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

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.

G. N. Barkman

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

G. N. Barkman

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

Hoping to shed more light than heat..

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.

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

[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

[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?

G. N. Barkman

[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.

Hoping to shed more light than heat..

[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.

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.

[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?

G. N. Barkman

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.

G. N. Barkman