A(lMPOSI811H E ~ b * c sEditedbyGordon~ e@Copyright. 1974, by theGeneral Conference of Seventh-dayAdventtsteDedicate.d to11 altel' 8. ReadPrinted byThe Reviewand Herald Publt.hiogAssociationWashingtoo. D.C.Chairaan, Btb1ical RegearchCommdttee1952- 1958EDITORI SPREFACEThrouahout their short history Seventh-dayAdventists havethou&ht of themselves aa peopleof the Book--people of the Blble.Theyhave accepted its authorityin the traditionof theProtes-tant Refonnatioo, whiebsroseon the..nage of the"Bible ooly"priDciple--that Scriptureis tobe interpreted by itself ratberthanby externa1 traditions or philoBopbies.The aenerslof the Seveoth-dayAdventist Churchmay heve beenooly dtmly aware of the ehallenges tothis principletbat heve come fromvartous forms of blbllcsl criticlsm.generations of the Church, however, intheir quest for advancededucation bad inereasingexposure to thepresuppositions andmethodologies tbat bave challenged theProtestant prlnciple. Thlsfact has led the BibIieal ResearchCommittee of theGeneral Con-ference of Seveoth-dayAdventists inrecent years toconcentrateitswork1n the areas of (1) revelation-lnsplration--the groundof theBible's authority, and (2) biblical hermeneutics--the pr in-ciples by which toderive the intendedmeaning.Some tvo yesrs aga theNorthAmericanDivisionof theGeneralConferencedecided tocall aseries of BibleConferenees in1974for the becefit of thepastoral, evangelistic, and Bible-teaehingmiofstries inparticular. The Biblical ResearchCommittee anditsofficerswere drawn iotothe planoingof these conferences.They sU8sested that tbe agenda of tbe BibleConferences be builtaround the revelation-inspiratioDand bermeneutical l$sue$.It was about that same time that theBlbliesl ResearchCom-mit tee had a Ber1es of papers inprogress dealingwithbiblicalhermeneutics, and it was decided that thesebe drawn into aposiumto be prlntedprior to the BibleConferences as resourcematerial prepared tomeet the partieular needs of themlnistry.ASympoeiwrl onBibUcat Hermeneutws presents the God-to-mandownreach of tbe, processes of revelationand inspirationas thefoundation of theBible's authority. It proceeds then to tracethehistoryof theprinciples bywhich the Biblehas been inter-preted during theChristianera. It includes a survey of thesourees, courses. sudeffects of the presuppositions and method-010g1es of modernbiblleal eriticism. especiallyin their impacton theauthority of the Bible.For the gu1dellnes provided, considerstion 18glven to theways inwhich insptredwriters use and interpret earlier inspiredwrltings. TheSymposiumthenmoves to a reviewof the principlesby which the Seveoth-dayAdventist Church (following largely inivtheReformationtradition) interprets theBihle. The presentatlonof general principles undergirds considerationof sucheategoriesof biblical literaturea. prophetie, typological, symbolic, apoca-lyptic. eschatologieal, poetic, wisdom, andhistorical.Theehapters of thissymposiumareessentiallyaseries ofessays. viththe 11Ditations of spaee, a miniwl. of quotedmateri-als, and thegeneral absenceof footootiogandfull dOCU3entation.Fot the guidance of theminister-reader particularly, an introduc-toryannotated readinglist representingvsrious points of viewis providedat the end of most of the chapters. Although theindividualityof the several contributors is evident, there isanessential consensus on aecepted presuppositions and prlnciplesthst gives a un1ty of perspective to theSymp08ium. Thls consen-sus reflects to a eonstderabledegree the work of the Bibl1c&!ResearchCommittee.Tbe chapter on theapplicationof hermeneut!e principles totheworkof preaehing1s iodieativeof the hope of all of the eon-tributors tothisSymposiumthat tbe.tnisters and Bib1e teschersof the Seventh-dayAdventist Church, as a result of their studyof thisvoluae, will be evenmore confident of the author1tyofthe Bibie. of the integrityof the1r blblieal exposition, and ofthe urgency of their divine mandate to"preachthe ward. tlThe ateadyerosionof confidence in the authority of theBlbleas Godts revelation tomanmay glveuoique significaoce tothe fol10wing predictionthat was made earlyinSeventh-dayAdventist history:(But) God will bave a people upon the earthtomaintain tbe Bible, aud the Blble on1y, as the stand-ardof all doctrines and thebasis of all reforas.--EllenG. Wbite, The Great Controversy, p. 595.--GordonM. UydeSecretaryof the Bib1.iool R8S8a:t'ch CO'11J1ri.ttee anda fieZdsecreta:1>y 01 the General ConferenceofSeventh-dayAdvent-iete sinDB 1969# [)Po Gordon M. Hyde's education, pastoral andtetwhingminietri98 have beendiTJidedbeWeenEngtandand th9UnitfJdstates. H9 reoeivedthe Ph.D. degree fromMiehiganStauUniversity in 2963andliJ7'OU 12 easestudyappJ"OaChtcth6 Washiflg-tonprlUIJ'hing of PeterNarshaU- [orhiadissertation.vACKNOWLEDGHENTSInaddition co his appreeiacionof the work of the individualeoncribucoTs to this Sympo8iumJtheeditor wishes to acknowledgespecific iodebtedneS9 co the followiDg persons and organlzstlons:Andrews and Lama LindaUniversities. for accommodaeionofeom.itteemeetings.Reviewand Herald PublishingAssociatlon. for unprecedentedcooperation inmeetingprintingdeadlines wirhutmost economy.General Cooference of Seventh-dayAdventists. for appropria-tions in support of the project.Biblical ResearchCommitteeof the General Conferenee, whichhas vetted this project wirh enthusiasmsnd candor.E. Edward Zinke. metlculous and unfla88ingalter e80, critic,and collaborator in the BlbIicsl Researchoffice.~ 1 1 1 1 8 J. Hackett. 8Diable and dlscerningvice-presirlent ofthe General Conference. wbo hes aerved with genuine interest a9chairmanof the Biblical ResearchCc.mittee.Norval P. Pease. for his Invaluableaidinspeeding theeditorial process. particularlyfor the West Coast contrlbutions.Authors and publishers. who by accepting the traditionofpermitting their werks to be referred to end commented upon.serve the goals of shared knowledge and viewpoint.Typists, copyeditor, and proofreaders, who worked with agense of involvement to prepare photo-ready copybefore ehe print-ingdeadlinedate.viOTNTJBLXXMtNABNASBNEBRSVAACTDABdB.FEGeMHPKppTMABBREVlATIONSOldtestamentNevTestament.Jel"U8a1.emBibl.The SeptuagintMaso7'etiaTextNewAmeriaanBibteN6'WAmeri-aanStandaPdBibZeNewEng'Ush Bib1.6RMsedStandard Ve7'sionThe Acta oftheApoatlesCOU1t8e1.B toParents.t TeachersJ andstudentsThe Deaire0/AgeaEdllootionEtJangeUsmPwuiamentaZs of t:nristianEducationThe G1'6at Controvel"syThs MinianoyofBeaUngPropheta andKingsPatI'rrchs andP.t'ophetsTsstimonies toMinisters a:ndGospel WOl"krsvii-.IV. PRlNClPLES OP BlBLlCAL INTERPRETATION1.C 0 N T E N T S1. U"TRODUCTIONTa HERHENEUTICSRevelation. and Hel pDeuticsRaoul. Dedtomt------- 110. General Pr1nciples of InterpretationGerhardF. Hasel- - - - - - - - - 163--------2.3.Ir. HISTORYCF BIBLlCAL INTERPRETATIONJewlshInterpretationintheApostolic AgeSi6gfnedB. BornInterpretationof the8iblein theEarlyend Medieval Church.KennethA. Stl'lUu2tmdWalter B. Douglas-------172911. Interpretationof History."'isdom. and Poetry - - - - - - - - - - - - 195Bor.tn'dE. Se ton.12. Interpretationof Symbols. Types,Allegoriea, and Parablee - - - - - - - - - - - - - 209W. G. C.13. Interpretationofand Prophecy - - - - - - - - - - - - 225Hans K. LaRondsHe4.Principles and Blblical AutborityinReforcation and PostreformationEras - - -V. No1'skot.JOuen- - - -47v. th'"TERPRETATIONINPROCLAMATION5. PostreformationCritlesl Biblical StudiesE. EdLxzrd Zinke-------6714. PreachiogaDd Biblical Interpretation- - - - - - - - -NCMJ4l F. Peaae2516.7.ModernProtestant ConservativeBiblicalStud1es in Amerlca - - -XennethA. Blbites! InterpretationIn theAdvent MovementDonF. NeufeUIII. INSPIREDYRITERSI INTERPRETATIONOF INSPIREDWRITINGS--------89109APPENDIXTools of iblical Interpretation -Sakae Kubo aridLeona G. Running---------- 2658. NewTestament Uses and Interpretationof theOldTestament _F'Pank B. BoZbrook---------1279. Ellen G. White'g Evaluationand Uuof ehe B1ble _RaymondP.viii--------143ix '.' ,,'., ,ilitha bac1 war or a change in thesun'sradiationpatterns. Yet the essential messageof the eschatologi-eal "lDyths" 16 not unrelated tOc.onte-poraryIlan' 5 existence, foreveryman 18 destined todie. There i.s urgency, then; inmakingdecisioDS about oDe's own personal existence inthat everymomentcontalns thepossibilityof heing the eschatological moment.Bul.tmannconsiders the "myth" of Creationnot as a fancifulaccount of theworld's orlginbut aa a descriptionof tbe crea-turelydependent stateof man.Bultmann, inbis approach tOtheBibIe, has brought togethetsystematicallyand apologeticallymany of the more important recenttrends intheological and philoaophical thought. Not ooly doesBultmann bave roots in19thcenturyliberalismbut also indialec-tiesl theology. He hag cspitalized 00 the formcr1tlcsl methodand 20thcenturyexistentialist thought, whileremalning aware ofcontemporaryphilosophies of his tory. Not onIydid he cambinethese theological interests but alsohe had themodern eommuniea-tiveintetest of attempting to speak to contemporary seeularizedwhose livingand thinkinghas beenconditioned by modernscienee.The hermeneutical approachof Bulomann recognizes one aspectof the biblical picture. snd that i8maninhis relationGod;howevet. It denies God's tranecendence as weil &8 Hi8 abilityto.act inthe events of history. Stailarly, thebiblical message. 1tsbould benoted. not onlyspeaks about man inbis relation toGodbut a180 about God apart frODman, and about God's divineacts inhistory. (The concept that thebiblical record of God's aetivitiesinhistory--as for example in theResurrectionof Christ--must betaken seriouslyhas recentlybeenchampioned by W. Pannenbetg.)Hany scholars of theultmann8chool. a8well BSothers. bavestressedehat Bultmann's approachleads to a serious reductionoftheChristisnmessage to a subjectivelycontrolledbareminimum.In recent years there has beenreemphasis inboth OT and NTstudies onbiblical theology. Critical methods have a tendencytodeal onlywithparts of Scriptureor evenwith certainphasesof a specificScripture, suchaa thelinguisticphase or thehis-torical phase. Ihus eritical methodologies themselves do notdeal withwhat might be considered the essenceof theblbllca1material. Biblical theology, on theother hand, ia an attempt tounderstand thebiblica1messageas a whole. It haa the potentialof studying thebiblical message froe the standpoint of the Bibleitself rather than fromthat of some external philosophical model.Thus it canmove inthedirectionof a.ereeonstructive anduse-ful spproach to the understandingof tbe.essage of theBible. Theusefulness of this approach inthefuture, however. viII depeod onthewillingne.ss tolayaslde those presupposltlons that make the84 ASymposiumonBiblical Hermeneutics PostreformationCritieal Biblical Studies 85Bibleonlya human book aud toaccept theBible's self-understanding.namely, that it 18 also theWard of God.Implicatious of Biblical Criticismfor Adventist Biblical StudiesThe more careful approachto thestudyof the Bible inthiscenturyshould not be takenas anuncritical return toProtestantorthodoxy or toeoncepts of revelationheld by theReformers.Althoughliberal eritieal studies have reexamined many former posi-tions due tothe availabilityof newinformation andthe appliea-tionof newmethodologies, theyhave not abandoned the originalpresuppositions of liberalism. Critical biblical studies are notingeneral moving in thedirectionof recognizing the Bible as theWord of God tomankind aud thus theydo not give the impressionofmoving in the directionof attempting tobringabout a fullerunderstanding aud acquaintancewith the God of the universe.Moderncritieal studies explain the content and formofbiblicalmaterial on thebasis of thenatural outworkingof theforees of history, soeiology, anthropology, psychology, politics,aud the laws of literature as seen through the eyes of naturalistieaud evolutionistic philosophies rather thanas the outworkingofGod's efforts tospeakobjectively tomankind. The Bible isseenas a resultant of these forces among andwithinnations andsocieties rather than as thereeordof theactivityof God inhis-tory and the giving of an inspiredmessage. It is an individualor a community speaking toitself rather thanGod speaking to thatindividual or community. It is domina ted by a studyof thereli-gion, eulture, and historyof a people rather thana studyof God'splaninhis torytoreconeilemankind toHimself. It is the studyof pieees of Hebrewand earlyChristianliteraturerather than aunified bodyof revelation.Rylaarsdam, writingwithinthe general framework of biblicaleriticism, affirms that thebasic presuppositionof moderncriti-cismis that the Biblehas developedhistorieallyaccording to thesame laws of history that have governed the development of otherancient national traditions.This, he insists, 18what makes theeriticism"modern." Ithad tomake itswaycautiouslyagainst the long-standing"tradi-tions of dogma and confessional authority" that sawthe languageof Scriptureas thevehiele of the divine absolute. This moderneriticism, by contrast, sawthe contents of theBibless condi-tionedby the same human lfmitations and situationas modifiedaoy other kinds of historical tradition. (See L i t e ~ Criticism,pp. viii sud Ix.)*The presuppositions of modernbiblical studies, then, areradical1ydifferent framthoseoutlined in thefirst chapter ofthis symposium. Tbe Bible. havingbeen reduced to thelevel ofa mere human book, 18 00 langer the normative, authoritativeWardof Garl recordingHis will aud purpose for mankind. God's transcen-deuce audHis acts inhis toryare denied or radicallytransformedon the assumption that these eoneepts confliet with the mood ofmodernman and his evolutionisticseientifie outlook. The Biblethus contains man's reflections about God rather thanGod'smessage toman.Due tospace limitations it has not beentheintentionofthis chapter todeal witheverymajor trendor development inthehistoryof eritieal biblical studies. It has beenour purposeprimarilyto trace some of these developmentBinorder to showthe basis onwhich theseeritical studies are founded inorder,again. that their value ineonservativebiblieal studies might beseen.Althoughdeclaringso plainlythat theunderlying presupposi-tions of biblical eritieismare contrary to those onwhieh themessage of the Seventh-dayAdventist Churchis founded, this writerrecognizes tbat certainaspects of modernbiblical studies havedone much toestablish an accuratetext of the Bible and to sharpenour understandingof the language of theBible. They have greatlyilluminated the background and climate inwhich God revealed Him-self to His people. They have alsoat times provided newdimen-sions for interpreting thebiblical message. Althoughliberalcriticismhas contributedinits own way toanunderstanding oftheBible. the questionmust be raised as towhetber the presuppo-sitions canbe separated fromthemethod without destroying thelatter. This issuemust likewisebe considered whether one isformulating or applying a validmethodology in the studyof Scrip-ture. It is undeniable that thedevelopments outlinedabove depre-ciatedtheauthorityand funetionof the Bible inChristianity.Over against theseeffects. thebindingfunetion and authoritativenatureof the Biblemust bereasserted, for the Bibleis, afterall. the Word of God. the normby whiehis revealed toman God'seharacter and will aud His planfor reconcilingman to Himself.*Grateful acknowledgment is made toFortress Press for permis-siontoquote fromLiterwoy CI'itiaismofthe OldTestament byNor-man Habei, editedbyJ. Coert Rylaarsdam. 1971.86 ASymposiumonBiblical Hermeneut1csPostreformationCritical Blbliesl Studies87READINGLISTButtrick. GeorgeArthur. ed. The Interpreter's l>ietic:mary ofthDBibl8. 4 vola. NewYork: Abingdon Press, 1962.Cootalns belpful articles surveying the thlnkingofthose involved incritical studies innaoy topfe areas.Neill. Stephen. The Interpretationofthe NBIJ Testament 1861-19S1. A Galaxy Book. NewYork: Oxford UniversityPress,1966.A of methodologies employed for the studyof theNT BasicIS8Uee intheWm. B. Eerdaans Pub.The NewBibLeCormte'1taJ"y:wm. B. Eerdaans Pub. Co.,Barrison, Roland Kenneth. Introductionto theOUTestament.GrandRapide, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co 1971.The introductlonand rnethod of studyof theor 18considered iodetail by a conservativescholar.Hahn, Herbert P. The OldTesta:rumt inModrnReaem-ch. Phila-delphia: Fortress Press, 1966.A surveyi8givenof the developmeDt ofcrltlcal 8ndother approaches to the studyof the OT.Hieho!. Frands D ed. J TJwSeventh-day Adventist Bible Ccmmerl.tary. 1 vola. Washington. D.e.: ReviewandHerald Pub.ABsoc 1953-1957.This commentary contains helpful surveys and cTitiquesof crftieal blblical studies.Richardson. Alao, cd. ADictianmoyofChriBtianTheoZogy. Phila-delphia: Westmlnster Press, 1969.This volume 19 usefu1as a survey tool for biblieslstudies inareas where theologyhas implic8tlons for blbl1-cal her-eneutics.Rylaarsdam, J. Cout or Via, Dan 0 . Jr eds. Guides toBibZicatSchotarship. Philadelphia: Fortres8 Press, 1969-1972.Thtsseries. IndudlngUterary Criticism ofthe OZdTS8tammt, FormCritiaismo{the OtdTraditionHiatory0/the OUTes'taM1nt, Uiterary Cri-ticiBm ofthe NewTestament, What Is PonnCriticism? end 1Ihat Is RedactionCriticism? surveys thedisdplines of bibUcal critldsmfrauwithinehe disciplines Young, EdwardJ. AnIntroduation tothe DUTestament. GrandR.a.pids, Mich.: W'm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co.. 1970.A conservativediscussion of introductionto and methodsinthe studyof the OT.mate-recentGutbrie, D. and Motyer, J. A. eds.Revieed. Grand Rapide. Kleh.:1970.This one-volume com.entary contains introductoryrials that glve a survey and conservative critiqueofstudies.Hasel, Gerhard F. OtdTestament Theology:Current Debate. Grand Rapids, Hieb.:Co 1972.Presents a discussionof methodology in OT theologywithpropossls for a conservative approach.__-.",.-' NeJ:t1 Testament Introduction. 3vola. Chicago: Inter-VarsityPrees, 1966.Thesevolunes. The GoBpe LandActa, Hebrmus toReve Za-tion, andThe PauLineEpistLes deal with the questlons ofintroductionand methodologyfor the froma conservativev1evpolnt.Hyact, J. Phllip. ed. The BibleinModern N8Sh-ville: AbingdonPress, 1965.Contalns a symposiumof papers on trends inbiblicalscholarshipwhichwere presentedat the 100thmeetingof theSoe1ety of Bib11cal Literature.Ladd, George Eldon.Rapid,. Mich.:An attemptpr'esuppositlons NeINTe8tament andCri tici8m. GrandWM. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1967.torestructure in terms of eODservat1vecurrent methods inbibllcal study.6. ModernProtestant eouenativeBibl1cal Studles inAmericaKENNETHA. STRANDSDATheol.ogical s-i""'1lAndN:weUnivereityReceiiJinghis early educationinhishome Stateofanti withanumbel' 01yearsof Ministmal asJP'.JiceintheMichigan ConfBrence. ofSeventh-dayDto. XennethA. Strandisp'l'Ofessol" ofc'Jr.zaoch historyat theSeventh-dayAdventist TheoZogicat Semi-nary andhaBtaught theneine, 1969.His ooatol"ateinahUl"Ch hi8tOl"YwaeCllIXU'dedby theUniversityo! MiaIJigan.His dissel"tationwas entitl-ed: "A Low-Ge.ztman Editionof the Gospels andBookof ActaBaeedonHieronymus Emee,.' 8VersionandPublishedby the B'rethPenof the CorrrnonLifeat RostockAbout1530.nAt tbe bcglnning of the twentiethcenturyProtestant cooserva-tiveBible 5cbolarshipinAmeriea was generallyheld inhigh esteem.but berween the ewovorld warBit neglected to keep pacevithlib-eral scholarsblp 1nproducing carefullyresearched publications cODsequently it experienced serious 1088 in1nfluence sod prooi-neuce. However, recent yeaTs have witnessed a change of emphas!swherebyareaga!n beginning toregaledlstlnctlonby the1r serlous efforts Inbiblical sud theologieal research.sndabriefdescrlptionof certsinrecent trends ameng themwillbeworthwhile beTe.Intreating the spec1f1c questionof the hermeneutical con-cerns of modernProtestant conservatlveBtblescholarship inAmer-les it be necesaaryfirat todefinewhst 15meant by the term This designation, l1ke the termZiberalJcovers agreat varietyof attltudes and approaches. Inconjunctionwiththe need for definition. abrief historical surveywill be neces-aary. After treating these preltminarymatters. wewill proceedto a discussionof bermeneutical questions as theyreIste to fourmainareas of cancernamong conservatlves: (1) Thematter of in-spirationof Scripture, (2) the questionof utilizingmodernscbolarlytools and techniques inBibleresearch, (3) the quea-tionof the Bible inTelationship to scientificdiscovery.and (4) trends inthc f1eld of b1b11cal eschatology. Althoughother topics could weIl claimour attention, space necessitateslimitingtbe discussion; snd these four areaswill serve to focuson themajor issues germane to the subject.Thc "Conservatives":Definitionand Brief Historieal SurveyConservativeCbr1stianityas we know it todayisa variegatedphenomenon. Not oolydoee1t represent a varietyof views among90ASymposiumonBiblical BermeneutiCliii Conservative Bibl1cal Studies inAmerica 91Ita adherents but alsoIt oftencrosses denominations! 11oes. toInclude verlous groups of Baptists, Lutheraus. Hethodist Pres-byteriana. and athers. Insome casea tbe conservativevingof aparticular denominationor confessiontepresents a small minorityof the adherents of theaffiliationor conlession; but tnothercasea. entiredenominations may l1ewichtnthe framework of con- 18 the ease, for example, withSeventh-dayAdvent-fsts. Conservatlves of todsyvarygreatly withrespecr Co suchmatters 8S aDeial c9ncern. soae taking a real sudactive intetestslang theselines sud athersvirtuallynegieetlogthis SteBofservice. Thete arealsodegrees of openoeSBtosciencific dls-covery and tousing.etbodolog!es invogue inbiblica1800 theo-logtcsl studies.Just who, then, are the conservatlves? What characteristiesbind themtogether?Ina general wayit may be sald thec conservatives. incon-ttast toliberals. (1) e-phasize the Bibleas directly the reve-lationof God, inspired by Hirn. and put more emphasis on propo-sitional truththanliberals do; (2) place revelation8S a soureeof knowledge of God above such things as reasonor intultlon;(3) proclaimthede1ty of Christ as traditionallyheld and stressJesus' virginbirthand themiracles He performed durlngHis .in-iscry; (4) emphaaize therealityof Christ's resurreccion framthedead; (5) look forward toHis second advent; (6) stress theredemptive nature of Christ's substicutionarydeath on ch@cross;(7) takebothsinand salvationframeinbygraceseriously.attachinggreat slgnificanceto the conversionexperlence of theIndividual; (8) believeinpredictive propheey; and (9) recog-nizeGod's supernatural aetlvityinCreatlonand at varloua t!mesioas recordedinScripture. Inaddition, cooservativesof our time characteristicallyhave held anegative aad pes-stmlstlcviewof modern culture than have the liberal,. (Itshould be noted that the termconaervative as used hereinls abroaddeslgnation that includes fundamentalists. newevangelicals[or newconservatives]. and other groupe. a5will beeome moreelear as we proceed.) ,Ihroughout the Christianerathere bavebeennumerous con-servativeChrlstians. Tbe major Protestant Reformers of tbesix-teenth century shouldbe classifledas such, of course. Morerecent roots fromwhich DodernAmericanProtestant conservatlsmhas stemmed may be found inPietism. inEnglishPuritanism. intheWesleyan revival, and inother s1milar -.ove-ents that Induecourse crossed theAtlantic. TheGreat Awakenings on theNorthAmerieaneontinent Itself provide still further backgrounds. Bow-ever, anespeciallycritical development that has beenbasic tothe formation of .ajor trends inpresent-dayAmerican conservativeProtestant1smis theliberal-funda.entalist controversy and Itsafter.ath. Inorder todefend traditionsl Christianvievs onsuchmatters as theinspirationof Scripture, thedeityof Christ, andthe supernatural activityof Cod inCreationand redemption, sametwelvevolu_es entitledThe FUnaamantals were published froa 1910to 1914. About threemillioncoples of these volumes weredie tri-buted throughout theEnglish-speakingworld; and a number of otberworks repudistingliberalis., higher criticis., sndmodernismappeared. Thera ware sttacks on 8cience and on thescientlficaethod. especiallybeeauseof uoiformitarianand organic-evolutlontheorles propounded byscientists and aecepted by theoodernistChri.tiantheo10gians.Because of the slgnificance of theset of volumes entitledThethe name fundamentalist became attaehed to thedefenders of thefaithwhose views were represented in thesevol-umes. Fra. that day tothis tbeso-calledfundacentalists havetended to berilidintheir doctrine of scrlptural inspiration,and oftenplacegreat emphaais onadherence tocertaintraditionalor orthodoxdoctrlnal positions. On the other hand, they fre-quentlyhavebeen 8ccused of failing tomake the B1ble messagetomodernmansnd of failingalso to become 1nvolved Inthesres of soelsl concern. Doubtles8 fearful of the eonnotationsof thesocial-gospel movement. they have shrunkfra. meeting thaneeds of soc1ety, and inthis respect bave revealedastrangedeparture fromthe trulystrongsoeisl concernof many of th8irfor.runners inthe nineteenth andearlier eenturles.During the 1920's and 1930'svarious literarybattles andoral eonfrontatlons tookplace between outstandingliberal andfundamentalist representatives. It seemed for the most part chatliberal scholarshlprepeatedlyaalned ground aad that tbeoverrigidstanee of thefuodamentalistsseen aB untenable. Whereas dur-i08 those decades theliberals had many qualifledscholars. funda-mentalists eouldboast but few. Infact, fundamentalists oftentooka rather defensive positionagslnst advanced education.In largepart. the fundaaentalist regression came aboutthrough lass of seminaries for trainiog theministry. fsilure toreachthegeneral publie. and a cendeney to become soexcluslveas tobringabout not onlyisolationfromliberals but alsodivi-sionwitbinfundamentaligc. It 18 pertinent tosay that inaddi-tionto thefundamentalist tIOVeJDent as such there i9 a fundamen-talist.entallty. and that thelatter bears withinit the seedsof divisiveness. As EdwardJ. Carne11 polnta out. themental1tyof fundamentalisa i8characterized by such things as ideologicaltbinking (which i8"rigid, intolerant. and doccr1naire"), intel-92 ASyaposiumonBlbiteal HermeneuticsConsarvativeBibllcal Studics inAmariea93lactusl stagnation. and negativeethte (seeTh6Case for OrthodoxTheotogy [1959l. pp. 113-125).By the 1940's sud 1950's a concerned group of conservatlveChrlstlanecholsTBvithln the fundamentalist movement endeavoredto infuseneulifeiotoIt. Adhering to the traditiona! funda.en-tals of theChristianfalth--inc1udingbelIef in the81ble 89 theIDsplredWard of Cod, acceptanceof thedeityof Christ 1" itshistoricallyaccepted sense, and other basic tenetsof the funda-mentalist posltion--theyweremore flexible thanso.e of theircolleagues withregard to suchaatters as the findings of scienceand theuse of newly developed tools and methods for Bible study.Frequentlytheymanifestedreal cancernfor societyand its needs--without. of courSB. denying the necessityof the individual con-versionexperience.An earlyhsrbinger of this newattitudemaybe found indis-cussions that created theNational Assoeiationof Evangeliealsfor Uni ted Actionin1943, a group referred to as newevangelicals(tadlstlnguish these particular conservatlves fro. the fundamen-tsllsts, fromthe evangelicals ofearlier t!mes, and fromevangel-icals inother parts of the world). The National Assoclatlonitself was tobe interdenoainational. andit had a test of fellow-shipcoveringonlydoctrines held tobe most essential (alist ofsevenbasic teachings Is convenientlyquated by Bruce Shelleyinhis8vangeticatism inAmerica, pp. 71, 72). A softeningattitudetoward 80eiety andit8needs was seen in thework of affiliatedorganizations such aBTheWorld Relief Commission and The Co-mis-sionon Social Action. Although ehe relief sndworkofthese newevangellcals may be comparatively modest, it reveals asignific&Ot break fromthe attitudeof older funda.ental1m.Perhap one of the most strikingsteps inthe divisionbe-tween fundamentalismand the newevangellcalismcame in 1947, whenoneof the prominent leaders of the newmovement, Carl F. H. Henry,published his bookThe Uneaay ConscienceofModBrn Fundamentatism.Aeeording tohis prefaceHenry did not intend todeny any of thefundamentals of doctrine but hewas quiteeritleal of the posi-tionfundamentalismhad takenwithregard tomeeting the needs ofsociety. Ihe following year EdwardJ. Carnell publishedhisIntroductiontoChristianApologetic8, whiehi8 somet1mes con-sidereda aajor turningpoint ineonservative endeavor to dialoguewlthmodern philosophers andwith theologians of nonccngervativestanee.A further slgnificant stepin the his toryof the aewevangeli-cals was the establishment of theEvangelical Theological SocietyfOTmutual Bssociationand discussion amang biblical scholars andtheologians of CODservative viewpoint. Further treatment of thepositionof this socletywith respect to the question of inspira-tionof ScriptureviII be given in our next section. where we willdiscuss the soclety'sdoctrinal basis wblch was adopted as partof tts cODstitution in1951.So theolder fundam.entalislll has nowbeeudivided by ehe emer-gence of the oewevangelicalism, but it i5not always simple todifferentiatebetween the twogroups becauseof thevarietyofbelief within each. Indeed, positions held by the more liberalfundameotallsts mayvell tend tomerge witb thaseheld by the moreeonservative newevangelicals. However. a distlnctionusually canbemade betweenthe two groups on thebasis tbat the newevangeli-eals showa greater openness taward dialoguewith themodernworld.includingaoatte.pt to make tbe gospel messagemore relevant tomodern man inboth theologieal presentation and aoeial action.Not all present-day conservativeProtestant Cbristians areco be classlfiedas either fundamentalists or newevangellcals.as bas been iDdicatedearlier. This terminology, in the firstplace, i8.ost approprlate to theHorthAmericao scene. Preseot-dayconservstisainEngland and on the continent of Europe, forexample, has for themost part a so.evhat different lineof develop-ment. But eveninAmerica thereareconservative groups, suchasthe Seventh-dayAdventlsts, that cannot essilybe classifiedaseither fundaaentalists or n8Wevangelicals.Inspirationof ScriptureOne of the most basic eoncerns of conservative theologlansrelates ta the quest ionof the inspirationof Seripture. The oldfundamentalists took a rigidpositionthat the Biblewas vcrballyinspired. Not all fundamentalists would see eye to eye on thismatter, but for same the total effect of their positionhaa beentosuggest that Seripturewas givenvirtuallyby a dictationmethod.Even though the term is oftenrepudiated by thern, sameseemto say that God inspirednot onlythemenbut also theverywords inwhich the dlvine messages were transeribed by prophetsand apostlea. Afewfundamentalists would earry the point as faras toelat. that the EoglishKing James Versionwas uniquelyauthoritativeor inspired. There has also been some skepticismtoward auy type of studyrelating to the text and the historyofBible books or of Bible psssages. Tbedifficultyinestablishingthe exact vlews of inspirationheld by the newevangelicals.aybe somewhat represenced byWiekBroomall's bookentitledBibZicaZCriticism, producedin 19S7. Init he points out (pp. 23. 24) thatmany liberal scholars equate"verbal inspirationwithdictation"94ASymposiumonBibl1cal HermeneuticBConservatlve BlbI1ea! StudiesinAmerica 95and chereby endeavor [0make ebe conservative positionlookludi-crous. But he goes OD [0 say that "whatever Day he theunjustcaricatureof theconservative vtew, the Biblemost de!lberatelyteaches the verbal inspirationof Its documents." He evengoeaso far as to say that "ehe modern ideathat only the thought (butnot the words) was inspired 18utterIyforeign to theScripturesand absolutelyobnoxiou8 toany truevlevof inspiration." Broo-mall, on the ether hand. recognizes thevalue of oalngcertaint0019 for better understandingof the text, and he emphasizes theneed [0 beweIl versed inbibl1cal Ianguages.TheTe i8 growing that the newevangelicals bavebroadened the concept of inspirationheld by the fundamentalists.An indlcatlooof this tendencyis seen in the newer attitudestoward theuaeof tools by which togain a better understaodingof Scripture. Edward Caene!l, for example, inhis toC1uistian ApoZogetics (pp. 192-194) in 1948made a distinctionbetween theacceptabilityof lower criticism, which deals with thestateof thebiblical text, and higher crlticism. whicb deals wlthtbe applicationof secular scientifichistorlcal aethodology tothe study of thebiblical text. He belleved that the former waslegitimate but rbelatter was not. By 1959, however. hewas wl11-ing inhis The Caee forTheoZogy (p. 97) togo ae far asto declare that "any investigationtbnt throws light on tbelit-eraryandhlstorlcal backgroundof the Bible" would be welcomedby orthodoxy. BerDacd llamI had earlier expressed a siAl1arlyfavorable viewtoward theuse of bothlower and sQae aspects ofhigher criticisainbis FPotestant Ch:ristianEvitUmcsof 1953(see pp. 19-21). Indeed, RammDotes that the nfactuatity of theBible as a document" wou1d be vindicated by proper use of suchmethoda.We more speclfica11yoowcome (0 the questionof what inspira-tionof Scripturesignifies co the newevangellcals. Again, it1sdifficult togeneralize their maiostreaa position. but theirbasic understsndingof inspirstlonat anearlystage of develop-ment was perhaps characterizedby the const1tution of the Evan-gelical Tbeological Society. adopted JaouaryI, 1951. InArticle111. entitled"Doctrinal Basis," 101e find the followingstateaent:"Tbe Bible alone aud ehe Bible inHa entirety, is the Word of Godwritten, and therefore inerrant in the autographs," All membersof thesocietywererequired to subscribe to this doctrlnal basisyearly. It seems evident that this particular statement, althoughit broadens somewhat the positionof the earlier fundamentalists,adberea basicallyto a verbal-inspiration theory, sometimes re-ferred toas plenaryinspiration. Tbe matter of verbal 1nerrancy18 safeguarded In the phrase"lnerrant in the autograpbs."Apparently the newevangelicals were quite ready torecognize obvious fact that different extant Bibleaanuscripts varysomewhat. bot in 1951 theymay have vished tomaintain the idea ofanoriginal God-givenBe that as It may, the decade ofthe1960's brought about a breachwithinthe societyitse!f aada8Qng evangelicals ingeneralover thismatter. Especially 1m-portant was Dewey H. Reegle's publicationThe of wbich appeared in1963. InBeegle1g opinienconserva-tives have erred inusing a deductiveapproach to the questionofinspiration, based on the postulateof God's sovereigney. Theybave deduced that a sovereignGod must needs have revealed Him-self inerrantly. However, thevery fact that extant mnnuscriptsoftendiffer bas shown that not all of th8Dcanbe error free,and thus there has bad to be a furtber deduction that the must have beenerror fTee.Beeglehimself would breakwiththis sort of reasoning anduse an inductive approach to the questionof inspiration. Insteadof beginning withgeneralities froavhichaseriesof deductionsare drawn he thought it better to go to theScriptures theaselvesto seetheysayabout tbemanner inwhicb theyareinspired.According to Beegle, the Bibledoes prcclaimfor itself inspirationand autboritativeness, butit does not proclaima doctrine ofinerrancy. Infeet. one should remember that whenJesus and theapostles appealed to Scripture theyutilizedthemanuscripts oftheir time, not the supposedlyioerrant autographs. B@egle alsopoints out tbe problemof whether hucan languageisreally capableof glvL"l8. inerrant cam.unicatlon fromGod.Beegle is not the only scholar among tbe newevangelicals whoseems tohave brokenwiththe viewgiven in the 1951"DoctrinalBasis" of theEvangelical Theological Society. but he perhapa rep-resents as radlcal adeparture fromthat positionas anyfirst-rate evangelical scholarnot all aspects of hispositionhave been rreated heTe). Koreover, although same of theoriginal excitement withinevangellcal circles on the questionofinsp1rationhas subsided, probab1y the debeteis not yet over.Nevertheless, inspiteof mutual disagree.ents on tbematter.evangelicals of rather differiDgviews can--andstill do--livewlthinwhat is to thema generallyacceptableconservatlveconfraternity.Although on theNorthAmerican scene a great deal of proml-nence has beenattachedeither to the fundamentalist viewpoint orto the somewbat similar evangelical attitude toward the questioDof the inspirat10nof Scriptore. it shouldbe noted that not allconservatlves have accepted elther astriet or a modlfledverbal-inspiration theory. Infact. the more recent indlcations are that96ASy.po8iumon81blical HermeneuticsConservativeBiblical Studies inAaerica 97so.eevangelical posltlons--althougbretalnlngtbe exprea910nsverbal or pLe.nar;y iospiratlon--maybe closetothat held by theSeventh-dayAdventists , a.ougathers. aB gtatcd in the introduc-tionto the bookby EllenG. White (pp.vii-ix) :Tbe Bible points toGod as lrssuthar; yee It waswrit.tenby human hands; aud in thevaried styleof itsdifferent books it presents tbecharacteristics of theseveral vrlters. Tbe truths revealedareall "given hyinspirationof God" (2 Timothy 3:16); yet cheyare ex-pressedinthewords of men. Tbe InfiniteOne byHisHo1y Spirit has shed light iDto the minds aud heatts ofHis servants. He hag givendreams sud vieions. symbolssud figures: aud those to whomthe truthwas thus re-vealed.have themselves embodied the thought inhumanlanguage. TheBible, withitsGod-giventruths expressed inthe Ianguage of men, presents a unionof thedivinewiththe hupen. Such a unionexisted inehenatureof Christ.who was the Sonof Cod and theSan of ean. ThuB1t 19trueof the Bible, asit was of Christ. tbat "eheWardwas marle flesh, and dwelt aDOng us." 30hn1:14The testimony 15 conveyed through the taperfectexpressionof huaan lsngusge, yet it 1s the testimonyofGod; end the obedient, believingehildof God beholds init the gloryof a dlvine power, full of graceend truth.ReasoDs for the unacceptability of theinspiration theory1rDplied inthe "Doctrina! Basis" of theEvangellcal The010gicalSoelety have beenaptlydiscUBSed by a Seventh-dayAdventistscholar, Dr. Ra,-ond F. eottrell, inaseries of editorials intheReviewandHeraZdduring 1966. On the one hand eottrell pointsout that the wording "theBible alone" imposes a limitationonGod's abilitytoreveal Hlmself--a limitationthat Seventh-dayAdventists eannot accept. eottrell callaattention to thefactthat Scriptureltself mentions other inspiredwritings that havenot been incIuded in the eanon, and hewarns against the dangerof cloeing the door to the pOBsibilityof God's revealing Himselfanyfurther after the Last material inthe eanon was produced.Sucha Itmitationobviouslywculd precludeGod's choosing tore-vaal Blaselfinaoy special way today. (SeeReviewandFebruary 17. 1966. p. 13.)Cottrell has also challenged the usefulness pndmeaningfulnessof the statement "inerrant in tbeautogrsphs" because of its by-passing"thereal question--canwe have confidence inthe 81ble asit exists today?" AsCottrell clearlypoints out. "Thestateoftheoriginal text is irrelevant tofaithtoday. but It does makeall thedifference in the worldwhether we canhave confidence inthe adequacy of the text of $crlpture tbat has come down to usoas ameans tosalvation." Suchadequacyof the pTesent textCottrell. cf course. fullyaccepts. (SeeReviewandHeraLd,l'ebruary 24, 1966, p. 13.)The positionenuncistedsboveregarding thedivlne-and-humannature of God's Ward. together with the convictlonthat God hasindeed preservedin the transmissioncf His Wardall that isessential tosalvation, provides a trulysound basis for a genuinecanservative approachto the questionof inspiratfon--onethatharmonfzes with theScripture's own teatimony regarding inspira-tion end reveiational method.Utilizationof HewToo1s endTechniques inBiblical Stud1esWe heveelreadybrieflymentioned that as twentieth-centurycanservativeChristianityDOVed generallyina directionaway fromstrict fundamentaliso to nevevangelicalism, therewas alsogreateracceptanee of scholarlytechniques and of too18for use inbibli-cal and theologieal studies. lndeed. frODa veryearly time,arehaeologywas reeognized by conservatives as a useful aid intbe9tudyof the Bible. Although fundamentalists tended tousearchae-ology to"prove" the Bible. 1IOst conservatives todaywould ratbercall attentionto tbe remarkableconfirmation thaearchaeologicaldiacoveryhas madeat many points witb regard tohistorieal datarecorded inScripture. Coneervatives heve been among the foremest,for example, tohail thevalue of suchdiscoveries PS theNuzuTablets for thelight they shed onpatriarchal times aod for numer-ous other fiadings that illumioate the backgrounds of the OT andthe NT.AB brieflynoted above. conaervatives have also become in-creasinglywillingtoeoter intodialoguewith nonconservatlves(although the nonconservative response has not always been enthu-siastic). and they have shown thmnselves tobe generallyinbiblical languages and inknowledge of tbe historyand transm1s-sionof thebiblical text. Theyhave come to the placewbere theyareoftenquite ready tolookseriouely st the-ethodologies ofliteraryeriticism. foracriticiam. and otber approaches used bymodernliberal scholars intreatingtbe Bible text. We maynotethat a number of fairly solid studies by conservatives have beenfortbcoming todeal withcritical questions pertainingto theOT98 ASymposiumonBiblical Hermeneut1csCon6ervativeBiblical Studies inAmerica 99and NTbooks. Varlous eonservatlve publlcations Buehas EdwardYoung's Introductiontothe OLdTestament and DonaldGuthrie'sNewTestament Introducuc:mcarcfullyweigh the strengths a.nd weak-nesses of thevarious modernmethodologies incommon use, and theyare a180 fairIysubstantial works intheir ownright. Men suchasYoung andGutbrie, intheir critiques of biblical criticism. giveoeeasionfor the quest ion Co beralsed as Cowhether a student oftheBible caDadopt themethodologies of critical biblieal schol-arshipvithout eabracing consclouslyor otherwise thepresupposi-tions onwhich thosemethodologies arebuilt. (See chap. 5.)The historical introductions. grammars. and I1nguistic-lexigraphical tools of highquallty thBt have beenproduced inrecent yesrs by conservative aeholars are too numerous to mentionbere. Butit may be noted that conservatlve scholarshiphas takenon an air of less bitterness toward the positioncf the libersls;furthermore. that whereconservatives have adopted same of theoewer.ethodologies thetr useof themisfrequently.orebalancedthan has been the easewithliberals. Tbe latter sltogether tOOoftenhave tended tocarryocemethodology or anocher toextremes.Indeed, 1t 1s fmportant to observe that ebe incisivecritiquesoftenglvenbyconservativesof themethodologies used byliberalsareweIl worth pondering by liberals and cODservatlves alike.Whether the liberal scholar recognizes It--and it appears that somesuchscholara are beginning to do so--conservatives have oftenbrought a wholesomc correctiveluto the fieldof present-daybibli-cal and theological study. Wherein the conservative thus far gen-erallyhas faiied i8innot havingsufficlent creativeness todevelop newmethodologies aud approaehes that would enhance ourunderstanding of thebiblical text aud itemessage.\lithregard tohermeneutic itself, conservative scholars havebeensiving increaslngattention to the need for workhere too.Horeover, representative publ1cations by evangelical seholars inthis area have not neglected historien! antecedents nor beenuna-ware of contemporarytrends. Onemaynote, for instanee, A.Berkeley Hickelsen's the Bible (1963) 88weIl asthe.symposia edited byJohnF. Walvoord, InspirntionandInterpre-tation (1957), and by earl F. Henry, Reve'LationandtheBibl.e(1958). Alsoworthyof .entlonareClarkH. Plnnock Biblicat(1971); the paperbackreprint of Seetionj of Baker'sDi;at;iOf'/.ary ofP70actical. TheoZogy (1967) under thetitleHe1'T1l8Tl6u-ti.ca; . theaedes of ell8ays inMerrill C. lenney. ed., The Bible:TheUmngword01RelJelatian (1968).Inclosing this sectionIt may be useful tonotice one strik-ing exampie of the kind of recognition that eonservative seholarshave begu togain. The lengths of reignand synchronisills of thekings of Israel and Judah aa recorded in the OT have 10Dgbaf-fled seholars beeause of apparent inconsistencies and contradie-tlons, but a Seventh-dayAdventist scholar, Edwin R. Thiele,unraveled themystery inhis bookThe Myate1"iou8 Numbera oftheHebrewKingo. Inthis book, first published in1951by theUni-versityof Chicago and Cambridge Universitypresses and sgainina revised editionin1965 by the Eerdmans PublishlngCo=pany,Thiele shows ehe rellab11ityof theb1blieal text. A lIberalscholar, WilliaaA. Irwin, states In an introduction toThiele'svolUile that the"uniquefeature of Professor Thiele1 8 vorkisthat hehas attainedbis resulta by the moat rigidappllcationof8cholarlyfacts aod 1Dechods." Indeed, Irwin goes sofar as todeclare thac "it 1s a matter of first-rate i.poreancetolearn nowthat the Bocks of Kings arereliableinprecisely that featurewhich formerly excited on1yderision" (rev. ed pp. xxi, xxiii).ReligionaDd ScienceAs notedearlier. one of thebasiccharacteristics of earlyfundamentalismwas inherenttoward the scienees--antagonismlargelyconnectedwich the fact that thearies of uni-formitsrianlsmand biologteal evolutionnot onlywere stronglypromulgated byBcientists but alsowere adopted byliberal theG-logiaD8 iDto their "modernist" theology. The ncwevangeliealshave endeavored tobe true to the orthodoxposition, but theyalsohave taken a more open attitude toward seient1ficdiseovery. fre-quent1y. newevangelicals have produced defenses of fiat Creation,thebiblical account of the Flood. aud siwllaraatters. There isevenaneffort by many conservatlve9 tobeeOGCadept invarious ofthe 9ciences by advanced studyinthesedi8ciplines.An interestingnewdevelopaent amongcertainproainent indl-viduals of evangelical persuasion i8aposture toward scientlflctheories that would. in theopinion of many of their brethren,lead awey froma genuineBibleposition. Many evangelicalsstillhold a chronologyof Creationbaaed on the genealogies inGenesisas givenintheMasoretic text. Others, while reteininga rels-tivelylowchronology, either point out that genealogy should notbe treatedas chronologyor util1ze the 90IIlewhat longer LXX ehre-00108Y. Still others teod todismiss chronological eoncerns whentheydeal viththeearIychaptere of Genesis. It stillwould beIncomprehensible. of course, that any of the newevangelicals""'Ould deny fiat Creation, but SQfae havemade unusual concessionstothe theoryof biologieal evolution. Bernard Raam, for example,spcaks favorablyof theistic evolution, although he would ratherclassifybimself as a progressivecreationist for his feeling i.h" t at inprogressivecreationismthere is thebest accountingfor100 ASymposiumonBihlical HermeneuticsConservatlve Bibllcal Studies inAmerica 101811 thefacts-biological. geologieal. aud Biblical" (see bis TheChrietianView01Science cmdScPipt;ure [1954]. pp. 292. 293). Heelat.s that manyevsngelicals would place theoriginof man about10,000B.C "whereas etbers arewillingtoadmit tbst .an18 hun-dreds of thoussnds of yearsold"-lbid.... p. 347.Parallel tohis posture toward the or1g1n of man, hasalsoargued against an8othropologicallyuniversal Flood--a posi-tioncballengedina 1961 publicatioDbyJohnC. Whltcocb. Jr. Isud HenryH. Morrh. The Genesis FZood: TMBibZioal RtlcordandIts SOientificlmplioations (seepp. 36ff.). Verlous articles intheCrsation Sbciety Quarter'Ly foster the concept of auniver8al Flood. together with a lowchronologyof thst FloadasweIl as of Creation.Hanywell-informed conservatives eontinue tobold a relativelylowchronology for Creation and the Flood. Tbey recognize thatnewer types of scientifictt.eclocks areyielding "reaults out of witb their own concept of bibllcal time, but theya190 tendtostress that tentativeness should be attached to the findings ofsuch time eloeks. What may appear to sone researchers as 5cientificcertaintymayinrealltybe quite tentative, tbeywould suggestjsnd a8 one Interestlog example. they cao point to00thelaIe of Surtsey, whicb ls1andappeared aud tookshape in1961-1964 througbvolcanic action in eheHorthAtlsntic Oceannear lce-land. Althoughacientists have suggestedthat sandy beaches requiremillenniaor even .il1ionsof years todevelop. a sandy beachap-peared on Surtseyina matter of a fewweeks! (See SigurdurThorarinason, tr. by S. Eystelnsson (1964J. p. 39.) AI-thoughthis phenomenon cannot be eonsidered quiteparallel to themore sophisticated time clocks, it does indicate the appropriate-ness of a critical attitude toward supposed seientificknowledge.Biblical EschatologyIn the ffeld of biblical eschatology, theAugust1nlansmil-lenniallamdominated the scene for centuries, eveo until after theProtestant Reformation. But earlyin the eighteenth century aviewcalledpostmillennialismwas set forthbyWhitby and Vitrlnga.It was 800n espoused by suchreligious leaders as Jonathan Edwards,and It found wide clrculationthrough such famed Bible comaentatorsas AdamClarke. Albert Barnes, Thomas Scott, MatthewHenry, sndDavid Brown. Eventually. intheearlynineteenth century thetewas a resurgence of premillennialism. Ibis went hand inhand withthe wideapread proclamationof the soon-expected second advent ofChrist aud was similay to thepre-illennial views held among mostof the early church fsthers prior toAugustine.Whereas the amillennialists looked upon the thousaod yesTsof Revelation 20 as a figurativeor symbolic nuaber that depietedthe Christiandispensationof Lhis earth'shistory. the postmil-lennial16ts thought of themillenniumin terms of a sort of uto-pian thousand years (not always taken tobe a literal figure) tbatwas to C03e beforeChrist'asecond advent. Tbe premillenniallstviewIs tbat Chrlst's secondca.ingwill be prIor to the thousand-year period of Revelation 20. Premillenniallats sogenerallybe-lieve in anmillennial reigoof theJews that Seventh-dayAdventiBts, becauae of their differiugviewon themillennium, aresomet:1mes thought tObe amillennia.lists. Hovever. Seventh-dayAdventiats do believe ina premiltennial second advent of Christandareal .illenniutt. and hence are indeedpremillennialists.Tbey obviously do not hold the amillennialist position.The aforementionedvarylngviews regarding tbemillenniumrelate spec1ficsllyto interpretationof the 20thchapter ofRevelation. As for interpretationof thewhole book, there hasbeena tendency--especiallyfromthe time of tbeProtestant Re-formers onward--toregardvarious of itsprophecies aBfindingfulfillment inthecourse of this earth'sbistory, especlallyduY-ingtheChristianera.Fromsmall beginnings of suchhistorical-typeinterpretation,whereinlaolated prophecles were treatedas havinghiatorical ful-fillment.eventuallyarosefull-fledgedhistorieist, or con-tinUOUBhistorical. expositions. Most frequently these looked upenthe prophetiemessages inbookof Revelationas s1gnify1ng asequence of historieal events ina straight liDe down through thecenturies. culrninating inChrist's second advent and subsequentevents. Ameng adherents of this straight-linehistorieist inter-pretationwere suchoutstanding expositors as Albert Barnes andE. B. El1iott.Same hlstoricists. such BS UriahSmith. alsoviewed the bookof Revelation aB being for themost part fulfilled Inhistoricnlevents during the present age; but instead of seeing a straightline through the book. these expositors found evidence of repeatedsequenees throughout Christianhistory. Inother words. the pro-phetiemessages of the churches. seals. trumpets. and so forth,gavel'Bcapitulationof history fromthe NT period to the grandeschatologieal climax.A.ong sornepremillennialists of the earlynineteenth centurya futuristic outlook emerged. It was similar tothat of theJesuit scholar R1bera l who fostered such a concept dur1ng the lates1xteenthcentury. To futuristsvirtually the entiTe bookofReve1ation. except possibly the messages tothesevenchurches102ASymposiumonBiblical Rermeneutics CoDservativeBibl1cal Studies inAllerlca 103aod thematerial inthefinal fewchapters. 19 thought of as refer-ringspeclflcallytoa short periodof time near tbe closeof thiseartb"s bistory. Tbemessage to the BevenchUTches could be rakenas rclatinseither tothe churches inJohn's awn dayor to thechurchdownthe ages (or to both). Otherwise. hlstoryvirtuallywas l.ft out of the book except for a short periodjustbefore second coming. Ta this periodalmost the eRtirebookup to 19:11 18 supposed to addres8 itself.A particular variety of futurismknown as pretribulat10nismoriginatedesrlyin thenineteenthcenturythrough th. workofJobn NelsonDarby aud variOU8 of his in the PlymouthBrethrenmovement in the British181es. This viewisalso preadl-lenniallst. but inserts anadditional seeret second coming ofChriBt seven years pr10r toChrist's opensndvisible second advent.Tbe termpretribuZationismatems fromthe belief that at this se-eret secoDd com1ng, All trueChristiansare raptured and taken toheaven soas toescape th. lTeat tribulatlonthat 1s to take p!aeeduring the closing seenes of earth's hiatory. The rapture aspeetof thedoctrineis popu1arly knownaa thesecret rapture.Followers of the Darbylanpretribulationismare alsooftenreferred co ss dispensationalists, becauee of their belief thatearth's historymaybedivided up Into a nu_ber of eras or dispen-aations wherein God haa useddifferent tlean:a: indeallng\ritbHispeople and intesting themwithrespect coobedience. In thevordsof oue of their spokesmen, Wi1liamTrotter, inhis PlainPapers onProphetieandotherSubjects thesedispensations "baverun. are running, and have yet to run their course, sovide1ydif-ferent intheir eharacter, that wbat is simple obedience and forthegloryof God inoue dispensation. may beentirelyforeign tothecharacter of 8nother."--p. 401. He ttates further "that ...hatGod sanctiona under onedispensation, may be sodiverse fromthespirit andof another. as to be the subject of rehuketo those who desiTe to im1tate it."--p. 402.Pretr1bulationismoriginatedinBrieain, as we have noeed.but then it spread toAmerica, where by ehelast two decades ofthenineteenthcentury it began to enjoyrather widespread popu-!arity. TheSeofield Reference Bib1e. whlch was first publishedin1909 and has soldwidely, helpedgreatly to foster the spreadof ehe movement. especiallyamong laymen and today inAae.ricathisvarietyof eonservative esebatologyappears to be the mostwidespreadof any conservative positionon tbesubject.ThequestionO8ywell beasked. Wby ehould this partlcularviewtakesuch firmhold inNorth America? Certainly the popu-larityof the ScofieldReference Bible, just mentioned, accountsto considerable degree for thi.. But thereaayalsobe anarherimportantespeciallyas far aa theearlyyears arecon-cerned; namely. tbat cOQservativeChristians tended tosee thispremlilennial positionas more biblieal thanpostmillennialism.aod aeeeptedit inreaetionagainat thelatter. This pos.ibilltyhau been suggestedbyGeorge EldonLadd inhis bookThe Bls8sedHope.Pretribulation1sts, of course, cannot provide any strongbibllcal evidence for their secret-rapture idea. Rather, thisidea comes byinference fromtexts relatingtodellveranee fromtribulatlon, as well a8 froma peculiar interpretationof suchBibl. passages as "oneshall be taken, and the other left" (Mt 24:40. 41). Also, a frequent practiceof adherents of this particu-Iar v1ewpoint is tOutilizeRevelation4:1,Johnls b1ddento"Ca.euphither," es an Indicatlonof the sa-calledsecretraptureof ebe church!Aceording to the pretribulationlsts-dispensationalists , theprophecies of the bockof Revelation from4:1 to 19:11deal spe-cificallywithevents that are to occur durtng a still-futureaeven-year per iod of earth'shi.toryjust prior toChrist's visi-ble advent. lt i5further believed by themthat this seven-yearperiodis tbe "70th""eek" of the prophecy of Dan1el 9. The first69of the 70 weeks of yesrsal10tted tothe Jew5 inthat prophecyextended toChrist'sfirst advent. Then caae an interludein the of theChristiandispensation. Final!y this 70thweek--sevenl1teral years--will findfulfillment after the aeeret rapture ofthe church. At this time tbe Jews will agBin become prominent infulfi11ingGod's purpose. During"this 70thweek a personal anti-christ will st first favor thebut inthe middleof the weekviII turnagainst themand persecute them. F1nally, at the closeof this seven-year periodChrist will eome snd viii set up anearthlymillennial kingdomfor the Jews. Th1e kingdom, pretribu-latlonists think, 18 inreality the kingdoapromised to the Jewsby the OT propheta and thenbyChrist Bimself, but whiehwas nverfulfilledbecause of their rejectionof Himaa Messiah. But Godi5 trUi! to His ,",ord; Hedoes not fail His promise: thereforef1D8lly the kingdomwill be given theJews. in themillennial age!Inaddition to the tenuouSnC$9 and unbibl1eal nature of thesecret-rapture and dispensation ldeas of thepretribulationists.otber difflculties intheir hermeneutic may be mentioned here.In thefirst place. the eoncept of sucha litera1iatie and unal-cerablefulfil1ment of prophecies about ancient Israel, regard1essof conditions and cireumstances, flies 1ntbe face of the ovn prineiples. One may refer, for example, toJere.iab's propheeyabout twodirect10ns Jerusaleamight take and whlch would lead to104 ASymposiumonBlbliesl Hermeneutlce ConservatlveBiblical Studies inAmerica 105verydifferent consequences (seeJer 17:24-27). Also importanr1s the fact that the NT looks on certsinOT prophecies regardingancient Israel as findlng fulfillment inconnectionwirhGod'snewIsrael, tbeChristlanChurch (seee.g., Acts 15:13-16 andGal 3: 26-29).Inthe eecond place, pretribulationists dTawunwarranted dis-tinct10ns regard1ngcertainterminology in theScrlptures. Theydifferentlate, fOT example, between Christ's useof the expres-sions "kingdolJl of heavenlland lIkingdomof God." Thc former i8supposed to iadlcatethe kingda- promised to tbelews and even-tually to beset up as the .illennial kingdom, wbereas thelatteris taken todepict God's over-all ruleinthe universe. Inthisregard, seriou8 questionmay be raisedins wchas there 18 00biblical evidence to substantiatesuch anapplication of the ter-minology. Evenmore crucial are thefacts that the context of thestatements frequentlydefies suchdifferentiationand that the twoterms are used interchangeablyby Gospel writers.Thls leads us to a further point of great henoeneutical 61g-niflcance--thepretTibulationist cootentionfor the need of "right-Iy div1dlng the ward of truth" soas todistinguishin the Gospelrecords between things pertainingco theJews and things pertain-ingto theChristians. For example. Ir is a Ca-mODdispensation-allsr belief that Christ's Sermon on the Mount i8a message fortheJews. not theChristians. What basis can there be for thiskiod of arbitrary treatment of the text, except that it arises 89a natural consequeDce fromother unvarranted and unfounded presup-positions?By noheveall conservatives inAmerica adopted dispen-sationalism. There arenondispensationalist premillenariane.among whomSeventh-dayAdventists stand out as a prominent group.There arealso a number of amillennialists. especiallyinChristianReformed and DutchReformed groups and among conservotive Presby-terians. Certainamillennialists. suchas Floyd Hamilton inhisBasis forFaith andOswaldAllis inhis FTopheayandthehove givencritiques of dispensationalisw. Perhapsevenmore important 1s the workof George EldonLadd, a one-timepretrlbu1ationist vho has moved away framthat positiOn to a generalkind of premillennialist futurism. Ladd. who 1s more impartial than.1ght be expected fromone who has left the.ovement, analyzesfairly and quite extensivelyinhis bookThe BtessedHop6 theweak-nesses of dispensationallst theology on the aatter of eschatology.He alsoprovides some excellent chaptere on the same top1c inhiseruciat. Qussticns About theKingdom ofGod. There seems Uttledoubt but that dispensationalist-typebermeneutic has brougbt acertainof disrepute toconservativebiblical scholarship,andIt has become point of atrackfromconservatives who da notsharvsuch a hermeneutic.A further vord aay be sald abouc futurismingeneral. Evenfuturists who are not prQtribulationlsts tend co claimtbat tbQearliest church fathers held thefuturist position. And. in fact.many church fathers of the first several centuries d1d speakof apersonal antichrist whovoulddominatefor 1260daygat theeloseof time rather than anantichrist systemthat would rulefor 1260years. But it Dust be remembered ehat byvirtueof the very timeinwhich they lived, those churchfathers wereo[ nscessityfutur-iatic 1n their out look concerning fulfillment of the prophec1es ofthe hook of Reve1ation. After all, most of Christianbistorywasstill ahead. and therewas no concept of howlong that historywould last. The endwa. feIt tobe rather near. andhence a so-called"futuristic" outlookvould have beennatural. But weretbose c.hurch fathers truly"futuristic" intheir basicpel'spective?Perhaps this perspectiveisbett er revealedby thetr attitudetoward the bookof Oanlel. and here the com.on interpretationofthe major prophecies was ina veinlOnemigbt just add fromtheblblical evidence that texts in1Jobn4snd 2Thessaloolans 2already implymorethan a personalantichrist wbo was toreignfor 31/2literal years, for tbecoo-cept of a "spirit"of antichrist isset forth--something alreadyLn evidence aa earlyas apostolic times.Inclosingthis section. it should be noted that inrecentyears conservatives have begun to take an interest inthepresenceand meanlng of apocalyptic inthe synoptic Gospels--anareaofstudythat heretoforehas beRndominated hyliberal b1blicol echol-arship. Ag indicativeof this newthrust onemay just mention tbeappearance in 1964 of George EldonLadd' 9 JesU8 andths Kingdomand in1972 of LeonMorris' ApooaZyptia.Summary andConclusionWe have tracedbrieflythehis toryand'themain trends thatreIste to the hermeneutica1 stance of present-dayconservatives,especi8llyinNorthAmerica. We have noted the basic issuee andquestions to ehe inapirationof Scripture, and inthisconnection have provided the essence of tbe Seventh-doyAdventist poeitionas enunciated byEllenG. White.we have noted the growing respect for and use of scholarlytoolsfor Biblestudyamong conservatives. We bave looked, too, atchanging conservat1veattitudes tovardscientificdiscoveryandevenscientific theories. Pinally, we have touched brieflyon106 A SymposiumonBibl1cal HeraeneutlcsConservativeBlbliea! Studie6 inAmerica 107conservativebiblical eschatology, with primaryattentionglveo todiepenaationalism.Inall tbis we have beenable toobserve that therehas beenastrangtendeneyforswings among conservatives. Dutbalance abould be a keyvord for soundCbristianhermeneutlc. Thebalance inauchhermeneutic mayreadilybereallzedin the positionenunciated byEllenG. White with regard (0revelatlonsnd inspira-tionaa we noted earlier. This positionsafeguards against theextremes of theliberals on the oneband and protects fromtheextreme v1ews of verbal-inspirationadherents on the other hand.Withrespect toscientifiediseovery. here again it 18neees-saryfor the eonservativeChriatiantofindbalancebykeepinghis.indfully open totruthfrombothof God's books that reveal Him--tbeBiblesnd tbe bookof nature. TheChristianmust take earenot to become overlyena-ored of his own theologieal views and pre-suppositions; on the other hand, he should not behasty torejectlong-held theologieal positions simplybecause of a 8upposed seien-tifiediscovery of themocent. While he needs toavoid the overlycritical snd aomettmes injudiciousattitudes of oId-line fundameo-talism, he should bewarelest he subordinatehis bibl1cal under-stand1ng tocertainscientlflc tbeorles, a8 same newevaogelicalsoowappear co bedeing. [t i8 importsnt tobe eognizant of therevelat10nal intent of blblical passages, andnot toseek5cleo-tifieunderstaodingfromScripturewhere such sc1entlficuoder-standing 15 not intended. Equal care must be taken to SAun anymethodology or approach that would make thebiblical text subserv-ient towhatever sclentifictheories and scient1ficworld viewmight be in vogue at any particular moment. God's truthtranscendsall of thstlFinally, our quick glanceat pretribulationism-dbpetlsat.ional-1smhas beengiven. first of all, because adherents of this beliefare sonumerous that most gospel workers whodeal witheonservativeChristlans to anyslgnificant degreeare highlylikelyto encountertheview. Horeover. importancemay beattaehed to the fact thatthe dispensationalist-type hermeneutic provides an example not onlyof the manner inwhich unsound principles eanlead to erroneousconclusions but alsoof thewayinwhiehdiscredit ean be broughtupon conservatives when theylacksound scholarlymethodology inthelr work. Fina11y. the historyof dispensationa1ismportrays,once again, the tendency of the pendulumto swing toofar--thistime away fromthepostmillennialism sopopular in same conserva-tivecircles whenDarby's ideas reached America.There 15 slways thedanger of moving toorar aod too fast 1nanydlrection. Thebisteryof conservativeProtestantinAmertea unfortunatelyillustrates this fact. Hawever. manyconservatlveProtestant Christians inAmerica da recognize thatGod 18 a eod of balance, and they seekto be estsbllshedby"1m"ioevery good ward end work" (2 Tb 2:17).hJsocLteeditor ofthe REVIEWAHDHERALD, Jfashin.gton. D.C einoe 1967,Don F. lieufetdt.>aB aBBociats e41tor ofTHBSDABIBUcot#fBNTAKl. editcr oftheSOA BTBIEDIC'l'IONARY. editor 0/the$DAENCYCLOPEDIA, andooeditcr. SDABIBUSTUDEllTS' SOlJRCEBOOK. His denomina-tionaz. seMCfl beganinCctnaL1a as apastor. thenBibZs teaanel' tIf; CanadianfJnion College. AndreWB lhtive1'Sity con-ferredon himthe Doctor ofDivinityd6groee i71 1972.7. Biblical Interpretationinthe Advent MovementDON F. NEUFELDReviewand HeroldPubUshingAssociationThe hermeneutic:s of prophecy will be d1.scussedfirst becausetbe early uniqueemphasis of the Adventist movelDent was on proph-ecy. General principles of hermeneuticswill then be exaatned.Hermeneut1cs of ProphecyInthe restrictedsense. anAdventist is a member of theAdventist (or Millerite) movement, or of one of thebodies thatsprang fromit. InItsbroad sense, the term1s sometimes usedtodescribe onewhobelleves that the personal SecondAdvent ofehrtet 18neer. Todey the term15 used almest exc1usivelyinltsrestrlctedsense. This i8 the sense inwhiehit i5 used inthisehapter. Of the etnergent bodies. only the largest-theSeventh-day Adventist Church--will be considered.As oue aspect cf tbe general Advent expectationof the early19thcentury, the Adventist, erMillerite. movement flourished inAcerica from1840to 1844. Tbe leader of the aovement was Wll1taaKiller (1782-1849). a faroer and a Baptist preacher. He was joinedby other wdnlsters. notoblyJoslahLltch (aMethodist ainister)and Joshua V. Himes (alainister of theChristian Connection) .Estimates run fra. 200to 800ministars who during the height ofthe movement ware Identifiedwithit. Estimates of followersrange froma cOservative 50.000 toa million.Theprincipal feature of WilliamMiller's preachingwas theof apocalyptieBible prophecy and the resultingannouncement that the second comingof was tooccur inthe"Jevlshyear" 1843, wilich wouldend inthespringof 1844. Hebasedhis argument for tbe expeetation oe several lines of propb-eey. prlnC'.ipally the predictionof Dan 8: 14. vhichstated. "Ontethousandand threehundred days; tbensball the sanctuarybecleansed. n By applyingto thi.8 time period theyear-dayprinciple.a principlealready in use 8mong interpreters for centuries. hearrtvedat aperiodof 2300years. Tbc beginnlngdate be foundin Dan 9:25, "Tbe COIllllsndment to reatore and tobuildJerusalem."110 A Symposiu. onBlbliesl HermeneuticsBiblical Interpretationin the Advent Movement 111Tracing the word10 theScriptures, this minoritygroupnoted that the'Biblespeaks first of anancient s8Ilctuary.or tent. at wbieh the lsraelites worshiped inthewllderness.This portable tent was later replacedby Solomon's Temple andstill later byZerubbabells. But Zerubbabel's temple, enlargedandbeautifiedbyBered the Great, was destroyed inA.D. 70, andwithits destruction theIsraelitesanetuary passedout ofexiat-enee. Henee this sanctuary eouldnot be the sanetuarydesignatedinDan 8:14 to be cleansed in1844, the terminal date for ehe2300years.But they noted that theBible speaks of another sBnctuary,oneinheaven. after whicb the earthlyhadbeenpatterned. tovhichJesus Christ 8scendedafter the resurrectionand inwhiehHe functioos as HighPriest. This, they concluded. must be thesanetuary of Dan 8:14, forit was the only sanctuarymentioned intheBible that was inexistencein1844. Inthe book of Uebrew-s,...here this heaven1y sanctuaryi8 described. they noted a referencetoa cleanaing (Heb 9:23), a work they concluded the heavenlyHighPriest eo-nenced in 1844. Inabriefbut unspecified time theyexpectedRimtoreturn to theearthtogather His people."''ben the "Jewish yeaT" 1843 passedwithout the realizationof the SecondAdventI and the :aorespecificallydetenaineddateof Oetober 22, 1844. projectedinthe S"lJJ!JlE'r of that year, alsopassed, it became evident that therebadbeen same basic error ininterpretation. Miller aud'IlOst of his followers of that tu.eeoncluded that theyhadbeenrlistakenintheir calculatlonof thett.e, and they continued looking for the Advent to oceur shortly.A group of his fo11owers spiritualizedthe Advent and heldthatit badactuallyoccurred on the antieipateddate. R.estudying theMilleritepositions, another group coneluded tbat vhereas theycouldfindnoerror inthe ca1cu1atious bywhieh Getober 22, 1844,badbeeuderived, therevas same ni.stake ineheevent expected.Some fromthis group, concentratingonthe termsanctua.ry.. beca.meconvineed that therewas nabiblieal evidence for tbeMilleriteassertion that this earthwas the sanctuary to be cleansed by fireat the Second Advent. Tnis littlehandful became thepioneers ofthe Seventh-dayAdventist Church.vhichhe appl1edtoArtaxerxes' decree issuedin 457 B.C.subtractlonbrought hill to his "Jewish year" 1843. To theingof the sanctuary he gave the primary interpretationofcleansingof theearthat the.Second Cocingof Christ.SimpleeIeaos-th.succeSSOTScf the -avement. as retainingandcarryingon to com-pletionthe wainprinciples of Milleritedoctrine aad correctingand clarifyingtbe misunderstandingthat had caused the disappolnt-ment and badresultedinthe repudiatiooof tbe 1844message bytne leaders. "-BDAEncyclopedUzj p. 796.Turningnowtoour investigationof ehe hermeneutics (pro-phetie and general) of Adventists, we beginviththat of theMillerites. tben followwith that of theSeventh-dayAdventistChurch. The Milleriteaove-.ent was an interdenominational ment. 1ts adherents came frommany churches and, although ingMiller's teachings. eontinuedtoholdmembership intheirehurches if 80 perwitted. TberaUyingpoint inMillerismwasbelief in an imminent advent end the endingof human probstionstthat advent. Inotber doctrinal positions, adherents held gener-allyto the teachings of their respective religious bodies. Thustherewa9 no unlfieddoetrina1positionamong theMillerites.By what hermeneutical principles didHiller arrtvest hiseonvietionthat theAdvent was tobe expectedabout theyear 18441Three sehools of prophetieinterpretationwere 10existence...henthe Milleritemovement began toflourish: (1) Preterism. ehebelief tbat themajor portionof t.he bookof Revelatioowas ful-filled longago; (2) historicism. thebelief that the eveots ofRevelation have bee.n fu1fi111ngall throughhlstory, ...Hh samehaving beeufulf111ed. others beingfulfilled. and still othersyet tobe fulfilledin the future; and (3) futurlsm, the beliefthat what 16 predietedfromRev 4 onwardisyet to take place;nothinghas beenfulfilled. norwill it be fulfilleduntil justbefore the end of this age.Futurismoriglnatedwich Ribera, the Spanish Jesuit who in1590published a commentary of Revelation. In theearly19th cen-tury futurismtook root amengProtestants. Todayit dominates theportion of theProtestant scenethat ismost vocal inthe area ofprophecy andIt8 fulfil1ment.Miller be10nged to thehistorieist school. He lookedinhis-tory for fulfi1lments of the varlous features of thevisions ofJohn the revelator and, for that matter, of Danie! also. He be-lievedthat bothprophets gave anoutline of his tory fromtheLrday to the endcf time. He didnot originate the historieistsystem; many scholari before himhad followed this system, andmany inhis dayheldit.Although the Seventh-day Adventist Chureh hadits roots inMillerislll. t.be chut"ch took a directionofits OWD. Nevertheless"they (members of this group] regarded themselves es the trueInfact, the Reformers were historieists. George EIdenLaddsays that "this 'historica.l' type of interpreta.tionwithits ap-plicationof the Antichrist of papal Rome so domioated the Prot-112ASY"'-posiuaonRiblical HeTtDeneuticsBiblical Interpretationinthe Advent Hovement 1136. The smallest unit. eheward, must be givenlts scrlpturemeaning.8stant study of .prophetie truthfor three centuries that it hasfrequently bee.n called Ithe Protestant' interpretation. "--TheBleSBSdp. 32. 7. The largeTunit. the sentence. must haveIt8properhear-Albertus Pieters callahistoric.isa"ehe standardProtestantinterpretation. "--Stwiieeinthe Reve1.ation ofSt.p. 43.Inother words. althoughinitiallyindependent, Millar andhis assoc1ates aetua!!ybullt on ehe work of theiTpredece88ors.retainingauch of what had alreadybeeudevelopedby a methodologythat hadbeeopracticedfor centuries. Ioto ehe general pattern,whichbadalready be.en established, they insert.ed a fewuniqueideas.Thi.s bu11d.ing on the paat has beenabundantly demonstratedby L. E. Fream. inhis four-volume work The Pttophetic PaithofDurFathere. Helistsscores of interpreters whoexpectcd th_endofthe 2300 days saoetime around 1844er 1847. altheugh theydifferedas tothe events tobe expectedst that time.Inhis discourses Miller frequently referredto the rules bywhichhis conclusions were reached. He firmly believedthat on1y1f correct pr1nciples of interpretationare appl1ed can correctconclusions be arrivedat.ing.8. Theward and sentencemust have their proper hearinginthe grandwhole.HowdidtheMillerites inparticular or howda historlclstsingeneral determine whieh events inhis toryare fulfil1ments ofspeclficprophec1es? Theyelosely thespecifications ofprophecy, then studysecular and rellglous historyto find a eor- event. Teverifywhether the truehisterieal eventhas beeo discoveredHiller suggestedthe following:"If you find everyword of the prophecy (after the figuresare understood) 18 litera!!yfulfilled. thenyoumayknowthtyour history is the true event. Butifoneword lacks 81 fulfi11-ment, thenyou must look for another event or wait its futuredevelopment. For God takes eare that his tory end prophecy dothagree, sothat thctruebelievingchildren of God may never beashamed. "--VielJB 0f the Prophftcnfts andProphetieChrono Selected fromManuscripts of WilliamMilierwith a Memo!r of HisLlfej by Joshua V. Himes, 1841, p. 22.1. Much of the1le8s&ge of prophec:y 15 cOlllDulcsted by sym-bols. For example, beasts represent kingdoms; andwater. people.s. The biblical. student 1DUSt select and bring toget.be.r everypart of the subject hevUhes toinvestigate.2. All figures have both a litera1and a metaphorical me an-ing. Thus, literally. a beast would represent a kingdOttl butmetaphorically, for example, ifit were u lion, the power to rule.A d1Scussion of ttiikr' s rules appears inhis introductiontohis printedlectures Bvidence fromscnptUl"e andBistOl!/ ofthe Secand Coming ofwaut tM'tear 1-843. His 1836 editioneontained 16 leetures; his 1840 edition. 19. Following i5 a sum-mary of his mIes:In turnthe Seventh-dayAdventist interpreters latercorrec-ted and clarifiedearlier prophetiepositions. So far as apoes-lypticheroeneut1cal principles are eoncerned, Seventh-day Advent-ista introdueed fewif any newprinciples. though theyenlargedand aysteaatized ehe interpretationparticu1arlyef the two apoea-lypt.icbiblical books Daniel and Revelatioo. In 1882 they pub-lisheda bockentitledThoughts an.dPractical onthe Book.Resides requiringa thoroughknowledge of Seripture thehistorieist method demands also s thorough knowledge of history.Group effort bringing togetber minds skilledinvarious disclplines19 important. Butit shouldbethat by the timeMillerdidhis work the basic interpretations of the books of Danlel andhad alreadybeen set forth by various expositors incommentarles or inworks on prophecy. After hisinitiallyinde-pendent study, Miller his own conclusious andexaminedall objectious. On thebasic outlines of prophecy, for example.the four heasts of Dan 7, he found bimself inagreement with theexpositors. But he reached eertalnindependent conclusions. Thushe stood onthe shoulders of his predeeessors. His associates inturn stood onhis shoulders sudcorrectedand clarifiedsome ofhi8 positions.cample-a hetter16 d1scovered by findingScripturemust be eom-a figurefigure.is unityintheScriptures. ODe prophecy"There nevera book vrit teuthat hasharmouy thanthe BibIe."4. Therements another.conneetion and3. The literal meaning ofother Scrlptures toexplain thepared vithSeripture.114 ASymposiumonBiblical Hermeneutics81blical InterpretaticrnintheAdvent Movement 115ofDaniel- andRevelat1.on, vhlchhad already appeared as [WO sepa-ratevolumes. the ODe on revelationfirst printedin1867. and theOlle on Daniel in1873. The authar. DriahSmith (1832-1903).came a Sabbath-keepingAdventist about the end of 1852 andin1855became one of the editors of tbe primary churchpublicatioD, TheReviewand8eral.ence ofSeventh-dayAdvent-ieta.. ProfessorFrank B. HolbJl'OOk joinedthe roeligionfaeult;y 01SouthlJmMis-sionaTyCollege, Collegedate, Tenn6ssse..in1964. He i8anassooiateprofessorof religionandl"saently servedaBact-ingchairman ofthereligicmdepar'tment.He hotda theMaster of T1w.ology degreefr'omthe Seventh-dayAdventist Th,ologi-'-'al seminaryof AndrewsINSPlREDWRITERS' INTERPRETATIONOP INSPIREDWRITINGS8. Ne....- Testament Uses and Interpretationof eheeIdTestamentFRANK B. HOLBROOKSouthemHisBicmary Cou,egeNo serious interpreter of theBible canfail to recogn1zetbe sign1flcanceof the princlples bywhich the NTWTiters 1nter-preted the OT. Although the principles are aeidumexpl1citlystat-ed, they can bederlvedbycareful analysis. Such anatteupt 15made inthis paper. It 19considereda vital linkin theherme-neutle chalna8 an18made todiscover lnspiredwritersfuseof inspiredWTlrings.Even a casual readlngof the NTtmpreSB the reader withthefact that ir 15 repietewith OT citations andalluslons, a1-though scholars wIll differ on the count of direct quotations.Thewritlngs most oftencitadarethelocated in the thirddivision of theHebrewScriptures. Of the books of Hosest Deuter-onomyIs themost oftendirectlyquoted. Isaiah1s the favoriteprophet. Same OT statements suchas Is 6:9, 10, are repeatedlycited. If 15 53 were tobe lost, it has beensuggested that thegist of Itsmessage could be recovered bymeans of NT c1tationsand a11u810n8.The bookof RevelatioDmakes DOdirect citations to thc OT.An analysis of It9 contents, however, revealsit to be saturatedwith OT iaagery. 'or an example the reader maywish to co-parethe 1anguageJohnusea ta describemystic Babylon (Rev 14-19) andthe prophetiestate.ents regardingancient Baby10nas penned by1saiah, Jerem1ab, and Ezekiel. (See charting, SDABe, Vo1. VII,----866-896) .128ASymposiumonBlb11esl UennenauticsNewTestament UseB of theQidTestament129Some Basicof the NTWriters1. Tbc OT 1authoritative for {althand practlce. The NTwriters Inharmonywith theviewpoint of Christ regarded the OT aanormativeScrlpture. tbe"oraeles of Gad" (logiatau theou)# "Iiv-log snd acUve" (1.00. 3:2; Heb 4:12, RSV). (All citaUonsherein-after are fromtheRSV). Peterviews the Ward of Cod aavital seed."imperishable," "livingaudabidiog" which, if plantedin thehesTt, vill bringabout 8 nev11fe (see 1Pe 1:23). Paul refersto the OT ss "holyscriptures" (groaphaia hagiaie) sod "sscredwritings" (hieMgrtilJllutaJ (Re- 1:2; 2Ti 3:15).The NTwrlters da not see the OT aa everinva1uefor tbe Christian. "For whatever was writtenin former days," de-clares theapostle Paul, "W8S writtenfor our instructlon. that bysteadfastness andbythe encouragement of the scripturesve mighthave bope" (Rom15:4). With reference to ehe e:xperlences of an-eient Israel he eays. "Theyverevrittendown for our 1nstruction,upon whomthe end of ehe ages has come" (1 Cor 10: 11).2. The Hol, Spirit 18 the divinesutbor of the07. The NTwrlters acknowledge that there i5but ODe Autbor bebind the manyhua:anwrfters whowrote. "Thescripturehad to be fulfilled.which theHolySpirit spakebeforehand by themouthof David"(Acts 1:16). OITherefore. as the HolySpirit 9ays " "By thisthe HolySpirit indicates. ." (Reb 3: 7; 9: 8). "No propbecyever came by the impulseof aan. but men maved by the HolySpiritspake fromGod" (2 Pe 1 :21). Inone Instance the apostlePet era9serts thst the Spirit who DOVed theprophets towrlteof theSaviour's sufferings and glorywas "theSpirit of Christ" (1PeI:10. 11).3. Dlvinerevelationi5progressive innature. Although theNTwriters recognize and acknowledge thedivineauthorlty of theOT. theyare conscious cf theHolySpirit'switness also throughthemselvcs (seeEph3:5). The OT was promise and shadowy outline.NT writers wcre witnessing to the glorious fu1fillment of the prom-ise inof Nazareth. whomtheydeclared tobe the long-looked-for Hesslah (seeActs 17:3). TheapostlePaul proclaimedtohis Itsteners, "\.le bringyou the good news tbat what Godpl"O-mieedco the faehers. thishe hae jUZfiZledto U8 their childrenby rs1singJesus" (Acts 13:32. 33).Tbat the NT writers recognized the principleof progressiverevelation--agradual unfolding of the divine plan tbrough suc-cessive ages--ls seenby theopening statement intheeplstle tothe Hebrews. "lnmany and vsrious wsys God spakeof old to OUTfatbers by theprophets; hut in theselast days he haa spoken tous by a San" (Heb 1: 1. 2). In the Son chey perceived God had giv-enmankind the fullest disclosure of Himself, the capstone to eheedificeof revealed4. There 1s unitr betveen the OTand theapostolic witness.The NTwrlters da not viewtheir witness as a newgospel or as 8newreligiondifferent framthat taught by theQT. Ratber. cheysssert an inseparableunity between thevitness of ehe OT andtheirOWD. Chrlstians areadmonished to"remetlber thepredictions ofthe ho1yprophets and the commandment of theLord-snd Ssvlorthroughyour apostles" (2 Pe 3:2).The NT writers supplybothhistorical facts aud spiritual in-sigbts that supplement snd il1uminate the OT. For exaaple. Paulnotes the names of themagiciansvithwhomHoses contended inPhar-aoh's court (see 2Ti 3:8). Genesis does not statethat Noahpreached tohis contemporaries abcut theFloodwith a cal1to repentance. But the N1' informs that he was "aheraldof right-eousness" snd taught righteousness byfaith (2 Pe 2:5; see Heb 11:7). The OT sees forththefact that the earthwas created by apersonal God. The NTwritersthis truthbyehatGod created theworld through the agency of Jesus Christ (see Heb1:1, 2; Jn1:1-3, 10). Were it not for ehe illuminationprovidedin the book of Hebrews. theancient ritual of Israel's tabernacleand te-ples would be largely But viewed in the lightof the NT the ancleneritual reflects backa broader understandingof theentireplanof rdemption.Themovement is inbothdirections. Salvationfromsinthrough Jesus Christ \IOuld not be meaningful without the OTaccount of thefoll. The twoTestaments arelike two acts of aplay. Theyprovide insights into eachother. but the whole drama15more fullyunderstood inthelight of the conclusion--inthisinstance theNT.5. Thchistorical records of the OT are acceptedas genuine.The NTwrlters refer to numerous incidents for didactic purposes.hut they never quelttontheir historieity. Some examples are thecreationof Adsmsnd Eve; the temptationof [veby the serpent;thefall of man; themurder of Abel; Noah aud theFlood; the suf-ferings of Job. Hany incident5 are noted framthe 10nghistoryof Israel, including themiraculous experience5of Bslaam, Elijah,andJonah.6. The moral and spiritual tTUths of the OTare ofvalue. "For wbatever was wr1tten in former days was writtenforour instruction..." (Rom15:4).130 ASymposiumonBlbltesl Hermeneutic8NevTestament Uses of the OldTestament 1317. Christ 15 the fOCU8 of all divineactionin tbe OT whetherIt be throughhistor1cal experience, prophecy, or ritual vorship."Taht- [theChrist] all thepropbets bear witness." states tbeapo.rIePeter (Acts 10:43). The whole Hebrewecono.ypointed for-ward toChrist. He was the confirmatiou anetumsddu:ttingthe WQ1" years tcPacifieUnicmCoLlege whsrs hetaught onthereligionstaff from1941-1962. Be ha8beenatths Review"ince 1962. .4ndlrA18 Univer-sityconfer'Ndon hiMtheDoctor ofDivini:ty degPee in 1972.9. EllenG. White'e Evaluation andUee ofBibleRAYHOND F. COTTRELLRetJi..lNandBemldPubliehingA88oeiationEllenG. White her primaryrole to be that of God'sspecial mes.enger to the Seventh-dayAdventist Church. Her taskas ehe sawit was topoint men aad to the Bible as the in-spired. authoritat1ve Word of God. to appIyitsprinciples to tbeexperiences the church and itsmembers encouoter intbe worldtodsy. snd togulde themin their preparation for Chr1st's return.AttitudeToward the BibleEllenWhitels attitude toward the Bible es reflected inmanystatements such as these 1s fundamental to a correct understandingof her use of it:Tbe B1ble 18Cadls vo1ce speaking to uso just assurelyas thoughve could hear It wlth our ears.--Testimoni88, val. 6. p. 393.TheHoly Scr1ptures are tobeacceptedas anauthoritat1ve. infalliblereveIat10nof His will.--7116Great Cuntl"overay, p. ix.The Bible i8 tbe only ruleof fsith and doctrlne.--Fundamentals 01C'h:t>istianEducation, p. 126.Inour t1ce there 18 a widedeparture framtheir{theScr1ptures'] doctrines and precepte. and there 18need of areturnto thegreat Protestant principle--tbe BibIe, aod the Bibleon1y, as the ru1e of faithand duty.--TheGreat Controversy, pp. 204, 205.Tbc Spirit wes not given--nor CSD it ever bebestowed--to supersede the Bible for the Scriptureaexpllcitlystate tbat the ward of God i8 the standard144ASymposiumonB1bl1cal Hermeneutic Ellen G. White's Use of the B1ble145bywich all teachingand experiencemust be tested.-The-Greatp. Ix.Concept of Her Relation co theBibleEllenWhite conalderedher mission tobeinfulfil1aent cfBible propbecy. particularlythepromiseof Joel 2:28, 29.inActs 2:17, 18:Itoyou, dear reader. the Ward of Godas the rule of your faith and practice. 8y that Wardwe are to be judged. Gad has, inthat Ward, promisedtogivevisions in the "Zast days"; not for a newruleof faith, but for the camfort of His pcople. aod tocorrect thoBe who err fromBible truth.--EarLy p. 78.She conceived of her ministryaa a lesser light to leadmanto thegreater light. the Bible. Shedtd not lookuponher writ-inga aa auperseding theBibleor as anaddition toit or as "newlight" but as clarifyingtheBlbleand showing Harelevance tothe needs of Godls people today:theTestimoniee were not givento take the placeof theBible. TheTestimoniee [arenot] an addition to the warpof God. [But] ead has seenfit inchis manner tobring tbemiods of His people to Dia ward, togive thama clearer understandingof it.--Testimoniea vol. 5p. 663. TbeLord has given a lesser light to leadmen andwornen to the greater light.--CoLportaur p. 125.EllenWhite describes oueway inwhich. duriug the earlyyearsof the church. ahe became "a leaser light" to enable men to under-stand the Bible:When tbeycame to the point intheir studywheretheysaid. "We cando noth1ngmore." the Spirit of theLord wouldca.e upon me. 1 would be takenoff invision,sud aclear explanationof the passagea we bad heenstudytngwould be givenme, with instructionas to howwe were tolabor and teacheffec:tively. Thus light wasgivea tbat helped us tounderstandthescriptures inregardtoChrist. His Il1ssion. andHis priesthood.--SelectedbookI, pp. 206, 207. ackoawledging the prtmacyof theBibIe, EllenWhlteclaimed for her writings the same inspirationsheattributed toit aad Inslsted that there 15basic harmony betweenthe two:The HalyGhost 1s theauthor of theScriptures andthe auther of theSpirit of Prophecy.--E. G. WhiteLetter92, 1900.UIn ancient times CooiarohBandP>'OphBt8. p. 37.s. Amalification. inwhich she augments a Biblenarrativebyprovidingadditional factual or clrcumstantlal information suchas sneyewitnes8mlght give. to111uminate the narrative by aakingit more vlvid snd mesningful:The Lord Moses ta turnasideiDtaa rockydefl1e, and encamp beside tbe sea. It was revealed tohimthat Pharaohwould pursue them. but that God wouldbe honored Intheir deliverance.In Egypt therepert was spread that the childrenof Israel, Insteadof tarrying toworship intbedesert.were presslng on toward the Red Sea. Their greatmen, recovering fromtheir fears, accounted for theplagues as theresult of natural causes. The king himself, attendedby the great menof hisrealm, headed the attackingarmy. To aecure the favorof the gods. sud thua insure the success of thelr under-taking. the priestsalsoaccoopanied them. TheHebrew8 were encamped beslde thesea. whose pre-sented a seemingly impassable barrter before them.while on the south a ruggedmountainobstructedtheirfurther progress.--Ibid'1pp. 283. 284.6. Insiaht. inwhichabe pravides tactual informationbeyondthat whlch ao eyewitness couldgive. inorder tomake clear thesignificanceof the event:Through thegifts of the mag! froma hesehen coun-try, theLord supplied themeans for the jaueneyiotoEgypt snd the sojourn ina land cf strangers.--Ibid.,p. 65.1. General Blblleal Principles 8Pplied to a specific Biblesituation:[Abraham's] conduct 11luatrates tbe Inspiredmaxim,"Thou shalt love thyneighbor as thyself. "--Patri.az>chsandp. 136."Theseeret of the Lord Iswith themthat fear hiJIl."Abrahamhad hOOOTed God. aod the Lord honoredhl taklnghtmintohis counsels, and revealing to himhis purposes.--lbid., p. 139.8. Homily. inwhlch she draWBlessous froma pasaage ofScripture:ICrossing the Red Seal Thegreat leSBanhere taught18 for all tt.e. Often theChrlstian life18beset bydangers, and duty seems bard to perform. The imaginationpietures impendtngruinbefore, snd bondage or deathbehind. Yet thavoice of God speaks elesrly, "Co forward."--Ibid. p. 290.Heaveo sud esrthare 00wi