sentence a violator of the covenant to eternal punishment. So even if one wishes to argue that the covenant is not broken, the covenant relationship clearly does not guarantee a believer "eternal security." To put it another way, by becoming a member of the Christian community blessings in heaven are not promised unconditionally, instead they are made possible.

Thus the Wesleyan emphasis on free will, responsible holy living and the possibility of "falling from grace" are not negated by the Biblical teaching on covenant, but they are tempered. For example, in popular Wesleyan thought, the attributing to man so much autonomy needs to be corrected. The emphasizing of man's freedom made without proper correctives has parishioners in Wesleyan circles too introspective and too neurotic about their position in grace. Never sure where they stand before God, they feel too insecure. A proper exposition of covenant, I believe, will bring healing to such afflicted souls by providing a strong sense of assurance in Christ and by offering a sound cure for improper guilt feelings.

B. Sin

A second Biblical theme I wish to consider is sin. The doctrine of sin is a central construct of Wesleyan Theology as the following statement by Richard S. Taylor illustrates:

The doctrines relating to sin form the center around which we build our entire theological system.... If our conception of sin is faulty, our whole superstructure will be one error built on another, each one more absurd than the last, yet each one necessary if it is to fit in consistently with the whole erroneous scheme. If we are to end right, we must begin right, and to begin right we must grapple with the question of sin in its doctrinal significance until we have grasped the scriptural facts relating to sin in all of its phases....

Many, perhaps most, of the errors which have protruded themselves into Christian theology can be finally traced to a faulty conception of sin. 34

Surely the OT with its cultic interest in atonement and the extended accounting of Israel's waywardness can shed much light on the manifold nature of sin. Yet a thorough study of the concept of sin in the OT by a Wesleyan scholar to my knowledge is lacking. So I wish to share some impressions on the OT concept of sin from my studies. I see that in the OT sin is viewed as being multifaceted. There exist, of course, the two aspects of sin mentioned above, willful acts of sin and a sinful bearing in man. However, sin is more complex than that. There are at least two other categories of sin: inadvertent errors and social sins.

"Inadvertent errors" is a translation of the Hebrew word segaga, which comes from the root saga meaning "to err, go astray."35 This word is found clustered in Lev. 4-5 and Num. 15. Lev. 4:27-28 provides a sense for this word:

If any one of the common people sins unwittingly in doing any one of the things which Yahweh has commanded not to be done, and is guilty, when the sin which he has committed is made known to him he shall bring for his offering a goat, a female without blemish, for his sin which he has committed.

According to this passage the erring party is guilty, for he must make a offering and his error is called "a sin" (hatta't). This passage cautions that a person’s errors cannot be easily dismissed as mere mistakes. They are sins even though committed inadvertently or out of ignorance. By contra intentional sins are described in bolder terms in the OT and there punishment is final as a verse in Numbers illustrates:

But the person who does anything with a high hand, whether he is native or a sojourner, reviles Yahweh, and that person shall be cut off from among his people (15:30).

The difference between these two types of sin is clear. While a flagrant sin causes a member to be removed from the covenant community, such is not the case with a person who commits a segaga sin. He remains a member the community of believers, completely answerable, though for his err, When he becomes aware of his error, he must make atonement for it lest raises it to a willful sin by being unrepentant. After the erring party offers the right sacrifice, he is forgiven, continuing in fellowship with God as a member of the covenant community.

Consequently from an OT perspective mistakes are serious and must owned up to, for they endanger a man's relationship with God and strain his relationship with his neighbors.36 Surely in a theological system that emphasizes love, any slighting of love must be considered a breach of perfect love and therefore sin, not merely excused because of human frailty. By failing to call acts of injury done in ignorance sin, we weaken the message of the gospel and stifle spiritual growth. A stronger teaching on the nature of inadvertent sins would lead the believer to be more sensitive to the responsibility borne from his mistakes though not to make him paranoid of error and insecure, but rather to prompt him to relate to others in a quiet, gentle, humble manner that is genuine. So when he becomes aware of any offence, he will confess it to God and seek to restore harmony with his fellow man. In so doing he effects reconciliation and models his Lord's redemptive work. Out of such humility grows genuine love and spiritual power. In the interim between an inadvertent sin and its confession the erring person is not removed from grace nor has he backslidden. He is covered each moment by Christ's atoning blood.

Another kind of sin in the OT is social sin. Since everybody participates in the actions and attitudes of his community, he also participates in the corporate guilt resulting from his group's sinful behavior. Thus when my congregation practices racial prejudice, I, too am guilty. When my labor union supports acts of violence, I am a participant. When my nation exploits a people for their oil or when it creates poverty in far corners of the world to gorge its lust for delicacies, I, too, am guilty. The OT teaches this the punishment for social sins takes place in this life, in plague, famine, war, and climactically in the Day of Yahweh. An understanding of social sin and the believer's participation in it as a member of a community and a nation throws some light on the question of why believers must suffer loss from earthquakes, fires and violence. Thev are not exempt by reason of their faith. Instead God offers grace to endure. Also the concept of social sin provides a rationale why the church must go through the tribulation in the last days, at least for a time.

A proper understanding of social sins may lead to affirmative results. As believers we will be interested in the course of events in the world. We will have an interest in community government as well as national concerns. As we become alert to the suffering of the masses, we will look for ways to extend relief to the hungry, the unemployed, the sick, the lonely, the aging, at home and abroad. We will be concerned about racial prejudice and energy conservation-especially when we perceive how our thirst for oil has unsettled other societies and heaped reproach on the gospel-and foreign policy in general. Hopefully then an emphasis on the OT teaching about social sins will motivate us to effect reconciliation and healing in our communities and our world. This awakened interest will support the social emphasis in Wesleyan theology, one of its great hallmarks.

Therefore, a fuller understanding of the OT teaching on sin will help clarify the Wesleyan position on personal Christian experience. It will distinguish between willful sins and inadvertent errors without dismissing the latter as mistakes. Confession and seeking forgiveness inside the covenant community will become a more integral part of our worship and our personal devotion. We will gain a better perspective on what constitutes backsliding and a more positive teaching on Christian assurance. It will also provide information for the manner in which the church is to minister to contemporary social ills.

III. CONCLUSION

By way of summary I have attempted to look at the way OT study may be done in a Wesleyan context. I believe the movement needs to encourage more serious Biblical study and then integrate the results into its theology and practice. The place to begin is to work out a viable hermeneutic that will allow for the use of the critical methodologies and at the same time define more precisely the role that the Holy Spirit must play in the interpretation task. It is my conviction that Biblical scholars in the Wesleyan tradition working with this resulting hermeneutic will present to the Wesleyan congregations a host of works that interpret the Biblical text, study theological themes and possibly a Biblical theology. The results of these efforts will provide an abundance of material for our theologians to incorporate into a Wesleyan theology. But more importantly it is my conviction that this new impetus would raise the place that the Bible receives in the Wesleyan tradition. A greater emphasis on the Bible will leaven the tradition in a most wholesome way. If these opinions are accurate, it would be a worthy project for the WTS to define areas of need and to sponsor projects to address them. At these annual meetings there could be working seminars on various topics and the results of such dialogue published. With the complex social problems facing the world today, the Wesleyan tradition has a vital word for this confused age and this age offers us a great opportunity to let us do the hard work of providing a solid Biblical foundation for our tradition to serve "this present age, our calling to fulfill."

1 An excellent presentation of this method is found in Robert A. Traina's Methodical Bible Study (Wilmore, Ky.: Asbury Theological Seminary, 1966).

2 Cf. R. Larry Shelton, "John Wesley's Approach to Scripture in Historical Perspective," WTJ, 16 (1981~, pp. 23-50.

3 Irving L. Jensen, Independent Bible Study (Chicago: Moody Press, 1963), pp. 173-178.

4 In Historical Criticism and Theological Interpretation, Roy A. Harrisville, trans. (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977) Peter Stuhlmacher finds the historical critical method too limited to deal adequately with the Biblical text. Therefore, he calls for fashioning a hermeneutics of Consent that will have an "openness to transcendence," be "methodologically veritable" and have an "effective-historical consciousness," p. 65. Of special note are a couple of his comments on the historical critical method: "historical criticism is the agent of a repeated and growing rupture of vital contact between Biblical tradition and our own time. We have seen that this problem is inherent in the structure of historical criticism. As a result, a correction in respect of method is called for here." "For them Biblical criticism has produced a vacuum which causes them to despair of the possibilities of a useful, historical-critical interpretation of scripture, and in part to seize at hair-raising theological substitutes," p. 65. To this may be added David C. Steinmetz's conclusion in "The Superiority of Pre-Critical Exegesis," Theology Today, 33 11976):27-28 "medieval theory of levels of meaning in Biblical text, with all its undoubted defects, flourished because it is true, while the modern theory of a single meaning, with all its demonstrable virtues, is false. Until the historical-critical method becomes critical of its own theoretical foundations and develops a hermeneutical theory adequate to the nature of the text which it is interpreting, it will remain restricted-as it deserves to be-to the guild and the academy, where the question of truth can endlessly be deferred," p. 38.

5 Paul S. Minear, "Ecumenical Theology-Profession or Vocation?" Theology Today, 33 (1976):66-73. He shows that the setting in which Scripture is studied has a powerful influence on the results of that study. Of special concern is the modification of Biblical studies done within the context of the American University. If this force becomes dominant, he believes it will have a negative impact on doing quality Biblical theology by American scholars.

6 Cf. Laurence W. Wood, "Wesley's Epistemology," WTJ, 10 (1975):48-59.

7 Luther saw the need for the Holy Spirit to enlighten the heart of the interpreter so that he might discern the spiritual dimensions of the Word. Prenter describes Luther's perspective in these words: "If God does not speak into the heart while the ear listens to the outward Word, the outward Word remains the word of man and law. When we hear the Word of Scripture, we are compelled to wait on the Spirit of God. It is God who has the Scripture in His hand. If God does not infuse his Spirit the hearer of the Word is not different from the deaf man. No one rightly understands the Word of God unless he receives it directly from the Holy Spirit." Regin Prenter, Spiritus Creator, J. M. Jensen, trans. (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1953), p. 102 quoted in R. L. Shelton, op. cit., p. 22.

8 George E. Ladd, The New Testament and Criticism (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1967), pp. 19-53.

9 Cf. R. Knierim's most significant article "Old Testament Form Criticism Reconsidered," Interp. 27 (1973):459.

10 Ibid., pp. 435-468.

11 Cf. S. H. Travis, "Form Criticism," New Testament Interpretation, I. H. Marshall, ed. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1977), pp. 157-160.

12 Claus Westermann, The Structure of the Book of Job, C. A. Muenchow, trans. (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981).

13 Heinz Richter, Studien zu Hiob (Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1959).

14 Under the name rhetoric criticism, James Muilenburg in "Form Criticism and Beyond," JBL, 88 (1969): 1-18 argues the need to investigate the rich literary structure of each passage. He views this step to be in addition to the form critical analysis of the passage. Its design is to discern "the actuality of the particular text . . . for it is this concreteness which marks the material with which we are dealing," p. 18.

15 R. Knierim, op. cit.

16 Ibid

17 Cf. Brevard Childs, op. cit. pp. 97-122 and his book Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979).

l8 Cf. John Bright, The Authority of the Old Testament (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1967), pp. 161-212.

19 Cf. the stimulating study of Robert Polzin on the various redaction of the books of Deuteronomy-Judges. He studies the speeches in these books in particular as a clue to the various levels of redaction. Moses and the Deuteronomist (New York: The Seabury Press, 1980).

20 Cf. Walter E. Rast, Tradition History and the Old Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1972) and Douglas A. Knight, Rediscovering the Traditions of Israel (SBL Dissertation Series 9, 1975).

22 Especially helpful in this regard is the work of James A. Sanders of Claremont School of Theology and Michael Fishbane of Brandeis University. James A. Sanders, Torah and Canon (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1972) and "Text and Canon: Concepts and Methods," JBL, 98 (1979):5-29. Michael Fishbane, "Revelation and Tradition: Aspects of Inner-Biblical Exegesis," JBL, 99 (1980):321-341.

23 Cf. Traina, op. cit., pp. 203-227.

24 For a discussion of what constitutes a Biblical theology a very helpful work is Gerhard Hasel, Old Testament Theology: Basic Issues in the Current Debate (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1975 rev. ed.) especially pp. 35-55, 129-143. A very important article on Biblical theology is Krister Stendahl, "Biblical Theology, Contemporary" in Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible (New York: Abingdon Press, 1962), I:418-432.

25 The format of the Biblischer Kommentar differs markedly from two sets designed by Americans. The Interpreter's Bible makes a wide distinction between exegesis and theology or material for preaching and The Anchor Bible abandoned any holistic statement of the text and offers only a philological and historical notes on selected verses.

26Hans-Joachim Kraus, Theologie der Psalmen Bk 15/3 (Neukirchen- Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1979).

27 Brevard Childs in Biblical Theology in Crisis (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1970) forecasted the demise of Biblical theology and suggested a program for a new Biblical theology. A severe criticism of Child's work is offered by James D. Smart in The Past, Present and Future of Biblical Theology (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1979). J. Smart shows that interest in Biblical theology, though fluctuating at times, has continued strong. His view is supported by the number of recent efforts at composing a truly Biblical theology: W. Zimmrtli, Old Testament Theology in Outline, D. E. Green, trans. (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1978); S. Terrien, The Elusiue Presence: Toward a New Biblical Theology (New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1978); C. Westermann, Theologie des Alten Testaments in Grundzugen (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1978); R. E. Clements, Old Testament Theology: A Fresh Approach (London: Mar- shall, Morgan and Scott, 1978); W. C. Kaiser, Jr., Toward an Old Testament Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Press, 1978); E. A. Martens, God's Design: A Focus on Old Testament Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1981).

28 George A. Turner, The Vision that Transforms (Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 1964).

29 David L. Thompson, "Old Testament Basis of the Wesleyan Message," WTJ, 10 (1975):38-47. The title of this article is over-ambitious. One will find a solid study of the Old Testament concept "holy," but little is done to tie the results into Wesleyan theological expression.

30 See such a study by Meredith G. Kline entitled Images of the Spirit (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1980).

31 "Wesley himself had a great interest in covenant, no doubt reflecting his Puritan heritage, as is reflected in his covenant service. For a discussion cf. R. C. Monk, John Wesley His Puritan Heritage (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1966), pp. 96-106.

32 Walther Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, 2 vols., A. Baker, trans. (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1961); Gerhard Von Rad, Old Testament Theology, 2 vols., D. M. G. Stalker, trans. (New York: Harper and Row Publisher, 1962); S. Terrien, op. cit.

33 Cf. Klaus Baltzer, The Covenentary Formula, David E. Green, trans. (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971).

34 Richard S. Taylor, A Right Conception of Sin (Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 1945), pp. 9-10. For further treatment of the doctrine of sin from a Wesleyan perspective see the articles on sin in The Word and the Doctrine, Kenneth E. Geiger, ed. (Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 1965); Henry A. Grinder, "The Origin of Sin: Individually," pp. 73-87; Merne A. Harris and Richard S. Taylor, "The Dual Nature of Sin," pp. 89-117; Dennis F. Kinlaw, "Sin in Believers: The Biblical Evidence," pp. 119-125; Delbert R. Rose, "Sin in Believers: As a Principle," pp. 127-136.

35 R. Knierim, "sgg," Theologisches Handworterbuch zum Alten Testament, E. Jenni and C. Westermann, eds. (Munchen: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1976), II:869-871.

36 In the light of these observations I would think that the following statement made by R. Taylor, op. cit. would need to be tempered: "True, such things as misinterpretation of God's will and mistakes of ignorance need to be guarded against and need the atoning blood of Christ, but only because they are results of the fall and not because they are in themselves acts of sin" (p. 63).

© Copyright 1999 by the Wesley Center for Applied Theology. Text may be freely used for personal or scholarly purposes , provided this notice is left intact. Any use of this material for commercial purposes of any kind is strictly forbidden without the express permission of the Wesley Center at Northwest Nazarene University, Nampa, ID 83686. Contact the webmaster for permission or to report errors.

Edited by Aaron R. Bynum of Northwest Nazarene University (Nampa, Idaho) for the Wesley Center for Applied Theology.