Ethos Statement on Hermeneutics & Eschatology

Republished with permission (and unedited) from Central Baptist Theological Seminary. (The document posted at Central’s website in August of 2010.)

Hermeneutics and Eschatology

All faculty at Central Baptist Theological Seminary of Minneapolis affirm a hermeneutical system that interprets all Scripture with a consistently literal or normal method. We also affirm the paradigm of grammatical, contextual, theological, historical exegesis with a view to discerning authorial intent.

Dual Hermeneutics

We all hold that the same hermeneutical principles must govern the interpretation of both testaments. We reject any approach that asserts, for example, that Old Testament prophecies concerning the first advent, life, ministry, death, burial, resurrection, and ascension of Christ should be interpreted differently from Old Testament prophecies concerning the second advent and the earthly rule and reign of Christ. There is no New Testament hermeneutic that supersedes an Old Testament hermeneutic.

Typology

We all believe that points of correspondence exist between the Old and New Testaments. Some of us limit this correspondence to correlation that is explicit in the text. Others assert a correlation that seems more textually implicit, understanding some points of correspondence to expand or enhance the earlier revelation on which they were based.

Multiple Fulfillments

In our commitment to literal interpretation, we encounter some New Testament passages whose connection to Old Testament antecedents is less obvious. Some passages might be taken to imply a fulfillment of items from Old Testament prophecies that cannot readily be found in the language of the prophecies themselves. Some of us understand those New Testament passages to be something other than actual fulfillments, e.g., analogies. Others of us understand that the New Testament author has, in fact, seen a genuine fulfillment, elements of which expand the meaning of the original prophecy.

Dual Authorship

We all believe that at least two participants were involved in the writing of any biblical autograph: a human agent and God. Some of us frame our understanding of this relationship by focusing on the “unitary” nature of this authorship: a confluence or concurrence in divine-human authorship in such a way that just as the human author’s wording was the very wording of God (no more or no less), even so the human author’s meaning is the very meaning of God (no more or no less). 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. In both cases, we reject the notion that New Testament interpreters are adding meaning that is not somehow present in the Old Testament texts.

Inaugurated Eschatology

We all recognize that major eschatological prophecies and promises made to national Israel have not yet been fulfilled in the terms established within the prophecies. We further believe that the veracity of God demands the complete fulfillment of all of His promises made to Israel as a national, political entity. Such belief is grounded in the literal or normal interpretation of the covenants, promises, and prophecies that originated in God concerning Israel. Some of us affirm that some eschatological promises made to Israel in the Old Testament have been inaugurated in the present dispensation and yet await complete fulfillment in the future. 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.

We all affirm belief in a future earthly reign of Christ in literal fulfillment of all biblical prophecies and promises regarding the eschatological kingdom. We also all affirm that the reign of Christ will be preceded by Daniel’s seventieth week, a time of tribulation, and that all Church saints are promised exemption from this tribulation through a rapture that will occur before its beginning. Furthermore, 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.

Discussion

[Bob Hayton] 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….
Very cool. I would like to get my hands on that. I think what Sailhammer is trying to do is noble.

By way of anecdote…. A friend of mine was trying to get his PhD in hermeneutics from Westminster East, and he and the professor, who is no longer teaching there (you may know who) came to logger heads on this text - Mat. 2:15 and Hos. 11:1. It boiled down to whether Matthew was inspired, or merely using ancient hermeneutic techniques of Jewish scribes available to anyone. Well, the kerfuffle held up my friend’s PhD for years. He eventually got it, and now teaches at a seminary in CA.

Quick question - does Sailhammer claim certainty, or is he more cautious - i.e., “Malachi may have been alluding to Numbers and Genesis? He doesn’t mention this connection in his fine book, The Pentateuch as Narrative, but that is a 1992 print.

BTW, Sailhammer’s approach is a new tack, at least to me. The old tack was to find Hosea reaching back to “Israel is My son, My firstborn” (Exo. 4:22). See the singular/corporate emphasis there too.

This Exodus text was likewise used to provide a rationale for how Matthew saw in the “son” of Hosea 11:1 not only Israel, but a further reference to Jesus Christ. However, as I pointed out earlier in the thread, if we go that way, what do we say about Hos. 11:2? If 11:1 contained a double reference to both Israel and the Christ, wasn’t 11:2 at least slightly confusing to every OT reader? In fact, let me go a step further. Wouldn’t it completely throw him off the trail when he reads of a perfect Israelite son in 11:1, but who, in 11:2, is sacrificing to the Baals? I know I would have been thrown off had I even considered 11:1 as Messianic.
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.
Thanks, I so agree with that interpretation of Mat. 2:15 (see my post #34), but not so in Hos. 11:1. But I love what Sailhammer’s trying to do - ground Hosea 11:1 in antecedent revelation. Call me stubborn. And for the connection of the 12 apostles and the 12 tribes - totally - Mat. 19:28.

Thanks.

Ted,

Thanks for interacting, and I appreciate the level of your agreement. Obviously we won’t see eye to eye on this exactly, but hopefully we can build on the interpretations of others and do our best according to our conscience to follow what we believe is being taught in Scripture.

I’ll try to look up the relevant passage in Sailhamer’s work on this if I have time tonight, or else later this weekend. I believe it fits with so many other things he’s explaining about the Pentateuch and it follows with a stylistic way in which previous revelation is cited and alluded to in other Jewish writings and Scriptures. He probably maintains some tenuousness though (and certainly we all should always allow for that).

I am sure he brings up Ex. 4 too, now that you mention it.

If you get your hands on it, you’ll have to be prepared to grip it! It’s 615 pages long or so. But I loved every minute spent in the book (I hadn’t been all that exposed to Sailhamer before, so afterward I went out and got his commentary on the Pentateuch too).

Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.

Hi Greg,

Looking back on one of my posts I see where I came down too strong and took the conversation away from a love. I’m thinking of #43.

I don’t think anything badly about you and would hate to know I hurt you, so please forgive me for the stridency in my words.

Thanks.

Ted,

I planned to opt out of this thread, as your diatribe in post #43 indicated that you were not open to civil discussion. However, perhaps I will try one more time.

To say that my understanding of Malachi 4, based upon the inspired statements of the angel in Luke 1:16,17 means that I have cut Malachi 4 out of the Bible (or might as well do so)strikes me as sheer bombast.

Just because I don’t think Malachi 4 says what you believe it says doesn’t mean I wish to cut it out of the Bible. On the contrary, I greatly value the insight it gives me into how NT writers interpreted OT prophecies. Without it, I would be short one very valuable example of this important insight. Furthermore, there are several elements in Malachi 4 which are not mentioned in Luke 1, which give valuable, inspired revelation. I value those statements as much as you do. When I couple Malachi 4 with other OT prophecies quoated by inspired NT writers, I begin to see a line of OT interpretation that escaped me until I studied them in the light of the NT.

Your charge about my cutting Malachi 4 out of the Bible sounds somewhat similar to the kinds of statements KJV-only proponents make to those who do not accept their position. It smacks of emotional diatribe rather than thoughtful reasoning and cordial response. I trust this is not characteristic of the manner you normally use in discussions with brethren who sincerely and thoughtfully hold positions different from your own. I will be happy to believe it is an anomaly, unless you indicate otherwise.

Cordially,

Greg

G. N. Barkman

Thanks Ted for doing what isn’t easy. It’s so easy to forget about “tone” when dealing with bare text and a keyboard. I’ve crossed the line myself often enough!

Blessings in Christ,

Bob

Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.

Ted,

I wrote my last post, # 55, before your # 54 appeared, even though you wrote yours first. Sorry if it you thought I was simply ignoring you.

Thanks for the apology. I am happy to accept. I’ve done similar and worse enough times to know my own need for forgiveness. It’s easy to get overwrought in the heat of debate.

I hope you sleep well tonight, and have a great day tomorrow.

Warm regards,

Greg

G. N. Barkman

Aaron,

Sorry if you misunderstood — I was actually defending you, even if it didn’t come out that way. My use of “algebra” instead of logic was an attempt, no matter how lame, to respond to Greg’s use of the word, and show why it didn’t work exactly the way he was trying to use it.

I thought about getting into logic, and necessary and sufficient conditions, but I realized that would just sound overwrought and pedantic, not to mention way off the topic of hermeneutics, so I just tried to explain briefly. Obviously, I was still a bit too brief. Since I teach critical thinking to my kids as part of homeschool, I probably get way too interested in discussions about logic.

Dave Barnhart

Dave,

I knew that your algebra explanation was in support of Aaron, and not in support of my position. I thought it was very clear, and reflects perfectly my understanding of algebra, limited and rusty as it is after all these years, and is also correct as a matter of logic. Your conclusion, in my opnion, is absolutely correct.

It seems to me that this does help to support my understanding of the Malachi 4/Luke 1 relationship. If, according to logic Luke 1 means that John may be Elijah, even though it is not enough evidence to certify this conclusively. Then Jesus teaches his disciples that John is Elijah (Matthews 17:10-13), adding another piece of evidence, it becomes much harder to ignore the accumulated evidence. Luke 1,says John may be Elijah. Matthew 17, says John is Elijah. I don’t know how to add that to the algebra without appending a second formula, but it sure seems convincing to me.

G. N. Barkman