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.
- 18 views
[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.”
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
[G. N. Barkman] Ted,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.
But, how do you understand the Hosea 11:1 quoted in Matthew 2:15 situation?
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.
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
[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. ;)
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
G. N. Barkman
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.
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.
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
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?
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
G. N. Barkman
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.
Dave Barnhart
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 prophecyAnd you know the way they interpreted Malachi’s prophecy, exactly how?
But if Malachi ought to be understood symbolically, which the Jews would never allowAnd 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 NTYou 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.
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
G. N. Barkman
[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.”So, as Dave pointed out, they have a shared characteristic.
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.
Maybe it’s best to use a more engaging example.
- Cows eat grass.
- My dog eats grass.
- My dog is a cow.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Discussion