Dispensational vs Reformed Hermeneutic

[blhowes]

Originally posted by Wannabee
So, the first step would be to work through the original text. I won't be able to work on that right away. My Hebrew is rusty and it will take me a little bit to get it done. Still competing assignments for summer classes right now. Anybody up to it?

Since the majority of Christians can't read/understand Hebrew or Greek, I'm wondering what alternative the rest of us have to going to the original text and digging out meanings from the original languages per this hermeneutic principle. If there are no alternatives, then we're stuck just trusting the experts - dispensational experts if we're in a dispensational church or reformed experts if we're in a reformed church. There must be some way for the rest of us to be Berean Christians in this regard.

[Edited on 6-1-2006 by blhowes]

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by turmeric

Originally posted by blhowes
...the reformed hermeneutic I posted reflects, according to Joe, the way he as a dispensationalist approaches scripture. Anybody know anything unique about the reformed hermeneutic that I missed that would differentiate it from the dispensational hermeneutic?

How's this, from John Owen;

"This principle is always to be retained in our minds in reading of the Scripture, namely, that the revelation and doctrine of the person of Christ and His office is the foundation on which all other instructions of the prophets and apostles for the edification of the Church are built, and in which they are resolved."

From The Glory of Christ by John Owen

 

[blhowes]

Originally posted by Wannabee
It might help if the above hermeneutic was clarified and stated succinctly. For instance, while Christ is evident throughout the OT, some take this too far. I suspect that CTs would see Christ in more passages than DTs. What guidelines are used to keep one from eisegesis (I-see-Jesus ).

I was thinking about the Daniel 9 passage with regard to the hermeneutic principles one uses, and how important it is to make sure we have and use the right principles. It seems the reformed hermeneutic leads the interpretter to see Jesus and His finished work in the latter part of the chapter - the dispensational hermeneutic (I assume) leads the interpretter to see the antiChrist in the same passage. If that's where each hermeneutic leads, one of them definitely needs a little tweaking.

 

[gregbed]

Originally posted by blhowes

Originally posted by Wannabee
So, the first step would be to work through the original text. I won't be able to work on that right away. My Hebrew is rusty and it will take me a little bit to get it done. Still competing assignments for summer classes right now. Anybody up to it?

Since the majority of Christians can't read/understand Hebrew or Greek, I'm wondering what alternative the rest of us have to going to the original text and digging out meanings from the original languages per this hermeneutic principle. If there are no alternatives, then we're stuck just trusting the experts - dispensational experts if we're in a dispensational church or reformed experts if we're in a reformed church. There must be some way for the rest of us to be Berean Christians in this regard.

[Edited on 6-1-2006 by blhowes]

I think there are some "half-way" steps that can help the student get closer to the Greek. An Englishman's Greek Concordance is one. I have been working with the ESV Reverse Interlinear and find it a good help. While the texts are ordered according to the English translation a numbering notational system is used to indicate the original order of the Greek text. (They have a Hebrew version also for the OT.) I have this in Logos, so by placing the cursor over the Greek word I can get the grammatical information. I need to always remind myself that I am not therefore an original languages scholar and any conclusions must be tentative. I read scholarly, or semi-scholarly, commentaries that explain the text and then try to find a scholar from a different theological viewpoint discuss the text to see what disagreements they have about the underlying text. Often falsifiable claims are made about the original language that can be tested. Failure on that test marks a commentator as unreliable for me. Hope this doesn't sound too modernist but I think it is a worthwhile half-step that someone can start with right away.
A diligent reading of Carson's "Exegetical Fallacies" is a must. I spent a long time under the belief that the original language held the definitive answer to all the theological difficulties. Often however I discover that ambiguities in the translation is often the result of a good translation of an ambiguous text.

 

[blhowes]

Originally posted by gregbed
I think there are some "half-way" steps that can help the student get closer to the Greek.

** snip **

I need to always remind myself that I am not therefore an original languages scholar and any conclusions must be tentative.

Greg,
Thanks for your helpful advice. I use something similar with e-sword to find out what the words mean, but, as you say, conclusions are tentative at best.

Originally posted by gregbed
A diligent reading of Carson's "Exegetical Fallacies" is a must. I spent a long time under the belief that the original language held the definitive answer to all the theological difficulties. Often however I discover that ambiguities in the translation is often the result of a good translation of an ambiguous text.

That sounds like a 'must read'. Although it'd be great to know the original languages and to really dig into it, I think a lot of wrong ideas about the english meaning can be weeded out by simply looking at the text in several different versions. My guess is that if all the versions essentially interpret the verses the same way, digging into the originals won't affect the overall rendering.

 

[Wannabee]

Good exegetical commentaries can help as well. But often you're getting a slant that you're not able to pick up on because of lack of ability with the languages. It would be best to try to find at least a couple for the passage in question and compare them to one another. The Bible software tools available today definitely give the student a great edge in this area, even if he doesn't know Greek or Hebrew.

But there are always nuances in the language that just don't translate well. Then there's the challenge of how to translate idioms. Do we translate them literally and simply footnote the idiom, or do we translate it in a manner that relates to the idiom in contemporary English? I prefer the former for an "official" translation. But this needs to be uncovered when exegeting the text.

Sometimes there are emphatic elements involved that are easily missed in English translations as well. Without some exegetical digging this would be very difficult to discover. Outlining the text helps to see patterns and emphasis as well. This brings up another item that is missed in English. Chiasm is used often in Hebrew. But it doesn't translate as a chiasm very often. There is no way to see this without looking at the Hebrew, or reading about it in a commentary. This can be very important because chiasms give emphasis and focus in ways that English doesn't.

I'm not saying that anyone "needs" to be able to work with the languages. The English translations are great. But it helps a lot in the exegetical process if we can begin with the original.

Here's an example from Pslam 32:5

[5] I will make my sin known to You,
and I will not conceal my guilt.
I said, "œI will confess my transgression to the LORD,"
so You took away guilt for my sin.

Notice that "sin" is in the first line. Guilt is in the second line. Transgression in the third line. Guilt (same word as in second line) is next, with sin repeated last (same word as in 1st line).
So, we have a pattern of

sin
guilt
transgression
guilt
sin

Here are some observations I noted on this a while back. The use of different words referring to sin or guilt in verse 5 are arranged in a chiasm. The order is חַטָּ×תִי - וַעֲוֹ֘נִי - פְש×ָעַי - עֲוֹ֖ן - חַטָּ×תִי, or sin "“ guilt "“ transgression "“ guilt "“ sin. The significance may be that David purposes to confess or make his sin known to God, and to reveal his iniquity or guilt. Finally he verbalizes it by saying he will confess his transgression to the
LORD (that he has stepped over the line that God has established), resulting in God taking away his iniquity or guilt for his sin. The significance is placed on the middle word here and what is happening in this phrase, for it is the turning point, the climax, of this verse. It is here that David finally gains relief from the anguish caused by his sin and, as these verses point out, his unwillingness to deal with it properly. The use of these specific words has significance in their use earlier in this psalm as well.
The first waw-conjunction in verse five is simply to show concurrent action (וַעֲוֹ֘נִי).
Emphasis is given to the fact that it is the LORD, and Him alone, who bears away guilt for our sins.

Furthermore, this psalm has some idiomatic language. One phrase is "Your hand was heavy upon me." This language was used in the region whenever someone was going through hard times. For the pagans it meant that they needed to try to figure out how to placate their gods. But for the Israelite it meant that God was working in their lives and that they needed to turn to Him and trust Him. In David's case it was a matter of repenting. God took the guilt for the sin from him, which the pagan gods could never do. David knew reconciliation. Pagans could never know if their sacrifices and other efforts at appeasing their gods was going to do anything for them. The contrast is wonderful. Pagan gods put their hand on man's neck to oppress him. YHWH presses down on the neck of those He loves in order to bring them to a closer relationship with Him.

In verse 3 and 4 there are these observations as well:
The emphasis on the duration of the anguish of the guilty conscience has been brought forward in verses 3 and 4 of this psalm. By the use of anadiplosis the all consuming nature of David being crushed day in and day out, night and day, is brought out for the reader to gain a better understanding of the magnitude of both David´s guilt as he reflects, and on our own guilt when we attempt to deal with sin ourselves.

This can't quite be seen in the English either. If someone knew what to look for they might realize it was there. But I doubt it would be notable to any who didn't have some knowledge of Hebrew.



My point is, even a thorough treatment of this psalm in the English would most likely not reveal these things. Yet they are helpful in digging into the depth of God's Word. A good exegetical commentary should note these though.

By the way, Psalm 32 was Augustine's favorite.

 

[blhowes]

Originally posted by Wannabee
My point is, even a thorough treatment of this psalm in the English would most likely not reveal these things. Yet they are helpful in digging into the depth of God's Word.

Mat 13:45,46 Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a merchant man, seeking goodly pearls: Who, when he had found one pearl of great price, went and sold all that he had, and bought it.

Thanks for the example from Psalm 32. Its good to be reminded of the depth of God's Word and just how precious it is. Praise the Lord for those who can use their skill to dig out such truths for others.

Originally posted by Wannabee
A good exegetical commentary should note these though.

What commentaries do you and others find most useful in providing this kind of information?

 

[Wannabee]

Originally posted by blhowesWhat commentaries do you and others find most useful in providing this kind of information?

Tough call. It depends a lot on how much work you're willing to do and which book you're studying. Alford and Robertson deal well with the text, but may leave you scratching your head on occasion if you have no understanding of the Greek. I like Alford better. He simply has more information. The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament is excellent for digging into the meaning of the words. This isn't a commentary either, but more of a lexical/theological aid. Hendriksen is helpful with the NT as well. MacArthur would be more expository - easy to read and deals with language enough to be helpful, but not so much as to overwhelm someone with no basic knowledge.

For the OT The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament is very helpful. So is the New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis (NIDOTTE - The NT set is helpful as well). But these deal with individual words, which often requires at least some understanding of the language. You could learn how to use any of these effectively though, with just a little bit of study. For the Psalms you need Spurgeon. Regardless of what some people say, he does have some good exegetical information in The Treasury of David. But you need the unabridged version. The re-edited versions take out a lot of the exegitcal information. Spurgeon used books that we can't find today. Some of these observations are extremely valuable (like his discussion on "Selah"). There will be a commentary on the Psalms coming out soon from Dr. William Barrick also. I expect it to be very thorough and very good. You can check out a little bit of his work at his website, www.drbarrick.org. He has teaching outlines of most of the psalms there, as well as some other information that is helpful.

One of the better commentary sets, though I don't care for the NIV, is the NIVAC. The layout makes sense and is easy to use. They're generally very helpful. Word Biblical Commentary has some excellent commentaries. So do the NIGTC, Pillar and NICNT. But many of these sets have sort of a mixed bag, with a liberal scholar thrown in here and there. That's why you want to be careful in who you read. I like Hiebert on the NT books. He deals with the language, but in terminology that isn't too difficult to follow. He also deals with some of the desagreements in translation, without bogging down. And his contextual and expositional observations are very valuable as well (I sound like a commercial).

It really depends on which book you're studying though. Often there is an excellent work on one book by one person who really didn't do much in other areas. Hoehner has an excellent commentary on Ephesians. It's really a valuable tool. Carson's commentary on John is excellent as well (though he has other excellent books). Also, there is often a good commentary within a set that is not so good, a gem amongst the pebbles.

I know this may be overwhelming, and doesn't answer your question definitively. That's because I don't know that there is a definitive answer. It's simply too subjective, depending on how much work the individual is willing to put in; how much they know; what book they're in; and of course there are theological conisiderations as well.




So, if you have a few thousand bucks laying around, buy all the sets mentioned, plus a few favorites on each book, and enjoy yourself. But if you're like me, buy the aids you can afford, focus on one book at a time and buy the best aids you can find on that book, and start digging. You could do this the rest of your life and never get through the Bible.

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Both Dispensational and Covenant theologians say they want to read Scripture literally etc. Yet we reach radically different conclusions re Israel.

See this essay.

It's a chicken and egg thing. Do we have our hermeneutic because of our theology or our theology because of our hermeneutic? The truth is probably that there is a reciprocal relation between the two. No one can say anymore, "I'm just reading the Bible..."

First of all, there's an "I'm" in "I'm just reading the Bible." A person must read the Bible. A Bible-reader lives in a given time and place. He is a product of his time and place. He, being a creature, can't transcend his time and place. So he "reads" his Bible under lots of influences. He's aware of some and not of others.

Second there is the verb "to read." There are obviously lots of ways to read a text, especially a text as layered as Scripture. So, some one, under some influences, is reading something, somewhere. To explain this would require a textbook. See e.g., Kevin Vanhoozer's work.

The short story is that Dispensationalists are convinced that national Israel is at the center of God's redemptive activity and they read the Bible in that light.

Covenant theology reads the Bible to say that Christ (the Christ of the Covenants) is at the center of redemptive history and that Israel, as it were, works for Christ. God's relations to national Israel were intentionally temporary and illustrative of his plan to redeem all his people through the obedience of his Son. See this essay.

Dispensationalists have been wont to imply/say that they are free from historical influence. It's a form of Biblicism (see above). Cov theology is, otoh, organically related to the way Christians have read the Bible since the earliest days. Read any of the early fathers on the unity of redemption, Irenaeus, Matthetes, et al and you will find them using a hermeneutic quite like that of covenant theology. [On early Christian eschatology see C. E. Hill] The medieval theologians, despite their faults, tended to see the history of redemption as united in Christ. The Reformation overwhelmingly read the Bible as CT does as did the 17th century orthodox. Historically considered, Dispensationalism" is about 150 years old. It isn't the hermeneutic of historic Christianity. Honest Dispensationalists will admit this.

There is, however, in my experience, a certain correlation between ignorance of historic Christianity and Dispensationalism, especially on the popular level. The Dispensationalists I've known specialize in creating a culture wherein they peddle gnostic insights into the Bible that no-one has had before e.g., "the Pauline epistles are not for "today" or "here's how this news event fulfills this prophecy." Laity in Dispensational churches are often shocked to find that their hermeneutic and theological system is a novelty.

The other factor is eschatology and world view. The older dispensational premillennialists tend to have an almost gnostic view of material reality. They want to escape it (via rapture) and they have the gnostic dialectic of indulgence and repression. One day they want to take back America for Christ or advocate antinomianism (Zane Hodges' antinomianism is related to his Dispensationalism) and the next day they are trying to flee material reality ("don't taste, don't touch" etc). Perhaps this describes older forms of dispensationalism better than the more recent versions?

CT has tended to be implicitly or explicitly non-millenarian, though not exclusively. There was an outbreak of historic pre-millennialism in the 17th century. Most of the time, however, we haven't looked for a literal 1000 year reign because we recognized that the Apocalypse was mostly symbolic. [On this I think I've seen dispensational writers treat the 7 churches as symbolic and the rest as literal. Yikes! See Colin Hemer's excellent work on the 7 churches].

From a CT pov, the older forms of dispensationalism seem quasi-Marcionite in their hermeneutic. Most of the older writers, anyway, were convinced that we cannot imitate the method/way the NT writers read the OT. So they have their own hermeneutic over against Paul's or Peter's or John's. Thus, they effectively insulated themselves against ever reforming their conclusions because they can't replicate or imitate the NT hermeneutic! Nice work if you can get it.

CT, otoh, doesn't think that the apostolic hermeneutic was inspired, just the text of Scripture. One doesn't need to be inspired to see "that Rock was Christ." or even to read Scripture as Jesus did in Luke 24 or as 1 Peter 4 does when he makes the New Cov church the holy temple over which the glory-Spirit hovers. 2 Cor 1 says literally that "all the promises are yes and amen in Christ," (not national Israel). Jesus literally re-capitulated the history of Israel (Matt 2) when he went "down to Egypt" and came up "out of Egypt." He literally fulfilled the promise to destroy and re-build the temple in three days. It's not a matter of who reads the Bible literally, it's a matter of who reads the Bible literally the way the Bible wants to be read, the way the Bible writers, esp. the Apostles, read it themselves. So ask yourself, who is a better guide to understanding the Hebrew Scriptures, Paul or C. Ryrie? There really is a choice.

rsc

 

[blhowes]

Originally posted by Wannabee
I know this may be overwhelming, and doesn't answer your question definitively. That's because I don't know that there is a definitive answer. It's simply too subjective, depending on how much work the individual is willing to put in; how much they know; what book they're in; and of course there are theological conisiderations as well.

Don't worry about me being overwhelmed - I've learned to get use to the feeling, having been a member of the PB going on 4 yrs...

I think you did answer my question definitively. The commentary used depends on the book being studied.

Originally posted by Wannabee
So, if you have a few thousand bucks laying around, buy all the sets mentioned, plus a few favorites on each book, and enjoy yourself. But if you're like me, buy the aids you can afford, focus on one book at a time and buy the best aids you can find on that book, and start digging. You could do this the rest of your life and never get through the Bible.

A few thousand bucks ... ... no point reading the rest of the paragraph.

...A few thousand bucks......good one!

 

[blhowes]

Dr. Clark,
Thank-you for your response, and your links to the essays.

Originally posted by R. Scott Clark
It's a chicken and egg thing. Do we have our hermeneutic because of our theology or our theology because of our hermeneutic? The truth is probably that there is a reciprocal relation between the two. No one can say anymore, "I'm just reading the Bible..."

I understand what you're saying, though I have a pretty authoritative source that leads me to believe that the chicken did indeed come first...

I don't know if its the same thing, but lately I've been thinking that finding the truth in the scriptures involves (at least) two ways of looking at the scriptures. One way is through hermeneutics whereby you look at the scripture passages closely, as if through a microscope. You examine the text, using whatever tools you have at your disposal, to unlock hidden meanings.

The second way is by just reading the Bible from a 'bird's-eye view', reading large portions of scripture to try and see general themes in the scriptures. The two should work hand-in-hand.

Originally posted by R. Scott Clark
The short story is that Dispensationalists are convinced that national Israel is at the center of God's redemptive activity and they read the Bible in that light.

Covenant theology reads the Bible to say that Christ (the Christ of the Covenants) is at the center of redemptive history and that Israel, as it were, works for Christ. God's relations to national Israel were intentionally temporary and illustrative of his plan to redeem all his people through the obedience of his Son.

When stated that way, the choice between theologies is simple. In a way, though, isn't dispensationalism grounded in the covenants and God's faithfulness to keep his covenant promises? CT and dispensationalism differ in who the recipients are, but both agree that God is faithful and, because of this attribute, He will fulfill whatever promises he made as part of the covenant.

The bottom line is that God made covenants with 'his people'. God is faithful to keep the covenant promises he made to 'his people'. As you mentioned in the first essay, its important to determine who 'his people' (ie., who is Israel) are.

 

[Wannabee]

Thank you Dr. Clark.


I like The White Horse Inn as well.


The essays are good to read. However, there are sweeping comments that are too general in regard to dispensationalism. DT is presented as decidedly Arminian; too wide of a brush ("the cross is ahappy by-product of God's plan for natioinal Israel").


"Honest Dispensationalists will admit this."
In other words, if you disagree then you are either dishonest, or ignorant.


"It's not a matter of who reads the Bible literally, it's a matter of who reads the Bible literally the way the Bible wants to be read, the way the Bible writers, esp. the Apostles, read it themselves."
This is well said, but poorly followed up.

"So ask yourself, who is a better guide to understanding the Hebrew Scriptures, Paul or C. Ryrie? There really is a choice."
Very unhelpful and unedifying use of sarcasm. A dispensationalist would insert Calvin or Witsius or one of the other heroes of CT here and the statement would be just as valid in reverse (though I usually prefer Calvin's comments over Ryrie's).


This discussion involved hermeneutics, not systematics. Any honest CT will admit that their system isn't much older than DT, in the scheme of things. It's not a matter of which is older, but which is right. There are tenets of both from the earliest days of the church.



Sorry Bob. At this point an effort to understand one another and discuss the difference in hermeneutics has been superceded...

Blessings
Joe

[Edited on 6-3-2006 by Wannabee]

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Dear W,

Any honest CT will admit that their system isn't much older than Deut...

What are you saying, that Covenant theology was invented in the middle of the 19th century?

You haven't been reading the history of covenant theology published in Bib Sac have you? That was a really amateur piece of work!

Covenant theology in the Reformation traces to at least 1523 in Johannes Oecolampadius' commentary on Isaiah.

No one in the Reformation was propounding seven different dispensations (as in classic dispensationalism) in the Reformation. No one was making God's relations to national Israel the lever by which all of redemptive history was analyzed. See Luther's notes on how Christians should understand Moses.

I don't see a trace of what became dispensationalism in the Fathers, whereas ALL patrologists see a strong doctrine of the unity of redemption in the fathers over against the gnostics.

This discussion involved hermeneutics, not systematics.

This is the sort of naivete about which I was writing. Hermeneutics is not some hermetically sealed science practiced by folk who aren't somewhere at sometime.

Hermeneutics IS theology. They are inextricably linked to one another.

 

[gregbed]

Originally posted by Wannabee

Originally posted by blhowesWhat commentaries do you and others find most useful in providing this kind of information?

Tough call. It depends a lot on how much work you're willing to do and which book you're studying. Alford and Robertson deal well with the text, but may leave you scratching your head on occasion if you have no understanding of the Greek. I like Alford better. He simply has more information. The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament is excellent for digging into the meaning of the words. This isn't a commentary either, but more of a lexical/theological aid. Hendriksen is helpful with the NT as well. MacArthur would be more expository - easy to read and deals with language enough to be helpful, but not so much as to overwhelm someone with no basic knowledge.

For the OT The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament is very helpful. So is the New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis (NIDOTTE - The NT set is helpful as well). But these deal with individual words, which often requires at least some understanding of the language. You could learn how to use any of these effectively though, with just a little bit of study. For the Psalms you need Spurgeon. Regardless of what some people say, he does have some good exegetical information in The Treasury of David. But you need the unabridged version. The re-edited versions take out a lot of the exegitcal information. Spurgeon used books that we can't find today. Some of these observations are extremely valuable (like his discussion on "Selah"). There will be a commentary on the Psalms coming out soon from Dr. William Barrick also. I expect it to be very thorough and very good. You can check out a little bit of his work at his website, www.drbarrick.org. He has teaching outlines of most of the psalms there, as well as some other information that is helpful.

One of the better commentary sets, though I don't care for the NIV, is the NIVAC. The layout makes sense and is easy to use. They're generally very helpful. Word Biblical Commentary has some excellent commentaries. So do the NIGTC, Pillar and NICNT. But many of these sets have sort of a mixed bag, with a liberal scholar thrown in here and there. That's why you want to be careful in who you read. I like Hiebert on the NT books. He deals with the language, but in terminology that isn't too difficult to follow. He also deals with some of the desagreements in translation, without bogging down. And his contextual and expositional observations are very valuable as well (I sound like a commercial).

It really depends on which book you're studying though. Often there is an excellent work on one book by one person who really didn't do much in other areas. Hoehner has an excellent commentary on Ephesians. It's really a valuable tool. Carson's commentary on John is excellent as well (though he has other excellent books). Also, there is often a good commentary within a set that is not so good, a gem amongst the pebbles.

I know this may be overwhelming, and doesn't answer your question definitively. That's because I don't know that there is a definitive answer. It's simply too subjective, depending on how much work the individual is willing to put in; how much they know; what book they're in; and of course there are theological conisiderations as well.

So, if you have a few thousand bucks laying around, buy all the sets mentioned, plus a few favorites on each book, and enjoy yourself. But if you're like me, buy the aids you can afford, focus on one book at a time and buy the best aids you can find on that book, and start digging. You could do this the rest of your life and never get through the Bible.

Ditto.
You're not going to read them all at once, so no point in buying them all at once. Even if you got a discount for one a whole series at once, I don't know if the savings would cover the individual books you wouldn't have bought.
I get a lot of use out of my Logos. It has TDNT & TWOT. I bought it a while ago, so I don't what current configuration gets you that. The "leader books" mostly stink and the commentaries are single volume, so if you can get the good stuff without them, that's the way I would go. Then start buying commentaries 2 or 3 at time as you study or teach a book.
I was suprised by the NIVAC. I almost didn't buy it because of the cover - front is dorky and back has endorsement quotes by Rick Warren and Billy Graham. I really like the Thess. & Eze. ones, haven't read 2 Cor., but like other Hafemann works. There are some good New American Commentaries like the one on Samuel, as well as duds like the one on Ezekiel. Carson's commentary on John is GREAT.
Figure out where you want to start and ask what people like and why they like them.

 

[Wannabee]

Thank you for putting me in my place Dr. You've accused me of dishonesty and naivete. Furthermore, you addressed my comment out of context. The dating of CT is generous, but still is "new" in the scheme of things (as I stated).

I don't see a trace of what became dispensationalism in the Fathers"¦

Leroy Edwin Froom: The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, I, 207: "œThe early church was distinctly premillennialist in her cherished expectations of Christ´s second advent. His coming and Kingdom were her constant hope. The Apostolic Fathers anticipated a future Kingdom in connection with the Redeemer´s Advent."

a. Papias (d. 155)

According to Eusebius, Church History, "œFragments of Papias," in ANF, I, 154: "œAmongst these he [Papias] says that there will be a millennium after the resurrection from the dead, when the personal reign of Christ will be established on this earth."

b. Justin Martyr (100-165)

"œDialogue with Trypho," in ANF, I, 239:
"œBut I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged, [as] the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare."

c. Tertullian (160-c. 230)

"œAgainst Marcion," in ANG, 3, 343:
"œBut we do confess that a kingdom is promised to us on earth. . . . inasmuch as it will be after the resurrection for a thousand years in the divinely-built city of Jerusalem "˜let down from heaven. . . .´"

d. Hippolytus (d. 236)

Concentrated on the Book of Daniel.
Premillennial interpretation of the image, and the animal passage.
Excellent interpretation of the days, seeing them as days, not years.
Even a good start on the interpretation of the 70 weeks.
Separated the 70th week from the 69th.

Froom, 278: "œHippolytus is believed to be the first to have projected such a theory, making the sixty-nine weeks reach from the first year of Darius the Mede to Christ´s first coming, and the seventieth to begin separately after a gap, just before Christ´s second coming."

e. Others: Cyprian (200-258); Lactantius (250-330); Athanasius (297-373) and other Nicene Council participants.

Admittedly, there is a little room here for misunderstanding. But certainly not enough to not take this seriously and admit the presence of premillennialism in the early church. As far as I can tell, their were no anti-premillinnialist proponents until Origen.


The authoritative nature of the statement regarding hermeneutics and theology notwithstanding, and your credentials duly noted, perhaps your expertise surpasses others who have gone before you.

Hermeneutics "“ Biblical Hermeneutics: A Treatise on the Interpretation of the Old and New Testaments by Milton S. Terry.

Hermeneutics is the science of interpretation. The word is usually applied to the explanation of written documents, and may therefore be more specifically defined as the science of interpreting an author´s language [as the footnote states, the Greek bears this out as well]. (p. 17)
Biblical or Sacred Hermeneutics is the science of interpreting the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments (p. 18).
Biblical Hermeneutics, having a specific field of its own, should be carefully distinguished from other branches of theological science with which it is often and quite naturally associated. It is to be distinguished from Biblical Introduction, Textual Criticism, and Exegesis"¦ Where such criticism [lower criticism] ends, Hermeneutics properly begins, and aims to establish the principles, methods, and rules which are needful to unfold the sense of what is written"¦ Exegesis is the application of these principles and laws, the actual bringing out into formal statement, and by other terms, the meaning of the author´s words. Exegesis is related to hermeneutics as preaching is to homiletics, or, in general, as practice is to theory. (p. 19)
As a science, it enunciates princ8ples, investigates the laws of thought and language, and classifies its facts and results. As an art, it teaches what application these principles should have, and establishes their soundness by showing their practical value in the elucidation of the more difficult scriptures. The hermeneutical art thus cultivates and establishes a valid exegetical procedure. (p. 20)
The most contradictory rules of interpretation have been propounded, and expositions have been made to suit the peculiar tastes and prejudices of writers or to maintain preconceived opinions, until all scientific method has been set at naught, and each interpreter became a law unto himself. Hence the necessity of well-defined and self-consistent principles of Scripture interpretation. Only as exegetes come to adopt common principles and methods of procedure, will the interpretation of the Bible attain the dignity and certainty of an established science.
For the Scripture, revelation is itself essentially the centre and substance of all theological science. It contains the clearest and fullest exhibition of the person and character of God, and of the spiritual needs and possibilities of man. A sound and trustworthy interpretation of the scripture records, therefore, is the root and basis of all revealed theology. Without it Systematic Theology, or Dogmatics, could not be legitimately constructed, and would, in fact, be essentially impossible.[b/] (21-22)

Unless Terry, and others, are off their rocker, it is apparent that theology is entirely dependent upon hermeneutic principles as they are applied to exegesis. Hermeneutics are obviously not dependent upon theology, and can apparently be involved in any literature. How one could be dependent upon the other and yet still be the same thing is beyond me.

Ergo, hermeneutics is NOT theology. However, theology is inextricably linked to hermeneutics because of its utter dependency on proper exegesis.

Graciousness and humility, professor, would be admirable traits to behold. If I err, teach me, don't bully or throw authoritarian rhetoric around.


For our King
Joe

[Edited on 6-4-2006 by Wannabee]

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Originally posted by Wannabee
Thank you for putting me in my place Dr. You've accused me of dishonesty and naivete.

Not both, just the latter.

I think you're honestly wrong.

Many dispensationalists (especially of the earlier forms of it) have/had a view of hermeneutics that held it is sort of mechanical thing, put the passage in the grinder, turn the handle and there it is.

Most evangelical (and other) scholars today would say that no interpretation of any text works this way.

Take your interpretation of my criticism. You think I'm accusing you of dishonesty. Why? Because, I guess, in your world the only "honest" view is the correct view and if I think you're wrong, then I must be accusing you of dishonesty. I don't think the world works this way.

I myself have sometimes been guilty of speaking this way.

I honestly do think that you are sincere in your views, but that you are sincerely wrong. There's a difference. I don't think that being wrong entails dishonesty. You come to my comments in a context, with a background, that causes you to read them as you do. That's my broader point about hermeneutics.

Furthermore, you addressed my comment out of context. The dating of CT is generous, but still is "new" in the scheme of things (as I stated)

I read you to say that CT and Disp. are roughly contemporaraneous in origin. This was a widely-held view in American disp. circles. It relied on now discredited scholarship on the history of covenant theology.

See this essay for a popular update:
http://www.wscal.edu/clark/briefhistorycovtheol.php

I don't mean to say that that there was a fully-formed covenant theology in 1523 -- I've read the original text, done my own translation of untranslated texts; it's what I do for a living -- see this work for example.

Covenant theology developed gradually through the 16th century and into the 17th. Most of the older scholarship held that it more or less arose de novo in the 17th century with Cocceius. This is false as Van Asselt, Bierma, and I and others have shown.

I'm not aware of anything like the Scofield system (or its predecessors) in the 16th century. In many ways, dispensationalism in not a Protestant hermeneutic (defined by the Reformation reading of texts).

Yes, there were, as I've said, historic pre-mil folk in the early 17th century - there is good work being done on Alsted and Meade and Piscator and others. They weren't dispensationalists however.

I don't see a trace of what became dispensationalism in the Fathers"¦

Yes, you can quote someone quoting the Fathers, but as Luther might say, I read the Fathers for myself and I teach patristics. Though not a Patrologist by trade, I read some patristic scholarship.

Yes, as I already said, there were pre-millennial fathers, but they didn't make national Israel the baseline for understanding redemptive history -- precisely because they were in an argument with Jewish critics. They argued that Christianity was the spiritual Israel, that the national covenant was temporary and illustrative of the new covenant. Irenaeus argued this at great length.

As I say, please read C E Hill, (1st edn Oxford Univ Press; 2nd edn is Eerdmans). It is the definitive work on early Christian eschatology.

The modern discussion on hermeneutics is well beyond Milton Terry et co. Even the points I wrote (in the context of the creation debate) are somewhat naive and dated. I would write them differently today. In that context I was trying to explain to frightened fundamentalists in my own circle the same point I'm making here, that two people can use the same set of hermeneutic principles and emerge with different readings of the same text.

I'm not trying to bully you. I'm sorry you feel that way.

I do tend to be blunt and I don't think disagreement is bullying, though I understand that in our culture the two are often mistaken.

rsc

 

[blhowes]

Originally posted by blhowes
At first glance, since most agree that Jesus is the branch spoken of here, it seems from the passage that he will build the structure (?) of the temple and others will build inside the temple. I'm not sure if this is how those in the time of Zechariah would have understood this passage, but it certainly seems feasible. If this is correct:

How do we determine who they that are far off is referring to, who will help Jesus build the temple?

How do we determine how far 'far off' is (within Israel, neighboring countries, other continent, etc)?

When will Jesus and those far off build the temple?

Using the dispensational hermeneutic, is there any reason to think that the temple spoken of in the Zechariah 6 passage should not be taken to mean a 'literal' temple (one that's built with bricks and mortar or whatever) similar to other OT temples?

 

[Wannabee]

Thank you for your thoughtful reply Dr.

Forgive me if I don't know all that you've said on other threads. I don't spend much time here; just a discussion here and there. So I've missed much of what you've said.

My reference to being called dishonest is in light of

Historically considered, Dispensationalism" is about 150 years old. It isn't the hermeneutic of historic Christianity. Honest Dispensationalists will admit this.

I disagree, to a point. Systematically I see little to refute this, though there are some references they show "some" dispensational thought. Hermeneutically I disagree, but only basically.

I have not studied the fathers as you have, so lean on the teaching of my professors. Would you expect me to trust my professors any less than you expect your students to trust you? Of course we must search for ourselves, but there is only so much time in the day and many irons in the fire. We all lean on the teachings and references of others until we can search and and own it for ourselves. Either way, that's where I perceived you as calling me dishonest. Furthermore, if the quotes are accurate then the truth stands. But you've already said as much, in other words.

Even CTs see different administrations of God's relationship with man. This is part of progressive revelation. Did God interact with man the same prior to the flood as after? Prior to Abraham? Prior to Moses? Prior to David? Prior to the cross? Even immediately after the cross? Yes, salvation has not changed. But God's interaction with man has. Often the two call it by different names and talk past one another simply by reason of symantics and different perceptions on covenants.

The bullying perception came from what I saw as authoritarianism and brandishing of credentials, rather than presenting facts. This in light of being called dishonest and naive didn't come across as very humble or gracious.

As far as hermeneutics go, I used Terry to keep away from contemporary divisions. Dr. Robert Thomas, whom I'm sure you know, has the same basic position (Evangelical Hermeneutics: The New Versus the Old, Kregel, 2002). Though aged, his experience and knowledge in the area of exegesis and hermeneutics does give him a certain credibility in defining hermeneutics, dispensational or not (we'd both disagree with some of his conclusions).

This leads to one more observation: You stated that theology and hermeneutics are the same thing. I obviously disagree, seeing theology as completely dependent upon hermeneutics. However, this may be where our roads fork. It seems that CT is more reliant upon its systematics than DT (sensationalistic eschatology excluded, which departs from the dispenstational hermeneutic often). Perhaps I am mistaken, but this often seems to get in the way of common understanding, as the disagreement here in regard to hermeneutics seems to imply.

Again, thank you for your thoughtful reply.
Joe



Bob,
Yes, I do think that this would be taken to mean a literal temple, unless there was another passage that clarified it to mean otherwise. But the clear and simple meaning of the passage would be a literal temple. Those who are "far off" would most likely refer to the Gentiles, pointing out that it would include all peoples. This would have to happen after the arrival of the BRANCH.

Walk through the passage and tell me what you see here, trying not to read a preunderstanding into it (which is admittedly hard to do). We agree that the Branch is Christ. It says he shall build the temple of the LORD (not rebuild). He shall bear the glory. He shall sit and rule on His throne (this obviously hasn't happened yet, unless one takes it to mean a heavenly throne, but then the "far off" needs to be explained clearly). The uniting of the priestly and kingly office takes place in v 13.

Well, don't take my word for it. You walk through it and share what you see.

Blessings
Joe

 

[blhowes]

Originally posted by Wannabee
Well, don't take my word for it. You walk through it and share what you see.

Joe,
I'll walk through it and let you know what I see.

Originally posted by Wannabee
We agree that the Branch is Christ. It says he shall build the temple of the LORD (not rebuild). He shall bear the glory. He shall sit and rule on His throne (this obviously hasn't happened yet, unless one takes it to mean a heavenly throne, but then the "far off" needs to be explained clearly). The uniting of the priestly and kingly office takes place in v 13.

Defense Attorney: "Objection, your honor, the prosecution is leading the witness"

Judge: Sustained. The prosecution will refrain(jk).

Prosecution: Yes, your honor...OK, Mr. H., in your own words, tell us what you saw when you looked at Zechariah 6. Remember, you ARE under oath.

Mr. H: I was reading my Bible, when I happened to come across Zechariah, where it was talking about a branch building the temple and those afar off building inside it. Here's what I saw...TBD

[Edited on 6-4-2006 by blhowes]

 

[Wannabee]

Well, I have to admit that this was a pretty kneejerk effort. I didn't really do the proper work, but just gave it a quick shot. Notice that I didn't use the word "Millennium" though.

 

[gregbed]

Originally posted by Wannabee
Bob,
Yes, I do think that this would be taken to mean a literal temple, unless there was another passage that clarified it to mean otherwise. But the clear and simple meaning of the passage would be a literal temple. Those who are "far off" would most likely refer to the Gentiles, pointing out that it would include all peoples. This would have to happen after the arrival of the BRANCH.

Walk through the passage and tell me what you see here, trying not to read a preunderstanding into it (which is admittedly hard to do). We agree that the Branch is Christ...

If you could clarify the phrase above in bold. Does preunderstanding include what the NT would teach on the passage or its treatment of "the Temple" in general.
It might be premature, but let me jump to my next question. If so, why would you want to eliminate that info? It might be an interesting exercise, but it doesn't seem it would be helpful in getting at the truth. As a rough analogy, it seems it would be like asking a physicist to limit his understanding of gravity to what was known in the 19th century.

 

[blhowes]

An initial observation:

One thing that caught my attention, which may be irrelevant (but which I thought was interesting), is the differences in the names listed in verse 10 (those that are told to go to the house of Josiah) and the names listed in verse 14 (who its said "crowns shall be to...). What initially caught my attention is that some names are common to both lists, some are unique to one or the other. The meanings of their names are interesting, as is the differences between Tobijah and Jedaiah in the two lists (vs 10 has the word meaning 'with, near, together' with the name, vs 14 doesn't).

Names listed in verse 10:
Heldai (chelday) = "œworldly"
Tobijah ('êth ṭôbîyâh) = with,near,together ... Jehovah is good
Jedaiah ('eÌ‚th yeda"›yaÌ‚h) = with,near,together ... Jehovah has known

Names listed in verse 14:
Helem (cheÌ‚lem) = "œstrength" or "œdream"
Tobijah (ṭôbîyâh) = Jehovah is good
Jedaiah (yeda"›yaÌ‚h) = Jehovah has known
Hen (chên) = favour

 

[R. Scott Clark]

To what degree does Jesus' discourse in John 221) where he makes himself "the temple," and Peter's identification of the new covenant church 1 Peter 4 as "the temple" matter in interpreting such passages from the Hebrew Scriptures?

What about 1 Cor 3:16-17 and 6:19 and 2 Cor 6:16 and Eph 2:21 where the new covenant church is the temple or a temple either corporately or individually?

Originally posted by Wannabee
... this would be taken to mean a literal temple, unless there was another passage that clarified it to mean otherwise.

This is the "literal where possible," which, it seems to me is code for "national Israel" or "physical temple" where possible.

Do not the NT passages above show that not only that that "temple" can refer to the new covenant church but what the apostolic church thought was the "literal" meaning of the temple in the Hebrew Scripture?

The apostles did "literal" exegesis but in dispensationalism, don't we have an alternative exegesis proposed that isn't, if the apostles define it, a literal reading but an allegorical or doctrinal reading of "temple"?

In other words, despite the repeated NT use of "temple" in a very specific way, when it comes to assigning theological meaning to the temple, dispensationalism persists in reading the temple alternately because they know what temple must mean.

Why isn't this a rationalist a priori?

For example,

But the clear and simple meaning of the passage would be a literal temple.

Whose "clear" and whose "simple," Dispensationalism's or the Apostles'?

For the Apostles' it was "clear" and "simple," that the temple ultimately referred to Christ (because all the promises are yes and amen in Christ) and secondarily to us who are united to Christ by faith.

For the apostles, it was clearly and simply the case that Hagar stands for one city and Sarah stands for another. For the Apostles it was clear and simple "that rock was Christ."

When I criticized dispensational hermeneutics earlier as such I had in mind passages such as that in the early pages of Pentecost's Things to Come where he says that the Pharisees had the right hermeneutic, they just reached the wrong conclusions.

Doesn't the NT usage of the temple (and I haven't mentioned Hebrews, where we've come to a "mountain" that cannot be touched!) teach us not only specific conclusions, but also a hermeneutic that is incompatible with the dispensational "literal where possible" (as defined above) method?

Earlier I was asked if CT understands that there are dispensations in the progressive of revelation.

Well, it depends on what is meant. We've always taught that there is one salvation, one covenant of grace, with different administrations.

On this dispensationalists should certainly read Mike Horton's recent book on covenant theology. It is quite representative of the tradition.

We've always taught that God's covenant with national Israel was temporary and ilustrative (or proto-typical) of heaven, in certain respects, and of Christ in other respects. The typology is both horizontal/historical and vertical/eschatological. Moses was to make the tabernacle according to the heavenly pattern shown him on the mountain, but Moses himself was a type of Christ, so his life points us forward to the true deliverer who did cross over, indeed ahead of us (see Hebrews!) into the promised land.

rsc

 

[Wannabee]

Greg,

You do want to apply the analogy of Scripture. But I wouldn't read the NT into it. I would attempt to assertain what it meant to the then present day audience.


Dr. Clark,
Temple, taken literally, is a building. I hope we can agree on that. Simply and clearly speaking, if we were to speak to the average person of any time, in any place, and refer to a temple a mental image of a physical place would come to mind. We can understand it to mean body because of NT passages. I don't think it would be a priori because of this. What would the original readers thought of when reading "temple" in this passage? 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 haven't read Pentecost, so have no reply. Interesting thought though.

We've always taught that there is one salvation, one covenant of grace, with different administrations.

Agreed! Though you probably understand that I wouldn't recognize the CoG, as you would.



Bob,
Good observations. I'm looking forward to the next installment.

[Edited on 6-5-2006 by Wannabee]

 

[gregbed]

Originally posted by Wannabee
Greg,
You do want to apply the analogy of Scripture. But I wouldn't read the NT into it. I would attempt to assertain what it meant to the then present day audience.

[Edited on 6-5-2006 by Wannabee]

What I want to do is get at the truth of the matter. So if I have a choice between taking my best stab at it by myself or under the tutelage of the God-inspired NT authors, I take the latter. What is puzzling to me is why anyone would choose the former. Having spent 20-some years in dispensationalism, I know that "reading the NT into the OT" was always said as a pejorative dismissal. However, it is still not a rational argument for dismissing a whole body of known truth (i.e., the NT) as one tries to ascertain the truth of a matter.
Not to put words in your mouth, but it is as if you are saying "what the NT has to say is irrelevant." You have demonstrated that you are a thoughtful student of the Scripture, so it is hard to imagine you embracing that statement. But I don't see how someone can avoid the implication when you dismiss the NT's understanding of the OT in trying to arrive at your own understanding of it.

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Originally posted by Wannabee
Dr. Clark,

Temple, taken literally, is a building. I hope we can agree on that. Simply and clearly speaking, if we were to speak to the average person of any time, in any place, and refer to a temple a mental image of a physical place would come to mind.

Well, actually, no we don't agree. The new covenant church is LITERALLY the temple.

There was a Solomonic temple and a Second Temple. They aren't any longer.

Christ was literally (if "literal' = the intent of the divine and human authors of Scripture) "the temple."

"Destroy this temple...." They all thought he was speaking about "the temple," but they were wrong. He was speaking of himself.

The function of the two temples in redemptive history was to point to Christ. That was their divinely intended purpose. When they had fulfilled their purpose, they were destroyed.

As I said, Moses (including the temple) works for Christ, not the reverse.

We can understand it to mean body because of NT passages.

No, if you'll permit me to be direct, you don't get to establish a priori what "temple" must mean. Clearly Jesus and the Apostles took a dim view of what most ordinary folk thought about most things.

Most ordinary folk were expecting Messiah to arrive on a white stallion and, to paraphrase a movie, "open up a can" on the Romans. He came on a donkey and submit to brutal humilation.

That may be "no way to run a kingdom," except it was Jesus' way of running his kingdom.

What would the original readers thought of when reading "temple" in this passage?

If you're referring to the OT then the answer is twofold, who knows really and who cares?

Now that's a little hyperbolic, but the point I'm trying to make is this, the quest to know what Isaiah might have understood by the promise of the virgin birth is fruitless! The quest to find a contemporaneous fulfillment of the same is equally fruitless.

We know what "and a virgin shall be with child" means. We know what God thinks it means. We know what the gospel writers thought it means.

What else do we need to know?

What did Isaiah think about the suffering servant? Who knows? Maybe he was puzzled? We know what it means however, because the deacon explained it to the Eunuch and Luke recorded it for us.

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.

We really should repent of our (I am guilty of this) high-handed approach to the apostolic reading of Scripture. We've been deeply influenced by the Modern notion that we're better, more rational, and more clever than everyone else.

rsc

 

[Wannabee]

Thanks guys. This really is helping me understand where you're coming from.

Greg,
You're right, I would never claim that the NT is irrelevant. Furthermore, I have no problem interpreting the OT in light of the NT. What I do have a problem with is reading, or "forcing," the NT into the OT. My point was that our first task should be to find out what it meant to the writer and audience at the time it was written. As we approached this it was with the idea of how we approach the text. My first task it to try to figure out what it says. Then I want to figure out what it means. The immediate context starts first. I don't begin with NT and try to make the OT work. I try to see what the OT has to say first, then read it in light of the NT. The application of the analogy of faith is one of the latter steps in my exegesis. Systematics would follow (similar, but subtle difference).


Dr. Clark,
I care. I guess it's as simple as that. In this we depart in our approach to Scripture. It appears to me that your approach involves the application of your system up front. If so, then, again, we have found another aspect of our hermeneutic principles that are different.

Don't confuse my desire to find a contemporaneous meaning with trying to figure out a contemporaneous fulfillment. I didn't say that, or imply it. As I stated above, immediate context comes before broader context.

The apostles didn't just interpret the Scripture, they wrote it. It is apparent that they used Scirpture in ways that we can't because God spoke directly through them. To assume such a position that we can interpret and apply Scripture the same as they did is dangerous ground. We accept their interpretation without hesitation. But we cannot model what they alone were given to do.

The Apostles exegesis was flawless. However, they also were the agents God used for new revelation. Again, we cannot assume to be able to repeat what they did. It's hard to follow a method that involves direct revelation.

We really should repent of our (I am guilty of this) high-handed approach to the apostolic reading of Scripture. We've been deeply influenced by the Modern notion that we're better, more rational, and more clever than everyone else.

I apologize, but I don't get this statement. I recognize that it is said in humility. But I honestly cannot see where I've ever thought or considered my approach to Scripture to be superior to the Apostles in any way. Either I need it pointed out, or I've been misunderstood.


Blessings
Joe

 

[R. Scott Clark]

It appears to me that your approach involves the application of your system up front.

No, I'm explicit about it. That's what I've been saying about naivete and and neutrality etc. Everyone has a system. Everyone reads Scripture in the light of that system. The trick is to be willing to correct the system in the light of Scripture, to hang on to the perspicuity of Scripture while recognizing that everyone reads the bible in a time and place.

The apostles didn't just interpret the Scripture, they wrote it. It is apparent that they used Scirpture in ways that we can't because God spoke directly through them.

If you go back and look at my first post (in this thread) and re-read it and the others you'll see that I anticipated this objection some time back.

This is why I keep saying that, to make a point, you must chose between Charles and Paul.

This is why I said that you must distinguish between the text of Scripture and Paul. Strictly speaking, Paul was not inspired as a person. Scripture was inspired. His grocery list was not. His laundry list was not. His last will and testament was not. When he wrote canonical words to the church at Ephesus, those words were and are inspired.

Therefore, Paul's hermeneutic was not inspired. We KNOW what Paul's hermeneutic was. Please, read Beale's work. Paul's hermeneutic was not utterly unique in the 1st century (or before or after).

It can be replicated. We can observe the principles he used. He virtually gives them to us. We can observe the way the other NT writers use the OT.

Why would you turn away to another hermeneutic, knowing that the you're turning away from the apostolic hermeneutic?

...see where I've ever thought or considered my approach to Scripture to be superior to the Apostles in any way. Either I need it pointed out, or I've been misunderstood.

If you're not following the apostles then you must have found a better way, right?

Are you saying that there's a non-apostolic way of reading Scripture that's just as good?

A non-apostolic hermeneutic that isn't as good but in some way superior because it's "not inspired."

What's mysterious and ineffable about "that rock was Christ," or "Now these things happened to them as an example, but they were written down for our instruction, on whom the end of the ages has come." (1 Cor 10:11).

We are those people! These things were written FOR US.

1 Peter 1:10 Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied about the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired carefully, 11 inquiring what person or time the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories. 12 It was revealed to them that they were serving not themselves but you, in the things that have now been announced to you through those who preached the good news to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven, things into which angels long to look.

The prophets were working for Christ, revealing Christ, we have the Spirit of Christ, we're able now to see Christ revealed in all the Scriptures: "And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself."

The same Spirit who gave those words unites us to Christ by faith. We have countless examples in the NT follow, e.g., John 8:56: "Abraham saw my day and rejoiced."

So, if you adopt the apostolic hermeneutic you lose the re-built earthly temple and the re-institution of the sacrifices, but you gain, hermeneutically speaking, Christ.

It's a great trade!

rsc

[Edited on 6-6-2006 by R. Scott Clark]

 

[py3ak]

Therefore, Paul's hermeneutic was not inspired. We KNOW what Paul's hermeneutic was. Please, read Beale's work. Paul's hermeneutic was not utterly unique in the 1st century (or before or after).

It can be replicated. We can observe the principles he used. He virtually gives them to us. We can observe the way the other NT writers use the OT.

Dr. Clark, if you get a minute could you expand on Paul's hermeneutic not being inspired? Does that mean it was not revealed? Does it mean that it was not infallible? I agree that we should try to imitate it, by the way.

 

[Wannabee]

Everyone has a system. Everyone reads Scripture in the light of that system. The trick is to be willing to correct the system in the light of Scripture, to hang on to the perspicuity of Scripture while recognizing that everyone reads the bible in a time and place.

Well said. I apparently misunderstood you.

Strictly speaking, Paul was not inspired as a person. Scripture was inspired.

That's why I said God wrote "through" the apostles. I do understand the difference between the word and the writer being inspired. Scripture is inspired, people are not. I was apparently misunderstood here.

If you're not following the apostles then you must have found a better way, right?

Wrong. I consider it impossible to duplicate what was happening in the early church. We don't speak in tongues, we don't prophesy and we don't write Scripture. Not to open a can of worms, but we simply aren't equipped as they were. The only example we have IS Scripture. So how can we claim that we can follow the example of those whose only writings we have ARE Scripture? Having said that, I perceive that I'm missing something in what you're saying. Or perhaps I'm being misunderstood. Not sure?!?!

The prophets were working for Christ, revealing Christ, we have the Spirit of Christ, we're able now to see Christ revealed in all the Scriptures: "And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself."

I fail to see how this is incompatable with what I've said.

Finally, I fail to see how I lose Christ because my hermeneutic is different. This proposes that I preach a different Gospel...


I do think that perhaps the practice of many dispensationalists (of the more rabid stripe) may be being foisted upon me. Just as I have apparently misunderstood you on more than one count, please look over my comments with a little more optimism.


I do appreciate you taking the time for the interaction.

Blessings
Joe

[Edited on 6-6-2006 by Wannabee]