Hermeneutics Basics

A couple of key things I forgot to post yesterday:

“Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.” 2 Tim 2:15

This implies what we know is painfully obvious…..that Scripture can and often is handled inaccurately. Which is why we must use exacting procedures to interpret it properly. This in no way questions the perspicuity (clarity) of the Bible. It’s message can be understood by a small child. But to plumb the depths of God’s word requires diligent effort.

We’re in good company. Even Peter had some difficulty with parts of the Scripture:

“…our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all {his} letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as {they do} also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.” 2 Pet 3:15-16

I'm on the 3C discussion list, and have been discussing these issues with a couple of self-professed atheists. This is precisely what I see them doing. They're untaught, so they distort the message, but yet feel free to pontificate on Scriptural truth, setting themselves as spokesmen for God.....a God they refuse to acknowledge!

Be encouraged!

Hermeneutics 101

Some notes I used when I taught hermeneutics; bear with me, I didn't take the time to edit/format this....

General Principles of Hermeneutics

1. Beginning at the beginning.

As one begins a study of hermeneutics, one needs to have a set of definitions of the terms used throughout the course.

A. Hermeneutics

“The science that teaches us the principles, laws, and methods of interpretation.” Louis Berkhof, Principles of Interpretation.

“Both the science and art of interpretation…interpretation has to do with meaning…meaning has to do with the core of man’s thinking.” Berkely Mickelsen, Interpreting the Bible.

B. Interpret

To explain the meaning of.

To expound the significance of.

To represent or render the meaning of, especially through artistic performance. American Heritage Dictionary.

“A person has interpreted the thoughts of another when he has in his own mind a correct reproduction or photograph of the thought as it was conceived in the mind of the original writer or speaker. It is a purely reproductive process, involving no originality of thought on the part of the interpreter.” International Standard Bible Encyclopedia.

You can see that interpretation deals with the thoughts of another person. These thoughts were expressed in another language and at another time. Therefore, it can be assumed that some kind of communications barrier exists which must be removed. This conclusion leads us to a definition of biblical hermeneutics which reflects the fact that we are dealing with both an art and a science in regard to both the meaning and interpretation of the Scripture. Therefore, we can conclude that biblical hermeneutics is:

“The systematic study of the principles, laws and methods necessary for the explanation of the Biblical authors’ originally intended meaning combined with the development of skillful performance through observation, study, and experience.” Paul Wright.

1. It is assumed for the sake of this course that we all believe in the Verbal Plenary Inspiration of the Scriptures. Verbal Plenary Inspiration means “The work of God, through the operation of the Holy Spirit, whereby the human authors of Scripture were divinely superintended in the writing of the original manuscripts of Scripture, without violation of their personalities, vocabularies, environments, and literary styles, so that these manuscripts were divinely authoritative, infallible and inerrant revelation from God.” Paul Wright.

Plenary – “full, complete, absolute”

Infallible – incapable of erring

Inerrant – free from errors

II. Presuppositions for Biblical Hermeneutics

A. Presupposition #1: Because the Bible was written by human authors, we interpret it as we interpret any other book written by human authors.

This means we are concerned with language, especially the original biblical languages – Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek. Therefore, we must hold that the original languages have priority in any dispute concerning meaning. Furthermore, since not everyone has studied the original languages, we must also ask the question “How accurate is the translation being used?” It is equally important to pay attention to grammatical areas such as the order, structure, and meanings of words. To understand what God has revealed we must pay close attention to human language and its rules

Secondly, we are concerned with history, especially in relation to the time and culture of the biblical authors. This involves the pursuit of historical disciplines as well as knowledge of the geographical features found in the biblical narratives.

Thirdly, the works of the biblical authors have been carefully crafted. The biblical books demonstrate the editorial intent, ingenious structure, and conformity to principles of fine literature that are expected in any great literary work.

This approach to hermeneutics is known as a grammatical-historical-literary approach to interpretation.

B. Presupposition #2: Because the Bible is written by God the Holy Spirit, we interpret it as we interpret no other book written by human authors.

The meaning that the human authors of Scripture intended is the meaning that God intended. Though the Scriptures flowed from the pens of diverse, unique human authors, the words of Scripture flow from the mouth of God. Therefore, we must possess the illuminating and teaching ministry of the Holy Spirit if we desire to understand the revelation of God found in the Scriptures (Jn 16:12-15)

We must also recognize that since God is the author of Scripture, then there is unity to all Scripture. There are no contradictions in Scripture. There are paradoxes, but the problem is not the Scripture, the problem is the finite and fallen mind of man. Because all Scripture is unified and written by the same Holy Spirit, Scripture interprets Scripture.

Finally, we must recognize and acknowledge the authority of Scripture in our own lives. The Word of God is always relevant and actively judges our thoughts and attitudes (Heb 4:12)

Therefore, when we study the Bible, our personal attitude is supremely important. We must be prepared to expect an unrsesolvable tension between the two natures of Scripture (human and divine).

II – General Principles (Protestant Biblical Interpretation. Bernard Ramm)

1. Original languages have priority

2. God’s self-disclosure to man is necessarily anthropomorphic. (Having or suggesting human form and appearance; ascribing human motivation, characteristics, or behavior to inanimate objects, animals, or natural phenomena.)

3. God’s self disclosure to man is progressive, not evolutionary. It does not become more complex, it becomes more fully revealed.

4. Interpretation of any passage of Scripture must be characterized by historical propriety (Moses would not know of crucifixion). Scripture had intelligible meaning to its original hearers/readers.

5. The interpreter must be willing to follow the rabbinic rule. “Teach thy tongue to say, ‘I do not know.’”

6. Interpretation of Scripture is prior to application.

7. The interpreter must constantly check his conclusions against the conclusions of others, (scientists, historians, creeds, commentators), in order to avoid personal blind spots.

8. The interpreter must constantly guard against eisegesis (reading into the text) by consistently approaching the text inductively.

9. The clear and rational interpretation of Scripture is to be preferred above the obscure and improbable. Obscure and difficult passages must give way before clear passages.

10. Interpretation must allow for the unity of Scripture, i.e. the analogy of faith. Scripture interprets Scripture.

11. The law of contradiction must be observed; passages of Scripture cannot have meanings that are contradictory to each other.

12. The interpretation of Scripture demands the study of words and grammar.

13. The interpretation of Scripture must observe the following contexts:

a. Cultural – point in time and place

b. Context immediately preceding and following

c. specific book in which passage occurs

d. whole corpus of the author being studied

e. whole Bible

14. The interpretation of Scripture considers the literary mold or genre of the passage being studied.

15. Literal (what the author intended), or grammatical-historical – literary interpretation allows for and includes the use of figurative language.

Dispensational Premillennialism vs. Amillennialism

I don’t know how it came up, but the issue of John MacArthur’s address at the 2007 Shepherd’s conference has been on my radar lately. So I listened to it again, as well as his six part series he preached shortly thereafter entitled “Why every Calvinist should be a Premillennialist.” I then listened to Kim Riddlebarger’s five part series presenting the Amillennial view. I would ask anyone interested in this to carefully listen to both presentations and determine for yourself who makes a stronger Biblical case.

A few highlights:

- Riddlebarger admits both sides have their problems; the issue is which side better deals with the Biblical data with the least amount of tweaking. MacArthur nowhere makes a similar admission. In fact, he ridicules the other positions. Not helpful.

- The bottom line issue is hermeneutics. To their credit, both sides present this with abundant clarity. One side’s interpretive grid is Israel; the other side’s is Christ. One side interprets all OT Scriptures “literally”; the other side says you must interpret using standard hermeneutical principles. One side says you must interpret the OT at face value. The other side says you must interpret the OT in light of the coming of Christ, and the NT. One side says you must never “spiritualize” (whatever that means) any given text. The other side says you must let Christ and the Apostles tell us what the OT means. A quick example – I was reading 1 Pet 2:9 yesterday, and Peter does precisely what Mac and other dispensationalists say must not be done; he applies an OT passage to the church that was originally meant for Israel (Ex 19:6). There are many other such examples in the NT.

- MacArthur’s presentation has led me to conclude he either doesn’t understand Amillennialism, or he’s purposely misrepresenting it. Since I believe he’s a man of great integrity, I believe it’s the former, not the latter.

- Riddlebarger has somewhat of an advantage in that like many of us (me included), he’s a former dispensationalist. Mac has never been anything other than a dispensationalist, which may explain his failure to fully understand the Amillennial position.

- Mac doesn’t deal with true Amillennialism. He repeatedly equates it with “replacement theology.” While it’s true some past scholars (he quotes Ridderbos) have held the view that the church replaces Israel, I think that’s more an issue of imprecise language than a full orbed theological viewpoint. I know of no reformed Amillennialist who holds this position. Riddlebarger correctly points this out.

- Mac interacts considerably with Barry Horner’s book “Future Israel.” I’ve read the book, and I need to re-read it, but I believe it’s the most effective and hard-hitting book I’ve ever read by a dispensationalist. But it’s also potentially dangerous, as it plays the “anti-Semitism” card like no other book I’ve read. Although Horner softens the language, his point is clear – to be Amillennial is tantamount to being anti-Semitic. While that may have been true prior to the Reformation (when the true church was largely underground), it is true today of only a tiny minority of reformed Christians. That doesn’t stop Horner from wielding his broad brush! It distresses me greatly that a man of MacArthur’s stature is more than willing to align himself with Horner. Horner has skillfully built a strawman, and spends several hundred pages knocking it down. No wonder Sam Waldron wanted to throw the book across the room!

If interested in a critique of the Shepherd’s conf lecture, take a look at this. This states if far better than I can.

My wife has asked me why I’m so spun up about this. I guess it’s because I’m stunned Mac has so grossly misrepresented/misunderstood the Amil position, and I’m upset that Amillers are labeled anti-Semitic. Nothing could be further from the truth.

As I’ve already said, the bottom-line issue is hermeneutics. If you interpret the OT “literally”, you’ll come up with a Israel-centric understanding of redemption. My question – is that legitimate? Is that what God’s plan of redemption is all about? I’ve been told Carson and Beale’s book “Commentary on the NT use of the OT” is a must have, and helpful in this area. It’s on my wish list.

NCT, Matt 5:17-48, and Matt 15:1-9

While reading Matt 15 this morning, I noticed in confronting the scribes and Pharisees, Jesus specifically addressed their twisting of the Mosaic Law, not the Law itself. I find that interesting, because in Matt 5:17-48, John Reisinger claims Jesus was specifically addressing the Mosaic Law itself, not the twisting of the Mosaic Law. While Reisinger’s view is possible, it’s highly unlikely. First, his position is held by only a tiny minority of scholars. Now, that doesn’t make him wrong, but it does suggest he’s probably wrong. Conservative scholars overwhelmingly disagree with his view, and believe Jesus was dealing with the perversion of the Mosaic Law in Matt 5, just as He was in Matt 15. Second, Matt 5:43 presents a major challenge for those holding to Reisinger’s view. Jesus said “"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy. The problem is these words are never uttered in the OT. Never. Reisinger believes Jesus was dealing with the Mosaic Law, not a twisting of it by the Pharisees and scribes. Therefore, these words or at least this concept must be found in the OT. They aren’t. When I came to the section of his book dealing with this passage, I was expecting to see some cogent explanation. There was none to be found. Reisinger claims this concept comes from Deut 23:3-6, but a quick examination will show that isn’t the case. He wrote two sentences attempting to show v43 was describing the attitude the Israelite was to have towards an Ammonite; he didn’t even acknowledge the problem. Finally, in light of Matt 15, Reisinger’s view just doesn’t make sense. Why would Jesus suddenly shift gears like this?

I admit I still have much to learn about this, but this sounds like a desperate attempt to de-link the Mosaic Law from the NT, as if the Law and the Decalogue in particular, is somehow evil. I understand most of the Law has been abrogated. I understand its primary use for the Christian is Gal 3:24 “Therefore the Law has become our tutor {to lead us} to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith.” But I don’t understand such haphazard handling of the Scripture.

What’s up with John Piper?

Got a card in the mail a couple of weeks ago about the 2009 Desiring God annual conference. I was unfamiliar with some of the speakers Piper had lined up, but one I was somewhat familiar with…..and very surprised. A gentleman named Doug Wilson.

I used to be on Wilson’s Credenda Agenda mailing list, and I’ve always understood Wilson to be somewhat on the fringe of Reformed orthodoxy. A far bigger problem is Wilson’s connection with the Federal Vision/Auburn Avenue theology movement. Bottom line, whatever you think of him, Wilson comes with a lot of baggage. So the question is, why did Piper invite him to share the pulpit with him? This really has me scratching my head. There are so many fine scholars around that don’t have Wilson’s problems. So why did Piper do this?

I like Piper a lot. I own many of his books. I subscribe to his podcast. He’s a giant in contemporary evangelicalism. A real rock star in our movement. His ministry has been richly blessed by God. He has been steadfast in his defense of the Scripture, and is one of our finest expositional preachers. But I admit, I’ve always been a little uncomfortable with him. I usually attribute that to the fact he is so emotional……complete opposite of myself. But I’ve always been a little uneasy about a few things:

- His Fuller Seminary connection, Dan Fuller in particular.

- Sharing his pulpit with Mark Driscoll. Driscoll has problems, but not nearly as serious as those presented by Wilson.

- His absolutist position on marriage and divorce

And now sharing the pulpit with Doug Wilson – the strangest thing of all. I don’t get it.

Kursk

For you military historians, 66 years ago today the battle of Kursk began.  It was fought on the Eastern Front between Germany and the Soviet Union, and was the greatest tank battle in history.  You read about it, and it’s hard to believe.

Current Reading/Listening

I’m currently reading “The Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses” by Vern Poythress.  Poythress is fine scholar and writer. His “Understanding Dispensationalists” is a must read, and has helped me considerably.

The thing I find attractive about CT vs NCT is CT seems to acknowledge the continuity between the OT and NT; the plan of redemption is continuous.  I know I’m overstating this, but NCT seems to want to slice and dice the plan of redemption. 

I think some NCT brethren are a bit concerned that reformed baptists are going to fall into the clutches of the presbyterians. It’s not going to happen.  There is a fundamental difference between RBs and presbyterians, and it’s enormous. Who is included as a member of the New Covenant?  RBs are steadfast – only believers are in the New Covenant, which is why we’re credobaptists. That is a chasm that cannot be bridged.

I’m also reading the latest installment in the NAC Studies in Bible and Theology Series - “That You May Know.”  I’ve read all the books in this series so far, and all have been very good, some superb.  I’ll keep buying them.

The IPOD is a great invention. I subscribe to their podcast and automatically download MacArthur and Piper’s sermons, and Sproul’s “Renewing Your Mind”, and listen to them at the gym while working out.  I just subscribed to Horton’s “White Horse Inn” today also.  Also, just finished listening to a 12 part series by Lee Irons the theology of Meredith Kline. I burned ‘em to a CD and listened to it in the car while I was road tripping. Great stuff…..

Health Woes

I noticed a couple of weeks ago my heart suddenly started beating strangely.  I went to the doc, and he told me I had atrial fibrilation, and was so concerned, he made an appointment to see a cardiologist.  To make a long story short, a TEE and cardioversion took care of it on 2 July, but I had A-fib for 10 days, and I had all the symptoms – fatigue, weakness, lightheadedness, and just generally felt lousy.  I hope it doesn’t come back.  I’m wondering why it happened in the first place.  I see the cardiologist again on Friday, and I’m hoping he can tell me something.  One possibility is stimulants; the only stimulant I ingest is caffeine, and I drink a lot of coffee. Or I should say I used to. I cut way back a few days ago; I needed to anyway.

It’s ironic. I watch what I eat, exercise a lot, don’t smoke or drink, but still, I get ill. Another reminder that God is in control.

NCT, The Sabbath, etc.

Really wondering about New Covenant Theology.  Don’t really get it, so I’ve been reading some material.  I recently finished John Reisinger’s latest book on the subj entitled “In defense of Jesus.”  He wrote it to counter Rich Barcellos’ book “In Defense of the Decalogue” .  I was generally disappointed.  The booked seemed to me to be not only shoddy, but mean-spirited.   Some years ago, Barcellos wrote an article in Table Talk in which he criticized NCT in general, and Reisinger in particular, referring to him as “antinomian.”  I wish Barcellos hadn’t done that, but I understand why many believe NCT to be at it’s core antinomian, or at least lead to antinomianism.  Anyway, the book did nothing to persuade me to abandon Covenant Theology in favor of NCT.

NCT is anti-Sabbatarian, and generally opposed to the tripartite division of the law.  They believe the 10 Commandments have been fulfilled by Christ (no argument there), and therefore have been rescinded.  But they believe nine of the 10 are still in effect, because they’ve been repeated in the NT, the only exception being the 4th, which is about the Sabbath.  Of course, you can only arrive at this point if you believe something from the OT has to be repeated in the NT in order to still be in effect.  I think that’s a flawed hermeneutic, and I’m not sure where this comes from.

My Pastor just preached about the Sabbath, and while it was a fine presentation, it was still unpersuasive, as it didn’t deal with the central hermeneutical (to me) problem. More later.