Hermeneutics - Grace Notes 1 Introduction Hermeneutics is the science and art of Biblical in-terpretation. It is a science because it is guided by rules. The art is in the application

Hermeneutics

The Science and Art of Biblical Interpretation

By Drue Freeman, Pastor

Trinity Bible Church, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

Preface

This Bible study course is designed to acquaint theserious student of the Word of God with equipmentthat will help in the interpretation of the Scrip-tures.

We are going to begin with an introduction to thevarious schools of hermeneutical thought and thenproceed to the various principles that are used inthe Protestant system of Biblical interpretation.

The approach that will be used is based on the per-sonal belief of the author that the Scriptures aretotally and completely inspired by God and thatHe communicates to His people that which He de-sires them to know.

We will not only explore the basic principles of in-terpretation, but will also consider some special-ized areas such as symbols, types, parables andprophecy.

Please begin and end this course with prayer, pray-ing as you go. Seek to know God’s Word for He haspromised that you can (Matt 7:7-8; James 1:5), butmore than just knowing God’s Word, seek to knowHim (Phil. 3:10) in a more personal and intimateway for many have known His Word, but did notreally know the Father (John 5:39-45).

All Scripture quotations are taken from the NewAmerican Standard Bible published by the Lock-man Foundation.

This study course was derived from class notesgleaned from Dr. Dale Carnagey of Tulsa Sem-inary of Biblical Languages in the fall of 1978,our textbook, Protestant Biblical Interpretation, byBernard Ramm (Baker Book House, 1970), and mypersonal teaching notes.

Table Of Contents

Lesson 1-Introduction.

Lesson 2-Historical Schools-Allegorists.

Lesson 3-Historical Schools-Literalists.

Lesson 4-Historical Schools-Liberals.

Lesson 5-The Protestant Method Of Hermeneutics-Introduction.

Lesson 6-Theological Perspectives.

Lesson 7-Grammatical Perspectives.

Lesson 8-The Doctrinal Use Of The Bible.

Lesson 9-The Devotional Use Of The Bible.

Lesson 10-Inerrancy And Secular Science.

Lesson 11-Types, Symbols And Parables.

Lesson 12-Interpretation Of Prophecy.

Lesson 13-Use Of The Old Testament In The NewTestament.

Lesson 14-The Use Of Logic.

Lesson 1

Introduction

Hermeneutics is the science and art of Biblical in-terpretation. It is a science because it is guided byrules. The art is in the application of the rules.

The primary need of hermeneutics is to determinethe meaning of the Word of God. Since all doctrinerests upon interpretation, we must have correct in-terpretation to develop correct doctrine.

Hermeneutics seeks to bridge the gap between ourminds and the minds of the Biblical writers. Thebest way to accomplish this bridge is through athorough knowledge of the original languages, an-cient history and comparison of Scripture withScripture. An extensive knowledge of geographyand culture is also invaluable.

The step of faith that we must make is the inspira-tion of Scripture (2 Tim 3:16). This establishes theboundaries for correct understanding of the Word.

Grace Notes, a ministry of Austin Bible Church http://gracenotes.info/

Hermeneutics 2

We also must seek to determine the true text. Thisdiscipline is called textual criticism. Lower criti-cism seeks to determine the author and date of thewriting. So called “Higher Criticism” is a liberal ap-proach to Scripture that does not accept completeinspiration of the Bible.There is a need for intellectual honesty and educa-tion. One may have the rules memorized, but maynot be able to apply them, or may seek to applythem in a biased manner. The objective of the in-terpreter is to read out of the text (exegesis) notto read one’s own viewpoints in to the text (eisege-sis). One way to become as objective as possible isprayerfully and thoughtfully consider any and allalternatives in a given passage.Interpreters should approach the text in humility,meaning that the interpreter must be teachable andrealize that he should never stop learning. Inter-preters must also recognize that inspiration (whichcomes from God) is infallible, but personal illumi-nation is not.The Qualifications of an Interpreter:

1. One must be a Believer because correct inter-pretation requires the work of the Holy Spirit.1 Cor 2:14-16

2. One must be filled with the Holy Spirit. Eph5:18

3. One must possess a desire to know. Matt 7:7-8

4. One must be seeking to correctly interpretGod’s Word. 2 Tim 2:15

5. One should have some spiritual educationover a period of time. 1 Tim 3:6

For Personal Study

1. Why is the study of Hermeneutics both a sci-ence and an art?

2. What is the primary need of Hermeneutics?

3. What is the best way to bridge the gap be-tween my mind and the mind of the writer?

4. What is the “step of faith” that I must taketo begin to interpret the Scripture?

5. Is my interpretation infallible? Explain.

6. Do I fit the qualifications for an interpreter?If not, why?

Lesson 2

Historical Schools-Allegorists

General

An “Allegory” is a symbolic representation. Therewere schools of interpretation that took the literalwords of Scripture and assumed that they were sym-bolic of deeper spiritual truths. While there aresome obvious symbols in the Word of God such asin Ezekiel 1, it would be a human assumption toclaim that all of Scripture is symbolic and that theliteral has no significant meaning.

Greek Allegorical Schools:

The Greek Allegorical Schools were concerned onlywith their own writings, but their method of inter-pretation was adopted by both Jews and Christians.Their philosophical and historical traditions whichwere stated by Thucydides and Herodotus were al-ways at odds with their religious traditions whichwere stated by Homer and Hesiod. They relievedthe tension by allegorizing the religious.

Jewish Allegorical Schools:

The major writers for the Jewish Allegorical Schoolwere Aristobulus (160 BC) and Philo (20 BC - 54AD). Philo tried to reconcile the Hebrew faith withGreek philosophy. These allegorists claimed thatthe literal was for the immature.

The Jewish Allegorists developed Canons (a regula-tion or standard) for allegorical interpretation thattold them when they were to interpret in this man-ner. If they found a statement that was “unworthy”of God, or statements that either seemed to contra-dict or in any way presented a difficulty, they feltfree to interpret allegorically. Also, if the record it-self was allegorical in nature or they ran into gram-matical peculiarities or symbols they turned to al-legory.

Christian and Patristic Allegorists:

The Christian and Patristic Allegorists believedthat the Old Testament was a Christian documentbut considered it to be full of parables, enigmas,and riddles. They also ignored the historical con-nections of scripture and believed that Greek phi-losophy was to be found in the Old Testament.

One of the major writers was Clement of Alexan-dria (c.150 A.D.) who claimed that there were fivepossible meanings. The Historical meaning whichconcerned the actual event; The Doctrinal mean-ing which included moral and theological teachings;The Prophetic meaning which was concerned with


Hermeneutics 3

predictions and types; the Philosophical meaningwhich sees meaning in objects and historical per-sons; and the Mystical meaning which involveddeeper moral, spiritual or religious truth found viasymbols.

Origen was a student of Clement who sought toescape the crudities of lay people by taking every-thing symbolically. He tried to make scripture ac-ceptable to philosophers. Origen’s approach wasthreefold in that the Literal meaning was the Bodyof Scripture, the Moral sense was the Soul of Scrip-ture, and the Allegorical sense was the Spirit ofScripture. He believed that true exegesis was Spir-itual (allegorical) exegesis.

Jerome (347-420) translated the Bible into Latinand that translation is called the Vulgate. It hasbeen the only official Bible of the Roman CatholicChurch since the Council of Trent in 1545. Jeromesuggested that the Apocrypha be put in Bible.

Augustine sought to develop a theory of signs. Asign is a thing apart from the impression that itpresents to the senses and which causes of itselfsome other thing to enter our thoughts. He basedhis position on 2 Cor 3:6 which says “who also madeus adequate as servants of a new covenant, not ofthe letter, but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, butthe Spirit gives life.” Augustine’s requirements forproper interpretation were: 1) an interpreter mustbe a believer; 2) the literal meaning and histori-cal setting must be held in high regard; 3) Scrip-ture has a double meaning, therefore the Allegoricalmethod is proper; 4) recognize that there is signif-icance in numbers; and 5) the Old Testament wasa Christian document and Christ should be soughtthere. Augustine believed that true exegesis had toconsult the meaning of the writer, then the “anal-ogy of faith” which is found in the true orthodoxcreed and add love, which is spiritual intuition.

Some of Augustine’s other teachings were: 1) thatone had to pay attention to the context; 2) if theinterpreter is insecure in his basic beliefs, he can’tbe part of the orthodox faith; 3) that one must nottry and make the Holy Spirit a substitute for thetools; 4) that the obscure passage must yield toclear; and 5) that one must also note progressiverevelation within its historical context (some saythat he failed to apply this point himself).

Roman Catholic School:

The Allegorism of Roman Catholicism employed a“spiritual” or “mystical” interpretation of the Word.In general, the Roman Catholics combined Typol-

ogy and Allegory and sought the Moral Interpreta-tion. They believed that the literal and historicalinterpretation is the foundation of the study of theBible, but that the “spiritual” or “mystical” mean-ing, which is beyond the literal, is what we shouldreally seek.The Roman Catholics use the Latin Vulgate (aLatin translation by Jerome from the Hebrew andGreek) as though it were the original text. TheCatholic interpreter accepts what The Church hassaid about various matters as unequivocal truth.They believe that The Church is the official inter-preter since The Bible is not given to the worldbut deposited with the Church. Also at the heartof their beliefs is that the Christian Deposit of Faithis in the Catholic Church. Therefore, no passageof Scripture can be validly interpreted in a mannerthat conflicts with the Roman Catholic Doctrinalsystem. Their view of the “analogy of faith” is tocompare a particular interpretation with ChurchDogma.The Roman Catholic “Guide to Interpretation” isthat interpretation:

• must be solely about faith and morals.

• is not bound by national or scientific matters.

• must bear witness to Catholic tradition.

• must have a unanimous witness by theChurch Fathers.

• is to be explained by unwritten traditionwhen the passage is obscure.

• follows the “Principle of Development” mean-ing the doctrines of the New Testament were‘seeds’ and not complete units in themselves.

• also follows the “Principle of Implication”which is called “Epigenesis” meaning thatdoctrines grow, develop and change.

For Personal Study

1. What is an allegory?

2. What is the major assumption of the Allegor-ical School of thought?

3. From which Allegorical School did both theJews and Christians get their foundation?

4. How did the Jewish Allegorical School origi-nate?

5. How do Allegorists view Literalists?


Hermeneutics 4

6. What were the five possible meanings ofScripture according to Clement of Alexan-dria?

7. What were the body, soul and spirit of Scrip-ture according to Origen?

8. Evaluate the basic teachings of Augustine.

9. Discuss the basic hermeneutical system of Ro-man Catholicism.

Lesson 3

Historical Schools-Literalists

General:

The literal method of interpreting the Bible is to ac-cept as basic the literal rendering of the sentencesunless by virtue of the nature of the sentence orphrase this is not possible. This allows for figuresof speech, fables and allegories. When reasons ex-ist for something beyond the literal meaning, theremust be some type of control.

Jewish Literal School

Ezra founded this school when he translated theHebrew to Aramaic for the Jews who were comingout of captivity (Neh 8:1-8). The Jewish Canonsof interpretation were that:

• the Word is to be understood in terms of sen-tence and the sentence by its context.

• one should compare similar topics of scrip-ture and give the clear passages preferenceover the obscure.

• one must pay close attention to spelling,grammar, and figures of speech.

• Logic is be used to apply scripture to life incircumstances where the Bible is silent.The Literal school recognizes the Divine ac-commodation of Revelation to men.Some Problems in the Literal School:The “hyperliteralists” who are also called “let-terists” took things to the extreme and wereconstantly looking for hidden meanings lying“under” the surface of the text.The Cabbalists (Kabbalists) often allegorizedthe letters. They used notarikon where eachletter stood for another word. They also useda method called gemetria which assigned nu-merical values to words, and then compared

numbers and a system called termura whichchanged the letters of words to form newwords.Syrian School of AntiochThe Syrian School of Antioch avoided letter-ism and allegories. Lucian and Dorotheuswere founders, around 325 A.D. Arius and Eu-sebius studied at this school. Diodorus whowas the first presbyter of Antioch until 378AD, then the Bishop of Tarsus, also was partof the school at Antioch. There exist manyextant writings from the students of this an-cient school.Theodore of Mopsuestia was a student ofDiodorus who was intellectual and dogmatic.He denied the inspiration of some books ofthe Bible, but he also denied Allegory.John Chrysostom who was also called “thegolden-mouthed” was a talented exegete andcommunicator who recognized inspirationand totality of the Canon.This School debated Origen’s Allegoricalschool.The Syrian School:

• recognized a plain-literal and a figurative-literal sense of Scripture.

• were not “letterists.”

• avoided the authoritarian exegesis of the Ro-man Catholics.

• insisted on historicity of Old Testamentevents.

• related the Old Testament and New Testa-ment Typologically, not Allegorically.

• recognized Progressive Revelation.

• held that the bond between the Old Testa-ment and New Testament is prophecy.This is the line of descent passed through bythe writer of this course.The Victorines:The major representatives of The Victorineswere Hugo of St. Victor, Richard of St. Victor,and Andrew of St. Victor. They noted theimportance of history and geography, whichis the natural background for literal exegesis.They emphasized syntax, grammar and exe-gesis and did not get involved in letterism.The Reformers:


Hermeneutics 5

The Reformers based their approach on thephilosophical system of Occam. This systemfirst separated Grace and Nature and said ev-erything we know about God is via DivineRevelation. The second factor involved a re-newed study of Hebrew and Greek. Erasmuspublished the first Greek New Testament in1516.The Reformer Martin Luther held the follow-ing hermeneutical principles:

• The Psychological Principle which recognizedfaith and illumination.

• The Authority Principle which held that theBible is the supreme authority and is abovechurch authority.

• The Literal Principle, which rejected allegoryas, used by the Catholics. (They were not ad-verse though if the context were Christ andnot something about the papacy). They ac-cepted the primacy of the original languagesand paid attention to grammar, time frame,circumstances, conditions, and context.

• The Sufficiency Principle, which indicatesthat the Bible is a clear book and a devoutstudent, can understand it. This includesthe fact that Scripture interprets scripture,so one must let the clear interpret the ob-scure. They also employed the “Analogy ofFaith” which was believed to be the theologi-cal unity of the Bible and not the recognizeddogma of an institution.

• The Christological Principle states that thefunction of all interpreters is to find Christ.(The Roman Catholics seek to do this withAllegory)

• The Law-Gospel Principle which recognizesthat the Law is not necessary for salvation.In the Post-Reformation Era Ernesti pub-lished Institutio Interpretis in1761 whichstated that grammatical exegesis had author-ity over dogmatic exegesis which was the Ro-man Catholic method.Devotional Schools:This group emphasizes the edifying aspectsof Scripture as per 2 Tim 3:16. The MedievalMystics who used the Scriptures to promotethe mystical experience led this school. TheVictorines fell into this category.

PietistsThis was started by Philip Spener (1635-1705 and August Francke (1663-1727) who at-tempted to recover the Bible as spiritual withthe intended use of edification. It was a reac-tion against those who read the Bible only totear down others. Bengel was the chief expo-nent. The Pietists emphasized grammaticaland historical interpretation seeking to applyit to life.The Pietists influenced the Moravians.This evangelical movement can be tracedto Moravia and Bohemia (Czechoslovakia).Count von Zinzendorf (1700 - 1760), theleader of the Bohemian Brethren was a partof the Devotional School. The Pietists alsoinfluenced the Puritans including John Wes-ley, Jonathan Edwards, Mathew Henry, andthe Quakers.The problem they faced was one of havingonly pious reflections of Scripture withoutclear explanations. The Modern DevotionalSchool claims devotions are absolutely neces-sary as Christians need applications to live by.The weaknesses of this school are that it caneasily fall prey to Allegory, and often, piousreflections are substituted for valid exegesis.For Personal Study

1. Describe the Literal approach to God’sWord.

2. What were some of the problems in theLiteral School and why would they beproblems?

3. Which Literal School debated Origen’sAllegorical School and who were someof its famous students?

4. Discuss the principles held by the SyrianSchool.

5. Discuss Luther’s principles of hermeneu-tics.

6. Discuss the strengths and weaknesses ofthe Pietists.

Lesson 4Historical Schools-LiberalsThe Liberal School of interpretation grew pri-marily out of the debate between rational-ism and authoritarianism. Whatever was notin harmony with ‘educated’ morality was re-jected.The Liberal system of hermeneutics is that:


Hermeneutics 6

• The Modern Mentality was to govern one’sapproach to scripture.

• The Bible is just another book.

• Miracles are not to be accepted because theyare not scientific.

• Hell, sin, and depravity are rejected becausethey offend moral sensitivities.

• The text may be rearranged.

• They reject all forms of Inspiration.

• Revelation is redefined to mean human in-sight into religious truth.

• Doctrinal and theological content are notbinding.

• They believe that religious experience isfundamental and that theology is an af-terthought.The Liberal School applied Evolution to thereligion of Israel. Thus they held that Jesuswas a good man of the highest prophetic or-der and was transmuted by theological spec-ulation and Greek metaphysics into the God-man of the creeds.They believe that the writers of the Bible ac-commodated their recipients and hence theBible is not binding on us. Liberalism alsorejects typology and prophecy. They place ahigh value on philosophy and use a syntheticsystem that comes from beginning with a the-sis and adding to it an antithesis thus forminga synthesis.Some of the different names Liberalism ap-pears under are:

• Neo-Orthodoxy which seeks to recover the in-sights of the Reformers. Karl Barth was thechief representative of this movement.

• Neo-Supernaturalism which reinstates cate-gory of transcendental.

• Logotheism which seeks a new theology of theWord of God.

• Neo-Evangelicalism which seeks to recoverthe Christian gospel in contrast to socialgospel.

• Neo-Liberalism which has not really brokenwith liberalism.

• Biblical Realism which is a new effort to dis-cover theological interpretation of the Bible.Neo-Orthodoxy:The approach of Neo-Orthodoxy to the inter-pretation of the Bible:

• denies the infallibility, inerrancy, and Divinerevelation of Scripture.

• says that only God can speak for God andthus revelation only comes when God speaks.

• claims that His speech is His personal pres-ence, not mere words.

• views the Bible as a witness and record torevelation, but is not revelation.

• believes only that which witnesses to Christis binding.

• believes we cannot interpret the particularsor specifics of Scripture.

• interprets mythologically the Creation ac-counts, the fall of man, and the Second Ad-vent.

• believes you can read the Bible without anyattempt to understand it (Existential).

• recognizes paradoxes.“Holy History” School:Another part of the Liberal School believed inaHeilsgeschichtliche, which is German mean-ing “Holy History” or “Salvation History.”Von Hoffman who tried a new system basedon the experience of regeneration, history,the fact of the Church and Scripture startedit. They accepted “Higher Criticism” whichbelieved the books in the Bible to be writtenby several authors over the period of severalhundred years.The approach of the “Holy History” was thatan historical event had roots in the past,meaning in the present, and was a previewof the future. It was also called the “Organic”view and when applied meant that interpre-tation was to be dynamic (ever-changing).This school turned applications into interpre-tations and believed that the Bible is theBible if you make it your Bible.Their Hermeneutics involve:


Hermeneutics 7

• The “Quest for Life” movement of documentwhich is an attempt to discover unity of thebook, to determine to whom it was writtenand find the flow of ideas

• comprehending the Bible’s message in con-text of the author’s view of life and realityas seen by the rational mind.

• determining the relationship, which exists be-tween the ideas of the documents and theideas of our own mind, namely reading intoThe Word our viewpoints which is, called eise-gesis.

• critically studying the Bible since criticismestablishes authenticity.The New Hermeneutics:Rudolf Bultmann (1884-1976) introduced theGerman Hermeneutical Principle also calledthe “New Hermeneutics.” Its principles arethat:

• all matters of fact are settled by science andthus rejects miracles. (Scientific)

• the historical setting of a concept becomesmore important than the strict interpretationof that concept. (Critical)

• the 1st Century church expressed faithmythologically. (Mythological)

• the modern person must strip away themyths. (Demythological)

• faith lives only by decision and does not needto be objective or have historical support.(Dialectical)

• scriptures are a witness that revelation doesoccur, but it is not directly the Word of God.(Revelational)

• there is no Old Testament predictions of theNew Testament events. (The Law)They are on a quest for the “historical Jesus”speaking of the person apart from what theyview as myth. The Liberal Hermeneutic isbased on how each person may see or under-stand his own world and experience. Theyview language as a “speech-event” and thusit does not carry responsibility even if comingfrom God.For Personal Study:

1. Where did the Liberal School of inter-pretation come from?

2. What philosophical theory did the Lib-erals apply to Scripture?

3. Discuss their basic positions.4. What is my overall evaluation of the lib-

eral hermeneutical system?

Lesson 5The Protestant System Of HermeneuticsIntroductionThe Divine Inspiration of Scripture is thefoundation from which we begin, for “AllScripture is inspired by God and profitablefor teaching, for reproof, for correction, fortraining in righteousness; that the man ofGod may be adequate, equipped for everygood work. (2Tim 3:16-17). The ProtestantApproach to Hermeneutics recognizes thatthe Bible must be understood as absolutetruth including all the miracles. This addsnew depth to common words such faith, love,redemption and salvation because not onlyare concepts presented but facts are given tovalidate the concepts.Also at the core of “How to Study the Bible”is acceptance of the fact that the Bible hasbeen inspired by God in its entirety. Thisis called verbal-plenary inspiration indicatingthat every part of the Bible has been inspiredby God.To correctly interpret God’s Word first re-quires that the individual is a Believer in theLord Jesus Christ because, “a natural mandoes not accept the things of the Spirit ofGod; for they are foolishness to him, and hecannot understand them, because they arespiritually appraised. But he who is spiri-tual appraises all things, yet he himself isappraised by no man. For who has knownthe mind of the Lord, that he should instructHim? But we have the mind of Christ (1 Cor2:14-16).” The second requirement for cor-rect interpretation of God’s Word is directlyrelated to one’s relationship with the HolySpirit, because it is His function to “guideus into all truth (John 16:13).” The third re-quirement is an intellectual honesty that con-sistently and eagerly uses the tools that Godhas given us to learn His Word. We are in-structed to, “Be diligent to present yourselfapproved to God as a workman who does not


Hermeneutics 8

need to be ashamed, handling accurately theword of truth (2 Tim 2:15).”The goal of interpretation is always to belove. All goals in life are supposed to revolvearound what the Lord Jesus Christ Himselfcalled the “Two Greatest Commandments.”In Mark 12:28-31, the text reports, “And oneof the scribes came and heard them argu-ing, and recognizing that He had answeredthem well, asked Him, “What commandmentis the foremost of all?” Jesus answered, “Theforemost is, ‘Hear, O Israel! The Lord ourGod is one Lord; and you shall love the Lordyour God with all your heart, and with allyour soul, and with all your mind, and withall your strength.’ “The second is this, ‘Youshall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There isno other commandment greater than these.”The Apostle Paul gave his teaching objectivein 1 Tim 1:5 which says, “the goal of our in-struction is love from a pure heart and a goodconscience and a sincere faith.”The intent of this love-guided teaching shouldbe to promote the Spiritual growth of the Be-liever in the Lord Jesus. This principle isclearly taught in Ephesians 4:11-16, that says,“And He gave some as apostles, and some asprophets, and some as evangelists, and someas pastors and teachers, for the equipping ofthe saints for the work of service, to the build-ing up of the body of Christ; until we allattain to the unity of the faith, and of theknowledge of the Son of God, to a matureman, to the measure of the stature which be-longs to the fullness of Christ. As a result, weare no longer to be children, tossed here andthere by waves, and carried about by everywind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, bycraftiness in deceitful scheming; but speak-ing the truth in love, we are to grow up inall aspects into Him, who is the head, evenChrist, from whom the whole body, being fit-ted and held together by that which everyjoint supplies, according to the proper work-ing of each individual part, causes the growthof the body for the building up of itself inlove.”Interpretation must be tested with the wordsof the Lord Jesus Christ. In 1 Timothy 6:3-5, Paul says, “If anyone advocates a differ-ent doctrine, and does not agree with soundwords, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, andwith the doctrine conforming to godliness, he

is conceited and understands nothing; but hehas a morbid interest in controversial ques-tions and disputes about words, out of whicharise envy, strife, abusive language, evil sus-picions, and constant friction between menof depraved mind and deprived of the truth,who suppose that godliness is a means ofgain.”For Personal Study

1. What is the foundation of the Protestantsystem of Hermeneutics? Why?

2. What are three personal requirementsfor the interpretation of Scripture?

3. What should be the objective of all in-terpretation and why?

4. What should our teaching promote andwhy?

5. What is the standard we are to use totest interpretation?

Lesson 6The Protestant System Of Hermeneutics:Theological PerspectivesThere are certain theological perspectivesthat our method of Bible study must includein order for us to approach the text and in-terpret Scripture properly.The first principle involves the Clarity ofScripture, which is clearly taught in 2 Pet1:20-21 and 1Cor 14:33. The passage in 2Peter says, “But know this first of all, thatno prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’sown interpretation, for no prophecy was evermade by an act of human will, but menmoved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.”Scripture is clear because it is inspired bythe Holy Spirit. We must remember that al-though Scripture is “clear” there still may beparts that are difficult to understand.One of our basic guiding principles though isthat “God said what He meant and meantwhat He said.” We must seek to know HisWord as He intended. We also know that,“God is not a God of confusion but of peace (1Cor 14:33),” so where there is confusion it ison our part and not God’s. Therefore, “prob-lem passages” come from our lack of knowl-edge, our perspective or desire to “do His will(John 7:17). The use of the original languagesunder the ministry of the Holy Spirit will clar-ify many of these problems.


Hermeneutics 9

The second principle is that Revelation is Ac-commodated, which means that it was origi-nally communicated in language to be under-stood by the initial recipients. The Scriptureoften uses analogies to inescapable realitiesthat fit the time frame in which it was writ-ten. The application of this principle requiressome knowledge and understanding of the his-tory and culture of the people to which theportion of the Word was addressed.The third theological principle is that Reve-lation is Progressive. This refers to the factthat various precepts are initially presentedin a summary form and then enlarged. Awonderful example is found in the “promisedseed of the woman” found in Genesis 3:15.More information about the Messiah is foundthroughout the Old Testament, especially inthe types and symbols that are used to give avivid picture of the Messiah who was to come.The New Testament is documentation of thereality that Messiah has come. While thisis the clearest example of Progressive Reve-lation, there are many concepts that are ini-tially presented and then developed.The fourth principle is that Scripture inter-prets Scripture meaning that the obscure pas-sage should give way to the clear. This prin-ciple realizes that essential truths are not hid-den. We should look for detailed passages ona given subject and let them be the guide inthe interpretation of the passages with lessdetail. An illustration of this principle isfound in the comparison of Matthew 24:40with Matthew 13:49.In Matthew 24, the phrase “one will be taken,and one will be left” could refer either to therighteous being taken at the Rapture of thechurch or the wicked being taken at the Sec-ond Advent of Jesus Christ. The passage inMatthew 13 which is also found in a contextdealing with the “last days” says that it willbe the “wicked who will be taken out fromthe righteous.” Thus, we are able to interpretthe Matthew 24 passage as referring to theSecond Advent and not the Rapture becauseScripture has interpreted Scripture.The fifth principle is the Analogy of Faith.This principle means that there is only onesystem of truth in Scripture. There are nottwo or more theological systems. The prac-tical application of this is that all doctrinesand conceptual studies must be in harmony

with one another. The interpretation of par-ticular passages of Scripture must not contra-dict the total teaching of Scripture on a givensubject. For example, eternal salvation is ei-ther by grace through faith, or by works, butnot both. God’s Word does not have two dif-ferent systems or means to eternal salvation,but rather it has one (Eph 2:8-9). Therefore,passages that relate our “works” done in thisbody to eternity must be understood in viewthe passages that clearly specify that our eter-nal salvation is by grace.The sixth theological principle is the Unity ofMeaning of the Scripture. This is why believ-ers develop a systematic theology that seeksto understand and explain how various pas-sages and concepts fit together. This prin-ciple seeks to understand and communicatehow God has put His Word together. Man’stendency though is to “read into” God’sWord what he wants to find (eisegesis). Whenman desires (either intentionally or not) toimpose his system upon God’s Word he isprone to presumptive allegories and distor-tions of the Scriptures. Knowing what Godsays and desires should always be the firstpriority of the student of His Word.For Personal Study

1. Explain in your own words the principleof the Clarity of Scripture.

2. Explain in your own words the principlethat Revelation is Accommodated.

3. Explain in your own words the principlethat Revelation is Progressive.

4. What is the significance and importanceof the principle that Scripture interpretsScripture?

5. What is the Analogy of Faith?6. What is the value of the principle regard-

ing the Unity of Meaning?

Lesson 7The Protestant System Of HermeneuticsGrammatical PerspectivesPhilology is a technical term meaning a“friend of words.” It refers to a love of learn-ing and desire to study the disciplines of lan-guage. Since the Bible is made up of words,there is need for the technical and compara-tive study of the words that are used in theBible. The student of the Word of God mustpay careful attention to the specific words


Hermeneutics 10

and the context in which the Holy Spiritplaced them into the Scripture. While itis possible to gain some tremendous insightsinto God’s Word from a study of the wordsused in various translations, one must be verycareful of trying to develop a theology fromanything other than the original languages.The disciple with no training in the originallanguages will need to rely on the work ofothers in many of these areas.The first principle we will consider is thatwe should approach the Scriptures believingthat God’s Word is Basically Literal. TheLiteral Approach to Scripture recognizes thenatural or usual speech constructions and im-plications of a particular writing or expres-sion. It follows the ordinary and apparentsense of the words that are used in their his-torical context. This is not letterist approachthat reads meaning into letters but instead isthe usual method of interpretation of any lit-erature. We approach God’s Word literallybecause we find that the statements and de-scriptions He gives of the Messiah had literalfulfillment in Jesus Christ. If there are spiri-tual meanings that come from signs, symbols,parables and the like they still depend on theliteral strata of a language. Only in a literalapproach is there any control against abuseof the interpretation of the Scriptures. TheLiteral Approach does not overlook figures ofspeech, symbols, types, and the like.The practice of the literal is done by theStudy of Words which is our second princi-ple. Words establish the context of a bodyof literature. In the study of words, you willfind that some are technical or very specific intheir meaning while others are non-technicalor general in their meanings. It makes sensethat the non-technical words should be inter-preted in view of the technical words that sur-round them. This is actually a specific appli-cation of letting Scripture interpret Scriptureand the clear passage interpret the obscure.As we study the words we look at the waythey were formed which is called “etymol-ogy.” This type of study can give tremendousinsight into the meaning of the word. Forexample, the Greek word PARAKALEO isformed from the word PARA meaning “along-side” and KALEO meaning “to call.” Theword itself then means to “call alongside.” Itis a word variously translated as “comfort,”

“encourage,” or “exhort.” It implies though acall to another person into a relationship thatis “arm-in-arm” with you. There are manygood lexicons available that explain the waythe words were formed.We also must study words comparatively re-ferring to how they relate to other words.This will involve Concordance studies. An ex-haustive Concordance will show every placea given word is used. Many also have num-ber codes that tell which Greek or Hebrewwords have been translated by that particu-lar word. Strong’s Concordance is probablythe best for the beginning student. It is alsovaluable for the advanced student. The Com-parative Study of words also considers syn-onyms (words with similar or identical mean-ings) and antonyms which are words with op-posite meanings. There are very few pure syn-onyms, so the careful student will find beau-tiful subtleties of meaning that can greatlyenhance his understanding of the Word.It is also important to study words culturallymeaning their significance to the culture thatused them in the era in which they were used.There is a trap of not applying a correct Bibli-cal chronology to the study of the words. Wemust realize that words change meanings overthe course of time. The meanings also tendto go from specific to general. This princi-ple was espoused by Martin Luther and JohnCalvin and sought to determine the originaldesignation of a particular word. In Latin itis known as the usus loquendi.When possible, the serious student may alsoconsider cognate languages, which are lan-guages of the same linguistic family. How-ever, one must beware of placing too muchemphasis on this study.The Literal Approach to Scripture is alsopracticed by considering the grammaticalstructure of sentences because words formsentences. Sentences are units of thought.The research is the same as for the studyof words. One must consider the Contextin which the sentence is found. The immedi-ate context considers the sentences and para-graphs in closest proximity to the one un-der consideration. The intermediate contextconsiders the book in which the sentence isplaced and the remote context considers therest of the Bible.In our study of sentences we must also know


Hermeneutics 11

what type of language is under consideration.It may be “Analytic” which depends on theword order to communicate the meaning. He-brew and English are examples of “Analytic”languages. It may also be “Agglutinative”which is considered a “synthetic” languagewhere case endings are primarily used to con-vey the intended meaning.The study of parallel passages is also impor-tant to the Literal Approach to the Scripture.Just because one finds wording similar to thatfound in another passage, the passages stillmay not be parallel. The issue should not beforced.One should also look at similar concepts. Anexample of this would be to study the “Resur-rection of the Dead” as found in 1Corinthians15 and Revelation 20.The Literal Approach also considers the Lit-erary Genre of the passage under considera-tion. A genre is a standardized pattern ofwriting, such as poetry and prose. The Liter-ary Genre makes us consider various figuresof speech, such as in Revelation 5:5 wherethe Lord is called the “lion” of Judah. Je-sus Christ is not a literal “lion,” so the fig-ure of speech represents a trait that He lit-erally possesses. Scripture also uses Parablesand even an Allegory (Gal 4:24). Recognizingthe Literary Genre does not touch the literalhermeneutical principles, but instead clearlyidentifies figurative language and literally in-terprets. Song of Solomon is clearly loadedwith figurative language, but its interpreta-tion must be first considered literally.It is extremely important that the interpreterof Scripture have some knowledge of Biblicalhistory and chronology in particular. This isimportant in understanding the Biblical cul-ture customs and rituals. Revelation comesin and through a cultural form and in somecases the principles taught are transcultural.It is an art determining when.The student of God’s word must come to theScriptures with some basic questions. As weapproach any passage we must seek to answerthe “Who, what, when, where, why and how.”After those questions are answered, there aresome secondary questions we would ask suchas, “How does this apply to me or the onesI am to teach?” and “Are there any condi-tions to these principles such as special cir-cumstances?”

The student of God’s Word must approachHis Word with Intellectual Honesty, seekingto know what God has said. There are manyhindrances to correct interpretation includ-ing the desire for the applause of men, van-ity, flattery, fear, and inconsistent or unbal-anced study (like only studying topics andnot studying through a book). Every timewe go into the Word we should submit ourbiases to the absolute standard of truth, theWord of God, because only His Word is Truth(John 17:17). We also must seek to learnfrom Him in order to do His will (John 7:17)and not simply as an academic exercise. ThePharisees demonstrate what happens whenwe leave the desire for a relationship with theLiving God out of our study of His Word (alsoread John 5:39-47). Let us pray, pray andpray.The Sequence Of InterpretationThe first step is to analyze the words realiz-ing that the technical or specific words set thecontext and that the non-technical or generalwords are interpreted by the context.The next step is to analyze the grammar rec-ognizing the word functions that are forcedby the words themselves or the grammati-cal construction. These set the context andserve as the basis to interpret the words thatcan have optional grammatical functions. Inother words we are letting the clear interpretthe questionable.We must also interpret based on the con-texts, looking first at the immediate contextin which we find the word, namely within thesentence or paragraph, then at the intermedi-ate context which refers to its location withinthe book in which it is found and then at theremote context which considers the rest ofthe Scripture. Correct interpretation will notviolate any of these contexts.For Personal Study

1. Why would we accept a principle thatsays we would first consider words to bebasically literal in their meaning?

2. How do we establish the literal mean-ing?

3. What value can there be in the study ofhow words are formed?

4. What is the value of comparing words?


Hermeneutics 12

5. Why would we want to study the gram-matical structure of sentences?

6. Why would the context be important inthe interpretation of the word?

7. Why would we want to study parallelpassages and similar concepts?

8. Why would history and culture also im-pact our study?

9. What are some hindrances to the correctinterpretation of Scripture?

Lesson 8:The Doctrinal Use Of The BibleThe Theological or Doctrinal Interpretationextends the study of the grammar to its fullsignificance. It is a Synoptic or Comparativeview of all the Biblical data on a given sub-ject. Theology must be built upon generalhermeneutical principles.Principles Of Doctrinal StudiesThe Theologian is a redeemed man stand-ing in the midst of Divine Revelation. Thushe must be committed to understanding theWord of God. This should not be a dry, ab-stract, or impersonal investigation, but onemust seek to set personal biases aside.The main themes of the Bible are God, man,Jesus Christ and the Christian life. At theheart of the Bible is Jesus Christ and Salva-tion. The Bible is often mistreated when peo-ple try and make it a handbook for politics.Theology must rest on the Literal Interpreta-tion, which does not overlook figurative lan-guage. The Main Burden of Theology musttotally include the theology of the New Tes-tament. Determining what God’s Word hasto say through exegesis (reading out) must beprior to any system of theology. The Systemhas to be built up exegetically, brick by brick.Of necessity, one will have to use the rules oflogic within this system, but the theologianmust be careful to not extend his doctrinesbeyond the Scriptural evidence because hisevidence is Scripture itself.The Theologian is striving for a system,which is a group of interrelated assertions.Therefore, there must be a systematic gath-ering of data from the entire Bible before itis interrelated into a coherent system. It ishelpful to know the history of philosophy and

the history of theological development. Lib-eral theologians claim there any many sys-tems of theology found within the Bible, yetsuch would be confusing which is not a char-acteristic of God (1 Cor 14:33). Conservativescholars believe that there is one interpreta-tion of a given passage while there may bemany applications.Proper Theological development of necessitymust have proof texts given that are the re-sult of the correct understanding of the Scrip-tures. This means that the exegesis “readingout” must be done according to basic princi-ples of interpretation that properly recognizethe context. Liberal theologians do not be-lieve one needs a proof text to establish the-ology, but they even use a proof text to tryand prove that we shouldn’t use them (2Cor3:6 Letter kills, but the Spirit gives life).What is not a matter of clear cut revelationshould not be made a matter of creed or faith.This leads to making moral judgments with-out the benefit of Scripture, in effect definingsin. In Romans 5:13, it says, “sin is not im-puted where there is no law.” Thus, whenman starts defining law apart from God’sWord, he is playing God. What is specifi-cally spelled out as sin, we can and shouldlearn and apply.The Theologian must also keep the practicalnature of the Word in mind. There is plentyof information on living the Christian Life.The Scriptures do not deal specifically withevery little thing or circumstance we will dealwith in life, but they will touch upon everyaspect of our lives by means of principles.The Theologian must also recognize his re-sponsibility to the Universal Church. Therehas clearly been enough division withinChrist’s Body through the centuries over so-called “doctrinal” issues to last us for eternity.For the Theologian to present information tothe Church that is not based upon sound prin-ciples of hermeneutics is irresponsible and de-notes a lack of love.For Personal Study

1. What is the doctrinal study of the Bibledesigned to do?

2. What is the Theologian?3. What are the main themes of the Bible?4. What must theology rest on?


Hermeneutics 13

5. What is the Theologian striving for?How is it built?

6. What is a requirement for a proper the-ological system?

7. Consider how legalism occurs when onegoes beyond the Word.

8. What should not be made a matter ofcreed or faith? Why?

9. Why should we keep in mind the ques-tion, “How then should we live?”

10. Why should the Theologian not presentprinciples to the Church that are notfirmly grounded in Scripture?

Lesson 9The Devotional And Practical Use Of TheBibleAll practical lessons, applications, and devo-tional uses of the Bible should be governed bygeneral hermeneutical principles. This meansthat sound interpretation must precede anyapplications that are made. The Bible doesnot justify using any means to derive a per-sonal application. Some people have beenknown to use the Bible in ways that approachdivination and sorcery rather than as the re-vealed Word of God. If one closes his eyes,opens the Bible and then blindly points toa passage looking for direction for the day,that disgraces God’s Word. In an emergency,our loving God may choose to help out in anunusual way, but for the day-to-day living oflife, that approach simply is not satisfactory.At times people take passages and then dis-tort them for “devotional” purposes. That isreally not devotion to God but self. If it isdone for those one is attempting to teach, itis manipulation and a lack of reliance on thetruth of God’s Word to change lives.The Bible is more a book of principles thana catalog of specific directions. Principles arenecessary to cover all contingencies. A setof specifics would indirectly foster hypocrisyand artificial spirituality. True principlesthat are misapplied can also lead to hypocrisyand pseudo-spirituality. The Bible empha-sizes the “Inner Spirit” much more thanthe outward religious cloak as is spelled outclearly in 1 Samuel 15:22 which says, “AndSamuel said,”Has the LORD as much delightin burnt offerings and sacrifices As in obey-ing the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey

is better than sacrifice, And to heed than thefat of rams.The Old Testament taught right and wrongon a material level so that hopefully it wouldbe discerned on the more subtle, spirituallevel. Morality and Spirituality were liftedto a higher level by being inward and spiri-tual. Neither morality nor spirituality was tobe based solely on the overt (Heb 10:5). Theimportance of the Mental Attitude, even inthe Old Testament is clear.In some instances the Spirit of the statementis clearly to be our guide. In Matthew 5:29-30, the Word says, “And if your right eyemakes you stumble, tear it out, and throwit from you; for it is better for you that oneof the parts of your body perish, than foryour whole body to be thrown into hell.”Andif your right hand makes you stumble, cut itoff, and throw it from you; for it is better foryou that one of the parts of your body per-ish, than for your whole body to go into hell.”The “spirit” of the statement involves causesfor stumbling over the gospel of Jesus Christ.These “stumbling blocks” should be removedat all costs. Hopefully, without loss of an eyeor a hand.We must also translate commands given inthe context of one culture into our culture. InExodus 23:19; 34:26 and Deuteronomy 14:21,there is a command to “not boil a baby goatin its mother’s milk.” This command is diffi-cult to even understand in most of today’s cul-tures. This action refers to one of the Canaan-ite fertility rituals. The principle taught is tonot embrace the pagan practices of other cul-tures, which has meaning for today in anyculture.We may also receive guidance from examplesthat the Bible records. We must however,make a distinction between what the Biblerecords and what it approves. The Inspira-tion of Scripture extends only to truthfulnessof the recording. We may make direct appli-cation from incidents that the Bible directlycensures or approves.Specific commands to individuals are not theWill of God for us. For example, Abrahamwas commanded to offer up Isaac as a pictureor type of the sacrifice and resurrection of theLord Jesus Christ (Gen 22 cf. Heb 11:17-19).There are principles to be learned from that


Hermeneutics 14

incident and applied to our lives, but the spe-cific requirement for us is not there. It is bestto seek to determine the outstanding Spiri-tual Principle in the lives of people in Scrip-ture that cross all time frames and culturesand then apply that principle to our life.The application in our lives does not need aliteral reproduction of the Biblical situation.For example, water Baptism does not need tobe done in the Jordan River and the Lord’sTable does not need to be done in an “up-per room” to honor and glorify our Lord byfulfilling His commands.The Practical and Devotional use of the Bibleprobably concerns itself with the Promises ofGod more than any other thing. There havebeen many disappointed and angry peoplethroughout the centuries who have taken a“promise” out of context and then “claimed”it as being from God. We must remem-ber that practical application must be drawnfrom correct interpretation. At times we maythink that God has reneged on His Word,when the real problem is in our understand-ing. Just because God made a promise toAbraham does not mean that He has madethe same promise to you. We must seek todetermine if the promise was to a specific in-dividual or nation.When we study God’s Promises we must firstdetermine whether or not they are universalor personal in nature. For example, John 3:16says “whosoever believes in Him shall haveeternal life.” That is an example of a univer-sal promise that is open to anyone who be-lieves in the Lord Jesus Christ. A personalpromise would be found in the AbrahamicCovenant. The promise was given to Abra-ham. If we “go forth from the land of our rel-atives,” it does not mean that God will makea new covenant with us.We must also determine if a promise is con-ditional or unconditional. Are there require-ments that we are to meet before a promiseis fulfilled?We must also determine if the promise is forour time frame or it involves a specific timeframe. We know that the wolf and lamb willdwell together and that the leopard will liedown with the goat (Isa 11:6; 65:25), butthose passages refer to the Millennial King-dom of Jesus Christ.

The communicator of God’s Word must re-member that he is bound to it in his preach-ing and teaching. His primary job is to com-municate God’s Word to those “allotted tohis charge (1 Pet 5:2)” accurately and in anunderstandable manner. The use of vocab-ulary that the hearers cannot understand istantamount to “speaking in tongues with nointerpreter (1 Cor 14:27-28). The test of thecommunication is whether or not the hearersgrow in love (1 Tim 1:5) and grace (2 Pet3:18).Some common problems involve pullingverses out of context and then “sermonizing”or “allegorizing” them, seeking to impart ameaning that does not come from that verse.What is wonderful is that in spite of our inad-equacies and mistakes, we serve a God who isgracious and will use us to further His plan.For Personal Study

1. What must govern all practical uses ofthe Bible? Why?

2. Discuss the statement, “the Bible ismore a book of principles than a cata-log of specific directions.”

3. How did the Old Testament teach moraltruth?

4. Why should we look for the “spirit” ofstatements without allegorizing them?

5. Why is it important to look for the cul-tural significance before making practi-cal applications?

6. What are important things we shouldlook for in determining God’s promises.

7. What is the test of a communicator?

Lesson 10Inerrancy And Secular Science the Issue OfInfallibility And InerrancyInfallibility concerns faith and morals whileinerrancy is concerned with historical and fac-tual matters. The Bible claims inerrancy inall matters of history pertaining to faith andmorals. This recognizes the common usage ofthe words and figures of speech.Inerrancy does not demand lucidity as a clearinterpretation of every passage may not bepossible due to our lack of knowledge. Weshould expect some passages to be difficultto understand. The Bible does not reveal ev-erything on a given subject in one place, so it


Hermeneutics 15

is possible to miss something that may clarifythe passage under consideration.Belief in inerrancy leads us to affirm thatthere are no contradictions. Logic involvesthe principles of non-contradiction. Thus,many parts of the Word will be clearly logical.There may be parts of the Word that appearto not be logical, but we must remember thatman’s logic may not be God’s. When thingsappear illogical, it is because we are missingthe God-factor in our understanding.As we pursue our belief in inerrancy we mustbe sure that we have the correct text. Wemust also realize that inerrancy does notmean completeness of detail. That which isrevealed though is literal.Inerrancy does not demand that we possessthe original manuscripts nor have a perfecttext. What we do have has so few textualvariants that there is no cause for alarm.The “Problem” of ScienceThe Bible makes no assertion of being donein a scientific language. The language of theBible is phenomenal which means it is de-scriptive. For example, snails would be called,“crawling things,” along with any number ofother creatures that crawl along the ground.The Bible is a culturally conditioned revela-tion meaning that it was written to commu-nicate to people with terms that they under-stood. Therefore, we don’t need to seek mod-ern scientific theories. Science though can at-tempt to fill in what is found in outline form.God will often use natural phenomena tobring about super-scientific events, such asthe Genesis Flood. In Genesis 7:11, the verbin the phrase “all the fountains of the greatdeep burst open” is in a passive voice and ismore accurately translated “were burst open”indicating that it was done by an outsideforce. In the 1990’s, the theory has been ad-vanced by science that a meteor or comet hitthe earth and caused the extinction of the di-nosaurs, “millions and millions” of years ago.Donald Wesley Patten wrote a book in 1966called The Biblical Flood and the Ice Epochthat describes in detail a model for just suchan event. Patten’s scientific model fits theBiblical description. Where the Bible toucheson science, we are assured accuracy.Since God is eternal and Creation is tempo-ral, it should be clear that space, time energy,

matter, the material and the immaterial areall subordinate to God (Col 1:17). God is notbound by any law higher than Himself (Heb6:13).Science can only generalize how God worksin some places at some times (2Pet3:4).Any scientific law only talks about how Goddid act at certain times and places, not howHe must act at all times and places. Anyscientific law doesn’t find God and is not alaw for God but only a normal expression ofman for that condition. If God reveals thatHe acted in some way at some time at somepoint contrary to how He usually acts, thissupersedes any scientific lawAlthough science can be trusted in most cases(and should be), whenever we have outside au-thoritative revelation from God we are boundto trust the Word of God instead of man’s be-liefs.For Personal Study

1. Describe the difference between infalli-bility and inerrancy.

2. What does belief in inerrancy lead us toaffirm?

3. Seek to explain how the Theologianshould view science.

Lesson 11Types, Symbols And ParablesIntroductionThere is a clear cut justification for typologyeven though the critics claim it is forced ex-egesis or interpretation. Typology shows therelationship of the Old Testament with theNew Testament. The prophetic elements ofScripture may be verbally predictive or thefuture may be displayed in types.Typological interpretation is based on unityof the two Testaments. The Lord’s use of OldTestament invites us to find Him in the pagesof the ancient Scriptures.There is a distinct vocabulary found in theNew Testament that references the Old Tes-tament. The Greek word HUPODEIGMAmeans that which is shown privately as an ex-ample or pattern. TUPOS is an impressionthat is left from the blow of a hammer. SKIAis a shadow or the outline cast by a real object.PARABOL8 means to place side-by-side as a


Hermeneutics 16

comparison. An EIKWN refers to an imagelike found on a coin. An ANTITUPON is acounterpart like an echo. An ALL8GOREWis the speaking of another thing (only in Gal4:24).

Schools Of Typological Interpretation

The early church fathers sought to strengthenNew Testament truth and they used typesfrom the Old Testament. Many claim theywere guilty of too much typology. Still othersbelieved that all typology is forced interpre-tation and hence they believed there was notypology.

Some, such as Bishop Marsh, believed thatone could only consider something as a typeif it was designated as a type in the New Tes-tament.

The Moderate School of interpretationthough believed that both innate and in-ferred types existed. Solomon Glassius ledthis school. He defined the “innate” types asthough that were specifically declared as suchin the New Testament and the inferred typesas those that were justified by the nature ofthe New Testament.

An Evaluation Of The Methods

Bishop Marsh’s view becomes too limited, asit is mechanical and artificial. This is the“safest” route to pursue but as one studiesthe richness of Scripture it becomes apparentthat not everything must be specifically de-clared to be a type for it to exist.

The school that believed there were no typescame from a reaction to the allegorists andto liberals, who wanted to give everything a“deeper” meaning.

The Book of Hebrews, while explaining manytypes only points out a small part of the sig-nificance. If the whole is a type then so are itsparts. When the writer of Hebrews points tothe earthly Tabernacle being a type in chap-ter 9:23-25, or the Law being a “shadow” in10:1, he is clearly inferring that the parts havesignificance as well. Too much typology canbe avoided by diligent and careful study ofthe Scriptures under the ministry of the HolySpirit.

Typological interpretation differs greatlyfrom allegorical interpretation in that Alle-gorical interpretation introduces something

foreign into the meaning, whereas Typolog-ical interpretation has limits that are set bythe nature of the type.The Nature And Interpretation Of TypesThe interpretation of a type depends on thenature of the type. A type is a preor-dained representative relationship that cer-tain persons, events and institutions of theOld Testament bear to corresponding per-sons, events and institutions in the New Tes-tament. There must be a genuine resem-blance in form or idea between the Old Tes-tament and the New Testament. The resem-blance must either be designated innately orhave a clear inference. Dissimilarity is to beexpected, but the truth is found at the pointof similarity. One must determine how theNew Testament treats the subject.Types are inherently prophetic by their verynature as they point to the reality. Someof the mistakes of the Christian Allegoristscould have been avoided had they not gonebeyond simple common sense. An importantprinciple is to not attempt to prove any doc-trine or position from types unless there isclear New Testament authority. Types areillustrations of what would come.There are several different kinds of types.Types of Persons would include such peo-ple as Adam because Jesus Christ is calledthe “last Adam (1 Cor 15:45).” InstitutionalTypes would include the Sacrifices, Feasts,and Promised Land. Types concerning Of-fices would include Moses as the Lawgiverand Prophet, Aaron as a type of the HighPriest and Melchizedek as a picture of thenew priesthood of Jesus Christ. Events suchas the Crossing of the Red Sea and theWilderness Wanderings are pictures for us tolearn from (1 Cor 10:6). Actions can also betypes such as the lifting up of brazen serpent(Nu 21:9 cf. John 3:14) and Things such asthe Tabernacle (Heb 9:23-25).The Interpretation Of SymbolsA symbol may represent a thing either past,present or future whereas a type inherentlyrepresents the future. A symbol has no in-herent reference to time, but it often can bedetermined by the context. The names ofsymbols have to be understood literally first.Symbols always denote something essentiallydifferent from themselves and yet some resem-


Hermeneutics 17

blance must be traceable.There are two elements in a symbol, the men-tal image it represents and the image that rep-resents it. Numerals, metals and colors mayall be symbols, depending on the context inwhich they are found. While all of these mayhave significance within the scope of a studyof the Tabernacle or Temple, they probablyhave no significance if they are found in an un-designated type. For example, the gold usedin the Tabernacle represents Deity, but thegold that used as a medium of exchange in asimple historical transaction would probablyhave no such significance.Symbols are usually explained somewhere inScripture, so uninterpreted symbols need tobe approached with caution. The approachis the same as for the interpretation of types.Special consideration must also be given tothe context. Cross-references need to be dili-gently checked. The nature of the symbolmust be considered, such as the “Lion” of theTribe of Judah. There will be similarities anddissimilarities. Truth is found in the similar-ities.We must be especially careful of readingmeanings from our culture into the symbols.If the symbol is in a prophetic context, thenthe symbol may indeed be referring to some-thing from that prophetic culture, but again,caution must be exercised and doctrine mustnot be built on the interpretation of symbols.Doctrines should be built on hard evidencefrom the Word of God and not from the opin-ions of man.In the study of symbols we should be aware of“Double Imagery,” where a symbol has morethan one meaning. Jesus Christ is a “Lion”(Rev 5:5) and Satan is “like a lion (1 Pet 5:8).”We must guide ourselves by the General Prin-ciples of Interpretation. One entity may berepresented by more than one symbol as isevident in the many symbols that are used todescribe the Lord Jesus Christ, such as the“Lion” of the Tribe of Judah of Revelation 5:5and the “Bright Morning Star” of Revelation22:16.We should also recognize that there is somesymbolism in numbers, but this is easilyabused. Let General Hermeneutics again bethe guide.Realize that each symbol has only one signif-

icant meaning and always has the same fun-damental meaning.The symbols represented in Scripture are abasis for further studies.The Interpretation Of ParablesA Parable is a narrative that is constructedfor the sake of conveying important truth. Itis inherently figurative language that drawsan illustration from life to teach spiritualtruth.When studying parables we should seek to de-termine the central truth of the parable. Partof doing this is to look for contextual clues tohelp in the interpretation, namely, look to seeif the Lord states the central principle that Hewanted to communicate and then uses a para-ble to illustrate the principle. We should alsolook carefully to determine how much of theparable Christ interpreted Himself, separat-ing the essential from what is only attendantto the theme.We also note the time period for which theLord designed the parable. Parables shouldnot be made the primary or sole source fora doctrine. There should be a solid backingfrom elsewhere in Scripture.For Personal Study

1. Why do we recognize Typological inter-pretation?

2. Consider the different schools of inter-pretation of types and tell why youwould hold the position you do.

3. What is at the core of the interpretationof types?

4. Even though types are inherentlyprophetic by their very nature, whatmust we be careful of?

5. List and consider the different kinds oftypes.

6. Explain the difference between typesand symbols.

7. What are the two main elements of asymbol?

8. Explain the importance of culture on theinterpretation of symbols.

9. Explain what is meant by “double im-agery.”

10. What is a parable designed to do?11. What is the main thing we are to look

for in parables?


Hermeneutics 18

12. What cautions would you give to thoseinterpreting parables?

Lesson 12The Interpretation Of ProphecyProphecy predicts by the Word while Typol-ogy predicts by the institution, act or per-son. Prophecy foretells an event while typol-ogy prefigures it.The interpretation of prophecy is one of themost difficult areas of Scripture. Prophecy isoften clothed in highly symbolic and typologi-cal vocabulary. There are principles to follow,but no formulas. Interpreting prophecy is likeputting together a puzzle. Each piece is im-portant and the lack of some pieces can give adistorted picture. The vocabulary is not easy.The historical setting is often difficult to find.Sometimes, key words in Hebrew, Aramaic orGreek are used only once in all of Scriptureand their meanings are open to question. Anincorrectly interpreted type or symbol, or onedistorted for the personal fame of the studentcan distort the entire picture. We in effectmust look for the chronological control versesand then seek to fill in the blanks. The bulk ofinformation is overwhelming. Just add up thenumber of chapters in the prophetic booksand compare that to the 1,189 chapters inScripture. Even if we do not include otherprophetic references, we can easily see thatalmost 25% of the Scriptures are prophetic innature. It is also amazing to realize that oftenwe must look at prophecy that has been ful-filled in order to see how the original prophecywas intended. The study of prophecy is noteasy, but it is rewarding (Rev 1:3).The principles of the interpretation of Bib-lical prophecy must recognize the literal ful-fillment of the Word of God, paying carefulattention to the grammar and the historicalsetting. All other prophecies in the Bible, es-pecially those concerning the cross of JesusChrist had a literal fulfillment, so why shouldwe expect anything different for the balanceof prophecy yet to be fulfilled? The LordJesus Christ Himself said that “Heaven andearth will pass away, but My words will notpass away (Mark 13:31).” This carries a clearcut implication that the Lord’s words willbe literally fulfilled, even though it may becloaked in highly figurative language. Oftentimes there is confusion in the terminology

that is used. The “Literal” School of Inter-pretation recognizes types and symbols andmeans that the predicted events will be liter-ally fulfilled. Some would argue that this isnot being truly literal. A simple reading ofthe Song of Solomon though should let onerealize that symbolic language is clearly em-ployed in the Scriptures. We must be care-ful of allegorizing passages that are clearlyprophetic in nature. We do not want to readour thoughts and viewpoints into the passage,but instead determine what God wants us toknow.We should seek to determine the exact mean-ings of the words that are used from the orig-inal languages. Many problems are clearedup when we take the simplest meaning of thewords and avoid trying to read things intothem. We must recognize the use of figura-tive language in the revelation of prophecy.Even though there is figurative language,once again, it will still have a literal fulfill-ment, since the figurative is a “shadow” ofthe reality it represents (Heb 10:1-14).In seeking to interpret literally we must paycareful attention to the historical setting inwhich the prophecy was given. It is there-fore extremely important to know chronologyand the specified time frames of history. Lit-eral interpretation means that the prophecywill have a literal fulfillment. Thus, when theLord says that He will “come again,” it refersto a literal return-not just “in the hearts ofmen.”We must realize that there is a harmony inprophecy as God is not a God of confusion(1 Cor 14:33). Where harmony does not existbetween various passages, we must have thehumility to shift our understanding and seethe “picture” from a different perspective, byallowing our picture to include those pieces.Prophecy does not shift with our ideas, per-spectives or desires. It is from God. Wemust be the ones willing to make the changes.Sadly, history is full of examples of peoplewho developed a system and then held on to itat all costs-in spite of overwhelming evidenceto the contrary. Just consider the Pharisees.The harmony of prophecy inherently involvesthe comparison of Scripture with Scripture.A specific event may be described in manydifferent places in the Bible. For example,the end-time entity of Babylon (Rev 17-18)


Hermeneutics 19

is also discussed in detail in Isaiah 13 and47 and Jeremiah 50-51. Many people tryto go to a prophetic book and interpret itas a finished, complete unit. While majorpoints may be given in that book, there arefrequently many other passages that fill inthe details. We therefore must be very care-ful of what we develop and hold up as “doc-trine.” Jesus Christ said that He will return(John 14:1-3). That is doctrine. Whether itis Pre-Tribulational, Mid-Tribulational, Post-Tribulational, Pre-wrath or whatever otherposition may be presented, these are conclu-sions that are drawn by men based on howthey see the evidence. The author, for ex-ample, holds very strong convictions that theRapture of the Church will occur before theTribulation, and firmly believes that that iswhat the evidence teaches, but because I oryou hold a certain position does not meanthat it is provable beyond any doubt.Since the entirety of God’s Word revolvesaround His Son, Jesus Christ, it is essentialto interpret Christologically (1 Pet 1:10-1).This means that we should realize that Je-sus Christ is at the center of all theology andall history. We are told that, “His testimonyis the spirit of prophecy (Rev 19:10.” Historyis indeed “His Story” and is the unveiling ofthe Lord Jesus Christ. Prophecy is focusedon that fact. If we cannot explain His rela-tionship to the position we have taken, thenthe position needs to be reconsidered.Prophecy must also recognize the fact thatGod has ordained different time frames calledDispensations, in which certain methods aredifferent. For example, in the second andthird chapters of Revelation, there are let-ters written to seven different churches. Be-ginning with Chapter 4 all the way throughChapter 18, the church is not mentioned.Facts such as these must be considered wheninterpreting those chapters.Another very important factor in the interpre-tation of prophecy is that we must determineif a given prophecy is fulfilled in the part, thewhole or not at all. If it is totally fulfilled,it need not be repeated. If it is partially ful-filled, then it makes sense that the Lord willbring about similar circumstances so that thebalance of the prophecy might be completed.After all, God is truth (Isa 65:16) and HisWords are truth (2 Sam 7:28), so what He

has had written must be literally true. If theprophecy is not yet fulfilled, then it will be.Also widely recognized by those who dili-gently study prophecy is the principle of Dou-ble Reference. This involves two events thatare widely separated in time and may bebrought together in a single reference. TheLord Himself pointed this out when He readfrom Isaiah and said that today “this Scrip-ture has been fulfilled in your hearing (Luke4:21).” He is quoting from Isaiah 61:1-2, but ifyou will notice that He did not say the nextphrase in Isaiah had been fulfilled. It says,“and the day of vengeance of our God,” whichis a reference to His Second Coming. God isnot bound by time and sees the “end fromthe beginning (Rev 21:6; 22:13),” so it is nota problem for Him to include two events inone prophecy.A final point to recognize in the interpreta-tion of the prophetic word is that we mustnot only look for similarities in events, but fordifferences. The differences may often lead usto conclude that there are two events in viewand not one. The return of the Lord is a goodexample. We are told in one passage that thesaints will “meet Him in the air (1 Thes 4:13-18).” In another passage, we are told that,“His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives,”and it will split in two and He will go forththen to fight (Zech 14:1-5). In putting to-gether the puzzle of the prophetic word, wemust consider the differences.For Personal Study

1. What are some of the factors that makethe interpretation of prophecy one of themost difficult areas in the Scriptures?

2. What reasons lead us to expect a literalfulfillment of prophecy?

3. What is essential in finding the harmonyof prophecy?

4. Who should we find at the center of theprophetic word?

5. What role does “Dispensations” play inthe study of prophecy?

6. Why is it important to determine the de-gree of fulfillment if a given prophecy?

7. Why is it important to look for differ-ences in prophetic events?

Lesson 13


Hermeneutics 20

The Use Of The Old Testament In The NewTestamentThe Use Of The Law In The New TestamentThere exists a correct use of the Mosaic Lawin the Church Age even though we are notunder the Law. In First Timothy we are toldthat “we know the Law is good, if one usesit lawfully, realizing the fact that law is notmade for a righteous man, but for those whoare lawless and rebellious, for the ungodlyand sinners, for the unholy and profane, forthose who kill their fathers or mothers, formurderers and immoral men and homosexu-als and kidnappers and liars and perjurers,and whatever else is contrary to sound teach-ing (1Tim 1:8-10).” We are also told in Ro-mans 6:14-15 that, “sin shall not be masterover you, for you are not under law, but un-der grace. What then? Shall we sin becausewe are not under law but under grace? Mayit never be!” We must seek how to lawfullyuse The Mosaic Law.The Law was designed to show our need forthe grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and to pro-claim Him (John 5:39-47). The Law was alsodesigned to teach us so that we may be led toChrist and be justified by faith (Gal 3:24-25).The entirety of the Law and the Prophetswere designed to get mankind to fulfill theTwo Greatest Commandments, to love Godwith every part of their being and to lovetheir neighbor as themselves (Matt 22:36-40).The principles gleaned can teach us aboutfulfilling these commandments. In Galatians5:14 we are told that, “the whole Law is ful-filled in one word, in the {statement},”Youshall love your neighbor as yourself,” and inMatthew 7:12 we are instructed that, “how-ever you want people to treat you, so treatthem, for this is the Law and the Prophets.”It is quite clear that the Law has value, but itis also quite clear that we are no longer underthe specifics of it.There are several categories of the Law thatare found in the word including the Sacrifices,the Feasts, the Dietary Code, the HygieneCode, the Social Code, the National Code,the Tabernacle Code and the Ten Command-ments.Several of these categories have been directlyand specifically removed. For example, theSacrificial system is no longer to be observed

because Jesus Christ offered the “one sacri-fice for all time (Heb 10:8-13).” The obser-vance of Feasts was also removed as law be-cause they were “but a mere shadow of Je-sus Christ (Col 2:16-17).” Jesus Himself de-clared that all foods were now clean in Mark7:19, thus removing the Dietary Code (seealso Acts 11:1-9 and Col 2:20-23). The Hy-giene Code with all of its specific instructionsis also gone (Col 2:16-23) as well as the Taber-nacle Code. When Jesus Christ entered intothe true heavenly tabernacle, there was nolonger a need for the earthly one which wasbut a type of the reality (Heb 9:24).Categories of the Law that are not specifi-cally deleted are still gone under the fact thatthey were fulfilled in Jesus Christ. There areprinciples to be learned from the Social Codewhich includes “loving your neighbor as your-self (Gal 5:14),” but they are part of the “newcommandment (John 13:34-35)” that shouldbe done out of love for our master, not be-cause they are law.The National Code teaches principles of righ-teous government and thus much can belearned. The principles of the Ten Command-ments with the exception of the Sabbath day(Col 2:16) are all retained in the New Testa-ment. This is an excellent exercise for thestudent of the Word of God to go through.The “lawful use of the Law” means that itmust be used in accordance with its design. Itwas never designed to eternally save the soulfrom death, but was in fact designed to teachus that we need a Savior (Gal 3:24). The Lawalso taught us about sin and actually definedsin, because “where there is no law, sin is notimputed (Rom 5:13).” The Law was neverdesigned to be the foundation or that whichmotivates the righteous man. Love is to bethe foundation of our life (John 14:15,21,23).No ritual or punishment has been retained inthe Church Age. This does not give us a “li-cense to sin,” but instead a “license to serve(Gal 5:13).” When we walk according to theHoly Spirit we are fulfilling the Law. This ismade clear in Romans 8:2-4, which declares,“For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Je-sus has set you free from the law of sin and ofdeath. For what the Law could not do, weakas it was through the flesh, God did: send-ing His own Son in the likeness of sinful fleshand as an offering for sin, He condemned sin


Hermeneutics 21

in the flesh, in order that the requirement ofthe Law might be fulfilled in us, who do notwalk according to the flesh, but according tothe Spirit.”Hermeneutics Of Old Testament QuotationsThe first thing that we must determine in anexamination of an Old Testament quotationfound in the New Testament is whether ornot it is an exact quotation from the OldTestament or if it is quoted from the Septu-agint (The Greek translation of the HebrewOld Testament, also seen as the “LXX”). Wemust also realize that the quotation could bea paraphrase. In short, this means we mustdetermine if there are any differences in theNew Testament quotation from the originalOld Testament Scripture.The next step we must take is to note the con-text of the cited passage. From this we candetermine whether the New Testament quo-tation interprets the Old Testament passage,is an application of the passage or simply anillustration.If the Septuagint is quoted, Inspiration guar-antees that the Septuagint translation is cor-rect for the quoted portion of Scripture, butit does not mean the Septuagint was inspiredat that point.Paraphrases refer to legitimate applicationsof the Old Testament passage and may ormay not be the interpretation of it.For Personal Study

1. What New Testament Passage Tells UsThat There Is A “Lawful” Use Of TheLaw?

2. Why Was The Law Designed And WhatAre The Proof Texts?

3. Find The Ten Commandments In TheNew Testament.

4. What Is The “Lawful Use Of The Law.”5. What May We Find In A New Testa-

ment Quotation Of An Old TestamentPassage?

Lesson 14The Hermeneutics Of LogicLogic is by definition the rules of non-contradiction and correct reasoning. Eventhough attempts to use logic throughout thehistory of the church have gotten people into

trouble and caused divisions, nevertheless, itis a valuable tool for our understanding.Deductive Reasoning occurs when a neces-sary conclusion is drawn from one or morestatements. For the conclusion to be correct,both of the statements have to be correct.For example, from the statements, “All liferequires water,” and “There is no water onthe moon,” one can deduct that, “there is nolife on the moon.” The truth of the deductiveconclusion depends on the truth of the state-ments from which it is drawn. A deductioncan prove only that if certain things are true,then certain things will follow.Inductive Reasoning involves the observanceof all possible cases and then assumes it istrue in the other cases that have not beentested. Needless to say, this type of reason-ing is much less certain than deductive reason-ing. For example, the observation that heatexpands iron, gold and platinum might leadone to believe that heat expands all metals.Each metal must be tested though in orderto be certain.The expression of a logical argument in a for-mal way is called a “Syllogism.” Logic is di-vided into Concepts, Propositions and Argu-ments.Defined words are used to define a concept.Concepts are derived by words that are usedto form further definitions. Propositions de-clare what we intend to prove or disprove.They are statements that our concepts ex-ist in a certain way. Propositions must bestated in terms of true or false. Commands,exclamations and questions do not and can-not express propositions. Propositions areconcerned with the relationship between con-cepts. They can be wrong either by designa-tion or they can ascribe to the subject whatdoes not belong to the subject. For exam-ple, to say that, “World War II killed 300million people,” and then try and to make adeduction from a comparison with the state-ment that, “Noah took two of each animalinto the ark,” will not be fruitful. Both state-ments may be correct but have no connectionto each other. We can compare propositionsonly when they contain the same words.Any inferences that we draw from a proposi-tion can be valid only if the proposition istrue. If we consider the proposition, “All


Hermeneutics 22

snakes are poisonous,” there are other infer-ences we can consider such as, “No snakesare poisonous,” “Some snakes are poisonous,”and, “Some snakes are not poisonous.” Whenthe proposition is false though, the truth ofthe comparable propositions or inferences isnot determinable. When we know the truthand falsity of a given proposition, we can de-termine the truth and falsity of the inferencesContradictions are those comparisons thatcommunicate when one thing is true thenanother is false. For example, if it is truethat we are saved by grace through faith, notworks, then for one to say that we are savedby works is a contradiction to truth. If onestatement is indeed true then other is false.Both cannot be true.A Superimplication exists when one state-ment is true and another statement impliedfrom it is also true. From the universal youcan validly infer the specific but from thespecific you cannot validly infer the univer-sal. For example if “whoever believes in JesusChrist shall be saved (John 3:16), is true (andthank God it is), then since I have believedin Jesus Christ it is validly inferred that I amsaved.A Complementary Statement occurs when wesay the same thing in a different way. Ifwe say that, “very well-educated student ofhistory studies Greek,” we can also validly

say that, “no well-educated student of historyfails to study Greek.” The statements do notcontradict but are simply restated.The reasons that are given for one’s deduc-tions and the validity of those deductionsare called, “Arguments.” Conclusions arereached using reasoning. They are foundthroughout God’s word and they are intro-duced by many different words such as there-fore, so, as a result and the like.The “most important term” of an argumentis called the “Predicate.” The “minor term”of the argument is called the “Subject” andwhat appears in both arguments is called the“middle term.” For example, take the state-ments.

• Whatever is constitutional is just.

• Whatever is decided by the Supreme Court isconstitutional.

The conclusion would be, “Therefore, whatever isdecided by the Supreme Court is just.”

In this example, “Whatever is just” is the pred-icate. ‘Whatever is constitutional is the middleterm which does not appear in the conclusion and,“Decisions reached” is the subject. The Conclusionis a mediate inference, which is drawn around themajor and minor terms based on their relationshipto the middle term.


Documents

Hermeneutics - Grace Notes 1 Introduction Hermeneutics is the science and art of Biblical in-terpretation. It is a science because it is guided by rules. The art is in the application