Posts Tagged ‘Robert Thomas’

Is There a Difference Between Normative and Progressive Dispensationalism? Part 2

Posted: November 15, 2012 in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
2

Robert Thomas exposes the gradual departure of PD from what has traditional been called the “grammatical-historical” hermeneutic. Now PD refers to the “historical-grammatical-literary-theological” hermeneutic. “Recent additions that differentiate the hermeneutics of PD from traditional dispensational hermeneutics include rhetorical and literary matters, the history of interpretation, the matter of tradition, and the historical context of the interpreter….It emphasizes the subjective element in its reasoning and hence is more provisional in its conclusion” (Robert Thomas, A Critique of Progressive Dispensational Hermeneutics, page 416).

Robert Lightner sounds the alarm saying the complementary hermeneutics is not the same as progressive revelation. “By progressive revelation, I mean the gradual unfolding of God’s truth throughout history as recorded in Scripture. In other words, progressive revelation emphasizes more development or enlargement of early truth than was given in the OT…. In complementary hermeneutic, the emphasis is on change” (Progressive Dispensationalism page 4).

With the Davidic covenant, PD changes the recipients of the covenant from Israel to include the Church. PD changes the place of fulfillment from earth, as stated in 2 Samuel 7) to heaven (now) and earth (in the millennium).

This is where PD borrows from George A. Ladd, a covenant premillennialists, the “already/not yet” hermeneutic that puts PD on its way toward Covenant Theology.

In PD the kingdom has not been postponed and the Church is not a parenthesis. “Turner, however, has called the New Israel, the Church. (David) Turner is a professor at the seminary in Grand Rapids….Neither is the Church viewed as a mystery completely unrevealed in the Old Testament. It’s simply unrealized there. It’s there, but just not recognized, according to Bob Saucy….Bock says, the Church is called, ‘a sneak preview of the kingdom.’ The kingdom is the Church is the kingdom today, says Bock” (Robert Lightner, Progressive Dispensationalism, page 6-7).

Dr. Mike Stallard illustrates how PD uses verbal analogy to come to the conclusion that the Messianic reign of Christ was inaugurated in Acts 2. By verbal analogy “is meant that various passages are linked by associating words that are common to both passages.  In Acts 2:24, the fact that Jesus was ‘raised up’ from the dead is associated with the fact that God promised David in 2 Sam. 7:12 that He would ‘raise up’ from history a descendent to sit on his throne.  In spite of the fact that the idea of ‘raising up’ is not equivalent in the passages, the similarity of language is used to link the two passages and justify the pouring of the Davidic Covenant into Acts 2…. Traditionalists remain unconvinced that such exegetical conclusions really reveal the genuine development of the biblical theme of the Davidic kingdom.” (Progressive Dispensationalism, page 8).

 

“The doctrine of the pre-tribulational rapture and the associated idea of immanency reinforce in the mind of the traditionalist the distinction between Israel and the Church, one of the essential principles he holds. Based on the rapture question as well as other areas of the debate, the traditionalists feel that this distinction has been unduly diminished’ (Dr. Mike Stallard, Progressive Dispensationalism, page 9).

This is another evidence that PD is moving closer to Covenant Theology which totally rejects a pre-tribulation rapture because of its confusion of the Church with Israel.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The New Jerusalem or Heaven on Earth (Revelation 21-22) Part Two

Posted: January 25, 2012 in End Time Events, Sermons
Tags: , , , , , , ,
0

Now the angel giving John and us the guided tour takes us through the gates of pearl into the City to continue our worship and wonder at God’s greatness.

I. The New Jerusalem Described Externally (21:10-20) This is the aerial view.

II. The City is now Internally Described (21:21-22:5). Not only is God a master architect but He is also a skillful Interior Designer.

A. Streets of Gold (21:21)

What men die for and sacrifice health and family for (gold) will be asphalt in Heaven. The gold is transparent so that we can see through it but more importantly so that God’s glory can shine through it. Our eternal focus will not be on any literal material. Nothing in the City draws attention to itself. It is just a means for us to worship God.

This is no argument against the literalness of the City. My gold wedding ring which is never ending until broken by some outside force symbolizes my commitment to my wife till death us do part.

B. No Temple (21:22) or central place of worship as in the OT and NT

Now the entire City is the temple filled with God’s presence. We don’t go to worship as with other central places of worship because we are always in the presence of God to worship. The whole City has become the Holy of Holies.

The Shekinah glory that filled the Holy of Holies once a year will in eternity penetrate every corner in The New Jerusalem constantly.

C. No Need of the Sun (21:23)

Because there is no night the gates are never closed. Even Disneyland, “the happiest place on earth” closes its gates at night.  All who would disturb the city, all those who love darkness rather than light are now in the Lake of Fire (21:27).

D. River of Life (22:1-2a)

The River of Life constantly flows down from the throne of God right through main street symbolizing our never ending eternal life. This river of life is also crystal clear so we are not awestruck with this cascading waterfall as if we were standing at Niagara Falls.

The River of Life originates in the throne of God. There is no submersible pump continuously recycling the River of Life. The River of Life forever reminds us that our salvation also originated with God and is eternal.

E. Tree of Life (22:2b)

The Tree of Life spans the street of gold through which the River of life flows. The Tree of Life provides 12 different kinds of fruit each month for our enjoyment not preservation. This is perhaps is a reminder that God has given us “all things richly to enjoy” (1 Timothy 6:17) so that we unceasingly praise Him for all of His unspeakable gifts.

Not only does the fruit symbolize the luxuries of Heaven, but the leaves picture our eternal wellbeing. The River of Life symbolizes our eternal life while the leaves symbolize our eternal wholeness which includes physical as well as mental and emotions.

Joni Eareckson Tada, a quadriplegic, wrote of speaking to a class of mentally handicapped Christians. They thought it was great when she said she was going to get a new body. But when she added, “And you are going to get new minds,” they broke out into applause. They knew of their unique struggle; they knew of their limitations. Heaven offered for them unique healing.

Joni wrote further, “I still can hardly believe that I, with shriveled, bent fingers, atrophied muscles, gnarled knees and no feeling from the shoulders down, will one day have a new body – light, bright, clothed in righteousness, powerful and dazzling. Can you imagine the hope this gives someone like me? Or someone who is cerebral palsied, brain-injured, or who has multiple sclerosis. Imagine the hope this gives someone who is manic-depressive. No other religion, no other philosophy literally promises new bodies, new hearts, [new emotions] and new minds. Only in the gospel of Christ do hurting people find such incredible [promise] (Randy Alcorn, Heaven, p. 286).

The therapeutic leaves reminds that one day “God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away” (Revelation 21:4).

F. Worship at the Throne (22:3-5)

So far in our tour of God’s City we have seen God’s glory penetrating through clear, diamond like walls that surround a transparent gold city and a crystal clear River of Life.

But now grand finale and the crescendo are reached in 22:4: “We shall see His face.” This is the text on which Charles Spurgeon preached a sermon entitled the Heaven in Heaven. This stands in contrast with John’s first statement of this subject in John 1:18, “No man has seen God at anytime.”

What Moses in his natural body was not permitted we in eternity in our resurrected and glorified bodies will be allowed.

Jesus promised, “Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God.”

This is what suffering Job longed for, “though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God.”

Walvoord believes seeing of God is behold His glory: “Immediate access to the glory of God will characterize the saints in the eternal state….The fact that they shall see His face demonstrates beyond question that these are glorified saints (1 John 3:2)” (The Revelation of Jesus Christ, p. 332).

MacArthur similarly writes: “The saints in the New Jerusalem will also see God’s face. Being perfectly holy and righteous, they will be able to endure the heavenly level of the glorious light from God’s presence without being consumed—something impossible for humans on earth (Exodus 33:20) (Because the Time is Near, p. 327).

“Viewing the glory of God is a limited privilege in the here and now but barriers will disappear when the redeemed enter the bride-city” (Robert Thomas, Revelation 8-22, p. 487).

“This seeing of God ‘face to face’ has been called the beatific vision, meaning ‘the vision that makes us blessed or happy’. To look at God changes us and makes us like him: ‘We shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is’ (1 John 3:2). This vision of God will be the consummation of our knowing God and will give us full delight and joy all eternity: ‘in your presence there is fulness of joy, in your right hand are pleasures for evermore’” (Ps. 16:11) (Grudem, p. 190).

Now we have access to God’s presence through prayer but then we will talk with Him face to face in His unfiltered and spectacular glory.

Amillennialism and Revelation 20

Posted: March 26, 2010 in End Time Events, Preterism
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
21

R. C. Sproul gives an overview of the millennial views. He formerly was amillennial but more recently has changed to preterism.This video series is based on his book The Last Days according to Jesus. Walvoord defines amillennialism in his introduction to Revelation 20: “The amillennial interpretation is essentially a denial that there will be a millennial reign of Christ after His second advent. It is amillennial or nonmillennial because it denies such a literal reign of Christ on earth” (The Revelation of Jesus Christ, page 284). Walvoord divides amillennialism into different subdivisions.

The Historic Augustinian form of Amillennialism

The impact of Augustine on eschatology is noted by Pentecost: “With the contribution of Augustine to theological thinking amillennialism came into prominence. While Origen laid the foundation in establishing the non-literal method of interpretation, it was Augustine who systematized the non-literal view of the millennium into what is now known as amillennialism” (Things To Come, page 381). Augustine’s false view of eschatology arose out of his false view of ecclesiology.

In Augustines’s The City of God, Augustine taught that the visible church was the Kingdom of God on earth. In addition to spiritualizing Israel into the church, Augustine spiritualized away the millennium into the inter-advent period between the two advents of Christ.

In reference to Revelation 20, Augustine believed that verses 1-6 were a recapitulation of the preceding chapters rather than a chronological sequence that follows the events of chapter 19. Augustine also interpreted the first resurrection of 20:4-6 as the new birth of believers in this age. He believed the 1000 year millennium would end around AD 650 (Oswald T. Allis, Prophecy and the Church, page 3).

Like Walvoord, Pentecost divides amillennialism into two camps. Augustinian amillennialism is held to by Roman Catholicism because they view the reign of Christ over the kingdom in His church on earth. This is the amillennialism of Berkhof.

The B. B. Warfield form of Amillennialism

B.B. Warfield believed the present reign of Christ is not over saints on earth as Augustine believed and later the Roman Catholic Church, but the present reign of Christ is over believers in heaven.

Amillennial problem with a literal 1000 years in Revelation 20

The number for the length of the millennium is stated six times in Revelation 20:1-7. Whether the amillennialists are in the Augustine or Warfield camp, they reject a literal interpretation of “a thousand years” (chilia ete) and allegorize the numbers to mean an undetermined, extended length of time between the two advents of Christ.

The first use of the definite time designation in Revelation 20 is used to describe the length of time Satan will be bound in the abyss. Robert Thomas answers the amillennialist’s interpretation of this 1000 year binding as not literal but a restriction of the influence of Satan today. “The account of 20:1-3 tells of a removal from the earth that keeps him from pursuing these activities any longer. The only way one could view Satan as bound before a time in the future would be to construe his binding as a restriction of his activity, not a cessation of it. Confinement to the abyss, however, requires a complete termination of his activity in the sphere of the earth. To date this has never happened. The uniform testimony of the NT is that Satan is not bound during the period between Christ’s two advents” (Revelation 8-22, page 404). Apparently Peter did not think the Devil was bound or restricted in his influence according to 1Peter 5:8 “Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walks about, seeking whom he may devour.”

A typical argument for rejecting the 1000 years as literal is voiced by Vaughan: “I am not aware of any instance in which that particular duration (one thousand years) is used in Scripture literally. We are all familiar with the phrase, A thousand years in Thy sight are but as yesterday. One day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The application of the expressions is always vague, not strict: it denotes a period protracted, prolonged, but indefinite” (C. J. Vaughan, Lectures on the Revelation of John, page 215-216).

Thomas refutes this objection: “This view looks to 2 Pet. 3:8 for support, but 2 Pet. 3:8 along with Ps. 90:4 states the very opposite. ‘A thousand years’ in these two verses refers to a literal thousand years. To say that the period with man is only one day with God, does not deny that it is actually a thousand years with God too. The point is that time does not limit an eternal God, not that He is ignorant of what time means with man” (Revelation 8-22, page 407).

Had John wanted to describe the millennium as an indefinite period, he could have just done as he described the time of Satan’s release from the pit as an indefinite (micron chronon, “a little season”). But instead, John chose to a definite time designation.

Amillennialists say the numbers in Revelation are symbolic therefore the 1000 years in Revelation 20 must also be interpreted figuratively as a very long and indefinite period. Thomas makes this claim that “confirmation of a single number in Revelation as symbolic is impossible….If the writer wanted a very large symbolic number, why did he not use 144,000 (7:1 ff.; 14:1 ff.) 200,000 (9:16), “ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands of thousands” (5:11), or any incalculably large number (7:9)? The fact is that no number in Revelation is verifiably a symbolic number” (Revelation 8-22, page 408, 409).

Amillennial problem with this First Resurrection

The amillennialists interpret the first resurrection of Revelation 20:4-6 as a spiritual resurrection or the new birth experience. Dr. Bowman in his unpublished notes deals with two important words in Revelation 20 that disprove this view.

The first word is the verb “lived” (Gr. ezesan). In Revelation 20:4, the text says that tribulation believers were martyred for Christ at the first resurrection “lived” which is an ingressive aorist which means that they lived again. The verb is used of physical resurrection (Revelation 1:18; 2:8; 13:14; 20:5). These in Revelation 20:4 died for Jesus so they could not experience a spiritual resurrection because they were already saved before they came to life again.

The second important word is the noun “resurrection” (Gr. anastasis). The noun is used of both resurrections (cf. John 5:29). So, if one is physical the other must also be physical (cf. Revelation 20:4-6).

Amillennial problem with The Great White Throne

Dr. Bowman also in his unpublished notes for Advanced Eschatology refutes the amillennial belief in a general judgment. “Amillennialists believe the Great White Throne judgment (Revelation 20:11-15) is the same judgment of sheep and goats in Matthew 25:31-46. This judgment will be at the second advent (Floyd E. Hamilton—The Basis of Millennial Faith, pp. 70-85). It is very doubtful if ta ethne (the nations) in Matthew 25:31-46includes Jews. Hamiltion says the term is elastic enough to include Jews (Ibid, 80). But “my brethren” must be Jews as they are not in this judgment. Thus, “the nations” must be living Gentiles judged at the second advent (cf. ta ethne in Matthew 28:19; Romans 16:26; Revelation 14:8; 20:3). Ta ethne is never used of ‘the dead’ so the sheep and goat account cannot synchronize with the G.W.T. account (George N. H. Peters, The Theocratic Kingdom II, 372-84).

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).

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 2

Posted: June 27, 2009 in Book Reviews, Hermeneutics/Interpretation
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
5

Why are some denominations ordaining women as pastors and deacons? Because of an evangelical feminist hermeneutic.

We continue our review of Paul W. Felix’s discussion of  seven principles of evangelical feminist hermeneutics which contradict evangelical grammatical-historical hermeneutics. The first two are covered in the first post.

 1. The Principle of Ad Hoc Documents

2. The Principle of an Interpretive Center

3. The Principle of the Analogy of Faith

The Roman Catholic Church invented this principle to force all teachings of Scripture to conform to the dogma of the RCC. The feminist version says clear passages, like Galatians 3:25, should interpret obscure texts like 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 and 1 Timothy 2:11-15. “The principle of the analogy of faith is valid, but not when it is brought into the interpretation process too early, as evangelical feminists tend to do.” The analogy of faith, or as Ramm describes it “Scriptures interpreting Scriptures” should serve as a “double check” after the exegesis of a passage is complete.

4. The Principle of Slavery as a Model

The advocates of this principle say that there are parallels in Scripture between the subordination of the slave/master relationship and the wife/husband and just as slavery was wrong and eventually overcome so must the submission of women to male leadership be overturned.

There are two problems with this view. First, “The existence of slavery is not rooted in any creation ordinance, but the existence of marriage is.” Submission of women to male leadership is linked to creation in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 and 1Timothy 2:11-15. In other words, male leadership was not just a first century cultural issue. Second, Paul in Philemon laid down instructions, if followed, would obliterate slavery.

5. The Principle of Culturally Biased Interpretation

This principle says we cannot objectively interpret Scripture and therefore we have the complimentarian view. “The view of the mythological nature of objective interpretation is contrary to the traditional grammatical-historical method of interpretation.” It is not only possible but necessary to push aside our preunderstandings and follow the rules of interpretation.

6. The Principle of Cultural Relativity

In this principle the issue is not interpretation but application. Gordon W. Fee agrees that 1Timothy 2:11-15 teaches male leadership in the local church but it was ad hoc and not relevant today. So the debate is between what is a timeless and normative principle and what is only a transient principle for just the 1st century.

J. Robertson McQuilkin’s view better reflects 2 Timothy 3:16 which states that “all Scripture is inspired and profitable.” McQuilkin writes: “My thesis is that a fully authoritative Bible means that every teaching in Scripture is universal unless Scripture itself treats it as limited.” Nowhere does Scripture limited the instructions of 1 Timothy 2:11-15.

7. Principle of Patriarchal and Sexist Texts

D. M. Scholer voices this view: “Evangelical feminist hermeneutics must face patriarchal and sexist texts and assumptions within biblical passages and understand them precisely as limited texts and assumptions.”

Scholer’s comments on 1Timothy 5:3-16 illustrate his bias in hermeneutics: “I submit again that the assumption behind this view is a view of sexuality that probably none of us really share or would admit to sharing. Again, it is rooted in the assumption that women are sexually irresponsible. If a 59-year-old or younger widow does not remarry the odds are very great that she will follow Satan.”  Paul is only giving the local church guidelines for helping widows. These guidelines are for the good of the widows and the local church. There is nothing sexist about them.

Felix responds: “This hermeneutical principle allows him to affirm evangelical feminism by limiting the passages that speak against it.” This principle is wrong because it accuses the apostle Paul of writing error instead of writing inspired, inerrant, and authoritative Scripture.

The evangelical feminist hermeneutic is clearly at odds with the evangelical grammatical-historical method of interpretation. The Feminist movement of the 60s and 70s corrected many abuses against women for which we are grateful. It also overreacted and created unbiblical attitudes such as a woman’s right of abortion. These cultural attitudes crept into the church and produced the evangelical feminist hermeneutic which likewise is unbiblical.

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.

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.

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.

Older Entries