Disputations on Hermeneutics - 4B

Below is the expanded outline for covenantal hermeneutical structure.

Expanded Outline

I.        Theism—any Christian epistemological system must begin with the assumption that a Creator-god exists.

a.       Immanence—the Creator-god has spoken; He has revealed a “Word” that His creatures have the capacity of receiving through their physical senses.

                           i.      Primo Regnum—as a function of God having spoken, the Christian Theist must also assume that His special Word is revealed in the canonized scriptures alone.  Not that the scriptures are the only authority in the life of the believer, but that their right interpretations are the primary and final authority.  Not that every physically audible word of God, or vision or dream sent by God has been included in this collection of “Words”, but all of those Words necessary for  the life and godliness of believer is therein revealed.

II.     The Analogy of Faith – Use easily interpreted passages to guide your interpretation of difficult passages.  Because I can no more improve upon the definition of the analogy of faith than I could improve upon the definition of the Trinity, I have let several others speak to that end. 

a.       “Very much has been said both for and against the analogy of faith as a rule of interpretation.  I may safely add that on this subject, as well as many others, very much has been said amiss, for want of proper definitions.  What is the analogy of faith?  It is either simply scriptural or sectarian.  By scriptural analogy I mean, that the obvious and incontrovertible sense of clear passages of Scripture affords a rule, by which we may reason analogically concerning the meaning of obscure passages; or at least, by which we may show what obscure passages cannot mean.  E.g. God is a spirit, is omniscient, supreme, the Creator and Governor of all things, and are truths so plainly and incontrovertibly taught in the Scriptures, that all the passages which would seem to represent him as material, local, limited in his knowledge or power, and are to be interpreted agreeably to analogy with the former truths.  The same thing holds true of other doctrines taught in the same conspicuous manner.  We explain what is doubtful or obscure, by the application to it of what is plain.  This rule is not appropriate to the Scriptures only.  It is adopted by all good interpreters of profane authors.”—E. Henderson, “Elements of Biblical Criticism and Interpretation”.

b.       “A. 1) No part of Scripture should be interpreted in such a way as to place it in conflict with what is clearly taught elsewhere in Scripture.  2) No single statement or obscure passage in one book of Scripture should be allowed to set aside a doctrine which is clearly established by many passages in several books (e.g., 1 Cor. 15:29; Acts 2:38; 1 John 3:6).  D. 1) The analogy of faith does not mean that a statement in Scripture lacks authority unless it has support in other statements (cf. 1 Tim. 5:3ff.; 1 Cor. 11 and the Lord's Supper).  2) Neither can we set aside a legitimate inference from a statement of Scripture on the ground that the inference is unsupported by other parallel statements.  3) Therefore, unless a statement in Scripture is clearly excluded by several other equally explicit statements, one positive declaration of God's Word is sufficient to establish either a fact or a doctrine.”—Sam Storms, from his article called, “Hermeneutical Principles”.

c.       “The meaning of any single biblical statement is not contradictory to any teaching of other Scripture on the subject.  God’s Word, presumably, does not affirm and deny the same thing at the same time in the same respect.  So a verse should be taken in accord with the broader theological context.”—Gordon R. Lewis and Bruce A. Demarest, “Integrative Theology”, vol. 1.

d.       From these definitions we may conclude three things about the hermeneutical principle referred to as the “analogy of faith”:

                           i.      Those interpretations of obviously perspicuous passages should limit the possible interpretations of those passages whose interpretations are less clear.

                         ii.      The degree of obscurity of a passage’s interpretation proportionately limits its authority to preside over the likely interpretations of other passages.

                        iii.      Because God is its ultimate author, His Word does not contradict itself.

Therefore, the analogy of faith states that Scriptural passages that are obscure or difficult to apprehend, should have their anthology of feasible interpretations governed by the interpretation of those passages that lend themselves to an easier or simpler interpretation thus, this principle is the primary impetus of all systematic collections of Scriptural interpretations; the analogy of faith causes systematic theology, likewise systematic theologies should refer back to a diligent application of the analogy of faith to the entire canon of Scripture.

III.   Contextual Hierarchy – The over-arching context of the whole bible (the “meta-narrative” or big picture perspective of redemptive history should be used to tailor our understanding of the immediate contexts), then the context of each Testament or covenantal contexts, then the context of the book, or letter and its human authorship and chronology in respect to other writings of Revelation, then the context of the thought/concept of a passage or entire chapter (assuming the chapter delineation at hand is logical); the hierarchy progresses from the protracted context to the immediate context.

a.       Literary Genre – The type of literature by which the book or letter can be classified should help guide our understanding of symbols, types/shadows, parables, numbers, and prophesies (either their giving or fulfillment) i.e., historical narratives such as the gospel accounts of resurrection should be taken at face value, but apocalyptic literature when it presents visions such as dragons, lamp stands, 24 elders, etc, they may be symbols which represent something greater. The objects they represent either, could not have been understood if their future manifestation had been presented, or God has decided that the objects being represented are meant to be kept a mystery in part, until such a time when He sees fit to reveal their identity.  Note that the object being symbolized is normally a literal and real object.

IV.  Christocentricity of the Old and New Testament – Christ is the ultimate fulfillment of the types and shadows pictured in the Old Testament, so in that way, all the Old Testament points forward to Christ and not to a future manifestation of ethnic Israel, but Christ is the true Israel and those found “in Him” are true Israelites.

a.       Expanded Fulfillment - The fulfillment of Old Testament prophesies/promises which are found in the New Testament amplify/expand its Old Testament grammatical/historical understanding.  It can also be stated this way: the archetype > the antitype.

                           i.      The Object of Fulfillment > The Object of Promise – The degree to which the object of fulfillment is great than the object of promise is directly related to the amount of time between promise and fulfillment.  When a promise is made, the object of promise is always, to some degree, a shadow or type of the object of fulfillment; so if the fulfillment of a promise is limited to its "literal" or grammatical/historical manifestation, then it isn't as illustrative of God's goodness.  If the quality of the object of fulfillment is to be accurately represented by the object of promise, the object of fulfillment cannot always be limited to its promised grammatical/historical manifestation.