As Jude 1:3 states, "Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints." (NASB)
Here are the five key rules to properly interpreting scripture that I recently learned from Dr. Alton Tomlin. (The following is taken directly from Presenttruthmag.com):
We need to pay attention to five fundamental rules of Biblical hermeneutics:
1. The Old Testament must be interpreted by the New.
1. The Old Testament must be interpreted by the New.
Once we grasp the overall outline of the Bible and see that it is a progressive revelation, we will always look to see how the New Testament interprets the Old Testament. For instance, God promised Abraham a Seed which would bring a blessing to all nations. The New Testament interprets that Seed as Christ (Gal. 3:16). We are not to take the things of the old covenant and fabricate the meaning of them out of our own head. The New Testament interprets the meaning of the Passover, the offerings under the Law, the priestly ministry, etc.
The same principle applies to the handling of Old Testament prophecies. Those prophecies are not self-interpreting. Some people pride themselves that they can understand these prophecies if they simply take them "literally." And without consulting the interpretation of the New Testament, they arrive at all sorts of fantastic things which are supposed to happen in modern day Palestine. A prophecy may or may not be meant to be understood literally. For example, Isaiah declared that God would put a foundation stone in Zion, one that would support a building in time of wind and hail (Isa. 28:16). He does not say he means that the stone is a person. It is a veiled prophecy of Christ. We need the New Testament to interpret it for us. The same prophet speaks in terms of a highway building program in the desert to make a way for the King of Israel (Isa. 40:3, 4). Few would be foolish enough to see this being fulfilled in the freeways which the Israelis are now constructing in the new State of Israel. The New Testament authoritatively interprets the prophecy for us as meaning the mission of John the Baptist. Malachi 4:5 speaks of Elijah's coming before the day of the Lord. No intimation is given that it is not to be taken with strict literalness. When we read the New Testament, "Elijah" turns out to be John the Baptist.
The prophet Amos writes about the time when God would "raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen . . . and . . . build it as in the days of old." What does this mean? The rebuilding of Solomon's temple? The New Testament interprets it for us. This took place in the outpouring of the Spirit in the raising up of the Christian church (see Acts 15:16).
Not only does the New Testament show us how to interpret the prophecies of the Old Testament, but it shows us how to interpret the laws of the Old Testament. The New Testament shows us how the laws of ceremony have met their spiritual reality in the person and work of Christ. But not all the laws found in the Old Testament are ceremonial in nature. Some are moral, and their moral principles are perpetually binding. The apostle Paul refers to a number of them as a rule of life for Christians. The Sermon on the Mount interprets the moral precepts of the Ten Commandments and, instead of lessening their binding force, strengthens their demand for holiness (see Matt. 5:17-28). Jesus claimed the authority to interpret the law. When a dispute arose about proper observance of the Sabbath, He claimed His Lordship of the Sabbath (Mark 2:28) and interpreted the law to allow for works of mercy and necessity to be performed on the Sabbath.
All this goes to show how important it is that we allow the New Testament to interpret the Old Testament.
2. The Gospels must be interpreted by the Epistles.
The same principle applies to the handling of Old Testament prophecies. Those prophecies are not self-interpreting. Some people pride themselves that they can understand these prophecies if they simply take them "literally." And without consulting the interpretation of the New Testament, they arrive at all sorts of fantastic things which are supposed to happen in modern day Palestine. A prophecy may or may not be meant to be understood literally. For example, Isaiah declared that God would put a foundation stone in Zion, one that would support a building in time of wind and hail (Isa. 28:16). He does not say he means that the stone is a person. It is a veiled prophecy of Christ. We need the New Testament to interpret it for us. The same prophet speaks in terms of a highway building program in the desert to make a way for the King of Israel (Isa. 40:3, 4). Few would be foolish enough to see this being fulfilled in the freeways which the Israelis are now constructing in the new State of Israel. The New Testament authoritatively interprets the prophecy for us as meaning the mission of John the Baptist. Malachi 4:5 speaks of Elijah's coming before the day of the Lord. No intimation is given that it is not to be taken with strict literalness. When we read the New Testament, "Elijah" turns out to be John the Baptist.
The prophet Amos writes about the time when God would "raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen . . . and . . . build it as in the days of old." What does this mean? The rebuilding of Solomon's temple? The New Testament interprets it for us. This took place in the outpouring of the Spirit in the raising up of the Christian church (see Acts 15:16).
Not only does the New Testament show us how to interpret the prophecies of the Old Testament, but it shows us how to interpret the laws of the Old Testament. The New Testament shows us how the laws of ceremony have met their spiritual reality in the person and work of Christ. But not all the laws found in the Old Testament are ceremonial in nature. Some are moral, and their moral principles are perpetually binding. The apostle Paul refers to a number of them as a rule of life for Christians. The Sermon on the Mount interprets the moral precepts of the Ten Commandments and, instead of lessening their binding force, strengthens their demand for holiness (see Matt. 5:17-28). Jesus claimed the authority to interpret the law. When a dispute arose about proper observance of the Sabbath, He claimed His Lordship of the Sabbath (Mark 2:28) and interpreted the law to allow for works of mercy and necessity to be performed on the Sabbath.
All this goes to show how important it is that we allow the New Testament to interpret the Old Testament.
2. The Gospels must be interpreted by the Epistles.
The Gospels record the historic events of our redemption—the incarnation, life, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ. But by themselves historic events are not sufficient. We need an authoritative word that tells us the true significance of those events.
If a man thinks he can look at a historic event and out of his own head interpret what that event means, he puts himself in the place of God. Take the historic fact of the resurrection for example. It is not for us to presume what the resurrection means. The Epistles spell out to us what it means, and he who goes beyond what is interpreted in the Epistles is fabricating a doctrine out of his own head—or passing on what someone has fabricated out of his head. Neither is it the prerogative of the church to interpret any of the events of redemptive history. God sent apostles for that purpose, and we must not add or take away from their word.
We need to go to the Epistles to correctly interpret the events recorded in the Gospels.1 The church often fails to follow this fundamental principle. She often tries to justify some practice or custom by drawing some "spiritual" lesson from the life, death or resurrection of Christ, but this is a human rather than a divine interpretation of the gospel. "He that hath an ear, let him hear."
3. The incidental must be interpreted by the systematic.
If a man thinks he can look at a historic event and out of his own head interpret what that event means, he puts himself in the place of God. Take the historic fact of the resurrection for example. It is not for us to presume what the resurrection means. The Epistles spell out to us what it means, and he who goes beyond what is interpreted in the Epistles is fabricating a doctrine out of his own head—or passing on what someone has fabricated out of his head. Neither is it the prerogative of the church to interpret any of the events of redemptive history. God sent apostles for that purpose, and we must not add or take away from their word.
We need to go to the Epistles to correctly interpret the events recorded in the Gospels.1 The church often fails to follow this fundamental principle. She often tries to justify some practice or custom by drawing some "spiritual" lesson from the life, death or resurrection of Christ, but this is a human rather than a divine interpretation of the gospel. "He that hath an ear, let him hear."
3. The incidental must be interpreted by the systematic.
This rule applies to the proper reading of any literature. It is common sense, but how hard it is to use common sense when we are so anxious to prove our point!
For example, the heart of all Bible doctrine is the great doctrine of justification by grace, for Christ's sake, through faith. There are two books in the Bible (Romans and Galatians) which present this doctrine systematically, and they do it also in the perspective of sacred history—the promise to Abraham, the giving of the Law, etc. Common sense should teach us to build our understanding about justification by going to the places where the subject and all the ramifications of it are treated systematically.
Now there are places where Paul touches on justification incidentally, like in Titus 3:5-8. He is writing to a fellow minister and has no need to speak in detail. Some have used the incidental passage in Titus (i.e., the Roman Catholics at Trent) in an effort to substantiate the doctrine of justification by infused righteousness (inward renewal). Now let us grant the point that it is possible to get that idea out of Titus 3:5-8. Then there is the book of James, a wonderful place where some go to build a prima facie case for justification by works.
Major heresies are often the result of turning minors into majors. In 1 Corinthians15 Paul incidentally makes some reference to "baptism for the dead," and most scholars will admit that Paul's meaning here is obscure. But the Mormons use this as the basis of a whole doctrine on baptism for the dead. And while we are talking about the dead, how hard it is for us humans to think rationally when we are governed sentimentally. If we want to prove something about the intermediate state badly enough, we will find a text somewhere to support it, but the chances are that we will build a great edifice on an incidental passage. Rather, we should honestly go to where the subject is treated in a systematic way. Do not interpret the systematic passage in the light of the incidental one, but the incidental must be interpreted by the systematic. It is positively foolhardy to build a doctrine on an incidental passage.
4. The local must be interpreted by the universal.
For example, the heart of all Bible doctrine is the great doctrine of justification by grace, for Christ's sake, through faith. There are two books in the Bible (Romans and Galatians) which present this doctrine systematically, and they do it also in the perspective of sacred history—the promise to Abraham, the giving of the Law, etc. Common sense should teach us to build our understanding about justification by going to the places where the subject and all the ramifications of it are treated systematically.
Now there are places where Paul touches on justification incidentally, like in Titus 3:5-8. He is writing to a fellow minister and has no need to speak in detail. Some have used the incidental passage in Titus (i.e., the Roman Catholics at Trent) in an effort to substantiate the doctrine of justification by infused righteousness (inward renewal). Now let us grant the point that it is possible to get that idea out of Titus 3:5-8. Then there is the book of James, a wonderful place where some go to build a prima facie case for justification by works.
Major heresies are often the result of turning minors into majors. In 1 Corinthians15 Paul incidentally makes some reference to "baptism for the dead," and most scholars will admit that Paul's meaning here is obscure. But the Mormons use this as the basis of a whole doctrine on baptism for the dead. And while we are talking about the dead, how hard it is for us humans to think rationally when we are governed sentimentally. If we want to prove something about the intermediate state badly enough, we will find a text somewhere to support it, but the chances are that we will build a great edifice on an incidental passage. Rather, we should honestly go to where the subject is treated in a systematic way. Do not interpret the systematic passage in the light of the incidental one, but the incidental must be interpreted by the systematic. It is positively foolhardy to build a doctrine on an incidental passage.
4. The local must be interpreted by the universal.
The Bible often inculcates universal principles in the context of a local culture. We must be very careful not to make some feature of local culture a universal norm. For instance, Moses took off his shoes as a token of reverence in the presence of God. That was an Eastern custom which is still practiced in some parts of the world. We Westerners show reverence by taking off our hat. Christian men would not think of going into church with their hat on, for this would show disrespect. But if we were associating with people of another culture, we might take our shoes off before entering the church.
Paul commands us to greet the brethren with a holy kiss (Rom. 16:16). A strict literalist may insist that this form of Christian fraternity is still obligatory today, but most Christians understand it to mean that we should treat fellow Christians like a blood brother. Similar things may be said about Paul's instruction on the covering of the head of women in the churches, the length of a man’s hair, advice to slaves, etc. We must not make the custom of a local culture a universal imperative.
5. The symbolic must be interpreted by the didactic. If we want to know something about the "rapture" question, we should not try to build a theory on passages that are written in a symbolic context. There are passages in 1 and 2 Thessalonians that speak on the matter of being "caught up," and if these didactic passages are not interpreted in the light of some speculation from a symbolic passage, they are clear enough. Our doctrinal positions should be established by a plain "Thus saith the Lord" from a straightforward didactic passage.2 Then we should use this information to interpret a symbolic passage. If we do not do this, we might just as well follow those wild-eyed prophetic expositors who take their text from the Bible and preach from the newspapers.
Paul commands us to greet the brethren with a holy kiss (Rom. 16:16). A strict literalist may insist that this form of Christian fraternity is still obligatory today, but most Christians understand it to mean that we should treat fellow Christians like a blood brother. Similar things may be said about Paul's instruction on the covering of the head of women in the churches, the length of a man’s hair, advice to slaves, etc. We must not make the custom of a local culture a universal imperative.
5. The symbolic must be interpreted by the didactic. If we want to know something about the "rapture" question, we should not try to build a theory on passages that are written in a symbolic context. There are passages in 1 and 2 Thessalonians that speak on the matter of being "caught up," and if these didactic passages are not interpreted in the light of some speculation from a symbolic passage, they are clear enough. Our doctrinal positions should be established by a plain "Thus saith the Lord" from a straightforward didactic passage.2 Then we should use this information to interpret a symbolic passage. If we do not do this, we might just as well follow those wild-eyed prophetic expositors who take their text from the Bible and preach from the newspapers.
No comments:
Post a Comment