Hermeneutical Confusion and Hermeneutical Consistency

8/9/2019 Hermeneutical Confusion and Hermeneutical Consistency

1/10

Hermeneutical Confusion and Hermeneutical Consistency

© 2012 Paul Henebury

The Rationale Behind Dispensational Hermeneutics

Without a doubt, the issue of hermeneutics is one of the hottest issues in theology today. The

word comes from the Gree hermeneia which basically means !inter"retation.#[1] How do weinter"ret the $ible, and, in "articular, those relati%ely few, yet significant "arts of it whichcause "u&&lement or debate'

(o one can enter u"on the tas of theology without confronting this )uestion. *et the answerto it is not as straightforward as it may a""ear at first sight. Tae for an e+am"le this )uotefrom an im"ortant wor on biblical ethics

The church dares to articulate fresh and audacious readings of Scripture onlybecause it relies upon the work of the Holy Spirit in the community – as promisedin the New Testament texts themselves (cf. !or. "#$%$& 'ohn $#"%). TheSpirit reshapes the community into unexpected metaphorical reflections of the

biblical stories and thereby casts new light back onto the texts. Such illuminativecon*unctions are impossible to predict and difficult to discern+ but the church thatseeks to deny or preclude them will find itself locked into the stifling grip of ,theletter- (gramma + " !or. #$)+ unable to hear the /ord of 0od. 1nother way to putthis point is to say that it is finally 0od who writes the metaphors. [2]

The )uotation is re"roduced to show that there are a lot of scholars out there whose idea ofhow to inter"ret the $ible is wildly different than dis"ensationalists. The writer wants thebroad church to e+"lore inter"reti%e "ossibilities and disco%er no%el new inter"retations ofwell-worn te+ts. n this way, he says, the church a%oids getting cemented in a "articular timeand culture. /ore im"ortantly, God is not similarly confined.

The trouble with this ind of %iew is that is %iolates the Golden ule. [3] t treats the "assagesof the $ible differently than its own "assages. That is to say, the writer of the abo%e statementwants to be taen literally, at face %alue. He em"loys numerous figures of s"eech !Thechurch dares# !The "irit reshapes the community# and !casts new light bac onto the te+ts#a church that denies this riss becoming one that is !unable to hear the Word of God#!God3writes the meta"hors.# $ut he does this without gi%ing a second thought as to whetherhis language will be misunderstood by literalistic inter"reters. /oreo%er, he cites certain te+tsof cri"ture 41 5or. 26-16 7ohn 1612-18 2 5or.96:, "resumably with the intent that thereader will turn to those %erses and read them in their "lain sense ; figures and all.

t is


2/10

Hermeneutical !onfusion and Hermeneutical !onsistency

elite. n fact, it was not primarily gi%en to them. ts statements are, for the most"art, clear enough. !GodCs truth is communicated in ob


3/10


circumstances under which 2the original author4 wrote+ the mannersand customs of his age+ and the purpose or ob*ect which he had inview. He has a right to assume that no sensible author will be

knowingly inconsistent with himself+ or seek to bewilder or mislead hisreaders.[8]

The im"ortance of literal, 4that is, grammatical-historical:, inter"retation is that itfastens the meaning of the te+t to the "lain sense of the wording. This gi%es thete+t "riority in hermeneutics.[9] Iuc, in his boo, Basic Bible Interpretation says,

to determine 0od=s thoughts we need to study His words and howthey are associated in sentences. 7f we neglect the meanings of wordsand how they are used+ we have no way of knowing whoseinterpretations are correct. The assertion+ ,>ou can make the 6ible

mean anything you want it to mean+- is true only if grammaticalinterpretation is ignored.[10]

Grammatical inter"retation is im"ortant because of the ins"ired nature ofcri"ture itself.[11] We hold to the full 4"lenary: %erbal ins"iration of the $ible. Thisforces us to "ay attention to the wording. [12] econdly, if one is to be a goode+egete he must study the way a $iblical writer has used words and sentenceswithin his discourse. @ccuracy to what is said is the great goal of grammatical-historical inter"retation.

@s the name indicates, this form of inter"retation "ays close attention to thehistorical situation of the writer and his intended audience. t is "rimarily

interested in finding out what God was saying in a "articular situation. [13] Fnemust stri%e to find out, as nearly as "ossible, the circumstances in which theins"ired author wrote. ts concern is with ascertaining the meaning of the te+t bymeans of e+egesis of the "assage in conte+t. n order to understand cri"turecorrectly, it must be understood first, conte+tually. This includes taing the genreof the "assage into consideration. Jor instance, one recent dis"ensational writerstates that !Aach genre embodies characteristics which are distincti%e and thusre)uires attention to its own uni)ue inter"reti%e "rinci"les3ecogni&ing andunderstanding the genre of a gi%en "assage "rom"ts a reading strategy, rulesout false e+"ectations, and re"resents an entre to the meaning of the te+t.# [14] $utas Thomas is well aware, scholars today are still arguing o%er the identification

and assignation of literary genres. 4Tae, for e+am"le the contro%ersy created byobert GundryCs %iew that the Gos"el of /atthew is an e+am"le of /idrash, orichard KongenecerCs o"inion that the @"ostolic church em"loyed the Pesherinter"retation of the Pharisees:. Fne "erson has made the following illuminatingadmission.

We may think that we now have a clear notion of what a novel or Go!el

: ";"


4/10


entail a a "enre# $%t that i een in li"ht of the other "enre that we mayhave availa$le& 'ow %ch a cate"ory (if it i even !ertinent at all)* may havef%nctione+ in the ancient worl+ i another matter&[15]

The fundamental belief behind the em"loyment of the G-H hermeneutic is thatthe literal or "lain sense is to be retained unless it is clear that it cannot be. A%enthen, if the genre, for e+am"le, does not allow for a !surface meaning#, still, onemust insist u"on the truth that behind the figure stands a literal or normalinter"retation.[16] f, for e+am"le, one considers Psalm EDD which says !Ket thefloods cla" their hands let the hills be


5/10


1re we then suggesting doing away with the analogy of faith5 No+ weare rather proposing a conscious effort to postpone its part in theinterpretive process until the very end. 7n fact+ we may even suggest

that it not be a part of the exegetical process at all. 7t should be adouble check on completed exegesis. 7ts removal from among thehermeneutical principles could be a safeguard against abuses. [24]

The Interpretation of Prophecy

@ll A%angelicals subscribe to the G-H method of inter"retation. $ut there is adifference of o"inion about how to a""ly it to many "ro"hetic statements ofcri"ture. The ey issue is how the (ew Testament inter"rets the Fld. ?oes the(ew Testament re-inter"ret the original "romises gi%en to srael in light of the5ross, gi%ing them a meaning which would ha%e been totally foreign to theoriginal hearers' To say it another way, did the Holy "irit gi%e the @"ostles adee"er, less literal understanding of "ro"hecy so that, for instance, the"ro"hecies concerning srael, which a""ear to be crystal clear, were to be seenas fulfilled, not by the 7ews, but by the !s"iritual srael#, the 5hurch, which, in"oint of fact, is com"osed mainly of Gentiles'[25] The dis"ensationalist says thatto allow this ind of hermeneutical shift into ones thining introduces uncertaintyregarding what seem to be the clearly unconditional "romises of God to thenation of srael. We say it re%erently, if God is in the habit of changing themeaning of His statements from one time "eriod to the ne+t, how can we be surethat the "romises made to us in the Gos"el will not be re%ised at some laterdate' o, whereas some 5hristians, under the influence of a re%isedhermeneutic 4say, !grammatical-historical-theological#: re-inter"ret the "ro"hetic

co%enants made with @braham and ?a%id to e+clude national srael, thedis"ensationalist stays with a G-H hermeneutic when reading these and other"ro"hecies.

Ten Guidelines for Interpretation

?is"ensationalists get attaced on all sides about the consistency of his or herhermeneutic. ometimes this is deser%ed and sometimes the critic wants to seecertain uses of G-H as in effect, some other ind of hermeneutic. Whate%er thetruth may be, the fact ought not to esca"e anyone that the criticism is one of

practice not of method . Here are ten guiding "rinci"les, taen from recentliterature, which, we belie%e, gi%e real hel" in this area. [26]

1. Progressi%e re%elation cannot annul unconditional "romises.[27] f oncea "romise is made unconditionally by the Kord 4e.g. the Kand "romiseto @braham:, it is not abrogated nor transformed further along thehistorical ladder.

2. f the (T does not e+"licitly or im"licitly cancel something in the FT we

: ";"


6/10


are to "resume it is still in force, or will be in the future. [28] God does notha%e to constantly re"eat Himself in order for His original"ronouncement to be taen seriously.

9. We must be aware that there is no such thing as a consistent (T"attern of FT "assages. !There are %arieties of (T uses of the FT.# [29]

This is "erha"s the issue between ?is"ensationalists and 5o%enantTheologians. 5entral to the argument is the issue of sensus plenior ornew meaning. ?is"ensationalists guard a single meaning of the sacredte+t though with e+"anded a""lications. $y allowing the (T toreinter"ret the FT without reference to the original conte+t, othersystems lie 5o%enant Theology "lay fast and loose with a literalhermeneutic whilst claiming unabashedly that they are still inter"retingthe sacred te+t literally. n other words, they belie%e that the spiritualapplications of the a"ostolic writers gi%e them carte blanche to ride

roughshod o%er the "lain "ro"hecies of the FT.

M. (o (T writer claims that his new understanding of the FT "assagecancels the meaning of the FT "assage in its own conte+t, or that thenew a""lication is the only meaning of the FT "assage. [30] Thises"ecially affects "laces such as PeterCs usage of 7oel 2 in his first

@cts s"eech 4@cts 2:, and 7amesCs use of @mos E in @cts 18.

8. Ty"ology does not cancel the meaning of the ty"e in its setting, nordoes it substitute the meaning of the antity"e for it.# [31] Ty"e andantity"e are ne%er e+actly alie. Jor one thing, the ty"e is inferior to theantity"e.

6. The (T cannot redefine or re-inter"ret the FT without ha&arding therevelational as"ect of the FT "assage.[32] GodCs word in the FT was aword directed to a "articular life-setting. @ny "redicti%e elements orfuture (T a""lications were not intended to usur" or transform the"ristine re%elation.

B. Though grammatico-historical hermeneutics tells us the sense of anFT "rediction, we cannot always now the referent until the fulfillment.[33] We are neither @"ostles nor "ro"hets.

D. Ty"es and analogies must be handled differently than "redictions and"ro"hecies. [34] They are too o"en to theological gerrymandering.

E. The $ible uses the term fulfillment and fulfilled in %arious ways.nter"reters must be sensiti%e to this "henomenon. [35]

10.Fne must carefully distinguish how the (T writers are using the Fld.Jruchtenbaum identifies M usages Kiteral "ro"hecy "lus literalfulfillment Kiteral "lus ty"ical Kiteral "lus a""lication and, ummation.

: ";"


7/10


[36] While this is a useful classification, it is not identification. $etter isThomasCs %iew 4borrowed from Walton: of !ins"ired sensus pleniora""lication# 4P@:. What he means by this term is that the ins"ired

authors of the (ew Testament could assign a new meaning to an FldTestament "assage and a""ly it to something a""ro"riate to the5hurch, e%en doctrinally.[37]

To summari&e in the words of Alliot 7ohnson, !The bottom line is this To ado"tliteral inter"retation as a sine qua non is to affirm that the conte+t of thetheological system "ro%ides no %alid warrant to e+"and or alter the meaningunderstood in the immediate conte+t.#[38]

/ore than a hundred years ago, /ilton Terry described the correct method of$iblical inter"retation

7ts fundamental principle is to gather from the Scriptures themselves

the precise meaning which the writers intended to convey. This appliesto the sacred books the same principles+ the same process andexercise of common%sense and reason+ which we apply to otherbooks. The grammatico%historical exegete9 will in8uire into thecircumstances under which 2the author4 wrote+ the manners andcustoms of his age+ and the purpose or ob*ect which he had in view.He has a right to assume that no sensible author will be knowinglyinconsistent with himself+ or seek to bewilder or mislead his readers.[39]

@s those committed to the final authority of cri"ture, we must hold that anormati%e inter"retation of its words is always "ossible. That is why $ernardamm maintained, !we need to now the correct method of inter"retation so thatwe do not confuse the %oice of God with the %oice of man.# [40] uch an assertion"resu""oses that ob


8/10


in any number of waysN

Are Dispensationalists Obliged to Change

We ha%e "ointed out that consistent grammatical-historical hermeneutics is the%ery o+ygen of dis"ensationalism. @ny other theology could ado"t some of themodern hermeneutical thining and sur%i%e. $ut that is


9/10


[9] Stallard+ ,The Theological Bethod of 1rno !. 0aebelein+- ".

[10] 3oy 6. Cuck+ 6asic 6ible 7nterpretation + (!olorado Springs+ !I# !ook !ommunications+ DD)+

DD.

[11] Baier+ 6iblical Hermeneutics + .

[12] Thomas+ Jvangelical Hermeneutics + D%";.

[13] 7bid+ .

[14] 7rvin 1. 6usenitK+ ,Bust Jxpository


10/10


[32]

Documents

Hermeneutical Confusion and Hermeneutical Consistency