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.

Disputations on Hermeneutics - 4A

Below is the expanded outline for the dispensational 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.            Scripture Interprets Scripture—some may question how this is a principle distinctive to Dispensationalism, but if one compares the two outlines I have laid out in this section; he would see that I’ve contrasted this principle with the analogy of faith on the Reformed side.  The analogy of faith seems to carry with it, the ideas of: the  observable Christocentricity of the Old testament, the assumption that latter special revelation must be used to help interpret former special, and all general revelation, especially when it concerns promise/fulfillment, and “prophecy > revealing > understanding” schemes.

III.            Internal & Exclusive Grammatical/Historical Priority of the Old Testament—this is the idea that the meaning of a prophesy or the object of a promise given in the Old Testament is dictated exclusively by the words with which it was given, and how they were understood in their historical context; and by necessity, any interpretation of  the fulfillment of a prophesy or any concept of the object of a promise taken from the New Testament that seems to expand or amplify what seemed apparent about the  Old Testament prophesy/promise is wrong.

a.       Distinction between Israel and the Church—the hub of Dispensational theology is that, spiritual Israel and the Church are now and always viewed as two separate peoples of God.

                           i.      Literalism—a major guiding principle in Dispensational Theology is the view that states that, unless otherwise expressly told differently within the immediate context of a passage, the grammatical/historical understanding of a prophesy/promise given, is its only possible fulfillment; the object of promise and the object of fulfillment are always the same.  If an Old Testament prophesy is ever “expanded” in the New Testament that expansion can never negate, trump or “explain away” the grammatical/historical understanding of those prophesies.  This “literal” hermeneutical presupposition, as the dispensationalist would call it, serves as the rim of the wheel of the dispensational interpretive framework.

                         ii.      The promises God made to Abraham (and subsequently to ethnic Israel) are only ever meant to be fulfilled by ethnic, believing Israel in some future age and can never be applied to believers saved in the "Church Age”.

                        iii.      Millennial Israel and their future activity are the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophesies.

1.       Semitecentric Eschatology—God’s primary purpose in redemptive history is the salvation of His chosen people, Israel. And these people are the ethnic Jewish people He has sustained throughout the history of the world.

a.       A contrast between the Kingdom of God/Kingdom of Heaven.

b.       Two eternally distinct peoples of God—His earthly people Israel, and His heavenly people, the Church.

c.       Jesus will be made King in the Millennium—He has not yet assumed His Kingly office or duties.

                                                               i.      The Church is unknown prior to Pentecost--The concept of "Church" as a people is a mystery not spoken of prophetically at all in the Old Testament.

                                                             ii.      The Church Age is parenthetical to God's dealings with ethnic Israel—the "Church Age" is a result of Israel's rejection of Christ's offer of the Kingdom, now.

                                                            iii.      Paul’s Primary Apostolic Purpose—was to teach the "new age" of believer his distinction in redemptive history from the previous, old age believer, and the future Jewish believer

Most dispensationalists, and Charles Ryrie himself, in his chapter from “Dispensationalism Today” called, “What is a Dispensation”, state that the sin qua non of Dispensationalism is three-fold (I’ll only mention two of those parts here): “a dispensationalist keeps Israel and the Church distinct”, and “this distinction is born out of a system of hermeneutics that is usually referred to as literal interpretation”.  While this may be the claim of contemporary, revised dispensationalists, I believe that the numerous occasions where they don’t interpret prophesy literally, for whatever reason, should direct one to question the causal relationship between the “Israel/Church Distinction”, and the hermeneutical presupposition of  “Literal Interpretation”.  That is why, in the outline above I have suggested that the literal hermeneutic is only absolutely necessary when the separation of Israel and the Church is at stake, and can be substituted with a hermeneutical principle of contextual hierarchy when the text allows.  Thus I believe that, in practice, the dispensational hermeneutical architecture shows that the presupposition of “literal interpretation” is caused by the presupposition that Israel and the Church must remain absolutely distinct.

Disputations on Hermeneutics - 4

I posted an older version of those outlines in the last article.  Below are the latest.  I'd invite Dispensationalists and Covenant Theologians alike, to critically observe the lists.

Dispensational Hermeneutical Presuppositions

Compressed Outline

I.            Theism

a.       Immanence

                           i.      Primo Regnum

II.            Scripture Interprets Scripture

III.            Contextual Hierarchy

a.       The Internal & Exclusive Grammatical/Historical Priority of the Old Testament

b.       The Internal & Exclusive Grammatical/Historical Priority of the New Testament

IV.            Distinction between Israel and the Church

a.       Literalism

Covenantal Hermeneutical Presuppositions

Compressed Outline

        I.      Theism

a.       Immanence

                           i.      Primo Regnum

     II.      Analogy of Faith

   III.      Contextual Hierarchy

b.       Literary Genre

  IV.      Christocentricity of Old and New Testament

c.       Expanded Fulfillment

                           i.      Object of Fulfillment > Object of Promise

Disputations on Hermeneutics - 3

Below are two lists of hermeneutical structures, compressed to simple terms of phrases.  The first one is that of Classical or Revised Dispensationalism, and the second is one for Covenant Theology.  In the next article, I will begin to post their expanded versions.

Dispensational Hermeneutical Presuppositions

Compressed Outline

I.            Theism

a.       Immanence

                           i.      Primo Regnum

II.            Israel/Church Distinction

a.       Literalism

b.       Literal Millennialism

Covenantal Hermeneutical Presuppositions

Compressed Outline

I.            Theism

a.       Immanence

                           i.      Primo Regnum

II.            Analogy of Faith

III.            Contextual Hierarchy

a.       Literary Genre

IV.            Christocentricity of Old and New Testament

a.       Expanded Fulfillment

                           i.      Object of Fulfillment > Object of Promise

Disputations on Hermeneutics - 2

 

Taxonomy of Interpretive Means

To begin with, I believe a definition of a few terms is in order.  While the concepts found in the definitions of the following terms may find varying but parallel nomenclature in other contexts, I am confident that these categories will serve their purpose in this document.

Prayer—it is the bible’s own teaching that encourages us to communicate in that mystical way with our Heavenly Father as our merciful Savior did Himself, so to ask for wisdom on all issues, including prayer for the right interpretation of the Words of Life, given for life eternal.  Neither this, nor any of the other individual means listed, nor in concert all with one another, guarantees a correct understanding of the Words God has specially revealed, but one can be assured that if we make no use of any of these means, then the conclusions drawn will very likely be wrong.

Hermeneutical Principle—a clearly objective or neutral device used to govern an interpretation, such as the analogy of faith or a portion of the hierarchy of textual context.  The application of a hermeneutical principle does not ensure an accurate interpretation; the “principle” is simply distinguished from the “presupposition” by the fact that its existence isn’t dependant on any antecedent interpretation.  See it stated as an analogy, Hermeneutical Principle > Hermeneutical Presupposition: Primary Color > Secondary Color.

Hermeneutical Presupposition—an idea, concept, or teaching that directly affects the way one interprets and understands any portion of scripture.  It is normally a presumed understanding or derived interpretation (arrived at either through the explicit statements found in exegesis or through the implicit statements found in a systematic study) of a collection of passages, and is used as a sort of filter (which often exists in the back of the interpreter’s mind) for the purpose of understanding more difficult passages; it is often assumed by the interpreter to be the application of the analogy of faith.

Historical Theology—this is the body of orthodox Christian interpretation of scripture.  We find these interpretations in several subcategories:

·         Exegetical Interpretations—this represents the body of “exegetical theology” passed down to us from our fathers and grandfathers in the faith.  It includes the exegesis of commentaries, historic creeds, and confessions.  This class of interpretations contains those which have at their heart, the unfettered desire to simply take the passage at “face value”.  But, like one’s systematic interpretation, one’s exegetical interpretation is also subject to faulty human reason and understanding, thus it too must also be submitted to the scrutiny of a co-equal branch of the means of interpretation.

·         Biblical Interpretations—this represents the body of “biblical theology” as passed down to us by our faithful forefathers.  It includes the historical witness of the linear expression of the bible’s account of Christian doctrines as they are developed in the, more or less, chronological unfolding of redemptive history through the progress of special revelation.

·         Systematic Interpretations—this represents the body of “systematic theology” as passed down by our spiritual forefathers in the form of catechisms, the volumes of systematic or topical scriptural addresses that have been published and preserved for our benefit, and other less systematically intentional documents such as the recorded debates that churchmen have had with individual heretics (such as Pelagius) or heretical groups (such as the Arians).  Some of the teachings contained in the historic creeds and confessions may also be categorized as systematic.  Interpretations derived from one’s systematic theology aren’t necessarily (but may be) explicitly stated in any one passage, but are inferred in a collection of passages.

None of which fall under the same authoritative umbrella of scripture itself, however, it is the interpretation of the Words of scripture that bind us with authority, and not the ink and paper themselves that hold us captive to the Law and Gospel that they contain so, to whatever degree our interpretations of the Words err, so do they proportionately fail to lead us in doctrine and practice.

Consequent/Resulting Interpretations – Ones that appear to be clearly stated in one or more passages.  These can often be the ones employed as “proof texts”.  This is why it is so very important to use exegetical interpretations and systematic interpretations in conjunction with one another so they can perform as a structure of checks and balances.  This scheme should function by having one’s systematic understanding of scripture keep him from interpreting a passage in isolation from the rest of scriptural witness on a doctrine or topic contained in a passage, and one’s exegesis should keep him from allowing his systematic understanding from unduly coloring a passage that actually repudiates that systematic understanding.  One should also note here the important roles that both, historical and biblical theology play in this process—helping to promote the proper interpretation of a passage by keeping checks and balances on one’s exegesis and systematic theology as well.

Interpretive Methodology – the way by which one comes to understand the meaning of a portion of scripture, which process includes but is not limited to the application of ones hermeneutical presuppositions.  In addition to defining this term, I have also included an illustrative prescription for implementing this methodology, for which I must credit friends who share my love for Bible study who have, along the way, been instrumental in helping me to think the content and order of this process through.

·         Repetitive meditation on the words of the passage.

·         Consider the historical context in which the passage was written and in which it was first read.

·         Consider the “theological” context – its place in the “meta-narrative” of scripture; these first two would be the application of “contextual hierarchy” defined below.

·         Consider the literary genre.

·         Consider the historical interpretations that have been made.

·         As a function of the consideration of historical interpretations, consider the passage in terms of a systematic assessment of all scripture which is apparently relevant to the passage’s interpretation, its placement in the line of biblical theology, and the exegetical work of trusted commentaries.

·         Consider the grammatical construction and vocabulary of the original language.

The ideal application of this process or method of interpretation is incredibly time consuming and, in reality, is not likely to be practiced on a weekly basis (in the case of a teaching elder, pastor or Sunday School teacher) so, because I have bothered to take the time to lay out such a process in its detail, it is also this author’s responsibility to provide some sort of prioritization of these means so as to compress the time that must be involved to arrive at the most correct interpretations humanly possible.  So the list that follows is one such suggested abbreviation of these means, and is not intended to prescribe a certain order or priority, but simply to point out those means that are, in my opinion, essential to the accurate interpretation of scripture, and the end of which is the love and enjoyment of God forever:

The Absolute Essentials

·         Prayer—certainly no Christian can survive without prayer, whether they are using it to ask for wisdom in their interpretation of God’s Word or not.  Not intended to be used alone, this is necessarily a part of the list of essential means to understanding scripture.

·         Repetitive Meditation—no serious interpretation of a passage can be made without some degree of reflection.

As far as I can see it, these two things are the only means that I would consider fundamentally and absolutely necessary to come to any conclusions about a passage; certainly, one must have read and re-read the passage in order to make any comment at all, and, strictly as a matter of piety, we cannot exclude prayer from this process.  Surely, the more time spent practicing all the interpretive methods I have listed above, the more thoughtful the interpretation is likely to be.  I would submit here that, though the study of original biblical language was far more prevalent amongst a much greater percentage of laymen in the past, this discipline in the last 150-200 years has sadly become the sole jurisdiction of “theologians” and the publication of much of their consequent work on particular passages (coupled with the general dulling of the intellect of American Protestants and Evangelicals, brought on by the industrial revolution) has made many of us, would-be-interpreters of scripture, reliant upon the work of perhaps, more diligent men who have trodden this ground before us.

In the next list, I have included the two from the list above, with the addition of some others, which together they approach the idealistic process I described first, but certainly remain a realistic list of resources for the average layman to employ.

Second Tier Essentials

·         Prayer

·         Repetitive Meditation

·         Historical and Theological Contexts

·         Literary Genre

·         Historical Theology—one should take into account the systematic, biblical and exegetical work that has been made by those they trust to provide them with accurate information.

There are three basic assumptions shared by the two major hermeneutical schools of thought, Theism – a Creator-god is the best explanation for our reality, Immanence – He necessarily has communicated with His creatures, and Primo Regnum (an assumption of which the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is a part) – the Words that the Creator-god has communicated to His creatures are their primary authority and the apprehension thereof is their primary way of understanding the dimensions of reality to which they specifically speak.  These are starting points that shape all legitimate types of Christian interpretations of reality.  The assumption of Deism and the fact that God has clearly spoken in time, leads to Christian theism after being confronted by the truths revealed in God’s Word.  God has also spoken in nature, though not specifically about the means of reconciliation, and through which He is revealed to His creatures sufficiently enough that they are accountable to the knowledge of His existence by the testimony of nature alone, thus persons never having been exposed to the special revelation of God found in the canon of holy scriptures are still culpable for their unbelief and under the just penalty of His wrath because of Adam’s representative sin.

Disputations on Hermeneutics - 1

In the post below I am starting a short series on hermeneutical structures.  These will be excerpts from an essay I am composing called, "Disputations on Hermeneutics".  I realize that the form of Dispensationalism being represented in this series will not include all of those who call themselves Dispensationalists.  My hope is that I can get some feedback on my thoughts.

Hermeneutical Structures

Whether one admits it or not, we all have assumptions with which our understanding of the text of scripture is colored; some of those assumptions are useful and some are harmful.  It seems most appropriate to begin the section on systematic theology with a description of the different hermeneutical structures under which Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology operate.  I understand that the two lists below are not exhaustive, neither are they likely to represent everyone in the respective camps.  Also bear in mind that there is a degree of overlap between ones hermeneutical presuppositions and the consequent interpretations they help to form, in other words, the relationship between the two is fluid, which makes it difficult to categorize them.  In fact, I think that a strong argument could be made for the “analogy of faith” being the only true and pure hermeneutical presupposition and that all the other items listed below are consequential interpretations to one degree or another.  Assuming that position to be true, we could then illustrate our interpretive devise as a wheel, the analogy of faith being its hub, and our consequent interpretations radiate out from the hub.  As we interpret the bible through our hermeneutical filters (which, as I stated earlier, is not necessarily a bad thing) the degree to which we have confidence in some of our resulting interpretations is the degree to which some of those interpretations may work themselves into our set of presuppositions; once we establish confidence in an interpretation, it may creep into our set of presuppositions and that is something we need to guard against.  When that happens we can say that the road that our wheel was suppose to take us across, in part, becomes part of the wheel, almost like a build up of mud.  The difficultly that presents itself as one considers all this is, just where do we draw the line between our hermeneutical presuppositions and the interpretations they dictate?  That is in part why I've suggested that maybe the only pure hermeneutical principle is the analogy of faith, and all others are resulting interpretations...but then of course the wheel analogy breaks down because your hermeneutical devise would consist only of a hub without any spokes.

It's a Boy! - Part 4

Above is an ultasound photo of our son.  You can see his face and forearm.  Is he smiling?  Maybe it's just gas.

My recent neglect in posting has been a result of  health problems in my family.  I have also been devoting my free time to editing a document that attempts to address the issue of Christian hermeneutics; this has been, in part, a result of the work I've done on this blog in the past regarding the differences in Covenant Theology ans Dispensationalism and their hermeneutics.  I intend to post an outline of sorts in the next day or so that will represent some of the recent thoughts I've had regarding the topic, and I hope to have some help in editing this work by those who read this blog and have an interest in having the truth proclaimed through the accurate representation of the Covenant and Dispensational hermeneutical architectures.

My Brother, in Ministry

My brother Justin and his wife Dannah are moving to Spanish Fork Utah, where he will minister as a youth pastor.  Please lift them up in prayer.