Appendix B

A Biblical World View

Hermeneutics

Throughout history different societies have used different approaches and followed different guidelines for interpreting the Bible. Some approaches have brought people closer to God and truth while many have led people into deeper darkness, plunging succeeding generations into ignorance and apostasy.

The art and science of trying to understand the Bible for correct interpretation is called, "hermeneutics," which derives its origin from the name Hermes, who is the Greek messenger god that transmitted and interpreted messages of other gods. The following survey shows the wisdom and the folly of different hermeneutic principles through the generations.

Hermeneutic History [8]

1. Ancient Jewish Exegesis

In an exegesis, the interpreter tries to determine the author's intended meaning by "drawing out" that meaning. The opposite would be an eisegesis which tries to "read into" text hidden meaning. Interpreters of the Bible throughout history have used both approaches.

In Jewish exegesis it is usually attributed to Ezra as the first to interpret the Bible, by providing commentary upon the text. After the post Babylonian exile (538 BC) the meaning of Scripture was forgotten. Nehemiah 8:8 reads, "So they [Ezra & the Levites] read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading." By the time of Christ there were four main types of Jewish interpretation: 1) literal, 2) midrashic, 3) pesher, and 4) allegorical.

The literal, or peshatic method has little information recorded since it was understood that this was foundational to all else. This method was usually applied to the interpretation of judicial and practical concerns.

The midrashic method was refined by Rabbi Hillel in emphasizing the comparison of ideas, words, or phrases found in more than one text. Also, the relationship of general principles to specific instances, and the importance of context in interpretation. This is still used by evangelical Christians and is stated as having "Scripture interpret Scripture." Unfortunately midrashic interpretation placed undo emphasis on incidental grammatical details, forcing contrived hidden meanings, which slipped from exegetical to eisegetical interpretations. The Pharisees used midrashic methods to tie together oral traditions to scripture.

The pesher interpretation came from the Qumran community that used midrashic methods with a focus on eschatological (prophecies of the future) interpretation. They looked for veiled meaning in everything, which moved deeper into eisegetic reading. Their interpretations were characterized by "this is that" statements. For example, this verse is that fulfillment of prophecy.

The allegorical method believes that beneath the literal meaning is the true meaning. This was borrowed from the Greeks who tried to resolve the differences of their mythologies with their philosophies. The Jews did the same in trying to bridge the gap from Mosaic law and Greek philosophy, a compromising of God's word that leads to error. The allegorical method was used once by Paul (Gal. 4:24) but it does not mean that Paul denied the historical fact of Sarah and Hagar. The allegorists lost sight of those facts. Today we would say that they were a type, or representation, of this other meaning. The expression "type" does not discount the literal and historic facts. Allegories are extreme eisegetic interpretations which will surface again in the early church period.

For the Jewish rabbis several factors caused them to miss God's intent. For one thing, they assumed that God's Word was deep and mysterious, filled with hidden meaning. Centuries later, Martin Luther would argue again for the simplicity and clarity of the Scriptures. As history progressed, particularly after Christ, a mystical system developed by the Jews, called the Cabala, which takes the Hebrew letters (which are also numbers) of scripture to work out mathematical formulas. Such reading-into of the text has led them into another realm outside of the Word.

Another factor that has led rabbis away from the Holy Writ is a desire to insure obedience. If a commandment said don't do this, then an oral tradition sprung up that said don't do that to be sure you don't do this. This oral tradition, called the Mishnah, was combined with commentary in the Talmud. The Talmud included commentary upon commentary. Jesus rebuked the Pharisees saying, "Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition" (Matt. 15:6b).

2. New Testament Use of the Old Testament

This refers to the use of the Old Testament by Christ and the Apostles. About ten percent of the New Testament is either a direct quote, paraphrase, or allusion to the Old Testament. Of the thirty nine Old Testament books, only nine are not directly referred to in the New Testament [9].

Jesus always treated the Old Testament as fact. He expounded upon historical information straight forwardly without implying veiled meanings. He also denounced the Pharisees for replacing the scriptures for their traditions. Neither did they accuse Jesus of using scripture incorrectly. When He seemed to do so it was because He was referring to Hebraic or Aramaic idioms that don't translate well.

The Apostles accepted the historical accuracy of the Bible. Sometimes, it appears that the apostles juggled scripture to suit their needs. There were several versions of scripture (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek) at that time, however, that would have different wordings that could cause such jugglings. As stated before, Paul also used allegory concerning Hagar and Mt. Sinai (Gal. 4:24), but this was the exception rather than the rule.

3. Patristic Exegesis

The first century church fathers (hence Patristic) used the allegorical method of interpretation in an effort to explain the Old Testament as a Christian document. While their desires were well intended, their abandonment of the author's intended meaning left no regulation of interpretation. Furthermore, in denying the historical promises to Israel, the church lost the understanding of the central role that Israel still plays in God's plan. Two thousands years later the re-establishing of Israel as a nation has restored the realization of God's plan.

Clement of Alexandria (150-215 AD;) believed that there were five levels of Biblical interpretation: 1) historical, 2) doctrinal, 3) prophetic, 4) philosophical, and 5) mystical. The last level he considered the most important. This level being from subjective personal feelings. The importance stems from the personal experience with Christ. The folly of this last level comes from both corrupt human reasonings and demonic suggestions. Illuminations that come from God will line up with supporting Scripture.

Origen (185-254 AD) believed that all the scriptures were one vast allegory and symbolic. He believed that just as a man has three parts, so too the scriptures; literal, moral, and allegorical. His teachings led many into heresy.

Augustine (354-430 AD) laid down the most practical rules for interpretation, but never followed them himself. The list of rules are provided in the table. In practice he believed there are four considerations of hermeneutics: 1) historical; 2) etiological, which is the science of causes or origins; 3) analogical, which is the comparison of similar (yet different in origin) matters; and 4) allegorical. Augustine's fourfold view became the dominant means of interpretation during the Middle Ages, which ignored his list of rules in favor of his practice. This plunged the church into darkness.

The Antiochians of Syria (350-428 AD) staunchly defended the historical-grammatical school of hermeneutics, which takes a literal view of biblical history as fact. They criticized the allegorists for creating doubt on the historical truth of the Old Testament. Their approach laid the groundwork for modern exegesis.

The Church Fathers after the apostolic era drew upon Greek and Jewish usage of allegory to interpret the Bible. One justifiable reason for doing so was to bring out the messianic elements in the Old Testament. But the Catholic Church [10] went beyond this reason, and used allegory to the extent that the Scriptures were no longer understood. The Catholic Church plunged the western world into the Dark Ages. Incidentally, when secular humanists think of the Dark Ages they think only of religious thinking before the "Enlightenment" of human reason. But a believer realizes that the Dark Ages were the time when the truth of Scripture became lost and the church was virtually a dead organization.

4. Medieval Exegesis

The fourfold method of Augustine became the basis of he Medieval system of Biblical interpretation. The Roman Catholic Church followed these four guidelines:

During this period it became accepted that scripture must comply with church tradition. Tradition was the source of dogmatic theology. There was one voice that argued for a literal emphasis in interpretation who was Nicolas of Lyra (1270-1340 AD). His view affected Martin Luther who spearheaded the Protestant Reformation.

5. Reformation Exegesis

Bogged in church dogma, resistance began to form. Many church leaders never read the Bible in its entirety. But a desire to know the Bible from the original language was made possible by Erasmus who wrote a critique of the Greek New Testament, and Reuchlin by translating a Hebrew grammar and lexicon.

Martin Luther (1483-1546 AD) believed that faith and the Spirit's illumination were necessary for interpretation. He rejected allegory and church authority stating that the church must submit to scriptural authority. Martin Luther brought Scriptural faith back to life with his cry, "Sola Scriptura!" (only the Scriptures). He believed the Bible wasn't so obscure and so difficult that only the church leaders could understand it. But, rather it was clear (the perspicuity of Scripture) in content. It was Luther who realized that both the Old and New Testaments point to Christ as their central theme. He also believed in a separation of the Law and the Gospel, or law and grace, as a necessary view of interpretation.

John Calvin (1509-1564 AD) found ready agreement with Luther. Calvin determined that scripture must interpret scripture. He also believed that it was the first duty of hermeneutics to state what the author intended to state.

6. Post-Reformation Exegesis (1550-1800 AD)

The Catholic Church reacted to the Protestant Reformation by issuing decrees. The Protestant did the same. Consequently, a period, dubbed Confessionalism, ensued where bitter hatred and argumentiveness tainted all interpretations. Doctrinal bias affects us today. Certain teachings can become "sacred cows" that blind clear interpretations.

In reaction to this animosity Philip Jakob Spener led a Pietist revival searching for good Christian faith and love to temper people's lives. At one point they followed a path of historical-grammatical hermeneutics [12], but slipped into mysticism in seeking an understanding by one's "inward light."

The Age of Reason flowered in the secular world, and Rationalism in Biblical interpretation developed, too. Luther made a distinction between ministerial reason, which is human reason trying to understand scripture, against magisterial reason, which is human reason judging scripture. Unfortunately, rationalism and empiricism (experience of the senses) caused many to believe that reason should guide us rather than revelation, and that reason should be the sole judge of revelation. The error in this thinking lies in the assumption that reason is unaffected by the Fall. The truth is, however, that reason is corrupted by the Fall in that it is only capable of seeing by the darkness and perversion of our sinful nature. Reason makes a useful servant, but an inept master.

7. Modern Hermeneutics (1800 to present)

Because of rationalism in philosophy, Liberalism, was birthed in church hermeneutics. In the past the divine authorship was emphasized, but now the human (hence fallible) authorship was emphasized. With human fallibility comes incomplete inspiration, which means the scriptures become unreliable. The liberal church redefined the term "inspiration" from meaning that God inspired the Scriptures, to meaning that the Bible had the ability to inspire the reader. This redefinition removed divine authorship by emphasizing the human authorship. The Bible was lowered to the level of Shakespeare: both are wonderful, but merely the work of men. Basic doctrines began to fall away: the virgin birth, the deity of Christ, and even the resurrection of Jesus.

Conservative evangelical interpretation by a historical-grammatical exegesis became solid in America during the civil war years and flourished in the post civil war years predominantly in the South. The reason for this was that both sides were looking for biblical justification for their views on slavery. Consequently, the South, which was defending slavery, took a more literal view because of the Old Testament practices [13]. Ironically, that literal view has preserved a fundamental faith in the Bible in the South and now makes up the "Bible Belt" of America today.

As we can see from this survey, those who held a literal interpretation of the Bible stayed close to the truth, whereas those who strayed into the allegorical or purely mystical interpretations had fallen into darkness, confusion, and heresy. Because of this, I have written this book from a literal interpretation of the Bible.

I have adopted some of the Augustinian rules of hermeneutics with these priorities:

The clarity and accuracy of biblical interpretation depends on the depth and commitment one has in knowing and obeying Christ. The closer one's walk is with the Lord, the better one knows his heartbeat. Paul said that the "letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life" (2 Cor. 3:6). Knowledge creates pride, and an intellectual study alone can miss God completely. Many cults have been born through word studies which extract teachings out of context to suit the purposes of the interpreter. As Solomon said, "Much study is a weariness of the flesh. Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man" (Ecc. 12:12b & 13). A disobedient interpreter of the Bible probably is an erroneous interpreter.

Finally, as a college professor has said, "Except for the fundamentals of the faith, all else is open for discussion." I accept that many will disagree with some of my conclusions. To them I give that liberty. These are not issues to divide our faith. I believe that a literal interpretation of biblical history is not at odds with the genuine facts of secular history, but dovetail together. Any conflict that arises is the error of secular humanists who deny God and disregard the accuracy of Scriptures.