Rules of Interpretation

[jgredline]

Ok Folks...I don't know if this thread will go any ware, but we will see....
Discuss...

Rules of Interpretation
by Charles Hodge

If every man has the right, and is bound to read the Scriptures, and to judge for himself what they teach, he must have certain rules to guide him in the exercise of this privilege and duty. These rules are not arbitrary. They are not imposed by human authority. They have no binding force which does not flow from their own intrinsic truth and propriety. They are few and simple.

1. The words of Scripture are to be taken in their plain historical sense. That is, they must be taken in the sense attached to them in the age and by the people to whom they were addressed. This only assumes that the sacred writers were honest, and meant to be understood.

2. If the Scriptures be what they claim to be, the word of God, they are the work of one mind, and that mind divine. From this it follows that Scripture cannot contradict Scripture. God cannot teach in one place anything which is inconsistent with what He teaches in another. Hence Scripture must explain Scripture. If a passage admits of different interpretations, that only can be the true one which agrees with what the Bible teaches elsewhere on the same subject. If the Scriptures teach that the Son is the same in substance and equal in power and glory with the Father, then when the Son says, "The Father is greater than I," the superiority must be understood in a manner consistent with this equality. It must refer either to subordination as to the mode of subsistence and operation, or it must be official. A king's son may say, "My father is greater than I," although personally his father's equal. This rule of interpretation is sometimes called the analogy of Scripture, and sometimes the analogy of faith. There is no material difference in the meaning of the two expressions.

3. The Scriptures are to be interpreted under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, which guidance is to be humbly and earnestly sought. The ground of this rule is twofold: First, the Spirit is promised as a guide and teacher. He was to come to lead the people of God into the knowledge of the truth. And secondly, the Scriptures teach, that "the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (1 Cor. ii. 14.) The unrenewed mind is naturally blind to spiritual truth. His heart is in opposition to the things of God. Congeniality of mind is necessary to the proper apprehension of divine things. As only those who have a moral nature can discern moral truth, so those only who are spiritually minded can truly receive the things of the Spirit.

The fact that all the true people of God in every age and in every part of the Church, in the exercise of their private judgment, in accordance with the simple rules above stated, agree as to the meaning of Scripture in all things necessary either in faith or practice, is a decisive proof of the perspicuity of the Bible, and of the safety of allowing the people the enjoyment of the divine right of private judgment.

 

[Fnerb]

2. If the Scriptures be what they claim to be, the word of God, they are the work of one mind, and that mind divine. From this it follows that Scripture cannot contradict Scripture. God cannot teach in one place anything which is inconsistent with what He teaches in another. Hence Scripture must explain Scripture. If a passage admits of different interpretations, that only can be the true one which agrees with what the Bible teaches elsewhere on the same subject. If the Scriptures teach that the Son is the same in substance and equal in power and glory with the Father, then when the Son says, "The Father is greater than I," the superiority must be understood in a manner consistent with this equality. It must refer either to subordination as to the mode of subsistence and operation, or it must be official. A king's son may say, "My father is greater than I," although personally his father's equal. This rule of interpretation is sometimes called the analogy of Scripture, and sometimes the analogy of faith. There is no material difference in the meaning of the two expressions.

The #1 hermeneutic when decifering the Bible is to let scripture interpret scripture.

 

[Drew]

The words of Scripture are to be taken in their plain historical sense. That is, they must be taken in the sense attached to them in the age and by the people to whom they were addressed. This only assumes that the sacred writers were honest, and meant to be understood.

I agree and I think this argument tends to support the view that the writers of Scripture never intended us to understand words like "spirit" and "soul" to represent conciousness-bearing entities that can survive the death of the body. This dualistic conception of man is a Greek concept, not a Hebrew one.

History has produced a situation where our culture is deeply influenced by Greek ideas, not Hebrew ones. So we naturally tend to look at Scripture through "Greek goggles". My research, limited though I admit it is, suggests that the Hebrew writers of Scripture did not use words like "spirit" and "soul" as we have interpreted them.

If we are going to "take the words of Scripture in the sense attached to them in the age and by the people to whom they were addressed", then we need to ask what the writers of Scripture, in their cultural context, actually intended to say about the nature of the human person.

And as far as I can determine, the historical record suggests that the Hebrews never held the dualistic "soul-body" distinction that we hold.

 

[jgredline]

Drew
Do you not consider what happened this side of the cross and the first century church history...Why do you suppose God choose to use Greek to pen his NT?

 

[Drew]

Drew
Do you not consider what happened this side of the cross and the first century church history...Why do you suppose God choose to use Greek to pen his NT?

The whole issue of what worldview the Hebrew writers really held is a complex one and, as I have stated, I am no expert on this. What limited research I have done - I have talked to a university professor and a minister with a strong interest in history - has indicated that we have attributed meanings to the concept of "soul" and "spirit" that were unknown to Hebrews. While the words "soul" and "spirit" obviously meant something to them, they did not mean what we think they meant. However, to competently argue about this would require a lot of work.

The fact that the NT is penned in the Greek language is not really evidence that the Hebrews held Greek concepts. A person raised in a Hebrew culture, and seeing the world through "Hebrew eyes", is not going to have that worldview altered significantly simply because he learns to write in Greek and elects to do so.

 

[cyberjosh]

The #1 hermeneutic when decifering the Bible is to let scripture interpret scripture.

This is true, but also ideal... It doesn't always work out so neatly when you run across a unique word, idea, or expression which isn't found anywhere else.

 

[cyberjosh]

Drew
Do you not consider what happened this side of the cross and the first century church history...Why do you suppose God choose to use Greek to pen his NT?

I'm not sure where you were intending to go with this but I just wanted to give my 2-cents. I believe (in accordance with early Church Father quotes) that Matthew was most likely originally written in Hebrew and copied into Greek. Above and beyond that (something I do not wholely subscribe to - but yet interestedly take notice of) is the strong arguements of those who read the Aramaic Peshitta for what is called "Aramaic Primacy" of the Scriptures. Just type in that title on google and you will see tons of results. I don't however, like I said, subscribe too much to all their ideas because they make even some obvious Greek originals (like Luke which is perfect Greek) as being Aramiac originally - which is entirely unconvincing.

However I do strongly believe that the Church Fathers were right that Matthew wrote his gospel in Hebrew. Just my 2-cents.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[jgredline]

The whole issue of what worldview the Hebrew writers really held is a complex one

See here is the thing drew. The bible is not meant to be complex, nor the understanding of it....Take the Gospel of John and his letters...They were written in third grade Greek...

 

[Drew]

The bible is not meant to be complex, nor the understanding of it....

I'll wager you a flagon of fine October ale that you will not be able to support your statement.

I grant you that the path to entering the kingdom is accessible to the mind of "a little child". But understanding the playing out of God's covenant with Abraham, leading to the future redemption of mankind and all creation - that is an entirely different matter.

I see God as akin to a master chess player - orchestrating a vast and sophisticated plan to redeem mankind and all creation. Understanding "what God is up to" has been notoriously difficult to figure out.

I think that the notion that the Bible is "easy to understand" is an expression of a wish that it be so, rather than a reflection of the reality of the matter.

 

[jgredline]

I'll wager you a flagon of fine October ale that you will not be able to support your statement.

I grant you that the path to entering the kingdom is accessible to the mind of "a little child". But understanding the playing out of God's covenant with Abraham, leading to the future redemption of mankind and all creation - that is an entirely different matter.

I see God as akin to a master chess player - orchestrating a vast and sophisticated plan to redeem mankind and all creation. Understanding "what God is up to" has been notoriously difficult to figure out.

I think that the notion that the Bible is "easy to understand" is an expression of a wish that it be so, rather than a reflection of the reality of the matter.

I am not denying that there are parts we simply do not understand...That is not my point....Peter even says that Paul's letters are difficult to understand....

 

[Vic C.]

1. The words of Scripture are to be taken in their plain historical sense. That is, they must be taken in the sense attached to them in the age and by the people to whom they were addressed. This only assumes that the sacred writers were honest, and meant to be understood.

I'd say this one is #1 for a good reason. It's the basis of Biblical Theology.

 

[Drew]

I'd say this one is #1 for a good reason. It's the basis of Biblical Theology.

I agree. But do you not think that this confers a responsibility on us all to become knowledgeable about Hebrew culture. And one almost nevers gets educated about these things in Church.

 

[Vic C.]

I agree. But do you not think that this confers a responsibility on us all to become knowledgeable about Hebrew culture. And one almost never gets educated about these things in Church.

To a degree. Head knowledge is nothing without the guidance of His Spirit.

Don't stop there though. Not only just Hebrew, but Hellenism, Greek and Roman history and cultures also. This may or may not have had an influence on the writers, but it must have had an effect on interpretation.

 

[cyberjosh]

See here is the thing drew. The bible is not meant to be complex, nor the understanding of it....Take the Gospel of John and his letters...They were written in third grade Greek...

For the most part I agree. Ofcourse there is place for study and maturing in our understanding of God's word, but that is exactly right. I do not like the poor excuse that people give that Hebrews was written largely to two different groups and that you have to "pick" which passages do and don't go to each party, thus creating a man made tapestry.

~Josh

 

[stranger]

Re: Biblical Theology

1. The words of Scripture are to be taken in their plain historical sense. That is, they must be taken in the sense attached to them in the age and by the people to whom they were addressed. This only assumes that the sacred writers were honest, and meant to be understood.

I'd say this one is #1 for a good reason. It's the basis of Biblical Theology.

Hi Vic,

Good point about Biblical theology. Though it seems Systematic theology has won the day - I have slowly moved away from systematic to biblical theology. The main reason for the shift is that the 'systems of theology' were pre invented - and simply did not address the life issues at a practical level. The theory side was great but I found that I was gravitating to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. So after many years I started again from the beginning. So now I work mainly from what caould be called 'first prinicples'.

 

[cyberjosh]

Stranger, I must quote from your post out-of-order for topical reasons:

The theory side was great but I found that I was gravitating to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Perhaps that is so in the way it is taught or implemented by some, but true Systematic Thology is taking the word of God as a unified whole, Tota Scriptura, and applying its principles to every day life. Man made implementations may make this an abstract construct but in reality it is supposed to be for personal and practical application and understanding of the Word of God and also for teaching and edification of others. God has bestowed on me the gift of teaching and Systematic Theology is an essential for me so that I may rightly divide and present the whole word of God.

The main reason for the shift is that the 'systems of theology' were pre invented - and simply did not address the life issues at a practical level.

Actually it does, for Paul used the Scriptures (the OT at the time) systematically in quotes to bring out themes and then thus applied it immediately and contextually in his Epistles. The author of Hebrews especially does this for Christ. Seeing unified themes and truths as dispersed througout Scripture and applying it is true Systematic Theology. And Jesus as the one perfect in the understanding of the Scriptures was the greatest Systematic Theologian ever. This is why he is called the teacher and Rabbi.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[stranger]

Stranger, I must quote from your post out-of-order for topical reasons:

The theory side was great but I found that I was gravitating to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Perhaps that is so in the way it is taught or implemented by some, but true Systematic Thology is taking the word of God as a unified whole, Tota Scriptura, and applying its principles to every day life. Man made implementations may make this an abstract construct but in reality it is supposed to be for personal and practical application and understanding of the Word of God and also for teaching and edification of others. God has bestowed on me the gift of teaching and Systematic Theology is an essential for me so that I may rightly divide and present the whole word of God.



God Bless,

~Josh

Hi Josh,

What you are saying of the biblical writers quoting OT scripture is what I would call biblical theology. If I may explain. In a work of systematic theology, such as Louis Berkhof's: Systematic Theology you will find in the contents exactly what I am referring to:

1. The existence of God
2. The Knowability of God
3. Relation of the being and Attributes of God
4. The Names of God
5. The Attributes of God in general
6. The Incommunicable attributes
7. The communicable attributes
8. The Holy Trinity.

Now I don't know if you are familar with the book I am using as an example - there are different approach's but what I am quoting is commonplace. What systematics does - is to use the scientific approach to analyse and define God. The end result is like reading an encyclopedia and in this I think the church has followed the world.

Actually it does, for Paul used the Scriptures (the OT at the time) systematically in quotes to bring out themes and then thus applied it immediately and contextually in his Epistles. The author of Hebrews especially does this for Christ. Seeing unified themes and truths as dispersed througout Scripture and applying it is true Systematic Theology. And Jesus as the one perfect in the understanding of the Scriptures was the greatest Systematic Theologian ever. This is why he is called the teacher and Rabbi.

Again what Paul does is not what I would call systematics. To take any example - his letter to the church at Rome - recognised as as best and most detailed exposition of his theology - is nothing like any systematic theology I have ever seen.

Berkhof's Systematic Theology . . .

Part One
The Doctrine of God

1, The existence of God
A. Place of the doctrine of God in Dogmatices

Works on dogmatic or systematic theology generally begin with the doctrine of God. The prevailing opinion has always recognised this as the most logical procedure and still points in the same direction. . . .

Paul letter to the Romans

Paul, a bond servant of Jesus Christ, called as an apsotle, set apart for the gospel of Christ which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the Holy scriptures, concerning His Son, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, who was declared with power to be the Son of God by the resurrection . . .

Do you not see the difference?

 

[cyberjosh]

Ok, perhaps I was right and what you know as "Systematic Theology" (since you said what I was describing was like no Systematic Theology you had ever seen) is the modern "scholars" construct (which is a little abstract). Here is how I have seen the definitions of Systematic Theology & Biblical, and it is the way in which I use them:

Biblical Theoology: Determining the theological and contextual meaning of a book of the Bible by considering only the book in question without appealing to any other book for clarification.

Systematic Theology: Determinining Theological themes obtained from Biblical Theology and unifying common principles by comparing passages from various books to obtain a more comprehensive doctrine on a topic or theme in the Bible as a whole.


So Biblical Theology, as I see it, is important to consider the book itself, see why it was written & under what circumstances. Then as you do this for several books you may then attempt to unify the individual themes seen in the individual books under a doctrinal Paradigm called Systematic Theology.

P.S. I know partly of what you are talking about of some Systematic theology books being very lofty, subjective, and non-practical, but I would advise that you buy and read Frank Thielman's Theology of the New Testament. It is excellent and Zondervan published it 2 years ago. You can get it at Books-a-million. You will see my review for the book there on Amazon. Read it to get a good synopsis of it. Also that's an outstanding price for it: $26.99, I bought mine for $40.00! It's easy to read, he is a conservative and he weaves the themes together like I've never seen before. It is so awesome! Even more exciting he teaches at the Divnity College at Sanford University here in Birmingham where I live. I hope to take some classes there and perhaps get him as my teacher! 8-)

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[cyberjosh]

The reason Frank Thielman is so good, in short, is because be considers each book first in Biblical Theology (also looking at any OT passages it may have quoted & their contexts), and then after each section (Gospels, Paul's Epistles, General Epistles) he has a Systematic Theology Summary. Then at the very end of the book he then unites all of the theology of the New Testament in a grand systematic view.

It truely is a great work, and carefully considered. Not boring in the least.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[stranger]

The reason Frank Thielman is so good, in short, is because be considers each book first in Biblical Theology (also looking at any OT passages it may have quoted & their contexts), and then after each section (Gospels, Paul's Epistles, General Epistles) he has a Systematic Theology Summary. Then at the very end of the book he then unites all of the theology of the New Testament in a grand systematic view.

It truely is a great work, and carefully considered. Not boring in the least.

God Bless,

~Josh

Josh,

Books about 'NT and OT theology' usually fall into the genre of biblical theology in varying degrees. In many instances 'by their title you shall know them.' The derivative source defines the outcome to a large extent - so it sounds like Thielman avoids a number of pitfalls. But I can say no more without seeing the book.