If critical study of the Bible, especially the New Testament, has taught
us anything in recent years, it is that a range of theological presentations
exists side by side in our Bibles and that each biblical author should be
interpreted separately before any sort of synthesizing of their viewpoints
is attempted. It is for this reason that Pentecostals often rightly com-
plain when Luke-Acts is interpreted through the lens of Pauline theology
because doing so erases Luke’s distinctive theological voice. 34
The Church would probably be better served by speaking of “the
authorities of Scripture,” a phrase I use to highlight both real authority
and the diversity present within Scripture. The Bible is not so much itself
a book as a collection of books written by a number of different authors,
each of which is an “authority.” The issue of diversity within the canon is
raised in particular by ecumenical hermeneutics and the rich diversity of
Christian traditions that exist side by side, each claiming in its own way
to be biblically based. While the reasons for this ecclesiastical diversity are
far too complex to explore in this short chapter, it is important to note
that a substantial portion of this diversity is rooted within the diversity of
theological presentations found within Scripture itself.
Perhaps an example will help. One of the most troubling ecumenical
problems is division over the meaning of the Lord’s Supper, which the
New Testament appears to present as a celebration of unity “in Christ,”
but which has (unnecessarily and ironically) become a church-dividing
issue. Those who argue for transubstantiation or a “real presence” of
Christ in the elements will point to passages such as John 6:53: “unless
you eat the fl esh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life
in you.” In contrast, those who argue with Calvin for Christ’s “spiritual
presence” in the rite might be more inclined to highlight the two dis-
ciples’ experience on the road to Emmaus. In this account, an unrecog-
nized Jesus blesses bread, breaks it, and gives it to these men, after which
their eyes are opened and they recognize Jesus and the signifi cance of
what had just taken place (Luke 24:31). There is also a third approach. In
Classical Pentecostal circles, which generally follow Zwingli’s “symbolic”
understanding, the focus is more likely to be on 1 Cor. 11:24: “Do this in
remembrance of me.”
The problem, of course, is that all three of these approaches to the
Lord’s Supper are “biblical,” and trying to identify which single concep-
tion best distills correct teaching is beyond human ken. A better approach
is to accept all three approaches as being biblical, that is, in conformity
with “the authorities of Scripture.” The intentions of the human authors
ECHOING HIRSCH: DO READERS FIND OR CONSTRUCT MEANING? 95