“God is a spirit and all his words are spiritual. His literal
sense is spiritual.”William Tyndale 1494–15361
“It shall greatly help ye to understand Scripture, If thou mark
Not only what is spoken or written, But of whom, And to whom, With what
words, At what time, Where, To what intent, With what circumstances,
Considering what goeth before And what followeth.” John Wycliffe
(1324-1384) or Myles Coverdale (1488-1569)
Hermeneutics is the art and
science of interpretation. The key factor for a hermeneutic is that it have
rigor, discipline, and consistency. How we approach language is foundational to
how we determine meaning. Language is of two sorts; it is either figurative or
literal. Meaningful understanding of this subject is dependent upon specific
examples in order that the reader may comprehend when a passage is interpreted.
For this reason, specific examples (passages) are examined. An example of
literal (or normal) meaning is the following passage by Matthew:
“Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of
Herod the king, magi from the east arrived in Jerusalem, saying, …” (Matthew 2.1).
This is a simple historical
statement. The literal or normal meaning and interpretation is that Jesus was
born in a place called Bethlehem (a real geographical place) when Herod (a
historical personage who reigned in a real time) was king (a real position)
over Judea (a real geographical place). By means of such a statement, Matthew
rooted Jesus’ birth in a real place in a real time. Contrast Matthew’s literal
statement to the following by Jesus:
We understand that Jesus was not saying that He was a literal,
wooden door in a sheep pen. We understand that he was using a figure of speech
(cf. John 10.6), a metaphor. But even
though He used figurative language he communicated a literal truth,
namely, that He is the entrance way for salvation. Just as a wooden door is the
entrance to a house or to a sheep pen, Jesus is the “door”, i.e. entrance
through whom God and salvation is found. Jesus was not talking about animals,
i.e. sheep, but human beings–Jews.
Almost all communication is literal. Think about daily
conversations. We talk about going out to dinner, watching a movie, what our
children are doing, ongoing projects, what we’re reading, what’s going on at
church, politics, sports, our job etc. These communications are literal. Were
it not so, we would find it impossible to communicate. We employ conventions
regularly in speech without thinking of them as such. A new car is called a
“nice set of wheels”. We use expressions such as, “She’s the apple of his eye”.
In doing so we understand that we’re talking about a whole car and not just its
wheels. We know that someone’s eye does not have an apple in it but that the
apple stands as an object of appeal and favor. Figurative language is, in most
cases, readily understood as such by its context. It can also be identified by
the kind of literature. For example, poetry lends itself to figurative
language. But what is essential is to remember that figurative language always
communicates literal truth. When Isaiah penned the poetic
line,
we understand we are mortal. The literal truth is not that
flesh is grass–that makes no sense–but that human beings have
a temporal life upon the earth. Isaiah conveyed literal truth through
figurative language.
Most difficulties arise in
interpreting the Scriptures from neglecting a passages’ context. The guiding
principle of sound interpretation is to take a passage literally (that is, in
its normal sense) unless strong reasons are present not to do so. Without such
discipline, interpretation of a passage becomes so elastic that it can mean
almost anything. The result is erroneous or ridiculous interpretations.
Following the rule cited above by Tyndale and Wycliffe, the interpreter needs
to ask the following questions: To whom was a passage written? What did it mean
to it’s audience? When was it written? Under what circumstances was it written?
What was the historical context? How does the passage compare with other
passages the writer has written? What light do other passages shed on it? Other
questions pertinent to interpretation include: What knowledge do the original
languages shed on the passage? Do cognate languages offer insight into the
meaning of the passage? What customs were in place? Are idioms or
conventions present? Does archaeology shed linguistic or historical light on
the passage? These are some of the many factors an interpreter must
consider to determine meaning.
An example of interpretive confusion concerns the meaning of
David’s throne. Great controversy has resulted about this subject. The
controversy is whether Jesus will occupy David’s throne literally in a future
day or whether he is occupying it now figuratively or symbolically. A literal
or normal reading of the Davidic Covenant (2 Samuel 7.8-17),
indicates that God promised to establish the throne of David forever. The
Davidic Covenant was unconditional. God made the promise to David sovereignly without
qualification or consideration of the failures and weaknesses of men and
promised that David’s house, throne, and kingdom would endure forever. We know
from history that no son of David occupied the throne of Israel since the time
of Nebuchadnezzar. We also know that both Mary and Joseph were members of the
tribe of Judah and descendants in the royal line of David. The angel Gabriel
announced to Mary that God would give her son the throne of David. He said,
“He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High;
and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David; and He will
reign over the house of Jacob forever; and His kingdom will have no end” (Luke 1.32-33).
A normal reading of the prophecy is that God would give Mary’s
son, Jesus, the Davidic throne. His reign would be over the house of Jacob,
i.e., Israel, and it would last forever. Thus, the promise was wholly and
totally Jewish. How would Mary have interpreted the words of the
angel? She would have remembered the David covenant and the prophecies that had
been made for hundreds of years that promised Israel a Messiah-King who would
reign.
The context indicates that Gentiles or the Church were not in
view. An interpretation that denies this is an erroneous interpretation. Jesus
was a Jew. He was from the tribe of Judah and his ancestor was King David.
Herod occupied David’s throne during Jesus’ time on earth. Herod was not from
the tribe of Judah. Herod was a Gentile, an Idumean. Jesus never occupied
David’s throne during his life on earth. Is he now sitting on it? Can one visit
Jerusalem and find Jesus sitting on a throne there? No, Jesus is seated
presently at the right hand of his Father’s throne (Psalm 110.1). Therefore, we can
conclude that the prophetic promise awaits fulfillment. A future day remains in
which Jesus will rule from Jerusalem on David’s throne and fulfill God’s
promise to David as reiterated to Mary (Daniel 7.14; Zechariah 14.9; Isaiah 9.6-7, 16.5;Jeremiah 33.17, 20-22, etc.).
Some maintain this throne
is not literal but symbolic. This is where one’s hermeneutic comes in. What is
the normal reading of the passage? Those who maintain that the throne is
symbolic have abandoned the discipline of a literal, grammatical, and
historical hermeneutic. The question we must always address is “Do the
Scriptures govern theology or does theology govern the Scriptures?” If the
former, then we have an inductive, scientific method of interpretation with
rigor and discipline. If the latter, then we have a deductive system in which
the Scriptures become so elastic that the interpreter can mold them to
mean whatever he wishes. That is what has happened in most of Christendom.
The Davidic Covenant was prophetic. How were other prophecies
associated with Jesus fulfilled? Were they fulfilled literally or figuratively?
Were they types? For example, were his garments parted? Did soldiers cast
lots for them? Literally or figuratively? Was he betrayed literally for 30
pieces of silver? Did his disciples literally forsake Him? Did Jesus literally
die for us? Or was his death only figurative or symbolic? Did Jesus literally
rise from the dead or did he rise only figuratively or symbolically? Some
maintain a figurative interpretation for Jesus’ resurrection–that Jesus rose in
the hearts of his believers but did not rise literally, physically. The answers
are obvious. The above prophecies and many others were fulfilled literally. If
we follow a consistent grammatical, historical interpretative method, then a
interpretation that maintains that Jesus is now occupying the Davidic throne
in heaven is nonsense. The Scriptures are clear that a future day remains in
which Jesus will reign from David’s throne in Jerusalem as the King of the
Jews.
Another example of interpretive confusion regards the events that
took place at Pentecost as recorded in Acts. At Pentecost, Peter told his
audience that they had crucified their Messiah. His words pierced their hearts
and they responded to his message and asked him what they should do. Peter told
them to repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2.38) and that they would
receive the promise of the Holy Spirit. He then went on to say,
“For the promise is for you and your children, and for all who are
far off, as many as the Lord our God shall call to Himself” (Acts 2.39).
In Peter’s second sermon he spoke similar words,
“And likewise, all the prophets who have spoken, from Samuel and
his successors onward, also announced these days. It is you who are the sons of
the covenant which God made with your fathers, saying to Abraham, ‘AND IN YOUR
SEED ALL THE FAMILIES OF THE EARTH SHALL BE BLESSED’” (Acts 3.24-25).
The great challenge of this passage is not to read in future
revelation, i.e., Paul, into the passage. What was the situation? Peter’s
audience was all Jews. No Gentiles were present. Pentecost was meaningless to
Gentiles except as a curiosity. Remember that our Lord’s ministry was all Jewish with
a couple exceptions. Jesus never had a ministry to Gentiles. All his apostles
were Jews and his audience was the nation of Israel. He proclaimed the kingdom
of God to the Jews “repent for the kingdom of God is near” which kingdom the
Jewish prophets had foretold. Jesus Himself had no ministry to Gentiles and He
forbade His disciples to go to to Gentiles (Matthew 10.5-7). Thus,
the kingdom Jesus proclaimed was Jewish. It was a kingdom in which the nation
of Israel would be preeminent among all the nations of the earth (Deuteronomy 28.1, 13). Through this
kingdom Gentiles would be blessed (Zechariah 8.23;Is. 42.1). This kingdom
was to be the fulfillment of all that the Jewish prophets had proclaimed.
Peter’s quoted Joel because he recognized that the last days (Hebrews 1.2) had come upon Israel. He
and his fellow apostles knew the prophecies concerning Israel were being
fulfilled. Interpretive errors arise when expositors interpret Acts 2 and 3 with reference to the
Church, the Body of Christ. As we have seen, Pentecost was a Jewish feast.
It applied to the Jews, to national Israel, not the Church. Those who
interpret Acts 2 and 3 as Church doctrine
have abandoned sound exegesis and have departed from the historical context.
They read Church (Body of Christ) doctrine into Israel doctrine. Another way to
express this is that they read Pauline theology into Petrine theology. But the
Church (the body of Christ) is different from Israel. How do
we know this? We know it because the Scriptures explicitly tell us so.
The Body of Christ did not exist when Peter gave his early Acts sermons.
Peter’s sermons in Acts indicate that he knew nothing about
the Body of Christ. Everything in Peter’s sermons (Acts 2-3) indicate that his focus
was upon national Israel, that is, his kinsmen after the flesh. At that time,
only the Jewish Church of national Israel existed and Jewish priority was the
rule. Those who believed in the Messiah were either Jews or under the aegis of
the Jewish program, i.e., the kingdom of heaven.
Today, the situation is completely different. In the Church, the
Body of Christ, we have no distinction between Jew and Gentile and no Jewish
priority. Why not? Because God revealed to the Apostle Paul the doctrine of the
Church. Peter knew nothing about it nor the other apostles. Why not? This
teaching was still a “mystery” (Ephesians 2.11-22; 3.3-9; Colossians 1.26-27). Do you
realize that neither Peter nor any of the other writers of the New Testament
even mention the Body of Christ? Peter knew only of God’s prophetic program
in which Gentiles were to be blessed through Israel. His
knowledge of the Church, the body of Christ, came later, from the Apostle Paul.
To force later revelation and Church doctrine onto the early chapters of
Acts is to abandon a literal, historic, and grammatical hermeneutic. For
further study on this matter see The Church.
Maintaining a literal hermeneutic has been a challenge throughout
history. One form of figurative interpretation is allegorical interpretation.
Allegorical interpretation came to influence Christian interpreters of
Scripture by way of the Greeks. The allegorical hermeneutic provided a solution
to a Greek scholarly dilemma. The Greeks had an established religious heritage
from Hesiod and Homer. When the philosophers and scholars began to reject the
religious heritage and philosophical traditions of earlier ages they created a
political problem. It was impossible for them to reject completely the writings
of the earlier Greek poets due to their popularity with the people. Therefore,
to preserve Hesiod and Homer in an intellectually acceptable form they
allegorized their religious heritage. The stories of the gods were not to be
taken literally but figuratively or allegorically. This new
hermeneutic proclaimed that beyond and beneath the literal sense lay the real
meaning of the story.
Using hermeneutical methods
applied to Greek pagan texts, scholars, primarily from Alexandria, began to
influence biblical interpretation. While Rome was the political center of the
ancient world, Alexandria was the intellectual and cultural center. It was one
of the chief centers of scholarship and had the greatest library of ancient
texts and writings in the world. A large Jewish population had come to reside there
and later, a great Christian population. Jewish scholars adopted an allegorical
hermeneutic and used it to reconcile the biblical Scriptures with Greek
philosophical tradition. The Christian church, influenced by these scholastic
trends, later accepted this hermeneutic. It dominated Christian interpretation
until the Reformation. The man who is probably most responsible for introducing
allegorical interpretation into the Christian church was Origen (c. 185-254)
who sought to harmonize New Testament theology with the teachings of Plato.
Augustine, the Bishop of Hippo (354-425), incorporated Origen’s
methodology and devised a unified theology. Augustine’s ideas influenced
Christian interpretation for a millennium. Allegorical methodology and its
effect on theology led to several false interpretations of the Scriptures
including the view of eschatology (the doctrine of last things) called
amillennialism. Earlier, Augustine had held a pre-millennial
eschatological viewpoint as had almost all the earliest Church fathers. As
Augustine systematized his theology under allegorical methodology, he abandoned
premillenialism and became an amillennialist. According to amillennialism,
no literal millennium or kingdom of God exists in which Christ will personally reign
as Israel’s king for a thousand years. The amillennialist interprets the
“millennium” figuratively or allegorically as our present Church age. In other
words, there is no millennium except what is now and it began
when God created the Church. It is identical to the Church age. As an aside we
won’t delve into, as to when God created the Church (examples: with Adam, with
Christ, in Acts 2) is a real problem for
those who refuse to take the Scriptures literally. For those who do take the
Scriptures literally, the answer is simple.
Teaching began as early as the second century that the Church had
replaced Israel.2 The
idea that became cemented into theological teaching was that because the Jews
had rejected their Messiah, God had rejected them (nationally) and given their
promises to the Church. These promises were not to be fulfilled literally but
figuratively. Throughout the Middle Ages, belief that Israel been irrevocably
replaced by the Church solidified. Thus, the Church came to replace Israel.
This error is held by almost all of Christendom under the theological system
known as covenant, reformed, or replacement theology. Theologians call it
supercessionism. While it is the predominant theological view in Christendom
and has a long pedigree, it is an errant theology. Its has a hermeneutical
foundation of sand.
Despite the prevailing theological climate in the Middle Ages,
certain groups such as the Syrian School of Antioch and the Victorines rejected
the allegorical method. When the Reformers emerged, they revised current
theological thought and established a more disciplined method of
interpretation. Literal interpretation began to reassert itself as the dominant
methodology, primarily in the realm of soteriology (the doctrine of salvation).
As a result of this they were able to recover and rediscover the great doctrine
of justification by faith alone. The bywords of the Reformation were sola
Scriptura, sola gratia, sola fides–the Scriptures alone, grace alone, and
faith alone. They saw that the Scriptures, when read in a normal way,
taught that salvation was based solely on faith in Christ alone. But old habits
and traditions die hard. The reformers did not apply their methodology into
other realms of theology such as eschatology (doctrine of last things) and
ecclesiology (doctrine of the church). While the reformers failed to exploit a
historical, grammatical, and literal hermeneutic into other areas of theology
their failure can be understood. They were under tremendous pressures and what
they achieved was nothing less than remarkable. But the great tragedy in
Christendom is that since then almost no progress has been made to bring
hermeneutical rigor into other areas of theology. The vast majority of
scholars, pastors, and theologians fail to apply a consistent literal,
grammatical hermeneutic to the Scriptures and are in essentially the same place
as the reformers were almost 500 years ago. Covenant theology abandons a
literal hermeneutic in dealing with prophecy and with Israel and the Church.
Because of this they are blinded to the difference between Israel and the
Church fail completely to understand prophetic passages.
The degree to which
interpreters reject the normal reading of the text is stunning. The have
imprisoned themselves in a flawed hermeneutical system and most want to stay
enslaved. They reject God’s sovereignty and His faithfulness for they refuse to
believe that God will fulfill his word literally as he did in the past.
God has proven he is faithful by fulfilling hundreds of promises already. How
were they fulfilled–figuratively or literally? Consider the following. How
would non-literal interpreters interpret the Scriptures related to the Lord’s
first advent had they lived before that advent? Would they not “spiritualize”
alway all the prophesies related to the Lord’s first advent? Think about it.
Those who hold a
non-literal hermeneutic also often uncritically follow tradition. While
tradition has certain virtues it can also seduce one into rigidity and
blindness. Jesus’ condemned the religious authorities of his day for two
reasons. One was their hypocrisy. The other was their tradition. The religious
leaders in Jesus’ day placed tradition alongside or above the Scriptures.
The teachings of the Church Fathers, Augustine, Luther, Calvin, and other
reformers and theologians certainly have value but they also contain many
errors. The Scriptures are supreme and when commentary conflicts with the
normal reading of the text, the text trumps.
The gospels reveal that
when Jesus referred to the Scriptures, he always interpreted them in their
literal sense. Jesus made references to the biblical figures of David,
Abiathar, Jonah, Solomon, Isaiah, Moses, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Abel,
Daniel, Noah, Elijah, and Elisha. He taught that they were literal personages
and that the events surrounding them were historical. He also noted the
events and places of Sodom, Nineveh, the creation of man, and the Flood. In
each case he interpreted the events and places as literal and
historical. Consider the following statement by Jesus:
“Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I
did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven
and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the
Law, until all is accomplished” (Matthew 5.17-18).
More familiar as “jot or
tittle” in the King James translation, the “smallest letter or stroke” is the
Greek expression ἰῶτα ἓν ἢ μία κεραία (one
iota or one point) which referred to the smallest Hebrew letter “yod” and part
of a letter such as the “horn” part of a letter. Did Jesus
believe in the literal fulfillment of Scripture? According to his above
statement, not just down to the word but down to the smallest letter and to the
smallest part of a letter. Can one be more literal than that?
The figurative,
allegorical, “spiritualizing” interpreter is at odds with his Master. As the
root of the hermeneutical problem is unbelief, the remedy is faith. This one
fact should be exceedingly sobering to those who “spiritualize” texts: they will
one day have to account for their unbelief to the Lord Himself.
1Lewis, C.
S. English Literature in the Sixteenth Century Excluding Drama,
Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1954, p.186.
©1998 Don
Samdahl. Anyone is free to reproduce this material and distribute it, but
it may not be sold.
No comments:
Post a Comment