Posts Tagged ‘Basic Bible Interpretation’

Men’s Leadership Conference at Gospel Baptist Church (Feb. 23rd)

Posted: February 7, 2013 in News
Tags: , , , ,
0

We will be hosting the Men’s Leadership Conference at Gospel Baptist Church in Archdale, N.C. on February 23rd. We start with a buffet breakfast at 8:00 am and then enjoy three sessions. Dr. Alan Cox, former pastor at Green Street Baptist Church will lecture on leadership in the first session at 9:00 and preach in the final session at 11:00. John Altizer, lead pastor of Trinity Baptist Church in Christiansburg, VA will teach the second session on how to interpret and study the Bible at 10:00. We will give away $200.00 of  books including Bible Knowledge Commentary (Old and New Testament) and Basic Bible Interpretation by Roy Zuck. At our last Conference, the Lord blessed us with over 200 men and over 30 pastors. Let us know if your men from your church can attend. You can register at 336-869-0030.

How Every Christian Can Understand the Bible? (not just the theologians)

Posted: August 21, 2012 in Hermeneutics/Interpretation
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
7

Roy Zuck begins chapter one “The What and Why of Bible Interpretation” (in his book Basic Bible Interpretation) with the Ethiopian eunuch responding to Philip’s hermeneutic question, “Do you understand what you are reading?” The eunuch’s response, “How can I…unless some man explain it to me” (Acts 8:31)? Zuck ends the chapter with the doctrine of clarity or perspicuity, which teaches that the Bible can be understood by any layperson. Zuck does not quote 1 John 2:27 but this verse applies: “The anointing which you have received of him abides in you, and you need not that any man teach you.” Which is the case in hermeneutics? Do we need human teachers to interpret the Bible or not? The answer is “Yes!”

The doctrine of clarity or perspicuity means the Bible is understandable, it is not too mysterious to learn, and it is not just for the elite or the seminary graduate. Lay people can interpret and understand God’s Word on their own. Zuck alludes to Reformation leader, Martin Luther, who affirmed that “the priesthood of all believers (1 Peter 2:5) means the Bible is accessible and undestandable by all Christians. This opposed the alleged obscurity of the Bible, according to the Roman Catholic Church, which said that only the church could disclose its meaning.”

Zuck is referring to Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994): “The task of interpretation (of the Word of God, whether in its written form of Tradition) has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the bishop of Rome.” In the context of false teachers, this is exactly what 1 John 2: 27 is refuting. No believer is totally dependent on a human teacher to comprehend God’s Word. Contrast this view with Wayne Grudem’s statement: “The clarity of Scripture means that the Bible is written in such a way that its teachings are able to be understood by all who will read it seeking God’s help and being willing to follow it.”

The next important question is, “How does the lay person interpret the Bible?

1. Through proper hermeneutic principles

This is the reason we should teach our church members how to interpret the Bible. We should teach them that every verse is has only one interpretation. That every verse must be interpreted in it’s context.

2. Through gifted Bible teachers in the local church

God would not have given the spiritual gift of teaching to lay persons (Romans 12:7) if He did not intend for those men and women to teach others in their church. One of the reasons some of our members are going to better understand the Bible on their own is because I will have taught them the principles of interpretation. Romans 12:7 does not contradict 1 John 2:27. Romans 12:7 compliments 1 John 2:27. Through our Sunday school classes, our AWANA and our youth group our people are learning to study God’s Word on their own.

3. Through Bible preaching pastors in a local church

One of the descriptions of a pastor in Ephesians 4:11 is “pastor/teacher.” This is one not two offices because one of the requirements for pastor according to 1 Timothy 3:2 is “able to teach.” Church members who are faithful to the services will learn God’s Word because their pastor diligently obeys the command to all preachers in 2 Timothy 4:2, “Preach the Word…with all longsuffering and doctrine.”

If you like the Ethiopian ask sincerely and desire seriously to understand God’s Word, God will teach you His Word by the means just mentioned. Are you sincere and serious about learning and applying the Bible? Do you avail yourself of the opportunities to learn from others and good study resources like commentaries? Do you spend time daily in God’s Word?

Review of Basic Bible Interpretation: Chapter 8 “Testing the Types and Sensing the Symbols” Part 2

Posted: July 28, 2009 in Book Reviews, Hermeneutics/Interpretation
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
7

I want to continue to answers some questions on typology. In my first post I answered What is a Type?

Why Should we  Study Types?

Because God Himself used types (Heb.8:5; 9:8-9; 10:19-20). Revelation mentions “Lamb” 29 times. Christ used types (Luke 24:25-44; John 6:32-35). I take Christ expounding Himself from the OT to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus as at least in part in types. The Bible uses vocabulary that speak of types in relationship to the Tabernacle: Heb. 8:5 “example” (hupodeigma), “shadow” (skia),  Heb. 9:8-9 “figure” (parabole), and Heb. 10:1 “image” (eikon). Also in relationship to the Wilderness wanderings (1 Cor. 10:6, 11 “examples” tupoi). Zuck makes an important point when he states that typos is not always a technical word. Only 1 of the 15 times typos is used is theological (Hebrews 8:5).

What are the Different Views Concerning Types?

A. No types in the Bible: The Liberal view which denies the supernatural aspect of predictive prophecy.

B. Excessive use of types: Every nut, bolt, socket, and board of the Tabernacle typifies Christ. Every puddle in the Wilderness typifies the baptism. Walter L. Wilson has 1163 types in the OT (Wilson’s Dictionary of Bible Types) this is in stark contrast with Zuck who sees only 17 types.

Allegorizers accuse Dispenstionalists of allegorizing in their typology and I believe their accusation is correct in some cases: “While Dispensationalists are extreme literalists, they are very inconsistent ones. They are literalists in interpreting prophecy. But in the interpreting of history, they carry the principle of typical interpretation to an extreme which has rarely been exceeded even by the most ardent of allegorizers” (Allis, Oswald T. Prophecy and the Church, p.21) p.8 in Things to Come. The Scofield Study Bible provides an example on page 89 in reference to Exodus 15:25 where God tells Moses to cast a tree in the bitter waters of Marah which then became sweet: “The ‘tree’ is the cross (Gal. 3:13), which became sweet to Christ as the expression of the Father’s will (John 18:11).”

Is the allegorical and typological interpretation the same method or different methods?

Ammillennialists see little difference. The allegorical interpretation finds meanings in a text that is foreign, peculiar, or hidden. It is independent of the literal meaning of a text. The typological interpretation proceeds directly out of the literal explanation.

C. The Moderate view: The are two kinds of types which is Milton S. Terry’s view (255-256).

An innate type is specifically designated in Scripture. An inferred type is strongly suggested. If the whole of the Tabernacle or Wilderness journey is typical then are the parts typical (Dr. Steven’s view). Bernard Ramm “If the whole (e.g., the Tabernacle, the Wilderness journey) is typical, then the parts are typical. It is up to the exegetical ability of the interpreter to determine additional types in the parts of these wholes” (228).

D. Types are types only if the NT designates: “The former (type) must not only resemble the latter, but must have been designed to resemble the latter. It must have been so designed in it’s original institution” (Bishop Marsh). This is preferrable view to avoid the excesses of the Scofield example.

How do we interpret a type?

Zuck gives the following helpful tips.

A. There must be a resemblance between the type and the antitype. But there must be more than a resemblance.

B. There must be a historical reality (Hebrew 8:5; 9:23-24).

C. There must be a prefiguring. “Does this mean that people in the OT knew that various thing were types?” Answer: Hebrews 9:8. Illustrations look back: Elijah (James 5:17) Jonah (Mt. 12:40). Types look forward. Allegorical interpretation looks behind.

D.  There must be a heightening of truth. “The antitype were on a higher plane than the types” (Zuck, 174).

E. There must be divine design.

F. There must be a designation of a type in the NT. “Scripture must in some way indicate that an item it typical” (Zuck, 176).

 

 

 

 

 

 

Review of Basic Bible Interpretation: Chapter 7 “Figures of Speech” Part 2

Posted: July 18, 2009 in Book Reviews, Hermeneutics/Interpretation
Tags: , , , , , ,
7

Here is the complete list of Roy Zuck’s very helpful guidelines for interpreting figurative language:

1. Always take a passage in its literal sense unless there is good reason for doing otherwise.

This first point is a repeat from part 1.

There is no reason why numbers in Revelation cannot be interpreted literally. There is no more hidden meaning in the 144,000 (12,000 from the 12 tribes) Jews who will endure the Tribulation in Revelation 14 than the armies of Israel who were numbered in the O.T (2 Samuel 24:9). In Revelation 21:12, the wall around the New Jerusalem has on it the names of the twelve tribes of children of Israel. If this is a symbolic with no literal meaning, were the twelve tribes of Israel in the O.T. also not literal tribes? On the twelve foundations of the New Jerusalem are the names of the twelve apostles. If this is only symbolism were the twelve apostles that Jesus chose only symbols? Of course the number the preterists want to symbolize and get rid of is the literal 1000 year reign of Christ in the future on David’s throne.

Robert L. Thomas addresses this specific number in Revelation: “Attempts to assign a symbolic connotation to the thousand years in Revelation 20:1-7 have been multiplied…. All who adopt this tactic, however, cannot explain how two resurrections in 20:4-5 can be described as separated by one thousand years without referring the millennium to the future and dispensing with the need to spiritualize its significance. The two resurrections are designated by the same verb, ezesan (“they lived,” “they came to life”). By common agreement, the later resurrection is clearly a bodily one, so the former one must be too. That means both are future, with a future thousand-year period between them. The literal approach is fair to the text and consistent. To interpret otherwise marks an end of ‘all definite meaning in plain words” (Evangelical Hermeneutic, 336-337).

2. The figurative sense is intended if the literal would involve an impossibility.

“John wrote that Jesus held seven stars in His right hand” (Revelation 1:16).

 3. The figurative is intended if the literal meaning is an absurdity, as in trees clapping their hands (Isaiah 55:12).

In Revelation 12:1, the woman is clothed with the sun which is obviously absurd. The demons portrayed as locust in Revelation 9:1-12 is another example.

4. Take the figurative sense if the literal would demand immoral action.

In John 6:53-58, Jesus told the unbelieving Jews that they had to drink His blood and eat His flesh to have eternal life. This is cannibalism if literally interpreted.

5. Note whether a figurative expression is followed by an explanatory literal statement.

Revelation 11:8 explains “the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.” The figurative is made clear by an overt textual indicator. The woman in Revelation 17 is explained to be a city in 17:18.

6. Sometimes a figure is marked by a qualifying adjective, as in “Heavenly Father” (Matthew 6:14).

Andy Woods in an excellent article, Dispensational Hermeneutics: A Matter of Genre, gives additional clues for interpreting figurative language in Revelation:

1. Another clue involves the words “like” (homoios) or “as” (hōs).

When John employs such language, he is indicating a correspondence between what he saw in the vision and what he was trying to describe. For example, Revelation 8:8 says, “And something like a great mountain burning with fire was thrown into the sea” The word “like” alerts the interpreter to the fact that John is simply using comparative language to describe what he saw and the mountain is not to be interpreted literally.

2. Another clue involves an identical correspondence in the Old Testament.

Because the leopard, lion, and bear in Revelation 13:2 are also used in Daniel 7 to depict nations, the interpreter is alerted to the fact that John is employing symbolic language. Thus, the leopard, lion, and bear also represent nations in Revelation 13 just as they did in Daniel 7.

Robert Thomas summarizes well our study on genres: “Apocalyptic genre does not override or cancel normal rules of interpretation for the last book of the Bible…. The book is prophecy and should be interpreted literally as all other prophecy of Scripture should be” (337).

Review of Basic Bible Interpretation: Chapter 7 “Figures of Speech” Part 1

Posted: July 17, 2009 in Book Reviews, Hermeneutics/Interpretation
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
7

Jeffrey D. Arthurs, in Preaching With Variety, states in his discussion of the apocalyptic genre in Revelation: “Numbers are also highly symbolic in this genre. In Revelation there are seven letters, seals, trumpets, plagues, angels, and bowls. The foundation of the city is made of twelve precious stones, and twelve thousand servants of God from each tribe of Israel are sealed.” Then later he asks this question: “What is to be gained from fantasy that cannot be gained from realism? Visionary symbols are more than stylistic choices; they are powerful rhetoric” (Preaching With Variety, 185) implying the numbers in Revelation are fantasy and serve a purpose.

Bernard Ramm states that the “parent of all excessive manipulation of Bible numbers is to be found in the Jewish Rabbinical method known as Gematria. Examples of such are as follows: In Genesis 49:10 the Hebrew numerial value of ”Shiloh come” is 358, which is in turn equivalent to Meshiach, and so Shiloh is identified with the Messiah.” Ramm believes “that there is a basic symbolism of numbers in the Bible” and that Revelation is “especially rich in the symbolic use of numbers.” But Ramm reveals his covenant or reformed prejudice for allegorizing numbers when he gives an example of the symbolism of the number seven: “seven represented the covenant of grace” (Protestant Biblical Interpretation, 235). One of the problems with Covenant Theology is that its three big covenants: Covenant of Redemption, Works, and Grace are not specifically mentioned in Scripture. And so, it appears in some cases, if the literal interpretation of Scripture cannot support your theology, symbolism must be subsituted.

The amillinnialism of Milton S. Terry influenced his hermeneutics of numbers in Revelation. In his discussion of numbers, he says, that numbers have symbolic meanings, but “we must not suppose that they thereby necessarily lose their literal and proper meaning. The number ten, as shown above, and some few instances of the number seven authorize us to say that they are used sometimes indefinitely in the sense of many. But when, for example, it is written that seven priests, with seven trumpets, compassed Jericho on the seventh day seven times, we understand the statement in their literal sense” (Biblical Hermeneutics, 384). I agree. Numbers can have symbolic meaning without stripping them of their literalness.

When it comes to the 1000 year reign of Christ in Revelation 20:1-7, Terry’s ammillinnialism does not allow this number to be literal. “We understand that the millennium of Rev. xx, 1-6, is now in progress. It dates from the consummation of the Jewish age. It is a round definite number used symbolically for an indefinite aeon….It may require a million years” (487).

Just because there are symbols and symbolic or figurative language in God’s Word does not mean that the grammatical-historical method of literal interpretation must be abandoned.

Roy Zuck asks this question, “Is figurative language the opposite of literal interpretation?” To which he answers, “Figurative language then is not antithetical to literal interpretation; it is a part of it” (Basic Bible Interpretation, 147). Zuck gives a helpful explanation and example: “Generally an expression is figurative when it is out of character with the subject discussed, or is contrary to fact, experience, or observation. If we hear a sports announcer say, ‘The Falcons beat the Lions,’ we understand him to be referring to two football teams, and not to be suggesting that birds of prey are attacking literal lions” (146). Even in our everyday modern conversation, figurative language is used and understood.

Zuck provides the following guidelines for interpreting figurative language.

1. Always take a passage in its literal sense unless there is good reason for doing otherwise.

There is no reason why numbers in Revelation cannot be interpreted literally. There is no more hidden meaning in the 144,000 (12,000 from the 12 tribes) Jews who will endure the Tribulation in Revelation 14 than the armies of Israel who were numbered in the O.T (2 Samuel 24:9). In Revelation 21:12, the wall around the New Jerusalem has on it the names of the twelve tribes of children of Israel. If this is a symbolic with no literal meaning, were the twelve tribes of Israel in the O.T. also not literal tribes? On the twelve foundations of the New Jerusalem are the names of the twelve apostles. If this is only symbolism were the twelve apostles that Jesus chose only symbols? Of course the number the preterists want to symbolize and get rid of is the literal 1000 year reign of Christ in the future on David’s throne.

Robert L. Thomas addresses this specific number in Revelation: “Attempts to assign a symbolic connotation to the thousand years in Revelation 20:1-7 have been multiplied…. All who adopt this tactic, however, cannot explain how two resurrections in 20:4-5 can be described as separated by one thousand years without referring the millennium to the future and dispensing with the need to spiritualize its significance. The two resurrections are designated by the same verb, ezesan (“they lived,” “they came to life”). By common agreement, the later resurrection is clearly a bodily one, so the former one must be too. That means both are future, with a future thousand-year period between them. The literal approach is fair to the text and consistent. To interpret otherwise marks an end of ‘all definite meaning in plain words” (Evangelical Hermeneutic, 336-337). In Part 2, I complete this list of guidelines.

Genres and Interpreting the Bible, Part 3

Posted: July 13, 2009 in Book Reviews, Hermeneutics/Interpretation
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
6

Biblical and Nonbiblical “Apocalyptic Books”

There is a legitimate and necessary use of genres in God’s Word as my first post covered. There is also an abusive and dangerous use of genres that recent evangelicals have employed that deny the historical accuracy of Scripture, especially the Gospels, which I examined in my second post.

In this post, I will consider “apocalyptic literature” genre. There are two referents to “apocalyptic literature.” The first is the Biblical or canonical “apocalyptic literature” genre in the Bible: Ezekiel, Daniel, Zachariah, and Revelation. These “apocalyptic books” have similar characteristics that can be considered when literally interpreting these books.

The second is the non-canonical “apocalyptic literature” genre that is being used by contemporary evangelicals to interpret the book of Revelation. These non-canonical “apocalyptic” books are Baruch, Jubilees, Sibylline Oracles, etc. which were written during the intertestamental period into the 2nd century A.D. These “apocalyptic books” are used to justify allegorizing the book of Revelation.

Biblical “Apocalyptic Books” and Literal Interpretation

Roy Zuck discusses biblical “apocalyptic” books. “A large portion of the prophetic literature of the Bible records what the prophets saw in visions. These portions are often referred to as ‘apocalyptic.’ Portions of Ezekiel, Daniel, Zechariah, and much of Revelation are apocalyptic…. Besides being given in times of exile or Gentile oppression, apocalyptic literature has four characteristics:

(1) It consists of prophecies given in elaborate visions

(2) It includes many symbols

(3) An angel was often seen in the visions

(4) It includes messages regarding the distant future.”

Zuck then states how we should interpret “apocalyptic” books: “If we follow the basic hermeneutical principle of normal, grammatical interpretation, then we should understand prophetic literature, as well as other forms of biblical literature, in their normal, ordinary-literal sense, unless there is reason for taking the material figuratively or symbolically” (Basic Bible Interpretation, 243).

Nonbiblical “Apocalytpic Books” and Allegorical Interpretation

Recent evangelicals say we should interpret Revelation allegorically because of its similarities to the genre of non-canonical “apocalyptic” books. Robert L. Thomas calls this “genre override” or demanding a different hermeneutic for “apocalyptic literature” than non-prophetic books. In other words, the literal method is appropriate for “literal genres” but not “apocalyptic genres.” Steve Gregg mocks the grammatical, historical principle, “literal unless absurd” for “apocalyptic literature.” Gregg reverses this principle for “apocalyptic” books: Symbolical unless the text alerts otherwise (Steve Gregg, ed., Revelation: Four Views, a Parallel Commentary, Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1997, 11).

For example, because noncanonical “apocalyptic” books like Sibylline Oracles globalized local events so does the Biblical “apocalyptic” book of Revelation. Sibylline Oracle 5:153 exaggerated when the war on Jerusalem began by saying, “the whole creation was shaken.” Therefore, say the preterists, that the end of the age destruction described in Revelation in universal terms (Revelation 6:8; 9:15; 16:18) is only the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 hyperbolized.

Another reason for allegorizing Revelation is the Secret Codes found in noncanonical “apocalyptic” books to describe the enemies of God’s people that God will judge. Since the real name of the city could not be mentioned for fear of retaliation, symbolic names were given. Sibylline Orachles 5:143 used Babylon as a code name for Rome. Robert Thomas refutes the theory that “Babylon in Revelation chapters 14 and 16-18 is a code word for Rome…. The fact that the text of Revelation locates the city on the Euphrates River (16:12) has been no deterrent to this symbolic understanding. Neither has the fact that Rome, because of its geographical location, has never been and could never be the great commercial city described in chapter 18″ (The Evangelical Hermeneutic, 336)

Here is another example of interpreters bringing in extraneous influences outside of Scripture into the process of interpreting Scripture. No outside source, whether it is modern culture or ancient nonbiblical genres, should interfere with Biblical hermeneutics. In my next post, I will show how Revelation is unlike the noncanonical “apocalyptic literature” and therefore not the same genre and therefore not obligated to be allegorically interpreted.

Genres and Interpreting the Bible, Part 1

Posted: July 10, 2009 in Book Reviews, Hermeneutics/Interpretation
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
6

Are you a premillennialist, amillennialist or preterist? Believe it or not, the interpretation of Biblical genres will have something to do with your millennial position. Hold that thought until we discuss the difference of opinion on the genre of the book of Revelation as either prophecy (as do some premillennialists) or apocalyptic (as do amillennialists and preterists).

The study of genres is both necessity and dangerous. The examination of genres, however, cannot be avoided because the Ultimate Artist wrote His word with a variety of kinds of literature: Hebrew poetry, narratives, parables, proverbs, epistles, prophecy, and apocalyptic literature. We are accustomed to reading different genres every time we pick up a newspaper (maybe there are a few of us who still read the daily news).  There are the genres of editorials, classifieds, comics, sports, etc.

Roy Zuck, in chapter six in Basic Bible Interpretation, calls this aspect of hermeneutics the “Rhetorical interpretation” which “is the process of determining the literary quality of a writing by analyzing its genre (kind of composition), structure (how the material is organized), and the figures of speech (colorful expressions for literary effect).

Literary Genre in the Bible

Chapter six, “Bridging the Literary Gap,” demonstrates that the authors of Scripture were literary artists. Robert Alter has written two helpful books about this subject: The Art of Biblical Narrative and The Art of Biblical Poetry.

A genre is a literary type that has a unique form and content. It is important in hermeneutics to be genre specific. Zuck notes that 4 of the 25 affirmations in the 1982 Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics refer to literary form. Article XV states that the literal interpretation of Scripture is not negated by the recognition of different genres: “We affirm the necessity of interpreting the Bible according to its literal or normal sense. The literal sense is the grammatical-historical sense — that is, the meaning which the writer expressed. Interpretation according to the literal sense will take account of all figures of speech and literary forms found in the text.” This point is important because of the debate over the genre and interpretation of Revelation. It is the contention of Robert L. Thomas that if you believe Revelation is apocalyptic then you are more likely to interpret Revelation allegorically but if you believe Revelation is prophetic then you will interpret the book literally.

Zuck Identifies Seven Different Literary Genres in God’s Word

 1. Legal.

There are two kinds of legal material. One is apodictic law or direct commands as in the Ten Commandments. The other is casuitic law or case-by-case laws.

2. Narrative.

The uniqueness of narratives is seen in its own conventions or characteristics, such as, plot, scenes, and dialogue.

3. Poetry.

Poetry is the language of the soul, which expresses emotions as well as thoughts. In narratives, generally, we hear what God thinks about people, and in Hebrew poetry, generally, we hear what people feel about other people and God.

4. Wisdom literature.

There is proverbial wisdom found in Proverbs which teaches wisdom for godly living. This wisdom is found in general principles that sometimes have exceptions. For example, Proverbs 3:8-10 says that if you honor the Lord, you will be healthy and “your barns shall be filled with plenty.” There is also reflective or philosophical wisdom found in Job and Ecclesiastes. Job struggles with the righteous suffering sickness and poverty. Job would be the exception to Proverbs 3:8-10.

5. Gospels.

The synoptic Gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, are much more similar than the Gospel of John. One of the reasons for their uniqueness, is the fact that each author had his own specific purpose. Zuck contrasts the acceptance and rejection of Jesus that runs throughout the Gospel of John. This contrast fits the theme of John’s Gospel presents Christ as the Son of God in whom the sinner must believe in order to possess eternal life (John 20:31).

6. Logical discourse or Epistles.

These Epistles have their own style. The letters generally open with the author identifying himself and his recipients, greetings, thanks, and the body. When this pattern is broken, there is usually a significant reason. There is no thanksgiving, for example, for the Galatian believers because they were listening to false teachers which outraged Paul.

7. Prophetic literature.

Prophetic literature obviously contains predictions which were preached to produce either hope or repentance in the original audiences. “A special form of prophetic literature is apocalyptic material, which focuses specifically on the end times, while presenting the material in symbolic form.”

The genre debate intensifies over which genre is the Book of Revelation: Prophetic or Apocalypic. Robert Thomas addresses this debate in his book Evangelical Hermeneutics: The New Verses the Old. Thomas in chapter 11, “Genre Override in Revelation,” discusses the origin of the debate: “Analysis of literary genre emerged as a relatively new tool for New Testament study at the end of the twentieth century. Genre classification has affected how scholars have interpreted various New Testament books, particularly the last book of the New Testament.” In my next post, I will discuss notable evangelicals, like Kenneth L. Gentry Jr., who connect their allegorical and preteristic interpretation of Revelation to the apocalyptic genre.

Hermeneutics and Capital Punishment, Part One

Posted: June 24, 2009 in Book Reviews, Hermeneutics/Interpretation
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
5

The Washington Post reported on March1, 2005 that “The Supreme Court abolished capital punishment for juvenile offenders yesterday, ruling 5 to 4 that it is unconstitutional to sentence anyone to death for a crime he or she committed while younger than 18.” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion.

The case that provoked this ruling concerned almost 18 year old Christopher Simmons who broke into the home of Shirley Crook, kidnapped and bound her with duct tape and threw her off the railroad trestle into the Meramec River in Missouri where she drown. Police easily apprehended Simmons who had bragged about the murder to his friends at school. Simmons had convinced friends to help him assuring them they would get away with this robbery and murder because they were minors. Simmons confessed and even produced the videotaped reenactment of the murder at the crime scene. A lower court recommended capital punishment, but Simmons appealed.

Even Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, not an advocate of capital punishment, disagreed with the majority opinion because Simmons’ murder was “deliberate, wanton, and cruel.”

One of the platforms for Kennedy’s decision was the findings of modern psychology that 18 years lack maturity to be responsible for murder. Kennedy quoted psychologist Eric Erickson. In other words, the modern culture of psychology not only outweighs jurisprudence, but Biblical mandates.

Roy Zuck in chapter three “Bridging the Cultural Gap” of hisBasic Bible Interpretation gives four important principles for “determining which cultural practices and situations, commands, and precepts in the Bible are transferable to our culture and which ones are nontransferable.” In this post, I will discuss the first.

1. Some situations, commands, or principles are repeatable, continuous, or not revoked, and/or pertain to moral and theological subjects, and/or are repeated elsewhere in Scripture, and therefore are permanent and transferable to us.

An example of this first principle is capital punishment which was first commanded by God in Genesis 9:6. Later in the Pentateuch specific capital crimes (such as adultery in Leviticus 20:10) and examples (Achan in Joshua 7) are stated that call for death. So this principle is repeated. Plus “the reason given in that verse (Genesis 9:6) is that man is made in God’s image.” There is therefore a clear moral and theological issue with this principle. Every modern day murder victim is person made in the image of God.

Capital punishment is a transcultural principle for all cultures and should be part of every human government. Human government has the authority to take life according to Romans 13:4: ”he bears not the sword in vain.” Human government doesn’t use the flat side of the sword to smack criminals on the wrest. The sword takes the life of murderers.  What was ordained by God in Genesis 9 is still in force today.  No matter what activist justices legislate from the bench, God’s Word must be interpreted independent of modern culture.

Interpretation Principle of a Single Meaning, Part 1

Posted: June 11, 2009 in Book Reviews, Hermeneutics/Interpretation
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
3

The Single Meaning Principle is stated well in the words of Bernard Ramm, “Interpretation is one, application is many” (Protestant Biblical Interpretation, 113). In chapter three “Bible Interpretation—Then and Now” Zuck surveys the different methods of interpretation throughout church history. The different approaches are literal, allegorical, traditional, and rationalistic, and subjective. What separates all the approaches from the literal i.e., the grammatical-historical interpretation is the rejection of authorial intent or one interpretation of Scripture. Zuck quotes Bernard Ramm’s evaluation of Augustine’s teaching: “Scripture has more than one meaning and therefore the allegorical method is proper.” Zuck gives an example of Augustine’s allegorical interpretations: “In his allegorizing Augustine taught that the four rivers in Genesis 2:10-14 are four cardinal virtues and that in the Fall the fig leaves represent hypocrisy and the skin covering is morality (3:7, 21). Noah’s drunkenness (Gen. 9:20-23) represents Christ in His suffering and death. The teeth of Shulamite in Song of Songs 4:2 speak of the church ‘tearing men away from heresy.’” These far out interpretations are obviously not what the original authors of Scripture meant when they wrote to their ancient audiences. Did Moses have Christ in mind when he wrote of Noah’s sin of drunkenness? No!

The emphasis in interpretation has shifted from what the text says to what the interpreter thinks or feels the text says. The epicenter in hermeneutics is no longer the one objective meaning of the text but the various and sundry subjective meanings of the interpreters.

This is clearly a departure from the classic hermeneutical theoreticians of the past. In his classic on hermeneutics, Milton S. Terry in chapter 6, “The Grammatico-Historical Sense”, defined the single meaning principle: “A fundamental principle in grammatico-historical exposition is that words and sentences can have but one signification in one and the same connection.” Then Milton issued this warning and prophecy in 1883: “The moment we neglect this principle we drift out upon a sea of uncertainty and conjecture” (Terry, Biblical Hermeneutic, 205). Evangelicalism is adrift on the sea of uncertainity today in hermeneutics.

I began this post with a quote from another classic on hermeneutics. Here are the follow up statements of Ramm’s great line: “Interpretation is one, application is many. This means that there is only one meaning to a passage of Scripture which is determined by careful study.” In my next post tomorrow, I will review Robert Thomas’ chapter “The Principle of Single Meaning” in his Evangelical Hermeneutics: The New Versus The Old and cite today’s theological heavy weights who have abandoned the single meaning principle.

New and Confusing Definitions in Hermeneutics

Posted: June 3, 2009 in Book Reviews, Hermeneutics/Interpretation
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
3

Robert Thomas in his book Evangelical Hermeneutics: The New Versus the Old documents the simultaneous decline in Evangelicalism and hermeneutics. Thomas quotes David Wells and Iain Murray who both write of the departure of evangelicals since the 70s from core beliefs. We now have evangelicals who do not believe in the inerrancy (that the original writings had no errors) and who do believe in the open view of God (that God is limited in His knowledge) and that general revelation is salvific (that people can be saved without hearing the special revelation of the gospel of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ). These are not traditional evangelical beliefs.

The departure from traditional hermeneutics parallels the theological decline of evangelicalism. Now there are evangelicals who deny the authorial intent (Scripture has only one interpretation) and grammatical-historical method of interpretation (that a text must be interpreted in the context and according to the content of text).

One of the reasons for the new confusion in hermeneutics is the changing of definitions in hermeneutics. I will discuss two important words that have been redefined: Hermeneutics and exegesis.

Roy Zuck defines hermeneutics as “the science and art of interpreting the Bible. Another way to define hermeneutics is this: It is the science (principles) and art (task) by which the meaning of the biblical text is determined” (Basic Bible Interpretation, 19). Zuck then quoted Melton S. Terry. Terry’s work on hermeneutics is Biblical Hermeneutics: A Treatise on the Interpretation of the Old and New Testament (1885; reprint, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1947). Thomas says this work: “was viewed by evangelicals as the standard work on biblical hermeneutics for most of the twentieth century” (p. 9). Terry represents the traditional view from which newer evangelicals have departed. Here is the quote from Terry on the definition of hermeneutics:

Hermeneutics, therefore is both a science and an art. As a science, it enunciates principles, investigates the laws of thought and language, and classifies it facts and results. As an art, it teaches what application these principles should have, and establishes their soundness by showing their practical value in the elucidation of the more difficult Scriptures. The hermeneutical art thus cultivates and establishes a valid exegetical procedure” (p. 20).

Hermeneutics is the rules or principles of interpretation and exegesis is the application of the rules and principles of interpretation to a text. Important to our discussion in tomorrow’s post, is the application mentioned by Zuck and Terry is the application of the rules of interpretations to a text not the application to our lives. Application to our lives is the result of interpretation not part of the process.

Also Zuck mentions exposition as the communication of the interpretation of the text. Exposition, however, is not part of the hermeneutic process. Zuck provides a helpful illustration: “Hermeneutics is like a cookbook. Exegesis is the preparing and baking of the cake, and exposition is serving the cake” (p. 22).

So what is the departure by newer evangelicals? The departure is summarized in the secular maxim: “All truth is God’s truth.” The departure is an integration of “all truth” or general revelation as just as valid as special revelation when it comes to interpreting God’s Word. In other words, the interpreter includes the truth of modern science, philosophy, or culture in the interpreting of a text of Scripture. For example, because modern culture believes in radical feminism, that influences newer evangelicals interpreting passages as 1Timothy 2:7-3:12. This text teaches male leadership in the local church. Newer evangelicals will interpret this text as an ad hoc text relevant only to the first century because modern culture believes differently about male leadership in the church. Modern culture is intergated with the interpretation of God’s Word under the mantra “all truth is God’s truth.”

In my next post tomorrow, I will elaborate on this departure.

Older Entries