Posts Tagged ‘Hermeneutics’

Why the Popularity and Difficulty of Narrative Preaching? The Hermeneutic Paradigm Shift: Part 2b

Posted: December 7, 2009 in Preaching Narratives
Tags: , , , , , , ,
0

Joe Linares makes a bold statement with which I agree: “If a pastor cannot competently preach narrative, he cannot competently preach the Bible.” There are two reasons for his belief: “It is not only the quantity of Scriptural revelation communicated through historical narrative that is significant but the content of that revelation” (Joe Linares. Proclaiming God’s Stories: How to Preach Old Testament Historical Narrative. Greenville: Bob Jones University Press, 2009, 29). The design of these posts on narrative preaching is to assist the pastor in preaching the most prominent of genres in God’s Word.

So far we have observed that not only is interpreting narratives historically important because the authors were theologians who theologically forged their stories, but because they were also prophets who prophetically molded their historical writings. This has huge benefits to the preacher of narratives who seeks to persuade his audience to be doers of the Word and not hearers only.

The Sovereign who acts in history and rules over his subjects demands a response of faith, submission, and worship from his subjects. The writers of Scriptures wrote to persuade their original audiences. Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings illustrate the authors’ intent to persuade. These books present a “theology of monarchy.” The monarchy was predicted in Deuteronomy 17:14-20 with the qualifications, prohibitions, and the Biblical education necessary for the king. The future king of Israel was to be a spiritual leader who led God’s people to obey God’s law in order to enjoy God’s blessing.

In Deuteronomy 27, God promised cursings for disobedience to the law and in Deuteronomy 28, God promised blessings for obedience to the law. Did God keep his promises? The answer to that question is found Joshua and Judges. In Joshua and Judges, there was no king and, eventually, this summary in Judges characterized God’s people: “In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes” (Judges 21:25). The 300 years of Judges has been described as the “sewer of Scripture” (Gary Inrig, Hearts of Iron, Feet of Clay. Chicago: Moody Press,1979, 282) because of the moral and religious degradation expressed in murder, idolatry, and gang rape that marked this abysmally low period in Israel’s history. God cursed their disobedience. However, in 1 and 2 Samuel there were kings and under David and Solomon, Israel moved forward both politically and spiritually to be powerful and worshipful. Because they were led to obey God’s Word, God blessed just as he had promised.

It was the prophet’s ministry to watchdog the king and guarantee he obeyed God’s law and led the people to obey the law. It is significant that the first reference to the prophetic guild is in 1 Samuel 10, the chapter in which Samuel anointed Israel’s first king. On three occasions, the prophet had to rebuke the king for his disobedience to God’s law (1 Samuel 13:13; 15:22-33; 2 Samuel 12:7-14). The nation of Israel divided because king Solomon disobeyed God’s law: “Therefore the Lord said to Solomon, “Since this has been your practice and you have not kept my covenant and my statutes that I have commanded you, I will surely tear the kingdom from you and will give it to your servant”(1 Kings 11:11).

Because of the reference “to the kings of Judah” in 1 Samuel 27:6, the final composition of 1 and 2 Samuel must be dated after the division of Israel. The prophets who wrote 1 and 2 Samuel, Samuel, Nathan ,and Gad (1 Chronicles 29:29) wrote to persuade their original audience to obey God’s law in order to enjoy God’s blessings and not his cursing as had Solomon, whose disobedience to the Law precipitated God’s cursing.

Greidanus notes the prophetic nature of Scripture. “The form of the Bible as a whole is proclamation, preaching. As such, biblical literature reveals both its origin, which was mainly preaching, and its goal, which is preaching. One way to become aware of the significance of the kerygmatic form of the Bible is to contrast this form with other possible forms: the Bible was not written in the form of a theological tome or of a scientific treatise; the Bible was not written in the form of a handbook of world history or of a newspaper report; the Bible comes in the form of proclamation, that is, direct address, personal appeal” (Sidney Greidanus, The Modern Preacher and the Ancient and Text: Interpreting and Preaching Biblical Literature. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1988, 20). Because the writers of narrative wrote to persuade their original audiences half the work is done for the modern preacher in his preparation to preach and persuade his contemporary audience.

Because the writers of Scripture were theologians and prophets, as well as literary artist, the new literarily emphasis will be considered next.

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 4

Posted: July 16, 2009 in Book Reviews, Hermeneutics/Interpretation
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
6

It is important to note the major differences between the book of Revelation and non-canonical apocalyptic literature for our next discussion of the interpretation of numbers in Revelation. Just because numbers were symbolized and not interpreted literally in non-canonical apocalyptic literature does not force us to treat numbers in Revelation the same because Revelation is different.

Robert L. Thomas states some of the differences.

1. “Other apocalypses are generally pseudonymous, but Revelation is not.

2. The epistolary framework of Revelation also sets it apart from works that are similar in other respects.

3. Other writings lack its repeated admonitions for moral compliance (Rev. 2:5, 16, 21, 22; 3:3, 19).

4. Revelation is not as pessimistic about the present as other works in this category.

5. In others the coming of the Messiah is exclusively future, but in Revelation, the Messiah has already come and laid the groundwork for future victory through His redemptive death.

6. Most distinctive is the fact that this book calls itself a prophecy (1:3; 22:7, 10, 18, 19). Its contents fully justify this self-claim” (Evangelical Hermeneutics, 325).

Andy Woods in his helpful article, Dispensational Hermeneuics: The Matter of Genres, elaborates on the these differences stated by Thomas, but adds some additional differences:

Furthermore, other apocalypses typically use numbers to convey concepts rather than count units. By contrast, Revelation appears to use many numbers to indicate specific count units. For example, many futurist scholars believe that various numbers found in Revelation, such as 1260 days (Rev 12:6) or 42 months (Rev 11:2; 13:5), are direct references to the unfulfilled aspects of Daniel’s seventy weeks prophecy (Dan 9:24–27). Hoehner’s calculations indicate that the fulfilled aspects of this prophecy had the potential of being accurate to the exact day (Harold W. Hoehner, Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1977, 115-39). Therefore, it stands to reason that the prophecy’s unfulfilled aspects will also be fulfilled to the minutest detail. Thus, the numbers 1260 days and 42 months should not be taken as merely communicating concepts but rather should be interpreted as specific count units. According to Thomas, Revelation contains no verifiably symbolic numbers. Rather, non-symbolic utilization of numbers is the norm (Robert L. Thomas, Revelation 1 to 7: An Exegetical Commentary, Chicago: Moody Press, 1992, 38).

Roy Zuck agrees with both Thomas and Woods: “But are all the numbers he (John in Revelation) mentions to be taken as symbols? Do they not have meaning as ordinary, literal numbers? If 7, 42, 1,260 are not to be taken literally, then what about the reference to the 2 witnesses in 11:3? And if 1,000 means simply a large number, then what about the reference to 7,000 people in verse 13? On what basis do we say that 7,000 does not mean a literal 7,000? And if 1,000 is a large indefinite number, do the references to 4 angels (7:1) and 7 angels (8:6) mean simply small numbers? If these numbers in the Book of Revelation have no normal, literal numerical value, then what has happened to the principle of normal, grammatical interpretation? How can we say that 144,000 is a symbolic number, when 7:5-8 refers specifically to 12,000 from each of 12 tribes in Israel” (Basic Bible Interpretation, 244-245).

In my next post, I will show how Bernard Ramm and Miltion S. Terry violate their own literal hermeneuic when it comes to numbers in Revelation because of their amillinnial view. My next post is entitled: Review of Basic Bible Interpretation: Chapter 7 “Figures of Speech.”

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 2

Posted: July 12, 2009 in Book Reviews, Hermeneutics/Interpretation
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
6

Admittedly, the genre of apocalyptic literature, such as Revelation, has its difficulties. Or at least, some people think so. About the book of Revelation, George Bernard Shaw said, “Revelation is a curious record of the visions of a drug addict.”  Even some preachers shy away from apocalyptic Scripture: “Many good and faithful preachers rank preaching on apocalyptic texts alongside handling serpents; they have heard that people do it, but they have no desire to come anywhere near them” (Jeffrey D. Arthurs, Preaching With Variety. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2007, 178).

What further muddies the water is that the study of genres, in general, is highly debated. Robert L. Thomas states that “analysis of literary genre emerged as a relatively new tool for New Testament study at the end of the twentieth century.” What makes this new kid on the hermeneutic block a problem child is that “no consensus exists as to a precise definition of genre, so attempts to classify portions of the New Testament, including Revelation, are at best vague” (Robert L. Thomas. Evangelical Hermeneutic: The Old Verses the New. 323-324).

To add to the dilemma is the disagreement on what constitutes more specifically the apocalyptic genre. “In some cases, however, it is difficult to decide what qualifies as apocalyptic, because there is uncertainty about how many characteristics of apocalyptic are required to consider a text apocalyptic…it must be remembered that genres as literary classifications are largely modern concepts” (D. Brent Sandy, and Ronald L. Giese, Jr. Cracking Old Testament Codes. 181). For example, the book of Revelation has been classified as epistolary, imperial edict, drama, narrative, poetry, prophecy, and apocalyptic or a mixture of some of these. Not only is there is no consensus on the definition of a genre nor is there agreement on the genre of Revelation.

The study of genres is not only difficult, but dangerous. Robert Thomas in chapter ten, “Genre Override in the Gospels” blows the whistle on evangelicals who deny the historicity of the Gospels. Thomas writes, “The preunderstanding of most of today’s evangelical scholars who specialize in Gospel study is that the Gospels require special rules of interpretation because they belong to a special literary category or genre” (page 272).

For example, prominent and much read, Robert H. Gundry, who denies that Jesus spoke the trinitarian baptismal formula in Matthew 28:19-20, explains why: “The data of the text understood against the backdrop of ancient literary genres, not a presumption that narrative style in the Bible always implies the writing of history, should govern our understanding of authorial intent.” Gundry justifies his rejection of the grammatical-historical interpretation of the Gospel account: “Radical historical reductionism has caused a recoil into conservative historical positivism, i.e., a system of orthodox belief based solely on the positive data of historical experience. Such an empiricism, blended as it is with a fixation on history, tends to exclude literary possibilities that would diminish even slightly the amount of history in the Bible” (R. H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church Under Persecution, 629).

C. L. Blomberg agrees with Gundry that the trinitarian baptismal formula was not spoken by Jesus but originated with Matthew (Matthew: vol. 22 of New American Commentary, 432-433). Thomas also identifies I. Howard Marshall as an evangelical who deneis the historcial accuracy of the Gospel accounts (Thomas, 276-277). This extreme dependence on genres has lead to a denial of the inerrancy of Scripture. In my next post, I will demonstrate how the abuse of the study of genres can supplement the allegorical interpretation of Revelation.

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.

The Hermeneutics of Evangelical Feminism, Part 1

Posted: June 27, 2009 in Book Reviews, Hermeneutics/Interpretation
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
6

The hermeneutics of evangelical feminist stands in direct contrast to evangelical grammatical-historical hermeneutics. Paul W. Felix Sr. highlights these radical differences in chapter 13 in Robert Thomas’ Evangelical Hermeneutics: The New Verses the Old. Felix defines an evangelical feminist as “one who has a high view of Scripture and believes the Bible teaches the full equality of men and women without role distinctions between the two.” This puts evangelical feminist in a different class from “secular feminists,” “religious feminists,” and even “Christian feminists.” All of these have lower views of Scripture.

A representative of evangelical feminism is Christians for Biblical Equality (C.B.E.). A position paper states their mission: “The goal of evangelical feminism is that men and women be allowed to serve God as individuals, according to their own unique gifts rather than according to a culturally predetermined personality slot called ‘Christian manhood’ or ‘Christian womanhood.’”

Why is there so much debate over the role of women in the leadership of the home and church? Hermeneutics! Felix quotes Robert K. Johnson: “For behind the apparent differences in approach and opinion regarding the women’s issue are opposing principles for interpreting Scripture—i.e., different hermeneutics. Here is the real issue facing evangelical theology as it seeks to answer the women’s question.”

Felix discusses seven principle of evangelical feminist hermeneutics which contradict evangelical grammatical-historical hermeneutics.

 1. The Principle of Ad Hoc Documents

Gordon D. Fee, who originated and popularized this prinicple wrote in reference to the passage in 1 Timothy 2:11-15. This passage  forbids women usurping authority over men in the local church: “It must be noted again that 1 Timothy is not intended to establish church order but to respond in a very ad hoc way to the Ephesian situation with its straying elders.”

According to 1Timothy 3:14-15, this pastoral epistle is a “church manual” for all local churches in this age.

2. The Principle of an Interpretive Center

This principle states that one clear or defining passage, such as Galatians 3:25, should serve as a filter or grid for all other related passages (such as 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 and 1 Timothy 2:11-15).

One major problem with this principle is the plenary inspiration of Scripture which teaches that all Scripture is profitable for instruction, not just verses that favor our view. Another grammatical-historical principle of interpretation is the rule of non-contradiction. All of the Scripture Paul wrote on this subject do not contradict each other, therefore a interpretive center or locus classicus is not necessary. I will discuss the other evangelcial feminist hermeneutics principle in my next post.

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.

How Does the New Testament Use the Old Testament, Part Two

Posted: June 19, 2009 in Book Reviews, Hermeneutics/Interpretation
Tags: , , , , ,
2

The New Testament uses the Old Testament prophecies in one of four ways. We will discuss these four New Testament categories into which all Old Testament prophecies are used. Three of the four involve what Robert Thomas calls Inspired Sensus Plenary Application (ISPA) without violating the original and single interpretation of the Old Testament prophecies.

Direct Prophecy

The first way the New Testament uses Old Testament prophecies is what Dwight Pentecost calls direct prophecy (The Words and Works of Jesus Christ, 68) and Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum calls literal prophecy plus literal fulfillment (Israelology, 843). An example is the prophecy in Micah 5: 1-2 that predicted that Jesus would be born in Bethlehem. Matthew 2:5-6 said it was fulfilled. There is no New Testament fuller or plenary meaning attached to this prophecy. This prophecy was directly fulfilled.

Literal Fulfillment Plus Application

There is one point of comparison between Matthew 2:17-18 and the prophecy in  Jeremiah 31:15: In both cases Jewish women weep for their sons that they will never see again. Pentecost calls this a prophecy of double reference (page 71). Robert Thomas would object to the idea of double reference or fulfillment which would do away with the single meaning of Jeremiah 31:15.  Fruchtenbaum more accurately identifies this fulfillment of Jeremiah 31:15 in Matthew 2:18 as literal fulfillment plus application (page 844). The original meaning of the women weeping in Jeremiah 31:15 is not changed and has only one meaning or interpretation. This historical incident is applied by Matthew. This is an example of ISPA. The meaning of Jeremiah 31:15 was not altered but was applied and expanded to Jesus’ life.

Prophetic Summary

Pentecost calls the prophecy in Matthew 2:23 a prophetic summary of Old Testament prophecies (page 73). Fruchtenbaum simply calls this a “summation” (page 845). Matthew 2:23 even refers to the “prophets” in the plural… “that it might be fulfilled which was spoken through the prophets that he should be called a Nazarene.”  There is no direct prophecy that predicted this incident. Here is Fruchtenbaum’s explanation: “Nazarenes were a people despised and rejected and the term was used to reproach and to shame (John 1:46). The prophets did teach that the Messiah would be a despised and rejected individual (e.g. Isa. 53:3) and that is summarized by the term Nazarene.”

Prophetic Type

I would like to focus on the ISPA of Hosea 11:1 and Matthew 2:15. Pentecost calls this a prophetic type (page 70) and Fruchtenbauw calls it literal plus typical (page 843). Hosea 11:1 is the historical reference to God calling Israel “my son” out of Egypt and is not even a prophecy. And yet Matthew 2:15 says when the child Jesus was brought out of Egypt by His parents Hosea 11:1 was “fulfilled.” Pentecost says “Matthew saw Israel’s history as a type of God’s future dealing with His people” (page 70).

Robert Thomas explains that the word “fulfilled” can also mean “complete.” “In the Matthew 2:15 citation of Hosea 11:1 Matthew uses it to indicate the completion of a sensus plenior meaning he finds in Hosea 11:1. The Hosea passage is not a prophecy, and translating the word fulfill in this instance is misleading. Matthew’s meaning is that in some sense the transport of Jesus by His parents from Egypt completed the deliverance of Israel from Egypt that had begun during the time of Moses. In Mark 1:15 Jesus uses the same Greek verb to speak of the completion of a period of time prior to the drawing near of the kingdom of God. The English word fulfill would hardly communicate the correct idea in a case like that” (page 263).

Roman Catholics, Covenant theologians, and newer evangelicals use sensus plenior to change the original of Old Testament prophecies and thus violate the single meaning principle of interpretation. Thomas’ ISPA is true to this classic principle in hermeneutics.

Older Entries