Apostolic Hermeneutics

[py3ak]

The apostolic interpretation of Scripture is not just one option among many. It is THE interpretation of Scripture.

That's why I said earlier that if I must choose between the apostles and Ryrie, I choose the apostles.

This is where the NT is being used to interpret the OT. But shouldn't the OT meaning be understood in its own context first?

I don't accept the implied premise that the apostles didn't do this. I don't accept the implied premise that the Apostles did poor exegesis. See Greg Beale's work on this. It was his PhD diss and he's published articles on it. He makes a brilliant case that, contra the assumption by many, the apostles did very good exegesis and we should follow not only their conclusions but their method.

[emphasis added]

Perhaps this is mere sycophancy, but I heartily agreed with the above. When I did a search for Greg Beale I found this blog post. Also there is this article which lists some of Beale's points and adds proof-texts.

 

[Pilgrim]

Originally posted by py3ak

The apostolic interpretation of Scripture is not just one option among many. It is THE interpretation of Scripture.

That's why I said earlier that if I must choose between the apostles and Ryrie, I choose the apostles.

This is where the NT is being used to interpret the OT. But shouldn't the OT meaning be understood in its own context first?

I don't accept the implied premise that the apostles didn't do this. I don't accept the implied premise that the Apostles did poor exegesis. See Greg Beale's work on this. It was his PhD diss and he's published articles on it. He makes a brilliant case that, contra the assumption by many, the apostles did very good exegesis and we should follow not only their conclusions but their method.

[emphasis added]

Perhaps this is mere sycophancy, but I heartily agreed with the above. When I did a search for Greg Beale I found this blog post. Also there is this article which lists some of Beale's points and adds proof-texts.

Well seeing that the NT rests upon the authority of the apostles, I'd say that agreeing with apostolic interpretation is a no brainer unless we want to start ripping pages out of the NT. But what do I know?

 

[py3ak]

As one of the commenters on the blog post said, Who do we think we are? Am I a "more scientific" exegete than Paul? Then being more scientific is not a good thing. I understand that the other camp sometimes turns this around: "The Apostles were inspired and can get away with stuff we can't do." Rather like Spurgeon's comment about Bunyan's spiritualizations, and his feelings about systematic expository preaching [while some preachers can get away with it, most couldn't hold a congregation's interest with that kind of preaching --of course, I tend to feel like it is probably the extraordinary preacher like Spurgeon who can consistently edify a congregation in spite of not doing formal series].
But that view does seem to involve itself in difficulties: it has to state that the Apostles engaged in non-normative exegesis --which inevitably leaves us to come up with our own interpretive canons, even if it doesn't cast (as it sometimes seems to me to do) suspicion on the consistency and logical coherence of the apostolic method).

 

[Pilgrim]

I think you are correct about Spurgeon. There are probably few preachers who can proclaim the whole counsel of God while exclusively preaching topical sermons.

 

[Scott]

Guys, I recommend this article cautiously for the critical reader:
The Superiority of Pre-Critical Exegesis

 

[py3ak]

Thanks, Scott, that looks interesting.

 

[py3ak]

Thanks again for posting that link, Scott. I found the article very readable. I had just recently read Augustine and Aquinas on interpretation and thought that he was very fair to them, and so probably fair to all the others he presented. Not only that, but he is obviously erudite.

But Paul could also have in mind a distinction between what William Tyndale later called the "story-book" or narrative level of the Bible and the deeper theological meaning or spiritual significance implicit within it. This distinction was important for at least three reasons. Origen stated the first reason with unforgettable clarity:

Now what man of intelligence will believe that the first and the second and the third day, and the evening and the morning existed without the sun and moon and stars? And that the first day, if we may so call it, was even without a heaven? And who is so silly as to believe that God, after the manner of a farmer, "planted a paradise eastward in Eden," and set in it a visible and palpable "tree of life," of such a sort that anyone who tasted its fruit with his bodily teeth would gain life; and again that one could partake of "good and evil" by masticating the fruit taken from the tree of that name? And when God is said to "walk in the paradise in the cool of the day" and Adam to hide himself behind a tree, I do not think anyone will doubt that these are figurative expressions which indicate certain mysteries through a semblance of history and not through actual event.

Simply because a story purports to be a straightforward historical narrative does not mean that it is in fact what it claims to be. What appears to be history may be metaphor or figure instead and the interpreter who confuses metaphor with literal fact is an interpreter who is simply incompetent. Every biblical story means something, even if the narrative taken at face value contains absurdities or contradictions. The interpreter must demythologize the text in order to grasp the sacred mystery cloaked in the language of actual events.

The second reason for distinguishing between letter and spirit was the thorny question of the relationship between Israel and the church, between the Greek Testament and the Hebrew Bible. The church regarded itself as both continuous and discontinuous with ancient Israel. Because it claimed to be continuous, it felt an unavoidable obligation to interpret the Torah, the prophets, and the writings. But it was precisely this claim of continuity, absolutely essential to Christian identity, which created fresh hermeneutical problems for the church.

How was a French parish priest in 1150 to understand Psalm 137, which bemoans captivity in Babylon, makes rude remarks about Edomites, expresses an ineradicable longing for a glimpse of Jerusalem, and pronounces a blessing on anyone who avenges the destruction of the temple by dashing Babylonian children against a rock? The priest lives in Concale, not Babylon, has no personal quarrel with Edomites, cherishes no ambitions to visit Jerusalem (though he might fancy a holiday in Paris), and is expressly forbidden by Jesus to avenge himself on his enemies. Unless Psalm 137 has more than one possible meaning, it cannot be used as a prayer by the church and must be rejected as a lament belonging exclusively to the piety of ancient Israel.

A third reason for distinguishing letter from spirit was the conviction, expressed by Augustine, that while all Scripture was given for the edification of the church and the nurture of the three theological virtues of faith, hope, and love, not all the stories in the Bible are edifying as they stand. What is the spiritual point of the story of the drunkenness of Noah, the murder of Sisera, or the oxgoad of Shamgar, son of Anath? If it cannot be found on the level of narrative, then it must be found on the level of allegory, metaphor, and type.

This is where I have an issue with this: Origen seems to elevate man's common sense above the text of Scripture; Augustine seems to elevate man's conscience above the text of Scripture. In other words, while I am in agreement that every story means something, while I think Aquinas is right that words signify things and things sometimes signify other things, I think the theory also needs to be corrected by what the Dark Lord has called "biblical absolutism". That is, my conscience is captive to the word of God; my reason is captive to the word of God. I have no independence or autonomy, no resources or place to stand with which to judge the word of God. It sits in judgment upon me. Therefore I cannot take a text which seems morally repugnant (because the problem is that I am not in agreement with God's morality) or absurd (because the problem is that I am not in agreement with God's logic) as a clue to hunt for an alternative meaning. That there are layers I am convinced. I can see how each truth he mentions arises from the parable of the ungrateful workers. But it is not due to moral ambiguity or inherent absurdity or apparent contradiction with another portion of Scripture.

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Originally posted by Scott
Guys, I recommend this article cautiously for the critical reader:
The Superiority of Pre-Critical Exegesis

This is a really important essay that has been reprinted in a number of places.

I recommend it highly.

rsc

 

[Philip A]

Originally posted by py3ak
I had just recently read Augustine and Aquinas on interpretation and thought that he was very fair to them, and so probably fair to all the others he presented.

In what particular works of Augustine and Aquinas (besides the one mentioned in the article - Augustine's De Doctrina Christiana) can their writings on interpretation be found?

[Edited on 6-8-2006 by Philip A]

 

[py3ak]

Philip,

De Doctrina Christiana was the one I read. The title seems a bit misleading in retrospect, but it was very good. For Aquinas check out Summa 1.p1.q1.a10

P(1)-Q(1)-A(10)
Whether in Holy Scripture a word may have several senses?
P(1)-Q(1)-A(10) -O(1) "” It seems that in Holy Writ a word cannot have several senses, historical or literal, allegorical, tropological or moral, and anagogical. For many different senses in one text produce confusion and deception and destroy all force of argument. Hence no argument, but only fallacies, can be deduced from a multiplicity of propositions. But Holy Writ ought to be able to state the truth without any fallacy. Therefore in it there cannot be several senses to a word.
P(1)-Q(1)-A(10) -O(2) "” Further, Augustine says (De util. cred. iii) that "œthe Old Testament has a fourfold division as to history, etiology, analogy and allegory." Now these four seem altogether different from the four divisions mentioned in the first objection. Therefore it does not seem fitting to explain the same word of Holy Writ according to the four different senses mentioned above.
P(1)-Q(1)-A(10) -O(3) "” Further, besides these senses, there is the parabolical, which is not one of these four.
P(1)-Q(1)-A(10) "” On the contrary, Gregory says (Moral. xx, 1): "œHoly Writ by the manner of its speech transcends every science, because in one and the same sentence, while it describes a fact, it reveals a mystery."
P(1)-Q(1)-A(10) "” I answer that, The author of Holy Writ is God, in whose power it is to signify His meaning, not by words only (as man also can do), but also by things themselves. So, whereas in every other science things are signified by words, this science has the property, that the things signified by the words have themselves also a signification. Therefore that first signification whereby words signify things belongs to the first sense, the historical or literal. That signification whereby things signified by words have themselves also a signification is called the spiritual sense, which is based on the literal, and presupposes it. Now this spiritual sense has a threefold division. For as the Apostle says (Hebrews 10:1) the Old Law is a figure of the New Law, and Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. i) "œthe New Law itself is a figure of future glory." Again, in the New Law, whatever our Head has done is a type of what we ought to do. Therefore, so far as the things of the Old Law signify the things of the New Law, there is the allegorical sense; so far as the things done in Christ, or so far as the things which signify Christ, are types of what we ought to do, there is the moral sense. But so far as they signify what relates to eternal glory, there is the anagogical sense. Since the literal sense is that which the author intends, and since the author of Holy Writ is God, Who by one act comprehends all things by His intellect, it is not unfitting, as Augustine says (Confess. xii), if, even according to the literal sense, one word in Holy Writ should have several senses.
P(1)-Q(1)-A(10) -RO(1) "” The multiplicity of these senses does not produce equivocation or any other kind of multiplicity, seeing that these senses are not multiplied because one word signifies several things, but because the things signified by the words can be themselves types of other things. Thus in Holy Writ no confusion results, for all the senses are founded on one "” the literal "” from which alone can any argument be drawn, and not from those intended in allegory, as Augustine says (Epis. 48). Nevertheless, nothing of Holy Scripture perishes on account of this, since nothing necessary to faith is contained under the spiritual sense which is not elsewhere put forward by the Scripture in its literal sense.
P(1)-Q(1)-A(10) -RO(2) "” These three "” history, etiology, analogy "” are grouped under the literal sense. For it is called history, as Augustine expounds (Epis. 48), whenever anything is simply related; it is called etiology when its cause is assigned, as when Our Lord gave the reason why Moses allowed the putting away of wives "” namely, on account of the hardness of men´s hearts; it is called analogy whenever the truth of one text of Scripture is shown not to contradict the truth of another. Of these four, allegory alone stands for the three spiritual senses. Thus Hugh of St. Victor (Sacram. iv, 4 Prolog.) includes the anagogical under the allegorical sense, laying down three senses only "” the historical, the allegorical, and the tropological.
P(1)-Q(1)-A(10) -RO(3) "” The parabolical sense is contained in the literal, for by words things are signified properly and figuratively. Nor is the figure itself, but that which is figured, the literal sense. When Scripture speaks of God´s arm, the literal sense is not that God has such a member, but only what is signified by this member, namely operative power. Hence it is plain that nothing false can ever underlie the literal sense of Holy Writ.

 

[Scott]

Ruben: You hit on some excerpts that caused me to note reading with caution, especially the remarks by Origen and the reference to demythologizing. Those comments are wrong. I think there is a lot that can be learned from the article, though.

 

[Scott]

Here are a coupl good quotes from Augustine. I am persuaded by his view with respect to typology. With respect to stories, the events were literally and historically true. In addition, they functioned as symbolic prophecies of things to come (Christ and His work).

From Augustine, City of God, Book 17, Ch.1:

If, therefore, I wished to rehearse all that the prophets have predicted concerning Christ, while the city of God, with its members dying and being born in constant succession, ran its course through those times, this work would extend beyond all bounds. First, because the Scripture itself, even when, in treating in order of the kings and of their deeds and the events of their reigns, it seems to be occupied in narrating as with historical diligence the affairs transacted, will be found, if the things handled by it are considered with the aid of the Spirit of God, either more, or certainly not less, intent on foretelling things to come than on relating things past. And who that thinks even a little about it does not know how laborious and prolix a work it would be, and how many volumes it would require to search this out by thorough investigation and demonstrate it by argument? And then, because of that which without dispute pertains to prophecy, there are so many things concerning Christ and the kingdom of heaven, which is the city of God, that to explain these a larger discussion would be necessary than the due proportion of this work admits of. Therefore I shall, if I can, so limit myself, that in carrying through this work, I may, with God's help, neither say what is superfluous nor omit what is necessary.

On the 3-fold meaning of prophecy from Augustine, City of God, Book 17, Ch.3

Wherefore just as that divine oracle to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and all the other prophetic signs or sayings which are given in the earlier sacred writings, so also the other prophecies from this time of the kings pertain partly to the nation of Abraham's flesh, and partly to that seed of his in which all nations are blessed as fellow-heirs of Christ by the New Testament, to the possessing of eternal life and the kingdom of the heavens. Therefore they pertain partly to the bond maid who gendereth to bondage, that is, the earthly Jerusalem, which is in bondage with her children; but partly to the free city of God, that is, the true Jerusalem eternal in the heavens, whose children are all those that live according to God in the earth: but there are some things among them which are understood to pertain to both,-to the bond maid properly, to the free woman figuratively.
Therefore prophetic utterances of three kinds are to be found; forasmuch as there are some relating to the earthly Jerusalem, some to the heavenly, and some to both. I think it proper to prove what I say by examples. The prophet Nathan was sent to convict king David of heinous sin, and predict to him what future evils should be consequent on it. Who can question that this and the like pertain to the terrestrial city, whether publicly, that is, for the safety or help of the people, or privately, when there are given forth for each one's private good divine utterances whereby something of the future may be known for the use of temporal life? But where we read, "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make for the house of Israel, and for the house of Judah, a new testament: not according to the testament that I settled for their fathers in the day when I laid hold of their hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my testament, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. For this is the testament that I will make for the house of Israel: after those days, saith the Lord, I will give my laws in their mind, and will write them upon their hearts, and I will see to them; and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people;"5 -without doubt this is prophesied to the Jerusalem above, whose reward is God Himself, and whose chief and entire good it is to have Him, and to be His. But this pertains to both, that the city of God is called Jerusalem, and that it is prophesied the house of God shall be in it; and this prophecy seems to be fulfilled when king Solomon builds that most noble temple. For these things both happened in the earthly Jerusalem, as history shows, and were types of the heavenly Jerusalem. And this kind of prophecy, as it were compacted and commingled of both the others in the ancient canonical books, containing historical narratives, is of very great significance, and has exercised and exercises greatly the wits of those who search holy writ. For example, what we read of historically as predicted and fulfilled in the seed of Abraham according to, the flesh, we must also inquire the allegorical meaning of, as it is to be fulfilled in the seed of Abraham according to faith. And so much is this the case, that some have thought there is nothing in these books either foretold and effected, or effected although not foretold, that does not insinuate something else which is to be referred by figurative signification to the city of God on high, and to her children who are pilgrims in this life. But if this be so, then the utterances of the prophets, or rather the whole of those Scriptures that are reckoned under the title of the Old Testament, will be not of three, but of two different kinds. For there will be nothing there which pertains to the terrestrial Jerusalem only, if whatever is there said and fulfilled of or concerning her signifies something which also refers by allegorical prefiguration to the celestial Jerusalem; but there will be only two kinds one that pertains to the free Jerusalem, the other to both. But just as, I think, they err greatly who are of opinion that none of the records of affairs in that kind of writings mean anything more than that they so happened, so I think those very daring who contend that the whole gist of their contents lies in allegorical significations. Therefore I have said they are threefold, not two-fold. Yet, in holding this opinion, I do not blame those who may be able to draw out of everything there a spiritual meaning, only saving, first of all, the historical truth. For the rest, what believer can doubt that those things are spoken vainly which are such that, whether said to have been done or to be yet to come, they do not beseem either human or divine affairs? Who would not recall these to spiritual understanding if he could, or confess that they should be recalled by him who is able?

 

[Rich Barcellos]

Originally posted by R. Scott Clark

Originally posted by Scott
Guys, I recommend this article cautiously for the critical reader:
The Superiority of Pre-Critical Exegesis

This is a really important essay that has been reprinted in a number of places.

I recommend it highly.

rsc

I agree with Dr. Clark.

 

[py3ak]

Scott, thanks for those Augustine quotes. It fits in very well with what I have been thinking lately. Psalm 89:27, for instance, would seem to have a fulfillment in 2 Chronicles 9:22,23; but can anyone read Revelation 1:5 and not see that it is true of Christ?
The way I have articulated this position is very much a la Aquinas. God makes promises, and those promises do relate to the physical (land of Canaan, descendants, etc.); but those same physical fulfillments are themselves typical, prophetic, of a deeper fulfillment. I think that is what the author of Hebrews does with Psalm 95.