Posts Tagged ‘Milton S. Terry’

Progressive Revelation or The Blessed Truth that NOW We Can Eat Boganles’ Country Ham Biscuits

Posted: August 28, 2012 in Hermeneutics/Interpretation
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
7

You know Peter before Acts 10 could not eat Boganles’ ham or sausage biscuits or even his mother’s. Nor could he eat “endless shrimp” at neither Red Lobster nor Dave’s BBQ. Why do we not circumcise all baby boys on the eighth day for spiritual reasons? Why do we not lobby for capital punishment for all church members guilty of running around on their mates? Progressive revelation is the Biblical truth that “God progressively revealed more truths about many subjects” (Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation, page 271). The classics on hermeneutics (Biblical interpretation) affirm this important principle of rightly dividing the Word of truth: Milton Terry wrote in his Biblical Hermeneutics, “It is impossible to trace the record of these ten generations of the Book of Genesis without observing the steady progress of divine revelation….With each new series of generations some new promise is given, or some great purpose of God is brought to light” (page 568).

The reason we can eat pork and other forbidden “unclean” meats in the OT is because God changed 1500 years of tradition in Acts 10 so Peter would no longer consider Gentiles as unclean and take the Gospel to them. God takes sin just as seriously as He did in the OT, but according to 1 Corinthians 5, the church does not stone adulterers in this age but we do church discipline them.

Progressive revelation means God added to His revealed truth in previous Scripture. For example, about the doctrine of the Trinity, Wayne Grudem writes, that “the doctrine of the Trinity is progressively revealed in Scripture” (Systematic Theology, page 226) and “more complete revelation of the Trinity is in the New Testament” (page 230). In Isaiah 48:16 and 63:7-10 are rare glimpses of the three Persons in the OT while the NT is replete.

Another example is the doctrine of the Church. This doctrine is not in the Old Testament. Paul will explain this new doctrine in Ephesians 2:11-3:13. The doctrine of the Church is a Biblical mystery or a truth heretofore not revealed but now revealed by God. There is no rapture in the Old Testament. Christ gave some teaching on the rapture in John 14:1-6. Paul gives the fullest description of the rapture in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18. The last word on the doctrine of the Holy Spirit is in the Epistles. Before Pentecost, the Holy Spirit did not permanently indwell believers nor were believers baptized by the Holy Spirit. Jesus said, “For he dwells with you, and shall be in you…. at that day (Day of Pentecost in Acts 2) you shall know that I am in my Father, and you in me (Baptism of the Holy Spirit), and I in you (Indwelling of the Holy Spirit)” (John 14:17 and 20). Paul gives the last phase of progressive revelation on the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in Romans 8:9: “Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his” and the baptism of the Holy Spirit in 1 Corinthians 12:13.

Roy Zuck says about progressive revelation, “This is not to suggest that what was recorded in earlier portions of the Bible was imperfect and that the later revelations were perfect. Nor does it suggest that earlier portions were in error and the later portions were truthful….Recognizing this progress of revelation means that the interpreter will be careful not read back into the Old Testament the New” (Basic Bible Interpretation, page 73).

Progressive revelation also means that God has not changed the basis of salvation but He has changed the content of faith. Charles Ryrie explains, “The basis of salvation in every age is faith; the object of faith in every age is God; the content of faith changes in the various dispensations” (Dispensationalism, page 134). Ryrie quotes from the Dallas Seminary doctrinal statement on this aspect of progressive revelation relevant to salvation:

We believe that according to the ‘eternal purpose’ of God (Eph. 3:11) salvation in the divine reckoning is always ‘by grace, through faith,’ and rests upon the shed blood of Christ. We believe that God has always been gracious, regardless of the ruling dispensation, but that man has not at all times been under an administration or stewardship of grace as is true in the present dispensation. . . . We believe . . . that the principle of faith was prevalent in the lives of all the Old Testament saints. However, we believe that it was historically impossible that they should have had as the conscious object of their faith the incarnate, crucified Son, the Lamb of God (john 1:29), and that it is evident that they did not comprehend as we do that the sacrifices depicted the person and work of Christ. (Article V) (page 134).

In Genesis 15:6, Abraham believed God and God imputed to him righteousness. Paul quotes this verse in Romans 4:1-3 to prove his doctrine of justification by faith. But what was the content of Abraham’s faith in Genesis 15:1-5? The revelation that God was going to multiple the seed of Israel as the sand of the sea. What is the content of our faith today in order to be justified by faith? Paul answers clearly in Romans 4:24, “But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead.”

What if someone has never heard to gospel but like Abraham responds to nature, to the stars in heaven, and believes in a higher power? Can he like Abraham have righteousness imputed to him?

One form of inclusivism (sometimes called accessibility) states that salvation is through nature or general revelation. This is the view of Terrance L. Tiessen:

“All who have ever been saved, who are now being saved, or who ever will be saved, are saved because Jesus Christ died and rose again for them…. Nevertheless, God does not require a faith that would be impossible for anyone by virtue of their ignorance. In the Day of Judgment, God will hold all people accountable for their response to the revelation that was made available to them, and only for that revelation. God may graciously save some who do not believe in Jesus as Savior if they are ignorant of him through no fault of their own.”

Does God save people who have only general revelation from nature and not the special revelation of the death, burial, and resurrection Jesus Christ? Paul answers that question in Romans 1:20: “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and deity: so that they are without excuse.” Abraham responded to special revelation. The progress of revelation has now increased special revelation to include the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. If a person dies without hearing and responding to the special revelation of the gospel that person is without excuse. Instead of general revelation being sufficient to save if someone has never heard of Christ, general revelation is sufficient only to condemn.

Tiessen continues, “All people meet Jesus Christ personally at the moment of death, and they respond to him in a manner consistent with the response they had been giving to God and His revelation during their lifetime. At that moment, those who had received forms of revelation less complete than the gospel but who had responded in faith, by a work of the Holy Spirit, will joyfully find in Christ the fulfillment of all their hopes and longings” (Terrance L. Tiessen, Who Can Be Saved? Reassessing Salvation in Christ and World Religious, Downers Grove, IVP. 2004, 478).

Can people be saved after death? In Luke 16:26, Jesus told the story of the rich man in Hell. The rich man in Hell asked Abraham to send Lazarus to dip his finger in water and just put one drop of water on his tongue. Abraham responded:“Between me and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from here to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from there.” There is no purgatory, postmortem like second chance.

Some are agnostic concerning the fate of those who die never having heard the special revelation of the gospel.

John Stott, the famous British pastor and widely read author, expressed his agnosticism: “The fact is that God, alongside the most solemn warnings about our responsibility to respond to the gospel, has not revealed how he will deal with those who have never heard it” (David Edwards and John Stott, Evangelical Essentials: A Liberal-Evangelical Dialogue, Downers Grove, IVP, 1988, 327).

The Scriptures have declared with certainty the eternal future of those who are not reached with the gospel. Romans 3:23 says that “all have sinned” because they were born sinners (Romans 5:12). The result of those who die in this universal sin condition (including those who never heard) is eternal separation from God (Romans 6:23a); unless that sinner places faith in Christ and receives the gift of eternal salvation (Romans 6:23b). How can sinners be saved by faith in Christ? Not by nature’s outstretched hand pointing to a higher power. Someone has to give them gospel (Romans 10:13-15). If you have any doubts about this subject take the time to carefully read and study these verses.

Because Paul believed his inspired by God Words in Romans 10:13-15, he traveled on three missionary journeys in Acts. Paul did not qualify these verses in Romans 10:13-15 saying, “If you missionaries cannot make it to the field, don’t worry about it all religions are equal or at death they can receive Christ.” Pluralism and inclusivism are not the Scriptural views on salvation.

Progressive revelation is absolutely necessary to properly understanding and applying God’s Word to our lives.

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 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.”

How Does the NT Use the OT?

Posted: June 17, 2009 in Book Reviews, Hermeneutics/Interpretation
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
0

There is a Biblical and Unbiblical sensus plenior. We will begin with the unbiblical sensus plenior. The interpretation principle of “one interpretation, many applications” is an integral ingredient of classic hermeneutics. In contrast to this principle is sensus plenior or fuller or multiple meanings of a Biblical text. As we observed in our last post, Roy Zuck rejects this principle. Zuck correctly stated that the term sensus plenior was coined and used as a principle of interpretation by Roman Catholics who reject the literal interpretation of Scripture. Robert Thomas adds that sensus plenior “amounts to an allegorical rather than a literal method of interpretation” (page 361). Bernard Ramm (Protestant Biblical Interpretation, 40-42) and Milton S. Terry (Biblical Hermeneutics, 583) also reject sensus plenior. Terry writes that Bible interpreter “must not import into the text of Scripture the ideas of later times, or build upon any words or passages a dogma which they do not legitimately teach” (page 583).

This issue of sensus plenior or fuller meaning or multiple interpretations of Scriptures has to do with the New Testament use of the Old Testament. Arnold  G. Fruchtenaum states how Covenant Theology abuses the New Testament use of the Old Testament: “It has been shown several times that this is a major evidence Covenant Theologians use to prove that the Old Testament prophesies cannot be understood literally. They claim that the New Testament ‘changed’ the meaning of the Old Testament or ‘reinterpreted’ it” (Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, Israelology, Tustin: Ariel, 1994, 842).  Clearly the Roman Catholic, Covenant Theology, and newer evangelicals, employ the unbiblical sensus plenior. The Evangelical Dictionary of Theology makes a distinction between the primary and plenary sense of interpretation: “Since the Bible is the church’s book, a further context within which any part of it may be read is supplied by the whole of Christian history…The primary sense is what the author intended to convey, established by the grammaticohistorical method; but the plenary sense, provided it does not violate the primary sense, enriches the appreciation of the Bible both in the life of the church as a whole and in the personal experience of Christian men and women” (F. F. Bruce. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker, 567). The primary interpretation of a passage is not influenced by the whole of church history to arrive at a plenary sense.

Robert Thomas, however, writes about inspired sensus plenior application (ISPA). Again this issue has to do with how the New Testament uses the Old Testament. About this controversial subject, Zuck writes: “The use of the Old Testament in the New Testament is one of the most difficult aspects of Bible interpretation” (Roy Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation, page 250). There are times when the New Testament gives a sensus plenior or fuller meaning to Old Testament prophecies. When this happens, Thomas is quick to state that, this is not reading the New Testament back into the Old Testament and giving another meaning or interpretation to the Old Testament text, rather “it is an application  because it does not eradicate the literal meaning of the Old Testament passage but simply applies the Old Testament wording to a new setting” (page 242). Fruchtenbaum concurs: “A new application to an Old Testament text without denying that what the original said literally did or will happen” (page 843).  The New Tesatment 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 Thomas would call ISPA without violating the original and single interpretation of the Old Testament prophecies.

How Does the NT Use the OT?

Posted: June 17, 2009 in Book Reviews, Hermeneutics/Interpretation
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
2

There is a Biblical and Unbiblical sensus plenior. We will begin with the unbiblical sensus plenior. The interpretation principle of “one interpretation, many applications” is an integral ingredient of classic hermeneutics. In contrast to this principle is sensus plenior or fuller or multiple meanings of a Biblical text. As we observed in our last post, Roy Zuck rejects this principle. Zuck correctly stated that the term sensus plenior was coined and used as a principle of interpretation by Roman Catholics who reject the literal interpretation of Scripture. Robert Thomas adds that sensus plenior “amounts to an allegorical rather than a literal method of interpretation” (page 361). Bernard Ramm (Protestant Biblical Interpretation, 40-42) and Milton S. Terry (Biblical Hermeneutics, 583) also reject sensus plenior. Terry writes that Bible interpreter “must not import into the text of Scripture the ideas of later times, or build upon any words or passages a dogma which they do not legitimately teach” (page 583).

This issue of sensus plenior or fuller meaning or multiple interpretations of Scriptures has to do with the New Testament use of the Old Testament. Arnold  G. Fruchtenaum states how Covenant Theology abuses the New Testament use of the Old Testament: “It has been shown several times that this is a major evidence Covenant Theologians use to prove that the Old Testament prophesies cannot be understood literally. They claim that the New Testament ‘changed’ the meaning of the Old Testament or ‘reinterpreted’ it” (Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, Israelology, Tustin: Ariel, 1994, 842).  Clearly the Roman Catholic, Covenant Theology, and newer evangelicals, employ the unbiblical sensus plenior. The Evangelical Dictionary of Theology makes a distinction between the primary and plenary sense of interpretation: “Since the Bible is the church’s book, a further context within which any part of it may be read is supplied by the whole of Christian history…The primary sense is what the author intended to convey, established by the grammaticohistorical method; but the plenary sense, provided it does not violate the primary sense, enriches the appreciation of the Bible both in the life of the church as a whole and in the personal experience of Christian men and women” (F. F. Bruce. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker, 567). The primary interpretation of a passage is not influenced by the whole of church history to arrive at a plenary sense.

Robert Thomas, however, writes about inspired sensus plenior application (ISPA). Again this issue has to do with how the New Testament uses the Old Testament. About this controversial subject, Zuck writes: “The use of the Old Testament in the New Testament is one of the most difficult aspects of Bible interpretation” (Roy Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation, page 250). There are times when the New Testament gives a sensus plenior or fuller meaning to Old Testament prophecies. When this happens, Thomas is quick to state that, this is not reading the New Testament back into the Old Testament and giving another meaning or interpretation to the Old Testament text, rather “it is an application  because it does not eradicate the literal meaning of the Old Testament passage but simply applies the Old Testament wording to a new setting” (page 242). Fruchtenbaum concurs: “A new application to an Old Testament text without denying that what the original said literally did or will happen” (page 843).  The New Tesatment 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 Thomas would call ISPA without violating the original and single interpretation of the Old Testament prophecies.

Interpretation Principle of Single Meaning, Part 2

Posted: June 13, 2009 in Book Reviews, Hermeneutics/Interpretation
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
3

Robert Thomas discusses and documents the following current evangelicals who have abandoned the classic interpretation principle of the single meaning of Scripture advocated by men like Milton S. Terry and Bernard Ramm: Clark Pinnock, Greg Beale, Grant Osborne, William Klein, Craig Blomberg, Robert Hubbard, Gordon Fee, James DeYoung, Sarah Hurty, Dan McCartney, Charles Clayton, Kenneth Gentry, Darrell Bock, Graig Blaising, and C. Marvin Pate (Robert L. Thomas. Evangelical Hermeneutics: The New Versus the Old, pages141-154). Grant Osborne ‘s interpretation of the two witnesses in Revelation 11 will illustrate the consequence of interpreting a text with multiple meanings. Osborne sees the two witnesses as individuals and also the future church. “Yet the rapture of these two witnesses pictures only the church, he says. One would ask, What happened to the two individuals?” (Robert, page 146).

Robert Thomas gives history’s first example of the grammatical-historical interpretation and the first person who rejected the single meaning principle. God commanded Adam in Genesis 2:16b-17 saying, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” Apparently Adam clearly understood what God said and meant and communicated that grammatical-historical interpretation to Eve. That certainly is the case because when the serpent tempted Eve, she repeated the single meaning of God’s statement to the serpent: “We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden: but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.” Thomas comments on this dialogue: “Eve’s hermeneutics were in great shape, as was God’s communicative effectiveness. She worded her repetition of God’s command slightly different from God’s recorded message to Adam, but God probably repeated His original command to Adam in several different ways. Genesis has not preserved a record of every word he spoke to Adam.”

The serpent, however, abandoning the single meaning of Scripture, said to Eve, “You shall not surely die. For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”  The serpent informed Eve that she had missed the deeper meaning or the sensus plenior of God’s Word. The predecessor of all who reject the single meaning of Scripture is quite infamous. My next post will discuss what is the sensus plenior meaning of Scripture.

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.