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

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.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

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

[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.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

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.

My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com

Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin

[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.

G. N. Barkman

[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.)

G. N. Barkman

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?

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

[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?