Ethos Statement on Hermeneutics & Eschatology

Such a simple interpretive approach hardly reflects exalted academic institutions. Why, it’s almost as if you subjugate your policies to the revelations, rather than the opposite! Surely a more inclusive hermeneutic, capable of multiple equal interpretations, would lead to enhanced academic debate, greater toleration, and ultimately a more scholarly atmosphere. Simplicity and dogmatism, though not without their old-fashioned charms, are considered rather gauche by today’s standards. I can hardly deplore them any less, though I take some pains to do so.

In a spirit of great toleration for your viewpoint;

Andrew Aird

This brings alot together in a small document.

Really appreciate this..

we reject the notion that New Testament interpreters are adding meaning that is not somehow present in the Old Testament texts.

and this…

All of us reject any application of the hermeneutic of inaugurated eschatology that would obliterate the distinction between Israel and the church and negate the literal, eschatological consummation of Old Testament promises and prophecies.

and this…

we reject any approach that replaces the gospel of personal salvation with the social benefits of the kingdom during the present age, or any approach that replaces personal evangelism with social activity.

This is exactly how I viewed hermeneutics in the past. It seems to make perfect sense. But over the years, in my exposition of the New Testament, I began to have questions regarding this approach. In short, I find, time and again, that New Testament authors, beginning with Christ, and continuing to the Apostles and other inspired writers, seemed to ignore this hermeneutic. I was continually faced with interpreting NT passages, too numerous to list, but one example is the identity of John the Baptist as Elijah, according to my presuppsotitions, brought forward from my “literal” OT interpretation. It eventually dawned on my that I should consider New Testament inspired writiers, beginning with Christ, as superior to any human interpretor of Scripture.

In other words, I should begin by studying how NT writiers interpret the OT, and use that as my hermeneutic for interpreting the OT. NT revelation “trumps” OT interpretation every time. I reject the charge that this is not “literal” interpretation. It is literally understanding how NT writers understood the OT. If NT writers understood an OT passage according to symbolic fulfillment (a better term than “spiritual”), so be it. I must bow to their inspired wisdom. That’s not the way I probably would have taken the OT at first reading, but that’s why the NT is given, to shed additional revelation on the Old Covenant. It seems to me that one of the big problems of the religious leaders of Christ’s day was their unwillingness to consider anything but the most literal interpretaion of OT prophecies concerning Israel, and that led to their rejection of Jesus as the Christ. I certainly didn’t want to repeat their errors.

I am not dogmatic about any of this, and respect and listen to those who agree with this post. Eschatology will always be somewhat murky until Christ returns and brings the fullness of final fullfilllment. Still, why should we set our interpretations in stone before we come to the NT? Isn’t it better to hold our OT interpretations more lightly, and receive with humility the additional inspired revelation given to us in the NT? Isn’t that what progressive revelation should lead us to do?

[G. N. Barkman] I should begin by studying how NT writiers interpret the OT, and use that as my hermeneutic for interpreting the OT.

Hi! and welcome to Sharper Iron!

I would join you in this interpretive method if I could, but I can’t, and I don’t think you should either.

The reason is deceptively simple. First, it assumes that God wants us to use the NT writer’s quotes of the OT as a hermeneutic guide. This assumption is not taught in the NT, and is contradicted in passages like 2 Peter 1:20-21. Next, and more important, you and I aren’t like Peter, and Paul, and the other NT writers. They had a special call, a special equipping, and the gift of prophecy. You and me… well, let’s just be a lot more humble! They are not like us. We are not like them. The idea that we can interpret the OT using their hermenutic would also equip us to have their call to write Scripture, right? After all, that is what they did with their “hermeneutic!”

It is better to recognize that they weren’t really “applying a hermeneutic” at all. They were doing something incredibly unique - writing Scripture! Otherwise, when they weren’t writing prophecy, we can freely assume they weren’t spiritualizing the OT, but instead were interpreting the OT according to proper rules of interpretation.

I reject the charge that this is not “literal” interpretation. It is literally understanding how NT writers understood the OT.

In logical terms, this is the error of the excluded middle. You are using the word “literal” in two different ways, but equating the two as if they were the same.

It seems to me that one of the big problems of the religious leaders of Christ’s day was their unwillingness to consider anything but the most literal interpretation of OT prophecies concerning Israel, and that led to their rejection of Jesus as the Christ. I certainly didn’t want to repeat their errors.

I promise you, if they were holding literally to the O.T. prophecies, they would have loved Jesus Christ (John 5:46-47, Psalm 110:1). Rather, they rejected the prophecies, and thus, rejected Christ. Think of the prophecies of His place of birth, virgin birth, character, style of ministry, and Isa. 53.

One last comment. The prophecies on John the Baptist are fulfilled, but also, they aren’t yet fulfilled (Mal. 4:5). Jesus said, “For all the prophets and the Law prophesied until John. “And if you are willing to accept it, John himself is Elijah who was to come.” (Matthew 11:13-14). But you know what? They weren’t willing to accept it, were they - (Matthew 11:16ff)?

[the ethos statement] Others of us frame our understanding of this relationship more in view of the “binary” nature of this authorship: a cooperation of divine-human authorship in such a way that although the human author’s words were the very words of God (no more or no less), the meaning of the divine author might in some way be found fuller, heightened, or more expansive in later revelation.

What would you say is the difference between this and what you’ve described?

Can you provide an case or two maybe of how it works out?

In the case of the Elijah prophecy, the OT statement is so brief and vague that there does not seem to be any need to suppose that the NT gives meaning to it that wasn’t there. Rather it adds meaning to what was there.

Maybe a better way to say it is that I don’t believe the NT ever gives to OT statements meaning that is inconsistent with the plain/normal meaning in the OT context.

But the Elijah statement is so cryptic that “plain/normal” isn’t saying much in that case. It’s almost certain that it was meant and understood in some metaphorical way in the first place. If it’s OT meaning is intentionally cryptic, the NT information is not in any way a departure or reinterpretation.

To put it in really mundane terms, it seems to me like the OT statement in this case is like an empty bucket and the NT partly fills it.

Ted, can I bounce a few questions off you regarding the NT writers’ hermeneutics on the OT? I’ll assume yes and start the questions. :)

If the NT writers were given special insight that they penned down into Scripture, shouldn’t it follow that the truth they were given was either absolute (Central’s “unitary” authorship) or a required starting point (“binary” authorship) for folks living 2,000 years later? And in either case, wouldn’t it then follow that their “special revelation” ceased to be “special” (in the sense of “personal” or “unique”) the moment the pen hit the parchment? Any insights they had into OT matters that made it into Scripture could/should become our insight or the basis for our insight when we read it, right?

And if all the above is true (and I suppose even if it isn’t), why would knowing what they knew automatically equip us with the ability to write inspired Scripture? Doesn’t that shift the mechanism of inspiration from God’s act of breathing to man’s act of knowing?

I’m just trying to see where you’re coming from, because at first and second glance, Barkman’s suggestion seems to make sense to me.

An overblown word that is popular today is “intertextuality.” Really, this refers to a method of interpretation that seeks how later texts utilize earlier texts to create new or deeper or different meaning. In an evangelical sense, it would be scrutinizing how and to what end later Scriptures use earlier Scripture. When this is examined, certain patterns in biblical interpretation emerge, and I would argue that they are not only descriptive but prescriptive. The Bible is teaching us how to think theologically about the Bible.

For a survey of apostolic hermeneutics, including a critique of some wrong ways of approaching the issue, see “Did Jesus and the Apostles Preach the Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts?” by G. K. Beale http://s3.amazonaws.com/tgc-documents/journal-issues/32.1_beale.pdf

For an explanation and example of intertextual hermeneutics in biblical theology, see The Temple and the Church’s Mission by G. K. Beale.

For a model of preaching following apostolic hermeneutics, see Him We Proclaim by Dennis Johnson.

[mounty] If the NT writers were given special insight that they penned down into Scripture, shouldn’t it follow that the truth they were given was either absolute (Central’s “unitary” authorship) or a required starting point (“binary” authorship) for folks living 2,000 years later? And in either case, wouldn’t it then follow that their “special revelation” ceased to be “special” (in the sense of “personal” or “unique”) the moment the pen hit the parchment? Any insights they had into OT matters that made it into Scripture could/should become our insight or the basis for our insight when we read it, right?

Hi Mounty,

Boy, do you know how to put your finger on the pulse! The meaning of “special revelation” is pretty fixed, though. As you have written it, though, I think I agree with what you say there. The apostolic use of the OT in the NT is unique, i.e., not repeatable.

So yes, my position would argue that that we treat the writing of Scripture as unique. My concern is that the “apostle’s hermenuetic” position does not, though it claims to. Just on a practical level, I don’t think it works in interpreting either the NT, or the OT. Two people, working from the same assumption of an “apostolic hermeneutic” will end up in two very different places because there is no control over where they end up.

For me, to argue that the apostles had a hermeneutic that was consistently applied in both their OT quotes in the writing of NT Scripture and in their general ministry otherwise is to confuse a specific prophetic function with a non-prophetic function, such as preaching a normal sermon. They themselves knew they were doing something unique when they wrote Scripture (1 Cor. 14:37, Jude 1:3). It is irresponsible of us to claim they were using some special hermeneutic in non-prophetic ministry.

It is even more of a leap for us, who cannot write Scripture, to assume we can first define, then use, their hermeneutic in the rest of Scripture. As if we could open a can and empty out their hermeneutic.

We are safer allowing the writers of Scripture a unique place in their use of the O.T., while we are content to interpret all of Scripture by the rules of a “grammatical” hermeneutic that allows the apostles the freedom to explain OT texts in a new and inspired way, with new and inspired meanings (sorry, Central!).

They were writing Scripture. Nobody ever read “out of Egypt have I called my son” prior to the apostles and recognized it as a messianic prophecy. It took an apostle with the gift of prophecy to be led by the Holy Spirit to write that.

If you or I do that to another OT quote, we’ll get ripped apart. Imagine me claiming Hosea 9:15, “I will drive them out of My house!” is a prophecy of Christ cleansing the temple. You’ll think I’m weird, and rightly so. Who am I to say such a thing? But couldn’t I come back to and say I’m just applying the “apostolic hermeneutic”? If it works in Hosea 11:1, why can’t it work in Hosea 9:15?

At the end of the day, we men of clay feet are all still left with words and meanings. In Acts 2:17ff, we have words like “sons, daughters, prophesy, sun, moon, blood, Day of the Lord,” etc. The “apostolic hermeneutic” approach hopes to provide an approved lexicon for such words, but even those who embrace the idea can’t agree on the new meanings those words supposedly receive. Nor did God authorize an NT short-cut book.

So I would say, don’t go the “apostolic hermeneutics” route. Be patient, and willing to do the really hard, but really joyful work with your spade and trowel, digging into God’s word with all your mind, as a servant of the word. Don’t hope for a lexicon of “apostolic word meanings” now that we have quotes of OT passages from them in the NT. The text itself never tells you to do that!

Recognize them as unique, both in their personages and in their ministries. Don’t look at them as a starting point. for if you do, what control exists on where you will end up?

Ted,

Would it be an accurate statement of your position, then, to say that where the apostles interpret a prophecy, that interpretation is a priori the gold standard for that particular prophecy; but where there is no apostolic interpretation on a prophecy, we who are not under inspiration should not presume to play the part of an apostle and push our interpretation as the only valid interpretation? To put it more succinctly, is the helpfulness of apostolic interpretation strictly limited to the specific prophecies referenced and no others?

Aaron,

The portion of the Ethos statement that you quote is no different from what I wrote, at least as best I understand it. However, we have apparently drawn different conclusions by what this means. I also find myself in complete agreement with your statements regarding the Malachi 4:5,6 statement regarding Elijah. However, it seems to me that Ted takes an opposing view, namely that Mal. 4:5 is not yet fulfilled, and that the unwillingness of the disciples to accept it somehow means that John is not Elijah. So apparently, at least according to Ted, John would have been the Elijah of Malachi if they had accepted it, but since they didn’t, he wasn’t? Sorry, that would never work for me. Jesus wasn’t saying that the fulfillment of this propehcy depended upon their accepting his words. He was saying that John was the Elijah that Malachi prophecied, and that they would understand this meaning if they were willing to accept His words, which is the inspired meaning of Malachi’s prophecy. If they were unwilling to accept it, they would fail to properly understand Malachi’s prophecy, but that in no wise alters the true meaning.

Ted, I am really at a loss to know how to answer you. I fail to see how II Peter 1:20,21 contradicts what I wrote. I agree that the NT writers “weren’t realy applying a hermeneutic at all.” They were not interpreting Scripture, in the way we do. They were writing Scripture, as we can never do. But what they wrote is the God-given understanding of whatever OT text they quoted and illuminated. They were not following a hermeneutic. But what they wrote forces us to modify our hermeneutic. If we begin with the premise that the OT must be interpreted in the most literal (or normal) way possible, and that leads us to believe, for example, that the literal Elijah must come to earth before the second coming of Christ in judgment, but then the NT tells us that John was Elijah, using some of the exact langauge of Malachi’s prophecy. (cf. Luke 1:16,17), we must modify our previous understanding of Malachi 4:5,6, which also forces us to modify the hermeneutic which led us to understand the prophecy in a way contrary to the NT inspired understanding. Elijah himself will not come to earth, but John came in the power and spirit of Elijah. He is the new Elijah. Elijah will not come to earth before the second coming of Christ. He came in the person of John to prepare the way for the first coming of Christ.

If we start with our own hermeneutic (which was not given to us directly by God, as Scripture is), and force Scripture to fit the confines of our humanly derived and defined hermeneutic, we have placed something of human origen above the Word of God. This is what the Pharisees did in their interpretations.

If, on the other hand, we start reading the OT (because it comes first) and interpret it the best we can, taking things as much as possible in their literal or normal sense (because that is the only way we are able to make sense of any book), we will draw certain conclusions, such as the Elijah expectation, before we get to the NT. But, when we read the NT, and find that it understands the Elijah prophecy in a different way, we must now modify both our original interpretation, as well as our original hermeneutic. The NT teaches us to see some things in symbolic fulfillment that otherwise we would have given a literal fulfillment. We can ignore this NT revelation, or suppress it’s impact by refusing to loosen our grip on our original hermeneutic. That forces us to say that there MUST be yet another fulfillment, yet future. Why? Because our original hermeneutic, and our original interpretation require it. But did we get that hermeneutic from the Bible? Then why can it not be altered to fit the NT revelation? (Indeed, how can we now fail to alter it to fit the NT revelation?)

That’s what I am trying to say.

[mounty] Ted,

Would it be an accurate statement of your position, then, to say that where the apostles interpret a prophecy, that interpretation is a priori the gold standard for that particular prophecy; but where there is no apostolic interpretation on a prophecy, we who are not under inspiration should not presume to play the part of an apostle and push our interpretation as the only valid interpretation? To put it more succinctly, is the helpfulness of apostolic interpretation strictly limited to the specific prophecies referenced and no others?

Hi,

It’s easier for me to deal with concrete examples. I think its better to say that some quotations of the OT in the NT have a meaning in the NT not foreseen in the OT contexts. Thus the Hosea examples. Matthew’s quote of Hosea 11:1 in Mat. 2:15 gives a unique meaning in Mat. 2:15, but not in Hosea 11:1. In Hosea 11:1, “son” refers to Israel, not the Messiah. Matthew used a typological fulfillment in Mat. 1:23. That’s OK. He’s Matthew, and he is chosen to write Scripture. I’m not. For this reason I can’t go to Hos. 9:15 and use a typological hermeneutic on it. Make sense?

Precisely because the Scripture is to always interpreted by us according to a “plain” hermeneutic, we should be able to arrive a sound interpretation. It is when we give ourselves the freedom of “an apostle writing Scripture” in our hermeneutic that we go astray. This is true in all Scripture. We don’t need the gifting of an apostle to arrive at at the true interpretation. And remember, each passage of Scripture has but one meaning. And the meaning of the Scripture is the Scripture and nothing less.

[G. N. Barkman] But what they [the apostles] wrote is the God-given understanding of whatever OT text they quoted and illuminated. They were not following a hermeneutic. But what they wrote forces us to modify our hermeneutic.

Aaron, please allow me to jump in before you though Greg addressed you first,

Greg,

I think I see where you are coming from, and we have differences. You see the apostle’s use of the OT in the NT as something that should inform (or modify) our approach to biblical interpretation.

OK. Then is it OK with you if I apply Matthew’s typological use of Hosea 11:1, “out of Egypt I have called my son” to Hosea 9:15, “Because of the wickedness of their deeds I will drive them out of My house!” and claim it refers to Jesus driving the money changers out of the temple? Doesn’t Matthew’s typological use of Hosea inform my hermeneutics to do the same with Hosea 9:15 as he did with Hosea 11:1?

Just to be clear, I don’t think it does. But I’m just adopting your position, aren’t I? I’m modifying my hermeneutic as informed by Matthew.

For more on where I am coming from, see my posts to monty in this thread.

Ted,

I’m not prepared to say we must interpret texts that are not quoted in the NT in a new way based upon the NT interpreation of a quoted text. That removes all restraint, and allows for any fanciful interprreation possible because we don’t know with any certainty how NT writers would have interpreted that text.

But I am saying that we must interpret OT texts that are quoted in the NT with the new understanding the inspired writers have given us. To fail to do so is to place ourselves above the inspired writers of Scriputre. I’m sure no one would admit to that, but it’s hard to escape that conclusion.

I think you have nicely illustrated my concern when you say you are unwilling to modify your hermeneutic in the light of NT inspired interpretation. Is your hermeneutic inspired? (I trow not.)

GNB… I’m not clear on why the Elijah prophecy couldn’t be conditionally fulfilled in reference to John.

That is, without other theological commitments in place that prevent it, why would it be a problem to read it that way? Do you hold that a prophecy can never be conditional?

I don’t think that will work because they are all conditional in some way. At the very least, they are conditioned on the time arriving when the events occur. The prophecies referring to Jesus’ death are contingent on folks choosing to kill Him.

So, if God, in His sovereign working out of all things according to the counsel of His will, uses secondary causes to fulfill His time table, why would acceptance or rejection of a man or a message be excluded from the list of possible secondary causes?

I realize there can be strong resistance to this idea because it opens up dispensationalist possibilities regarding the Kingdom, etc. But I wonder if the idea would look so bad without a prior commitment to avoid dispensational views in these areas?

[G. N. Barkman] I think you have nicely illustrated my concern when you say you are unwilling to modify your hermeneutic in the light of NT inspired interpretation. Is your hermeneutic inspired? (I trow not.)

Aye, you trow right.

So, let’s be specific. In Mat. 2:15 is quoted Hosea 11:1.

Is the new Messianic meaning in Matthew 2:15 now (since Matthew) the meaning of Hosea 11:1, was always the right meaning of Hosea 11:1, or is today still not the right meaning of Hosea 11:1?

Aaron,

I would say that the fulfillment of Malachi’s Elijah prophecy that we can be certain about is the fulfillment the NT writers ascribed to John. In this case, and in this case alone, we can be certain we have the fulfillment that Malachi’s prophecy foretold.

Could there be a second and future fulfillment? There could, but there may not be. It is possible that there may yet be a second fulfillment that will more fully satisfy those who employ what they consider to be a literal hermeneutic. But we can only wonder about that possibility, and wait to see if that is what God has in mind. At this point, we know for sure that John is Malachi’s Elijah, and for all we know, that may well be the only fulfillment.

Dispensational hermeneutics would seem to require a future fulfillment because it is not satisfied with the fulfillment God gave. They might even say that the integrity of God requires it. I think such speaking is audacious at the least, and comes close to blasphemy. God, through Malachi, gave us a prophecy. Like the OT believers, we read it and wonder exactly what it can mean. And like OT believers, we postulate how we think it may be fulfilled. Then Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John reveal that it is fulfilled in the coming of John. Like Old Covenant believers in Christ’s day, we marvel at this perhaps unexpected fulfillment, and rejoice in the Divine illumination that resolves our questions. Or not.

If we are overly committed to our hermeneutic, which was not divinely given, we may minimize the inspired fulfilment, and continue to wait for a future one, which our hermeneutic requires of us. This is what I mean when I compare this to the religious leaders of Christ’s day, who rejected Jesus as the Christ, because He didn’t quite fit their hermeneutical expectations, and continue to wait for the Messiah that God promised, because the One He sent didn’t meet there expectations. They should have adjusted their interpretations of OT prophecy, and modified whatever hermeneutic called Jesus’ Messiahship into question rather than stubbornly stick to their previous (mis)understanding and reject the only Messiah God has given.

It seems to me that in the light of the fulfillment God has clearly given, we must be willing to adjust our peviously held interpretation of Malachi, adjust our hermeneutic which required an interpretation that does not fit the NT fulfillment, and hold very loosely any interpretation which requires a second fulfillment. In God’s time, we shall see. Until then, we should accept what God has given. That’s what I have done. It was not easy for me at first, but NT handling of OT texts kept pressing me in that direction until I was finally willing to yield my formerly held hermeneutic. I had to bow to the superior authority of God’s Word. Scripture trumps my hermenentical principles every time.

Ted,

Thank you for the follow up. I’ve been occupied with other matters, but can now take a moment for a brief reply.

I think your question is based upon the presupposition that a text can have only one meaning, another hermeneutic that I do not find in Scripture. It is probably a reaction to a style of hermeneutics which purported to find many, sometimes endless meanings in every text. That, I’m sure we all agree, is absurd. However, I believe the texts you cited in Hosea and Matthew are a good example of a divinely inspired revelation of a double meaning. Hosea 11:1 refers to Israel’s Egyptian sojourn. As far as anyone could tell, reading only Hosea 11:1, that’s all it means. Who could have spotted a prophecy in that text? Certainly not I. But the inspired writer, Matthew, tells us that this foretold Christ’s Egyptian excursion. My explanation is perhaps, a bit too symplistic, but without getting into a long discussion, and many technical matters, I think it can help to cut to the chase.

I limit double meanings to those revealed to us by Scripture. I do not claim to be able to find more than one meaning in any text unless Scripture reveals it. When I study, I am always looking for the one true, Holy Spirit intended meaning in every text. But, based upon the example you raised, I have to acknowledge that there may well be other meanings hidden in the text known only to God. I presume He will reveal those to us in heaven.

I also would like to say, that in re-reading my posts, I believe I have been a bit too dogmatic, something I said in my first post that I was not. Please forgive me. I can get pretty intense in explaining and defending what I have learned through years. It is likely that you and others feel the same way about your studies. I really do want my conclusions to be examined and questioned by others. If I am wrong, I pray God will help me realize that. Thank you for taking time for this exchange.

Warm regards,

Greg

Would you rather they wrote a book on their position? As for the rest, the school does seek to serve an admittedly denominationally limited audience.

[AndrewBAird] Such a simple interpretive approach hardly reflects exalted academic institutions. Why, it’s almost as if you subjugate your policies to the revelations, rather than the opposite! Surely a more inclusive hermeneutic, capable of multiple equal interpretations, would lead to enhanced academic debate, greater toleration, and ultimately a more scholarly atmosphere. Simplicity and dogmatism, though not without their old-fashioned charms, are considered rather gauche by today’s standards. I can hardly deplore them any less, though I take some pains to do so.

In a spirit of great toleration for your viewpoint;

Andrew Aird

I find it interesting, if a bit disappointing, that not all on this thread are more willing to be vulnerable to scriptures. I wonder, if the shoe were on the other foot, and Matthew under inspiration had adopted a more grammatico-historical method than a pesher-sounding one, how loudly the howls would be to obey his Spirit-inspired modus operandi. It’s not cool that Sola Scriptura applies only when it goes in our favour. The inspiration of the writers should add to our hermeneutic exemplar rather than negate therefrom.

While I don’t pretend that it’s easy to handle the NT quotes of the OT—it isn’t—let’s not rush to defend Sacred Tradition, however good it is, where its concord with the Scripture is, um, inconvenient. We’re listening in on one side of the telephone conversation a lot of the time, and it’s hard to know what the prophets already knew exactly or didn’t. So what might seem un-literal might not really be so, and vice versa.

I would suggest that it’s probably safer to side with the Scripture even where it doesn’t fit our favourite hermeneutical rubric and let the latter be so informed rather than the other way around. After all, the Scripture has survived the test of time a lot longer than the interpretations thereof.

Rob, I think Andrew was speaking tongue in cheek. At least, that’s how I took it.

As for the Matthew/Malachi discussion, I don’t see why an immediate fulfillment of the Malachi prophesy necessarily rules out a later, more complete fulfillment. I also don’t see how Malachi’s Day of the Lord (which is the real issue here) is has to be Christ’s earthly coming. If I remember right, the Day of the Lord usually refers to end-times judgment, not the Christ’s coming to earth. I can’t research it all out right now, but http://www.gotquestions.org/day-of-the-Lord.html this website seems to be helpful in their discussion of the topic:

The phrase “the day of the Lord” is used nineteen times in the Old Testament (Isaiah 2:12; 13:6, 9; Ezekiel 13:5, 30:3; Joel 1:15, 2:1,11,31; 3:14; Amos 5:18,20; Obadiah 15; Zephaniah 1:7,14; Zechariah 14:1; Malachi. 4:5) and four times in the New Testament (Acts 2:20; 2 Thessalonians 2:2; 2 Peter 3:10). It is also alluded to in other passages (Revelation 6:17; 16:14).

The Old Testament passages dealing with the day of the Lord often convey a sense of imminence, nearness, and expectation: “Wail, for the day of the Lord is near!” (Isaiah 13:6); “For the day is near, even the day of the Lord is near” (Ezekiel 30:3); “Let all who live in the land tremble, for the day of the Lord is coming. It is close at hand” (Joel 2:1); “Multitudes, multitudes in the valley of decision! For the day of the Lord is near in the valley of decision” (Joel 3:14); “Be silent before the Lord God! For the day of the Lord is near” (Zephaniah 1:7). This is because the Old Testament passages referring to the day of the Lord often speak of both a near and a far fulfillment, as does much of Old Testament prophecy. Some Old Testament passages that refer to the day of the Lord describe historical judgments that have already been fulfilled in some sense (Isaiah 13:6-22; Ezekiel 30:2-19; Joel 1:15, 3:14; Amos 5:18-20; Zephaniah 1:14-18), while others refers to divine judgments that will take place toward the end of the age (Joel 2:30-32; Zechariah 14:1; Malachi 4:1, 5).

The New Testament calls it a day of “wrath,” a day of “visitation,” and the “great day of God Almighty” (Revelation 16:14) and refers to a still future fulfillment when God’s wrath is poured out on unbelieving Israel (Isaiah 22; Jeremiah 30:1-17; Joel 1-2; Amos 5; Zephaniah 1) and on the unbelieving world (Ezekiel 38–39; Zechariah 14). The Scriptures indicate that “the day of the Lord” will come quickly, like a thief in the night (Zephaniah 1:14-15; 2 Thessalonians 2:2), and therefore Christians must be watchful and ready for the coming of Christ at any moment.

[G. N. Barkman]

I think your question is based upon the presupposition that a text can have only one meaning, another hermeneutic that I do not find in Scripture….. I believe the texts you cited in Hosea and Matthew are a good example of a divinely inspired revelation of a double meaning…. I limit double meanings to those revealed to us by Scripture. I do not claim to be able to find more than one meaning in any text unless Scripture reveals it. When I study, I am always looking for the one true, Holy Spirit intended meaning in every text. But, based upon the example you raised, I have to acknowledge that there may well be other meanings hidden in the text known only to God. I presume He will reveal those to us in heaven.

Hi Greg,

Thanks for your reply. It is easy to see you love Scripture and revere it! May your tribe greatly increase.

But let me tease out your “double meaning” thesis a bit, and ask for your response, when able.

If the only OT texts that have a double meaning are those quoted in the NT, then how does it inform your hermeneutics in interpreting any other OT or NT passage? Haven’t you just stripped it of any informing power on the 99.9% of all other verses of Scripture?

You are correct to claim my presupposition is that there is only one meaning in a text. You then say that you do not find that hermeneutic in Scripture (I would disagree: Joshua 6:26 and 1 Kings 16:34, for example). But then in the next paragraph you say, “When I study, I am always looking for the one true, Holy Spirit intended meaning in every text.” I know you aren’t looking for something in Scripture you don’t believe exists - so maybe you really do like the classical position of “one meaning, many applications?”

How did you come to limit your belief in double meanings to only those OT texts quoted in the NT? Is it not because you share my presupposition that OT texts possess only a single meaning? It seems to me you do hold to this “single meaning of OT Scripture” presupposition, but simply add one more layer of meaning - the new meaning of that OT text you see in it’s NT quote. 1+1=2. So, don’t you also share my belief in “one meaning, many applications?”

Ted,

I didn’t say only those OT texts quoted in the NT have a double meaning. I said those are the only ones we can know have a double meaning. To postulate a double meaning without inspired warrent makes Biblical interpreation a subjective quagmire. To reject a double meaning when Scripture indicates one is to make our hermeneutical method superior to inspired Scripture. Even though Scripture reveals a double meaning, we can’t accept that because it violates our rule of interpretation. That returns to the question, are our rules of hermeneutics inspired, or are the Scriptures alone inspired?

Cordially,

Greg

[G. N. Barkman] To postulate a double meaning without inspired warrent makes Biblical interpreation a subjective quagmire.

I totally agree with you there!

[G. N. Barkman] That returns to the question, are our rules of hermeneutics inspired, or are the Scriptures alone inspired?

Who even claims that, Greg?

My view - - that any and every Scripture has only a single meaning - - is certainly the view of the confessing church, and certainly the view taught in conservative hermeneutic text books used in most seminaries. I even provided you with an example in my last post, showing that Scripture itself bears witness to this principle. True, Catholics and Wesleyans do claim each text has 4 meanings, the literal and three levels of mystical meaning, but we’re not including them here.

Its your claim is that OT quotes in the NT have a double meaning and that double meaning informs our hermeneutics today that is being questioned.

From where I sit, it does you no advantage to claim other texts many have multiple meanings but we can’t know those additional meanings until heaven. If that is the case, then how does that inform your hermeneutic TODAY?

Ted,

I’m not sure I fully understand what you are getting at here. But I will try to answer according to what I think you are saying. If I missed the point, please correct my misunderstanding.

The main thrust of my argument is that inspired NT writers must be given greater weight in our understanding of OT Scripture than our interpretations drawn from certain hermeneutical principles. If the

NT commentary on OT texts doesn’t fit our hermenentic, our hermeneutic must be adjusted to fit Scripture, not visa versa.

In the case of the double-meaning example, the way this informs my hermeneutic today is that it tells me there is much more to Scripture than meets the eye, and that I will be able to discern. It promotes humility in the handling of Scripture. Probably this should not be called a hermeneutic, since it doesn’t aid in my interpretation of Scripture. Remember, this one was your example, not mine. I was dealing with NT texts that forced me to change my understanding of certain OT texts. The interpretation I held before examining inspired NT commentary was different from the new interpretation I came to as a result of inspired NT commentary. Inspired commentary trumps uninspired commentary every time.

Perhaps we are debating semantics. Perhaps I should agree that Scripture has only one true meaning, but that meaning may be much bigger and fuller than first meets the eye, and that I will be able to discover this side of heaven. Does putting it that way meet your approval, or are we still arguing for two different understandings?

[Jay C.] Rob, I think Andrew was speaking tongue in cheek. At least, that’s how I took it. SNIP

I wopuld hope so. But, considering the remarks of others, I’m not all that sure.

[G. N. Barkman]

In the case of the double-meaning example, the way this informs my hermeneutic today is that it tells me there is much more to Scripture than meets the eye, and that I will be able to discern. It promotes humility in the handling of Scripture.

Yes, I see. Its not really a hermeneutic, but a tenderness to Scripture issue for you. That’s pretty cool. But there also seems to be the underlying idea in your posts that those who hold to single meaning are guilty of pride and imagine themselves as standing over the text in judgment, assuming they can contain the whole meaning of Scripture in their interpretation.

Perhaps I should agree that Scripture has only one true meaning, but that meaning may be much bigger and fuller than first meets the eye, and that I will be able to discover this side of heaven.

No doubt that is true for all those who hold to single, double, and quadrilateral meaning (and, um, are regenerated ;)). One of the great blessings of heaven for me will be learning the truth of Scripture without all my error mixed in.

Let’s ever stay humble in the here and now that should we ever discover our error even in a single text, or a large matter, that we immediately change our doctrine and interpretation to match the text of Holy Writ.

[Ted] My view - - that any and every Scripture has only a single meaning - - is certainly the view of the confessing church… Scripture itself bears witness to this principle… Its your claim is that OT quotes in the NT have a double meaning …

What’s the difference between saying “NT writers give a double meaning to some OT statements” vs. “NT writers reveal a second, previously hidden aspect of the single meaning of some OT statements?”

I’m not actually quoting anybody there, but I think many in “the confessing church” would say “a second aspect” or “a second layer” or some such. This is more comfortable than “double meaning,” but I’m not sure there is any real difference—until you start saying we should take their revelation as a revelation of hermeneutical method.

I’m extremely skeptical of the whole idea that the NT writers’ use of the OT is suppose to reveal a method. What’s revealed is what they say, not how they arrived at it. Since we know they were inspired, how they arrived at their revelation is kind of moot, IMO.

[Aaron Blumer]

What’s the difference between saying “NT writers give a double meaning to some OT statements” vs. “NT writers reveal a second, previously hidden aspect of the single meaning of some OT statements?”

You may be right - here is a distinction without a difference - or not. Without going to specific texts and walking through a hermeneutic process, we can all use words in ways that mean different things at different times. This is why I like going specific so much. It forces us to get out of the philosophical and lay out our presuppositions on the table. Its why I asked two contributors to this thread to specifically interact with Mat. 2:15 and Hosea 11:1.

Getting specific forces our hermeneutics to get beyond the semantics and reveal themself. Like you ask, “Do

“NT writers reveal a second, previously hidden aspect of the single meaning of some OT statements?

You know, like logically, how do you get a second “aspect” from a text’s single meaning, unless “aspect” means something other than “meaning,” like “second application” or “second implication.”

I just got a new release yesterday, “40 Questions about Interpreting the Bible” by Robert Plummer (Kregel, 2010). Really, really well written. Question 15 is “Can a Text Have More Than One Meaning.” Answer - “no,” but a text can have different implications, significance, and subject matter.

I’m extremely skeptical of the whole idea that the NT writers’ use of the OT is suppose to reveal a method. What’s revealed is what they say, not how they arrived at it. Since we know they were inspired, how they arrived at their revelation is kind of moot, IMO.

I almost became covenantal many years ago based on this argument. Even if we did know how they arrived at their method (as if their method of quoting the OT is monolithic - its not!) it still wouldn’t help us. They are apostles with special gifts and calls. We aren’t.

Ted,

Agreed! Sorry if I came across as proud. I didn’t intend to, but old Adam still rises up within me, usually when I am unaware.

But, how do you understand the Hosea 11:1 quoted in Matthew 2:15 situation?

Aaron,

I think you’ve hit the nail on the head in two areas. First, whatever you call it, “double-meaning” (a no-no), or another layer of meaning (could we call this TC, theologically correct?), the fact is that inspired NT writers often bring new meanings out of OT texts that we did not see using the “literal whenever possible” hermeneutic. It is new revelation, unavailable to us without the NT.

Second, the NT writers are not using a hermeneutic at all. But what they write informs our hermeneutics. If employing my “literal whenever possible” hermeneutic causes me to interpret an OT text one way, and the NT understands it in an entirely different way, what am I going to do? I can, 1) cling to my original interpretation because I am convinced that my hermeneutic is inviolable, or, 2) adjust my hermeneutic in light of the inspired interpretation. I choose number 2. Like Martin Luther, “I can do no other.” (I hope I’m not sounding too “proud” with that statement.)

Perhaps a bit of “compromise” (another bad word) is in order here. Perhaps “literal whenever possible” is still valid, but the additional NT revelation changes what is now possible. The “whenever possible” rule has always been a bit slippery anyway. What one thinks possible, another deems impossible, and thus the varying interpretations among those who purport to employ the same rule. When the NT understands an OT text in a symbolic way that I would have taken in a more literal way, my choices have now been divinely narrowed. My former way is no longer possible, and I adjust my interpretation to match the inspired revelation.

[GNB] Second, the NT writers are not using a hermeneutic at all. But what they write informs our hermeneutics.

I’m not sure I’d say they are not using a hermeneutic, since we generally see the experience of inspiration as superintending the writer’s thought, not completely eclipsing it. But we end up in a similar place if we grant that these passages (where NT writers use OT texts) are not about revealing a hermeneutic to us. It’s usually a bad idea to draw strong conclusions from texts that are not about the topic we’re trying to draw conclusions about (as an extreme example, we recognize that the passage about Jacob’s discovery that he has married Leah is a not a good place to go to try to make a biblical case for women wearing veils. It’s not about veils… not to mention all the other factors!)

But their hermeneutic is not the point of the passages involved and very little of their thought process is revealed, seems to me. And we do not know what was revealed to them more directly—in prophetic fashion through vision/oracle—vs. what was arrived at through a Spirit guided cognitive process.

On the second part of that sentence: I do believe their assertions must inform our hermeneutics. I think everyone believes that. So we’re back to where Ted’s been pointing: let’s look at individual passages and see how the ideas work out.

In the case of Hos.11:1 and Matt.2.15… I’m not sure whether I’d say a “second implication” is being revealed or go more in the direction of taking “fulfilled” as analogical there. …or even another possibility.

Off hand, it seems likely that the drawing out of Israel from Egypt is both historical fact and foreshadowing of Jesus’ coming “out of Egypt” as “son” and the latter is intentionally analogous to the former in order to strengthen the connection in our minds. Was this meaning apparent in Hosea’s day?

I’m inclined to say that the meaning was always there but not apparent (we’d only be guessing) until Matthew reveals it. Impossible to tell how much Hosea knew and “intended.”

Aaron, I agree with you totally regarding the Hosea/Matthew issue. I’m going to have to reflect a little more about the NT writers using a hermeneutic. I understand and agree with your point about the human/divine aspects of inspiration. I also agree that it’s difficult to know what their thinking was, and therefore what their hermeneutic was. Really, your last post is largely what I have been trying to say. Thanks for putting it so succinctly.

[G. N. Barkman] Ted,

But, how do you understand the Hosea 11:1 quoted in Matthew 2:15 situation?

Thanks for asking. I see Mat. 2:15 as unique - with its own single meaning - Jesus is the true Israelite/representative Israelite, because he fulfills in himself typologically what Israel went through in coming out of Egypt. So I have no problem saying Matthew used a typological hermeneutic in Mat. 2:15. That’s fine, because being inspired, he can do that, but I can’t.

So he could treat OT prophecies as typological as led by the Holy Spirit. So, the meaning of Hosea 11:1, and the meaning of Mat. 2:15, are distinct and different. Just look at their contexts. But they are related typologically, which informs the meaning of Mat. 2:15, but not Hosea 11:1.

Ted,

Thanks for the explanation. I appreciate being able to participate in this discussion. I think I understand what you are saying, though it does leave me going round and round a bit. My first reaction was, “come again?” It seems to me to be a bit contrived to make everything fit the “every text has one single meaning” hermenetic.

Perhaps it would help if we moved to a different example. How do you understand Malachi 4:5,6 in light of the five or six references to it in the four Gospels?

[G. N. Barkman] I think I understand what you are saying, though it does leave me going round and round a bit. My first reaction was, “come again?” It seems to me to be a bit contrived to make everything fit the “every text has one single meaning” hermenetic.

I think its easier than any other perspective. The “son” in Hosea 11:1 is Israel, not Jesus. The “son” in Mat. 2:15 is Jesus, not Israel. Single meaning seems to reflect each text’s interpretation to me. Alternatively, someone can try to make the case that Hosea 11:1 means both Jesus and Israel. But then Hosea 11:2.

Perhaps it would help if we moved to a different example. How do you understand Malachi 4:5,6 in light of the five or six references to it in the four Gospels?

I like Aaron’s explanation in this thread.

The details of Malachi 4:5-6 have yet to be fulfilled, even as the details of Malachi 4:3 have yet to be fulfilled.

Nor have the hearts of the fathers been restored to the children, Mal. 4:6. That phraseology is OT Israelite covenantal language, and conflicts with the first coming of Christ’s mission in Mat. 10:35.

The NT prophecies on John, from the mouth of the Lord, have some words that leave open conditionality. So Elijah will, like our Lord, have two comings. The first is figuratively in John the Baptist, the second is literally before the Day of the Lord.

BTW, he already made a cameo for the coming resurrection kingdom of Christ on earth, Mat. 17:3. ;)

Ted,

Thanks for the explanation. The problem as I see it, is that the NT specifically states that John will “turn many of the children of Israel to the Lord their God, and he will go before him in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, to make ready for the Lord a people prepared.” (Luke 1:16,17 ESV)

Malachi said Elijah would do this. The angel said John would do this. It seems apparent that: 1) John is Elijah, the Elijah prophecied by Malachi. 2) John accomplished what the angel said he would. His was a powerful ministry of repentance and preparation for the coming of Messiah, and brought about what we would probably call a revival in Israel.

Cordially,

Greg

GNB… it doesn’t necessarily follow that if a prophecy says “x will do a,” and a later text says “y will do a” that “x = y.”

Though I do think the use of the same language is not mere coincidence in this case. There’s no question that John baptizer was very Elijah like in many respects.

Greg,

Thanks for bringing out the Luke 1:16-17 reference. Beautiful.

However, my hesitation to entirely equate JB with Elijah comes from two observations in addition to the issues of conditionality mentioned previously.

1) It appears as though Elijah’s future ministry, as described in Mal. 4:5-6, is effective to all of Israel, to such an extent that God reveres His curse on all the land (see also Deut. 28:15ff, Deut. 29:27-28). However, JB’s ministry wan’t effective to all Israel, nor did it reverse a land curse (Luke 19:41-44). I would agree with you that JB’s ministry brought some fathers to covenant renewal: turning their hearts to their children, to teach them to obey the holy ways of the Lord. One wonders if Zebedee might be one of these fathers (Matthew 4:21). But I would emphasize “some.” JB then is only a partial fulfillment of what Malachi foretells. He prefigures Elijah’s future ministry, and helps flesh out Christ’s bona fide offer of the kingdom to Israel.

2) Elijah’s second coming ministry comes “before the coming of the great and terrible day of the LORD” (Malachi 4:5). To me that seems a pretty clear reference to the 2nd coming, no?

If my experience is any indicator, then the dispensationalist and covenantalist will wrestle with a text at two different levels of detail. One approach will take the mention of a portion of an OT text in the NT as covering all that OT text, details included, while a dispensationalist will say, “wait, there’s more in that there text.”

Blessings - Ted

Hi Greg,

One more thought on John the Baptist and the question of whether he “fully fulfilled” the Elijah prophecy in Mal. 4. I’ve been struck by his words recorded in John 1:21: “They asked him, “What then? Are you Elijah?” And he said, “I am not.”“

To me, his clear denial fits with the notion that the prophecy of Mal. 4 is yet unfilled. Thoughts?

Dear Aaron and Ted,

Thanks for continuing the discussion. I have been busy with ministry resonsibilities, and let the thread drop for a while. I’ll try to address the three responses in the order they occur.

Aaron,

You skillfully restate my Malachi/Luke interpretation in the form of an algebraic formula, then deny the necessity of the conclusion. In algebra, x would equal y. (At least that’s what I remember, from high school algebra.) Why deny that here? When you add to the formula the several statements of Christ identifying John with Elijah, I don’t see how this conclusion can be so easily deflected. (Matthew 17:10-13 and similar passages.)

Ted,

It seems to me your rejection of the implications of Luke 1:16,17 depend upon your interpretation of Malachi 4 prior to taking the inspired NT information into account. Because Malachi “seems” to be a ministry to all Israel, etc. But if Luke 1:16,17 states the inspired fulfillment of Malachi’s prophecy, that also shapes the way we read Malachi 4, and the nation-wide implications begin to shrink. As I look at Malachi 4, I see the same problems that used to puzzle me. Verse 1 seems to apply to the 2nd coming. Verse two seems to apply to the first coming, etc. What if the whole chapter should be understood as referring to the first coming in light of the Luke 1:16,17 statement? Yes, it would require a less literal, more symbolic interpretation, but if that is what the NT indicates, shouldn’t we accept that and adjust accordingly?

The John 1:21 statement seems to me the only reference relating John to Elijah in the Gospels (among at least five, perhaps six statements, I’m not taking time to stop and count them) that seems to counter the John is Elijah understanding. Apparently John did not think he was Elijah, even if the angel, Christ, and the disciples of Christ all did, at least eventually so in the case of the disciples. I understand that statement to be saying, “I am not the Elijah you are looking for,” answering them according to the way he knew they interpreted Malachi’s prophecy, that is, strictly literal. He was not the actual Elijah the Tishbite that they expected and demanded before the coming of the Messiah. If that’s the only interpretation of Malachi they would accept, John was not their man, nor ever would be. But, that also means they would not be willing to accept Jesus as the Messiah because Elijah the Tishbite did not precede him. But if Malachi ought to be understood symbolically, which the Jews would never allow, John was Elijah, the symbolic visitation of Elijah as explained by the angel before his birth, and further explained by Jesus after John’s death. Malachi told us Elijah would precede the coming of Messiah. Luke tells us that he did, in the person of John. Prophecy fulfilled.

This really gets to the heart of the debate. Do we lock in our interpretation before we factor in the NT, and then make our OT interpretation shape the way we understand the NT, or do we hold our OT interpretation loosely, allow the inspired writers of the NT to inform our OT interpreation, and with their input, adjust our OT interpreation to fit the NT evidence?

Cordially,

Greg

The

Leaving the theology to those who can speak cogently to it, I wanted to comment on the “algebra” aspect of what Aaron is saying.

It is true from what you learn in algebra 1 that if x = z, and y = z, then x = y.

However, in the situation you are referring to with Elijah and John the Baptist, you are referring to only one characteristic fulfilled by both, not saying they are exactly equal. John and Elijah both will (from the standpoint of the prophecy) turn the hearts of the fathers to the children.

It’s more like the following in algebra:

Lets say that x = 4, and y = 5. It’s a true statement to say that x >= 3, and the same for y >= 3. However, it is NOT true that because both are >= 3, x = y. They have a characteristic in common, but they are NOT the same.

John the Baptist may be the prophesied Elijah, or he may not, but you won’t be proving it with algebra.

Hi Greg,

Let me see if I understand your position:

#1

JB is the fulfillment of the Elijah prophesy in Malachi, even though when he was asked if he was the literal fulfillment, he denied it (John 1:21).

#2

JB is the fulfillment of the Elijah prophesy in Malachi, even though the angel said he would only be “in the spirit and power of Elijah” (Luke 1:17).

You can’t have it both ways. If JB is in “the spirit and power of Elijah” why would he be coy about his identity? Neither JB not Elijah have ever been known as coy.

Your understanding of the Jerusalem delegates makes the text say exactly what it doesn’t say: “I understand that statement to be saying, “I am not the Elijah you are looking for,” answering them according to the way he knew they interpreted Malachi’s prophecy, that is, strictly literal”

So according to you, John was publicly saying, “I’m not Elijah” but inside himself, he was saying, “I really am Elijah.” So he said the opposite of what he knew was true. And all this in a passage renowned for its brevity and frankness. How revealing.

I understand that statement to be saying, “I am not the Elijah you are looking for,” answering them according to the way he knew they interpreted Malachi’s prophecy

And you know the way they interpreted Malachi’s prophecy, exactly how?

But if Malachi ought to be understood symbolically, which the Jews would never allow

And you know that, how?

Its not like the Sadducees, who sent the men to JB in John 1, were big into literal interpretation (Acts 23:8).

As I look at Malachi 4, I see the same problems that used to puzzle me. Verse 1 seems to apply to the 2nd coming. Verse two seems to apply to the first coming, etc. What if the whole chapter should be understood as referring to the first coming in light of the Luke 1:16,17 statement?

Greg, go ahead and take scissors to you Bible and cut out Malachi 4, since it teaches you nothing that hasn’t been recast by Luke 1:16-17. Your theology and your Bible will be no less for the excision.

Or perhaps you’ve already done that? After all, you haven’t interacted with the earlier posting points in this thread that would require a look at Mal. 4 as distinct from Luke 1:

1) Jesus ministry in the 1st coming goes against a broad fulfillment of JB “turning the hearts of the fathers back to the sons” (Mat. 10:35) - post #36.

2) The covenant implications “And he will turn the hearts of fathers to their children and the hearts of children to their fathers, lest I come and strike the land with a decree of utter destruction” (Malachi 4:6) - #39. The land simply isn’t important to a covenantalist, right, and so leave it lying in shreds, cut out by covenantalist scissors.

3) Jay’s excellent point in #21.

4) That covenantalist hermeneutics can’t deal with the details of a prophecy (my post #39). You’ve proven my point.

Do we lock in our interpretation before we factor in the NT, and then make our OT interpretation shape the way we understand the NT

You are the only one doing this here as you have completely recast Mal. 4’s interpretation in light of Luke 1. Pot calling the kettle, bro.

You argue for re-interpreting OT texts in light of their NT quotes. You have done this, but to your loss. You’ve lost Mal. 4:1-6. It has nothing to say to you that isn’t found in Luke 1:16-17.

So get out the scissors.

And when you are done with the scissors, grab your pen.

Your excision of Mal. 4 now allows you to reverse centuries of misinterpretation in the NT. All along, your Bible has mistakenly recorded JB’s answer to the question “Are you Elijah” to be “I am not.”

But now, with your claim that the Jerusalem delegation was overly literal about the Malachi’s prophecy, you can now change JB’s words to “I actually am Elijah, just not the one you are looking for.”

But by trying to recast Malachi to fit your preconceived ideas of Luke 1 (“power and spirit of Elijah” = “Elijah”) you have done that which you think others are doing - locking “in our interpretation before we factor in the NT”. For when you came to the NT passage of John 1:21, you were already locked into your interpretation. As a result, you’ve lost more than Malachi. You’ve also lost John 1:21.

Just please, keep your scissors and pen from Romans.

Ted,

Wow! Something must have touched a tender nerve. I doubt that we can profitably continue this further, as you appear to be so emotionally bound by your position that you are unable to discuss dispassionately.

I appreciate the discussion, and the opportunity to experience how you, and others with your perspective, handle various passages. But the emotional diatribe, scissors and all, is not the language of brotherly exchange.

My background and training are completely from the Dispensational position. My first adult Bible was a Schofield Referrence Bible, given to me by my grandfather when I was twelve. That’s all I was taught all the way through my MA in Bible from BJU, and was my position for the first several years of my pastorate. I didn’t abandon it easily nor lightly. Years of study gradually revealed problems and inconsistencies. Years of study also slowly opened up an understanding that is more in line with Covenant Theology. That didn’t come easily nor quickly. Not everything in Covenant Theology convinces me. I am still studying and wrestling with texts, issues, and ramifications.

I love and revere the Bible. I do not take scissors to any of it. It is precious to me. My only desire is to understand it properly, and teach it accurately as one who must give account to Christ.

I can testify, by way of personal experience, that most Dispensationalists I have discussed these matters with, do not have an accurate understanding of Covenant Theology. They usually misrepresent it. Many only understand it as it is usually mischaracterized by Dispensationalists who speak and write to opose it. Many who embrace Covenant Theology (not all), were formerly Dispensationalists, and have a very good understanding of that system. That doesn’t prove either system to be correct. But it does point to a level of study and careful thought which honors God’s Word. Hurling insults at godly and thoughtful exegetes hardly commends one as a humble servent of Christ.

Cordially,

Greg Barkman

I wasn’t really going for algebra. But similar logic. But note that I did not say “x=a” and “y=a.” I noted that both x and y are described as doing the same things.

[Aaron Blumer] GNB… it doesn’t necessarily follow that if a prophecy says “x will do a,” and a later text says “y will do a” that “x = y.”

Though I do think the use of the same language is not mere coincidence in this case. There’s no question that John baptizer was very Elijah like in many respects.

So, as Dave pointed out, they have a shared characteristic.

Maybe it’s best to use a more engaging example.

• Cows eat grass.
• My dog eats grass.
• My dog is a cow.
  

The reasoning is clearly not valid.

To use something closer to a prophetic pattern…

• John Wilkes Booth will shoot a president.
• Lee Harvey Oswald will shoot a president.
• John Wilkes Booth is Lee Harvey Oswald.
  

Again, not valid.

Charlie,

I’m just reading through the comments here. I find our tastes mutual. I have reviewed Him We Proclaim, and just loved it. I just started reading The Temple and the Churh’s Mission, and have found other materials by Beale very helpful.

I’m a bit amazed at Ted’s line of reasoning in post #43. God forbid some poor fool doesn’t own up to what you tell them they believe! I’m surprised there isn’t some moderation or warning going on there.

So if I don’t interpret the Bible exactly like you do, I’m excising passages from Scripture? Who died and made you King?

Sorry to react this way but I was quite taken back when I came to that response.

I still plan to interact with your Hosea 11 bit, but let me calm down a bit first.

[G. N. Barkman]

Wow! Something must have touched a tender nerve. I doubt that we can profitably continue this further, as you appear to be so emotionally bound by your position that you are unable to discuss dispassionately.

Well, I wanted to make a point. And my basic point is that based on your hermeneutics you don’t need Mal. 4:1-6 anymore in your Bible because you interpret Luke 1:16-17 as the complete filter through which that passage is now to be understood. Your theology would not be changed a whit if that passage were removed from your Bible.

But “emotionally bound to my position…” Hasn’t that sort of been your charge from the beginning. My hermeneutics are front-loaded so I have blinders to the NT quotes of the OT….I have “locked in my OT interpretation before factoring in the NT,… I am “setting my interpretations in stone before I get to the NT,”… I am assuming my hermeneutics are inspired” etc.

And all of this because…? Because I hold to a single meaning for each passage of Scripture independent of other passages, even those they quote?

I’m not emotionally bound, but I don’t put a premium on dispassion, either.

As for the,

Hurling insults at godly and thoughtful exegetes

comment, who are you talking about?

If you are saying I’m hurling insults at covenantalists, I’m sorry, but you still miss the mark. What I said was “covenantalist hermeneutics can’t deal with the details of a prophecy.” And I’m a-standing by it.

Ted,

Regarding Hos. 11:1, you said the following:

They were writing Scripture. Nobody ever read “out of Egypt have I called my son” prior to the apostles and recognized it as a messianic prophecy. It took an apostle with the gift of prophecy to be led by the Holy Spirit to write that.

John Sailhamer has pointed out that this is not entirely accurate. He brought out (in his latest book, The Meaning of the Pentateuch and probably earlier works) that Malachi is actually using earlier Scripture at this point.

He is alluding to the following texts:

How lovely are your tents, O Jacob,

your encampments, O Israel!…

God brings him out of Egypt

and is for him like the horns of the wild ox;

he shall eat up the nations, his adversaries,

and shall break their bones in pieces

and pierce them through with his arrows.

He crouched, he lay down like a lion

and like a lioness; who will rouse him up?

Blessed are those who bless you,

and cursed are those who curse you.

(Numb. 24:5, 8-9)

He has not beheld misfortune in Jacob,

nor has he seen trouble in Israel.

The LORD their God is with them,

and the shout of a king is among them.

God brings them out of Egypt

and is for them like the horns of the wild ox.

For there is no enchantment against Jacob,

no divination against Israel;

now it shall be said of Jacob and Israel,

‘What has God wrought!’

Behold, a people! As a lioness it rises up

and as a lion it lifts itself;

it does not lie down until it has devoured the prey

and drunk the blood of the slain.”

(Numb. 23:21-24)

What’s interesting is that Numb. 23 views Israel in a corporate / plural sense, Numb. 24 views Israel in an individual / singular sense.

Both of these texts refer back to Gen. 49:

Judah, your brothers shall praise you;

your hand shall be on the neck of your enemies;

your father’s sons shall bow down before you.

Judah is a lion’s cub;

from the prey, my son, you have gone up.

He stooped down; he crouched as a lion

and as a lioness; who dares rouse him?

The scepter shall not depart from Judah,

nor the ruler’s staff) from between his feet,

until tribute comes to him;

and to him shall be the obedience of the peoples.

Binding his foal to the vine

and his donkey’s colt to the choice vine,

he has washed his garments in wine

and his vesture in the blood of grapes.

His eyes are darker than wine,

and his teeth whiter than milk.

This is a messianic prophecy about the coming “Lion of Judah”. The author of the Pentateuch draws connections between this large poem in Gen. 49 and the two in Numbers. And God’s bringing Israel out of Egypt is seen in a coorporate sense but also a singular sense. Singular, Sailhamer argues, in the sense of the ideal messianic ruler to come from Israel.

Hosea then uses the individualist concept of Israel as God’s son, also hearkening to the “Son” language used in Psalm 2 and 2 Samuel 7. Hosea is intentionally bringing in the messianic idea here in 11:1 and elsewhere in Hosea (as Sailhamer brought out, and I don’t have my copy handy right now). Coorporately Israel had failed and was being judged, but there is still hope as Israel’s being called God’s son, hearkens to the Davidic and messianic prophecies about this ruler who would right the wrongs and bring lasting hope.

Matthew then presents Jesus as the ideal Israel who has his life threatened as a child (just like Moses and the babies with him of that day), is brought out of Egypt, endures temptation in the wilderness, and then gives Law from a mountain top (sermon on the Mount). He also chooses twelve disciples (like the twelve tribes). This is obviously just a picturesque way of looking at it. But the thought of connecting Israel with the Messiah as the ideal representative of Israel, is inherent in Hosea and other passages in the OT’s own understanding and interpretation of itself.

[Ted Bigelow] But “emotionally bound to my position…” Hasn’t that sort of been your charge from the beginning. My hermeneutics are front-loaded so I have blinders to the NT quotes of the OT….I have “locked in my OT interpretation before factoring in the NT,… I am “setting my interpretations in stone before I get to the NT,”… I am assuming my hermeneutics are inspired” etc.

And all of this because…? Because I hold to a single meaning for each passage of Scripture independent of other passages, even those they quote?

I’m not emotionally bound, but I don’t put a premium on dispassion, either.

Ted,

You responded to GNB’s comments about this post first. It isn’t as if you were just minding your own business and some guy comes on ripping up your position. You took issue with his position.

From my outside perspective, things were going along okay, with GN Barkman being very careful and correcting himself and interacting humbly and then POW out of nowhere you come in and insinuate that he’s chopping verses out of the Bible. You then chide him for not getting what you and others had said. That’s a tad bit passionate and arrogant. And in my opinion it isn’t fitting with the kind of intramural, brotherly discussion that we have going on here.

Okay, so Aaron effectively said, since the Bible doesn’t directly address how to interpret itself, we shouldn’t look to it for a hermeneutical model. At least that is what I thought he was saying in post #32. But when repeated NT authors use the OT in a certain way and make statements about it, isn’t that supposed to be a lesson to us. How else do we get a hermeneutic?

To step away from NT-OT questions, think of the parables. Jesus a few times gives us a model of how to interpret parables. Now it is in vogue today to say that parables make one main point. They have a shock and awe affect and aim for one punchline. Now how do you conclude that this is the case? Scientific Research! Rationalistic research into 1st century techniques.

Now what does Jesus do, though? He says that parables are designed to keep people from hearing. He says that only those with spiritual ears will hear them. And then in a few cases he gives us a model for how to interpret them. Guess what? They have more than one main point.

Now we could say, well this isn’t a model. We can only interpret those few parables that Jesus interprets for us explicitly, using His model. Everything else, we are left to the hermeneutical methods which we think will keep us objective and scientific. Those methods which are rationalistic and downplay the role of Spirit-illumination.

But Jesus explicitly says, the following:

And he said to them, “Do you not understand this parable? How then will you understand all the parables? (Mark 4:13

Isn’t he then giving us a model?

The hermeneutical methods employed to keep things literal and plain and natural, result in a model where anyone, spiritual or unspiritual, saved or unsaved, can still scientifically discover the one true meaning. Yet 1 Cor. 2:14 tells us that isn’t the case. Something spiritual is going on in the Text. We need to realize that we have been affected by the rationalistic spirit.

I contend that Just as we are given a model in how to interpret the parables, we are given a model for how to interpret the OT.

Any method of interpretation is subject to human error. And interpretations are inherently human, it is the area where faulty man interacts with perfect Scripture. This is why the apostle’s view of the OT is so helpful to us.

We weren’t given a hermeneutics book authored by God. But as we see the OT Scripture use the OT Scripture and the NT Scripture interact with the OT Scripture, this is all meant for our learning and growth in understanding. To say otherwise and to say it dogmatically is to stand things upside down. Where is the 100% certainty you have in making that declaration? I at least have the Scriptural use of the OT by NT authors to stand on. And the history of the Church and how it has interpreted Scripture prior to the era of the enlightenment favors my view too.