Items tagged hermeneutics

Christ the Center: Doctrine for Life, Episode 1

Fri, 25 Jan 2008 19:45:57 GMT

This inaugural episode of Christ the Center addresses the theological issues that arise from the New Testament's use of the Old Testament. The panel members give a brief introduction to the major issues and point listeners to a number of helpful publications on the subject.

Poythress: "the alternative to a Christocentric understanding of the OT is not understanding it rightly"

Sat, 24 Nov 2007 13:00:25 GMT

Here are some quotes from Vern Poythress on how we are to interpret the OT through the lens of Christ's redemptive work. The two fundamental considerations in exegesis are the intent of the human author and then the intent of the divine author, Christ himself. Certainly the intent of the human author is determined first, but finding the intent of the human author is not the end of the exegesis. Christ is the second speaker of every text because the entire text is about Him.

About Luke 24 and the hermeneutic employed by Christ on the road to Emmaus, Poythress (God Centered Biblical Interpretation) writes, "...Christ himself indicates that the OT from beginning to end is about himself. Sometimes people have thought that Christ is claiming only that a verse here and a verse there speak of the coming Messiah. And it is of course true that some verses speak more directly in this way. but the whole of the Old Testament is about God working out salvation. And salvation is to be found only in Christ. So the WHOLE (emphasis crb) OT, not just a few isolated verses, speaks of Christ."

About Luke 24:45 Poythress writes: "Here the entire Scriptures are in view, not just some of them, and certainly not just a few scattered messianic tests... The whole OT, we conclude, has as its central message the suffering and resurrection of Christ....The whole OT is about the work of Christ, in that it points forward to this work as what 'must be fulfilled'... Few would challenge the idea that Christ is the core of the message of the NT writings. But Luke 24 is striking in making an analogous claim about the OT. Christ's work is the core of the purpose and import of the OT as well as the New.... the alternative to a Christocentric understanding of the OT is not understanding it rightly, not understanding it as Christ desired."

Poythress begins Chapter One of "Christ in the Law of Moses" with a discussion of Luke 24 and our fundamental problem of not understanding the Old Testament. Poythress says "...Christ enabled the disciples to understand not merely the implications of a few passages of the OT, but "the Scriptures" -- the whole Old Testament. .... (Christ) promises to give them the substance and heart of what is written in the OT... Luke 24:46,47. ... the whole OT finds its focus in Jesus Christ, His death and His resurrection.... every word of the OT is the word of God Himself, and God is the trinitarian God -- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Thus, all of the OT is Christ's word to us, as well as the Father's word to us... the OT teaches us about Christ. Such is one main implication of the story in Luke 24. Christ is the focus of the message of the OT. He is the One to whom it points forward, about whom it speaks, and whom it prefigures in symbols.... because the OT as well and the New is Christ's word, we should believe what God teaches there, obey what He commands, and give thanks for the blessings and communion that He gives. Above all, we should endeavor to search out how the OT speaks of Christ."

And...of 1 Timothy 2:5 Poythress (God Centered Biblical Interpretation) writes of Christ as "the unique, indispensable mediator between God and men, by which we are saved and are able to listen to God without dying. Christ is indispensable for our right reception of Scripture. And since Scripture has the function of bringing salvation, it is fundamentally about Christ."

There is nowhere in the OT that we can go and not find Christ. We must pray that the Christ of the road to Emmaus will drop the unbelieving scales from our eyes as we engage His text anew and afresh every time we open it.

Beale: "typological interpretation...is a viable method for all saints to employ today"

Thu, 08 Nov 2007 14:05:11 GMT

In their popular book on exegesis "How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth", Fee & Stuart make the following assertion: "none of us has God's authority to reproduce the sort of exegesis and analogical analyses that the New Testament authors occasionally applied to the Old Testament."

While no one (in their right, Protestant mind) would claim to have the same apostolic authority and inspiration as the NT authors, does it follow that we cannot reproduce their exegesis? Vos and others (such as Greg Beale in what follows here) have suggested "no"; in fact, for us to rightly divide the word of truth, we *must* employ the same exegetical methods as the NT authors.

Biblical theology done rightly attempts to ascertain *how* Christ and the NT authors were interpreting the Old Testament -- and, once the *how* is answered (esp. in consideration of OT typology, which is much more prevalent in the exegesis of the NT authors than some want to admit), to mimic their methods. IOW, the exegesis follows the same exegetical methods employed by Christ and the NT authors.

G. K. Beale notes 5 presuppositions that Christ and the NT authors had when they interpreted the OT in an essay that encourages us to reproduce the exegetical methods of the NT authors:

“Jesus and the apostles had an unparalleled redemptive-historical perspective on the Old Testament in relation to their own situation…this perspective involved a framework of five hermeneutical and theological presuppositions:

the assumption of corporate solidarity or representation.

that Christ is viewed as representing the true Israel of the Old Testament and true Israel, the church, in the New Testament;

that history is unified by a wise and sovereign plan so that the earlier parts are designed to correspond and point to the latter parts (cf. Matt. 11:13-14);

that the age of eschatological fulfillment has come in Christ;

as a consequence of (3) and (4), the fifth presupposition affirms that the latter parts of biblical history function as the broader context to interpret earlier parts because they all have the same ultimate divine author who inspires the various human authors, and one deduction from this premise is that Christ as the center of history is the key to interpreting the earlier portions of the Old Testament and its promises...

"Subsequently, New Testament Scripture interprets the Old Testament Scripture by expanding its meaning, seeing new implications in it and giving it new applications…this expansion does not contravene the integrity of the earlier texts but rather develops them in a way which is consistent with the Old Testament author’s understanding of the way in which God interacts with his people – which is the unifying factor between the Testaments. Therefore, the canon interprets the canon; later parts of the canon draw out and explain more clearly the earlier parts.”

“The plausibility of the suggestion that typological interpretation is normative and that we may seek for more Old Testament types than the New Testament actually states for us is pointed to by the observation that this method is not unique to the New Testament writers but pervades the Old Testament. The fact that later Old Testament writers understand earlier Old Testament texts typologically also dilutes the claim that the New Testament writers’ typological method was unique because of their special charismatic stance…the consistent use of such a method by biblical authors throughout hundreds of years of sacred history suggests strongly that it is a viable method for all saints to employ today...

“…if an inductive study of the New Testament yields the results that the New Testament method is contextual, then we may imitate their approach...

“…according to some scholars…a hiatus remains between the way (the New Testament authors) linked the Testaments both exegetically and theologically and the way we should. If the contemporary church cannot exegete and do theology like the apostles did, how can it feel corporately at one with them in the theological process? If a radical hiatus exists between the interpretative method of the New Testament and ours today, then the study of the relationship of the Old Testament and the New Testament from the apostolic perspective is something to which the church has little access...

“…if Jesus and the apostles were impoverished in their exegetical and theological method and only divine inspiration salvaged their conclusions, then the intellectual and apologetic foundation of our faith is seriously eroded. What kind of intellectual or apologetic foundation for our faith is this? M. Silva is likely correct when he states that 'if we refuse to pattern our exegesis after that of the apostles, we are in practice denying the authoritative character of their scriptural interpretation—and to do so is to strike at the very heart of the Christian faith.'

“…the polemical and apologetic atmosphere of early Christian interpretation also points to an intense concern for correctly interpreting the Old Testament (e.g., Acts 17:2; 18:24—28; 1 Tim. 1:6—10; 2 Tim. 2:15). Thus, I believe a positive answer can and must be given to the question, 'Can we reproduce the exegesis of the New Testament?' True, we must be careful in distinguishing between the normative and descriptive (and this is an area in which there is disagreement in many areas among evangelicals in general), but in the case of the New Testament’s method of interpreting the Old Testament the burden of proof rests upon those attempting to deny its normativity.” -- (G. K. Beale, The Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts, pp. 391-393, 402, 404)

A Trinitarian Hermeneutic

Fri, 12 Oct 2007 12:06:09 GMT

“It is important to grasp that the four ‘alones’ really take their essential characteristics from God as Trinity. Consequently, none of the ‘alones’ can exist without the others. Nor can the evangelic assumption that the Bible is the word of God remain at the level of undefined generality. What kind of God speaks his word to us? How does he reveal himself to us? If we answer that he is the God of the gospel, we only point to the need to deepen our understanding of the gospel beyond the level of superficiality to take account of what the Bible reveals the gospel to be. The gospel of our salvation through faith alone, in Christ alone, by grace alone, as revealed in the Bible alone, is what it is only because God is the kind of God he is. Those groups who claim to be Christian while rejecting the historic Christian faith in the divine and human natures of Christ, and in the Trinity, usually end up with a gospel that is denuded of grace and that amounts to salvation by faith in a diminished Christ who is then augmented by our works of obedience. It would not be an exaggeration to say that ‘grace along’ is unique to biblical Christianity.

Because these dimensions stem from the ontological nature of God as Trinity, we can see that their relationship are derivative of the relationship within the Trinity. The doctrine of the Trinity is essentially ontological, not manifestational (economic). That is, the three-ness of the unity of God is not just a way of talking about three different roles that the one God assumes: Creator, Savior and Indweller. We recognize that the Bible presents different kinds of clues to this nature of God, not least of which is the incarnation. If Jesus is God and yet speaks about God the Father and the Spirit of God in the third person, he is clearly mistaken, or else God is Trinity. But because God is also perfect unity, it is impossible to consider any one person of the Trinity without also considering the other two. The other side of that coin is that the three persons are not interchangeable in their functions. The Father sends the Son, the Son suffers and dies, the Father and the Son send the Holy Spirit among the people of God, and so on. Another way of stating this co-dependence of the persons of the Trinity is to say that there is unity of persons without fusion; there is distinction without separation.

The kind of God we presuppose to be in control of creation and salvation is Trinity. If the world had been made by a different kind of God, for example the undifferentiated Allah of Islam, or the monistic God of the modern Judaism, Watchtower (Jehovah’s Witnesses) or Christadelphianism, of necessity it would be a different kind of world. It is significant that each of these non-Trinitarian religions has its own particular doctrine of salvation by works.”

–Graeme Goldsworthy. Gospel-Centered Hermeneutics: Foundations and Principles of Evangelical Biblical Interpretation (IVP, 2006), 50-51.

Gog, Magog and an Iranian-Russian Alliance?

Thu, 21 Jun 2007 00:04:08 GMT

Joel Rosenberg is a very popular writer who tells a compelling story. His books are even endorsed by Rush Limbaugh. In his book Epicenter, which ranks high up on the Amazon best-selling chart, Rosenberg argues that the current animus between Israel and Iran is actually foretold in chapters 38-39 of the famous prophecy of Ezekiel regarding Gog and Magog.

As Rosenberg sees things, one day soon Israel will find itself cornered by a Russian-Iranian-Arab alliance which will threaten Israel's very existence. To prove his point he cites from a number of military, political and journalistic sources. He is probably right about the animus and the Islamic designs upon Israel. But my interest in this post is with Rosenberg's appeal to the prophecy of Gog and Magog in Ezekiel 38-39.

Typically, dispensationalists like Rosenberg appeal to this passage as a yet unfulfilled prediction of a Russian-backed Islamic invasion of the modern nation of Israel, at or about the time the seven-year tribulation begins. Dispensationalists believe that the nations listed in the prophecy refer to people living in Ezekiel's time, who can then be traced to modern nations. Following this method, Gog is the mysterious leader of Magog, a land north of the Caucasus mountains inhabited by the ancient Scythians. This is in modern Russia. Meshech is supposedly Moscow. Tubal is variously taken as Turkey or Tolbosk (a city in Russia). Persia is clearly Iran. Put is Libya. Cush is Ethiopia. Beth-Togarmah is Turkey. Some have even identified Gomer as Germany. But since the fall of the Soviet Union, Gomer is more often identified with Russia. Since the bulk of these people live to the northern parts (Ezekiel 38:15) and since the predicted invasion of Israel will come from the north, Rosenberg's thesis is simply a new variation of an old dispensational theme. At some point near the beginning of the tribulation, Israel will be invaded by a Russian-Iranian-Islamic confederacy, only to prevail militarily through God's amazing grace.

To be fair, the dispensationalists were not the first to tie this prophecy to contemporary events. Ambrose identified these same figures as the Goths who were then threatening the Holy Roman Empire. Luther applied this prophecy to the Turks, who were at the gates of Vienna at the time of the Reformation.

But there are two significant problems with this approach to Ezekiel 38-39. First, as Edwin Yamauchi (a noted evangelical archaeologist and historian) has pointed out in his book, Foes from the Northern Frontier: Invading Hordes from the Russian Steppes (Baker, 1983), this identification is based upon a number of unsubstantiated assumptions. For one thing, Gog and Magog cannot be directly tied to the Scythians. Yamauchi believes that their identity is not certain at all. Furthermore, he contends that Meshech and Tubal cannot be tied to Moscow or Tobolsk in any sense. He believes these are references to ancient Assyria which did invade Israel from the north. This means that Ezekiel is speaking of Israel's immediate future (an Assyrian invasion from the north), which also prefigures an end-time event.

How do we know that to be the case? If you follow the basic hermeneutical principle that the New Testament interprets the Old Testament (something dispensationalists are want to admit when it comes to interpreting biblical prophecy), then in Revelation 20:8-9, John speaks of Gog and Magog as symbolic of the nations of the earth, gathering together to make war on the saints (the church).

This leads to the second problem with the dispensational understanding. In Revelation 20:8-9, John is universalizing Ezekiel's prophecy of Israel being invaded from the north to the church being attacked from the four corners of the earth--this "spiritualizing" of the Old Testament as practiced by John under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit is, of course, the very thing dispensationalists claim is illegitimate. The fact of the matter is, this is exactly what John does.

In Revelation 20:8-9, John sees a vision of Gog and Magog leading all of the nations on the earth to wage war against God's people (the church), after Satan has been released from the Abyss. These enemies of Christ and his church are ultimately and finally destroyed at Christ's second advent (see Beale, The Book of Revelation, Eerdmans, 1022-1024). This means that the Assyrian invasion of Israel from the north foretold by Ezekiel, is actually typological of the end-times war upon the entire people of God as witnessed by John in his vision.

If you are interested in such things, I also deal with this topic more fully in my recent book, The Man of Sin. You can check it out, Click here: Riddleblog - Man of Sin - Uncovering the Truth About Antichrist

Rosenberg tells a great story and has gathered much interesting evidence about Islamic and Russian intentions. But he also misuses the prophecy of Ezekiel 38-39 to make his point.

How to Understand the Bible: Keys to Rightly Handling the Truth III

Thu, 07 Jun 2007 00:59:32 GMT

When an excellent Bible expositor who engages in Bible exposition daily talks about how to correctly exposit Scripture, we need to listen. Steve Lawson’s 3 part series will benefit you whether you are a new Christian or pastor. Steve is pastor of Christ Fellowship Baptist Church, Mobile, Alabama.

How to Understand the Bible: Keys to Rightly Handling the Truth II

Thu, 07 Jun 2007 00:58:05 GMT

How to Understand the Bible: Keys to Rightly Handling the Truth I

Thu, 07 Jun 2007 00:53:17 GMT

Intention and sense

Thu, 29 Mar 2007 20:20:08 GMT

Does the intention of the author determine the sense? There are problems with saying Yes, particularly when "intention" is assumed to be the mental state of the author, which is unrecoverable. There are also problems with saying No, because that seems to introduce (as ED Hirsch argues) a hermeneutical free-for-all.

We can address this, medievally, by complicating what we mean by "sense." After all, linking sense to authorial intent is only a problem if there is only one sense. If there are multiple senses, then one of them might be a direct expression of the author's intention without committing us to saying that all of them are.

Moses intended "rock" to refer to the actual rocky rock that Moses struck. The literal sense is what he intends. But that's not the only sense there is, as Paul makes clear, and the other senses, though intended by God, need not be intended by Moses. Linking intention to the literal sense, while acknowledging multiple senses, makes possible a proliferating richness of meaning while preventing what Eco calls hermeneutical drift.

Jesus Christ: The Interpretive Key to the Scripture

Tue, 27 Mar 2007 21:48:09 GMT

Jesus Christ: The Interpretive Key to the Scripture
With Four Examples of Doctrinal Errors that Arise When this Key is not Used.

"You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life. " (John 5:39, 40)
"For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" - (1 Tim 2:5)

"The Scriptures should be read with the aim of finding Christ in them. Whoever turns aside from this object, even though he wears himself out all his life in learning, he will never reach the knowledge of the truth." - John Calvin

I have recently had the privilege of reading a phenomenal book that I highly recommend to all teachers of the Word. That book was Gospel-Centered Hermeneutics by Graeme Goldsworthy. Its thesis is simple: the Gospel (or, Jesus Christ) is the Key to all Christian Hermeneutics. During the course of reading, his focus got me to thinking about its antithesis which would be that almost all errors and inconsistencies in our understanding of Bible texts occur when our interpretation is less than Christ-centered. This is foundational. Unless our study, however diligent, leads us to see that all Scripture points to Jesus Christ, our study is in vain. The importance of the Bible (OT & NT) is that it testifies about Jesus Christ (John 1:43-45, Acts 3:18, Acts 17:2-3, 2 Tim 3:14-15,1 Pet 1:10-12, Rom 1:1-3, 16:25-27, Luke 24:25-27 & 44-46).

Gospel-centered Hermeneutics: Foundations and Principles of Evangelical Biblical Interpretation

Thu, 18 Jan 2007 11:48:51 GMT

How To Read Genesis

Mon, 15 Jan 2007 21:13:21 GMT

The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible's Grand Narrative

Mon, 20 Nov 2006 13:25:15 GMT