04. Principles of Hermeneutics

4. Principles of Hermeneutics

4.1 The Text 4.1.1 Its Inspiration 4.1.2 Its Illumination 4.1.3 Its Authority 4.1.3.1 The reason 4.1.3.2 The result 4.2 The Technique

4.2.1 The Rules

4.2.1.1 Literal 4.2.1.1.1 Its definition 4.2.1.1.2 Its distinction 4.2.1.1.2.1 Inaccurate statements 4.2.1.1.2.2 Accurate statements 4.2.1.1.3 Its delineation 4.2.1.1.4 Its direction 4.2.1.2 Grammatical - Tools that take apart — (wrenches,pliersand sockets) 4.2.1.3 Historical - Disassembles (shovels, pick and map) 4.2.1.4 Contextual - Measure (level, square, tape, plumb) 4.2.2 The Results 4.2.2.1 Consistency of interpretation 4.2.2.2 Progressive nature of revelation 4.2.2.3 A check on imagination 4.2.2.4 The distinction of Scripture maintained 4.2.2.5 Everything essential for the Christian life is clearly revealed.

4.2.2.6 Obscure passages will be seen in the light of the plain.

4.2.2.7 Ignorance on some passages will be acknowledged.

4.2.2.8 The faith and practice of the interpreter will be based upon the solid foundation of facts and should result in consistent Godly living.

The Bible was written over a period of 1,500 years in three different languages--Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. It covers many different cultural settings and historical backgrounds. Moses lived 1,000 years before the most ancient Greek philosopher or mentor; and John, the last writer of Scripture, wrote his work on the island of Patmos 1,500 years after Moses.

We would expect that from this great span of time the world would not remain static but would go through changes, especially in languages, customs, expressions, habits, and people, and the land itself would take on a different face. In order to avoid making blunders, the interpreter should be careful in his research down the road of Bible times.

Historical backgrounds are helpful in interpreting figures. These figures are often drawn from the physical features of the land, the daily life and customs, the history of the Jews, or the religious institutions of Israel. The consequences of ignoring the historical aspect of interpretation has been pointed out quite eloquently by Donald K. Campbell of Dallas Theological Seminary: "If the teacher of Scriptures ignores the historical element, he is in allegorizing, that is, seeking a deeper sense in the text on the ground that the natural historical sense is unsatisfactory or inadequate" (Donald K. Campbell, "Interpretation and Its Use," Bibliotheca Sacra, CXII, No. 447 [July, 19551, p. 253).

There is a false teaching among liberal interpreters who use the Scripture in a historical method to discount the relevance of the Word of God for today. They do this by deducing that since literal interpreters insist on interpretation geared to the historical, the Bible is limited to its early readers and hearers. In his excellent book, The Interpretation of Prophecy, Tan commented: "By misunderstanding the concept of Sitz im Lebem (life situation of the prophets), liberals eviscerate the practical relevance of the Scripture on the altar of the historical" (P. 97). This leaves us with the question, What is the proper concept of the historical in Bible interpretation? The answer must be that the Scriptures are to be viewed as having been written during given ages and cultures. With that in mind, we can draw applications which can be applied to our day and age. For example, the length of hair for men and women can only be interpreted from the historical and cultural setting of the New Testament times. The principles to be drawn are relevant for us today. Not only does the Bible deal with the historical situations of Bible times, but a great portion of the Word contains spiritual teachings as well as doctrinal concepts which are ageless or directly applicable in any age. Naturally we would not give as much credence to the historical and cultural if the passage in question were one of a doctrinal nature. A good rule of thumb in the interpretation of prophecy is to determine whether the prophet was talking about a specific historical and contemporary event or was predicting something in the future.

“Inspiration results from the divine act whereby the Holy Spirit supernaturally enabled the human authors of scripture to write divine truth. Inspiration guarantees that the original writings were verbally accurate in conveying the truth God wanted revealed to man.” Schafer - class notes 2Ti 3:16 - “inspired” - “ all scripture is God breathed.” Product of God.

Old Testament only?

1Ti 5:18, cf. Luk 10:7 - equated as scripture 2Pe 3:15-16 other scripture Terminus of inspiration is the Scripture - not men Compare 2Pe 1:20-21 and 2Ti 3:16 Does it relate to translations, etc?

Verbal, plenary Verbal = words - all words - breadth verbal Plenary = full - equally inspired - depth plenary Mat 5:18 Infallible and inerrant Science, History

Work of the Holy Spirit which enables a believer to understand the text or truth of Scripture.

Revelation is receiving truth. Terminus - usually human author Inspiration is recorded truth. Terminus - Scripture Illumination is recognizing truth. Terminus - believer 1Jn 2:20;1Jn 2:27, Eph 1:18, Heb 5:11-14, Heb 6:1 cf. 1Co 2:14 & 2Co 4:3-4 Illumination is essential to accurate interpretation - Application

The Bible is the objective Word of God. Because it says what God said, it is authoritive.

It is our rule of faith and practice.

It is alive - Heb 4:12 It can produce life and growth - 2Ti 3:15-16; Joh 17:17;

2Pe 3:18; 2Ti 4:2

“Historically, it is attested by the driftage of every school of thought which has sought to find a ground of faith in any lower than the Church’s doctrine of a plenarily inspired Bible. The authority which cannot assure of a hard fact is soon not trusted for a hard doctrine. Sooner or later, in greater or less degree, the authority of the Bible in doctrine and life is replaced by or subordinated to that of reason, or of the feelings, or of the ‘Christian consciousness’...or of that corporate Christian consciousness which so easily hardens into simple ecclesiastical domination.” Warfield, Inspiration And Authority, p. 181

“The human mind is very subtle, but with all its subtlety, it will hardly be able to find a way to refuse to follow Scripture in one of the doctrines it teaches without undermining its authority as a teacher of doctrine.” Warfield, Ibid., p. 208

“The real problem brought before the churches by the present debate ought now to be sufficiently plain. In its deepest essence it is whether we can still trust the Bible as a guide in doctrine, as a teacher of truth. It is not simply whether we can explain away the Biblical doctrine of inspiration so as to allow us to take a different view from what has been common of the structure and characteristics of the Bible...It is specifically whether the results proclaimed by a special school of biblical criticism - which are of such a character,...as to necessitate, if adopted, a new view of the Bible and of its inspiration - rest on a basis of evidence...which goes to show that the Biblical writers are trustworthy as teachers of doctrine... The real question, in a word, is not a new question but the perennial old question, whether the basis of our doctrine is to be what the Bible teachers or what men teach.” Warfield, p. 226

There is a procedure to follow in order to arrive at the meaning of any given passage. Hermeneutics is the science of the rules that govern this procedure.

Following the rules of hermeneutics does not mean that errors of interpretation will not be made nor does it mean that accurate interpretation will not take diligent study and long hours of work. The Spirit’s illumination is the key to accurate interpretation. Persistence is also needed.

Peering into the mists of gray That shroud the surface of the bay, Nothing I see except a veil Of fog surrounding every sail.

Then suddenly against a cape A vast and silent form takes shape, A great ship lies against the shore Where nothing has appeared before. Who sees a truth must often gaze Into a fog for many days;

It may seem very sure to him Nothing is there but mist-clouds dim.

Then, suddenly, his eyes will see A shape where nothing used to be.

Discoveries are missed each day By men who turn too soon away.

Clarence Edward Flynn Method -Literal – Tool Bar Rules -Gramatical- Tools that take apart

Historical- DisassemblesContextual- Measure

“It adopts as the sense of the sentence the meaning of that sentence in usual or ordinary or normal conversation or writing.” Hauser, class notes

“To interpret literally (in this sense) is nothing more or less than interpreting words and sentences in their normal, usual, customary, proper designation.” Ramm, p. 91

“Literal” is in contrast to “allegorical”, ‘spiritual” or “mystical”. It is not hidden.

“A large part of the Bible makes adequate and significant sense when literally interpreted.” Ramm, p. 94 (The above statement was corrected in the third edition, p. 124)

“Literal interpretation seems to make Bible study easy. It also seems reverent. It argues on this wise: “God must have said just what He means, and must mean just what He has said; and what He has said is to be taken just as He said it, i.e., literally.” But the New Testament makes it plain that literal interpretation was a stumbling block to the Jews. It concealed from them the most precious truths of Scripture.” Allis, p. 258

“Those who utilize this type of interpretation insist that the Scriptures, by and large, must be explained literally. Of course, it is impossible to be a thorough -going literalist, for one is coerced to interpret some statements figuratively. On the other hand, the literalist will explain many figurative passages in the literal sense because of his fear of diluting Scriptural truth. This approach reminds us that there are some passages that must be interpreted literally. Biblical authors often employ literal statements to convey their ideas. And where they use the literal means to express their thoughts, the expositor must employ the corresponding means to explain those thoughts, namely, the literal approach. On the other hand, it is equally true that Biblical writers frequently utilize the figurative method of communicating truth; and in those cases the expositor must likewise use the figurative approach if he is to understand their message.” Traina, Methodical Bible Study, p. 175

“The basic issue is whether the Biblical documents are to be approached in the normal, customary, usual way in which men talk, write, and think; or whether that level is only preliminary to a second deeper level.” Ramm, p.93

“The term ‘spiritual’ should be rejected, I feel strongly, as a proper name for the anti-literal method of interpretation, for at least two reasons: first, the word is much too fine to be surrendered without protest for wrong uses. Second, no one of any consequence was ever known to employ the ‘spiritualizing’ scheme consistently and exclusively... Doubtless we should thank God that not all men are logically consistent in holding their erroneous opinions.” McClain, Greatness Of The Kingdom,p. 143

“...the Spirit of God does not communicate to the mind of even a teachable, obedient, and devout Christian, any doctrine or meaning of Scripture which is not contained already in Scripture itself. he makes men wise up to what is written, but not beyond it.” Angus, Green, Bible Hand-Book, p.179

“Of course the literal interpretation of Scripture does not blindly rule out figures of speech, symbols, allegories, and types. The literal meaning of a figure of speech is its proper meaning.” Ramm, p. 95

“The literal meaning of the figurative expression is the proper or natural meaning as understood by students of language. Whenever a figure is used its literal meaning is precisely that meaning determined by grammatical studies of figures. Hence figurative interpretation does not pertain to the spiritual or mystical sense of Scripture but to the literal sense.” Ramm, p. 141

“This method, as its adherents have explained times without number, leaves room for all the devices and nuances of language, including the use of figure, metaphor, simile, symbol, and even allegory. In their criticism of this literal method, most of its critics have been guilty of a ‘crasser literalism’ than ever used by any reputable adherent to the method in its application to the Word of God.” McClain, Greatness, p.139

“This is sometimes called the principle of grammatical-historical interpretation since the meaning of each word is determined by grammatical and historical considerations. The principle might also be called normal interpretation since the literal meaning of words is the normal approach to their understanding in all languages. It might also be designated plain interpretation so that no one receives the mistaken notion that the literal principle rules out figures of speech. Symbols, figures of speech and types are all interpreted plainly in this method and they are in no way contrary to literal interpretation. After all, the very existence of any meaning for a figure of speech depends on the reality of the literal meaning of the terms involved. Figures often make the meaning plainer, but it is the literal, normal, or plain meaning that they convey to the reader.” Ryrie, Dispen. Today, pp.86,87

“The grammatico-historical sense of a writer is such an interpretation of his language as is required by the laws of grammar and the facts of history. Sometimes we speak of the literal sense, by which we mean the most simple, direct, and ordinary meaning of phrases and sentences... The grammatical sense is essentially the same as the literal, the one expression being derived form the Greek, the other from the Latin.” Terry, Bib. Her.,p.203

“Normal is used instead of literal (the term generally employed in this connection) as more expressive of the correct idea. No terms could have been chosen more unfit to designate the two great schools of prophetical exegetes than literal and spiritual. These terms are not antithetical, nor are they in any proper sense significant of the peculiarities of the respective systems they are employed to characterize. They are positively misleading and confusing. Literal is opposed not to spiritual but to figurative; spiritual is antithesis on the one hand to material, on the other to carnal (in a bad sense). The literalist (so called) is not one who denies that figurative language, that symbols are used in prophecy, nor does he deny that great spiritual truths are set forth therein; his position is, simply, that the prophecies are to be normally interpreted (i.e. according to the received laws of language) as any other utterances are interpreted - that which is manifestly literal being regarded as literal, that which is manifestly figurative being regarded as such. The position of the Spiritualist (so called) is not that which is properly indicated by the term. He is one who holds that whilst certain portions of the prophecies are to be normally interpreted, other portions are to be regarded as having a mystical (i.e. involving some secret meaning)...sense... The terms properly expressive of the schools are normal and mystical.” Craven, Langes, vol.12, Revelation, note on p. 98 (see Hogg and Vine, Galatians, p. 219 on allegory.)

This is the only approach to any language, and the usual practice in the interpretation of literature. See Ramm, 3rd edition, p.123 Any secondary meanings depend upon the literal meaning. Ramm, p. 124 It is the only safe check on imagination. Ramm, pp 124-125

“Once launched on the sea of conjecture, it is not surprising that interpreters finally arrive at strange ports, as far removed from reality as the popular ‘beautiful isle of somewhere’.” McClain, ibid. p. 140

“To rest one’s theology on the secondary stratum of the possible meanings of Scripture is not interpretation but imagination.” Ramm, 2edition, p. 95 If the literal sense makes good sense, seek no other sense lest it result in nonsense.” anon.

It is the only view consistent with verbal, plenary inspiration. The Bible can be understood when interpreted in this way.

One does not have to shift back and forth between spiritualizing and literal methods. Then “the hermeneutical plow is pulled by “an ox and an ass”.” McClain, p.144 (see Schaff, vol. 2, Church History, p. 816 Sensus plenior - Full sense Dynamic equivalency - Sheep, pig

“...with due regard to the meaning of words, the form of sentences, and the peculiarities of idiom in the language employed.” Angus, Green, HandBook,p.180

Text p. 99

“This is natural corollary to the belief in the verbal, plenary inspiration of Scripture, for if one holds that the words of the text were inspired of God, then one must interpret those very words.” Ryrie, Basis Premil. p. 36 Text p. 100-122 (100, 101, 102, 105, 108, 114)

“The grammatical sense is to be always sought by a careful study and application of the well-established principles and rules of the language. A close attention to the meaning and relations of words, a care to note the course of thought, and to allow each case, mood, tense, and the position of each word, to contribute its part to the general whole, and a caution lest we assign to words and phrases a scope and conception foreign to the usus loquendi of the language - these are rules, which, if faithfully observed, will always serve to bring out the real import of any written document.” Terry, ibid. p. 210 This is where lexicons, concordances, good commentaries and Greek and Hebrew grammar books come into use. Strong’s, Vine’s – baptism, filling

“The total ways, methods, manners, tools, and institutions by which a people carry on their existence.” Hauser, class notes

“The religious, moral, and psychological ideas, under whose influence a language has been formed and moulded; all the objects with which the writers were conversant, and the relations in which they were placed, are traced out historically. The costume of the ideas in the minds of the biblical authors originated from the character of the times, country, place, and education, under which they acted. Hence, in order to ascertain their peculiar usus loquendi, we should know all those institutions and influences whereby it was formed or affected.” Davidson, quoted by Terry, ibid. p. 204

Culture, geography and history of the life and times of the bible should be known and used to determine the correct interpretation. For example: marriage customs, adoption, sonship, firstborn, etc., must all be interpreted in light of historical settings. (Archeology, lakes, climate, land, streams, agriculture and plagues)

Misuse must be guarded against. Writers of Scripture did not use accommodation to the point where truth was conveyed by errors, myths, etc. Historical is to help determine the literal meaning; it is not to be used to try to explain away what is not wanted. 1Ti 2:12

Scripture interprets Scripture - study the materials immediately before and after any passage. - study the book the passage is in. Scope, design, etc. - study the Testament the passage is in. - study the passage in light of the whole Bible see Ramm 3rd edition, pp. 138-140 Usage determines meaning destroyed - Rom 6:6; 1Ti 1:10; Heb 2:14 etc. Obscure in light of the plain 1Co 15:29 “a text without a context is pretext.” Hauser

“To ascertain, therefore, the meaning of any passage of Scripture, whether the words be employed figuratively or literally, we must ask the following questions: What is the meaning of the terms? If they have several, we then ask, which of those meanings is required by other parts of the sentence? If two or more meanings remain, then what is the meaning required by the context, so as to make a consistent sense of the whole? If, still, more than one meaning remains, what then is required by the general scope? And, if this question fails to elicit a clear reply, what then is required by other passages of Scripture? If, in answer to all these questions, it is found that more than one meaning may still be given the passage, then both interpretations are in themselves admissible; and we must either select the one which best fulfills most of the conditions, or look elsewhere for some further guide.” Angus, ibid. pp. 200-201

“Do not choose a man who always preaches on isolated texts, I care not how powerful and eloquent he may be. The affect of his eloquence will be to banish a taste for the Word of God and substitute a taste for the preacher in its place.” Ramm, ibid. p. 89

Several weeks ago while reading a legal opinion I came across several concepts which should sound familiar to all of us. They are: (Rick Booth - Grace Newsletter - 9/86)

1. in ascertaining the interpretation or intent of a legal statute the words will always be given their normal meanings.

2. the interpretation must always be consistent with the immediate text and its surrounding case law. 3. the interpretation must not lead to an absurdity, i.e. it cannot be made to yield a result which is not clearly delineated.

The past dealings of God not read into the present. The present dealings of God not read into the past. The future dealings of God not read into the present.

Dispensationalism, pre-millennialism and a pre-tribulation view of the rapture result from a literal method of interpretation.

Certain distinctions 1. Before the fall 2. After 3. After flood 4. After Sinai 5. After Cross 6. After the 2coming The distinction between Israel and the Church and the Kingdom and the Church is another result.

Mosaic Law, Sabbath questions are answered

No fanciful doctrine will be built on an obscure verse.

“The word (ereunao, search), used six times in the New Testament and always with significance (Joh 5:39; John 7:52; Rom 8:27; 1Co 2:10; 1Pe 1:11; Rev 2:23), is three times related to an exercise on the part of men by which they examine the Bible with utmost care. The prophets of old so ‘searched’ (1Pe 1:11), and, if the imperative form by accepted, Christ so directed His hearers (Joh 5:39).” Chafer, Systematic, vol. I, p. 115 Spirituality should result from searching.