5 Basic Principles of Hermeneutics

[Copperhead]

Copperhead post #17:
“when Satan is released at the end of the 1000 year kingdom”

Question: How can this statement not assume a millennial position?

and

According to your interpretation of the parables of the leaven and the mustard seed (Matthew 13) your position on the kingdom of heaven is very pessimistic.

Providing information about three millennial positions and the corresponding view for the future of the Church generally held by each position was not intended as a test but clarification and not - "as to whether one is a true believer or not." Any judgment you might have felt is self imposed. I fellowship with missionaries and true believers from each of these millennial positions.

First, I never said I didn't hold a millennial position. I stated specifically I don't use a litmus test of pre, mid, post, tribulation, and like to think more in terms of Pan-tribulationalist... it will all "pan" out according to God's plan. Now Amillenial, that is something else. I do disagree with that position. I think that impugns God's character and calls Him a liar.

You would be correct on how I view it, I don't seen the 1000 year reign as perfection. How could it be? And if it is perfection, then why is it only lasting 1000 years and not forever? No, Messiah has to rule with a "rod of iron". Those nations that will not come to Jerusalem at the Feast of Tabernacles will have rain withheld from their land. There is death and sin still. Sacrifices are offered at the temple. There are cities of refuge established where one that is guilty of a capital crime (in ignorance) may flee. And there is enough evil still a part of mankind that Satan is able to muster almost all the people in the kingdom to rebellion against God.

Many Messianic Jewish believers that are very well steeped in OT prophetic teaching see it in a similar way that I do. And if you apply a sound expositional approach to idiom meanings of the birds and leaven as shown throughout the rest of scripture, it all fits.

The only way that could realistically be a possibility is if evil and sin had grown to permeate the entire kingdom. The birds in the mustard seed parable are the evil adversaries and the leaven in that parable is evil permeating thru the kingdom.

I see the kingdom as Messiah restoring the earth to a more perfected state. The curse on land and animals is lifted. There is no Satan running around to play his little games. But the heart of man still remains sinful. It will show that even when the conditions are such that there should be no reason to be influenced by sin, mankind will still be in rebellion in his heart towards God. There will be no excuse.

After all this is why then the earth will be destroyed and then a new heaven and new earth will be created that will go on indefinitely, Satan and the fallen angels with him and hell are thrown into the lake of fire for eternity, and only those that are redeemed and the angels that did not fall will be around forever with Messiah.

I think many fail to see all this because they equate the millennial reign with heaven just because Messiah is ruling. There is indeed a distinct section of land that is defined within Israel as the kingdom area where Messiah's throne is and He is literally ruling from, call it the "capitol" if you will, and it may indeed be sinless within that area. But the rest of the world decides to go it's own way eventually.

 

[the old scribe]

Copperhead’ your post # 17 is an excellent presentation of the dispensationalist interpretation of the Parable of the Mustard Seed and Parable of the Leaven.

The old scribe has a request of you and for my reply to your post# 17, you are offered a site which addresses the dispensationalist interpretation of theses two Parables – if you wish to listen the audios.

First, for my reply to your post – the answer is supplied by the offered site.
Background of this Bible teacher:
He was raised a Baptist dispensationalist and learned the details under Reverend Chuck Smith at Calvary Chapel with the original Costa Mesa congregation where he became a Charismatic. (Today, there are more than 1,500 Calvary Chapels which have their roots with Chuck Smith). Born about 1955, after high school he decided going to college was senseless since there was not enough time to go to college and preach the gospel before the rapture (1981) and Second Coming. Accordingly, he worked with a team of evangelist. Starting in his high school days he became a Bible teacher and continues today 50 years latter. He is no longer a dispensationalist, but having been a teacher of dispensationalism for a number of years he understands the view as well or better than most.

Interestingly, he has always taught the Bible for free. He believes it is not his right to charge people for being taught the Bible. In his early years of ministry he worked as an independent window washer to support himself. For fifty years he has been willing to come teach in your church or home just for room and board in parishioner’s house and airfare if flying is required – since he has no cash reserves of his own.

For 20 years or so he has organized and taught in a free Bible college in Oregon.
He produces several daily radio call-in talk program without sponsors. Numbers and stations are on the web site.

On his web site (thenarrowpath.com) there are about 1,200 audio Bible lessons – all free – you don’t even log-in.

He is the author of several books. His first was Revelation: Four View .- the first volume to ever offer such a tool, although there are now a couple of copycats.

URL
The Narrow Path | Home
Click on “Topical Lectures”
The Narrow Path | Topical Lectures - From “Choose a Category Below”
Click on “When Shall these Things Be – Eschatology?”
Select audio #14. “The Future of the Church – Part 2”
The URL is:
http://www.thenarrowpath.com/mp3s/esc/esc14.mp3

This is the reply to your post #17 if you desire to listen.
It is better and more interesting than anything the old scribe could produce.

Second, about the request. The old scribe understands your eagerness to be informative about your view of Bible interpretation. For the most part, we all think what we believe is correct and wish to share. Again, your post #17 is an excellent presentation of the dispensationalist interpretation of the Parable of the Mustard Seed and Parable of the Leaven. Dr. John Walvoord could not have done better – although that may not be a compliment in the old scribe’s opinion.

However, the hermeneutic of dispensationalist is as divisive to those trying to understand and learn the traditional Protestant hermeneutic as is the divisiveness between Reformed theology is with Armenian theology. Because of specific presuppositions the parties will never meet. So it is with dispensationalism and the traditional Protestant hermeneutic.

Among evangelicals there are likely more dispensationalist in the USA than those of the traditional Protestant hermeneutic. The old scribe is asking you to please post to the threads where participations will find your information helpful. Divisiveness often excludes those attempting to learn. The old scribe does not believe you are unaware of the divisiveness or of the differences.

This forum has had the foresight to provide under “General Theology” the threads for “Covenant Theology” and for “Dispensationalism.”

 

[the old scribe]

I would contend that the parable of the Leaven and the parable of the Mustard Seed show deteriorating conditions in the kingdom.

Leaven throughout scripture is viewed as a negative and idiomatic of corruption. Both old and new testaments. It was a serious thing to introduce leaven into any of the offerings at the temple. Only the offering of first fruits of the harvest was allowed to have leaven in it. Jesus warned his disciples several times to beware of the leaven of the pharisees. Paul made it a point in Corinthians and Galations that leaven was idiomatic of corruption and sin.

The parable of the leaven therefore should show that evil is entered into the kingdom and grows till it infects the entire thing. That would substantiate why, when Satan is released at the end of the 1000 year kingdom that he is able to muster a major rebellion against God one last time. Sin has permeated the kingdom.

Likewise the parable of the mustard seed shows the same thing. The birds were shown in the parable of the sower, as elaborated by Jesus to his disciples when they asked Him to explain it, that they are the evil adversaries. In the mustard seed example, the birds are nesting in the tree. This compliments the leaven parable that evil is in the kingdom.

That is why Jesus will rule with a rod of iron during the millennial kingdom. Sin will still be a problem.

That is what I meant by holding to a sound hermeneutic that not only takes the plain sense of the passage, but follows the pattern of expositional constancy, which calls for interpreting something in light of how it was meant in other passages. Leaven throughout scripture is always a negative. Birds, in general, have been idiomatic of evil emissaries throughout scripture as well. It follows that they should mean the same thing in these parables to glean the true meaning of them.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Topic is Principles of Biblical Interpretation or the Study of Biblical Hermeneutics

In this post a “principle” introduced by Copperhead is considered.

Copperhead posted, “The principle of expositional constancy. That the HS tends to use idioms with similar meaning throughout scripture.” (Copperhead post#13)

Copperhead uses the principle he understands as expositional constancy to explain two parables from Matthew 13. Using terms used and phrases by Copperhead the following is what the old scribe understands as his interpretation of the two parables.

The goal is to be certain that the old scribe and every reader understand the position of Copperhead, his post #17 will be quoted, distilled, and matched without comment to the quote by the Lord Jesus to show what Copperhead contends is “sound hermeneutic that not only takes the plain sense of the passage” (Copperhead in post #17)

“I would contend that the parable of the Leaven and the parable of the Mustard Seed show deteriorating conditions in the kingdom.” (Copperhead in post #17)

The Lord Jesus said, “The kingdom of heaven is like leaven,”
“should show that corruption, sin, and evil infecting the entire kingdom of heaven.”
(Copperhead in post #17)

The Lord Jesus said, “The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed,”
“Likewise the parable of the mustard seed shows the same thing. The birds were shown in the parable of the sower, as elaborated by Jesus to his disciples when they asked Him to explain it, that they are the evil adversaries. In the mustard seed example, the birds are nesting in the tree. This compliments the leaven parable that evil is in the kingdom.”
(Copperhead in post #17)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The old scribe summarizes Copperhead’s interpretation of the two parables:

In these two parables from Matthew 13 the Lord Jesus is predicting
the kingdom of heaven is to be entirely corrupt, full of sin, and evil.

The old scribe applies Copperhead’s interpretation:
Accordingly,
this kind of a kingdom of heaven ought to be avoided rather than praying “thy kingdom come.”

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bible References:

Matthew 13:31-33 NASB

The Mustard Seed
31 He presented another parable to them, saying,

“The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and sowed in his field; 32 and this is smaller than all other seeds, but when it is full grown, it is larger than the garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and nest in its branches.”

The Leaven
33 He spoke another parable to them,

“The kingdom of heaven is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three pecks of flour until it was all leavened.”
--------------------------
A reply to this method of this interpretation is offered at the URL in post# 22.

 

[Copperhead]

Copperhead post #17:
“when Satan is released at the end of the 1000 year kingdom”

Question: How can this statement not assume a millennial position?

and

According to your interpretation of the parables of the leaven and the mustard seed (Matthew 13) your position on the kingdom of heaven is very pessimistic.

Providing information about three millennial positions and the corresponding view for the future of the Church generally held by each position was not intended as a test but clarification and not - "as to whether one is a true believer or not." Any judgment you might have felt is self imposed. I fellowship with missionaries and true believers from each of these millennial positions.

Touche'. But it doesn't change the simple idea that Yeshua already described how Leaven and the Birds are viewed. To subscribe that they now are something beneficial is denying what Yeshua had already proclaimed as reality.

 

[Copperhead]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Topic is Principles of Biblical Interpretation or the Study of Biblical Hermeneutics

In this post a “principle” introduced by Copperhead is considered.

Copperhead posted, “The principle of expositional constancy. That the HS tends to use idioms with similar meaning throughout scripture.” (Copperhead post#13)

Copperhead uses the principle he understands as expositional constancy to explain two parables from Matthew 13. Using terms used and phrases by Copperhead the following is what the old scribe understands as his interpretation of the two parables.

The goal is to be certain that the old scribe and every reader understand the position of Copperhead, his post #17 will be quoted, distilled, and matched without comment to the quote by the Lord Jesus to show what Copperhead contends is “sound hermeneutic that not only takes the plain sense of the passage” (Copperhead in post #17)

“I would contend that the parable of the Leaven and the parable of the Mustard Seed show deteriorating conditions in the kingdom.” (Copperhead in post #17)

The Lord Jesus said, “The kingdom of heaven is like leaven,”
“should show that corruption, sin, and evil infecting the entire kingdom of heaven.”
(Copperhead in post #17)

The Lord Jesus said, “The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed,”
“Likewise the parable of the mustard seed shows the same thing. The birds were shown in the parable of the sower, as elaborated by Jesus to his disciples when they asked Him to explain it, that they are the evil adversaries. In the mustard seed example, the birds are nesting in the tree. This compliments the leaven parable that evil is in the kingdom.”
(Copperhead in post #17)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The old scribe summarizes Copperhead’s interpretation of the two parables:

In these two parables from Matthew 13 the Lord Jesus is predicting
the kingdom of heaven is to be entirely corrupt, full of sin, and evil.

The old scribe applies Copperhead’s interpretation:
Accordingly,
this kind of a kingdom of heaven ought to be avoided rather than praying “thy kingdom come.”

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bible References:

Matthew 13:31-33 NASB

The Mustard Seed
31 He presented another parable to them, saying,

“The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and sowed in his field; 32 and this is smaller than all other seeds, but when it is full grown, it is larger than the garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and nest in its branches.”

The Leaven
33 He spoke another parable to them,

“The kingdom of heaven is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three pecks of flour until it was all leavened.”
--------------------------
A reply to this method of this interpretation is offered at the URL in post# 22.

Well another principle I always adhere to is comparing any assertion one assumes is in the NT with supporting evidence from the OT. After all, the Bereans were commended for searching the scriptures daily to see if what Paul taught them could be supported. And all they had was the OT.

Zechariah 14:16-18 (NKJV) And it shall come to pass that everyone who is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall go up from year to year to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, and to keep the Feast of Tabernacles. 17 And it shall be that whichever of the families of the earth do not come up to Jerusalem to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, on them there will be no rain. 18 If the family of Egypt will not come up and enter in, they shall have no rain; they shall receive the plague with which the Lord strikes the nations who do not come up to keep the Feast of Tabernacles.

That sure sounds like there is rebellion occurring in the kingdom to me in the future.

Psalms 2 has a discussion going on between the Trinity. Specifically, compare Psalm 2:9 with Revelation 2:27 which is a direct quote of the former and is in the context of the future rule of the Messiah on earth after the statement in Revelation 2:26.

And Yeshua did contrast that His kingdom was not of this world. But it is clear in scripture that He will rule all the nations. So there has to be a clear distinction between the kingdom of the righteous and the Messiah ruling from David's throne upon the earth. One shouldn't confuse these kingdoms. Compare with Psalm 110.

 

[ubicaritas]

Principle 1 - The Literal Principle
You interpret the Scripture according to normal language, real people, real history, normal language.

If somebody comes up to you and says, “It’s certainly a beautiful day today.” You say, “Oh, what’s the secret meaning of that?” There’s no secret meaning, it’s just a beautiful day, I thought I’d say that.

This ignores meta-communication and pragmatics, the communication behind the communication . It is a real thing, in many cases even more significant than the syntax of speech. So if this is important in our speech, why would the Bible be any different?

There are no allegories in the Bible.

Allegories are similar to parables, both can use symbolism to convey a spiritual or abstract truth. It is common among scholars and theologians to understand Jesus' parables allegorically.

 

[Copperhead]

This ignores meta-communication and pragmatics, the communication behind the communication . It is a real thing, in many cases even more significant than the syntax of speech. So if this is important in our speech, why would the Bible be any different?



Allegories are similar to parables, both can use symbolism to convey a spiritual or abstract truth. It is common among scholars and theologians to understand Jesus' parables allegorically.

I would generally agree with that. Where it becomes a problem is when allegory is applied to a section of text where there is no real justification to do so. The HS uses allegories, puns, metaphors, etc in scripture. I haven't delved into all the detailed grammatical constructs, but those that have claim there are over 200 rhetorical devices used in scripture. But when the plain sense of scripture makes sense, then there is no justification to seek another sense, as some do.

 

[ubicaritas]

But the plain sense doesn't always make sense, not to everyone. For instance its obvious to many people that Jonah and Job are fables or parables meant to teach spiritual lessons. In the case of Job we even have similar stories from ancient near-eastern literature. The facticity of the accounts is less important than why the redactors chose to include these books in their biblical canons. Their presence indicates an anxiety within second-temple Judaism concerning justice and suffering, and heightened ethical concerns that extend beyond ones tribe.

 

[Copperhead]

Of course, the plain sense doesn't always make sense to everyone. Many folks couldn't figure their way our of a 55 gallon drum either. But because they have poor reading comprehension, that is no license to allegorically interpret a scripture text being looked at.

Well, Yeshua Himself validated the Jonah account. So I guess that would validate its inclusion into the cannon.

 

[ubicaritas]

Of course, the plain sense doesn't always make sense to everyone. Many folks couldn't figure their way our of a 55 gallon drum either. But because they have poor reading comprehension, that is no license to allegorically interpret a scripture text being looked at.

Well, Yeshua Himself validated the Jonah account. So I guess that would validate its inclusion into the cannon.

But that doesn't help us to really understand its place and significance in the biblical canon.

I would argue Jesus was making a cultural allusion referring to Jonah, and was not interested in the facticity of the account so much as the allegorical meaning. It's a mistake to go from Jesus using the story as an allegory, to assuming that the Jonah account is merely about a large fish or whale swallowing a man. It's a story about second-temple Judaism's emerging ethical universalism, but the Gospel authors use it as an allegory for Jesus death. On its literal surface, on the other hand, there are many differences as Jonah is a reluctant prophet whereas the Gospels portray Jesus as committed to his mission.

 

[Copperhead]

Not really sure Yeshua was using the story of Jonah as an allegory, but as prophetic example. Prophecy is pattern as much as it is prediction. Knowing Jewish scriptural methodology as you have alluded to, that should be obvious.

Matthew 12:39-41 (NKJV) But He answered and said to them, “An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. 40 For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. 41 The men of Nineveh will rise up in the judgment with this generation and condemn it, because they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and indeed a greater than Jonah is here.

And there are many aspects of this passage that show Yeshua didn't take the story of Jonah as an allegory, but literally. Especially so with His statement in V41. For men of Ninevah to rise up in judgement, there has to be men of Ninevah to rise up. For them to have repented because of Jonah's preaching, there had to again be men to repent and a Jonah to preach to them.

One can listen to what others tell them about such things, or follow the imagining of one's own mind, but I would consider the Messiah's own words on the subject as authoritative and accurate. Unlike commentators that have come later, Yeshua was around and actually saw the events of Jonah transpire, and could make eye witness testimony of the fact and confirm it to those He was talking to in Matthew. Sometimes we can save ourselves hours of research if we just listen to what Yeshua had to say on something. If one doesn't believe what Yeshua said, he has bigger problems than if the passage is allegory.

 

[the old scribe]

Well another principle I always adhere to is comparing any assertion one assumes is in the NT with supporting evidence from the OT. After all, the Bereans were commended for searching the scriptures daily to see if what Paul taught them could be supported. And all they had was the OT.

Zechariah 14:16-18 (NKJV) And it shall come to pass that everyone who is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall go up from year to year to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, and to keep the Feast of Tabernacles. 17 And it shall be that whichever of the families of the earth do not come up to Jerusalem to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, on them there will be no rain. 18 If the family of Egypt will not come up and enter in, they shall have no rain; they shall receive the plague with which the Lord strikes the nations who do not come up to keep the Feast of Tabernacles.

That sure sounds like there is rebellion occurring in the kingdom to me in the future.

Psalms 2 has a discussion going on between the Trinity. Specifically, compare Psalm 2:9 with Revelation 2:27 which is a direct quote of the former and is in the context of the future rule of the Messiah on earth after the statement in Revelation 2:26.

And Yeshua did contrast that His kingdom was not of this world. But it is clear in scripture that He will rule all the nations. So there has to be a clear distinction between the kingdom of the righteous and the Messiah ruling from David's throne upon the earth. One shouldn't confuse these kingdoms. Compare with Psalm 110.

--------------------

Copperhead post #25 is another exclusively dispensationalist rule of their hermeneutics - The New Testament is interpreted by the Old Testament. As practiced by dispensationalist this makes the Old Testament divine revelation superior to the New Testament divine revelation through the Lord Jesus.

The New Testament is interpreted in light of the Old Testament
instead of the Old Testament being interpreted by the New Testament.

Copperhead, you did not accept my invitation to post your dispensationalist hermeneutics on the topic for dispensationalism under general theology and leave traditional hermeneutics to the traditional Protestants – post #22.

Please post elsewhere so a fruitful discussion may occur about traditional Protestant hermeneutics.

 

[Copperhead]

You sure like throwing around dispensationalist, don't you?

I see by your belittling my assertion that the OT should be used to support any idea that one derives from the NT, that you do not hold them in the same regard. Seems strange since they were written by the same person, and that same person commended the Bereans for searching the OT daily to see if what Paul taught them was true.

If that makes me a dispensationalist, I am more than welcome of the title. I in no way feel insulted by your comment. But is also must mean that the HS is a dispensationalist also. After all, He wrote the text of both OT and NT. Man, that is good company!

 

[Ron Gurley]

Between The Times - Engaging Exposition (5): 10 Basic Principles of Hermeneutics

oops...here are TEN !

 

[the old scribe]

Between The Times - Engaging Exposition (5): 10 Basic Principles of Hermeneutics

oops...here are TEN !

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

“Between the Times” is a blog for the faculty of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary which is a Southern Baptist institution. There is no criticism intended here , but just so readers are aware of the source.

While this link is helpful, the referenced posts are sparse in providing the rules of interpretation. What it does provide is a five step philosophy for protestant, evangelic hermeneutics plus ten guides for exposition or preaching.

It is doubtful that any evangelical would take issue with this philosophy for protestant, evangelic hermeneutics. However, there are not any specific guides or rules. Therefore, all sorts of non-biblical interpretations might be made by the interpreter while claiming to follow this philosophy for protestant, evangelic hermeneutics. This may be observation in individuals, in denominations, in doctrinal positions, and in previous posts to this topic.

There are specific rules of hermeneutics against which violations may be measured. It is impossible to be specific about a violation just by acknowledging the philosophy. Under this topic, post#9 is an example:

The interpretation of parables - Parables make only one point - all the supporting details of a parable should not be taken literally or used to interpret other passages. Metaphors and analogies have the same rule for interpretation.

Applying this rule provides the common understanding for the three parables of Mathew 25. Each provides the same revelation about the parousia. This is why the Apostle Matthew included them in the Olivet Discourse which concerns the parousia.

The following will be posted under: Christian History: Who was the Apostle Matthew?

The Apostle Matthew was an astute theologian as evidenced by structuring his gospel around five topics (discourses). The Apostle Matthew witnessed the life of the Lord Jesus as a chronology but recorded it topically using the chronology as both a frame work and to provide necessary information as part of the transitions. In the light of the writings of the prophet Daniel and the messianic expectations of the first century, believers ought to contemplate why was Levi collecting taxes for Rome? Who was this Jew who recorded the Gospel according to Matthew?

 

[mark kennedy]

Principle 1 - The Literal Principle
You interpret the Scripture according to normal language, real people, real history, normal language.

Foundational to Scripture is redemptive history, of course that has to be literal. The first five books of both testaments are historical narrative, what sense would it make if the exodus or the resurrection were anything other then literal? You can allegorize, people do it with Song of Solomon all the time, comparing the relationship to God and Israel or Christ and the church. That doesn't mean there isn't a literal history here.

Principle 2 - The Historical Principle
The historical context is everything…culture, geography, politics, religion, the thinking of the people, the perspectives, the world view, what’s going on at the time, how the people think…all of that is informing you on the historical context.

I can't tell you how much I've learned just by learning the details of the geographic or cultural context. The churches in Asia Minor addressed in Revelations are along the Roman road that goes in a big circle starting and ending in Ephesus. Paul drops off Priscilla and Aquila and Apollos on his way to Jerusalem. When he gets back they not only had been ministering to seed churches along the Roman road. Ephesus was the New York of the Mediterranean world at the time, a thriving hub of commercial trade due to the harbor there. Priscilla and Aquila were tent makers and if your a vendor buying things in bulk and selling them around Asia Minor you'll need a tent right?

I could go on and on, the more you know about the cultural context, the richer the meaning.

Principle 3 - The Grammatical Principle
This is to take a look at the language and the syntax and lexicography of a passage…the words, the way they’re arranged, the prepositions, the pronouns, the antecedents.

A highly underrated approach and easier these days then you might realize.