Tag Archives: hermeneutics

Book Review: The Inspiration and Interpretation of Scripture: What the Early Church Can Teach Us. Author: Michael Graves

19 Friday Jul 2019

Posted by in Church History, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

Graves explains the purpose of the book:

The present book aims to describe what Christians in the first five centuries of the church believed about the inspiration of Scripture. I will do this by identifying various ideas that early Christians considered to be logical implications of biblical inspiration. In other words: What is true of Scripture as a result of its being inspired? What should divine inspiration cause us to expect from Scripture?

The most common text used to understand the doctrine of inspiration of scripture is 2 Timothy 3:16–17 (ESV)

16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

This was also the text used by the early Church to speak of inspiration, but the early interpreters put the accent in a different place than our contemporaries:

It is interesting to note, however, that early Christian interpreters did not invest as much energy as modern Christians have in working out a precise definition of the term “God-breathed” (theopneustos). Rather, for the Church Fathers the most important term in this passage is ōphelimos, which means “profitable” or “useful.”

Using this as an organizing principle, Graves then goes through 20 means by which early Christians read the Scripture in such a way as to be profitable. There are four chapters which lay out the means by which Scripture was read so as to be profitable. The second chapter begins the detailed analysis and speaks of five ways in which the Scripture could be “useful”. For it was useful for “instruction”. Scripture is useful because it provides examples to follow.

The third chapter concert the spiritual and supernatural dimensions of Scripture. This chapter includes four aspects of the supernatural dimension, which includes the famous four-fold meaning or use of Scripture:

John Cassian used Proverbs 22:20 to identify three senses beyond the literal sense, bringing the total number of senses to four: the “literal” sense (history — things past and visible), “tropology” (moral explanation), “allegory” (prefiguring another mystery), and “anagogy” (pointing to heavenly realities). Cassian’s system was passed on to the Middle Ages and ultimately became the well-known medieval “four senses of Scripture,” which are summarized nicely in the following epigram quoted by Nicholas de Lyra (d. 1349): “The letter teaches events, allegory what you should believe, morality teaches what you should do, anagogy what mark you should be aiming for.” The Church Fathers’ belief that Scripture has more than one sense converged with numerous other beliefs that they held, such as that Scripture is useful for instruction, and that all Scripture teaches a unified message. The concept of a higher sense provided some helpful theological tools for the early church but also generated problems.

The fourth chapter concerns “modes of expression” in the Scripture; the fifth, historicity and facility of scripture; and the sixth, agreement with the truth.

Each of the 20 topics discussed begins with a clear statement of the principle. Graves then puts the interpretative principle in the context of both the Greco-Roman and Jewish history of interpretation. Having clearly stated the principle and putting it into historical context, Graves then gives multiple examples of the use of the principle by Christian interpreters, often putting the interpreters into tension with other writers (and sometimes showing development by an individual Christian interpreter).

He then ends each section with a his evaluation of the usefulness of this interpretative principle for the contemporary church. These sections are irenic, humble and quite useful.

The book does precisely what it claims to do. It provides numerous primary source references (which makes it possible to “check his work”). The writing is clear. Even though he is dealing with a technical subject (how to read a text), he never devolves into needless jargon. You don’t need a seminary education to follow his argument; however, the work is not frivolous or breezy.

All in all I found the work very useful and would recommend it to anyone wishing to learn more on this subject. For what he aims to do, I could not image that one could better execute the project.

Some Advice on Reading the Bible from John Newton

05 Friday Apr 2019

Posted by in Hermeneutics, John Newton, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

In Letter IX in the collection entitled “Forty-One Letters”, John Newton answers the question from a young man concerning the doctrines of grace. What is most interesting in the letter is not Newton’s explication of the doctrines of grace per se, but rather his instruction on how to read the Bible.

First, Newton explains that we do not really understand anything if we can merely recite a creed or have a notional understanding of some theological propositions. For instance, I may know about the nature of the worship of a god by ancient Israelites, but I don’t really understand what those Israelites thought and felt in their worship — I can understand the outside, but I can’t feel and see what they felt and saw.

This truth is even more so when it comes to the knowledge of the true God. There is a level of apprehension which goes beyond mere emotional experience. As Newton writes:

We may become wise in notions, and so far masters of a system, or scheme of doctrine, as to be able to argue, object, and fight, in favour of our own hypothesis, by dint of application, and natural abilities; but we rightly understand what we say, and whereof we affirm, no farther than we have a spiritual perception of it wrought in our hearts by the power of the Holy Ghost. It is not, therefore, by noisy disputation, but by humble waiting upon God in prayer, and a careful perusal of his holy word, that we are to expect a satisfactory, experimental, and efficacious knowledge of the truth as it is in Jesus. I

John Newton, Richard Cecil, The Works of the John Newton, vol. 1 (London: Hamilton, Adams & Co., 1824), 188.

He then proceeds to list four guidelines for understanding the Scripture.

First, in handling difficult text or seeming obscure passages, rely upon the “analogy of faith”:

 there is a certain comprehensive view of scriptural truth, which opens hard places, solves objections, and happily reconciles, illustrates, and harmonizes many texts, which to those who have not this master-key, frequently styled the analogy of faith, appear little less than contradictory to each other. When you obtain this key, you will be sure that you have the right sense.

Here is a brief note on the analogy of faith:

Analogia fidei is a concept that has many advocates but few who carefully define it. Henri Blocher has carefully marked out four distinct meanings for the concept of the analogy of faith: 1) the traditional one as set forth by Georg Sohnius (c. 1585):3 “the apostle prescribes that interpretation be analogous to faith (Rom 12:6), that is, that it should agree with the first axioms or principles, so to speak, of faith, as well as with the whole body of heavenly doctrine”; 2) the “perspicuity” of Scripture definition, as championed by Martin Luther, in which the sense of the text is to be drawn from the clear verses in the Bible and thus issue in the topically selective type of analogia fidei; 3) the thematically selective understanding of the analogy of faith, as defended by John Calvin: “When Saint Paul decided that all prophecy should conform to the analogy and similitude of faith (Rom 12:6), he set a most certain rule to test every interpretation of Scripture”;4 and 4) the view held by the majority of Protestants, which may be described as a more formal definition, the analogia totius Scripturae. In this view all relevant Scriptures on any topic are brought to bear in order to establish a position that coheres with the whole of the Bible. The analogy of faith on this view is the harmony of all biblical statements where the text is expounded by a comparison of similar texts with dissimilar ones.

Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., Hermeneutics And The Theological Task Trinity Journal 12, no. 1 (1991): 2-4

Second, Newton cautions that one’s reading must be understood in light of real life “consult with experience.” Here is an example of how Newton applied this principle in his writing to the young man in this letter:

But we are assured that the broad road, which is thronged with the greatest multitudes, leads to destruction. Were not you and I in this road? Were we better than those who continue in it still? What has made us differ from our former selves? Grace. What has made us differ from those who are now as we once were? Grace. Then this grace, by the very terms, must be differencing, or distinguishing grace; that is, in other words, electing grace

Third, do not be prejudiced against the truth on the ground that it does not align with your current theological position. I recall R. C. Sproul saying that if John MacArthur were convinced of some truth from Scripture, and if that truth contradicted a position MacArthur held, that MacArthur would instantly change his mind. We need to be willing to allow the truth overrule our position.  Although offered in a very different context and for a different purpose, Emerson’s famous line has some applicability here, “A foolish consistent is the hobgoblin of little minds”.  We should never be stubborn against the truth.

Finally, Newton explains that we should favor those readings which make much of God and God’s glory:

This is an excellent rule, if we can fairly apply it. Whatever is from God, has a sure tendency to ascribe glory to him, to exclude boasting from the creature, to promote the love and practice of holiness, and increase our dependence upon his grace and faithfulness. The Calvinists have no reason to be afraid of resting the merits of their cause upon this issue; notwithstanding the unjust misrepresentations which have been often made of their principles, and the ungenerous treatment of those who would charge the miscarriages of a few individuals, as the necessary consequence of embracing those principles.

John Newton, Richard Cecil, The Works of the John Newton, vol. 1 (London: Hamilton, Adams & Co., 1824), 189–190.

 

What must you know of the author?

18 Friday May 2018

Posted by in Hermeneutics, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

There is a debate within literature study as to whether one must know about the author or not in order to make sense of the text. Here in the first essay in the Spectator, Addison places the question a bit differently: rather than speaking of “meaning” he writes of “pleasure”:

I have observed, that a Reader seldom peruses a Book with Pleasure ’till he knows whether the Writer of it be a black or a fair Man, of a mild or cholerick Disposition, Married or a Batchelor, with other Particulars of the like nature, that conduce very much to the right Understanding of an Author. To gratify this Curiosity, which is so natural to a Reader, I design this Paper, and my next, as Prefatory Discourses to my following Writings, and shall give some Account in them of the several persons that are engaged in this Work. As the chief trouble of Compiling, Digesting, and Correcting will fall to my Share, I must do myself the Justice to open the Work with my own History.

That places the question of reading on a very different foundation: is this something in which you can take pleasure?

Reading Scriptural Narrative

24 Saturday Jun 2017

Posted by in Hermeneutics, Scripture, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

I am working through Biblical Doctrine by MacArthur and Mayhue. I am going to have a criticism of a single sentence, so I should put this into context. The work over all is quite good. The greatest strength of the work lies with the marshaling of biblical evidence.  When it sets forth a doctrine, it typically sets forth the universe of Scriptural support. For example, on page 340, they list 27 instances of how the Holy Spirits ministers to the people of God (He adopts, baptizes, bears witness, call to ministry, convicts, empowers, et cetera). The book is filled with such lists and charts. On this particular point, it is exceptionally good.

A second aspect of the work which I appreciate is that it does not require a great deal of technical background: the text avoids theological terms and prefers to explain the doctrine and use relative simple English terms. This makes the book useful for those coming to theology for the first time as a discipline.

In short, the book is a very good introductory systematic theology.

Now to pick on a sentence. This sentence scraps a particular concern of mine: the common place lack of training in literature and language for Bible teachers and theologians. The Bible is primarily a book of stories and poems. However, most Western contemporary theological training tries to reduce the entire Scripture to a mass of bare propositions akin to blueprints or a shopping list. This is wrong for a million reasons — but that is another topic.

Anyway, here is my concern:

On page 356, a rule of interpretation is stated as follows:

Use teaching (didactic) sections of Scripture, not historical (narrative) portions to determine what is prescriptive rather than what is merely descriptive —what is exceptional compared to what should be considered normative.

First, the bare fact of something having had happened tells us very little beyond that it had happened. We need to ask other questions to make sense of the bare fact: we need context to understand a historical event. They should have written something like, “there are different hermeneutical principles for deriving application from narrative than for didactic passages.”

Our life comes to us as narrative: we see the events in our life as coming from some context and going in a particular direction. Therefore, anyone who merely points at some bare fact and then draws a “random” conclusion proves little more than there are an infinite number of lines which can be drawn through any point.

For example, George Washington was president of the United States. Therefore, I conclude that am the president — or anyone named George can be can be president — or only persons named George can be president, et cetera. Or only persons who were friends with people who knew George Washington — or whatever crazy rule. The proper context is the legal context of the United States Constitution which creates the basis for one becoming president.

I read the United States went to war with England in 1812, therefore, I conclude that England is the enemy of America. I prove that point by pointing to the Revolutionary War. Then someone points to World War I & II.

This sort of naive reading of narrative is seen by members of the Watchtower Society who will not have birthday parties, because Herod — a bad man — had a birthday party. Therefore, birthday parties are bad. Herod also ate, drank, slept, married.

The question being considered on page 356 is whether all believers must speak with tongues to be saved. Some will argue that because there were instances of tongue speaking recorded in Acts, that such is proof that all believers must speak in tongues. That sort of poor reading does not mean the narrative is ambiguous, faulty or otherwise deficient. It merely means that one has to read a narrative in the manner proper for reading narratives.

The trouble with “we all must speak in tongues” is not that one has used narrative to determine a doctrine. Rather, the trouble is that one has read the narrative poorly. The proper context for the narrative is all of Acts — and all of the New Testament, and all of the Scripture. Part of the narrative context are the epistles.

Moreover, the epistles must be understood by referring back to the narrative portions of Scripture: each of the texts helps make sense of the other texts.

Second, the rule as stated makes a point about reading narrative: it distinguishes between exception and normative: That is something gleaned from reading the narrative. Herod celebrating his birthday does not mean that a two year should not eat cake on his birthday. That would be an example of very poor reading.

Third, the authors contradict this rule repeatedly in this very book because they use narrative to prove up doctrine.

For example, on page 366, they consider the question of the Holy Spirit’s work in the Old Testament. After a review of the narrative they write:

The major characteristics of indwelling in the Old Testament can be summarize as follows:
Infrequent
Involving selected leaders in Israel only
Temporary
An empowerment for service

Page 367. They read the narrative and deduced a doctrinal point. This is an appropriate reading of narrative.

Or, on page 384, they are considering the question of whether miracles are normative and continuing. On previous pages, they cited to historical precedent and church historians. Looking to the Bible they write

There is no single, explicitly clear biblical statement that specifies whether miracles through men and temporary gifts ceased with the apostles or continued, but if one consults the whole counsel of God, one will find the answer.

They then engage in a reading of the explicit and implicit narrative of the New Testament.

What they really mean to say is that one must read the Scripture with some care. For example, when reading narrative, one cannot simply conclude that because a good man has done X that all men must do X to be good (how many men will offer their son as a sacrifice, ascend Mt. Sinai or bury a linen belt?).No can one conclude that because God did X for a good man in the past means that God will do so of all good men in the future (how many men have been fed by ravens?). Such readings demonstrate foolishness: the fault lies in the reader not in the text.

We can only assume that such people do not go about the world concluding that because a police man has a light bar and gun that they should do the same thing.

One’s reading of the narratives must be consistent with all of the Bible. Plucking an isolated text and drawing a conclusion is foolish and lazy.

There is no counsel to be compared

22 Wednesday Apr 2015

Posted by in Biblical Counseling

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

The worst is the not the loss of any outward thing.

What is the most pernicious and destructive evil which a man is in danger of? Not the loss of any outward good things whatsoever, for they are all in their nature perishable; we enjoy them on the very condition of parting with them again; no wisdom can keep them: “Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats; but God shall destroy both it and them,” 1 Cor. 6:13. Not the suffering of any outward troubles, which the best of men have suffered and triumphed over.

The greatest danger is the loss of the soul.

But the greatest loss is the loss of a precious soul, which is more worth than all the world, Matt. 16:26; and the greatest suffering is the wrath of God on the conscience, Psal. 90:11; Isa. 33:14; Heb. 10:31; Matt. 10:28. Therefore, to avoid this danger, and to snatch this “darling from the paw of the lion,” is of all other the greatest wisdom. It is wisdom to deliver a “city,” Eccl. 9:15; much more to deliver “souls,” Prov. 11:30. Angelical, seraphical knowledge, without this, is all worth “nothing,” 1 Cor. 13:1, 2.

Continue reading →

Shepherds Conference 2015, Albert Mohler: Inerrancy & Hermeneutic

06 Friday Mar 2015

Posted by in Albert Mohler, Apologetics, Bibliology

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

Shepherds Conference 2015
Thursday 8 p.m.
Albert Mohler

We do feel the weight of history on this; we do feel that we will look back and say “I was there.”
“I was there when Mark Dever read Psalm 119”.

We are here because we are invited to be here. My position here tonight is one every preacher would envy, to preach about inerrancy and hermeneutics.

Imagine how many people out in the world would think we are insane to gather at this hour of a Thursday night to speak about it. This summit will encourage all the right people and irritate all the right people. It isn’t over and we aren’t giving up without an argument. And the Lord we are confident will defend his Word.

We would interrupt anything to defend the inerrancy of Scripture. It matters more than most people think, more than most people who sit in your churches now understand.

In about a month the Supreme Court will hear argument on the issue of same sex marriage. The line of precedent runs back to Griswold and he invented the “right to privacy”. Douglas found it in the penumbra & emmanations of the constitution. But my concern is not the Court, it is what you do in the pulpit.

It comes out in two different legal theories. First are strict constructionism. These are people who believe words are words and reveal intention. Second there is critical legal studies. There is a living constitution from which we find what we need (not to be bound by a 200 year old constitution).

It means everything for preaching: it is either we are bound by the text or not.

“When the Bible speaks God speaks.”

plenary verbal inspiration: total truthfulness

The Bible Without Illusion: The writers of the NT & OT believed the inerrancy of Scripture and that remained through all through the Reformation. It was not challenged until the Enlightenment.

Nothing they confronted in 1978 has gone away (there are merely new things); although some stuff has come back in new clothes.

Go to Schleirmacher (liberalism, higher criticism): he did not believe the Scripture could be inerrant because he did not believe in verbal inspiration. This is not just a great intellectual crisis for elite institutions; it touches every Jr. High School. The very air we believe is deeply subversive of all claims of scriptural inspiration.

There has been a great intellectual embarrassment by many preachers and theologians. Fosdick at the Beecher lectures at Yale: the Bible is a problem.

John Updike: the reverend Clarence Wilmont: he lost his faith because he came to believe that the OT was an ancient set of writings. He traced it back in the historical critical approach to the seminary: “he plunged into the chilly Baltic sea of higher criticism.”

Many “evangelicals” are promoting new approaches that treat the Bible as something other than the Word of God.

Does Inerrancy Imply a Hermeneutic

The most important statement on hermeneutics is in the ICI, then if we believe in plenary verbal inspiration then we are committed to a historical grammatical hermeneutic.

12 Principles of Hermeneutics for Inerrantists:

1.  When the Bible speaks God speaks. An auracular book (Warfield).Our task is to hear God’s voice; affirming the authorship and authority which comes from God and God alone. We are thus committed to a hermeneutic of submission (as opposed to a hermeneutic of suspicion). A self-attesting revelation. The Bible does not merely contain the Word of God; it is the Word of God.
The biblical text determines the limits of its own interpretation. We take the text as it is given to us. Look to the genre. This means that we can’t be looking for a meaning that is behind or after the text; it is within the text. We approach the text looking for the “plain meaning” of the text. We are not looking for the “Bible code”.
Scripture is to be interpreted by Scripture (the analogy of faith). There is no conflict in the text. Not as some of the emerging church; it can’t be authoritative because it is not coherent. Yet, if there is an apparent conflict the problem is in our reading, not in the text.
2. The Biblical text addresses as words, propositions, sentences. Words are adequate conveyors of truth. That may seem odd, but that is taught. The Lord who has made us in his image is the Lord who has addressed us in words. We live in an age which denies propositions. [Wittengenstein, Surely it’s not a proposition until its understood.] Attacking propositions is of course a self-contradictory proposition. Henry: relationships may not be reducible to propositions, but we cannot speak of the relationship without proposition.
3. We are given a canon of Scripture. We need all of it until Jesus comes. The canon itself also establishes a basic proposition for interpretation: it limits where we may look. [Funny discussion of the Jesus Seminar voting with marbles: but do you preach & teach as if I hold all of the canon as inspired.]
4. The forms of biblical literature are themselves essential to the understanding of the text as God intended. We need the forms to understand what God would have us to know. Is it poetry or parables or history, etc. Jesus affirmed that he spoke in parables for a very specific reason. We are not to teach everything as it is given to us. We are to receive all of it and teach it that way.
5. No external authority can correct the Scripture. We have the text of the OT, but it just wasn’t verified by modern archaeology. Nothing can correct the Bible in any respect. There is no form of human knowledge that can correct the Scripture. We are getting hit from two sides. First, there is the attack on creation: but there are no “assured results of modern science”. The amazing thing is that people think this is new. We must know that there is a direct collision between naturalistic worldview. We are not being asked to re-understanding creation; we are being asked to surrender. The second attack is on sexuality. Paul was doing the best he could in dealing with sexuality; but he didn’t know what we know about sexuality. He was only a First Century man. If the ultimate author of Romans that is a plausible argument. norma normans non normata: the norm of norms that can’t be normed. Luther
8. Scriptural claims about historical claims about the space-time continuum are to be understood as claims within the space-time continuum. We have to affirm “true truth”. Schaefer: there are those who want to speak of history of something that is not really history “it happened”. Some evangelical writers: “history-like”. The Bible doesn’t say “once upon a time”; it says “In the beginning God ….” Our salvation depends upon things that happened in the space time continuum. 1 Cor. 15:
9. Holy Scripture is to read as a Scripture that contains stories; it has a metanarrative. Grammatical historical, redemptive historical, unabashedly Christological.
10. Our confidence in the Bible is unbroken: all that claims it is true; in all that it promises will come to be. It is as true of the future as it is of the past. All truth claims: what it meant is what it means.
11. Our understanding of Scripture is dependent upon the work of the Holy Spirit. He did not merely inspire the text he makes possible our understanding (and assured) and makes possible our proclamation. The Scripture is meant to be heard & obeyed. John Calvin: rightly preaching the Word of God makes possible the Word of God being heard.
12. Our study & our preaching of the Bible is not an end itself. Every word of scripture is profitable. The end of our hermeneutic is the knowledge of the one true and living God and the one whom he has sent. The hermeneutic leads to a homiletic. Philip and the eunuch: how can I understand without a guide.

There are millions of Americans are affected by work of the Court in interpreting the constitution: the ultimate argument is between those who find words which are there and those who say we are bound by words as given.

How much more is at stake when you are your chambers, your study. How much more is at stake when you stand in the pulpit to speak. What you speak is dependent upon your hermeneutic which you bring to your pulpit.
Jeremiah 23:28:

Jeremiah 23:28 (ESV)
28 Let the prophet who has a dream tell the dream, but let him who has my word speak my word faithfully.

Tradition in Interpretation

19 Monday May 2014

Posted by in Bible Study, Theology

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Systematic theology flows out of (1) exegetical decisions regarding the theological meaning of individual passages, (2) the collation of the meaning of passages on an issue of biblical theology, and (3) the use of models (good and bad) provided by a study of the history of dogma on the issue. In constructing a theology for today, four components form the “raw materials” – Scripture, tradition (both the creedal traditions of the church as a whole and the individual traditions of the theological systems), experience (personal experience, corporate experience in a local church, and the community of scholars whose works challenge and inspire us), and reason (ways of organizing the data into coherent patters for the current culture). Tradition, experience, and reason together form our preunderstanding, that set of hermeneutical awareness and beliefs that guide us when we study a text and draw theological meaning from it. This compendium of the reader’s strategies must he held consciously, lest they become an a priori that determines the textual meaning rather than a perspective from which we make decisions. Once again, the competing schools of thought are oru friend, for they force use away from presuppositional readings.

There is general agreement that Scripture must provide the basis for all theological formulation. The debate centers upon what part it must play and what place we gtive to church tradition in developing our belief system. The thesis of this essay is that Scripture has absolute primacy, and tradition is supplemental, informing us and providing models for the way Scripture has been utilized through the centuries, but not determining our present system.

Grant Osborne, “Hermeneutics and Theological Interpretations,” in Understanding the Times: New Testament Studies in the 21st, ed. Andreas J. Kostenberger and Robert W. Yarbrough (Wheaton: Crossway, 2010), 83-84.

An Analysis and Review of Kingdom Through Covenant.1

23 Monday Dec 2013

Posted by in OT Background, Theology

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

A Review of Kingdom Through Covenant, by Peter J. Gentry & Stephen J. Wellum

Prolegomena:

The first 129 pages of this tome sets forth an understanding of biblical and systematic theology, the basic nature of dispensationalism and covenantal theology, and the hermeneutical principles of each.

Biblical Theology

On page 33, the authors define biblical theology as “Bible’s own presentation of itself.”  They further expand that concept:

[I]t is a hermeneutical discipline which seeks to do justice to what Scripture claims to be and what it actually is. In terms of its claim, Scripture is nothing less than God’s Word written, and as such, it is a unified representation of of his gracious plan of redemption. In terms of what Scripture actually is, it is a progressive unfolding of God’s plan, rotted in history, and unpacked along a specific redemptive-historical plot line primarily demarcated by covenants. (33-34).

Systematic Theology

Systematic theology takes the results of biblical theology applies Scripture “to all areas of life” (35). Thus, “systematic theology is also critical in seeking to evaluate ideas within and outside of the church” (35).

Dispensationalism

The authors find the Israel/Church distinction to lie at the heart of dispensationalism. This distinction thus drives ecclesiology as seen in baptism:

[D]ispensational ecclesiology views the church as compromised of a regenerate community, born of and permanently indwelt  by the Spirit, and not as a “mixed” community of believers and unbelievers. Furthermore, it is for this reason that dispensational  theology affirms credobaptism, contra paedobaptism, since one cannot equate the sign of the old covenant with the sign of the new, given the fundamental distinction between Israel and the church and what the sign of baptism signifies under the new covenant. (43).

The Israel/Church distinction is a matter which has effects upon the present time and will continue into a future millennial and/or eternal state (56). There are three distinct types of dispensationalism, classic, revised, progressive, which the authors review.

The Abrahamic Covenant, which will occupy a great deal of the analysis to follow in the book, is seen in dispensational theology as a “royal grant”. The conditions of the grant merely distinguish the means by which and when the blessings will be received. The land is seen as a fundamental aspect of the promise.

Covenant Theology

Historically, covenant theology has maintained that all of God’s relations to human beings are understood in terms of three covenants—the pretemporal “covenant of redemption” (pactum salutis) between the persons of the Godhead; the “covenant of works” (foederus naturae) made with Adam before the Fall on behalf of the entire human race; and the “covenant of grace” (foederus gratiae) made through Christ with all who are to believe, namely, the elect. Covenant theology subsumes all of the subsequent biblical covenants under the overarching category of the “covenant of grace.” (57-58).

Covenant theology sees a great continuity between Israel and the Church:

[D]espite various nuances, covenant theology agrees that the main difference is that of “promise-fulfillment,” i.e., what the older administration promised through types, ceremonies, and sacrifices, has now come to fulfillment in Jesus Christ. It is with this understanding that most covenant theologians view the “newness” of the new covenant in terms of a renewal rather than a replacement or a strong sense of fulfillment that leads to a discontinuity with the previous covenants. (63-64).

On the matter of the specific covenants, covenant theology [note the matter is nuanced and does not necessarily apply to all forms of covenant theology nor all theologians], the Abrahamic and Davidic Covenants are unconditional; the Moasic Covenant is “predominantly a law-covenant and republication of the ‘covenant of works’ with Abraham” (66). The covenant community is a mixed body made up of those who are covenant keepers and covenant breakers; accordingly, “the circle of the covenant community, whether in the old or new ear, is wider and larger than the circle of election” (67).

This mix of covenants and the singular covenant of grace leads to the matter of the genealogical principle, which is for covenant theology the crux as the land is for the dispensationalist [thus will be the thesis of the text]:

The only way they can justify the ‘dual aspect’ of the covenant, especially in regard to the new covenant community, is by viewing the ‘covenant of grace’ (an overarching theological category) through the lens of the Abrahamic covenant (a specific historical covenant which includes within it national, typological, and spiritual aspects). That is why the genealogical principle found in the Abrahamic covenant and linked to circumcision – “to you and your children” – continues unchanged across redemptive-history, even with the inauguration of new covenant era. (69).

The authors, perhaps because they are Baptists, then undertake an extended discussion of the circumcision=baptism thesis (71-80) as part of the discussion of the nature of the church.

Hermeneutical Issues in “Putting Together” the Covenants

This last section discusses the manner in which one should understand the relationship between the Old and New Testaments.  A view issues are raised here.  The authors, for instance, consider the “epochal horizon” (94). Since the Scripture is a continuous story, a thing seen at one time will appear different when viewed later in the story.  For instance, in Pride and Prejudice the stiffness and distance of Mr. Darcy early in the story is seen to be quite a different thing when it is understood at a later date.

Now, when it comes to Scripture, the matter is more complex than the event of a single novel; because God intends for a speech-act to have a certain meaning at the time it is delivered. The limitation on the disclosure is not due to some failure of perception, as it is in the novel, but rather due to the deliberate determination of God in making the revelation.  Accordingly, interpreters will have a tendency to understand this relationship differently: a complete reappraisal, no reappraisal, or something in-between.

One particular element of such intertextuality lies with typology: Is a historical event recorded in the Old Testament somehow a foreshadowing of something in the New – and if so, to what extent?

The authors firmly favor the doctrine of types and give this definition:

Typology as a New Testament hermeneutical endeavor is the study of the Old Testament salvation realities or “types” (persons, events, institutions) which God has specifically designed to correspond to, and predicatively prefigure, their intensified antitypical fulfilment aspects (inaugurated and consummated) in New Testament salvation history. (103)

The difficult aspect of types is that function in a manner similar to predicative prophecy, but they are not so announced. They are only understood to be types after-the-fact: types are “discovered” (105):

They are predictive since God intends for them to anticipate Christ in a variety of ways. They are hidden not only due to their indirectness but also due to the fact that we come to know that they are types as God’s redemptive plan unfolds and later texts pick up the recurring plan. (105).

Having laid out these elements of analysis, the prolegomena then proceeds to specify a thesis which will be expounded throughout the remainder of the text: Both the dispensationalist and the covenantal theologians  inconsistently apply their hermeneutic when reading the Scripture as the story moves from before to after Christ:  one side favoring the land promise;  the other, the genealogical principle –both found in the Abrahamic covenant. That aspect of the argument will be considered in the next section.

Why the genealogies in the Bible?

29 Monday Apr 2013

Posted by in Hermeneutics, Image of God, Psalms

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Should you open the Bible to 1 Chronicles, you will find:

17 The sons of Shem: Elam, Asshur, Arpachshad, Lud, and Aram. And the sons of Aram: Uz, Hul, Gether, and Meshech.
18 Arpachshad fathered Shelah, and Shelah fathered Eber.
19 To Eber were born two sons: the name of the one was Peleg (for in his days the earth was divided), and his brother’s name was Joktan.
20 Joktan fathered Almodad, Sheleph, Hazarmaveth, Jerah,
21 Hadoram, Uzal, Diklah,
22 Obal, Abimael, Sheba,
23 Ophir, Havilah, and Jobab; all these were the sons of Joktan.

1 Chronicles 1:17-23. It goes more or less in the same manner for pages. How is one supposed to understand such lists?

Calvin begins the Institutes of the Christian Religion with the observation that our knowledge consists of knowing God and knowing ourselves in relation to God (this is a gross simplification, but sufficient for our purposes). Gerald Bray in his book God is Love takes Calvin’s observation, turns it into three questions and then applies the questions to the text.

Bray first notes that a Christian must “make spiritual sense of passages like these” (59). Therefore, he asks three questions.

First question: “What do the genealogies reveal about God?” You see in the lists the names of human beings going from generation to generation — hundreds upon hundreds and thousands upon thousand whom God did not forget. Since the genealogies occur in the context of God’s dealings with humanity in light of God’s covenants, the genealogies, “tell us that he is a faithful Lord, who keeps his covenant from generation to another” (59). In Ecclesiastes 1:4, Qoheleth writes, A generation goes, and a generation comes, but the earth remains forever.

But above and greater than even the earth is the Creator of heaven and earth who remains faithful despite our failings:

11 The saying is trustworthy, for: If we have died with him, we will also live with him;
12 if we endure, we will also reign with him; if we deny him, he also will deny us;
13 if we are faithless, he remains faithful- for he cannot deny himself.

2 Timothy 2:11-13.

Second question, “What do the genealogies say about us?” Look at the lists: the men and women are nothing more than words, funny sounds – but we do not attach the sounds to any human being. Thus, the answer to Bray’s question is, “[F]rom the worlds point of view, most of us are nobodies” (59). That is a painful observation, but true.

It is painful, because we all know that we must be more valuable than to be a “nobody” — and yet, in the end, most of will be invisible to history. And even those who will be written down will become more and more obscure over time. Proof: Quick, name any ruler of the Hittite Empire.

Now, note Bray’s answer: It is in the eyes of all humanity that we are nobody — but the memory of the world is not the whole story. Think again: What if these men and women did not exist? What if they died without children? God has kept his words among human beings; and God has exercised his power before human beings, “We are part of a great cloud of witnesses, a long chain of faithful people who have lived for God in the place where he put them.”

Now, this does not end the analysis: There is knowledge of God and knowledge of humanity — there is also the point of interaction, “Finally, what do the genealogies say about God’s dealings with us?”

Before you jump to his answer, think for a moment. God has not abandoned history to blind forces. God has not gone far away and forgotten (even when we fear that we may be lost to space and time). But these lists tell us plainly that God has not forgotten, “They tell us that we are called to be obedient and to keep the faith we have inherited, passing it on to the next generation. They tell us that there is a purpose in our callings that goes beyond us” (59).

In short, while the genealogies demonstrate that we may be little in the eyes of men and women with little memory and little understanding; they also tell us that we part of the greater story of God’s work in the world.

There is then an application, We know that we exist for great things. We know that our life must be more than sensation, food, sleep. We all understand that there should be some magnificent about us. We desire such things, because we were made for such things. It was built into us when God created us:

3 When I look at your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place,
4 what is man that you are mindful of him, and the son of man that you care for him?
5 Yet you have made him a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor.
6 You have given him dominion over the works of your hands; you have put all things under his feet,
7 all sheep and oxen, and also the beasts of the field,
8 the birds of the heavens, and the fish of the sea, whatever passes along the paths of the seas.

Psalm 8:3-8. We were created as the capstone of creation — we were created in the image of God. Now sin and death have obscured that image, but the stamp is not gone. Indeed, God’s covenant and end have been directed toward restoring that image:

9 Do not lie to one another, seeing that you have put off the old self with its practices
10 and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator.
11 Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free; but Christ is all, and in all.

Colossians 3:9-11. Thus, when one is found in Christ, the gruesome weight of history which wears us down to invisibility is undone in Christ. Sin’s dominion is ended in the death of Christ. The waste of death is overcome in the resurrection of Christ. Alienation gone in the reconciliation of God and human beings in Jesus Christ. The genealogies with their endless story of death and death point us toward the need of Christ.

How to Distinguish an Apparent and Actual Contradiction

19 Tuesday Mar 2013

Posted by in Bible Study, Hebrews, Preaching, Uncategorized, William Gouge

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

Willam Gouge in his commentary on Hebrews (if you are ever going to teach or preach on the book of Hebrews, you must consult Gouge’s commentary. He raises every issue — at the very least, he misses very few — which you could or should consider for a text), considers the text of Hebrews 1:3, “he sat down”. Gouge notes that Acts 7:55states that Stephen saw Christ stand.

Gouge sets out a three part test to determine whether an actual conflict or contradiction exists between texts. Many supposed conflicts could be resolved if readers thought more carefully about what was said. Gouge’s test will help distinguish between a conflict which arises from careless reading and an actual conflict.

Since this was the 17th Century, Gouge expected his readers to have a substantial, classical education — hence the use of Greek and Latin to make his point clear. If you don’t know either, don’t worry. The English phrase at the beginning of each sentence is merely repeated in Greek and Latin:

There are three limitations wherein different acts cannot be attributed to the same thing.
1. In the same part, κατὰ τὸ ἀυτὸ, secundum idem. In the very same part a man cannot be sore and sound.
2. In the same respect, πρὸς τὸ ἀυτὸ, ad idem, a man cannot be alive and dead together in the same respect, but in different respects one may be so; for ‘she that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth,’ 1 Tim. 5:6.
3. At the same time, ἐν τῶ ἄυτω χρόνω, eodem tempore, one cannot sit and stand together at the same time; at several times he may

.

Applying this test to Hebrews 1:3 and Acts 7:55, Gouge shows there is no contradiction:

Again, to take this phrase metaphorically (as it is here to be taken), Christ may be said to sit, to shew his authority (as before); and to stand, to shew his readiness to hear and help.1 In this respect did Christ most fitly present himself standing to Stephen, Acts 7:55.