PRINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION

by

Richard M. Davidson, Ph.D.J. N. Andrews Professor of Old Testament Interpretation

and Chair of the Old Testament Department

Andrews University Theological SeminaryBerrien Springs, MI 49104-1500

March 1995

PRINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION

PRECIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

I. Interpreting the Word of God: Foundational Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10A. Revelation-Inspiration-Illumination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10B. The Need for Interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10C. Hermeneutics: Definition and Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

II. Foundational Principles for Biblical Interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13A. The Bible and the Bible Only (Sola Scriptura) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

1. The Primacy of Scripture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132. The Sufficiency of Scripture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

B. The Totality of Scripture (Tota Scriptura) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141. Inseparable Union of the Divine and Human . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162. The Bible Equals, Not Just Contains the Word of God . . . . . . . . . . . 18

C. The Analogy of Scripture (Analogia Scripturae) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201. "Scripture is Its Own Interpreter" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222. The Consistency of Scripture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233. The Clarity of Scripture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

D. "Spiritual Things Spiritually Discerned" (Spiritalia spiritaliter examinatur) . . . 271. The Role of the Holy Spirit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282. The Spiritual Life of the Interpreter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

III. Specific Guidelines for the Interpretation of Scripture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31A. Text and Translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

1. Textual Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33a. The preservation of the Biblical text (33); b. The need fortextual studies (35)

2. Translations/Versions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36a. The challenges involved in translation (36); b. Translationtypes (37)

B. Historical Context/Questions of Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 401. The Bible as Reliable History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 402. Questions of Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 433. Historical backgrounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 444. Seeming Discrepancies with the Findings of Secular History . . . . . . . 475. Seeming Discrepancies in Parallel Biblical Accounts . . . . . . . . . . . . . 496. Practical Study Questions and Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

C. Literary Context/Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 551. Limits of the Passage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 552. Literary Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 583. Literary Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

D. Verse-by-Verse Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 691. Grammar and Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 692. Word Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

E. Theological Context/Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 771. Methods of Theological Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

a. The book-by-book approach (77); b. Verse-by-verseexposition (78); c. Thematic-topical study (78); d. The "grandcentral theme" perspective (80); e. Literary-structural analysis(81)

2. Problematic Theological Passages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 823. Scriptures Pointing Beyond Themselves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

a. Prophecy (89); b. Typology (102); c. Symbolism (108); d. Parables (109)

F. Contemporary Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1111. Scripture as Transcultural and Transtemporal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

2

2. Scriptural Controls for Determining Permanence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1123. Personalizing Scripture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

IV. The History of Biblical Hermeneutics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116A. The Inner-Biblical Hermeneutic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116B. Early Jewish Biblical Hermeneutics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116

1. Scribal Exegesis Before 70 A.D. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1162. Later Rabbinic Interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1173. Non-scribal Traditions: Qumran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1184. Non-scribal traditions: Philo of Alexandria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

C. Early Christian Hermeneutics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1191. Early Church Fathers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1192. Alexandrian Hermeneutics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1203. Antiochene Hermeneutics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

D. Medieval Hermeneutics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121E. Reformation Hermeneutics and the Historical-Grammatical Method . . . . . . . 121F. The Enlightenment Hermeneutic and the Historical-Critical Method . . . . . . . 123

1. Historical Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1232. Presuppositions of Historical Criticism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1243. Procedures of Historical Criticism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1254. Other Critical Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130

G. Two Hermeneutical Methods Compared . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131H. Bible-Based Hermeneutics in the Advent Movement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

Ellen White Statements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156

3

PRECIS

God has revealed Himself and His will to His prophets in specific statements of truth,

and through His Spirit He has inspired the biblical writers to record the divine revelation as the

trustworthy and authoritative Word of God. The Spirit also illuminates the minds of those who

seek to understand and interpret the divine revelation.

The need for such interpretation arises not because of the lack of Scripture's

perspicuity, but because of the finitude of humanity in contrast to the infinite God who is

revealing Himself, and because of the darkening of the human mind through sin. Both OT and

NT provide numerous historical examples of, and calls for, careful and faithful biblical

interpretation, and the necessity of the interpretive process is further mandated by our

separation in time, distance, language, and culture from the Scriptural autographs.

The study of the basic principles and procedures for faithfully and accurately

interpreting Scripture is called biblical hermeneutics. The task of this discipline of study is to

understand what the human writers and the divine Author of Scripture intended to communicate

and also how to communicate and apply the biblical message to modern humanity.

There are four foundational principles for biblical interpretation that arise from

Scriptural evidence. The first was the battle cry of the Reformation, sola scriptura, "The Bible

and the Bible Only." This principle affirms that the Bible alone is the final norm of truth,

taking precedence and primacy over every other source of authority, and constituting the all-

sufficient foundation and test and standard for all additional knowledge and experience.

A second principle is the totality of Scripture (tota Scriptura), which affirms that all

Scripture--the entirety of the OT and NT--is inspired by God, literally "God-breathed," and

thus fully authoritative. The Bible is an inseparable union of the divine and the human, and

therefore the Bible in its entirety equals, not just contains, the Word of God.

A third principle is the Analogy of Scripture (analogia Scripturae), which posits a

fundamental unity and harmony among the various parts of Scripture inspired by the same

Spirit. Because of this unity, the Bible is its own expositor, and everything the Bible records

4

regarding a given topic must be taken into account in studying that topic. The various parts of

Scripture are consistent with and illuminate each other. Their meaning is clear and

straightforward, to be taken in their plain, literal sense unless an obvious figure is intended.

A fourth general principle affirms that "Spiritual Things are Spiritually Discerned"

(Spiritalia spiritaliter examinatur). This means that the interpreter can rightly comprehend

Scripture only through the illumination of the Spirit of God who inspired the Scriptures. It also

implies the necessity for the Spirit's transformation of the interpreter's heart, so that there is

earnest prayer for understanding and willingness to accept by faith and obey what Scripture

says--a reverent "trembling" before God's word.

Building upon the foundational principles of interpretation, a second major section of

this article discusses specific guidelines for interpreting biblical passages that either explicitly

or implicitly arise from Scripture itself and encompass what is generally known as the

grammatico-historical method.

The first and most basic task in interpreting Scripture is to insure that what is studied is

indeed the Holy Scriptures--both in the original languages and in modern translation. This

requires attention to ascertain the original text of the Bible as far as possible and to make sure

that this text is translated into modern languages as faithfully as possible.

The Bible has been carefully and painstakingly preserved down through the centuries to

the present day and the actual amount of variation among the many extant manuscripts is very

small. There are nonetheless, small variations among the many ancient biblical manuscripts,

arising either from scribal errors or intentional changes during the history of textual

transmission. The science (or art) of recovering the original biblical text is termed textual

study (sometimes called "textual criticism," or "lower criticism" to distinguish from the "higher

criticism" of the historical-critical method). The final norm for all textual study must be found

within Scripture itself and must be carried out in the context of the unity of Scripture.

After the original biblical text has been ascertained, its form and content must be

represented accurately and clearly in modern translation. There are many challenges in the

translation process, arising from the structural (grammatical and syntactical) differences

5

between the languages, lack of exact semantic equivalents, and the gaps of time, distance,

culture, etc. These challenges have led to several different translation types: the formal "word-

for-word equivalency" translations; the dynamic "meaning-for-meaning equivalency"

translations; a combination of formal and dynamic approaches; and the interpretive

paraphrases. Each type has Scriptural precedent and positive and negative features. Special

cautions are in order with regard to translations made by a single denomination or translator,

translations into simplified language, or Bibles annotated with interpretive systems.

A second specific guideline in the interpretive process involves understanding the

historical context of the passage under study. The historical context includes the historical

background, the authorship, date, and life setting of the biblical passage. Following Scriptural

self-testimony, the historical context of biblical accounts is to be accepted at face value as true

and accurate--even more historically reliable than secular history because presented from the

omniscient divine perspective. This is in contradistinction to much critical scholarship which

reconstructs hypothetical life settings that contradict the plain declarations of the biblical text.

The historical background material within Scripture is augmented by the wealth of

illumination provided by the literature of antiquity and archaeological discoveries, and involves

history, chronology, geography, and numerous other aspects of biblical culture and

background. Many apparent historical discrepancies between the biblical record and secular

history have evaporated in light of further study, but the events of Scripture are ultimately

accepted because of a settled faith in the trustworthy Word of God.

Several biblical principles assist the interpreter in coming to grips with apparent

discrepancies in parallel biblical accounts. One must recognize the different purposes of

different Bible writers; different perspectives of the different eye-witness accounts that form a

composite picture; the difference between verbal identity and historical reliability; accepted

conventions of writing history in the first century; different occurrences of some similar

sayings and miracles of Jesus; the possibility of minor transcriptional errors in Scripture; and

the necessity of suspending judgment on some items until further information is available.

6

A third specific hermeneutical guideline involves the literary context of Scripture,

inasmuch as the Bible is not only a history book but a literary work of art. In studying a given

passage, one must first recognize the delimitations of the passage in terms of paragraphs,

pericopae, or stanzas, so that one can determine how this segment fits into the flow of the

larger thought-unit of which the passage is a part.

It is also necessary to understand what type of literature is being studied. This includes

the more general categories of prose and poetry, and more specific literary types (or genres).

The Bible itself explicitly identifies many of its specific literary types. The poetic sections of

Scripture (some 40% of the OT and scattered sections of the NT) are characterized by the

distinctive features of parallelism ("thought-rhyme"), meter ("measured lines") and other

literary conventions. The prose sections, and in particular biblical narrative, have been the

object of much recent intense study, revealing the intricate artistry involved in relating the

narrative. Each of the specific literary types has specific characteristics, and these

characteristics (or added unique features) are often significant in interpreting the message that

is transmitted through the particular literary type.

Also important in the literary context is the literary structure of a biblical passage,

which often provides a key to the flow of thought or central theological themes. The literary

structure of a prose section of Scripture may sometimes be seen most clearly through outlining

the passage by themes and sub-themes. Two common literary structuring devices in Scripture

which build upon the phenomenon of poetic parallelism are "panel writing" (or "block

parallelism") and chiasm ("reverse parallelism"); these techniques not only structure verses and

paragraphs, but also whole books and blocks of books in Scripture. One must be careful to

allow the literary structure of a passage or larger section of Scripture to emerge from within

Scripture and not be artificially imposed upon the biblical text.

A fourth specific guideline for the interpretation of Scripture is the verse-by-verse

analysis of a biblical passage, with special attention to grammar and syntax (sentence

construction), and word study (meaning of individual words). While a thorough acquaintance

with the original biblical languages is ideal, a number of study tools are now available to

7

introduce the interpreter to the basic features of the unique grammatical-syntactical features of

Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. A good study Bible following the formal "word-for-word"

translation method also provides a feel for the sentence construction and unusual or difficult

elements of grammar and syntax. It is helpful to diagram or outline the biblical passage to

better grasp its flow of thought. Careful attention must also be paid to crucial individual

words, studying them in their immediate and wider contexts (by means of concordance,

lexicons, and theological wordbooks) to grasp their precise meaning in the biblical passage.

A fifth specific hermeneutical guideline involves the theological context and analysis of

a passage. There are various methods of theological study of the Bible: the book-by-book

approach; the verse-by-verse exposition of a passage; thematic-topical study; investigation

from the perspective of the "grand central theme" of Scripture; and literary-structural study.

Problematic theological passages--especially involving questions of the justice of God

(theodicy) and alleged "faulty" theology in Scripture--may be approached by recognizing

several important biblical principles that arise from within Scripture.

Some parts of Scripture inherently point to a theological fulfillment beyond themselves,

as in prophecy and typology; other parts point to an extended meaning beyond themselves, as

in symbolism and parables. Each of these kinds of theological material in Scripture calls for

special attention, and from within Scripture emerge principles for its interpretation.

A final specific guideline in the interpretation of Scripture relates to the contemporary

application of the biblical materials. From the Scriptural self-testimony it becomes evident that

the contemporary application arises naturally out of its theological interpretation. Scripture is

to be regarded as transcultural and transtemporal, unless Scripture itself gives specific

indication limiting the universal and permanent applicability of the material. While biblical

instruction speaks and is relevant to all cultures and times, it was also addressed to a particular

culture and time, and therefore time and place must be taken into account in its application.

But here again Scripture itself provides the controls as to when it is appropriate to reduce

specific instruction to a general principle.

8

The final goal of interpreting Scripture is to make practical application of each passage

to one's individual life. The interpreter must seek to understand how each passage applies to

him/her personally. The Scriptures should ultimately be read and accepted as if personally

addressed to the interpreter. They are God's living and active Word to his/her soul.

The third major section of this article moves from foundational principles and specific

guidelines to survey the history of biblical interpretation. Attention is given successively to the

following: the inner-biblical hermeneutic; early Jewish interpretation of Scripture (rabbinic,

Qumran, Philo); early Christian biblical hermeneutics (early church fathers, Alexandrian

allegorical school, and Antiochene literal-historical interpretation); the medieval four-fold sense

of Scripture; the Reformation return to the plain literal sense and the development of the

grammatico-historical method; the Enlightenment hermeneutic rooted in rationalism and the

rise and development of the historical-critical method; the presuppositions and procedures of

historical criticism (and other critical approaches) and comparison/contrast with the historico-

grammatical method; and the Bible-based hermeneutic in the Advent movement.

Final sections of this article provide a selected bibliography of helpful books and

articles on hermeneutics and a selection of quotations from the writings of Ellen White on this

subject. Both of these final sections are arranged in the order and under the headings of the

main outline of this article.

9

I. Interpreting the Word of God: Foundational Principles

A. Revelation-Inspiration-Illumination

The doctrine of revelation-inspiration is foundational to the whole enterprise of biblical

interpretation. According to the biblical record God has revealed Himself and His will in

specific statements of truth to His prophets (Heb 1:1). Through the inspiration of the Spirit He

has enabled His prophets to communicate the divine revelation as the trustworthy and

authoritative Word of God (2 Tim 3:15-16; 2 Pet 1:19-21). The same Spirit who has inspired

the prophets has been promised to illuminate the minds of those who seek to understand the

meaning of the divine revelation (John 14:26; 1 Cor 2:10-14).

B. The Need for Interpretation

The Bible's message is not hidden or obscure, requiring some esoteric external key to

unlock its mysteries. Scripture was given by God as a revelation for all humankind. The

problem in interpretation does not lie with the Bible but with the reader. Finite human beings

are unable on their own to comprehend the mind of the Infinite One (Job 11:7-9; Isa 55:8-9;

Eccl 3:11; Rom 11:33-34). Furthermore, sin has darkened and even blinded the minds of

human beings (Rom 1:21; 2:17-23; Eph 4:18; Matt 23:16-26; John 9:39-41) so that they of

themselves are not capable of rightly interpreting God's Word. Because of the humankind's

problem of comprehension, God has provided in Scripture the keys to explain the meaning of

Scripture, and the Holy Spirit to guide into biblical truth (John 16:13). Jesus Himself indicated

the need for biblical interpretation, in light of the misapprehension of truth in His day. After

He had risen from the dead, Jesus walked with the two disciples on the road to Emmaus and

"interpreted [diermçneuô] to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself" (Luke

24:27).

Already in the Old Testament the priests and Levites had the responsibilities of

teaching God's Word to the people (Lev 10:11; Deut 24:8; 33:10; Mal 2:7), instructing the

10

people how to distinguish between the holy and the common and the unclean and the clean, and

interpreting the law of God for individual case situations (Ezek 44:23-24; Deut 17:8-11). In

the days of Ezra and Nehemiah, the Levites "read from the book, the law of God, clearly; and

they gave the sense, so that the people understood the reading" (Neh 8:8). This involved both

translation from Hebrew to the more familiar language of Aramaic and explanation of the

meaning to the Jewish people recently returned from Babylonian Exile.

The New Testament witness is clear that the interpretation of Scripture is the task of

the entire church, and not restricted to an elite cadre of biblical specialists (See Acts 17:11;

Eph 3:18-19; 4:13-14; 5:10, 17). In the New Testament we find the example of Philip

interpreting the meaning of Isaiah 53 to the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:30-31). The apostle Paul

instructs Timothy to be sure he is "rightly dividing" (KJV), "rightly handling" (RSV), or

"handling accurately" (NASB) [orthotomeô, literally, "to cut straight"], the Word of God. In 2

Cor 2:17, Paul affirms that he is not like many who "adulterate" God's word. The Greek word

here is kapçleuô, literally "to peddle," alluding to the peddlers of the day who so often used

such deceptive tricks that the term "peddle" came to signify "adulterate". The presence of

those who adulterate or corrupt the Word implies the need for careful interpretation.

The necessity for interpretation of the Scriptures today is further indicated by the

acknowledgement that we are separated by time, distance, and culture from the Scriptural

autographs (i.e., the original manuscripts penned or dictated by the biblical writers

themselves). It has been almost 2000 years since the close of the biblical canon, a significant

gap in time. Most of us are also separated geographically from the place where Scripture was

written. Even those now in the Middle East live in a very different culture than in biblical

times.

Different languages--Biblical Hebrew, Biblical Aramaic, Biblical Greek--require

translation and interpretation. Different social customs; different civil institutions, military

institutions, political institutions; different economic and technological conditions; different

patterns of thought (Hebrew versus modern and post-modern)--all these and more mandate the

hermeneutical process.

11

C. Hermeneutics: Definition and Scope

As we have already noted in the account of Jesus' interpretation of Scripture on the

way to Emmaus (Luke 24:17), the Greek word translated "interpret" is diermçneuô (dia +

hermçneuô), which is related to the English term "hermeneutics." Hermeneutics is the science

of interpretation. Biblical hermeneutics is the study of the basic principles and procedures for

faithfully and accurately interpreting God's Word. From the biblical examples showing the

necessity of Scriptural interpretation, and other biblical data, we may deduce three major tasks

of biblical hermeneutics: (1) to understand what the human writers of Scripture intended to

convey to their hearers or readers (see, e.g., Acts 2:25-31); (2) to grasp what the divine

Author intends to communicate through the words of Scripture, which meaning may not

always have been fully understood by the human writer or his contemporaries (1 Pet 1:10-12);

and (3) to learn how to communicate and apply both form and content of the Biblical message

to modern humanity today (see, e.g., Matt 5:17-48; 1 Pet 1:15-16).

II. Foundational Principles for Biblical Interpretation

A. The Bible and the Bible Only (Sola Scriptura)

A fundamental principle set forth by Scripture concerning itself is that the Bible alone

is the final norm of truth. The classical text which expresses this basic premise is Isa 8:20

(NIV): "To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, they

have no light of dawn." The two Hebrew words tôrâh ("Law") and te udah ("testimony")d

point to the two loci of authority in Isaiah's day which now constitute holy Scripture: the

Pentateuch (the Torah or Law of Moses) and the testimony of the prophets to the previously

revealed will of God in the Torah. Jesus summarized the two divisions of Old Testament

Scripture similarly when He referred to the "Law and the prophets" (Matt 5:17; 11:13;

22:40). The NT adds the authoritative revelation given by Jesus and His apostolic witnesses

(see Eph 2:20; 3:5).

1. The Primacy of Scripture

12

Isaiah warned apostate Israel against turning from the authority of the Law and the

Prophets to seek counsel from spiritist mediums (Isa 8:19). In the New Testament era other

sources of authority were threatening to usurp the final authority of the biblical revelation.

One of these was tradition. But Jesus clearly indicates that Scripture is the superior authority

over tradition (Matt 15:3, 6).

Paul also emphatically rejects tradition, and another source of authority, that of human

philosophy, as final norms of truth for the Christian (Col 2:8). Paul likewise rejects human

"knowledge" (KJV "science"; Greek gnôsis) as the final authority (1 Tim 6:20).

Both OT and NT writers point out that since the Fall in Eden, nature has become

depraved (Gen 3:17-18; Rom 8:20-21) and no longer perfectly reflects truth. Nature, rightly

understood, is in harmony with God's written revelation in Scripture (see Ps 19:1-6 [revelation

of God in nature] and vv. 7-11 [revelation of the Lord in Scripture]); but as a limited and

broken source of knowledge about God and reality, it must be held subservient to, and

interpreted by, the final authority of Scripture (Rom 1:20-23; 2:14-16; 3:1-2).

Humankind's mental and emotional faculties have also become depraved since the Fall;

but even before the Fall, neither human reason nor experience could safely be trusted apart

from or superior to God's Word. This was the very point upon which Eve fell--trusting her

own reason and emotions over the Word of God (Gen 3:1-6). The wisest man in history (who

ultimately failed to heed his own warning) perceptively observed: "There is a way that seems

right to a man, but its end is the way to death" (Prov 14:12).

2. The Sufficiency of Scripture

The principle of sola Scriptura implies the corollary of the sufficiency of Scripture.

The Bible stands alone as the unerring guide to truth; it is sufficient to make one wise unto

salvation (2 Tim 3:15). It is the standard by which all doctrine and experience must be tested

(2 Tim 3:16-17; Ps 119:105; Prov 30:5, 6; Isa 8:20; John 17:17; 2 Thess 3:14; Heb 4:12).

Scripture thus provides the framework, the divine perspective, the foundational principles, for

every branch of knowledge and experience. All additional knowledge and experience, or

13

revelation, must build upon and remain faithful to, the all-sufficient foundation of Scripture.

Thus is confirmed the battle cry of the Reformation--sola Scriptura, the Bible and the

Bible only as the final norm for truth. All other sources of knowledge must be tested by this

unerring standard. The appropriate human response must be one of total surrender to the

ultimate authority of the word of God (Isa 66:2).

B. The Totality of Scripture (Tota Scriptura)

A second general principle of biblical interpretation is the totality of Scripture (tota

Scriptura). It is not enough to affirm the primacy of Scripture. Those like Martin Luther, who

called for sola Scriptura, but failed to fully accept the Scriptures in their totality, have ended

up with a "canon within the canon." For Luther this meant depreciating the book of James (as

an "epistle of straw") and despising other portions of Scripture (as presenting the way of Law

and not the Gospel).

The self-testimony of Scripture is clear in 2 Tim 3:16-17: "All scripture is inspired by

God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work."

All Scripture--not just part--is inspired by God. This certainly includes the whole Old

Testament, the canonical Scriptures of the apostolic church (see Luke 24:17, 32, 44-45; Rom

1:2; 3:2; 2 Pet 1:21; etc.). But for Paul it also includes the New Testament sacred writings as

well. Paul's use of the word "scripture" (graphç, "writing") in his first epistle to Timothy

(5:18) points in this direction. He introduces two quotations with the words "Scripture says,"

one from Deut 25:4 in the Old Testament, and one from the words of Jesus recorded in Luke

10:7. The word "scripture" thus is used simultaneously and synonymously to refer to both the

OT and the gospel accounts in the technical sense of "inspired, sacred, authoritative writings."

Numerous passages in the gospels assert their truthfulness and authority on the same

level as the OT Scriptures (e.g., John 1:1-3 paralleling Gen 1:1; John 14:26; 16:13; 19:35;

21:24; Luke 1:2-4; Matthew 1 paralleling Genesis 5; Matt 23:34). Peter's use of the term

"scriptures" for Paul's writings supports this conclusion (2 Pet 3:15, 16) ["So also our beloved

14

brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all

his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable

twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures."] By comparing Paul's letters to

the "other Scriptures," Peter implies that Paul's correspondence is part of Scripture.

The New Testament is the apostolic witness to Jesus and to His fulfillment of the Old

Testament types and prophecies. Jesus promised the twelve apostles to send the Holy Spirit to

bring to their remembrance the things He had said (John 14:26). Paul states that "the mystery

of Christ" was "revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit" (Eph 3:4-5). The

apostles held a unique, unrepeatable position in history (Eph 2:20) as bearing witness of direct

contact with the humanity of Christ (Luke 1:2; Gal 1:11-17; 2 Pet 1:16; 1 John 1:1-4). This

certainly validates the apostolic writings by the apostles like Peter, John, and Matthew. Paul

also was called to be an apostle (see Rom 1:1, 1 Cor 1:1, and the greetings in the other Pauline

epistles), and he indicates that his writings are given under the leadership of the Holy Spirit and

have full apostolic authority (1 Cor 7:40; 12:13; 14:37; 2 Cor 3:5-6; 4:13; Gal 1:11-12; 1

Thess 5:27; 2 Thess 3:6-15). Thus the New Testament embodies the witness of the apostles,

either directly, or indirectly through their close associates Mark, Luke, James, and Jude (see

Luke 1:1-3; Acts 12:12, 25; 15:37; 16:11; Col 4:10, 14; 2 Tim 4:11; Phlm 24).

All Scripture, both Old Testament and New, is of divine origin. It is "inspired by

God," literally "God-breathed" (2 Tim 3:16). The picture here is that of the divine "wind" or

Spirit coming upon the prophet, so that Scripture is a product of the divine creative breath.

Thus it is fully authoritative: profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in

righteousness.

1. Inseparable Union of the Divine and Human

A corollary of the tota Scriptura principle is that all Scripture is an indivisible,

indistinguishable union of the divine and the human. A key biblical passage which clarifies the

divine nature of Scripture in relation to the human dimensions of the biblical writers is 2 Pet

1:19-21 (NIV): "And we have the word of the prophets made more certain. and you will do

well to pay attention to it as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the

15

morning star rises in your hearts. Above all you must understand that no prophecy of

Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in

the will [thelçma] of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along [pherô] by the

Holy Spirit."

Several related points are developed in these verses. V. 19 underscores the

trustworthiness of Scripture: it is "the prophetic word made more certain." In v. 20 we learn

why this so: because the prophecy is not is not a matter of the prophet's own interpretation,

i.e., the prophet does not intrude his own interpretation. The context here primarily points to

the prophet giving the message, who does not intrude his own ideas into the message, although

the implication may be heeded by the non-inspired interpreter of Scripture.

V. 21 elaborates on this point: prophecy does not come by the thelçma--the initiative,

the impulse, the will--of the human agent; the prophets are not communicating on their own.

Rather, the Bible writers were prophets who spoke as they were moved, carried along, even

driven [pherô] by the Holy Spirit.

This Petrine passage makes clear that the Scriptures did not come directly from

heaven, but rather God utilized human instrumentalities. An inductive look at the biblical

writings confirms that the Holy Spirit did not abridge the freedom of the biblical writers, did

not suppress their unique personalities, did not destroy their individuality. Their writings

sometimes involved human research (Luke 1:1-3); they sometimes gave their own experiences

(Moses in Deuteronomy, Luke in Acts, the Psalmists); they present differences in style

(contrast Isaiah and Ezekiel, John and Paul); they offer different perspectives on the same truth

or event (e.g., the four Gospels). And yet, through all of this thought-inspiration, the Holy

Spirit is carrying along the biblical writers, guiding their minds in selecting what to speak and

write, so that what they present is not merely their own interpretation, but the utterly reliable

word of God, the prophetic word made more certain. The Holy Spirit imbued human

instruments with divine truth in thoughts and so assisted them in writing that they faithfully

committed to apt words the things divinely revealed to them (1 Cor 2:10-13).

16

This first corollary of the tota Scriptura principle, that the human and divine elements

in Scripture are inextricably bound together, is reinforced by comparing the written and

incarnate Word of God. Since both Jesus and Scripture are called the "Word of God" (Heb

4:12; Rev 19:13), it is appropriate to compare their divine-human natures. Just as Jesus, the

incarnate Word of God was fully God and fully man (John 1:1-3,14), so the written Word is an

inseparable union of the human and the divine. Just as Jesus' humanity was sinless, so the

holy Scriptures, though coming through human instrumentalities, is fully trustworthy.

2. The Bible Equals, Not Just Contains the Word of God

A second corollary of the totality of Scripture principle is that the Bible equals, and not

just contains, the Word of God. The testimony of Scripture is overwhelming. In the OT there

are about 1600 occurrences of four Hebrew words (in four different phrases with slight

variations) which explicitly indicate that God has spoken: (1) "the utterance [ne um] ofe

Yahweh," some 361 times; (2) "Thus says [ âmar] the Lord," some 423 times; (3) "And Gode

spoke [dibbçr], some 422 times, and (4) the "word [dâbâr] of the Lord," some 394 times.

Numerous times are recorded the equivalency between the prophet's message and the divine

message: the prophet speaks for God (Ex 7:1,2; cf. Exod 4:15,16), God puts His words in the

prophet's mouth (Deut 18:18; Jer 1:9), the hand of the Lord is strong upon the prophet (Isa

8:11; Jer 15:17; Ezek 1:3; 3:22; 37:1), or the word of the Lord comes to him (Hos 1:1; Joel

1:1; Mic 1:1; etc.). Jeremiah (chap. 25) rebukes his audience for not listening to the prophets

(v. 4), which is equated with not listening to the Lord (v. 7), and further equated with "His

words" (v. 8).

Summarizing the prophetic messages sent to Israel, 2 Kgs 21:10 records, "And the

Lord said by his servants the prophets," and 2 Chr 36:15-16 adds: "The Lord, the God of

their fathers, sent persistently to them by his messengers . . . ; but they kept mocking the

messengers of God, despising his words, and scoffing at his prophets . . ." The prophets'

message is God's message. For this reason the prophets often naturally switch from third

person reference to God ("He"), to the first person direct divine address ("I"), without any

"thus saith the Lord" (see Isa 3:4; 5:3 ff.; 10:5 ff.; 27:3; Jer 5:7; 16:21; Hos 6:4 ff.; Amos

17

5:21 ff.; Joel 2:25; Zech 9:7). The OT prophets were sure that their message was the message

of God!

Numerous times in the NT "it is written" is equivalent to "God says." For example,

in Heb 1:5-13, seven OT citations are said to be spoken by God, but the OT passages cited do

not always specifically ascribe the statement directly to God (see Ps 104:4; Ps 45:6-7; Ps

102:25-27). Again Rom 9:17 and Gal 3:8 (citing Exod 9:16 and Gen 22:18 respectively)

reveal a strict identification between Scripture and the Word of God: the NT passages

introduce the citations with "Scripture says," while the OT passages have God as the speaker.

The OT Scriptures as a whole are viewed as the "oracles of God" (Rom 3:2).

Though the Bible was not verbally dictated by God so as to by-pass the individuality of

the human author, and thus the specific words are the words chosen by the human writer, yet

the human and divine elements are so inseparable, the human messenger so divinely guided in

his selection of apt words to express the divine thoughts, that the words of the prophet are

called the Word of God. The individual words of Scripture are regarded as trustworthy,

accurately representing the divine message.

This is illustrated by a number of NT references. Jesus says, quoting Deut 8:3, "Man

shall not live by bread alone, but by every word [Geek hrçma, "word," translating Hebrew

qol, "everything"] that proceeds from the mouth of God" (Matt 4:4). Paul says of his own

inspired message: "And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the

Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who possess the Spirit" (1 Cor 2:13). Again Paul

writes: "And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God

which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the

word of God, which is at work in you believers" (1 Thess 2:13).

What is stated explicitly in the NT is also indicated by the instances when Jesus and the

apostles base an entire theological argument upon a crucial word or even grammatical form in

the OT. So in John 10:33 Jesus appeals to Ps 82:6 and the specific word "gods" to substantiate

his divinity. Accompanying His usage is the telling remark: "The Scripture cannot be broken

[luô] . . ." It cannot be luô--loosed, broken, repealed, annulled, or abolished--even to the

18

specific words. In Mt 22:41-46 He grounds His final, unanswerable argument to the Pharisees

upon the reliability of the single word "Lord" in Ps 110:1. The apostle Paul (Gal 3:16)

likewise bases his Messianic argument upon the singular number of the word "seed" in Gen

22:17-18. As we shall see below, Paul is recognizing the larger Messianic context of this

passage, as it moves from a collective plural seed to a singular Seed. Jesus shows His

ultimate respect for the full authority of the OT Torah when He affirms its totality: "For truly,

I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until

all is accomplished" (Matt 5:18).

C. The Analogy of Scripture (Analogia Scripturae)

A third general foundational principle of biblical interpretation may be termed "the

Analogy (or Harmony) of Scripture" (analogia Scripturae).

Since all Scripture is inspired by the same Spirit, and all of it is the Word of God,

therefore there is a fundamental unity and harmony among its various parts. The various parts

of OT Scripture are considered by the NT writers as harmonious and of equal divine authority.

NT writers may thus support their point by citing several OT sources as of equal and

harmonious weight. For example, in Rom 3:10-18 we have Scriptural citations from

Ecclesiastes (7:20), Psalms (14:2,3; 5:10; 140:4; 10:7; 36:2), and Isaiah (59:7,8). Scripture is

regarded as an inseparable, coherent whole. Major OT themes are assumed by the NT writers

and further developed (see section III.E.1 of this article).

The two Testaments have a reciprocal relationship in which they mutually illuminate

each other. Jesus described how the OT illuminates the NT (and Himself in particular) in John

5:39: "You search the Scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is

they that bear witness to me." Elsewhere Jesus describes how He is the Illuminator, even the

fulfillment, of the OT: "Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have

come not to abolish them but to fulfil them" (Mt 5:17).

Neither Testament is superseded by the other, although the later revelation is tested by

the former, as illustrated by the example of the Bereans, who "were more noble than those in

Thessalonica, for they received the word with all eagerness, examining the scriptures daily to

19

see if these things were so" (Acts 17:11). Even Jesus insisted that the conviction of His

disciples not be based primarily upon sensory phenomena alone, but that they believe in Him

because of the testimony of OT scripture (Luke 24:25-27).

The "analogy of Scripture" principle has three main aspects: (a) Scripture is its Own

Expositor (Scriptura sui ipsius interpres); (b) the Consistency of Scripture; and (c) the Clarity

of Scripture.

1. "Scripture is Its Own Interpreter"

Or as Martin Luther put it, "Scripture is its own light." Because there is an underlying

unity among the various parts of Scripture, one portion of Scripture interprets another,

becoming the key for understanding related passages.

Jesus demonstrated this principle on the way to Emmaus when, "beginning with Moses

and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself"

(Luke 24:27). Later that night in the upper room, he pointed out "'that everything written

about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and the psalms must be fulfilled.' Then he

opened their minds to understand the scriptures . . ." (Luke 24:44-45).

Paul expresses this same principle in 1 Cor 2:13 (NKJV): "These things we also speak,

not in words which man's wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing

spiritual things with spiritual." This text has been translated in different ways, but certainly

the apostle's own use of Scripture indicates his adoption of the principle. We have already

noted the whole catena of OT quotations cited in Rom 3:10-18. The same phenomenon may be

observed in Heb 1:5-13; 2:6-8, 12, 13.

An OT scripture which has often been used to support the principle of the Bible as its

own expositor is Isa 28:10, 13: "For it is precept upon precept, precept upon precept, line

upon line, line upon line, here a little, there a little. . . . Therefore the word of the Lord will

be to them precept upon precept, precept upon precept, line upon line, line upon line, here a

little, there a little; that they may go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and

taken." Some have argued that this passage does not apply to this principle. It is true that the

original context of these verses has often been overlooked. But a closer look at the setting

20

really strengthens the applicability of the passage to the hermeneutical principle (see Young

1965-1972:2:276-77). The ones scoffing at Isaiah's message make drunken jibes at the

prophet (vss. 9,10, 14). They accuse him of treating them like children, giving them the

. .simplest of instruction. The Hebrew of vss. 10, 13 reads like kindergarten sounds: sav lâsâv,

. . .sav lâsâv, qav lâqâv, qav lâqâv, but they also have meaning, sav meaning "commandment" as

in Hos 5:11, and qav "rule, standard, norm, plumbline" as in Isa 28:16 and 34:16-17. Isaiah

is reminding his hearers of individual laws they have broken, "here a little, there a little" , in

bits and pieces, everywhere confronting them with such simplicity and force that they cannot

possibly mistake it. The scoffers say Isaiah is teaching the way one teaches children, and the

truth is, for Isaiah, that is precisely the way to really make it plain--with repetition and

simplicity. Isaiah's technique of bringing the various OT precepts to bear upon the situation

makes it so clear that they must either hear and obey or fall back in rejection. (The irony is

that, according to vs. 11, in contrast to the clear, forceful, simple language of Isaiah, which

they rejected, in captivity they will hear the foreign tongue of the Assyrians.)

In practical application of this principle that the Bible is its own expositor, Jesus, on

the way to Emmaus, shows how all that Scripture says about a given topic (in His case the

Messiah) should be brought to bear upon the interpretation of the subject (Luke 24:27, 44-45).

This does not mean the indiscriminate stringing together of passages in "proof-text" fashion

without regard for the context of each text. But since the Scriptures ultimately have a single

divine Author, it is crucial to gather all that is written on a particular topic in order to be able

to consider all the contours of the topic.

2. The Consistency of Scripture

Jesus succinctly stated this aspect of the analogy of Scripture: "The Scripture cannot be

broken" (John 10:35). Since Scripture has a single divine Author, the various parts of

Scripture are consistent with each other. Thus Scripture cannot be set against Scripture. All

the doctrines of the Bible will cohere with each other, and interpretations of individual passages

will harmonize with the totality of what Scripture teaches on a given subject. We have already

21

seen how the NT writers linked together several OT citations as having equal and harmonious

bearing upon the topic they were explaining.

While the different Bible writers may provide different emphases regarding the same

event or topic, this will be without contradiction or misinterpretation. As we will discuss more

fully later, this is evidenced especially with parallel passages such as in the four Gospels. Each

gospel writer recorded what impressed him most under the inspiration of the Spirit, and each

facet of the whole is needed in obtaining the full and balanced picture.

3. The Clarity of Scripture

The principle of the analogy of Scripture also involves the aspect of the clarity of

Scripture. In contrast to the Roman Catholic doctrine of the clarity of Scripture, in which

Christ and the Spirit mystically indwell in the Church and therefore the Church has the

authority to state what is the true meaning of Scripture, the biblical principle is that the Bible is

perspicuous and does not require any human ecclesiological magisterium to pronounce its

meaning. The biblical testimony encourages the readers to study the Bible for themselves in

order to understand God's message to them (e.g., Deut 30:11-14; Luke l:3,4; John 20:30-31;

Acts 17:11; Rom 10:17; Rev 1:3).

The implication is that the meaning of Scripture is clear and straight-forward, able to

be grasped by the diligent student. Jesus illustrates this in his dealing with the lawyer. He

asked him, "what is written in the law? How do you read?" (Luke 10:26). In other words, He

expected that the Bible could be understood. When the lawyer cited Deut 6:5 and Lev 19:18,

Jesus commended him for having correctly answered (Luke 10:27). Numerous times in the

gospel accounts Jesus makes the same point: "Have you never read in the Scriptures . . . ?"

(Matt 21:42); "Have you not read . . . ?" (Matt 12:3, 5; 19:4; 21:16; 22:31; Mark 2:25;

12:10, 26; Luke 6:3); "Let the reader understand" (Matt 24:15; Mark 13:14).

The consistent example of the Bible writers is that the Scriptures are to be taken in

their plain, literal sense, unless a clear and obvious figure is intended. Note especially Jesus'

own distinction, and the disciples' recognition, of the difference between literal and figurative

language (John 16:25, 29). There is no stripping away of the "husk" of the literal sense in

22

order to arrive at the "kernel" of the mystical, hidden, allegorical meaning, that only the

initiated can uncover.

Scripture also maintains that there is a definite truth-intention of the biblical writers in

any given statement, and not a subjective, uncontrolled multiplicity of meanings. Jesus and the

apostles spoke with authority, giving not just one of many individual readings of a passage, but

the true meaning as intended by the human writer and/or divine Author (see, e.g., Acts 3:17-

18, 22-24). At the same time the NT interpretation does not claim to exhaust the meaning of a

given OT passage; there is still room for careful exegesis. There are also instances where the

biblical writer intentionally used terminology or phraseology with a breadth of meaning that

encompasses several different nuances indicated by the immediate context of the passage (e.g.,

John 3:3).

The specific truth-intention is vividly illustrated with regard to apocalyptic prophecy:

the angel interpreter consistently gives definite interpretation of each symbol (see, e.g. Dan

7:16-27; 8:15-26). Another illustration involves those of Jesus' parables where Jesus' himself

interprets the meaning of each part of the parables (see Matt 13:18-23, 36-43).

This is not to deny that some parts of Scripture point beyond themselves (e.g.,

typology, predictive prophecy, symbols and parables) to an extended meaning or future

fulfillment, but even in these cases the extended meaning or fulfillment arises from, is

consistent with, and in fact is an integral part of the specific truth-intention of the text; and

Scripture itself indicates the presence of such extended meaning or fulfillment in such cases.

(See section III.E.4.)

It is also true that not every portion of Scripture was fully understood by the original

hearers, or even by the inspired writers. In 1 Pet 1:10-12 the apostle indicates that the OT

prophets may not have always clearly understood all the Messianic implications of their

prophecies. Thus Peter implies another facet of the principle of the clarity of Scripture, i.e.,

that additional clearer revelation becomes a key to more fully understanding the less clear

passages. This same point seems implied also from a different perspective in 2 Pet 3:16 when

Peter writes that some of the things Paul has written are "hard to understand." These difficult

23

passages are not to be the starting point, which "the ignorant and unstable twist to their own

destruction," but are to be viewed in the larger context of clearer Scriptural statements of truth

(v. 18; cf. v. 2).

The clarity of Scripture corollary also involves the concept of "progressive revelation."

Heb 1:1-3 indicates this progress in revelation from OT prophets to God's own Son (see also

John 1:16-18; Col 1:25-26; etc.). This is not progressive revelation in the sense that later

Scripture contradicts or nullifies previous revelation, but in the sense that later revelation

illuminates, clarifies, or amplifies the truths presented previously. So Jesus, in the Sermon on

the Mount (Matthew 5) does not nullify the precepts of the Decalogue, but strips away from

them the accretions of erroneous tradition and reveals their true depth of meaning and

application (see Gerstner 1986, 85-88). The basic insights on this fuller import of the law were

already in the OT, and Jesus enables these gems of truth to shine with even greater brilliance as

they are freed from the distorted interpretations of some of the scribes and Pharisees.

Progressive revelation also occurs in the sense that Jesus is the fulfillment of the various types

and prophecies of the OT. We will examine principles for interpreting typology and prophecy

in a later section (II.E.4).

A final practical application of this principle of clarity is to recognize the increasing

spiral of understanding as one passage illuminates another. On one hand, later biblical authors

write with conscious awareness of what has been written before and often assume and build

upon what comes earlier (sometimes called the epigenetic principle [see Kaiser 1978, 8 14, 22,

34] or analogy of antecedent Scripture [Kaiser 1978, 134-140]). A close reading of a later

passage may indicate echoes of, or allusions to, earlier passages, and the earlier passages in

their context become the key to interpreting the fuller meaning of the later. This is especially

evident in the book of Revelation (Paulien 1988, 155-306). On the other hand, earlier passages

may not be fully understood until seen in the light of the later revelation. This is true in

particular with typology and prophecy (see Matt 12:6, 42, 43; 1 Pet 1:10-12.) Thus the spiral

of understanding grows as later illuminates earlier, and earlier illuminates later.

D. "Spiritual Things Spiritually Discerned" (Spiritalia spiritaliter examinatur)

24

A fourth general principle of biblical interpretation concerns the issue of

preunderstanding or objectivity. In modern hermeneutical approaches toward the Bible, both

among conservative/evangelical and liberal critical scholars, it is often assumed that the

original intent of the Bible writer can be ascertained by the rigorous application of

hermeneutical principles and exegetical tools, quite apart from any supernatural spiritual

assistance. Thus non-Christians can determine the meaning of Scripture as well as Christians,

if they use the tools and apply the principles correctly. This assumption is maintained in the

laudable interest of upholding a degree of objectivity in interpreting the biblical text.

However, Scriptural data leads to a different conclusion. We note in particular, 1 Cor

2:11, 14: "For what person knows a man's thoughts except the spirit of the man which is in

him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. . . . The

unspiritual man does not receive the gifts of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him and he

is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned."

1. The Role of the Holy Spirit

"Spiritual things are spiritually discerned." Since the Bible is ultimately not the

product of the human writer's mind but of the mind of God revealed through the Spirit (cf. 1

Cor 2:12-13), it is not possible to separate "what it meant" to the human writer--to be studied

without the aid of the Holy Spirit, from "what it means"--to be applied by the help of the

Spirit. Both the original meaning and its present application involve the thoughts of God,

which according to Paul can only be adequately comprehended if we have the aid of the Spirit

of God (cf. John 6:45; 16:13; 1 Cor 2:13-14; 2 Cor 3:14-18).

Some have resisted letting the Spirit have a place in the hermeneutical spiral because it

seems to them to allow the subjective element to overcome solid exegetical/hermeneutical

research. It is true that "spiritual exegesis" alone--that is, an attempt to rely totally on the

Spirit without conscientiously applying principles of exegesis and hermeneutics arising from

Scripture, can lead to subjectivism.

But the proper combination of dependance upon the Spirit with rigorous exegesis based

upon sound hermeneutical procedures, far from leading to subjectivity, constitutes the only way

25

of escaping subjectivity. Modern scholars are increasingly more willing to recognize that all

come to the Scripture with their own preunderstandings, presuppositions, biases. This cannot

be remedied by approaching the text "scientifically" without a "faith bias." In fact, since the

Scriptures call for a response of faith, an attempted "neutral" stance is already at cross-currents

with the intent of Scripture (cf. Matt 13:11-17; John 6:69; Acts 2:38).

Believing and Spirit-led interpreters also come with their own biases and

preunderstandings and are not impervious to error (cf. Acts 11:15). But for Christians who

believe the promises of Scripture, it is possible to ask God to transform their minds so that they

increasingly adopt and incorporate the presuppositions of Scripture and not their own (see Rom

12:1). The Spirit of truth was promised to the disciples, and to us: "When the Spirit of truth

comes, he will guide you into all the truth" (John 16:13). It must be noted that the "you" here

is plural; the Spirit directs interpreters together in the fellowship of the church body (Ps

119:63; Acts 2:42; 4:32; Rom 12:4-8; 1 Corinthians 12; Eph 4:3-6), where they may be

benefitted by exchange with and correction of other believers.

Interpreters must make a decision that their pre-understandings will derive from and be

under control of the Bible itself, and constantly be open for modification and enlargement on

the basis of Scripture. They must consciously reject any external keys or systems to impose on

Scripture from without, whether it be naturalistic (closed system of cause and effect without

any room for the supernatural), evolutionary (the developmental axiom), humanistic (man the

final norm), or relativistic (rejection of absolutes). They must ask the Spirit who inspired the

Word to illuminate, shape, and modify their pre-understandings according to the Word, and to

guard their understandings to remain faithful to the Word.

2. The Spiritual Life of the Interpreter

"Spiritual things are spiritually discerned" implies not only the need of the Spirit to aid

in understanding, but also the spirituality of the interpreter. The Spirit not only illuminates the

mind, but also must have transformed the interpreter's heart. The approach of the interpreter

must be that called for by Scripture, an attitude of consent or willingness to follow what

Scripture says, if he/she is to understand Scripture's meaning: "If anyone wants to do His will,

26

he shall know concerning the doctrine, whether it is from God or whether I speak on My own

authority" (John 7:17).

There must be diligent, earnest prayer for understanding, after the example of David:

"Teach me, O Lord, the way of thy statutes; and I will keep it to the end" (Ps 119:33; cf. vv.

34-40; Prov 2:3-7). There must be an acceptance by faith of what the prophets say (2 Chr

20:20; cf. John 5:46-47).

In sum, the Bible cannot be studied as any other book, coming merely "from below"

with sharpened tools of exegesis and honed principles of interpretation. At every stage of the

interpretive process, the book inspired by the Spirit can only be correctly understood "from

above" by the illumination and transformation of the Spirit. God's word must be approached

with reverence. Perhaps the best encapsulation of the interpreter's appropriate stance before

Scripture is recorded by Isaiah: "But this is the man to whom I will look, he that is humble and

contrite in spirit, and trembles at my word" (Isa 66:2).

27

III. Specific Guidelines for the Interpretation of Scripture

The specific guidelines for interpreting biblical passages arise from and build upon the

foundational principles we have observed in Scripture thus far. These guidelines encompass

essentially the grammatico-historical method that is dictated by common sense and the laws of

language in ascertaining the meaning of any writing. But more than from common interpretive

sense, all these guidelines also either explicitly or implicitly arise from Scripture itself.

It should be noted at this point that most modern critical scholars do not consider the

Bible writers' own hermeneutical practice a very promising place to go for detailed guidance in

developing specific guidelines for a sound hermeneutic. It is claimed that the NT writers often

followed the first-century prevailing Jewish methods of exegesis that were not faithful to the

meaning of the OT text. See, for example, the statement of G. F. Moore who characterizes

Jewish exegesis as "atomistic exegesis which interprets sentences, clauses, phrases and even

single words independently of the context or the historical occasion, ... combines them with

other similarly detached utterances and makes use of analogy of expressions, often by purely

verbal association." Moore adds: "The interpretation of the Scriptures in the New Testament

is of precisely the same kind" (Moore 1927:1:249-50, cited in Brewer 1992:1). Most modern

critical scholars concur with this assessment, and join Longenecker with the warning regarding

exegesis by the NT witnesses: "Let us admit that we cannot possibly reproduce the revelatory

stance of pesher interpretation, nor the atomistic manipulations of midrash, nor the

circumstantial or ad hominem thrust of a particular polemic of that day--nor should we try"

(Longenecker 1987:8, cited in Brewer 1992:1).

However, the recent published dissertation by James Brewer is destined to rock the

presuppositions of current critical scholarship regarding first-century Jewish exegetical

methods. Brewer demonstrates that "the predecessors of the rabbis before 70 CE did not

interpret Scripture out of context, did not look for any meaning in Scripture other than the plain

sense, and did not change the text to fit their interpretation, though the later rabbis did all these

things" (Brewer 1992:1). Brewer calls for a fresh examination of NT exegetical methods in

light of these conclusions.

28

This call for fresh examination of the NT exegetical methods has been anticipated in

the work of such evangelical scholars as Walter Kaiser (1981, 1985). Like Brewer, Kaiser

also carefully distinguishes in rabbinic hermeneutical methodology between the earlier pešat

["plain, simple, or literal"] exegesis of the school of Hillel (c. 30 B.C.- A.D. 9), and the later

midrashic and ϙd ["secret"] methods which often "overtook the concerns of the peshat"

(Kaiser 1981:52-57). Kaiser arrives at a similar assessment regarding the sound hermeneutic

of the NT writers: they "used a Peshat type of exegesis and not a Midrashic, pesher, or Sod

type of exegesis" (Kaiser 1981:56). OT passages "were used in the NT in a manner consistent

with the single truth-intention of the original author" (Kaiser 1985:14).

A number of modern studies of various NT passages have supported Kaiser's

conclusions (e.g., Archer 1982; Caird 1959; Davidson 1989, 1992, 1992; Dodd 1952:59-60;

France 1971:38-80; Kuyper 1978; Moo 1983; Moody 1981). It is becoming increasingly

apparent that the NT writers, in their exegetical enterprise, are concerned to faithfully

represent the original plain meaning of the OT texts for their readers. (This is not to say that

every time a Scripture is referred to in passing, that the NT authors are attempting an exegesis

of the passage. Just as we today might say that we escaped "by the skin of our teeth" without

exegeting Job 19:20, so the biblical writers are steeped in OT language and imagery, and may

use Scriptural language without intending to exegete the passage alluded to. Those NT

instances where the biblical writer is clearly expounding the meaning of OT passages are

termed by Kaiser the "doctrinal" use of the OT by the NT.)

When Terry in his classic textbook on Biblical hermeneutics insisted that modern

interpreters "must go to the Scriptures themselves. . . to ascertain the principles which the

sacred writers followed" (Terry 1975:162), he was referring not only to general hermeneutical

principles but also specific guidelines. In harmony with Terry's dictum and the sola Scriptura

principle already discussed, we will consider in detail the specific interpretive guidelines as

they emerge from the Bible writers' hermeneutic. For each guideline discussed below, we will

first note biblical precedents revealing how the guideline arises from Scripture. We will also

29

provide one or more biblical examples illustrating the application of the guideline in biblical

interpretation.

A. Text and Translation

The first and most basic task in interpreting Scripture is to insure that one has access to

what is indeed the Holy Scriptures--both in the original languages and in modern translation.

This requires attention to textual studies and to principles of translation.

1. Textual Studies

a. The preservation of the Biblical text

Since the focus of the hermeneutical enterprise is upon the written Word, it is of great

importance that the original text of the Bible be ascertained as far as possible. The Bible itself

underscores the vital necessity of preserving the words of sacred Scripture. Moses wrote with

regard to the Torah: "You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take anything

from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you"

(Deut 4:2). "Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor

take away from it" (Deut 12:32). The book of Proverbs expands this principle to the whole

Word of God: "Every word of God is pure; He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him.

Do not add to His words, lest He reprove you , and you be found a liar" (Prov 30:5-6). At the

close of the Biblical canon, a similar warning is found: "For I testify to everyone who hears the

words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the

plagues that are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of

this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and

from the things which are written in this book" (Rev 22:18-19).

In OT Israel provision was made for preserving the Torah by depositing "the book of

the Torah" in the sanctuary Most Holy Place beside the ark of the covenant (Deut 31:26).

There was to be periodic public reading of the Torah every seven years at the Feast of

Tabernacles (Deut 31:9-13).

Unfortunately, no autograph copies of either the OT or NT Scriptures remain. But the

history of textual transmission reveals how carefully and painstakingly the Biblical text has

30

been preserved down through the centuries to the present day. With regard to the OT, during

the decades of the 20th century prior to the end of World War II, critical scholars had a very

low estimate of the accuracy of the received (Massoretic) Hebrew text, since its earliest

manuscript dated back only to about 900 A.D. and critical editions of the Hebrew Bible

proposed thousands of conjectured emendments to the text. But since 1947 and the discovery

of the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS), which contained manuscripts or fragments of every OT book

except Esther, scholars have been amazed to discover how the Massoretes had handed down

virtually without change the textual tradition from a thousand years earlier. As Waltke (1979,

214) puts it: "The presence of a text type among the DSS (c. 200 B.C. to A.D. 100) identical

with the one preserved by the Massoretes, whose earliest extant MS dates to c. A.D. 900,

gives testimony to the unbelievable achievement of some scribes in faithfully preserving the

text."

With regard to the NT, the amount of MS evidence for the Greek text is far more

abundant than for any other document of the ancient world. There are over 5000 Greek

manuscripts of part or all of the NT text, some 2000 ancient Greek lectionaries (NT readings

arranged in order of liturgical usage), about 8000 Latin MSS, over 1000 MSS in other ancient

versions such as Syriac and Coptic, and thousands of quotations--virtually the whole NT--in

citations by the various early church fathers. The actual amount of substantive variation among

these many manuscripts is very small. E. Abbot has put the situation in perspective: "About

nineteen-twentieths of the variations have so little support that . . . no one would think of them

as rival readings, and nineteen-twentieths of the remainder are of so little importance that their

adoption or rejection would cause no appreciable difference in the sense of the passages in

which they occur" (cited by Sitterly and Greenlee 1988, 818). F. F. Bruce concurs: "The

variant reading about which any doubt remains among textual critics of the New Testament

affect no material question of historic fact or of Christian faith and practice" (1960, 19-20).

b. The need for textual studies

This is not to say, however, that there have been no scribal errors or even intentional

changes throughout the history of the textual transmission.

31

Although the last 150 years of diligent textual study assures us that the Scriptures have

come down to us substantially as they were written, there are small variations among the many

ancient biblical manuscripts, and it is therefore appropriate to seek to recover the original text

of the OT and NT among these many witnesses. The science (or art) of restoring the original

text of the Old and New Testaments is textual study, often called "textual criticism" or

sometimes "lower criticism" (in contradistinction to "higher criticism" or the historical-critical

method). Textual study, as practiced by one who accepts the full authority of Scripture, rejects

the presuppositions of the historical-critical method (see section IV.F/G below) and insists that

the final norm for determining the authentic text of Scripture is found within Scripture itself

and is carried out within the context of the unity of Scripture.

Basic articles on textual study are found in the SDABC (see also bibliography, section

IV), and need not be reproduced here. The standard Hebrew and Greek Bibles (also listed in

the bibliography) give detailed information on major textual variants in the apparatus at the

bottom of each page of biblical text.

2. Translations/Versions

The Scriptures give numerous examples of the need for a faithful translation of the

words of Scripture into the target language: Neh 8:8; Matt 1:23; Mark 5:41; 15:22,34; John

1:42; 9:7; Acts 9:36; 13:8; Heb 7:2; etc. The Biblical examples reveal how the translation of

Scripture should remain as faithful as possible to both the form and content of the original.

a. The challenges involved in translation

After the best (most original) biblical text has been ascertained, the challenge remains

to represent accurately and clearly the form and content of the Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek (the

source language) in the modern target language (the receptor language). In this process the

translator must seek to bridge the various barriers mentioned in the beginning of this article:

gaps of time, culture, and geography; changed social-economic-political situations; different

thought patterns; etc. He/she must decide whether the culture-specific expressions and

descriptions are to be retained in the translation, or whether they should be reformulated into

the equivalent idiomatic expressions.

32

The most significant challenge to the translation process lies in the inherent structural

differences between the original and the modern languages. We note, for example, the inexact

equivalence between vocabulary of the languages. The range of meaning of a given word in

the original language may be larger or smaller than any possible equivalent in the target

language, and thereby the connotations of the original word are easily distorted by the

unrelated meanings associated with the closest modern equivalent.

Further, grammatical and syntactical features of the original languages are not always

possible to adequately represent in the modern translation. For example, the Hebrew verb

stresses state, the Greek verb stresses kind of action, while the English verb emphasizes time.

The English could represent much of the verbal richness of the Greek and Hebrew, but would

require extensive paraphrase and lose the crisp economy of original words in the process.

Another challenge is the ambiguity of Hebrew and Greek phrases and expressions, in

particular associated with the Hebrew construct chain and the Greek genitive. Should the

translator render these expressions word-for-word, attempting to retain the same ambiguity in

the modern target language, or should there be a selection of what the translator considers the

most probable meaning of these phrases, and the provision of an interpretative equivalent that

removes the ambiguity--but is potentially misleading if the incorrect meaning has been chosen?

(See Problems in Bible Translation 1984, 39-54, for examples of the above problems.) These

challenging questions lead to several different translation theories.

b. Translation types

There are three major philosophies or theories concerning what makes the best

translation, and the application of these result in three very different kinds of translations. (See

bibliography for books that discuss the strengths and weaknesses of specific modern versions

[see Kubo and Specht 1983 for more detail].)

The formal translations. The theory of formal translation places an emphasis upon

word-for-word equivalency in the translation process. This kind of translation consists of two

stages. It first analyzes the surface structure of the source language (the Hebrew/Aramaic or

Greek text), with particular attention to grammatical/syntactical relationships, word meanings,

33

and the meanings of word combinations. Then the translator transfers in his mind this surface

structure of the source languages into the receptor language.

This process of word-for-word equivalency gives a more exact and literal rendering of

the original Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek. Strict "word-for-word literalness", with special

attention to precise nuances of Greek tenses and the like, makes an excellent study Bible.

However, the drawback is that its readings are often rather wooden and stilted, and the

aesthetic quality and cadences of the original may be lost. Some modern versions have

succeeded better than others in capturing the lyrical and majestic literary beauty of the original

while maintaining an essentially word-for-word equivalence.

The dynamic translations. The theory of dynamic translation emphasizes meaning-for-

meaning equivalency instead of word-for-word. The translation process involves an additional

intermediate step that is not undertaken in formal translations. After the translator analyzes the

surface structure of the original language (Hebrew/Aramaic or Greek) and then transfers this

structure in his mind to the modern language he/she then restructures the transferred material

into idiomatic usage that represents the equivalent thought or meaning.

The advantage of the dynamic translation is its idiomatic contemporaneity, its

readability and clarity; but the drawback is that it involves an additional interpretative step in

the translation that can be misleading or erroneous--depending upon the correctness or

incorrectness of the translator's interpretation.

Some versions seek to combine the best of both formal and dynamic translations, by

providing a high degree of accuracy and faithfulness to the biblical text while producing an

idiomatic, readable translation of superior literary qualities. This results in a very popular

version, although at times problematic where the translation is more interpretative than literal.

The idiomatic modern usage may also prove more difficult for purposes of memorization than

the strictly formal word-for-word translations.

Paraphrases. The third category of modern versions is the paraphrase. This type of

translation theory is far more free with the original than the dynamic translations. It is a

running paraphrase which is intended more for devotional use than serious doctrinal study.

34

Although the language flows very freely in idiomatic modern usage, the reader should be very

cautious about using paraphrases in serious study. Many liberties with the text are taken, and

it is often more of an interpretation than a faithful and accurate rendering of the original text of

Scripture.

An examination of the way the NT writers translate OT passages reveals that all three

of the translation theories listed above are employed to a lesser or greater degree. Sometimes

the NT citation is virtually word-for-word equivalence; sometimes the translation into the target

language of Greek is more dynamic; and occasionally the NT writers paraphrase the OT

passages. It seems to depend upon the occasion and the purpose of their translation, and these

biblical precedents allows for all three types of translation for different purposes.

Cautions about specific kinds of modern versions. Reservations must be expressed

about certain kinds of Bibles that are currently available. There is a danger, for example, with

regard to a Bible translated by a single denomination, that the translation will be slanted or

even skewed to support their unique doctrines. A similar weakness also exists in a one-man

translator Bible, where the balance and input of many minds is not available. Caution is also in

order with regard to Bibles with systems of notes, or interpreting systems. Likewise,

translations into simplified modern language for children run the risk of distorting crucial

Biblical themes. While all of these kinds of Bibles may have their place, the serious Bible

student reader must carefully safeguard against allowing human interpretations to shunt the full

force of the Bible text. The use of more interpretive versions should be diligently compared

with a formal word-for-word translation, if not with the original Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek.

While it is a challenge to translate the Bible into various languages, the task has now

been accomplished in hundreds of separate languages and dialects. For practical purposes

nearly everyone in the major language groups can read the Bible in his or her own tongue.

Groups like Wycliffe Translators and the Bible societies will soon have the Bible published in

all languages.

B. Historical Context/Questions of Introduction

35

In order for us to understand the Scriptures, we must first seek to determine what they

meant in their original setting. We must see in what situation its teachings were launched--the

historical background, who said what, to whom, and under what circumstances. When we

grasp these things, then it will be easier to apply the Bible message to current situations.

1. The Bible as Reliable History:Scriptural Self-testimony

The history of the Plan of Redemption forms the backdrop for the entire Bible. The

accounts of Creation, Fall, Flood, Patriarchs, emergence of Israel, Exodus, Conquest of

Canaan, Judges, Kings and Prophets of the United and Divided Monarchy, Babylonian Exile,

Return, rebuilding of the Temple, the accounts of Jesus and the apostles--all the persons,

events and institutions in the flow of the Old and New Testaments are presented as a record of

authentic and reliable history.

The later OT prophets, Jesus and the NT writers repeatedly refer back to the accounts

of Creation and Flood; in fact, every NT writer explicitly or implicitly affirms the historicity of

Gen 1-11 (see Matt 19:4,5; 24:37-39; Mark 10:6; Luke 3:38; 17:26,27; Rom 5:12; 1 Cor

6:16; 11:8,9,12; 15:21,22,45; 2 Cor 11:3; Eph 5:31; 1 Tim 2:13,14; Heb 11:7; 1 Pet 3:20; 2

Pet 2:5; 3:4-6; Jas 3:9; 1 John 3:12; Jude 11,14; Rev 14:7). Later Biblical writers also refer

to the time of the patriarchs, the Exodus, and the rest of OT and NT history, interpreting these

as reliable descriptions of God's real space-time interrelationships with His people.

The historical context of biblical accounts is accepted at face value as true, and there is

thus no attempt to reconstruct history in a different way than presented in the biblical record.

The NT writers, in their interpretation of the OT, show a remarkably clear acquaintance with

the general flow and specific details of OT history. (See Stephen's speech in Acts 7; Paul's

discussion of the Exodus in 1 Corinthians 10; etc.). The typological arguments of the NT

writers assume the historical veracity of the persons, events, and institutions that were types; in

fact, the whole force of their typological argument depends upon the historicity of these

historical realities (see 1 Cor 10:1-11; Rom 5:12-21; 1 Pet 3:18-22; Davidson 1981).

Biblical history is inspired history, and as such is even more reliable than secular

history. The Biblical writers do not seek to present an exhaustive world history, but rather the

36

history of God's covenant people and those events and nations which interface with His People.

Furthermore, history is presented not from a biased human viewpoint, but from the omniscient

divine perspective. Through inspiration God pulls aside the curtain to reveal hidden motives

and sins, unvarnished portrayals of character, and the spiritual forces at work (both good and

evil) in the cosmic conflict between Christ and Satan and their respective supernatural and

human agencies. The outworking of history is shown to be the direct result of individual and

national obedience or disobedience to the divine principles governing this world. The meaning

of history is revealed as centered in Christ. And history is presented as superintended by God,

moving toward its dramatic climax at the end of the world with the Second Coming of Christ,

and the final eternal kingdom of God in the New Earth.

In the inner-Scriptural hermeneutic of biblical writers, attention is drawn to various

"questions of introduction" (date, authorship,and life setting of Biblical books), and these

questions sometimes become crucial to the inspired writer's argument. In each case, the plain

declaration of the text is accepted as accurately portraying the authorship, chronology, and life

setting for the text. For example, the Davidic authorship of Ps 110 (as stated in the

superscription of the psalm) is crucial to Jesus' final clinching, unanswerable argument

concerning His Messiahship (Matt 22:41-46). Again, Davidic authorship is also crucial to

Peter in his Pentecost sermon to convince the Jews of the predicted resurrection of the Messiah

(Acts 2:25-35).

The "life setting" (Sitz im Leben) of Abraham's justification by faith in the Genesis

account is very significant in Paul's argument to the Romans, to show that it was before

Abraham had been circumcised that this had happened (Rom 4:1-12). For Paul there is no

question of a hypothetically reconstructed life setting that gave rise to the account, but the

apostle-- and all biblical writers consistently throughout Scripture-- accept the life setting that is

set forth in the biblical text.

Thus by precept and example Scripture underscores the importance of interpreting the

biblical material in its literal, historical sense, including details of chronology, geography, and

miraculous divine interventions in history.

37

As Grant (1950:75) stated with regard to the NT writers as interpreters, "What is

described or related in the OT is unquestionably true. No NT writer would dream of

questioning a statement contained in the OT. . . ." Or as Montgomery (1967:48) put it

regarding the hermeneutic of Jesus: "Christ's attitude toward the OT was one of total trust:

nowhere, in no particular, and on subject did he place Scripture under criticism. Never did he

distinguish truth 'in faith and practice' from veracity in historical and secular matters. . . ."

(See also Geisler [1983:232-4], who shows that the Bible everywhere supports a

correspondence [and not intentionalist] view of truth, in which that which is

stated or described corresponds with the actual state of affairs.)

2. Questions of Introduction:Authorship, Date andLife Setting

Many of the books of the Bible provide explicit indications of their authorship, date

and historical situation. In harmony with the Biblical writers' own consistent acceptance of this

data at face-value in their interpretation of earlier Scriptural passages, a Bible-based

hermeneutic refuses to critically reconstruct hypothetical theories concerning these questions of

introduction that contradict the plain declaration of the biblical text.

Thus, contrary to much of modern critical scholarship, the Pentateuch is accepted as

written by Moses, and not a late redaction of various source documents (Exod 17:14; 24:4,7;

34:27; Num 33:1-2; Deut 31:9-11; Josh 1:7,8; 1 Kings 2:3; Mt 19:7,8; Acts 3:22; etc.; Horn

1979, 860-863; Hasel 1985, 7-28); Isaiah is accepted as the writer of the entire book of Isaiah

(Isa 1:1; see Matt 3:3; 8:17; 12:17-21; etc.; Horn 1979, 528-531; Hasel 1985, 28-36); David

is the writer of the psalms that are attributed to him in their superscriptions and/or referred to

as Davidic by NT writers (73 Psalms; Matt 22:41-46; Acts 2:25-35; etc.; Horn 1979, 910);

Solomon is the writer of the majority of Proverbs, of Song of Solomon and Ecclesiastes (Prov

1:1; 10:1; 25:1; Cant 1:1; Eccl 1:1, 12, 13; Horn 1979, 265-266; Hasel 1986; Ferch 1986);

Daniel the 6th century writer of the book that bears his name (Dan 8:1; 9:2, see Matt 24:15;

Horn 1979, 1203-1206); Zechariah the writer of the entire book which bears his name (Zech

38

1:1); Peter is the writer of 2 Peter (2 Pet 1:1; Horn 1979, 871); and John the writer of the

Apocalypse (Rev 1:1-4; Horn 1979, 938-940).

Likewise, in contrast to most current critical scholarship, but in harmony with the

precedent of the NT writers in their interpretation of the OT, a Bible-based hermeneutic

accepts at face value the biblical accounts of the creation of this world occurring in six literal,

consecutive, 24-hour days (Genesis 1-2), and a literal, world-wide flood (Genesis 6-9); as well

as the historicity of the patriarchal narratives (Genesis 12-50; Horn 1979, 410-411), the 15th

cent. B.C. Exodus from Egypt (Exodus-Deuteronomy; 1 Kgs 6:1; Horn 1979, 348-351; Shea

1982, 320-238) and Conquest of Canaan (Joshua 1-12; Horn 1979, 622-623); and the other

historical assertions of Scripture, including the supernatural, miraculous events of both OT and

NT.

It must be recognized that some of the books of the Bible do not explicitly indicate the

writer, period and historical circumstances of writing. The best solutions to the questions of

introduction for these books must be based upon, and in harmony with, all relevant biblical

data, seen in light of extra-biblical evidence. A number of conservative commentaries (in the

introductions to each biblical book) and Bible dictionaries provides an excellent summary and

evaluation of this material (see bibliography, section IV).

3. Historical backgrounds

The historical background for a given passage involves the internal data of Scripture,

and the illumination provided by extra-biblical sources. An acquaintance with the whole sweep

of sacred history, and the setting of each individual event within the whole, is crucial to

unfolding the historical setting of Scriptures. This is true not only with regard to situating the

persons, events, and institutions as they are introduced into the biblical narrative, but it

becomes particularly vital in understanding later allusions to these prior events. For example,

Jesus' statement in John 3:14 ("As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the

Son of man be lifted up") can only be understood against the backdrop of Num 21:4-9. Again,

the typological allusion to the drying up of the river Euphrates to prepare the way for the kings

from the East in Rev 16:12 must be seen in the light of the fall of Babylon (predicted in

39

Jeremiah 51, etc.) accomplished by the diverting of the River Euphrates to make way for

Cyrus and the Medes and Persians.

The historical background material within Scripture is augmented by the wealth of

illumination provided by the literature of antiquity (e.g., the apocrypha and pseudopigrapha,

the Targums and later Rabbinic material, Philo, Josephus, and various Hellenistic writings) and

archaeological discoveries in the last two centuries (which have brought to light much more

literary background material in texts and on monuments, as well as unearthing the material

culture of antiquity).

As examples of modern illumination of historical backgrounds, the Creation and Flood

records of Scripture, when compared with their parallel ancient Near Eastern stories (Atrahasis

Epic, Eridu Genesis, Gilgamesh Epic) are seen as a polemic against the distorted portrayals of

these event (see Heidel 1946 and Hasel 1972, 1974). Various customs of the patriarchal era

are illuminated by the texts found at Mari, Nuzi, and Ebla (see Horn 1980, 315-320). The

Exodus narrative (Exod 1-15) is enhanced by situating its events against the background of the

18th dynasty of Egypt (Shea 1982, 230-238). The Conquest of Canaan and the early period of

the Judges must be viewed (a) in light of the grossly immoral and violent Canaanite fertility

cults, illuminated in the Ugaritic literature (see Gray 1965 and Horn 1980, 306-314) which

reveals why God had to bring judgment upon these nations, and (b) in light of the Amarna

Letters coming from Canaan, describing the invasion of the Hapiru [Hebrews] during this

period (Horn 1979, 35-36; cf. Waterhouse ). The Mosaic Laws, when compared with

similar law codes of the second millennium B. C. (e.g., The Code of Hammurabi; see Walton

1989)), reveal some similarities, but also show the remarkably more elevated sense of justice

and equity and standard of morality in the biblical legal system, not to speak of the absolutely

unique grounding of law in the character of the divine lawgiver.

The covenants of Scripture between God and man stand out in stark uniqueness, as

there is no trace elsewhere in the ancient Near East of a deity entering into a covenant with a

people. At the same time, the structure of the biblical covenants made at Sinai and in

Deuteronomy and Joshua closely resembles the elements of the Hittite international suzerainty

40

treaties, made between the 2nd millennium B.C. Hittite overlords (suzerains) and their vassal

states (Korošec 1931, Mendenhall 1955, Kline 1963, Craige 1976). Crucial elements found in

both these treaties and the biblical covenants from the time of Moses and Joshua, are missing

from the first millennium B.C. Assyrian international treaties (noticeably absent from the latter

are the historical prologue and the blessings), which tends to confirm the second millennium

B.C. date for these materials, and not a first millennium date as most critical scholars suggest

(see Kitchen 1966).

The historical books, hymnic and wisdom literature, and prophetic books, which were

written during the time of Israel's monarchy, the Babylonian Exile, and return from Exile, are

illumined when studied against the background of the religio-political-literary history of Israel

and its surrounding neighbors. The biblical record is enhanced by the many archaeological

discoveries and translated texts that have brought into clearer focus the history and culture of

Assyria, Babylonia, Egypt, Medo-Persia, Syria, Philistia, Ammon, Moab, Edom, and other

political entities of the Fertile Crescent in OT times.

Likewise, the New Testament is best understood when read in light of the historical

and literary background of the intertestamental period and the first-century A.D. A basic grasp

of Greco-Roman politics, culture, and religion, enables one to understand not only the "big

picture" behind NT history, but also to interpret numerous specific allusions (e.g., the athletic

games in 2 Tim 4:6-8, and the triumphal entry of the emperor after battle in 2 Cor 2:14). The

religio-social-political matrix of first century Judaism is illuminating for the NT era, including

the various religious factions and sects within Judaism at the time of Jesus (Pharisees,

Sadducees, Zealots, Essenes), and the current Jewish literature, as well as the history of the

early Christian church.

Historical backgrounds of the biblical material involve understanding the chronology of

the periods involved. The geographical background of OT and NT history is also crucial in

tracing the persons, events, and activities that are recorded (see the detailed Bible atlas in Horn

1979, 1217-1229 and the 22 maps that follow). There is also need of understanding numerous

aspects of biblical culture and background not yet mentioned: the weights, measures, and

41

monetary systems referred to in the Bible; the Hebrew calendar and cycle of festivals; and

musical instruments of biblical times; the plant and animal life of Palestine, agricultural and

pastoral and technological techniques, and patterns of urbanization and nomadization, military

tactics and implements, climate; etc. For resource tools in dealing with all these aspects of

historical background, see section IV.

4. Seeming Discrepancies with the Findings of Secular History

Throughout the history of biblical interpretation, some biblical scholars have

questioned the accuracy or veracity of numerous historical details in the biblical record, such as

the historicity of the Exodus and Conquest, and the existence of Darius the Mede mentioned in

Daniel. With regard to historical details that seem to contradict the findings of secular history

and archaeology, it is important to recognize, first of all, how many of these supposed

historical inaccuracies of Scripture have evaporated in the light of further study. For example,

critical scholars until late in the 19th century often pointed out how the Hittites mentioned in

the Bible (Gen 15:20, etc.) never really existed. Then in the early decades of the 20th century

excavations uncovered evidence for an entire Hittite civilization and empire, and unearthed the

ancient Hittite capital and the royal archives of some 10,000 clay tablets (see Horn 1979, 500-

502). Again, many nineteenth-century scholars also insisted that the customs of the patriarchal

period were anachronistic; but discoveries at Nuzi, Mari, Ebla, and elsewhere from the

patriarchal times have provided parallels to virtually all the customs portrayed in the patriarchal

narratives. Other details mentioned in the Pentateuchal accounts of the patriarchal period have

been regarded as anachronistic, such as the domestication of camels (Gen 12:16, etc.), the

presence of Philistines in Palestine (Gen 21:32-34, etc.), and the availability of iron (Deut

3:11, etc.), but all of these have subsequently been shown to be appropriate to patriarchal times

(see Hasel 1985, 24-27).

Regarding the Exodus and Conquest, it has been shown how the Exodus narrative can

fit well within history of the 18th Egyptian dynasty (Shea 1982, 230-238). Recent re-analysis

of the excavation data from ancient Jericho, has shown that (contrary to earlier conclusions and

the modern scholarly consensus built on that work) the city was destroyed about 1410 B.C.,

42

and the details involved in the destruction fit precisely the biblical account (Wood 1990, 45-

57).

Regarding the book of Daniel, many scholars have questioned whether Belshazzar

(Dan 5:2, 30, 31) was ever really king of Babylon, and whether such a person as Darius the

Mede ever existed. But cuneiform records have revealed that Belshazzar was the eldest son of

Babylonian king Nabonidus, and that in Nabonidus' third year he "entrusted the kingship" (co-

regency) to Belshazzar and made him commander of the Babylonian army (Horn 1979, 134).

This would also probably explain why Belshazzar proclaimed Daniel "the third ruler in the

kingdom" (Dan 5:29), not the second--Belshazzar himself was second ruler as co-regent with

Nabonidus. Analysis of the Medo-Persian records has shown also that there is room in the

historical record for Darius the Mede (Shea 19 ).

Not all of the apparent discrepancies between the Biblical record and the findings of

secular history have yet been resolved. It is here that the Bible-based hermeneutic involves

faith in the historical reliability of Scripture, and patience that in these points, as has been true

with so many others, additional archaeological/historical study, may reconcile these tensions.

At the same time, it is important that Scripture not be held hostage to the findings of secular

science. Many accounts in Scripture will never be corroborated by secular history--especially

the miraculous events that have left no prints in the material record of the earth. The events of

Scripture are ultimately accepted not because secular historical science confirms them; but like

the NT writers and Jesus, we accept the historicity of biblical data because they are recorded in

the trustworthy Word of God.

5. Seeming Discrepancies in Parallel Biblical Accounts

In the study of the historical material of Scripture, especially in the OT books of

Samuel/Kings and Chronicles and the NT Gospels, parallel accounts at times provide

differences with regard to certain details or emphases (e.g., Matt 21:33-44; Mark 12:1-11; and

Luke 20:9-18. Several principles help us come to grips with these apparent discrepancies.

Recognize the different purposes in the different writers. The four Gospels were all

written with a slightly different overall purpose and plan of arrangement of material (see

43

Archer 1982, 311-315). So it is recognized that Matthew often arranges his material in topical,

not chronological order (e.g., the Sermon on the Mount [Matthew 5-7] and the cursing of the

fig tree [Matthew 21; Archer 1982, 334-335]), and may even be organizing the life of Christ

after the pattern of the Pentateuch (see Buchanan 1987, 40-62). At the same time, Matthew

sometimes uses definite temporal adverbs introducing his narrative, indicating chronological

sequence. Note for example Matthew's order of Christ's temptations, introducing the second

and third temptations with tote "then" and palin "again" respectively (Matt 4:5,8), thus

emphasizing the chronological order, whereas the parallel account in Luke introduces the

second and third temptations with simple non-temporal conjunctions (kai "and" and de "and" or

"but," Luke 4:5,9).

Recognize that each writer may be relating the parts of the incident that impressed him,

and it is necessary to combine the eyewitness accounts for a composite picture of the whole.

The parallel accounts of David's purchase of the threshing floor on Mt. Moriah (2 Sam 24:24;

1 Chr 21:25) give different amounts of money paid, and a different name for the owner. But

the two descriptions are not necessarily in contradiction. Araunah and Ornan are simply

alternative spellings of the same name, as often occurs in Scripture. A close reading of the

language in the two accounts seems to indicate that the fifty shekels of silver were paid for the

two oxen and the wooden threshing cart (and possibly the small plot of the actual threshing

floor), while the 600 shekels of gold were the payment bammaqôm "for the place," which

involved the entire site on Mt. Moriah on which the Temple was later built (Archer 1982,

190).

Again, the parallel introductions to Jesus' "Sermon on the Mount" (Luke's "Sermon on

the Level Place") seem on the surface to be in contradiction: Matthew says Jesus "went up on

the mountain" (Matt 5:1) while Luke says "he came down with them and stood on a level

place" (Luke 6:17). A composite combines both of these perspectives and also the insight of

Mark, as part of a larger scene: "After the ordination of the apostles [on a mountain, Mark

3:13], Jesus went with them to the seaside. Here in the early morning the people had begun to

assemble. . . . The narrow beach did not afford even standing room within reach of His voice

44

for all who desired to hear Him, and Jesus led the way back to the mountainside. Reaching a

level space that offered a pleasant gathering place for the vast assembly, He seated Himself on

the grass, and the disciples and the multitude followed His example" (White: DA 298).

Other examples of appropriate and plausible harmonization of the gospel narratives

include the parallel accounts of the rich young ruler (Matt 19:16-30; Mark 10:17-31; Luke

18:18-30; see Archer 1982, 329-332), the blind beggar (Matt 22:29-34; Mark 10:46-52; Luke

18:35-43; see Archer 1982, 332-333), and the events of the resurrection narratives (Matt 28:1-

15; Mark 16:1-8; Luke 24:1-11; John 20:1-10; see Archer 1982, 347-356). For discussion of

these and the harmonization of the whole life of Jesus in the fourfold Gospel narrative, see

bibliography.

Recognize that historical reliability does not require verbal identity of the different

witnesses. The NT Gospel writers were witnesses, and even though inspired witnesses, it is

not mandatory that witnesses record the same exact words in order to accurately communicate

the truth in the thought of the speaker. We should remember that if witnesses in today's court

of law would give verbatim testimony, they would immediately become suspect. The very fact

that we find different language among the gospel writers is really further evidence of their

independent authenticity and integrity (McQuillen 1992, 244). This principle is explicitly

confirmed by the evangelist Matthew when he cites the first two prayers of Jesus in the Garden

of Gethsemane, which contained the same thought but slightly different words, and then in

Matt 26:44 he records that Jesus "prayed a third time, saying the same thing once more." This

illustration demonstrates the first century approach to quotations: they did not need to be

verbatim reporting; they only needed to record the truth accurately (McQuillen 1992, 243).

Recognize the accepted conventions for writing history were different in the first

century than today. There was often a use of "phenomenological" or "observational"

language, illustrated by such terms of ordinary language as "the sun set" or "the four corners"

or "the ends" of the earth, without implying a geo-centric cosmology or a flat earth any more

than similar usage today. Counting and measurements often used approximate numbers, such

as the number who died at Mt. Sinai (1 Cor 10:8; cf. Num 25:1-18). We must not expect

45

greater levels of precision needed for measuring different objects then what was acceptable in

Biblical times.

Recognize that some similar miracles and sayings of Jesus recorded in the parallel

gospels may have occurred at different times. Jesus' ministry of 3 1/2 years of preaching no

doubt often involved repetition of similar teachings and duplication of similar miracles at

different locations at different times. One example is the feeding of the 5000 and the feeding

of the 4000. One would be tempted to say that these are divergent accounts of the same event,

did not Jesus himself refer to them as two separate occasions (Matt 16:9-10).

Recognize that there are some minor transcriptional errors in Scripture. This is

particularly evident in the transcription of numbers in the parallel accounts of Samuel/Kings

and Chronicles (see Archer 1982, 221-222; Payne 1978, 5-58). Principles of textual study can

assist in determining the original reading.

Acknowledge that it may sometimes be necessary to suspend judgment on some seeming

discrepancies until more information is available. Numerous instances in the history of biblical

interpretation have illustrated how further evidence has resolved once apparently irreconcilable

data in Scripture. An example is the chronological data regarding the kings of Israel and Judah

in Kings and Chronicles. There seemed to be hopeless contradiction and confusion, until

Edwin Thiele's doctoral dissertation, published as The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew

Kings (1951 [1983]), showed how the application of four basic principles of chronological

reckoning during the Israelite Monarchy can completely synchronize both the biblical figures

and the extra-biblical data.

These principles of chronology also have cleared up other areas of Scripture. For

example, the principle of "accession year" resolves the apparent conflict between Jer 25:1, 9

and Dan 1:1 over the dating of Nebuchadnezzar's coming to Jerusalem (Hasel 1985, 50-51);

and the principle of "inclusive reckoning" (any part of a day or year counted as a full day or

year) explains how Jesus could be accurate when He said he would be in the grave "three days

and three nights" (Matt 12:40).

6. Practical Study Questions and Tools

46

As a practical guide for dealing with the historical context of a given passage, here are

some relevant questions that may be asked:

1) Who wrote the passage, and when (exactly or approximately) was it written? How

are these facts important for interpreting the meaning of the passage?

2) What is the historical setting of the passage--both in the broad sweep of Biblical

history and in the immediate historical context?

3) What circumstances or events led up to this point in the Biblical book? What comes

after this point? Are the events in the passage crucial to the understanding of what comes

later?

4) What major historical trends in Israel or the ancient world help illuminate the

passage?

5) Are there any other passages in Scripture that deal with the same historical

situation? How do these assist in illuminating the passage?

6) What persons, events, or institutions are mentioned in the passage? What do you

know about these in light of other Biblical or extra-Biblical data?

7) Does the passage contain allusions to earlier historical persons, events, or

institutions? How does a knowledge of these allusions contribute to the meaning of the

passage?

8) Are there any details of chronology (dating, time sequences, calendar, cycle of

festivals, etc.) or geography (locality, topography, climate, economy, etc.) that call for further

clarification or that help illuminate the passage?

9) Are there social customs, religious practices, social or civil institutions, legal or

political practices, that need to be amplified?

10) Are there details of the Biblical passage that may be illuminated by archaeology or

ancient literary background material?

11) Are there other references to the specific culture of the time that call for

clarification, such as weights, measurements, monetary system, musical instruments, flora and

fauna, agricultural or pastoral or technological practices, or climate?

47

12) What aspects of the historical context are unique to the culture of Israel and/or the

Biblical world, and what aspects could have occurred today? How does an understanding of

the historical context help to apply the passage to the modern world?

In facing issues concerning the questions of introduction and historical backgrounds to

a given biblical book or passage, the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary is an invaluable

resource. In the introductory historical articles to each volume, and in the introduction to each

biblical book, there are excellent treatments of evidence for authorship, date, and life setting of

the biblical material, consistently accepting at face value the Scripture's own claims and data

about these issues, while at the same time providing archaeological, geographical,

chronological, and cultural backgrounds to illuminate the biblical record. Other helpful

resources include various Introductions to the Bible, and Bible atlases; surveys of biblical

history, archaeology, geography, culture, chronology, animal and plant life, military practices,

and biography; and collections of extra-biblical texts which illuminate the Bible. All of these

background areas are fascinating studies in themselves, as well as providing historical context

for individual books and passages. See bibliography, section IV, for representative reference

works covering all these areas.

C. Literary Context/Analysis

For the biblical writers the literary context of the Scriptures was no less important than

the historical context. Scripture is not only a history book, but a literary work of art. Recent

study among biblical scholars has given increasing attention to the literary characteristics and

conventions of Scripture.

Scripture itself gives us numerous explicit and implicit indicators of the presence of its

literary qualities and the importance of recognizing these as part of the hermeneutical task. We

will note some of these in the discussion that follows.

1. Limits of the Passage

One of the first tasks in interpreting a given passage in its immediate literary context is

to recognize the limits of the passage, in terms of paragraphs, pericopae, or stanzas. This

48

recognition of the passage limits is important in order to grasp the total thought-unit of which

the passage is a part. One can then determine what comes before and what comes after, and

better understand how this segment fits into the flow of the inspired document.

Even though the paragraph and chapter divisions of our modern versions of the Bible

have been added much later than biblical times, the Bible writers often provided indicators of

passage limits and in their interpretation of antecedent Scripture show awareness of the discreet

units of Scripture. In the book of Genesis, for example, the book is divided neatly into ten

sections, each identified by the phrase "the generations [toledôth] of . . . ." In the Psalms,

along with canonical division into individual psalms, a number of psalms contain indicators of

section divisions: (a) stanzas with refrains (see e.g. Ps 42:6, 11; 43:5), or (b) the word "selah"

(71 times in Psalms: e.g. Ps 46:3, 7, 11), or (c) an acrostic (e.g., Ps 119, with every

succeeding eight verses starting with the next letter of the Hebrew alphabet).

By NT times the Pentateuch (and probably also the Prophets) was divided up into small

sections for purposes of lectionary readings in the synagogue every Sabbath (Guilding 1960;

cf. Acts 13:15,27; 15:21), and each section was apparently identified by a catch-word or

phrase. Jesus recognized these divisions of the Torah by referring to "the passage about the

bush" (Luke 20:37; cf. Exod 3:6). Paul recognizes the units of individual psalms when in his

speech he quotes from "the second psalm" (Acts 13:33).

Not only through explicit reference by biblical writers, but by carefully examining their

writings, we may establish the literary and logical limits of the given passage under

consideration. For example, the contents of Jesus' sayings and activities naturally separate into

sections or pericopae. Recent works (see bibliography; Kaiser 1981, 95- ; Osborne 1991, 21-

40) have provided help in learning how to "chart" a book or portion of the Bible into natural

divisions, and then to delimit and analyze the individual paragraphs. As a practical guide in

recognizing the larger sections, and individual paragraphs of Scripture, the following questions

may be asked:

49

(1) Are there explicit markers of section divisions, such as the superscriptions to the

individual Psalms, or extended acrostics (as in Psalm 119), or recurring stanza dividers such as

the word selah (as in Psalm 46)?

(2) Are there repeated terms, phrases, clauses, or sentences that act as introductory

headings or concluding colophons ("tailpieces")?

(3) Is there repetition of a keyword, theme, motif, or concept at the beginning and end

of a section (this is called "inclusio" or "envelope construction," as in Ps 103:1, 22)?

(4) Are there grammatical clues such as transitional conjunctions or adverbs (e.g.,

then, therefore, wherefore, but, nevertheless, meanwhile)? In Hebrew these include such

expressions as kî, âl-kçn, and âz; in Greek oun, de, kai, tote, and dio.d e

(5) Are there changes in setting, location, or time (especially in narrative)?

(6) Are there shifts in verbal tense, mood, or aspect, or a change of subject or object?

(7) Is there an introductory rhetorical question, or series of rhetorical questions

throughout a section (especially in the epistles, e.g., Rom 6:1, 2, 15; 7:7, 13)?

(8) Is there a change in vocative form of address (speaking directly) to someone or

group (e.g., Eph 5:22, 25; 6:1, 4, 5, 9) showing a shift of attention from one group to another

(especially in the epistles)?

(9) Is there a shift in thought patterns or themes involving development, resumption,

or repetition?

(10) Are there other literary patterns, such as extended parallelism or chiasm (see

discussion below)?

In addition to one's own personal analysis of the natural divisions of Scripture, it is

helpful to compare results with a study Bible that contains paragraph and section divisions. As

we will see below, the paragraph in prose and stanzas in poetry become the basis for detailed

grammatical study of a passage, and the larger sections become the immediate context for

understanding the theological flow of passages within these sections.

2. Literary Types

50

In studying any sample of written work--and this no less true regarding the Bible--it is

crucial to understand what type of literature is being examined. This involves the more general

categories of poetry and prose, and specific literary types (or genres) such as legal documents,

letters, hymns, love poems, biographies, and the like. Various literary forms serve different

functions, and certain basic conventions are commonly used in each of these forms of

literature. Comparison of different examples of the same genre of literature reveals the

common conventions and also the unique features and emphases of each. Proper interpretation

is thus enhanced by the recognition of what literary form is being employed.

The Bible writers frequently explicitly identify their written materials in terms of

specific literary types or genres. Major literary types identified in Scripture include:

"generation"/"genealogy"/"history"/"account" (Hebrew toledôth, Gen 2:4, plus 14 times

throughout Genesis), deathbed blessings (Genesis 49; Deuteronomy 33; etc.), laws (statues,

ordinances, judgments, Exod 21:1; Deut 4:44, 45 and throughout), legal contracts (e.g., Gen

21:22-32; 26:26-31; Josh 9:15; 1 Kgs 5:`6-12), covenant making and renewal (e.g., Exod 24;

the whole book of Deuteronomy; see Deut 29:1, 14, 15; Josh 24), riddles (Judg 14:10-18),

court chronicles (e.g., 1 Kgs 9:1), royal decrees (Ezra 6:3-12; 7:11-26, etc.), letters (e.g., 2

Sam 11:15; 1 Kgs 21:8-10; 2 Kgs 5:5-6; 10:1-3), psalms (with various subdivisions of psalm

types, indicated in the superscriptions) or songs (Cant 1:1), prayers (Ps 72:20; Dan 9:4-19;

etc.), proverbs (e.g., Prov 1:1; 10:1; 25:1), prophetic oracles or "burdens" (Hebrew massâ ,e

e.g., Nah 1:1; Hab 1:1; Mal 1:1), visions (e.g., Dan 8:1-2; Obad 1), covenant lawsuit

(Hebrew rîb, e.g., Isa 3:13; Hos 4:1; Mic 6:1), lamentation or funeral dirge (Hebrew qînâh,

Ezek 27:32; Amos 5:1; Lamentations), gospels (e.g., Mark 1:1), parables (e.g., Mark 4:2),

"figures" (Geek paraoimia; John 10:6; 16:25), epistles (e.g., Rom 16:22; 1 Cor 5:9; 2 Pet

3:1,16; including Pauline, Petrine, Johannine, James, and Jude), and apocalyptic (the

apokalypsis or Revelation of John; Rev 1:1).

a. Prose

In more general depiction of literary genre, the Biblical materials separate themselves

into poetry and prose. Many of the prose literary types have been explicitly identified and

51

labeled by the biblical writers, as listed above. Others analyzed in modern study include such

forms as speeches or sermons (e.g., Joshua 23-24; 1 Samuel 12; 1 Kgs 2:1-9; Jeremiah 7),

lists (e.g., Genesis 10; Joshua 15-19; Numbers 33; 1 Kgs 4:7-19), and cultic ordinances (e.g.,

Leviticus 1-7). Of special significance is biblical narrative, which includes such genres as

history (Joshua-2 Chronicles, Acts), reports or annals (e.g., 1 Kgs 11:41; 14:19-20),

autobiography (Ezra and Nehemiah), accounts of dreams and visions (e.g., Gen 37:5-10;

40:41; Zechariah 1-6), and prophetic autobiography (e.g., Isa 8:1-2; Jeremiah 36; Daniel 7-

12).

Recent study has focused particularly upon the narrative as a literary type involving

intricate artistry. While much of modern critical study tends to regard the narrative as

fictional, the Bible student who accepts the account as factual history can likewise benefit by

examining carefully how the inspired writer has set forth the narrative to emphasize crucial

points. Basic elements of narrative that require careful attention to understand the "flow" of

the account include: the implied author (or invisible speaker) and the implied reader, the

overall point of view or perspective, the order of events and their interrelationship ("story

time"), the plot, the characters and their characterization, the setting, and the implicit

commentary or rhetorical techniques used in relating the narrative.

B. Poetry

The poetic sections of Scripture (approximately 40% of the OT and scattered sections

of the NT) are arranged in verse in many modern Bible versions. Biblical poetry has special

features that call for brief attention here.

The main characterizing element of Hebrew poetry is called "parallelism," or "thought

rhyme" (as opposed to "sound rhyme" as in much modern poetry). Poetic parallelism

traditionally has been subdivided into three major kinds: (a) synonymous, in which two

succeeding lines of poetry repeat a similar thought (e.g. Ps 1:2, 5; 103:10); (b) antithetical, in

which two succeeding poetic lines present contrasting ideas (e.g. Ps 1:6; 37:21; and many

proverbs); and (c) synthetic, in which the second poetic line adds to the first by completion ,

52

enlargement, intensification, etc. (e.g. Ps 2:6; 103:11). This fundamental aspect of Hebrew

poetry is readily apparent in modern translations as well as in the original language.

Hebrew poetry also contains meter ("measured lines"), although not as rigidly defined

as Greek poetry. Scholars are divided as to how to "scan" Hebrew meter: the most common

method is by stress accents (basically each accented Hebrew word gets one count). One

special type of meter is the qînãh or lament, which has a line of three stress accents followed

by a line with two (3:2). Many of the "lament" psalms (where the writer agonizingly petitions

God for help), and virtually the whole book of Lamentations, have this "long-short" meter,

which some see as approximating the "long-breath-in and short-breath-out" in the sighing of

the lamenter. Not only the meter, but the entire book of Lamentations, is structured by the 3:2

qînãh pattern (see Shea 1979). The metrical element of poetry is not so apparent in translation,

although the long-short meter often translates into long and short lines of poetic verse in the

modern versions.

Many other literary devices and conventions, and stylistic elements are utilized by the

biblical writers especially in poetic sections of Scripture. We find the employment of inclusio

or "envelope construction" (the same expression at the beginning and at the end; e.g., Psalms

8, 103), acrostic (verses or groups of verses start with successive letters of the Hebrew

alphabet; Psalms 9-10, 25, 34, 37, 111-2, 119, 145), simile (comparison using like or as; e.g.,

Hos 7:11), metaphor (one reality standing for another; e.g., Ps 23:1; Hos 10:1; John 10:7, 9,

11), synecdoche (the part standing for the whole; e.g., Isa 52:1, 2), onomatopoeia (words

sounding like what they describe; e.g., Jer 19:1,10; Isa 17:12,13; Ps 93:4), assonance

(repetition of vowels; e.g., Isa 5:7), paronomasia (pun/play on words; e.g., Amos 8:2, 3;

Micah 1), personification (e.g., Proverbs 8), etc. All of these literary elements are important

for the biblical writer as they contribute to the framing and forming of his message, and are

essential for the interpreter to examine as he seeks to understand the meaning of a given

passage. (For further discussion of the basic elements of Hebrew poetry, see Alter 1985,

Berlin 1985, Bullock 1979, Gray 1972 (1915) and Freedman 1972, Kugel 1981.)

53

Biblical poetry has been subdivided into a number of specific literary types. One of the

earliest types of poetry is the victory song (e.g., Song of Moses, Exod 15:1-18; the Song of

Deborah, Judges 5). Among those literary genres analyzed and identified by biblical scholars

in the Psalms are the following: Psalms of "Lament" (or agonizing petition to God for help,

both individual, as in Psalm 3, and corporate, as in Psalm 9; cf. 2 Sam 1:17-27; 2:33-34),

hymns of praise (e.g., Psalms 8, 100, 150), songs of thanksgiving (individual, as in Psalm 18,

and corporate as in Psalm 107), salvation-history psalms (e.g., Psalm 78, 105-106), songs of

Zion (e.g., Psalms 46, 84), entrance liturgies (Psalms 15, 24), and enthronement psalms

(Psalms 95-99), royal psalms (e.g., Psalms 2, 45), covenant renewal liturgy (Psalms 50, 81),

wisdom psalms (e.g., Psalms 37, 73), and Torah psalms (e.g., Psalms 1, 19, 119).

Outside the psalms other poetic portions of Scripture include a variety of literary types.

We have already noted above that many of these have been explicitly labeled by the biblical

writers: riddles, proverbs, prophetic oracles, visions, lamentations, and covenant lawsuits.

Others analyzed by modern study include such specific types as sayings (both individual, as in

Gen 2:23; or corporate, as in Num 20:35-36), priestly blessings (e.g., Num 6:24-26), artistic

wisdom sayings (e.g., Proverbs 8-11), work songs (e.g., cf. Judg 9:27; 21:21; Isa 16:10),

banquet songs (Isa 22:13), wedding (love) songs (e.g., Song of Songs), mocking songs (e.g.,

Num 21:27-30; Isa 37:22-29), and funeral dirges (e.g., Amos 5:2; Isa 14:4-21).

In the NT poetic material includes: quotations from ancient non-biblical poets (e.g.,

Acts 17:28, 1 Cor 15:33), quotations from biblical (OT) poetry (e.g., Luke 20: 42-43; Acts

2:25-28; Rom 3:10-18; Heb 1:5-13), hymns following Hebraic forms (Luke 1:46-55, 67-79;

2:29-32), fragments of early Christian creedal hymns (1 Tim 3:16; Phil 2:6-11), and

apocalyptic passages with hymnic portions (e.g., Rev 4:8, 11; 5:9-10, 12-13).

Each of these specific literary types has special characteristics that emerge from a

careful study, and these characteristics are often significant in interpreting the message that is

transmitted through the particular literary type. As will become apparent in our discussion of

theological context and analysis, literary form and theological interpretation go hand in hand:

54

identifying and understanding the literary type will make it possible to clarify the intended

theological significance.

The bibliography lists sources which provide a comprehensive analysis of the major

literary genres in Scriptures. Several literary forms (parable, prophecy, and apocalyptic)

involve an extended meaning or fulfillment that will be discussed below in the section on

theological context and analysis (see III.E.4).

For a practical guide in identifying and analyzing the literary types in a biblical

passage, the following questions may be helpful:

(1) What is the general literary type of the passage--poetry or prose? (Consult a Bible

that arranges poetic sections in verse to determine this at a glance.)

For both poetry and prose, ask:

(2) What is the specific sub-type (or form) of literature involved? (See the list of

major sub-categories above.)

(3) What are the major features of this specific poetic form in the passage? (Examine

the passage carefully; see bibliography for sources to assist in this.)

(4) How many of these features are common to other examples of this same form

elsewhere in Scripture? (Consult concordance and marginal references to locate other samples

of the same literary type.)

(5) Which features are unique in this particular passage? What do these special

elements contribute to the particular focus of the passage?

(6) How does understanding the form of literature help to illuminate the meaning of

the passage?

For poetry, ask:

(7) What kinds of parallelism are found in the passage?

(8) What is the poetic meter of the passage? (If you can read the original language,

scan the meter of each line by giving each stress accent word one count; in the modern

translation you can still often detect a tendency toward (a) "long--short" parallel lines (the 3:2

qînãh meter), or (b) "long--long," or (c) "short--short."

55

(9) What other special literary conventions and stylistic elements are employed? How

do these poetic devices aid in making the meaning vivid, expressive, or beautiful?

For prose narrative, ask:

(10) What is the overall point of view or perspective of the narrative?

(11) Who are the implied author (the narrator) and the implied reader (for whom the

narrative is intended)?

(12) What is the real-life plot of the narrative as it happened in history?

(13) Who are the characters and how are they characterized?

(14) What is the setting of the narrative and the chronological order of events and their

narration?

(15) What rhetorical techniques are used to present the narrative? How do these help

to emphasize what the narrator is seeking to highlight?

3. Literary Structure

The literary structure, both of the passage itself and its larger literary frame, is an

important part of the analysis of a passage, often providing a key to the flow of thought or

central theological themes.

Every passage has some structure. In prose portions of Scripture, such as the NT

epistles, it is helpful to outline the passage, organizing the major units of information under

topics and sub-topics. From this outline will emerge meaningful thought patterns. Many of the

same questions that were employed to establish the limits of the passage as larger sections and

paragraphs (see above III.C.1) are also useful in identifying smaller patterns within the

paragraph as they point up key features of repetition and progression. We will focus more

closely on the process of outlining in and diagraming of paragraphs in our discussion of

grammatical/syntactical analysis.

Close analysis of the Biblical material reveals that biblical writers often carefully

structured verses, chapters, books, or even blocks of books, into an artistic literary pattern.

Often the literary structure follows the basic elements of the literary form that is involved in the

passage. So, for example, the prophetic covenant lawsuit (Hebrew rîb) in Scripture typically

56

contains certain elements, and the literary structure of Micah 6 (which the prophet specifically

identifies as a rîb, Mic 6:1-2) follows this basic lawsuit pattern.

Two kinds of literary structure which build upon the phenomenon of poetic parallelism

call for special attention. Since the basic characteristic of Hebrew poetry is parallelism

(or "thought rhyme") of matching lines, it is not surprising that larger blocks of biblical

material may also be structured by parallelism. One common literary structuring device is

"block parallelism" or "panel writing" which follows the pattern of synonymous parallelism in

individual verses of poetry. We find "block parallelism" or "panel writing" as the structuring

technique for such biblical books as Joshua (Davidson 1995) and Jonah (Hasel 1976, 101): the

order of the first half of the book is repeated in the second half.

Another common literary structuring device in Scripture is reverse parallelism (or

chiasm, named after the Greek letter chi which is shaped like an X), which follows the pattern

of antithetical parallelism in the smaller unit of two succeeding lines of poetry. An example of

the ABCBA pattern of chiasm in an individual verse is evident in the "mirror image" reference

to cities in Amos 5:5:

A +Q Do not seek Bethel;B * +Q and do not enter GilgalC * * or cross over to Beersheba;B' * .Q for Gilgal shall surely go into exile,A' .Q and Bethel shall come to nought."

This verse has been analyzed as part of a larger chiastic structure including Amos 5:1-17 (De

Waard 1977), which in turn has been seen as part of an even larger chiasm that encompasses

the whole book of Amos (Shea 19 ). Chiastic structures have been pointed out in over 50

individual psalms (e.g., Psalm 92, see Davidson 1988, 11-14; cf. Alter 1974, 1976, 1978, who

analyzes the chiastic arrangement of over 50 different psalms), as well as in sections of

Scripture involving several chapters (e.g., the Flood narrative of Genesis 6-9; see Anderson

1978 and Shea 1979; arrangement of the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 5-7, and Hebrew 6-

10). Recent studies have also recognized chiastic arrangement of various entire biblical books

(among which are Leviticus [Shea 1986], Judges [DeWitt 1986, 261-313], Esther [Berg 1979,

108], Job [Christo 1992, 146-168], Song of Songs [Shea 1980], Daniel [Shea 1986, 248],

57

Micah [Allen 1976, 261], Zechariah [Baldwin 1972, 85-86], Matthew, Romans, James, and

Revelation [Strand 1992, 36-37]) and blocks of books (the Pentateuch [Radday 1981, 84-86,

Davidson 1991, 11-13] and the OT historical books [Radday 1981 and DeWitt 1986, 314-

354]).

Recognition of clear literary structures in Scripture portions is significant in revealing the

flow of that portion. When the biblical writer employs a chiastic arrangement of biblical

material, this is often of special help in understanding the major emphasis of the inspired

writer, since frequently this climatic emphasis is placed at the midpoint or heart of the chiasm.

For example, in Psalm 92, the Song for the Sabbath, there are seven verses on either side of

the central verse, each containing a pair of lines in poetic parallelism; but the central

affirmation of the psalm, "But thou, O Lord, art on high forever," (v 8) is placed alone at the

heart of the chiasm with no matching parallel line of poetry. Thus is highlighted the climax of

the psalm, both in literary structure and theological meaning.

The parallel structures in Scripture--whether block parallelism or reverse parallelism

(chiasm)--are also often illuminating because of the matching or repeating parts of the

structure. What is clear in the first half of the structure may help to illuminate the matching

structural element in the second half. So, for example, the chiastic arrangement in Zechariah

makes it possible to affirm the Messianic character of crucial passages because their matching

structural elements are clearly Messianic. Again, in Heb 6:17-20 the reference to Jesus' entry

"behind the curtain" is clarified by comparing with the matching structural element of Jesus'

entry "through the curtain" in Heb 10:19-20: the latter passage by its use of the OT LXX

technical term enkanizô ("to inaugurate") shows the setting of both passages to be the

inauguration of the heavenly sanctuary.

A word of caution is in order with regard to discerning literary structures in Scripture.

It is crucial that the interpreter not import structures into the text which are not really present.

There must be rigorous controls from within the text to insure that the Bible student is not

artificially imposing his/her own outline or structure upon the biblical material. These internal

controls include similar matching themes, concept, or motifs, and more importantly, matching

58

keywords and even clusters of words. The more explicit verbal and structural parallels are

present, the more certain that the structure is inherent within the passage. It is not always

possible, however, to determine whether the human writer was consciously crafting the

structure, or whether this approach was so much a part of his literary approach (like the three-

point sermon to a modern preacher) that the structure emerged spontaneously and

unconsciously--or by direct inspiration of God.

The bibliography (section IV) provides sources which survey the principles of

identifying and interpreting literary structures in Scripture, and which analyze the structure of

specific portions of the Bible.

For a practical guide to analyzing literary structure, the following questions may be

helpful:

(1) What is the overall outline of the passage? (Organize the outline by topics and sub-

topics; following the flow of the passage, assign a new topic for each new point made in the

development of thought. See sample below in section II.D.1.)

(2) What thought-patterns emerge from the outline? Are these patterns likely to have

been consciously constructed by the biblical writer?

(3) What keywords recur most frequently in the passage? Are these words distributed

according to some regular pattern throughout the passage?

(4) Are there certain literary features (shifts in verbal tense or subject, or some poetic

device) which recur according to a regular pattern?

(5) Are there key concepts, themes, or motifs which recur regularly in the passage?

(6) Does the first half of the passage match in block with the second half of the passage?

(Check for "block parallelism" by noting if what comes in sequence in the first half reappears

in the same sequence in the second half, also with a possible climax in the midpoint.)

(7) Are the recurring elements in the passage found in pairs in an inverse (i.e., chiastic)

order in the passage? (Check for a possible chiasm by noting if what comes in sequence in the

first half of the passage appears in reverse sequence in the second half, with a climaxing

element or central point in the middle of the passage.)

59

(8) Does the literary structure follow the basic pattern of the specific literary form or

genre of the passage? (See previous section and bibliography for discussion of various literary

forms and their respective typical structuring patterns.)

(9) How does the literary structure of the passage fit into the structure and flow of the

larger units and the whole book of which it is a part?

(10) How does the literary structure serve to enhance the meaning of the biblical

passage?

D. Verse-by-Verse Analysis (Grammar, Syntax, and Word Study)

A major goal of the Bible student is to arrive at the plain, straight-forward meaning of

Scripture. Based upon the principle of the clarity of Scripture (see above, section II.C.3) one

should take the text in its natural sense unless there is clear evidence of figurative language

being employed by the biblical writer. For example, in Rev 1:7, where John writes that Jesus

is "coming with clouds, and every eye will see him," the context indicates literal clouds, not

figurative representations of "trouble" or some other symbolic meaning. (For recognizing and

interpreting symbols when they do exist, see below, section II.E.4.c.)

In seeking to grasp the natural sense of a biblical passage, the interpreter must carefully

analyze each verse, giving attention to important points of grammar and syntax (sentence

construction), and to the meaning of keywords in context.

1. Grammar and Syntax

The NT writers give examples of their concern to faithfully represent the grammatical-

syntactical constructions of the OT original and thus set forth the plain meaning of the OT texts

for the NT readers.

A vivid example of grammatical-syntactical sensitivity on the part of the NT writers is in

the citation of Ps 45:6,7 in Heb 1:8, 9: the apostle recognizes that the Hebrew original points

to One who is God and at the same time is anointed by God, thus implying the relationship

between the Father and the Son in the Godhead ("Your throne, O God . . . Therefore God,

your God, has anointed you"). Another example is the citation of Ps 110:1 by Jesus and NT

writers (Matt 22:44 and synoptic parallels; Acts 2:34, 35; Heb 1:13; etc.): the inspired

60

interpreters clearly grasped the Messianic implications from the syntax of David's words; "The

Lord [the Father] said unto my Lord [the Messiah], sit at my right hand . . ."

Following Scriptural precedent, the modern interpreter should pay close attention to the

grammar and syntax of the passage under consideration in order to grasp the intended meaning.

For this it is helpful to consult formal (word-for-word) translations of the passage to get a feel

for the sentence construction and note any unusual or difficult elements of grammar or syntax.

A thorough acquaintance with Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek grammar and syntax is of

course ideal, but there are a number of study tools now available that introduce the interpreter

to the basic features of the Hebrew and Greek verbal system and other unique grammatical

features of each language (see Osborne 1992, 41-63 for summary) and provide an analytical

key for the whole OT and NT with word-for-word grammatical and lexical information and

English translation (OT: Owens 1989-1991; NT: Friberg 1981). (See bibliography, section

IV.)

Preparing a grammatical diagram or syntactical display based on the original language or

modern versions is helpful in order to grasp the flow of thought in the passage (McQuillen

1992, 135-151 for guidelines). Such mechanical layouts may be especially beneficial for the

NT epistles, for example, where the sentence constructions are often quite complex.

Block diagrams of the flow of the passage may be done in different ways. The following

practical steps represent one approach (popularized in Kaiser, 1981, pp. 165-181):

(1) Identify the main thematic proposition of the paragraph and copy it, starting closest

to the side margin of the page.

(2) Identify the syntactical units (clauses or phrases) which modify or qualify the main

proposition, and slightly indent these on separate lines under the main proposition.

(3) On separate lines under each syntactical unit, further indent material which modifies

and qualifies that unit, and so on until all component parts of the sentences are represented.

(4) Draw arrows in the margin connecting the subordinate units to what they modify or

qualify.

61

(5) If a clause or sentence is not subordinate to anything in the paragraph, place it

parallel to another clause or sentence functioning similarly, and place a bracket in front of

both.

(6) Expand the mechanical outline section to include all the paragraphs of a given

section of Scripture, and draw lines between the propositions of each paragraph to show the

interconnections.

(7) Give a summary outline of the passage in the margin beside each main entry.

As an example of such a mechanical outline, study the following diagram of Ps 1:1-6:

62

2. Word Studies

There are numerous examples in Scripture where the NT writers are careful to represent

faithfully the meaning of crucial words in the original OT passage. See e.g., Paul's use of "the

just shall live by faith (Rom 1:17 citing Hab 2:4); Matthew's selection of the LXX parthenos

"virgin" to best represent the Hebrew almâh of Isa 7:14 ("A virgin shall conceive . . . ," Mattd

1:24-25; see Archer 1982, 266-268); and Christ's use of the word "gods" in John 10:34, citing

Ps 82:6 (see Archer 1982, 373-374).

Following NT precedent, the modern interpreter must engage in careful word study of

crucial words in the passage under consideration. The word study process for us today is more

63

involved, yet even more crucial, than for the NT inspired interpreters whose native tongue was

living biblical Hebrew and who wrote in living koine Greek. A thorough study of a given

word in a passage involves examining its etymology, root meaning, statistical (number and

distribution of) occurrences throughout Scripture, its semantic range, basic meanings,

derivatives, and extra-biblical usage. The word must be studied in its multi-faceted context:

cultural, linguistic, thematic, canonical, and inspired extra-biblical with the immediate context

the final arbiter of meaning in a given paragraph.

Fortunately, much of this research material is summarized for the student in theological

dictionaries and wordbooks that cover the basic vocabulary of OT and NT (see bibliography).

The most essential aspects of personal word study may be accomplished with the aid of a good

concordance: analytical concordances (see bibliography) make it possible for the modern

reader to look up all the occurrences of a given word in the original language.

At the same time, it is crucial to remember that the final determiner of meaning is the

immediate context in which the word or phrase is found. We will note a few illustrations of

how the immediate context is important for our interpretation of biblical passages.

The term "angel of the Lord" in the OT can sometimes refer to a created angelic being,

but in numerous instances the immediate context indicates that the reference must be to a divine

being, i.e., the pre-incarnate Son of God (e.g., Gen 16:7-13; 18:1, 2, 33; 19:1; 31:11-13;

Exod 3:2, 4, 6; 14:19; 13:21; 14:24; 23:21; Judges 13:21-22). Again, the Hebrew term elepe

can mean "thousand," or "clan." Some have suggested that the large numbers of people that

came out of Egypt during the Exodus (600,000 men, Exod 12:37) should really be translated

"600 clans." Even though this is theoretically a possible translation, the immediate context

dealing with this issue, namely, Exod 38:25-26, figures the total amount of silver collected

from the people of Israel for building the tabernacle, a half shekel from each man, and the

calculation only works if the total is 603 thousand men, not 603 clans. See Korangteng-Pipim

1992, 54-60.)

Again, the Hebrew word yâlad "to begat" can be used in genealogies to refer to

fathering direct physical offspring or more loosely to being an ancestor of someone. But in

64

Gen 5 and 11 the term is used in a unique setting of "chronogenealogies" with interlocking

features that require the translation "to father direct physical offspring"; throughout these two

chapter the word also consistently appears in the causative form of the verb (Hifil) which

elsewhere always refers to direct physical offspring; thus the genealogies of Gen 5 and 11 have

no gaps but represent a continuous line of physical descent throughout the patriarchal period

from Adam to Abraham. (See Hasel 1980, 53-70.)

As a last example, in 1 Cor 7:10, 12, 25, it has been suggested that Paul is

distinguishing between inspired revelation ("command of the Lord," v. 25) that is fully

authoritative, and his own personal opinion ("I say, not the Lord," v. 12) which is less

authoritative. But a careful look at the immediate context reveals that the phrase "command of

the Lord" refers to an actual citation from the words of Jesus, and what Paul himself says

without a direct quotation from Jesus is still fully trustworthy (see vv. 25b, 40).

Some examples of word studies that make a crucial difference in biblical doctrine include

such terms as "forever" (Hebrew ôlam, Greek aiônios), which does not mean "without end" ind

the context of the suffering of the wicked in hellfire (see Fudge 1983); "repentance" on the part

.of God (nâham "to be sorry, moved to pity, relent") which is a different word than man's

"repentance" (šûb, "to turn about, repent"); the fourth "generation" of Gen 15:16 which is the

Hebrew dôr "lifetime" (and not toledôth "generations") and thus can match the 400 years of

Gen 15:13; ta hagia "the holies" in Heb 9:8, which follows the regular usage of the LXX

(Greek translation of the OT) and refers to the whole sanctuary, not just the Most Holy Place

(Salom 1967, Davidson 1989, 180-181); and enkainizo in Heb 10:20, which is the OT (LXX)

technical term for the "inauguration" of the sanctuary at the beginning of its functioning,

implying that Christ at his ascension entered the heavenly sanctuary to inaugurate its services,

not to commence his Day of Atonement ministry (Davidson 1989, 182-184).

As a practical guide to word study, it may be helpful to take the steps suggested by the

following questions:

(1) What are the unclear and/or keywords in the biblical passage? Consult several

modern translations and note words that have been translated in different ways. Focus upon

65

words that (a) are theologically significant (like grace, salvation, etc.); (b) are crucial to the

context but may be ambiguous; (c) contain a richness of meaning that cannot be captured in a

single modern word equivalent; (d) are repeated or thematically highlighted in the context of

the passage.

(2) What is the immediate context of the word in the given passage? Since the

immediate context is the final arbiter of meaning, know well the specific thrust of the passage

before looking at the broad range of meanings of the word outside this passage.

(3) What is the word's range of meaning (semantic range) elsewhere in Scripture? One

can find all the occurrences of a word by consulting an exhaustive concordance (see

bibliography) which identifies the word used in the original language for the modern translation

and lists all the occurrences of that original word. Often the brief context of the word provided

in the concordance makes it possible to ascertain the meaning in that passage and determine if

it is related to the usage in the passage under consideration. For an understanding of a word's

etymology, root meanings, basic meanings and non-biblical usage (especially if it appears no

where else in Scripture), it is helpful to consult lexicons and theological wordbooks (see

bibliography).

(4) Is the word used elsewhere in the same book or other writings by the same writer or

contemporary writers? Examine the other occurrences of this word by the same writer for

clues to its meaning in the passage under study. Note also the usage by other writers who

wrote at about the same time, and contemporary non-biblical usage (see lexicons listed in

bibliography).

(5) Are there synonyms or antonyms or derivatives of the word or from the same root

that may throw light on the word's range of meaning? Look these up in the concordance (and

also see bibliography).

(6) For NT words, is there an underlying OT root word or concept? Jesus and most of

the NT writers were Jews, and thus Semitic (Hebrew-Aramaic) thought-patterns, concepts, and

words underlie much of the NT message. It is crucial to grasp the meaning of the underlying

66

OT equivalent of the NT word being studied. Check the concordance for OT occurrences of

the equivalent word (see also theological wordbooks in bibliography).

(7) What is the meaning of the word in its immediate context? Now return to the

passage under consideration, and choose the meaning or meanings that best fit the immediate

context. It is possible that one modern equivalent may be inadequate to encompass the breadth

.of meaning of the biblical word (e.g., nisdaq in Dan 8:14, which in the light of the immediate

context (v. 13) and its broad semantic range probably encompasses the three extended

meanings of "set right," "cleanse," and "vindicate"). It is also possible that a biblical word

may be intentionally ambiguous so as to encompass a breadth of meaning (e.g., John 3:3, 7;

anôthen gennçthçnai, "born again/from above").

E. Theological Context/Analysis

The Biblical writers provide abundant evidence for the need to ascertain the theological

message of a passage as part of the hermeneutical enterprise. For examples, Jesus lays bare

the far-reaching theological implications of the Decalogue in His Sermon on the Mount (Mt

5:17-28). The Jerusalem Council sets forth the theological import of Amos 9:11-12--that

Gentiles need not become Jews in order to become Christians (Acts 15:13-21). Paul captures

the theological essence of sin in various OT passages (Rom 3:8-20) and of righteousness by

faith in his exposition of Gen 15:6 and Ps 32:1-2 (Romans 4). Peter's sermon at Pentecost

(Acts 2) delineates the theology of inaugurated eschatology found in Joel 2, and his epistle

explores the theological dimensions of the Messiah's atoning work as set forth in Isaiah 53 (1

Pet 2:21-25).

1. Methods of Theological Study

In harmony with what Jesus and NT writers have done in their interpretation of OT

Scripture, a number of fruitful methods are available for apprehending the theological message

of Scripture.

a. The book-by-book approach

67

Such inspired writers as John the Revelator call for readers to wholistically study a

complete biblical book (Rev 1:3; 22:18-19). The attempt to grapple with an entire book and

grasp its essential theological thrust is extremely rewarding. Each biblical writer has provided

a unique perspective within the overall harmony of Scriptural truth. In order to avoid leveling

out the special contributions of each writer (such as the four gospels), the book-by-book

approach is a vital one. (For examples, see Shea's analysis of Leviticus [1986], Ferch's study

of the theology of Daniel [1986], Johnsson's examination of the message of Matthew [1977],

and Strand's treatment of the theological message of Revelation [1992].)

It is often necessary to read and re-read the biblical book many times until the message

of the writer grips the researcher and the various themes, concepts and motifs emerge clearly.

Sometimes the message will be a single over-riding theme, with various sub-themes and motifs;

other times there will be several parallel themes that over-arch the book. It is helpful to outline

the book, charting the flow of thought by the biblical writer. Often a grasp of the literary

structure of the book will aid in this process (see method "e" below).

b. Verse-by-verse exposition

The sermons of Peter and Paul (Acts 2, 3, 13) illustrate the method of verse-by-verse

exposition of biblical passages. Utilizing the guidelines that have been described in our

previous section on grammatical-syntactical-semantic analysis, the Bible student may seek to

uncover the meaning of the passage as accurately as possible. Emphasis here is on the

theological implications of what the biblical writer has recorded--what basic theological

principles and truths emerge from the passage that have practical application today. In the

study of Scripture it is important to focus upon one verse of Scripture at a time, until diligent

study and reflection under the guidance of the Holy Spirit has made the meaning clear. Often

such study is more rewarding than the surface reading of many chapters. (See bibliography for

major commentaries providing assistance in verse-by-verse exposition; Hasel 1976, Shea 1986,

Paulien 1988.)

c. Thematic-topical study

68

The thematic approach is clearly illustrated in Jesus own preaching (Luke 24:23-27).

The theological messages of the NT writers pre-suppose, build upon, and stand in continuity

with, the major OT theological themes such as God, Man, Creation-Fall, Sin, Covenant,

Sabbath, Law, Promise, Remnant, Salvation, Sanctuary, and Eschatology. This approach

takes explicit biblical themes, both common ones and less obvious, and lets Scripture interpret

Scripture (see section II.C), as all the biblical data setting forth a given theme is assembled and

compared. Use of concordance and cross-references to trace keywords and concepts here is

crucial. Examples of major biblical themes to be researched are sabbath, second coming,

death/resurrection, salvation, sanctuary, repentance, judgment, etc.

Sometimes this approach may deal not only with an explicit biblical theme, but may seek

answers to some current topic or issue. It may take some contemporary life problem, some

specific present need, some contemporary question, and seek to bring to bear all that Scripture

has to say about that topic or issue. This kind of study may involve word study, use of cross-

references in the Bible margins, or close examination of a single passage, in seeking to find

light on the topic at hand.

In all thematic-topical study, it is crucial to bring together all that Scripture has to say

about a given topic or theme. Many thematic-topical studies distort the message of Scripture

by not applying the "totality of Scripture" principle discussed at the beginning of this article

(see section II.B). Also important is the application of principles discussed in our section on

the Analogy of Scripture (see section II.C).

As Scripture is allowed to interpret Scripture, it is crucial to avoid an illegitimate "proof-

texting" method that assembles passages from various parts of Scripture without regard for

their original context, and makes them "prove" what in fact they do not teach.

The principle of the consistency of Scripture must be upheld, in which one Scripture is

not to be used to set aside another Scripture, but all the data on a given theme or topic will be

viewed as coherent and harmonious parts of the whole picture. And the clarity of Scripture

will be respected, in which (a) Scripture is taken in its plain, literal sense unless an obvious

figure is implied; (b) the clear statements on a topic are the key to more fully understanding

69

less clear passages; and (c) there is an increasing spiral of understanding as later Scripture

illuminates earlier and vice versa. (Topical: Springett 1988, Hasel 1991, du Preez 1993;

thematic: Shea 1982, 1-24; Davidson 1991, 96-100.)

d. The "grand central theme" perspective

The NT writers also place their theological analyses of specific passages within the

larger context of the multi-faceted "grand central theme" of Scripture as set forth in the

opening and closing pages of the Bible (Gen 1-3; Rev 20-22; cf. White, Ed 125, 190):

Creation and the original divine design for this world, the character of God, the rise of the

cosmic moral conflict (Great Controversy), the plan of redemption-restoration centering in

Christ and His atoning work, and the eschatological judgment and end of sin at the climax of

history.

Various NT passages point to these themes as central. Jesus sees the OT Scriptures as

testifying of Him (John 5:39-47). Paul likewise understands the Christological focus of

Scripture as He determines to preach only "Jesus Christ and Him Crucified" (1 Cor 2:2), and

the soteriological focus of the Scriptures-- "which are able to make you wise unto salvation" (2

Tim 3:15). He further recognizes the cosmic scope and implications of the gospel of salvation

which he expounded from Scripture (Col 3:10,11), and his single-minded life quest, formed

from Scripture, has a decided eschatological focus (Phil 3:13-14).

A powerful way to see the beauty and unity of Scripture is to ask about every passage

that one studies: What does this passage contribute toward understanding the grand central

theme of Scripture? (That is not to say the "grand central theme" is to be used as an

organizing principle, a grid, to organize all of Scripture, but rather as an orientation point that

gives underlying unity and harmony and ultimate meaning to the various other themes of

Scripture.)

e. Literary-structural analysis

As we noted in the section on literary context (III.C.3), the literary structure of a book

often becomes a key to understanding its theological message more clearly or determining the

central theological thrust of a book. For example, the book of Deuteronomy has been analyzed

70

by man OT scholars as structured after the pattern of the international suzerainty treaties of the

day (see Kline 1963; Craige 1976):

(a) preamble, or introduction of suzerain (Deut 1:1-5)

(b) historical prologue, or statement of past benefactions of the suzerain to the vassal

(Deut 1:6-4:49)

(c) general stipulations (Deuteronomy 5-11)

(d) specific stipulations (Deuteronomy 12-26)

(e) blessings and curses (Deuteronomy 27-28)

(f) witnesses (Deut 30:19; 31:19; 32:1-43)

Recognizing a literary covenant structure of this book highlights essential theological

points about the divine-human covenant relationship. Just as in the Hittite covenants the call to

obedience was based upon a motive of gratitude for what the suzerain had already done for the

vassal, so God's commandments are set forth following four chapters reviewing how He had

redeemed Israel at the Exodus. Thus the people are called to obey God, not in order to be

redeemed, but because they are already redeemed, and now can respond in gratitude for what

God has already done. Deuteronomy thus rejects righteousness by works, and upholds the

priority of divine redeeming grace. (Of course, Deuteronomy shows how the divine-human

covenant goes far beyond the human suzerainty treaties as God is able to empower the vassal to

obey Him.)

As a second example, the chiastic structure of the Pentateuch points to Leviticus as the

apex of God's revelation, and within Leviticus the Day of Atonement described in Leviticus 16

is the apex of the chiastic structure. The holiest day of the Jewish year, in which the holiest

person on earth (the high priest) goes into the holiest place on earth (the Most Holy Place) to

perform the holiest work of all the year--and this is reserved for the central chapter of the

Torah. Its placement within Leviticus--flanked on one side (chapters 1-15) by constant

mention of blood and sacrifice and flanked on the opposite side (chapters 17-23) by repeated

calls to holiness--provides a balanced theological perspective on the Day of Atonement

71

judgment as based entirely on the atoning blood of the substitute but issuing forth in fruits of

holiness (see Shea 1986, 131-168, Davidson 1991, 11-13).

As a final example, the chiastic structures in Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 clearly reveal a

movement from the horizontal, earthly sphere, to the cosmic sphere in the apex of the chiasms,

revealing that the "fallen cherub", Lucifer, and the "king of Tyre" is not ultimately describing

an earthly ruler, but Satan himself (see Bertoluci 1985 and Davidson 1992, 118-119, for the

chiastic analysis and other evidence to support this conclusion).

2. Problematic Theological Passages

In dealing with apparently problematic theological passages, particularly with regard to

questions about the character of God or seeming distortions of the truth, the following

questions may prove helpful:

(1) What is the overall picture of the character of God in Scripture, especially as it is

revealed at Calvary? It must be remembered that the Father and the Son have the same

character (John 14:9) and the God of the OT is the same God as in the NT (John 8:58).

Rightly understood in the overarching context of the Great Controversy, all passages of

Scripture will present a coherent and consistent portrayal of God's character. One must

interpret the "problematic" passages in light of the clear and balanced revelation of both His

justice and mercy, particularly as this light streams from the cross of Calvary.

(2) What additional specific information relevant to the problematic passage is available

elsewhere in Scripture or in extra-biblical material? Often a seeming difficulty in Scripture is

clarified when all the biblical facts are taken into account.

An example is the slaying of Uzzah. At first glance it seems that he innocently reached

out to steady the ark from falling (2 Sam 6:3,4), but the picture becomes clearer as one realizes

that the ark had been in Uzzah's own house in Kirjathjearim for about 20 years under the care

of his father Abinadab (1 Sam 7:1-2; 2 Sam 6:3). Uzzah during this time had apparently lost

his sense of the sacredness of the holy ark, and he had come to regard it as a common object of

furniture. Familiarity had bred irreverence--the sacred had become common. This disrespect

for the sacred is further revealed in the violation of specific divine commands concerning the

72

transport of the ark: only the priests were to touch the ark (Num 4:15), and the Levites were to

carry the ark on their shoulders, and not place the sacred chest upon a cart (Num 7:9).

Throughout Scripture God takes the sin of irreverence very seriously (the 42 children mauled

by the two she-bears in 2 Kgs 2:23-24, Nadab and Abihu in Lev 10:1-3, etc.) because without

respect for God, humanity is no longer willing to listen.

Another example of further biblical data illuminating a theological problem is the

imprecatory (or "cursing") psalms (Ps 35, 58, 69, 109, 139, etc.). A full discussion of these

psalms is not possible here (see especially LaRondelle 1983, 19-23, Rodriguez 1994, 40-67,

and the brief treatment and bibliography in Davidson 1992, 130-131, 135 [notes 75-76]).

Many have regarded David's curses upon his enemies as exhibiting purely human outbursts of

anger, a "sub-Christian" attitude out of harmony with Christ's command to "love your

enemies." But what is not often recognized is that these very curses are cited by NT writers as

divinely-inspired, authoritative Scripture (e.g. Acts 1:20; Rom 11:9-11).

Out of some twenty biblical principles that provide an inspired basis for interpreting and

applying these psalms, we may here outline some few crucial theological points: (a) David is

the theocratic anointed one fighting the battles of the Lord, and his enemies (who in context are

especially king Saul and his army) are therefore in reality God's enemies (1 Sam 25:28; 1 Chr

29:23; Ps 139:21); (b) David's prayer for the defeat of God's enemies is simply the "flip-side"

of his prayer for victory (Ps 74:18-23; 79:9-13); (c) the content of the curses in the psalm are

the same as the covenant curses mentioned in Deuteronomy 28 and Leviticus 26: David prays

for God to be faithful to his covenant by bringing the curses upon those who have rebelled

against him; (d) God's own honor is at stake in being faithful to His covenant curses upon the

wicked as well as providing the covenant blessings upon the righteous (Ps 74:18, 21-22; 79:9-

10); (e) David is like Jeremiah, "full of the wrath of the Lord" (Jer 6:11): the prophet's

emotions are vibrations of the divine anger (which is a very real emotional outrage, righteous

indignation); (f) David never takes vengeance into His own hands, but leaves it with God (Ps

94:1; cf. Deut 32:35; Rom 12:19); (g) the rejoicing in Ps 137:8-9 is not over the bashing of

infants, but occurs in a legal context; the rejoicing is because lex talionis (just retribution) will

73

be meted out in fulfillment of God's prediction upon Babylon (2 Kgs 8:12; Isa 13:16; Deut

19:16-20); the same situation of rejoicing over the just retribution upon Babylon will come at

the end of time (Rev 18:2, 4-8, 20); (h) the NT presents a continuation, even intensification, of

the OT curses upon God's spiritual enemies (Matt 23; 25:41; Acts 13:9-11; 1 Cor 16:22; Heb

2:1-3; 10:26-31; Rev 6:9-10; 14:6-12); (i) the curses upon David's enemies (in particular Saul)

seem to have come after Saul had become totally given over to evil (committed the

unpardonable sin, 1 Samuel 15); likewise Jesus' curses were given late in his ministry upon the

rulers of Israel who had totally rejected God (Matt 23, 25); the same was true of the curses

upon Judas, which came after he became the "son of perdition" (John 17:12; Acts 1:20;); the

curses today thus apply only to those we know are totally and irrevocably given over to evil,

i.e., Satan and his angels (Eph 6:12), and the wicked after the close of probation (Rev 9:1-3);

(k) Christ has ultimately taken the covenant curses upon Himself (Gal 3:13), so that no human

being needs to receive them; hellfire was prepared only for the devil and his angels (Matt

25:41). From this brief survey, we see that the imprecatory psalms, far from representing a

faulty theology, take us into the very heart of the covenant, with its blessings and curses, into

the heart of the covenant-keeping God, and ultimately into the heart of the gospel.

As an example of extra-biblical material illuminating a theological problem, we note the

contemporary evidence for the wickedness of the Amorites that called for their destruction. At

the time of the Conquest the iniquity of the Amorites was indeed full. The Ras Shamra

(Ugaritic) Tablets dating from about this time give us insight into the gross licentiousness and

unbridled violence that had become so pervasive that the most vile practices constituted the

high point of the Canaanite religious ritual (Gray 1965, 98-103). A reading of the Ugaritic

materials--fertility cult ritual texts describing the sex orgies at the places of worship--and the

accounts of child sacrifice and worship of deities with insatiable thirst for bloodshed (Albright

1946), leaves no doubt about the justice in destroying the Canaanites. A few generations of

Canaanite debauchery and the whole people had sunk to the level of brutes, with no capability

of responding to the Spirit of God. God in His mercy, as much as His justice, declared that

74

there was nothing left but executive judgment. (For further discussion, see Davidson 1995:

93-96.)

(3) Is God acting as a Divine Surgeon, cutting out the infected part to save the whole

body? God specifically gives this principle as the reason for the death penalty in circumstances

such as children totally given over to irreverence and rebellion: "and all Israel shall hear, and

fear" (Deut 21:21). The same was true with the rebellion of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram

(Numbers 16): God nipped the rebellion in the bud before the whole camp of Israel was

involved. This principle also further explains God's actions against those mentioned under the

previous principle--Uzzah, the 42 children, and Nadab and Abihu--and others like Achan

(Joshua 7) and Annanias and Sapphira (Acts 5). The judgment upon one or a few led others to

repentance and respect for God and prevented the necessity of punishing the many.

(4) Does an understanding of Hebrew thought resolve the difficulty in interpretation?

Old Testament writers do not accept--and often explicitly counteract--the mythological,

polytheistic theology held by their Near Eastern neighbors, and likewise the theological

thought-patterns of NT writers, though expressed in Greek, stay within the trajectory of

biblical Hebrew thought, and do not imbibe alien thought-forms of the prevailing surrounding

culture such as gnosticism and platonic dualism. It must be the studied aim of the interpreter

not to read ancient Near-Eastern, Western (Greek) or modern thinking upon the Hebrew

thought of Scripture. (See bibliography for helpful studies of Hebrew thought.)

Recognizing the patterns of Hebrew thought resolves many apparent problems in the

text. For example, Hebrew thought often does not separate causality and function. In the

strong affirmation of the sovereignty of God, biblical writers at times attributed responsibility

to God for acts He did not directly perform but that He permitted to happen. Thus the

passages which state that God "hardened Pharaoh's heart" (e.g., Exod 9:12) must be seen in

light of passages in the same context which state that "Pharaoh hardened his [own] heart,"

Exod 8:15, 32; 9:34. God "caused" Pharaoh to harden his heart as Pharaoh refused to respond

to repeated appeals to allow Israel to go free and to repeated divine judgments following the

75

spurned appeals. Just as the same sun hardens clay and melts butter, so God initiated the

circumstances (appeals and plagues) that brought Pharaoh to a decision (hardening his heart).

As another example, 2 Sam 24:l indicates that the Lord incited David to number Israel;

but 1 Chr 21:1 states that Satan did the inciting. There is no conflict in Hebrew thinking: God

is said to cause that which in His sovereignty He allows. This way of thinking is perhaps most

clearly illuminated in the experience of Job: God clearly does not directly cause Job's

misfortunes and affliction, but rather allows Satan to act within certain bounds (Job 1:6-12;

2:6); yet the Lord Himself said to Satan, "you moved me against him to destroy him without

cause (Job 2:3).

(5) What is God's original ideal in the situation being described? With regard to

Israel's destruction of the Canaanites, we must note that God had given them 400 years of

probation to come to repentance (Gen 15;16), and furthermore He had intended to drive them

out by the hornet and the Angel so that Israel need not have destroyed them by their own hands

(Exod 23:23, 28). But God condescends to Israel's lack of faith and works with under less

than ideal conditions, while all the while seeking to bring them back to the ideal (see Exodus

14-15; 2 Kings 19; 2 Chronicles 32; Isaiah 37, for glimpses of God's ideal way of working).

The same principle helps to explain the divine permission for divorce in the Mosaic

Law. Jesus points out that God condescended to allow divorce because of the hardness of their

hearts, but "from the beginning it was not so" (Matt 19:8). He gave clear indication of His

will regarding marriage in Eden (Gen 2:24), and continually called His people back toward that

ideal.

(6) Is God's activity an attention-getting device, to wake up His people so that they will

listen to Him? Sometimes God has to take what seems like extreme measures in His attempt to

arouse His people from their lethargy and sins. So for example, the various bizarre sign-

actions of Ezekiel in the final days of Israel's probation before the Babylonian Captivity (Ezek

4-5), and God's command to Hosea to marry a "wife of harlotry" in the final days of the

Northern Kingdom's probation (Hos 1:2): God was pulling out all the stops, as it were, to get

Israel's attention.

76

This principle is perhaps a partial explanation of the dramatic display at Mt. Sinai--the

thunders and lightnings, thick cloud, loud trumpet blast, billowing smoke, and earthquake

(Exod 19:16-19)--which caused all the people to tremble in terror. They were awakened with

one kind of fear, terror, in order that another kind of fear, reverence, might be instilled within

them. Moses highlights this point in Exod 20:20, playing upon the Hebrew word for fear that

has both these connotations: "Do not fear [be in terror]; for God has come to prove you, that

the fear [reverence] of him may be before your eyes, that you may not sin." At the same time,

it must be underscored that such power and majesty as displayed on Sinai is not some divine

"put-on" that is out of character for God. He IS a consuming fire (Deut 4:24; Heb 12:29), and

the theophany at Sinai was only a faint reflection of His awesome holiness. While an attention-

getting device, it was also a clear and accurate revelation of His nature.

(7) Are there still some points that are not fully explainable or understandable? Even as

we attempt to justify God's character in His dealings with humankind, it will not always be

possible in this life to understand why God did certain things the way He did. When God

answered Job out of the whirlwind, He did not see fit to explain the details about the great

controversy that was being waged with Satan over his situation. He simply underscored His

divine power and wisdom, and Job responded in faith that God knew what was best. Some

issues like the innocent suffering and death of children, martyrs and animals, and the

unpunished cruelty of the wicked in this life, will remain unresolved until Christ comes and

makes all things right at the Judgment and in the New Earth. Some issues and divine actions

will only be understood fully when in the hereafter God himself pulls aside the curtain and

reveals why He had to act, or refrain from acting, the way He did in the light of the Great

Controversy. But enough evidence and answers are given in Scripture so that the Biblical

student can echo the Song of Moses and the Lamb: "Just and true are thy ways, O King of the

ages!" (Rev 15:3)

3. Scriptures Pointing Beyond Themselves

In this section we have in view those parts of Scripture that inherently point to a

fulfillment beyond themselves, as in prophecy and typology, or to an extended meaning beyond

77

themselves, as in symbolism and parables. We must give brief attention to the interpretation of

each of these kinds of biblical material.

a. Prophecy

General observations. In studying the predictive prophecies of Scripture, several general

observations arising from the biblical self-testimony are foundational to the prophetic material.

First, the Bible specifically claims that God is able to predict the near and distant future (Isa

46:10; Dan 2:45; 8:17-19; Rev 1:19), and the interpreter must not be influenced by modern

critical presuppositions which reject the concept of future prediction and divine foreknowledge.

Second, it must be recognized that predictive prophecy was not given simply to satisfy

curiosity about future events, but for moral purposes such as the establishment of faith (John

14:29) and the promotion of personal holiness in preparation for Christ's coming (Matt 24:44;

Rev 22:7, 10, 11). Thirdly, the controls for the interpretation of predictive prophecy must be

found within Scripture itself; the fulfillment of prophecy must find complete correspondence

with the prophetic data in order to be considered the correct fulfillment.

Fourthly, understanding the literary structure of a prophetic book provides helpful

corroborating support for the correct interpretation. For example, the chiastic arrangement of

Revelation contains two halves which portray respectively the historical and eschatological

unfolding of the Great Controversy (see Strand 1992, 33-49). Furthermore, the introductory

sanctuary scenes which structure the whole book of Revelation reveal where in the flow of

history each section begins. As another example, in the literary structure of Amos, the apex of

the chiasm is chapter 5, where the prophet has reserved his impassioned calls for Israel's

repentance, showing the clear conditional nature of Amos' prophecy (Shea ).

Fifthly, one should be especially cautious with regard to unfulfilled prophecy. Jesus'

counsel regarding a primary moral purpose of all prophecy is pertinent: it is given so that when

it comes to pass, we may believe (John 14:29). Before it comes to pass, we may not

understand every detail of the predictions, even though the basic outline of events and issues is

clear.

78

It is of utmost importance to recognize that within Scripture there are two different

genres of prophecy: "classical" and "apocalyptic." Each of these types of prophecy involves

different hermeneutical rules of interpretation, which arise out of an examination of the biblical

evidence (see Strand 1992, 11-22).

Classical prophecy. Many of the prophecies of the classical prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah,

Ezekiel, and the 12 Minor Prophets) are couched within the framework of covenant

relationship, in which God's people are always free to remain faithful to the covenant, and reap

the covenant blessings, or persist in unfaithfulness and receive the covenant curses (see

Deuteronomy 27-28). Thus they present different options: God's plan for blessing Israel if

they heed the prophetic call to remain faithful to His covenant, but also the certainty of

judgment and the reception of the covenant curses if Israel persists in covenant unfaithfulness.

Within classical prophecy there are repeated calls to repentance, so that God can pour out His

blessings, and warnings of judgment, if Israel does not repent. In effect then these kingdom

prophecies of the classical prophets may be seen as conditional in nature. However, the

promise of the coming of the Messiah, which does not depend upon human choice, is

unconditional throughout the classical prophets, although descriptions of the response of Israel

to His coming again depend upon the choice of His covenant people. Likewise, other

predictions not related to the covenant relationship, such as the birth of Cyrus (Isa 44:28; 45:1-

6) and the destruction of Assyria (Isa 10:12-19) are fixed by divine sovereignty.

Classical prophecy has primarily a local/national, contemporary focus. It often jumps

from the local crisis to end time events under the same rubric of "the day of the Lord." See,

for example, the book of Joel, which describes the impending local attack of locusts (Joel 1-2)

and then moves to the universal judgment at the end time (Joel 3). The eschatology of classical

prophecy is envisioned within history in God's original plan for national/ethnic Israel. Further,

classical prophecy presents some contrasts in connection with the two ways of relating to the

covenant and contains some symbolism, mostly true-to-life in nature. Its source is usually in

"the word of the Lord" which comes to the prophet, although there are some dreams and

visions involved.

79

The time prophecies in classical prophecy are generally long (e.g., the 70 years of Jer

25:12), since they are expressed in literal time, although occasionally the day=year principle is

explicitly employed (Ezek 4:6).

A major characteristic of classical prophecy relates to its modes of eschatological

fulfillment. In classical prophecy God gave kingdom prophecies/promises that represented his

original plan for Israel. These prophecies began to be fulfilled upon Israel's return from the

Babylonian exile and were to climax in the advent of the Messiah. When the Messiah, Israel's

King came, He brought about the basic fulfillment of all these kingdom promises in Himself

(Matt 12:28; 2 Cor 1:20). It was God's intention that all these kingdom prophecies also be

literally fulfilled in national, ethnic, theocratic Israel as they extended the Messianic kingdom

throughout the world. But when literal, national, theocratic Israel rejected their king, as a

theocracy they divorced themselves from God (Matt 23:38). At His death, when all forsook

Him, Jesus the Jew remained faithful, the One true Remnant of Israel. As the true embodiment

of Israel, He now calls all humanity, both Jew and Gentile, to be incorporated into His body

(Eph 2:14-18; 5:30). The Christian church (made up of both faithful Jews and Gentiles) is the

"Israel of God" (Gal 6:16). (This does not mean that God has forgotten or forsaken the Jewish

people--the gospel is always to go "to the Jew first" [Rom 1:16], and the Jewish people have

preserved through history a witness to the perpetuity of the law. Before the end many Jews

will be grafted back into the olive tree [Romans 9-11] as they accept Jesus as the Messiah.)

The universal church, as the body of Christ, receives the fulfillment of all the kingdom

promises (Gal 3:29), but it is a spiritual fulfillment in which ethnic and geographical (Israel-

centered) language becomes universalized (Israel is the church; Babylon represents apostate

religion; etc;). Finally there is a universal, glorious, literal and final fulfillment at the end of

time.

To summarize, the OT kingdom prophecies of classical prophecy have one

eschatological (last-day) fulfillment with three aspects: (1) inaugurated eschatology: the basic

fulfillment of the OT eschatological hopes climaxing in the earthly life and work of Jesus at His

first advent; (2) appropriated eschatology: the derived spiritual aspect of fulfillment by the

80

church, the body of Christ in the time between Christ's first and second coming, and (3)

consummated eschatology: the aspect of final literal, universal fulfillment in connection with

ushering in the age to come at the second advent of Christ and beyond (for further discussion

of these principles, see LaRondelle 1983). The mode of fulfillment in each of these aspects of

fulfillment is differentiated according to the physical or spiritual presence of Christ. At

Christ's first coming, when Christ is physically present, the fulfillment is literal and local,

centered in Him. During the time of the Church, when Christ is spiritually and universally

present through His spirit, the fulfillment is spiritual and universal; at the end of time when

Christ physically returns, the fulfillment is literal and universal.

Apocalyptic prophecy. The distinction between the two types of prophetic literature--

classical and apocalyptic--is already suggested by their placement within the biblical canon of

the Hebrew and Greek Testaments. In the final canonical arrangement of Hebrew OT, the

book of Daniel is not placed with the "Prophets" (nebî'îm) but in the third division of the

canon, the "Writings" (ketûbîm). This is not because Daniel is a late production as critical

scholars claim; rather, the book of Daniel has a different function than the classical prophets.

Likewise, the book of Revelation is at the culmination of the NT witness. And the title of

Revelation--Apocalypse--provides the name for this type of prophecy.

There are a number of characteristics of apocalyptic which set it apart from classical

prophecy. First we note the lack of the conditional element in the predictive sections of both

Daniel and Revelation. In Daniel, God's sovereignty and control over history presents not

what might be for Israel and other nations, but (from the vantage point of God's fore-

knowledge) what will be. There is no presentation of the alternatives of blessings and curses

for obedience or rebellion. Rather, God reveals in unbroken succession the rise and fall of

nations from Daniel's day to the end of time. The same historical sweep of history from

John's day to the end is found in Revelation. Though Revelation does present calls for

individuals to align themselves with the side of Christ in the cosmic struggle (see the appeals to

the seven churches in Rev 2-3), at the same time the sequence of historical progression of the

cosmic drama is presented as fixed and unalterable.

81

The book of Daniel further underscores the difference between classical and apocalyptic

in that the book was sealed till the time of the end (Dan 12:4). The visions of Daniel were not

primarily for the people of his day, as in classical prophecy, but for those who came later, who

would be able to see that God was not taken by surprise, but knew which way Israel as a nation

would choose to take with reference to His covenant. The book of Revelation, as the

companion volume to Daniel, presents Daniel's sealed book as open in the last days (Rev 10:1-

2, 5-6; cf. Dan 12:7), and provides further revelation complementing the book of Daniel.

Other characteristics of apocalyptic contrast with classical prophecy. Apocalyptic

eschatology describes the end of history with a final universal inbreaking of God from outside

of history. Apocalyptic also contains striking contrasts or dualism (this age and the Age to

Come, earth and heaven, Christ and Satan, and the righteous and the wicked, etc.) and

profuse, composite symbolism. The basis of apocalyptic revelation is usually the giving of

visions or dreams, and is often accompanied by an angel interpreter.

There are four major schools of interpretation for biblical apocalyptic literature. The

consistent view of the early church and all the Reformers was historicist, which recognized that

the visions of Daniel and John span the entire period of history from the prophet's day till the

end of time and beyond. A second major view, the preterist, arising in the time of the Catholic

Counter-Reformation (traceable to the Jesuit scholar Alcazar, and now held by most mainline

Protestants), insists that the apocalyptic prophecies focused mainly on the past (especially the

time of Antiochus Epiphanes for Daniel and the Roman emperors for Revelation). A third

school, the futurists, also arising in the Counter-Reformation (traceable to the Jesuit scholar

Ribera), argues that the apocalyptic prophecies focus mainly on the future (especially the

person of the Antichrist). Finally an idealist school maintains that Daniel and Revelation gives

a generalized portrayal of struggle between good and evil but refuses to make application of the

various symbols to specific historical fulfillments.

The apocalyptic literature of Daniel and Revelation provides internal indicators that

historicism is the correct method of prophetic interpretation. First, the angel interpreter in

82

Daniel shows that the symbols of apocalyptic do have specific historical referents, not just

idealized portraits as with the idealist school.

Further, the focus of apocalyptic is universal and cosmic: it presents an unbroken sweep

of history from the prophet's day to the end of the world. Each major vision of Daniel (2, 7,

8, 11) and the historical half of Revelation (churches, seals, trumpets) recapitulates this sweep

of history from different perspectives and with new details. Thus only the historicist school,

and not the preterist (which sees prophecy fail in the prophet's own day) or the futurist (who

must posit a gap of nearly 2000 years when the text gives no hint of such), is able to do justice

to this point.

Another characteristic undergirding the historicist interpretation concerns the nature of

the time prophecies. The time periods of apocalyptic are generally short--too short to be taken

as actual time. They are also expressed in unusual Hebrew/Greek temporal terminology (2300

evenings-mornings; time, 2 times and half a time; 70 weeks; 42 months, 1290 days, 1335

days) that indicate their symbolical nature. Internal evidence within Daniel indicates that literal

days in prophecy stand for longer periods of actual time (involving the day-year principle; Dan

8:1-13; 9:24-27; 11:6, 8, 13). This characteristic gives further support to the historicist

interpretation, since the time prophecies cover virtually the whole sweep of history, not just

brief periods in the past or future.

Apocalyptic prophecy follows classical prophecy in the mode of fulfillment, since both

are interpreted against the backdrop of NT eschatology. After the cross, during the sweep of

history the various prophetic elements (e.g. geographical and ethnic terms for Israel and

Babylon) are to be interpreted spiritually and universally (e.g. Rev 2:9; 7:1-17; 17:1-6; 18);

and at the culmination of history, with the literal second advent of Christ and after, the

prophetic elements are interpreted literally (literal 1000 years, literal New Earth etc.,

Revelation 20-22).

However, although the mode of apocalyptic fulfillment is the same as classical, it must

be underscored that unlike classical prophecy, apocalyptic refers to only one aspect of

fulfillment for each prophetic symbol, time element, or other feature. There is simply no room

83

in apocalyptic for several re-applications or stages of fulfillment, since there is an unbroken

historical progression from the prophet's day to the end of time.

This point is underscored by noting that the angel interpreter in apocalyptic consistently

provides one, and only one, correct interpretation of each symbol and detail (see, e.g., Dan

8:18-26). Thus any re-application of the symbols or time periods of Daniel and Revelation, to

a future time, is inappropriate. Revelation 10:6 (in the context of vv. 9-11 and Rev 11:1) also

indicates that will be no more chronos (prophetic time) after the Great Disappointment and the

start of the pre-Advent investigative judgment in 1844; thus any setting of specific dates in the

future is excluded by Scripture itself.

We may summarize the main contrasting characteristics between classical and

apocalyptic literature by the following chart:

Two Genres of Predictive Prophecy in ScriptureGeneral (Classical) Prophecy

(Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Minor Prophets)Apocalyptic Prophecy(Daniel and Revelation)

1. Primary focus: Ëlocal/national Ëcontemporary

1. Primary focus: Ëuniversal Ësweep of history, with emphasis on end time

2. Eschatology--within history (national, ethnic)

2. Eschatology--outside of history (final, universal)

3. Some contrasts 3. Striking contrasts (dualism) Ëtemporal (this age/age to come) Ëspatial (earthly/heavenly) Ëethical (righteous/wicked)

4. Limited symbolism with true-to-life imagery

4. Profuse, composite symbolism

5. Basis: "word of Lord" (some visions) 5. Basis: visions/dreams, angel interpreter6. Conditionality (based on covenant response of people)

6. Determinism (divine sovereignty)

7. Three aspects of eschatological fulfillment: inaugurated (First Advent); appropriated (time of church); consummated (Second Advent and beyond)

7. Only one aspect of fulfillment for each detail of visions: visions give full sweep of history to end of time, with no room for reapplication to different stages of eschatological fulfillment.

Practical steps for interpretation. As a practical guide for the interpretation of predictive

prophecy in Scripture, the following questions may be helpful:

For all prophetic literature, ask:

84

1. What is the historical setting that calls forth the prophecy? (See above III.B for

dealing with the historical questions).

2. What is the literary structure of the book and the immediate passage under

consideration? Where does this passage come and what part does it play in the overall

structure of the book? (See III.C above for dealing with literary structure.)

3. What is the natural grammatical meaning of the passage--words, phrases, clauses,

sentences? (See III.D above for how to do a verse-by-verse analysis of the passage.) What

specifically is predicted?

4. What obvious symbols are employed, and what is the meaning of each symbol? (See

below III.E.4.c for discussion of symbolism.)

5. What type of prophetic literature is involved--classical (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel,

Minor Prophets) or apocalyptic (Daniel and Revelation)?

If classical prophecy, ask the following:

1. What immediate local crisis is described in the book or specific passage? (E.g. the

locust plagues of Joel 2.)

2. Does the book jump from this local crisis to the "Day of the Lord" at the end of

time? (E.g. Joel 3.)

3. What kingdom prophecies or promises to Israel are given? Where are similar

prophecies given elsewhere in the OT? How would these have been literally fulfilled in

national, ethnic, theocratic Israel if they had been faithful to the covenant? (Visualize what

might have been.)

4. What covenant curses are pronounced upon theocratic Israel if they would continue

to spurn the warnings to repent from their covenant unfaithfulness? How were these warnings

fulfilled in history? What predictions of the Messiah are given by the prophet? Which aspects

of these prophecies are not dependent upon human choice and are therefore unconditional?

Which are describing results the Messiah's advent that are conditional upon Israel's response?

5. How did Jesus bring about the basic fulfillment of the kingdom prophecies in Himself

(for example, the "gathering" prophecies [Deuteronomy 30, Ezekiel 36-37, etc.] as He

85

gathered the twelve disciples to Himself, [Matt 5:1; John(?) 10:14-16; 11:52; Matt 12:30, Matt

23:37])? (Use a concordance or marginal notes to trace connections between the OT prophecy

and the life of Christ.)

6. How do these same covenant promises/prophecies find spiritual fulfillment in the

church, the body of Christ? (For example, the church spiritually gathered by faith to Christ,

Matt 18:20; Heb 12:22; Rev 14:6-12.)

7. How do these kingdom prophecies find their literal consummated fulfillment at the

Second Advent and beyond? (For example, Christ's literal gathering His people to Himself at

the Second Advent, Matt 24:31; 2 Thess 2:1; Luke 13:28-29; Revelation 21-22.)

8. What political, ethnic, geographical, Middle-East terminology or imagery is found in

the kingdom prophecy? This ethnic and territorial language (Jerusalem, Mt. Zion, Israel, etc.)

must be universalized as it is fulfilled in the Church and at the end of time (see, e.g. Gal 3:29;

Heb 12:22-24; Rev 21:18-21).

9. What parts of the kingdom prophecies describe Israel's enemies? These likewise

must be seen with reference to Christ (as in steps 5-8 above): literal enemies of Christ at His

First Advent (e.g. John 13:18; Acts 1:20); spiritual enemies of the church (Rev 14:20; 16:14-

16), and the literal enemies at the Second Advent and beyond (Rev 20:8, 9).

10. What events of the kingdom prophecies refer specifically to the final wind up of

history, the final eschatological battle (especially Ezekiel 38-39; Zechariah 12-14; Joel 3;

Isaiah 24-27)?

These apocalyptic-like portions of classical prophecy also must be interpreted in

harmony with the Christ-centered principles highlighted above. The consummated fulfillment

is literal (e.g. as the Mt. Olives divides in two [Zechariah 14]), but the ethnic terminology is

still universalized (Israel refers to all of God's people; Gog and Magog to all of their enemies,

Ezekiel 38-39; Rev 20:8).

For apocalyptic literature, ask the following:

1. What is the overall plan of the book (Daniel or Revelation)--the series of

recapitulating visions--and where does the passage at hand fit into this big picture? Note that

86

the four outline visions/interpretations of Daniel 2, 7, 8, 11 recapitulate the same basic sweep

of history from Daniel's day to the end of time. The historical sections of Revelation

(churches, seals, trumpets) likewise recap the sweep of history from John's day to the end of

time. The eschatological part of Revelation also has flashbacks to the sweep of history (e.g.

the two witnesses of Revelation 11 and the persecution of the woman and her seed in

Revelation 12), but focuses mainly on the antitypical Day of Atonement, which Daniel

pinpoints (Dan 8:14) as beginning in 1844.

2. What specific interpretation is given by the angel to the prophet concerning details in

the passage? (See, e.g. the angel's clear identification of the ram and he-goat in Daniel 8.)

3. What features of parallel sweep-of-history visions in Daniel and Revelation assist in

interpreting the passage at hand? (For example, Daniel 2, 7, 8, and 11 must be studied

together, beginning with Daniel 2, and allowing the parallel sections to inform the

interpretation. Likewise, the seven churches, seven seals, and seven trumpets must be studied

in view of their interrelationship. Again, all the characteristics of the little horn in Daniel 7

and the beast of Revelation 13 must be taken into account identifying this power.

4. What features of the chiastic parallels in the books of Revelation illuminate each

other? (For example, the "Church Militant" of Rev 1:10b-3:22 matches the "Church

Triumphant" in Rev 21:5-22:7; the seven trumpets of Revelation 8-11 match the seven plagues

of Revelation 15-16.)

5. What OT allusions are found in the passage? (For example the drying up of the river

Euphrates to prepare for the king from the East in Revelation 16 alludes to the downfall of

Babylon predicted in Jeremiah 51.) OT allusions can illuminate the intended meaning of the

prophecy. Especially note the allusions to the sanctuary and the parallels between Daniel and

Revelation.

6. What NT parallels to the passage at hand may illuminate the meaning of the prophecy

(e.g., the apocalypse of Jesus in Matthew 24 and of Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2 are crucial

backgrounds for the beast of Revelation 13).

87

7. What meaning of the prophet's language would have been intelligible to the readers

in the prophets' day? The interpretation must build upon this meaning and not the constructs of

the modern interpreter. (Of course the interpretation may point to fulfillment beyond the

original hearers' awareness, but the control on the meaning of the language employed by the

prophet must be what would have been the meaning intended by the prophet.

8. What mode of fulfillment is to be expected in this passage? (Remember that here

apocalyptic follows classical prophecy in universalizing the ethnic restrictions of terms: Israel

and Babylon, God's people and His enemies respectively. The fulfillment is also differentiated

according to the spiritual or physical presence of Christ. Thus the descriptions of the sanctuary

are literal with reference to the heavenly sanctuary where Christ is physically present but

spiritual where referring to Christ's walking among the earthly candlesticks [Revelation 1]

where He is only present by His Spirit.

9. What historical event provides an exact fit to all the details of the prophecy, seen in

its larger context in the book? Only if every detail between prophecy and history fits can the

interpretation be accepted.

10. Does the interpretation harmonize with that of other descriptions of the same event

or issue elsewhere in Scripture? Does it harmonize with the basic outlines of events and issues

as understood by careful historicist expositors?

11. What aspects of the prediction are clear beyond doubt, and what details are not

absolutely certain and call for caution in interpretation? The main outlines of apocalyptic

prophecy are clear, but there may be differences of opinion on certain details. Even some

larger sections (such as Daniel 11 and the seven trumpets of Revelation) are still viewed very

differently among historicist interpreters. Special caution is in order with regard to the details

of unfulfilled prophecy.

b. Typology

The basic characteristics of biblical typology emerge from within Scripture as one

examines carefully the basic NT passages where the NT writers explicitly label their

interpretation of the OT with the word typos "type" or the NT fulfillment as antitypos

88

"antitype" (see Rom 5:12; 1 Cor 10:6, 11; 1 Pet 3:21; Heb 8:5 and 9:24). Based upon the

biblical data, typology can be defined as the study of various persons, events, or institutions in

salvation history which God specifically designed to predictively prefigure their antitypical

eschatological fulfillment in Christ and the Gospel realities brought about by Christ.

Biblical typology may be clarified by contrasting it with other aspects of or approaches

to Scripture. Five distinguishing characteristics of typology are the following:

1. Typology is rooted in history. It does not lose sight of the actual historical character

of the persons, events or institutions with which it deals. This is in contradistinction to

allegory, which is the arbitrary assigning of meaning to details of the text that denigrates or

even rejects the plain historical sense. Allegorization of the biblical text (except where the

context specifically indicates the presence of allegory, as in the allegorical parables of Christ),

is an illegitimate method of interpretation.

2. A type points forward or predictively prefigures. This is in contrast with a symbol,

which is in itself a timeless representation of truth. Symbols may, however, also become types

if used in a specific typological context. For example, a lamb in Scripture symbolizes

gentleness and innocence; but connected with the sanctuary, the lamb becomes a symbolic type

of the Lamb of God, the Messiah.

3. A type prefigures, but not explicitly, not verbally. This is in distinction with

predictive prophecy. Both typology and predictive prophecy have reference to the future, a

type mutely (as a person, event, or institution), and prediction verbally. As we will point out

below, typology and verbal prediction go hand in hand, since each type is identified as such by

some verbal indicator in Scripture either immediately accompanying the type or coming

sometime before the appearance of the antitype.

4. Typology involves a heightened correspondence--the antitype is greater than the type

(see Jesus' announcing of Himself as "something greater than" the temple, the prophet, and the

king, Matt 12:6, 41, 42). This is to be distinguished from a spiritual illustration or

comparison, referring to some example as a model with no higher correspondence. So for

89

example, Peter exhorts women to be sober and modest like Sarah (1 Pet 3:1-6). Sarah is an

example, a model of behavior, but not a type.

5. A type is divinely ordained to function as a prefiguration of the antitype. This is in

contradistinction to a natural analogy, which many modern critical scholars have called

typology. There are many analogous or similar situations in Scripture, but the NT writers

reserve the word "type" for historical realities which God has divinely designed to foreshadow

their antitypical fulfillment.

In their exploration of the typological fulfillment of OT persons, events, and institutions,

the NT writers do not read back into the OT what is not already there. Rather they remain

faithful to the OT Scriptures, which have already indicated which persons, events, and

institutions God has divinely designed to serve as prefigurations of Jesus Christ and the Gospel

realities brought about by Him. The NT writers simply announce the antitypical fulfillment of

what had already been verbally indicated by the OT prophets. For example, John announces

that Jesus is the antitypical Moses, and refers to Deut 18:15-19 which predicts that the Messiah

would be a New Moses (see John 1:21; 6:14; 8:40). Again, Heb 8:5 announces the

typological relationship between the earthly and heavenly sanctuaries, and substantiates his

point by citing the OT indicator of sanctuary typology, Exod 25:40.

The NT writers do not give an exhaustive list of OT types, but show the hermeneutical

procedure, controlled by the OT indicators, of identifying biblical types. Furthermore, Jesus

and the NT writers under inspiration point out NT events that God has divinely designed to be

types of later events in the plan of salvation (for example, the destruction of Jerusalem as a

type of the end of the world, Matthew 24).

The NT writers also work within the same eschatological framework in announcing the

nature of typological fulfillment as we have seen with regard to the fulfillment of classical

prophecy. Thus there are three aspects of the one eschatological fulfillment of the OT types:

(1) a basic fulfillment in Christ at His first advent; (2) the derived spiritual aspect of fulfillment

in the church, both individually and corporately; and (3) the final, glorious fulfillment aspect at

the second coming of Christ and beyond. So, for example, Jesus is the antitypical Israel (Mt.

90

2:15); the church as Christ's body is the "Israel of God" (Gal 6:16); and the apocalyptic

144,000 at the end of time are the antitypical twelve tribes of Israel (Rev 7; 14:1-5; 15:1-4).

What is true of historical (or horizontal) typology, is also true of typology involving a

vertical dimension, namely, sanctuary typology: there are three aspects of the one

eschatological fulfillment. Thus Jesus is the antitypical Temple (John 1:14; 2:21; Mt. 12:6);

the Church as His body is the temple of God, both individually and corporately (1 Cor

3:16,17; 2 Cor 6:16); and Revelation portrays the apocalyptic "tabernacle of God" that is with

men (Rev 21:3). But there is an additional aspect in sanctuary typology: the heavenly

sanctuary existed even before the earthly sanctuary, and there is the overarching vertical

dimension throughout both OT and NT history. The OT earthly sanctuary always pointed

upward to the heavenly original, as well as pointing forward to Christ, to the Church, and to

the apocalyptic Temple.

It is important to realize that not every minute detail of the type is significant in biblical

typology. For example, there are descriptions of three different earthly sanctuaries/temples in

the OT that corresponded typologically with the heavenly temple (the tabernacle of Moses;

Solomon's temple, and the eschatological temple of Ezek 40-48); each had differences

(materials used, number of articles of furniture, dimensions, etc.), but there were certain basic

contours that were constant (number of apartments, kinds of furniture, spatial proportions,

etc.). These common elements point up the basic contours of sanctuary typology--and it is

these same basic contours that are summarized in Heb 9:1-4.

It is also important to realize that no types are neutral; all have a moral charge in the

plan of salvation either for or against God and His people. Some types prefigure Christ and

Gospel realities brought about by Him, while some types prefigure Christ's enemies. Some

have features of both. Each element of the type must be identified with reference to its moral

orientation, and the antitype must be seen in that same orientation.

For example, note the complex typology in the sixth plague of Rev 16:12, as it reveals

the typological parallels between the fall of historical Babylon and the fall of spiritual Babylon.

Babylon was opposed to God and His people; the Euphrates River upon which Babylon was

91

situated was the life source for the city and therefore against God. The drying up of this life

source was favorable for God's cause, and likewise the kings from the east (Cyrus and his

armies) coming to conquer Babylon and deliver God's people had a positive moral charge. In

interpreting the antitypical fulfillments of these aspects of the fall of Babylon, one must remain

consistent with the moral orientation of the type. Thus Cyrus is a type of the Messiah (as

indicated already in Isa 45:1), and the drying up of the Euphrates is a type of the removal of

the support for Babylon (by the multitudes, Rev 17:15) just before Babylon's fall and the

deliverance of God's people.

For a practical guide to interpreting biblical typology, the following questions may prove

helpful:

1. Is the person, event, or institution under consideration actually a type? Seek to

discover the biblical indicators that identify the historical reality as typological. This indicator

will often accompany the historical description (as with Moses in Deut 18:15-19 or the

sanctuary in Exod 25:9,40); sometimes the indicator will be more clearly set forth by a later

prophet (as with Elijah in Mal 4:5,6 or David in Ezek 37:24 and many other "New David"

passages); and frequently Jesus or the NT writers identify the types as they announce their

antitypical fulfillment. It is crucial not to arbitrarily interpret various historical realities of

Scripture typologically, when there is no Scriptural warrant for doing so; such a practice leads

to fanciful speculation controlled only by the interpreter's imagination.

2. What are the basic contours of the type that will be recapitulated in the antitype?

Concentrate on the main features of the type, as this is brought out especially in the context of

the verbal indicators that identify the type. Do not press minute details that are not part of the

basic contours of the typology.

3. What is the orientation of the type with reference to God and Christ in the Great

Controversy? In interpreting the antitype, be sure to remain consistent to this orientation for or

against Christ.

4. How is the type fulfilled in the NT? Remember the eschatological framework that

provides a NT control on how the types are fulfilled in (a) Christ, in (b) the church, and (c) at

92

the end of time. Examine carefully the NT references to this type and the antitypical

fulfillment aspects.

5. What is the future aspect of the typology that still remains to be fulfilled? Here one

must be cautious and tentative as in the fulfillment of predictive prophecy. The typology is

given so that when it comes to pass we may believe more fully; not every detail may be clear

before the apocalyptic aspect of fulfillment takes place.

6. What is the moral purpose of the typology? How does understanding the typology

provide spiritual insight for practical Christian living? Remember that typology is not simply

to satisfy curiosity about future events, but also (and especially) to provide spiritual

nourishment to the student of the Word.

7. Where is the theological truth of the type taught elsewhere in Scripture? Biblical

writers do sometimes support doctrine solely by typology (see Heb 8:5 and 9:23), but the

interpreter must beware of building theological doctrines upon typology unless they harmonize

with the rest of Scripture. Often typology serves as a visual reinforcement of what is taught

didactically elsewhere in Scripture.

8. How does the typology help to highlight the intricate beauty of the various aspects of

the plan of salvation? Biblical typology may be seen as a species of aesthetics, showing the

amazing beauty of what God has wrought in His work of redemption. How all the many

strands of OT typology ordained by God converge on the Messiah, and how He fulfills each

one perfectly--causes the interpreter to stand in awe at the holy beauty of God's saving work.

c. Symbolism

A symbol is in itself a timeless representation of truth. Thus a lamb symbolizes

innocence, a horn strength, etc. But symbols in Scripture often become the building blocks of

prophecy and typology. Thus the sanctuary lamb symbolizes Christ the Lamb of God (John

1:29); the four horns and the little horn of Dan 7 represent specific political or religio-political

powers.

In interpreting the symbols of Scripture, basic principles may be derived from

Scripture's own use of symbolism. As a practical guide, one may ask the following questions:

93

1. Is the item under consideration in the passage clearly a symbol? (If the context is not

figurative and/or the natural plain meaning makes sense, beware not to arbitrarily consider as

symbolic what is meant to be taken literally. Remember also that some items are to be taken

literally at the same time as they point symbolically beyond themselves; e.g. the bread and

wine of the Lord's Supper are literal bread and grape juice, while at the same time symbolizing

the body and blood of Jesus; again, the heavenly sanctuary and its services portrayed in

Scripture are real, while also symbolizing the gospel realities centered in Jesus.)

2. Is the interpretation of a given symbol provided in the immediate context of the

symbol? (E.g., Dan 8:20-21; Rev 1:20; 4:5; 17:15.)

3. Is the meaning of the symbol given elsewhere in Scripture? (Use a concordance;

e.g., see John 1:29 for the meaning of the OT sacrificial lamb.)

4. Does the symbol have more than one referent in different contexts? (E.g., "lion"

refers to both Christ [Rev 5:5] and Satan [1 Pet 5:8].)

5. Are there different symbols that may represent the same thing? (E.g., "lamb" and

"lion" in Rev 5:5, 6 both refer to Christ.)

6. Does the study of ancient Near Eastern and Greco-Roman symbolism shed light on

the biblical symbol? (See commentaries in bibliography for sources.)

7. Which of the possible meanings of the symbol fits best within the immediate context

of the passage under consideration? (Check for compatibility with the leading theme[s]

developed in the passage and with the literary context and textual setting.)

8. What contribution does this symbol make to the overall development of thought and

structure in the passage?

9. In apocalyptic prophecy with composite symbolism, what are the main points of the

symbolic presentation? (Note that the symbol cannot be made to "stand on all fours." Some

details of the extended symbolism may simply round out the picture; a symbol is by nature a

sign or figure that has fluidity and is only representative.)

94

10. In apocalyptic prophecy, what is the historical fulfillment that exactly fits the

predictive symbol? (Be careful to let the biblical picture be the controlling factor, not history;

also do not "bend" the historical picture to fit the symbolism.)

(For further specific guidelines regarding the interpretation of apocalyptic symbols, see Strand

1992, 22-27.)

d. Parables

The importance of parables is put into perspective when one realizes that fully one third

of Jesus' teachings, as recorded in the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke), are in

parabolic form (some 40 different parables). We also find parables in the OT, such as

Nathan's parable of the ewe lamb (2 Sam 12:1-2) and Isaiah's parable of the vineyard (Isa 5:1-

7). The OT word for "parable," mašal, is also a common word for "proverb" in the book of

Proverbs, thus revealing the Wisdom background of Jesus' parables. The NT word for

"parable" is parabolç, with an etymological meaning of "placing alongside of" for the purpose

of comparison.

The parable genre (Osborne 1991, 236) has a number of different forms: proverbs

("physician, heal yourself," Luke 4:23), metaphors (uprooting the plant, Matt 15:13),

figurative sayings (parable of the wineskins, Luke 5:36-38), similitudes or developed similes

(the parable of the mustard seed, Mark 4:30-32), story parables (the ten virgins, Matt 25:1-

13), illustrative or example stories (the good Samaritan, Luke 10:29-37), and allegorical

parables (the parable of the sower, Mark 4:1-9,13-20). All the various forms used by Jesus

have one common element: the use of common everyday experiences to draw comparisons with

the truths of His kingdom.

Many of Jesus' parables have only one main point, and this point is stated by Jesus or

reiterated by the gospel writers (e.g., Matt 18:35; 20:16; Luke 15:7, 10; 16:31). But there are

also allegorical parables of Jesus (e.g. the parable of the sower, Matt 13:1-23) with multiple

points and not just one. Allegory, or the arbitrary assigning of meaning to the parts of the

story, obviously is justified in these instances, because the author (Jesus) intended the deeper

level of meaning and indicated its interpretation. This is different than allegorizing, in which

95

the later interpreter reads a deeper level of meaning into the text that was never intended or

indicated by the original writer.

Basic principles to follow in interpreting the parables of Jesus apply many of the

hermeneutical procedures we have already discussed for interpreting any passage of Scripture.

As a practical guide, consider the following questions:

1. What is the basic purpose of Jesus' use of parables (see Mark 4:10-12)?

2. What is the historical setting of the parable--the place, circumstances, persons to

whom given, and issue under discussion?

3. What is the literary context of the parable (where it appears in the flow of the gospel

narrative)? (See Osborne 1991, 246-247.)

4. What is the literary structural development of the parable itself?

5. What is the background situation described in the parable in terms of local eastern

customs and thought forms?

6. What are the main points of the parable? (Do grammatical-syntactical study.)

7. What interpretation of the parable is given by Jesus' or the gospel writer's own

introduction and/or explanation of the main point or various details?

8. What points in the parable are points of mere "local color," and what are the major

theologically significant details? Do not press details beyond the original intent of the Parable

Giver.

9. How does the parable relate to the larger context of Jesus' teaching on the kingdom?

10. Where else in Scripture are these same points of doctrinal truths taught? (Recognize

that parables do teach doctrinal truth, but this truth is in harmony with doctrinal points that are

also clearly [didactically] taught elsewhere in Scripture.)

F. Contemporary Application

1. Scripture as Transcultural and Transtemporal

For Jesus and the NT biblical writers, the contemporary application arises naturally out

of their theological interpretation of OT passages.

96

The biblical writers insist that the theological message of Scripture is not culture-bound,

applicable only for a certain people and a certain time, but permanent and universally

applicable. Peter, citing Isa 40:6-8, forcefully states this truth: "having been born again, not

of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever,

because 'All flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of the grass. The grass

withers, and its flower falls away, but the word of the Lord endures forever.' Now this is the

word which by the gospel was preached to you'" (1 Peter 1:23-25).

Most of the ethical instruction in the NT gospels and epistles may be seen as the practical

application of OT passages: e.g., Jesus' Sermon on the Mount applying the principles of the

Decalogue; James' application of the principles of Leviticus 19; Peter's ethical instruction

building on "Be holy for I am holy"; (1 Pet 1:16; citing Lev 11:44,45; 19:2; 20:7).

2. Scriptural Controls for Determining Permanence

It is true that certain parts of the OT, in particular the ceremonial/sanctuary ritual laws

and the enforcement of Israel's civil/theocratic laws, are no longer binding upon Christians.

However, the NT writers (Davidson 1992, 119-125) do not arbitrarily decide what laws are

still relevant, but they consistently recognize the criteria within the OT itself indicating which

laws are universally binding and which have a built-in "statue of limitations."

The OT mišpatîm or civil laws, as applications of the Decalogue, are permanent in what

they affirm, but the enforcement of these principles is tied to the theocratic government, and

thus a built-in "statute of limitations" is involved. When the theocracy ended in 34 A.D. (in

fulfillment of Dan 9:24, and announced in the covenant lawsuit of Steven in Acts 7), the end of

the civil enforcement of these laws also arrived.

Likewise, the sacrificial/ceremonial laws were part of the typical system that reached its

fulfillment in the Antitype Jesus, who carried out in reality on Calvary and is carrying out in

the heavenly sanctuary what was typified in the OT rituals. The built-in "statute of limitations"

of these laws was also indicated in the OT (Exod 25:9, 40 [cf. Heb 8:5]; Ps 40:6-8 [cf. Heb

10:1-10]; and Dan 9:27).

97

In other cases where God condescended to bear with Israel's hardness of heart--such as

allowing slavery and divorce--and did not immediately abolish these practices, Scripture clearly

indicates the divine ideal in the beginning (Gen 1-3), and the Mosaic legislation, which was

revolutionary for its times, leads back toward the Edenic ideal. The NT recognizes and applies

this "from the beginning" hermeneutical criterion of permanence (see Matt 19:8).

In some instances of Scripture where it might be confusing whether or not a particular

divine command is transtemporal and transcultural, the Bible gives clear indicators of the

universal and permanent nature of the material. So, for example, the law of clean and unclean

foods (Leviticus 11) must be seen in the context of numerous lexical, structural, and

theological indicators (both in OT and NT) to make plain that this is part of a universally-

binding legislation; the same is true for the laws enjoined upon the Gentiles in Acts 15 (see

Hasel 1991, 91-125 and Davidson 1992, 120-125).

The general principle, then, articulated and illustrated by the NT writers in their

application of Scripture, is to assume the transcultural and transtemporal relevancy of biblical

instruction unless Scripture itself gives criteria limiting this relevancy. As Larkin (1988, 316)

states it, "all Scripture, including both form and meaning, is binding unless Scripture itself

indicates otherwise." Larkin lists various possible criteria for nonnormativeness within

Scripture: "limited recipient, limited cultural conditions for fulfillment, limited cultural

rationale, or a limiting larger context." Even these cases, Larkin argues, involve only the

form, and not the meaning of Scripture, and call for the reduction of the cultural-specific form

to a principle, and the substitution of a contemporary form compatible with it (see Larkin [316-

318] for illustrations from the way the NT writers used the OT).

Within this general principle, it is of course necessary to recognize that not all biblical

practice is necessarily biblical instruction. The lives of God's OT and NT saints, exemplary in

many ways, were also faulty and sinful; the Bible portrays an accurate picture of their lives and

characters, for our encouragement when we fall and also for our admonition not to follow their

example in failure and sin.

98

Even when failure and sin are not involved, some biblical practices reflect the necessity

of the circumstances and not necessarily a model for all further practice. For example, early

Christians had no church buildings but rather met in house churches; this, however, is not

presented in Scripture as a norm for Christian worship ever after.

Likewise, although the biblical instruction speaks and is relevant to all cultures and

times, it was also given to a particular culture and time. Time and place must be taken into

account in application. Certain forms or practices expressing a given meaning or principle in

the first century may require the substitution of a different form to express the same meaning

today (e.g. greeting the brethren with a holy kiss was an accepted expression of the principle of

hospitality in the first century; a warm handshake or hug in today's culture may better uphold

the same principle).

Here again, the Bible itself provides the controls as to when it is appropriate to reduce a

practice to a principle and substitute another practice expressing the same principle. If such is

warranted, the context of the passage will provide evidence of limiting criteria such as the

following: limited recipient (instruction not intended for everyone, e.g., Paul's instruction to

Timothy regarding his stomach trouble, 1 Tim 5:23), limited cultural conditions for fulfillment

(we no longer have the same cultural conditions that call for the practice; e.g. instructions for

slaves and owners, Eph 6:5-9); limited cultural rationale (reasons tied only to local conditions,

e.g. eating food offered to idols, 1 Corinthians 8) or limited larger context (especially the

changes with the move from OT to NT era; e.g. circumcision as the sign of belonging to the

covenant Jewish community, replaced by baptism in the Christian Church). But note that this

reduction to a principle and substitution involved only the form, and not the meaning, of

Scripture.

Moreover, Scripture makes clear that certain forms are integrally bound up with their

meaning and cannot be reduced to a principle and substituted by a compatible contemporary

form (e.g. the seventh-day Sabbath, rooted in creation, cannot be substituted with Sunday; the

ordinance of footwashing, rooted in Jesus' explicit example and command, cannot be

substituted with another expression of humility).

99

3. Personalizing Scripture

The final goal of interpreting Scripture is to make practical application of each passage

to the individual life. Christ and the NT apostles repeatedly drove home the message of the

gospel contained in the Scriptures in order to bring the hearers or readers to salvation and an

ever closer personal relationship with God.

It is essential for the interpreter to ask of the passage he is studying, "What is the

message and purpose of the Scriptural passage that God has for me to apply personally? How

does this passage impact upon my own spiritual life? What promises does it have for me to

claim, what portrait of Jesus to praise Him for, what victory to experience, what sin or failure

to avoid, what practical steps to take, what command to perform out of gratitude? In the

description of local situations, what timeless principles are applicable to me today?"

At the Exodus God established a principle that each succeeding generation of Israelite

should consider he/she personally came out of Egypt (Exod 12:26-27; 13:8-9), and this

principle of personalization was repeated many times, both to OT Israel (Deut 5:2-4; 6:20,21;

Josh 24:6-8) and to spiritual Israel (Gal 3:29; Rev 15:1-2; 2 Cor 5:14, 15, 21; Rom 6:3-6; Eph

1:20; 2:6; Heb 4:3, 16; 6:19; 10:19-20; 12:22-24). The Scripture should ultimately be read,

and accepted as if I am the participant in the mighty saving acts of God--"I am there!"--as if

God's messages are personally addressed to me. They are God's living and active Word to my

soul.

IV. The History of Biblical Hermeneutics

A. The Inner-Biblical Hermeneutic

The history of biblical hermeneutics must begin by examining the way the Bible writers

themselves interpreted antecedent Scripture. This has been the focus of much of this article.

We have seen that the later OT writers faithfully called the people of Israel back to obedience

to the standard of God's revelation in the Torah. The NT writers did not take the OT out of

context in their hermeneutic, but following the example of Jesus, saw OT passages in the light

100

of their larger canonical context. They present a sound hermeneutical pattern to emulate. (See

bibliography for recent studies examining the NT use of the OT.)

B. Early Jewish Biblical Hermeneutics

1. Scribal Exegesis Before 70 A.D.

The landmark dissertation of David Brewer has analyzed all the extant samples of what

he terms the Palestinian "scribes" (predecessors to the Rabbis before 70 A.D.). His

conclusions are extremely significant: "the predecessors to the rabbis before 70 CE did not

interpret Scripture out of context, did not look for any meaning in Scripture other than the plain

sense, and did not change the text to fit their interpretation, though the later rabbis did all these

things" (Brewer 1992:1). The attitude of this early scribal tradition toward Scripture may be

summarized under five points: (a) Scripture is entirely consistent with itself; (b) every detail is

significant; (c) Scripture must be interpreted according to its context; (d) there are no

secondary meanings in Scripture; and (e) there is only one valid form of the Hebrew text of

Scripture (see Brewer 1992, 165-172).

In order to faithfully interpret Scripture, the early scribal tradition developed rules of

interpretation, which are neatly formulated in the seven hermeneutical rules of Hillel (died

A.D. 9). Brewer discusses each of these rules in detail, with examples from the scribal

literature. A number of these rules can be found utilized in the NT, and we have stated them

(in different words) as part of our discussion of general principles and specific guidelines (see

also Horn 1974, 20-23 and Kaiser 1981, 52-55 for brief discussion and examples of Hillel's

rules).

2. Later Rabbinic Interpretation

The later rabbis, after 70 A.D., continued the pešat or "plain, literal" interpretation of

Scripture, but also began to mix this with a ϙd or "secret, allegorical" approach. The thirteen

rules of Rabbi Ishmael (ca. A. D. 60-121) were the impetus to developing the Midrashic

method (from derûš "searched") to expound the Jewish Halachah (civil and religious law)

which included embellishments of the text that departed from its plain sense, and the thirty-two

rules of Rabbi Eliezer (second century A.D.) were employed in the interpretation of Haggadah

101

(popular homilies). These later rules included techniques of interpretation that involved

embellishing the biblical text and departure from its plain (pešat) sense. The later Rabbis

found multiple meanings in a single text: the plain meaning, the hint which points to a hidden

meaning, the secondary or allegorical meaning, and a mystical meaning hidden in the letters

(see Brewer 1992, 172-174, Longenecker 1975, 32-45, and Kaiser 1981, 52-53 for further

discussion).

3. Non-scribal Traditions: Qumran

Not all pre-70 A.D. Jewish exegesis stayed with the plain meaning of the text. In the

Essene community of Qumran, the community leader, the Teacher of Righteousness, was the

inspired interpreter of the Prophets, and he explained the "mysteries" of the prophetic passages

as they applied to his eschatological community. The characteristic type of hermeneutic

developed was known as raz pešer ("mystery interpretation"). In the surviving samples of

Qumran raz pešer a typical approach would be a quotation of a biblical passage, followed by

the words "This means" or "Its pešer is" and a strict identification of the present situation of

the Essene community with the text of Scripture.

By means of an atomistic interpretation of each phrase, word and even parts of words in

the prophetic writings, all was made to refer to the Qumran community. The prophets were

seen as having written riddles or cryptograms for the time of the eschatological fulfillment

which they thought was already in process (see especially Patte 1975 for further discussion).

4. Non-scribal traditions: Philo of Alexandria

The Jewish scholar Philo (25 B.C.- 40 A.D.) popularized the allegorical approach

toward Scripture, based upon a platonic model of reality in which the inferior transitory world

of the senses is a reflection of the superior world of eternal ideas. In his allegorical approach

to Scripture, wherever there were difficulties in the biblical text (if it made no sense to him or

seemed unworthy of Scripture), then he gave up the literal sense for an allegorical

interpretation. The literal sense was the historical husk which must be stripped away in order

to arrive at the kernel, the hidden spiritual meaning (see Davidson 1981, 21 for literature and

sources).

102

The basic hermeneutical assumption of Philo was that the interpreter is inspired as well

as the biblical author, and thus in the long run the interpreter is the final arbiter of the

allegorical meaning of the text. If the text does not conform to the prevailing world-view, then

it is the interpreter's responsibility to reinterpret the text. The final authority is not Scripture,

but man's subjective inspired imagination.

C. Early Christian Hermeneutics

1. Early Church Fathers

A few of the early church fathers may be briefly mentioned who are noted for

introducing or propounding a specific hermeneutical approach. Marcion the heretic caused a

hermeneutic to be developed during the early second century, as he rejected the OT as binding

Scripture for Christians. The OT was alien to Christian faith. Marcion developed the law-

grace dualism, in which the OT presented a picture of law, vengeance, hate, and wrath, while

the NT represented grace and love. This principle was even carried into the NT: only Luke

was regarded as a true gospel and other portions of the NT were rejected.

Many of the early church fathers wrote against Marcion's heresy. Tertullian used typology as

the basis of defending the unity of Scripture, although at times his typological correspondences

degenerated into allegory.

Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons (ca. 130- 201 A.D.) utilized the principle of analogia fide

"rule of faith" to defend orthodox Christian doctrine. The rule of faith of which Irenaeus

spoke was that as preserved in the churches (i.e., tradition), and thus he became the father of

authoritative exegesis. The final norm was not Scripture alone, but Scripture as interpreted by

the authority of the church.

2. Alexandrian Hermeneutics

In the hermeneutical school of Alexandria, beginning with Clement (died 215 A.D.), the

allegorism of Philo "was baptized into Christ." Clement developed 5 senses of Scripture: the

historical, the doctrinal, the prophetic, the philosophical, and the mystical. Origen of

Alexandria (185-254 A.D.) claimed that the text of Scripture has three meanings patterned after

the analogy with the three-fold nature of man: (a) the bodily, or literal meaning, which is least

103

important; (b) the psychical, or the moral (ethical) meaning; and (c) the spiritual, or

allegorical/mystical, which is most important and only accessible to the most mature

interpreters. This three-fold sense, building upon platonic/Philonic dualism tended to strip

away the historical husk to arrive at the allegorical kernel.

3. Antiochene Hermeneutics

In contrast and opposition to the Alexandrian allegorical school, the interpreters at

Antioch were concerned to uphold the plain, literal-historical sense of Scripture. Represented

by such exegetes as Theodore of Mopsuestia (died 428 A.D.) and popularized by the preacher

Chrysostom (347-407 A.D.), the Antiochian hermeneutic was founded upon the same basic

presuppositions as we have set forth from Scripture in this article, and their exegesis followed

essentially the same specific guidelines as those we have found utilized by the biblical writers

in their hermeneutic of antecedent Scripture (see Dockery, 1992, 103-128).

By means of the concept of theoria the Antiochene interpreters were able to uphold the

historical-literal sense of Scripture and at the same time see the deeper typological focus of

many OT passages. Kaiser summarizes the Antiochene perspective: "God gave the prophets. .

. a vision (theoria, from theorein, 'to look at, gaze at') of the future in which the recipient saw

as intimate parts of one meaning the word for his own historical day with its needs (historia)

and that word for the future. Both the literal historical sense and the fulfillment were

conceived as one piece. Both were intimate parts of one total whole work of God" (Kaiser,

1985, 29).

D. Medieval Hermeneutics

Unfortunately, the Antiochene hermeneutic was overshadowed by, and finally officially

eliminated in favor of, the allegorical approach popularized by the Alexandrian school. John

Cassionus (ca. 425 A.D.) expanded Origen's three-fold sense of Scripture to four: (a)

historical (the literal meaning); (b) tropological (the moral meaning, from tropos "way of

life"); (c) allegorical (or mystical or Christological); and (d) anagogical (the eschatological or

heavenly, from anagô "to lead up"). For a 1000 years the Quadriga (the "four-horse chariot"

of the allegorical method) held sway in the Roman Catholic Church, although there was always

104

a minority that, often despite persecution, accepted the full and sole authority of the Scriptures

in their plain and literal sense.

E. Reformation Hermeneutics and the Historical-Grammatical Method

The Reformation interpreters of the 16th century broke with the allegorical interpretation

of Scripture. Gradually Martin Luther gave up "driving" the Quadriga through the Bible, and

called for understanding its plain sense. In his Table Talk of 1540, he recalled: "When I was a

monk, I was an expert at allegorizing Scripture, but now my best skill is only to give the

literal, simple sense of Scripture, from which comes power, life, comfort and instruction."

Luther developed four principles of interpreting Scripture. The first is sola Scriptura

"The Bible only," as the final authority over tradition and human philosophy. As we have

seen, Luther did not invent this biblical principle, but powerfully applied it until it. Sola

Scriptura (along with the other two sola's, sola fide "by faith alone" and sola gratia "by grace

alone") became the "battle cry" of the Reformation.

Luther's second hermeneutical principle was "Scripture is its own interpreter," scriptura

sui ipsius interpres, which we have also seen has solid biblical foundations. Luther rejected

philosophy as the key to interpret Scripture, as well as patristic interpretation and ecclesiastical

teaching authority.

Thirdly, Luther also applied what became known as the Christocentric principle. His

key phrase "what drives to Christ," was zu Christo treibet. What began as a laudable principle

to see how Scripture points, urges, drives to Christ, became a dangerous one as Luther came to

the conclusion that not all of Scripture did indeed drive to Christ. The principle led to the

relegation of some parts of Scripture as less important than others, i.e., a "canon within a

canon."

Accompanying the Christocentric principle was a fourth, a dualism between letter and

spirit (law and gospel, works and grace). Much of the OT was seen as letter and much of the

NT was spirit, although not all in the NT was gospel nor all in the OT was law.

105

Both of these last two principles deny the principle of the totality of Scripture (tota

Scriptura) and lead to subjectivism. Who decides what in Scripture drives to Christ, what is

law and what is gospel? The interpreter's own experience ultimately becomes the final norm.

All the other Reformers accepted the first two principles of Luther, including Zwingli,

Calvin, and the Anabaptist radical reformation. These Reformers consistently upheld the Bible

and the Bible alone as the standard of truth, and sought to utilize Scripture to interpret

Scripture instead of tradition or scholastic philosophy.

The biblical principles of interpretation recovered by the Reformers, coupled with the

advances in textual and historical-grammatical analysis of the Renaissance era (Erasmus and

others), led to a robust Protestant hermeneutic that has carried on through post-Reformation

times till today, and has become known as the historical-grammatical-literary-theological

approach or (for short) the grammatico-historical method, or again, the historical-biblical

method. This method has had able proponents since Reformation times (Ernst Hengstenberg,

Franz Delitzsch et al) including the 19th century exegetical giants (Ernst Hengstenberg, Franz

Delitzsch, et al) and is currently the approach utilized by conservative Evangelical scholarship.

F. The Enlightenment Hermeneutic and the Historical-Critical Method

1. Historical Development

There is not space to trace all the religious and intellectual movements that led up to and

permeated the Enlightenment of the 18th century. In the 17th century Protestant interpretation

fossilized into a rigid Protestant Orthodoxy with emphasis upon the precise formulations of

right doctrine in creeds, and drove many to seek freedom from the stifling authoritarianism of

the Church. Some followed the path of Pietism with its emphasis upon the individual spiritual

life. But many others, in the wake of the Copernican Revolution and the struggle between

science and religion, decided to throw off all external authority. Enter empiricism, deism,

rationalism.

Richard Simon (1638-1712, a former Protestant who converted to become a Catholic

priest) became the founder of biblical criticism. In his attempt to undermine Protestantism at

its roots, he aimed to destroy the authority of the Bible (in the hope that then Protestants would

106

turn to the authority of the Catholic Church). Applying the principles of the Jewish skeptical

philosopher Spinoza, Simon criticized the inspiration of Scripture, rejecting the Mosaic

authorship of the Pentateuch in favor of a long process of redaction and compilation. His book

(1678) was so radical that the Catholic Church placed it on the Index.

But within a few years, in the wake of the rise of rationalism ("reason the final criterion

for truth") a number of scholars began to view Scripture in the same way as any other book.

The watershed of the Enlightenment came with Johann Semler (1721-1791) and his four

volume German work Treatise on the Free Investigation of the Canon (1771-1775; he also

translated Richard Simon's work 70 years after it was written). Semler argued for the

separation between the Bible and the Word of God: the Bible only contains, but does not equal

God's word. The Bible was viewed from a purely historical perspective, to be studied like any

other ancient document (like Homer). The divine inspiration was totally rejected.

In the decades that followed, German scholars developed an approach to Scripture totally

"from below," without reference to its divine element. This approach steadily gained ground

throughout the 18th and 19th centuries, and became known as higher criticism or the historical-

critical method. The goal of this method was to verify the truthfulness and understand the

meaning of the biblical data using the principles and procedures of secular historical science.

2. Presuppositions of Historical Criticism

The basic presuppositions of the historical-critical method--the principles of criticism,

analogy, and correlation-- are articulated in a classic essay by Ernst Troeltzsch, and these are

still recognized as constitutive for the method by modern historical critics.

The one principle that is most characteristic of the method, without which it cannot

remain the historical-critical method, is the principle of criticism. The word "criticism" here is

used in its technical sense of Descartes' "methodological doubt," and refers to the autonomy of

the investigator to interrogate and evaluate the Scriptural witness, to judge as to the

truthfulness, adequacy, intelligibility, etc., of the specific declarations of the text.

In close relation to the principle of criticism is the principle of analogy, which assumes

that present experience is the criterion for evaluating the probability that events mentioned

107

Scripture actually occurred, inasmuch as all events are in principle similar. In other words, the

interpreter is to judge what happened in biblical times by what is happening today; and if one

does not see a given phenomenon happening today, in all probability it did not happen then.

Since no special creation, no world-wide flood is occurring now, it most probably did not

happen then. The same is true with miracles, resurrection from the dead, etc,; these must be

explained away as non-historical.

The principle of correlation states that history is a closed system of cause and effect with

no room for supernatural intervention. Events are so correlated and interrelated that a change

in any given phenomenon necessitates a change also in its cause and effect. Historical

explanations therefore rests on a chain of natural causes and effects. This is not to say that all

historical critics deny the existence of God or the supernatural; but methodologically, historical

criticism has no room for the supernatural. Scholars using it are required to bracket out the

supernatural and look for natural causes and effects.

3. Procedures of Historical Criticism

The triumph of historical criticism was assured at the end of the nineteenth century in the

influential works of Julius Wellhausen (1844-1918), who popularized an approach of the

historical-critical method known as source criticism. In the 20th century additional procedures

were developed: form criticism, redaction criticism, tradition history, and most recently, canon

criticism. Each of these procedures calls for brief attention.

Source criticism attempts to reconstruct and analyze the hypothetical literary sources that

underlie the biblical text. Wellhausen popularized the showcase of this approach for the

Pentateuch, which became known as the New Documentary Hypothesis. The Pentateuch was

not viewed as written by Moses, as Scripture explicitly claims, but rather was seen as a

composite of four later documents or sources: (1) the Jahwist (J), using the divine name

Yahweh, written in the Southern Kingdom of Judah about 880 B.C.; (2) the Elohist (E), using

the divine name Elohim, written in the Northern Kingdom of Israel about 770 B.C.; (3) the

Deuteronomist (D), written in the time of Josiah, 621 B.C.; and (4) the Priestly (P), which

began in the time of the Babylonian exile, and continued until the time of the final redaction

108

(compiling and editing) about 450 B.C. This hypothesis brought about a totally reconstructed

picture of Israel's history.

Source criticism of the Pentateuch was undergirded by several specific presuppositions:

skepticism of the historicity of the recorded narratives; an evolutionary model of Israel's

development from primitive to advanced forms; the rejection of supernatural activity in this

evolutionary development; and the assumption that the sources were human products of the life

setting (Sitz im Leben) of the communities which produced them.

Various internal arguments for composite sources in the Pentateuch were employed by

source critics: the use of different divine names, variations in language and style, alleged

contradictions and anachronisms, and supposed doublets and repetitions. All of these

arguments have been analyzed in detail by conservative scholars, and found to be

unconvincing. Even critical scholars today are in disarray over many aspects of the

Documentary Hypothesis, although despite the shaking of its foundations it still has not been

abandoned.

The same presuppositions undergirding Pentateuchal source criticism--plus the additional

assumption denying any real predictive prophecy--have led to the hypothetical reconstruction of

sources elsewhere in Scripture, such as the fragmentation of Isaiah into three major sources

(Isaiah of Jerusalem [1-39], Deutero-Isaiah [40-55], and Trito-Isaiah [56-66]) and the book of

Zechariah into two sections (Zech 1-8 and 9-11). Again, studies from those accepting the

Scripture's own claims for the authorship of these books have shown how the arguments of

source critics are ill-founded.

NT source criticism has focused largely on the "synoptic problem"--the question of

possible sources underlying the first three Gospels, and the interrelationships among these

Gospels. Several modern solutions have been suggested for the synoptic problem. Developed

already in the late 18th century, the Griesbach hypothesis presupposed the priority of Matthew,

with Luke utilizing Matthew as a source and Mark utilizing both Matthew and Luke. The

Lachmann hypothesis, developed by C. Lachmann in 1835, argued for the priority of Mark,

followed by Matthew and then Luke. This hypothesis was modified a few years later to

109

include two primitive, apostolic sources: Mark and the Logia (also called the "Q" source [from

the German Quelle "source"]).

The two-source hypothesis, with various modifications, is still the most-widely accepted

source-critical theory, although there have been numerous reactions against it in the latter part

of the twentieth century. Further developments include a four-source hypothesis (B. H.

Streeter, 1924,) who adds to Mark and Q an L source [material unique to Luke] and the M

source [material unique to Matthew]), various multiple-source hypotheses, and Aramaic source

hypotheses. Recently Eta Linnemann, eminent Bultmannian scholar turned evangelical, has

forcefully rejected the entire source-critical endeavor on the Gospels, and argued that there is

no synoptic problem after all; none of the gospels are dependant upon each other, but go back

directly to the apostolic ear-witnesses and eye-witnesses of the words and deeds of Jesus.

In the 1920's another approach of the historical-critical method was developed: form

criticism (German, Formgeschichte, literally "Form history"). This critical procedure,

pioneered by Hermann Gunkel (1832-1932) in the OT and Rudolph Bultmann in the NT,

retained many of the same naturalistic presuppositions used in source criticism, but focused

upon the pre-literary stage of oral traditions behind the written sources. Form critics assumed

that the Biblical material came into existence in much the same way as conventional folk-

literature of modern times, and so adopted the basic principles of secular form-critics like the

Grimm brothers who were studying German fairy tales.

Building upon the presuppositions of source criticism, form critics assumed that the

sociological forces of the community (in its life setting) shaped the form and content of the

traditions, and that this material developed in a unilinear evolutionary pattern from short and

simple units to longer and more complex traditions. The specific form-critical task was to

analyze the different forms or genres of biblical literature (e.g., the different literary forms in

the Psalms), to dissect them into their conjectured original smaller oral units, and then

hypothetically reconstruct the life setting that brought forth these forms.

In this process of reconstruction the form critic often took little stock in the plain

statements of Scripture regarding the life setting behind the material (for example the

110

superscriptions of the Psalms), since these were seen as added much later and therefore not

historically reliable.

Neither the early source critics nor form critics of the early twentieth century paid much

attention to the role of the redactors or editors who spliced the pre-existing material together

into the final canonical form; they were viewed as "scissors-and-paste" men, compilers who

left little or none of their own stamp upon the material. But this was to change by the middle

of the 20th century, with the rise of a new procedure in historical criticism: redaction criticism

(German Redaktionsgeschichte, literally, "redaction history").

Three NT scholars pioneered the approach of redaction criticism in their examination of

the Synoptic Gospels--G. Bornkamm (1948, Matthew), Hans Conzelmann (1954, Luke), and

W. Marxen (1956, Mark)--as they began to focus upon the evangelists as full-fledged

theologians. The aim of the redaction critic was to discover and describe the unique life

settings (the sociological and theological motivations) of the biblical redactor/writer which

caused them to shape, modify, or even create material for the final product which they wrote.

The basic assumption underlying this approach is that each biblical writer has a unique

theology and life setting which differs from, and often contradicts, his sources and other

redactors. The end result of this procedure is to fracture the unity of Scripture, as it is seen to

contain not one, but many (often contradictory) theologies.

A fourth procedure in historical criticism is called tradition history (German

Traditionsgeschichte). Pioneered by Gerhard von Rad already in the 1930's for the OT, it built

upon source and form criticism, attempting to trace the pre-compositional history of traditions

from stage to stage as passed down by word of mouth from generation to generation to the final

written form. As redaction criticism became popular, tradition history came to encompass the

entire history of the tradition, from oral traditions, to written sources, to final shaping by the

creative redactor. The underlying assumption in this approach is that each new generation

interpretively reshaped the material.

A recent procedure of the historical-critical method, called canon criticism, represents

the logical conclusion to the attempt to hypothetically reconstruct the historical development of

111

the biblical text. Pioneered by James Sanders in the 1970's and 1980's, this approach builds

upon the others that have gone before, but focuses particularly upon the life setting

(sociological and theological forces) in the synagogue and church that determined which

documents were selected as canonical. As with the other historical-critical procedures, the

assumption in this approach is that human, this-worldly forces can explain the process--in this

case, the process of canonization--without recourse to mention of guidance by a supernatural

Being.

4. Other Critical Approaches

There is a major recent paradigm shift in critical biblical studies toward various new

literary-critical hermeneutical approaches. These critical procedures usually do not deny the

results of historical-criticism, nor abandon the central principle of criticism, but rather bracket

out the historical questions concerning of the historical development of the biblical text and

concentrate upon its final canonical shape.

Many of these literary-critical hermeneutical approaches focus upon the final form of the

biblical text as a literary work of art. These include such (overlapping) procedures as

rhetorical criticism (James Muilenberg), New Literary criticism (Robert Alter), close reading

(Meir Weiss), and narrative criticism. Common to all of these is the concern for the text as a

finished work of art. The literary productions of the Bible are usually divorced from history

and regarded as works of fiction or myth, with their own "autonomous imaginative universe"

and "imitation of reality." Emphasis is placed upon the various literary conventions utilized

(consciously or unconsciously) by the writer as he crafts the biblical "story" into a literary

work of art.

Another recent synchronic approach (i.e., an approach which deals with the final form

of the text) is structuralism. Biblical structuralism builds upon modern linguistic theory

fathered by the French theorist Claude Levi-Strauss, and has been developed in the USA by

such scholars as Daniel Patte. Its main purpose is to "decode" the text to uncover the

subconscious "deep-structures" universally inherent in language that deterministically impose

themselves upon the writer. The divine absolute in this method is replaced by an absolute from

112

below--the deep structures of language. A related literary approach is semiotics, or "sign-

theory", fathered by Ferdinand de Saussure and Charles S. Pierce, which focuses upon the

linguistic codes that form the framework within which the message of the text is given (much

like the musical staff and clef in music where the specific notes may be placed). The concern

of these approaches is upon neither the history nor the meaning of the text, but upon the layers

of linguistic structures or sign-systems underlying the message.

In recent decades there have been developed a number of other approaches to Scripture

that retain the critical presuppositions of the historical-critical method, but focus attention upon

other goals than hypothetically reconstructing the historical development of the biblical text.

Some of these modern approaches build upon new trends that have been mentioned in previous

paragraphs. Major examples include the following: philosophical hermeneutics (the

metacritical hermeneutical theory of Gadamer and the hermeneutic of suspicion and retrieval of

Ricoeur); hermeneutics of socio-critical theory, including sociological criticism (Gottwald),

liberation (Guiterez) and feminist hermeneutic (Trible); reader-response criticism (McKnight),

and deconstructionism (Derrida).

All of these latter approaches tend to have some external norm--be it philosophy,

sociology, Marxist political theory, feminism, or the subjectivism of the reader--which replaces

the sola Scriptura principle and relativizes Scripture. No longer is there a single objective,

normative meaning of Scripture: rather there is a feminist reading, a black reading, an Asian

reading, a Lutheran reading, an Adventist reading, etc. All are seen to have their own validity

as the reader's horizon merges with the horizon of the biblical text. (See the bibliography for

works which discuss in detail the major recent trends in critical biblical interpretation.)

G. Two Hermeneutical Methods Compared

The two major hermeneutical methods we have introduced--the historical-critical method

and the historico-grammatical (also called the historical-Biblical)--may be schematically

compared by means of the accompanying chart.

A Comparison of the Two Major Modern Hermeneutical Methods

113

Historical-Critical Method

A. Definition: The attempt to verify thetruthfulness and understand the meaning ofbiblical data on the basis of the principles andprocedures of secular historical science.

Historical-Biblical Method

A. Definition: The attempt to understand themeaning of biblical data by means ofmethodological considerations arising fromScripture alone.

B. Objective: To arrive at the correct meaningof Scripture, which is the human author'sintention as understood by his contemporaries.

B. Objective: To arrive at the correct meaningof Scripture, which is what God intended tocommunicate, whether or not it is fully knownby the human author or his contemporaries (1Peter 1:10-12).

C. Basic Presuppositions:

1. Secular norm: The principles andprocedures of secular historical scienceconstitute the external norm and proper methodfor evaluating the truthfulness and interpretingthe meaning of biblical data.

C. Basic Presuppositions:

1. Sola Scriptura: The authority and unityof Scripture are such that Scripture is the finalnorm with regard to content and method ofinterpretation. (Isa 8:20)

2. Principle of criticism (methodologicaldoubt): the autonomy of the human investigatorto interrogate and evaluate on his own apartfrom the specific declarations of the biblicaltext.

2. The Bible is the ultimate authority and isnot amenable to the principle of criticism:biblical data is accepted at face value and notsubjected to an external norm to determinetruthfulness, adequacy, validity, intelligibility,etc. (Isa 66:2)

3. Principle of analogy: present experienceis the criterion of evaluating the probability ofbiblical events to have occurred, since allevents are in principle similar.

3. Suspension of the compelling principlesof analogy to allow for the unique activity ofGod as described in Scripture and in theprocess of the formation of Scripture. (2 Pet1:19-21)

4. Principle of correlation (or causation): aclosed system of cause and effect with no roomfor the supernatural intervention of God inhistory.

4. Suspension of the principle of correlation(or natural cause and effect) to allow for thedivine intervention in history as described inScripture. (Heb 1:1-2)

5. Disunity of Scripture, since itsprediction involved many human authors orredactors; Scripture therefore cannot becompared with Scripture ("proof-texts") toarrive at a unified biblical teaching.

5. Unity of Scripture, since the manyhuman authors are superintended by one divineauthor; therefore Scripture can be comparedwith Scripture to arrive at biblical doctrine. (Luke 24:27; 1 Cor 2:13)

6. "Time-conditioned" or "culturally-conditioned" nature of Scripture; the historicalcontext is responsible for the production ofScripture.

6. Timeless nature of Scripture: Godspeaks through the prophet to a specificculture, yet the message transcends culturalbackgrounds as timeless truth. (John 10:35)

7. The human and divine elements ofScripture must be distinguished and separated:the Bible contains but does not equal the Wordof God.

7. The divine and human elements inScripture cannot be distinguished or separated:the Bible equals the Word of God. (2 Tim3:16, 17)

D. Basic Hermeneutical Procedures: D. Basic Hermeneutical Procedures:

114

1. Literary (source) criticism: The attemptto hypothetically reconstruct and understand theprocess of literary development leading to thepresent form of the text, based on theassumption that sources are a product of thelife setting of the community which producedthem (often in opposition to specific Scripturalstatements regarding the origin and nature ofthe sources.)

1. Literary analysis: Examination of theliterary characteristics of the biblical materialsin their canonical form, accepting as a unitythose units of Scripture that are presented assuch, and accepting at face value the specificScriptural statements regarding the origins andnature of the biblical materials.

2. Form criticism: The attempt to providea conjectured reconstruction of the process ofpre-literary (oral) development behind thevarious literary form, based upon theassumption that the biblical material has an oralpre-history like conventional folk-literature andlike folk-literature arises on the basis oftraditions which are formed according to thelaws inherent in the development of folktraditions.

2. Form analysis: An attempt to describeand classify the various types of literaturefound in (the canonical form of) Scripture,accepting at face value the life setting for eachform as indicated by the biblical data.

3. Redaction criticism: The attempt todiscover and describe the life setting,sociological and theological motivations whichdetermined the basis upon which the redactorselected, modified, reconstructed, edited,altered or added to traditional materials inorder to make them say what was appropriatewithin his new life setting according to newtheological concerns; assumes that eachredactor has a unique theology and life settingwhich differs from (and may contradict) hissources and other redactors.

3. Theological analysis of Biblical books:A study of the particular theological emphasisof each Bible writer (according to his ownmind set and capacity to understand), seenwithin the larger context of the unity of thewhole Scripture that allows the Bible to be itsown interpreter and the various theologicalemphases to be in harmony with each other.

4. Tradition history: The attempt to tracethe precompositional history of traditions fromstage to stage as passed down by word ofmouth from generation to generation to thefinal written form; based upon the assumptionthat each generation interpretively reshaped thematerial.

4. Diachronic (thematic) analysis: Theattempt to trace the development of variousthemes and motives chronologically (throughthe Bible in its canonical form); based upon theScriptural position that God gives added(progressive) revelation to later generations,which, however, is in full harmony with allprevious revelation.

5. Canon criticism: The attempt toreconstruct the life setting (sociological andtheological forces) in the synagogue and theEarly Church that determined the present shapeand contents of the biblical canon; assumes thathuman forces explain the canonization process.

5. History of the canon: Examination ofthe process of canonization of Scripture,assuming that the criteria for canonicity areinherent in the biblical materials as inspired byGod, and that the Holy Spirit guided the Jewishand Christian communities to recognize thesecanonical books which preserved the witness ofthe OT prophets and the NT apostles.

Notice the differences in definition, objective, and basic presuppositions. With regard to the

presuppositions of the historical-critical method the first ("secular norm") represents the basic

orientation point of the method: "human reason and the supremacy of reason as the ultimate

criterion of truth" (McKnight 1988, 45). Presuppositions 2-4 indicate the crucial underlying

115

principles of the method (see the classic formulation of these by Troeltzsch 1913); and the last

three indicate the method leads to the destruction of the unity, timeless relevance, and full

authority of Scripture.

Note how the historical-biblical approach to hermeneutics rejects each of these

presuppositions based upon biblical evidence. With regard to the principle of criticism in

particular, Gerhard Maier, a noted German scholar who broke with the historical-critical

method, writes (1977:23): "a critical method must fail, because it represents an inner

impossibility. For the correlative or counterpoint to revelation is not critique, but obedience; it

is not correction of the text--not even on the basis of a partially recognized an applied

revelation--but it is a let-me-be-corrected."

As to the basic hermeneutical procedures, note how both methods analyze historical

context, literary features, genre or literary type, theology of the writer, the development of

themes, and the process of canonization. But the historical-biblical approach rejects the

principle of criticism; it analyzes, but refuses to critique the Bible; it accepts the text of

Scripture at face value as true, and refuses to engage in the three-fold process of dissection,

conjecture, and hypothetical reconstruction (often contrary to the claims of the text) that is at

the heart of all historical-critical analysis.

Some evangelical scholars in recent decades have attempted to "rehabilitate" the

historical-critical method by removing its anti-supernatural bias and other objectionable

features and still retain the method. However, this not really possible, because presuppositions

and method are inextricably interwoven. The basis of the historical critical method is secular

historical science, which by its very nature methodologically excludes the supernatural and

instead seeks natural causes for historical events.

The central presupposition of the historical critical method is the principle of criticism,

according to which nothing is accepted at face value but everything must be verified or

corrected by reexamining the evidence. The Bible is always open to correction and therefore

the human interpreter is the final determiner of truth, and his reason or experience the final test

of the authenticity of a passage. As long as this basic principle is retained even to the slightest

116

degree, the danger of the historical-critical method has not been averted, even though the

supernatural element in theory may be accepted. And if this principle of criticism is removed,

it ceases to be the historical-critical method. The presence or absence of the fundamental

principle of criticism is really the litmus test of whether or not critical methodology is being

employed.

Those who follow the historical-biblical method apply the same study tools utilized in

historical criticism. There is careful attention given to historical, literary and linguistic,

grammatical-syntactical, and theological details, as we have outlined throughout this article.

But while utilizing the gains brought about by the historical-critical method in sharpening

various study tools for analysis of the biblical text, there is an consistent intent in historical-

biblical study to eliminate the element of criticism that stands as judge upon the Word.

H. Bible-Based Hermeneutics in the Advent Movement

The Millerite movement had its inception in the preaching of William Miller, and Miller

developed a simple set of 13 rules for interpreting the Bible (see the reprint of these in

Damsteegt 1977:299-300). These hermeneutical principles all build upon the historico-

grammatico method of interpretation maintained by the Reformers, with special attention to the

interpretation of prophecy. The early Adventist pioneers all used these principles. In 1884

Ellen White could write: "Those who are engaged in proclaiming the third angel's message are

searching the Scriptures upon the same plan that Father Miller adopted" (RH 11/25/1884).

After quoting the first four of these rules, that summarize basic hermeneutical principles, she

adds: "in our study of the Bible we shall all do well to heed the principles set forth."

Ellen White's writings strongly uphold all the basic presuppositions and specific

guidelines for interpreting Scripture as advocated by the historico-grammatical (historical-

Biblical) method and as set forth in this article. (See the selected quotations in section V).

White also strongly counsels against the employment of the historical-critical method,

then known as "higher criticism," and demonstrates a keen sensitivity to its essential

constitutive elements and the dangers of its use: "The work of higher criticism, in dissecting,

conjecturing, reconstructing [note the three basic elements of the method, as seen above] is

117

destroying faith in the Bible as a divine revelation. It is robbing God's word of power to

control, uplift, and inspire human lives" (Acts of the Apostles, p. 474).

George Reid (1991, 69-70) has indicated how prior to 1950 the "traditional" Adventist

hermeneutic was essentially the historico-grammatical (historical-Biblical) method. Since 1950

some voices within Adventism have advocated a shift toward a modified historical-critical

method that accepts the supernatural but also retains the principle of criticism. But in 1986 the

Annual Council of SDA's voted to accept the report of the Methods of Bible Study Committee,

which rejected the use of the historical-method. According to the report, "Even a modified use

of this method that retains the principle of criticism which subordinates the Bible to human

reason is unacceptable to Adventists" (Adventist Review, January 22, 1987, p. 18).

The Seventh-day Adventist Church affirms the hermeneutic of the biblical writers, of

Antioch and the Reformation, and rejects the allegorical method of Alexandria and medieval

Catholicism and the historical-critical method of the rationalistic Enlightment and its later

developments.

In so doing, they also maintain the Reformers' historicist hermeneutic of prophecy,

which has been abandoned by virtually all of Christendom today except the SDA church.

Seventh-day Adventists are the hermeneutical heirs of the Reformation. And like the "radical

[back to the roots] reformers" of the 16th century, they continually seek to go "back to the

roots," to base all their presuppositions, their principles of interpretation, their faith, and

practice upon the absolute authority of God's infallible Word.

118

Bibliography

*Denotes works of special significance.

General Books on Hermeneutics:

Doty, William G. Contemporary New Testament Interpretation. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1972.

Erickson, Millard J. Evangelical Interepretation: Perspectives on Hermeneutical Issues. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1993.

*Hasel, Gerhard F. Biblical Interpretation Today. Washington: Biblical Research Institute,1985.

_____. Understanding the Living Word of God. Adventist Library of Christian Thought. Vol.1. Mountain View: Pacific Press Publishing Association, 1980.

*Hyde, Gordon M., ed. A Symposium on Biblical Hermeneutics. Washington: BiblicalResearch Institute, 1974.

Kaiser, Walter C., Jr., and Moisés Silva. An Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics: TheSearch for Meaning. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994.

Klein, William W., Craige L. Blomberg, and Robert L. Hubbard, Jr. Introduction to BiblicalInterpretation. Dallas: Word, 1993.

*Maier, Gerhard. Biblical Hermeneutics. Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1994.Marshall, I. Howard, ed. New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Principles and Methods.

Exeter/Grand Rapids: Paternoster Press/Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1977/1978.McQuilkin, Robertson. Understanding and Applying the Bible. Rev. ed. Chicago: Moody

Press, 1992.Mickelsen, A. Berkeley. Interpreting the Bible. Grand Rapids: W. B. Eerdmans Publishing

Company, 1963. *Osborne, Grant R. The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical

Interpretation. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1991.Ramm, Bernard. Protestant Biblical Interpretation. 3d rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Book

House, 1970.Terry, Milton S. Biblical Hermeneutics: A Treatise on the Interpretation of the Old and New

Testaments. Reprint. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1974.Weiss, Meir. The Bible from Within: The Method of Total Interpretation. Jerusalem: Magnes

Press, 1984.

General Books on Biblical Exegesis

Black, D. A., and D. S. Dockery, eds. New Testament Criticism and Interpretation. GrandRapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1991.

Carson, D. A. Exegetical Fallacies. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1984.*Fee, Gordon D. New Testament Exegesis: A Handbook for Students and Pastors.

Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1983._____, and Stuart Douglas. How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth: A Guide to

Understanding the Bible. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982; 2d ed., 1993.*Kaiser, Walter C., Jr. Toward an Exegetical Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House,

1981.Sire, James W. Scripture Twisting: 20 Ways the Cults Misread the Bible. Downers Grove:

InterVarsity Press, 1980.*Stuart, Douglas. Old Testament Exegesis: A Primer for Students and Pastors. 2d ed., rev.

and enl. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1984.

I. Interpreting the Word of God

A. Revelation-Inspiration-Illumination

119

(See Dr. Dederen's bibliography.)

B/C. The Need, Definition, and Scope of Hermeneutics

(See introductions to general books on hermeneutics listed above.)

II. Foundational Principles for Biblical Interpretation

(See general books on hermeneutics listed above, especially Hasel, Hyde, and Maier.

III. Specific Guidelines for the Interpretation of Scripture

A. Text and Translation

1. Textual Studies(See basic articles in the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary.)

Critical Editions of the Old Testament:

*Elliger, K., and W. Rudolf, eds. Biblia hebraica stuttgartensia. Stuttgart:Deutsche Bibelstiftung, 1967-1977.

*Rahlfs, A., ed. Septuaginta. 2 vols. 8th ed. Stuttgart: WürttembergischeBibelanstalt, 1965.

Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum graece auctoritate Societatis Göttingensiseditum. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1931-.

Critical Editions of the New Testament:

*Aland, K., et al, eds. The Greek New Testament. 3d ed. New York/London:United Bible Societies, 1971, 1983.

Nestle, E., and K. Aland, eds. Novum Testamentum Graece. 26th ed. Stuttgarat: Deutsche Bibelstiftung, 1979.

Old Testament Textual Criticism:

Ap-Thomas, D. R. A Primer of Old Testament Text Criticism. 2d ed. Oxford:Basil Blackwell, 1965; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966.

*Brotzman, Ellis R. Old Testament Textual Criticism: A Practical Introduction. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1994.

Jellicoe, S. The Septuagint and Modern Study. New York/Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press, 1968. Reprints, Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1978,1989.

Klein, Ralph W. Textual Criticism of the Old Testament. Philadelphia: FortressPress, 1974.

McCarter, P. Kyle, Jr. Textual Criticism: Recovering the Text of the HebrewBible. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986.

]Waltke, Bruce K. "The Textual Criticism of the Old Testament." In TheExpositor's Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein. Vol. 1. GrandRapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1979.

Weingreen, Jacob. Introduction to the Critical Study of the Text of the HebrewBible. Oxford/New York: Clarendon Press/Oxford University Press, 1982.

*Würthwein, Ernst. The Text of the Old Testament. Oxford: Basil Blackwell,1957; rev. ed., W. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1979.

New Testament Textual Criticism:

120

*Aland, Kurt and Barbara Aland. The Text of the New Testament: AnIntroduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice ofModern Textual Criticism. 2d ed., rev. and enl. Translated by Erroll F.Rhodes. Leiden/Grand Rapids: E. J. Brill/Eerdmans Publishing Company,1989.

Bruce, F. F. The New Testament Documents: Are they Reliable? Rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1960.

Comfort, P. W. The Quest for the Original Text of the New Testament. GrandRapids: Baker Book House, 1992.

Fee, Gordon D. "The Textual Criticism of the New Testament." In TheExpositor's Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein. Vol. 1. GrandRapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1979.

Metzger, B. M. The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption,and Restoration. 3d ed. New York/London: Oxford University Press,1991.

Sitterly, C. F. and J. H. Greenlee. "Text and MSS of the NT." InternationalStandard Bible Encyclopedia, 1988. 4:814-822.

2. Translations/Versions

Beekman, John, and Callaw, J. Translating the Word of God. Grand Rapids:Zondervan Publishing House, 1974.

Bruce, F. F. History of the Bible in English: From the Earliest Versions. 3ded. New York/London: Oxford University Press/Lutterworth Press, 1978.

*Kubo, Sakae and Walter F. Specht. So Many Versions? Twentieth CenturyEnglish Versions of the Bible. Rev. and enl. ed. Grand Rapids: ZondervanPublishing House, 1983.

*Lewis, J. P. The English Bible from KJV to NIV. 2d ed. Grand Rapids:Baker Book House, 1991.

Nida, Eugene A. and Charles R. Taber. The Theory and Practice ofTranslation. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1969.

Problems in Bible Translation. General Conference of Seventh-day AdventistCommittee on Problems in Bible Translation. Washington, DC: Review andHerald Publishing Association, 1954.

B. Historical Context/Questions of Introduction

For all areas of historical backgrounds and chronology, questions ofintroduction, and apparent historical discrepancies, see especially *Francis D.Nichol, et al, eds, Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, 7 vols.(Washington, DC: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1978).

1. The Bible as Reliable History

See especially the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (introductoryarticles and comments on specific biblical passages recording historical data)and the *Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary and Siegfried H. Horn, TheSpade Confirms the Book, rev. and enl. ed. (Washington, DC: Review andHerald Publishing Association, 1980).

2. Questions of Introduction

Introductions to the New Testament:

*Carson, D. A., Douglas J. Moo, and Leon Morris. An Introduction to theNew Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992.

121

*Guthrie, Donald. New Testament Introduction. 4th rev. ed. DownersGrove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1990.

Introductions to the Old Testament:

*Archer, Gleason L., Jr. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction. Rev. ed. Chicago: Moody Press, 1985.

*Bullock, C. Hassell. An Introduction to the Old Testament Poetic Books. Rev. and exp. Chicago: Moody Press, 1988.

*______. An Introduction to the Old Testament Prophetic Books. Chicago:Mood Press, 1986.

Eissfeldt, O. The Old Testament: An Introduction Including the Apocryphaand Pseudepigrapha, and also the Works of Similar Type from Qumran. Oxford/New York: Blackwell/Harper & Row, 1965.

Harrison, R. K. Introduction to the Old Testament: With a ComprehensiveReview of Old Testament Studies and a Special Supplement on theApocrypha. Leicester/Grand Rapids: Inter-Varsity Press/EerdmansPublishing Company, 1969.

La Sor, William S., et al. Old Testament Survey: The Message, Form, andBackground of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: William B.Eerdmans, 1982.

*Wolff, Herbert. An Introduction to the Old Testament Pentateuch. Chicago: Moody Press, 1991.

3. Historical Backgrounds

Archaeology:

Aharoni, Yohanan. The Archaeology of the Land of Israel:From thePrehistoric Beginnings to the End of the First Temple Period. Philadelphia/London: Westminster Press/SCM Press, 1982.

*Horn, Siegfried H. The Spade Confirms the Book. Rev. and enl. ed. Washington, DC: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1980.

McRay, John. Archaeology and the New Testament. Grand Rapids: BakerBook House, 1991.

Schoville, Keith N. Biblical Archaeology in Focus. Introduced byMenahem Mansoor. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1978.

*Thompson, John A. The Bible and Archaeology. 3d ed., fully rev. GrandRapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1982.

Atlases and Geographies:

Aharoni, Yohanan. The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography. 2d ed.,rev. and enl. Translated from Hebrew and edited by A. F. Rainey. Philadelphia/London: Westminster Press/Burns & Oates, 1979/1980.

_____ and Michael Avi-Yonah. The Macmillan Bible Atlas. Rev. ed. NewYork/London: Macmillan Publishing Company/Collier MacmillanCompany, 1977.

Baly, Denis. Basic Biblical Geography. Updated edition of The Geographyof the Bible (new rev. ed, 1974). Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987.

*Beitzel, Barry J. The Moody Atlas of Bible Lands. Chicago: Moody Press,1985.

May, Herbert G. Oxford Bible Atlas. 3rd ed. Revised by J. Day. NewYork/London: Oxford University Press, 1984.

Pfeiffer, Charles F. Baker's Bible Atlas. Grand Rapids: Baker BookHouse, 1961.

122

Culture and Daily Life:

*Ferguson, E. Background of Early Christianity. Grand Rapids: EerdmansPublishing Company, 1987.

Gower, Ralph. The New Manners and Customs of Bible Times. Updatedand rewritten by Fred Wright. Chicago: Moody Press, 1987.

Hoerth, Alfred J., Gerald L. Mattingly, and Edwin M. Yamauchi, eds. Peoples of the Old Testament World. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House,1994.

Lohse, Eduard. The New Testament Environment. Translated by John E.Steely. Nashville/London: Abingdon Press/SCM Press, 1976.

Roetzel, C. J. The World That Shaped the New Testament. Foreword byDavid L. Tiede. Atlanta/London: Westminster Press/SPCK, 1987.

Thompson, Henry O. Biblical Archaeology: The World, the Mediterranean,the Bible. New York: Paragon House, 1987.

Tidball, Derek. The Social Context of the New Testament: A SociologicalAnalysis. Grand Rapids: Academic Books, 1984.

van der Woude, A. S., et al, eds. The World of the Bible. Translated bySierd Woudstra. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1986.

Chronology:

Finegan, Jack. Handbook of Biblical Chronology: Principles of TimeReckoning in the Ancient World and Problems of Chronology in theBible. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1964.

*Thiele, Edwin R. A Chronology of the Hebrew Kings. Rev. ed. GrandRapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1983.

Walton, J. H. Chronological and Background Charts of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1978.

Non-Biblical Comparative Materials:

*Barrett, C. K., ed. The New Testament Background: Selected Documents. Rev. ed. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987.

Charlesworth, J. H., ed. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. 2 vols. Garden City/London: Doubleday & Company/Darton, Longman andTodd, 1983-1985.

Kitchen, Kenneth. Ancient Orient and Old Testament. Downers Grove, IL:InterVarsity Press, 1966.

______. The Bible in Its World. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press,1978.

*Pritchard, J. B., ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the OldTestament. 3d ed. Translators and annotators: W. F. Albright, et al. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969.

Walton, John H. Ancient Israelite Literature in Its Cultural Context: ASurvey of Parallels Between Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Texts. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1989.

Whittaker, Molly. Jews and Christians: Graeco-Roman Views. New York:Cambridge University Press, 1984.

Dictionaries and Encyclopedias:

*Freedman, David N., et al, eds. The Anchor Bible Dictionary. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

123

*Bromiley, G. W., et al, eds. International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. 4vols. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids: W. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company,1979-.

*Horn, Siegfried H. Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary. Rev ed.Washington, DC: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1979.

History:

*Bright, John. A History of Israel. 3d ed. Philadelphia/London:Westminster Press/SCM Press, 1981.

*Bruce, F. F. New Testament History. Garden City: Doubleday, 1972.Hallo, William W., and William K. Simpson. The Ancient Near East: A

History. Edited by John M. Blum. New York: Harcourt BraceJovanovich, Inc., 1971.

Merrill, E. H. Kingdom of Priests. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House,1987.

*Reicke, B. The New Testament Era. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1968.Russell, D. S. Between the Testaments. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1965.Schwantes, Siegfried J. A Short History of the Ancient Near East. Grand

Rapids: Baker Book House, 1965.

Military Practices:

Yadin, Yigael. The Art of Warfare in Biblical Lands in Light ofArchaeological Study. Translated by M. Pearlman. New York:McGraw Hill, 1963.

4. Seeming Historical Discrepancies

*Archer, Gleason L. Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties. Foreword byKenneth S. Kantzer. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House,1982.

Kaiser, Walter C., Jr. Hard Sayings of the Old Testament. DownersGrove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988.

______. More Hard Sayings of the Old Testament. Downers Grove, IL:InterVarsity Press, 1992.

C. Literary Context/Analysis

1. Limits of the Passage

See especially *Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., Toward an Exegetical Theology:Biblical Exegesis for Preaching and Teaching (Grand Rapids: Baker BookHouse, 1981), pp. 69-77.

2. Literary Types and Their Interpretation

*Alter, Robert. The Art of Biblical Narrative. New York: Basic Books,1981.

*______. The Art of Biblical Poetry. New York: Basic Books, Inc, 1985.*Bailey, J. L, and L. D. Vander Broek. Literary Forms in the New

Testament. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1992.Bar-Efrat, Shimon. Narrative Art in the Bible. Sheffield: Almond Press,

1989.

124

Frye, Northrop. The Great Code: The Bible and Literature. New York:Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1982.

*Osborne, Grant R. The Hermeneutical Spiral: A ComprehensiveIntroduction to Biblical Interepretation. Downers Grove, IL:InterVarsity Press, 1991. Pp. 149-260.

*Petersen, D. L., and K. H. Richards. Interpreting Hebrew Poetry. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1992.

*Ryken, L. Words of Delight: A Literary Introduction to the Bible. GrandRapids: Baker Book House, 1987.

*______. Words of Life: A Literary Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1987.

Sternberg, M. The Poetics of Biblical Narrative. Bloomington: IndianaUniversity Press, 1985.

Watson, W. G. E. Hebrew Poetry. Sheffield: JSOT, 1985.

3. Literary Structure

Alden, Robert L. "Chiastic Psalms: A Study in the Mechanics of SemiticPoetry." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 17 (1974): 11-28; 19 (1976): 191-200; 21 (1978): 199-210.

Davidson, Richard M. A Love Song for the Sabbath. Washington, DC: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1988. (Chiastic structure ofPsalm 92)

______. In the Footsteps of Joshua. Hagerstown, MD: Review and HeraldPublishing Company, 1995 (block parallelism in the book of Joshua).

______. "The Good News of Yom Kippur." JATS 2/2 (1991):4-27 (chiasticstructure of the Pentateuch).

Hasel, Gerhard F. Jonah: Messenger of the Eleventh Hour. MountainView, CA: Pacific Press, 1976 (p. 101--block parallelism in the book ofJonah).

Lund, Nils W. Chiasmus in the New Testament. Chapel Hill: University ofNorth Carolina Press, 1942.

Rice, George. "The Chiastic Structure of the Central Section of the Epistleto the Hebrews." AUSS 19 (1981): 243-246.

Shea, William H. "Literary Form and Theological Function in Leviticus." In 70 Weeks, Leviticus, Nature of Prophecy, ed. Frank B. Holbrook. Daniel and Revelation Committee Series. Vol 3. Washington, DC:Biblical Research Institute, 1986 (chiastic structure of the book ofLeviticus).

______."The Chiastic Structure of the Song of Songs." ZAW 92 (1980):378-396.

______. "The Structure of the Genesis Flood Narrative and ItsImplications." Origins 6 (1979): 8-29.

______. "Unity of Daniel." In Symposium on Daniel, ed. Frank B.Holbrook. Daniel and Revelation Committee Series. Vol. 2. Washington, DC: Biblical Research Institute, 1986 (chiastic structure ofthe book of Daniel).

Strand, Kenneth A. "The Eight Basic Visions." In Symposium onRevelation--Book I, ed. Frank B. Holbrook. Daniel and RevelationCommittee Series. Vol. 6. Silver Spring: Biblical Research Institute,1992 (chiastic structure of the book of Revelation).

*Welch, John W., ed. Chiasmus in Antiquity: Structures, Analyses,Exegesis. Hildesheim: Gerstenberg Verlag, 1981.

D. Verse-by-Verse Analysis (Grammar, Syntax, and Word Study)

125

English Concordances:

*Strong, James. The Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. New York/Cincinnati:Hunt Eaton/Cranston Curts, 1894. (Frequently reprinted by various publishers.)

*Young, Robert. Analytical Concordance to the Bible. 8th ed. London/New York:Lutterworth Press/Funk and Wagnalls, 1939. (Reissued by other publishers.) 22d American ed. Revised by William B. Stevenson. Grand Rapids: W. B.Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1980, c1970.

Hebrew/Aramaic Concordances:

*Even-Shoshan, A. A New Concordance of the Old Testament. 2d ed. GrandRapids: Baker Book House, 1989.

Lisowsky, Gerhard. Konkordanz zum hebräischen Alten Testament. 2d ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1981.

Mandelkern, Salomon. Veteris Testamenti concordantiae hebraicae atquechaldaicae. 9th ed. Jerusalem/Tel Aviv: Schocken, 1971.

*Wigram, G. V. The Englishman's Hebrew and Chaldee Concordance of the OldTestament Numerically Coded to Strong's Exhaustive Concordance. GrandRapids: Baker Book House, 1980. The New Englishman's HebrewConcordance: Coded to Strong's Concordance Numbering System. Peabody,MA: Hendrickson, 1984.

Greek Concordances:

Aland, K. Vollständige Konkordanz zum griechischen Neuen Testament: UnterZugrundelegung aller kritischen Textausgaben und des Textus Receptus. 2 vols. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 1975-1983, 1978.

*Bachmann, H., and H. Slaby, eds. Computer Concordance to the NovumTestamentum Graece of Nestle-Aland, 26th Edition and to Greek NewTestament, 3rd Edition. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 1980.

Hatch, Edwin and Henry E. Redpath. A Concordance to the Septuagint and theOther Greek Versions of the Old Testament Including the Apocryphal Books. 3vols. London: Oxford University Press, 1897-1906. Reprinted in 2 vols. Graz: Akdemischer Druck, 1954. (See also An Expanded Index of the Hatch-Redpath Concordance to the Septuagint. Jerusalem: Dugith Publishers, 1974.)

Moulton, William F. and A. S. Geden. A Concordance to the Greek TestamentAccording to the Texts of Westcott and Hort, Tischendorf and the EnglishRevisers. 5th ed., rev. by H. K. Moulton, with a supplement. Edinburgh: T. &T. Clark, 1978.

Greek Grammars:

*Blass, Friedrich, A. Debrunner, and R. W. Funk. A Greek Grammar of the NewTestament and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago/London: Universityof Chicago Press, 1961.

Dana, H. E., and J. R. Mantey. A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament. Toronto: Macmillan, 1927, 1955.

Moule, C. F. D. An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek,. 2d ed. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1963.

Hebrew and Aramaic Grammars:

*Gesenius, W. and E. Kautzsch. Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar. 2d English ed. rev. Edited by E. Kautzsch and revised by A. E. Cowley. London/New York:

126

Oxford University Press, 1910 (15th printing [1980] has a revised index ofpassages).

Rosenthal, Franz A. A Grammar of Biblical Aramaic. 4th printing. Wiesbaden: O.Harrassowitz, 1974.

Seow, C. L. A Grammar for Biblical Hebrew. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1987.*Waltke, Bruce K. and M. O'Connor. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax.

Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990.Williams, Ronald J. Hebrew Syntax: An Outline. 2d ed. Toronto/Buffalo/London:

University of Toronto Press, 1976.

Old Testament Lexicons and Aids:

*Armstrong, Terry A., Douglas L. Busby, and Cyril F. Carr. A Reader's Hebrew-English Lexicon of the Old Testament. 4 vols. in 1. Grand Rapids: Zondervan,1989.

*Brown, F., S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of theOld Testament. Corrected ed. London/New York: Oxford University Press,1952. Reissued as The New Brown, Driver, and Briggs . . . Numerically Codedto Strong's Exhaustive Concordance. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1981.

Davidson, Benjamin. The Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon. London:Samuel Bagster & Sons, 1848. (Often reprinted by various publishers.)

Holladay, W. L. A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament,Based upon the Lexical Work of L. Koehler and W. Baumgartner. Leiden/Grand Rapids: E. J. Brill/Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1971. 13thcorrected ed. Grand Rapids/Leiden: Eerdmans/Brill, 1993.

Kohler, Ludwig. Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti libros. 2d ed. Leiden: E. J. Brill,1958.

______, and Walter Baumgartner. Hebraisches und aramaisches Lexicon zum AltenTestament. 3 vols. 3d ed. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1967-1983.

*Owens, John Joseph. Analytical Key to the Old Testament. 4 vols. Grand Rapids:Baker Book House, 1989-1991.

New Testament Lexicons and Aids:

*Bauer, W., F. W. Gingrich, and F. W. Danker. A Greek-English Lexicon of theNew Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 2d ed., rev. andaugmented. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press, 1979.

*Kubo, Sakae. A Reader's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and ABeginner's Guide for the Translation of New Testament Greek. Berrien Springs,MI: Andrews University Press, 1979.

Friberg, Barbara and Timothy Friberg. Analytical Greek New Testament. GrandRapids: Baker Book House, 1981.

Liddell, H. G., and R. Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon. 9th ed. 2 vols. Oxford:Clarendon Press, 1925-1940. Reprint, 1968.

Louw, J. P., and E. A. Nida. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Basedon Semantic Domains. 2 vols. New York: United Bible Societies, 1988.

Zerwick, M. and M. Grosvenor. A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek NewTestament. 2 vols. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1974-1979.

Word Studies (Theological Dictionaries and Word Books):

Balz, H., and G. Schneider, eds. Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament. 3vols. to date. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1990-.

Barr, James. The Semantics of Biblical Language. London: Oxford UniversityPress, 1961.

127

*Brown, Colin, ed. New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology. 4vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1975-1978.

Botterweck, G. Johannes, and Helmer Ringren, eds. Theological Dictionary of theOld Testament. 6 vols. to date. Translated by John T. Willis. Grand Rapids:W. B. Eerdmans, 1974-.

*Harris, R. Laird, Gleason L. Archer, and Bruce K. Waltke, eds. TheologicalWordbook of the Old Testament. 2 vols. Chicago: Moody Press, 1981.

Kittel, Gerhard and Gerhard Friedrich, eds. Theological Dictionary of the NewTestament. 10 vols. Translator and editor, Geoffrey W. Bromiley. GrandRapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1964-1976. 1-volume abridged ed. Grand Rapids: W. B. Eerdmans, 1985.

E. Theological Context/Analysis

1. Methods of Theological Study

Old Testament Theologies:

*Dyrness, William. Themes in Old Testament Theology. Downers Grove, IL:InterVarsity Press, 1979 (thematic-topical approach).

*Hasel, Gerhard F. Old Testament Theology: Basic Issues in the CurrentDebate. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids: W. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company,1982 (critique of major Old Testament theologies).

Jacob, Edmond. Theology of the Old Testament. New York: Harper & Row,1958.

*Kaiser, Walter C., Jr. Toward an Old Testament Theology. Grand Rapids:Zondervan Publishing House, 1991 (grand central theme approach).

Martens, Elmer A. God's Design: A Focus on Old Testament Theology. GrandRapids: Baker Book House, 1981 (grand central theme approach).

Ollenburger, Ben C., Elmer A. Martens, and Gerhard F. Hasel, eds. TheFlowering of Old Testament Theology: A Reader in 20-Century OldTestament Theology, 1930-1990. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992. (Introduction and sampling of major OT theologies of the 20th century.)

*White, Ellen G. Conflict of the Ages Series (grand central theme approach).Zuck, Roy B., ed. A Biblical Theology of the Old Testament. Chicago: Moody

Press, 1991 (book-by-book approach).

New Testament Theologies:

*Guthrie, Donald. New Testament Theology. Leicester, UK/Downers Grove,IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1981 (thematic approach).

Hasel, Gerhard F. New Testament Theology: Basic Issues in the CurrentDebate. Grand Rapids: W. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1978.

*Ladd, George Eldon. A Theology of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1974 (book-by-book and thematicapproach).

Bible Commentaries (For Verse-by-Verse Exposition):

*Bruce, F. F., ed. The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: W. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1953-.

*Gaebelein, Frank E., ed. The Expositor's Bible Commentary. 12 vols. GrandRapids: Zondervan, 1976-1991.

128

*Harrison, R. K., ed. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament(NICOT). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. (The most scholarly and mostcomprehensive, up-to-date, conservative commentaries on the OT.)

Hubbard, David A., et al, eds. Word Biblical Commentary. Waco, TX: WordBooks, 1983ff.

Keil, C. F., and Franz Delitzsch. Commentary on the Old Testament. 10 vols. Reprint, Grand Rapids: W. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1976. (Overa century old, but still a classic and unsurpassed commentary on the Hebrewtext.)

Nichol, F. D., ed. SDA Bible Commentary. 7 vols. Rev. ed. Washington,DC: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1979 ff.

*Morris, Leon, ed. The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (TNTC). Leicester, UK/Grand Rapids: InterVarsity, 1956-.

*Wiseman, D. J., ed. Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (TOTC). Downer's Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1964-. (Excellent, concise,treatment of OT books from conservative perspective.)

2. Problematic Theological Passages

Understanding Biblical (Hebrew) Thought

Boman, Thorleif. Hebrew Thought Compared with Greek. Translated by JulesL. Moreau. New York: W. W. Norton and Company, Inc., 1970.

Doukhan, Jacques B. Hebrew For Theologians: A Textbook for the Study ofBiblical Hebrew in Relation to Hebrew Thinking. Lamham: University Pressof America, 1993.

Tresmontant, Claude. A Study of Hebrew Thought. Translated by Michael F.Gibson. New York: Desclee Company, 1960.

Practical Guidelines for Interpretation

(See especially books by Archer and Kaiser under section III.B.4/5. and theSDA Bible Commentary comments on specific passages.)

LaRondelle, Hans K. Deliverance in the Psalms. Berrien Springs, MI: FirstImpressions, 1983.

Rodriguez, Angel. "Inspiration and the Imprecatory Psalms." JATS 5/1 (1994):40-67.

4. Scriptures Pointing Beyond Themselves

a. Prophecy

*Holbrook, Frank B., ed. 70 Weeks, Leviticus, and the Nature of Prophecy. Daniel and Revelation Committee Series, vol. 3. Washington, DC:Biblical Research Institute, 1986.

*_____. Symposium on Daniel. Daniel and Revelation Committee Series,vol. 2. Washington, DC: Biblical Research Institute, 1986.

*_____. Symposium on Revelation--Book I. Daniel and RevelationCommittee Series, vol. 6. Silver Spring, MD: Biblical ResearchInstitute, 1992.

*_____. Symposium on Revelation: Exegetical and General Studies--BookII. Daniel and Revelation Committee Series, vol. 7. Silver Spring,MD: Biblical Research Institute, 1992.

Ladd, George E. The Presence of the Future: The Eschatology of BiblicalRealism. Grand Rapids: W. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1974

129

*LaRondelle, Hans K. The Israel of God in Prophecy: Principles ofProphetic Interpretation. Andrews University Monographs. Studies inReligion. Vol. 13. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press,1983.

______. Chariots of Salvation: The Biblical Drama of Armageddon. Washington, DC: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1987.

Maxwell, C. Mervyn. God Cares, Vol. 1: The Message of Daniel for Youand Your Family. Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press PublishingAssociation, 1981.

______. God Cares, Vol 2: The Message of Revelation for You and YourFamily. Boise, ID: Pacific Press, 1985.

*Shea, William H. Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation. Daniel andRevelation Committee Series. Vol. 1. Washington, DC: Review andHerald Publishing Association, 1982.

b. Typology

Davidson, Richard M. "Sanctuary Typology." In Symposium onRevelation--Book I, ed. Frank B. Holbrook. Daniel and RevelationCommittee Series. Vol. 6. Silver Spring, MD: Biblical ResearchInstitute, 1992.

_____. Typology in Scripture: A Study of Hermeneutical JbB@H Structures. Andrews University Seminary Doctoral Dissertation Series. Vol. 2. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1981.

_____. "Typology in the Book of Hebrews." In Issues in the Book ofHebrews, ed. Frank B. Holbrook. Daniel and Revelation CommitteeSeries. Vol 4. Silver Spring, MD: Biblical Research Institute, 1989.

Fairbairn, Patrick. The Typology of Scripture. 2 vols. 6th ed. New York:Funk and Wagnalls, 1876.

Murdoch, W. G. C. "Interpretation of Symbols, Types, Allegories, andParables." In A Symposium on Biblical Hermeneutics, ed. Gordon M.Hyde, 209-223. Washington, DC: Biblical Research Institute, 1974.

c. Symbolism

Mickelsen, A. Berkeley. Interpreting the Bible. Grand Rapids: W. B.Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1963.

Murdoch, W. G. C. "Interpretation of Symbols, Types, Allegories, andParables." In A Symposium on Biblical Hermeneutics, ed. Gordon M.Hyde, 209-223. Washington, DC: Biblical Research Institute, 1974.

Paulien, Jon. "Interpreting Revelation's Symbols." In Symposium onRevelation--Book I, ed. Frank B. Holbrook, 73-98, 209-224. DARCOM vol. 6. Silver Spring, MD: Biblical Research Institute,1992.

d. Parables

Murdoch, W. G. C. "Interpretation of Symbols, Types, Allegories, andParables." In A Symposium on Biblical Hermeneutics, ed. Gordon M.Hyde, 209-223. Washington, DC: Biblical Research Institute, 1974.

Osborne, Grant R. The Hermeneutical Spiral: A ComprehensiveIntroduction to Biblical Interepretation. Downers Grove, IL:InterVarsity Press, 1991. Pp. 235-251.

F. Contemporary Application

130

Larkin, William J., Jr. Culture and Biblical Hermeneutics: Interpreting andApplying the Authoritative Word in a Relativistic Age. Grand Rapids: BakerBook House, 1988.

(See also major commentaries, listed above.)

IV. The History of Biblical Hermeneutics

General Works:

Ackroyd, Peter R., Geoffrey W. Lampe, and Stanley L. Greenslade, eds. CambridgeHistory of the Bible. 3 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963-1970.

*Grant, R. M. A Short History of the Interpretation of the Bible. 2d ed., rev. and enl. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984.

Greenspahn, Frederick E., ed. Scripture in the Jewish and Christian Traditions:Authority, Interpretation, Relevance. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1982.

A. The Inner-Biblical Hermeneutic

Davidson, Richard M. "New Testament Use of the Old Testament." JATS 5/1(1994): 14-39.

Dodd, Charles H. According to the Scriptures: The Sub-Structure of New TestamentTheology. London: Nisbet, 1952. Especially pp. 59-60.

*Fishbane, Michael A. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. New York: OxfordUniversity Press, 1988.

France, R. T. Jesus and the Old Testament: His Application of Old TestamentPassages to Himself and His Mission. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1982.

*Kaiser, Walter C., Jr. The Uses of the Old Testament in the New. Chicago: MoodyPress, 1985.

Moo, Douglas J. The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives. Sheffield:Almond Press, 1983.

B. Early Jewish Biblical Hermeneutics

Brewer, David I. Techniques and Assumptions in Jewish Exegesis Before 70 CE. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1992.

Longenecker, Richard N. Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period. Grand Rapids:W. B. Eerdmans, 1975.

Patte, Daniel. Early Jewish Hermeneutic in Palestine. Missoula, MT: ScholarsPress, 1975.

Horn, Siegfried. "Jewish Interpretation in the Apostolic Age." In A Symposium onBiblical Hermeneutics, ed. Gordon M. Hyde, 17-28. Washington, DC: BiblicalResearch Institute, 1974.

C. Early Christian Hermeneutics

Dockery, David S. Biblical Interpretation Then and Now: ContemporaryHermeneutics in the Light of the Early Church. Grand Rapids: Baker BookHouse, 1992.

Kaiser, Walter. The Uses of the Old Testament in the New. Chicago: Moody Press,1985.

Strand, Kenneth, and Walter Douglas. "Interpretation of the Bible in the Early andMedieval Church." In A Symposium on Biblical Hermeneutics, ed. Gordon M.Hyde, 29-46. Washington, DC: Biblical Research Institute, 1974.

D. Medieval Hermeneutics

131

Evans, Gillian R. The Language and Logic of the Bible: The Earlier Middle Ages. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press, 1984.

Smalley, Beryl. The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages. 3d rev. ed. Oxford:Blackwell, 1983.

Strand, Kenneth, and Walter Douglas. "Interpretation of the Bible in the Early andMedieval Church." In A Symposium on Biblical Hermeneutics, ed. Gordon M.Hyde, 29-46. Washington, DC: Biblical Research Institute, 1974.

E. Reformation Hermeneutics and the Historical-Grammatical Method

Hamann, Henry P. A Popular Guide to New Testament Criticism: A ConservativeApproach to the Problems of Biblical Interpretation. St. Louis: ConcordiaPublishing House, 1977.

Ladd, George Eldon. The New Testament and Criticism. Grand Rapids: W. B.Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1967.

Olsen, V. Norskov. "Hermeneutical Principles and Biblical Authority inReformation and Post-Reformation Eras." In A Symposium on BiblicalHermeneutics, ed. Gordon M. Hyde, 47-66. Washington, DC: BiblicalResearch Institute, 1974.

F/G. The Enlightenment Hermeneutic and the Historical-Critical Method

Amerding, Carl E. The Old Testament and Criticism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,1983.

Krentz, Edgar. The Historical-Critical Method. Edited by Gene M. Tucker. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975.

*Hasel, Gerhard F. Biblical Interpretation Today. Washington, DC: BiblicalResearch Institute, 1985.

*Linnemann, Eta. Historical Criticism of the Bible: Methodology or Idealogy? Reflections of a Bultmannian Turned Evangelical. Translated by Robert W.Yarbrough. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1990.

*Maier, Gerhard. The End of the Historical-Critical Method. Translated by EdwinW. Leverenz and Rudolph F. Norden. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House,1977.

McKnight, Edgar V. Postmodern Use of the Bible: The Emergence of Reader-Oriented Criticism. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1988.

Thiselton, Anthony C. New Horizons in Hermeneutics: The Theory and Practice ofTransforming Biblical Reading. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House,1992.

Zinke, Ed. "Post-Reformation Critical Biblical Studies." In A Symposium onBiblical Hermeneutics, ed. Gordon M. Hyde, 67-88. Washington, DC: BiblicalResearch Institute, 1974.

H. Bible-Based Hermeneutics in the Advent Movement

Damsteegt, P. Gerard. Foundations of the Seventh-day Adventist Message andMission. Grand Rapids: W. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1977. BerrienSprings, MI: Andrews University Press, 1988.

Neufeld, Donald. "Biblical Interpretation in the Advent Movement." In ASymposium on Biblical Hermeneutics, ed. Gordon M. Hyde, 109-125. Washington, DC: Biblical Research Institute, 1974.

Reid, George. "Another Look at Adventist Hermeneutics." JATS 2/1 (1991): 69-76.

132

Ellen White Statements on Principles of Biblical Interpretation

I. Interpreting the Word of God

A. Revelation-Inspiration-Illumination

"God has communicated with men by His Spirit, and divine light has beenimparted to the world by revelations to His chosen servants....The preparation ofthe written word began in the time of Moses. Inspired revelations were thenembodied in an inspired book. This work continued during the long period ofsixteen hundred years,--from Moses, the historian of creation and the law, to John,the recorder of the most sublime truths of the gospel." GC v.

"God has been pleased to communicate His truth to the world by humanagencies, and He Himself, by His Holy Spirit, qualified men and enabled them todo this work. He guided the mind in the selection of what to speak and what towrite. The treasure was intrusted to earthen vessels, yet it is, nonetheless, fromHeaven. The testimony is conveyed through the imperfect expression of humanlanguage, yet it is the testimony of God; and the obedient, believing child of Godbeholds in it the glory of a divine power, full of grace and truth." GC vi-vii.

"When men, in their finite judgment, find it necessary to go into anexamination of scriptures to define that which is inspired and that which is not, theyhave stepped before Jesus to show Him a better way than He has led us.

"I take the Bible just as it is, as the Inspired Word. I believe its utterances inan entire Bible." 1 SM 17

"It is not the words of the Bible that are inspired, but the men that wereinspired. Inspiration acts not on the man's words or his expressions but on the manhimself, who, under the influence of the Holy Ghost, is imbued with thoughts. Butthe words receive the impress of the individual mind. The divine mind is diffused. The divine mind and will is combined with the human mind and will; thus theutterances of the man are the word of God. . . .

"The Creator of all ideas may impress different minds with the same thought,but each may express it in a different way, yet without contradiction. . . .

"Through the inspiration of His Spirit the Lord gave His apostles truth, to beexpressed according to the development of their minds by the Holy Spirit." 1SM21-22

"The Lord speaks to human beings in imperfect speech, in order that thedegenerate senses, the dull, earthly perception, of earthly being may comprehendHis words. Thus is shown God's condescension. He meets fallen human beingswhere they are. The Bible, perfect as it is in its simplicity, does not answer to thegreat ideas of God; for infinite ideas cannot be perfectly embodied in finite vehiclesof thought. Instead of the expressions of the Bible being exaggerated, as manypeople suppose, the strong expressions break down before the magnificence of thethought, though the penman selected the most expressive language through which toconvey the truths of higher education. Sinful beings can only bear to look upon ashadow of the brightness of heaven's glory." 1 SM 22

"The inspired writers did not testify to falsehoods, to prevent the pages ofsacred history being clouded by the record of human frailties and faults. Thescribes of God wrote as they were dictated by the Holy Spirit, having no control ofthe work themselves. They penned the literal truth, and stern, forbidding facts arerevealed for reasons that our finite minds cannot fully comprehend. . . . The humanmind is so subject to prejudice that it is almost impossible for it to treat the subject[a biography of an individual] impartially. . . . But divine unction, lifted above theweaknesses of humanity, tells the simple, naked truth." 4T 9-10

B. The Need for Interpretation

133

"Though the finite minds of men are inadequate to enter into the counsels ofthe Infinite One, or to understand fully the working out of His purposes, yet often itis because of some error or neglect on their own part that they so dimlycomprehend the messages of Heaven. Not infrequently the minds of the people,and even of God's servants, are so blinded by human opinions, the traditions andfalse teachings of men, that they are able only partially to grasp the great thingswhich He has revealed in His word." GC 345

"Intent on maintaining the separation between themselves and other nations,they [the Jews at the time of Jesus' first advent] were unwilling to impart theknowledge they still possessed concerning the symbolic service. The trueInterpreter must come. The One whom all these types prefigured must explaintheir significance. . . . He, the Author of truth, must separate truth from the chaffof man's utterance, which had made it of no effect. The principles of God'sgovernment and the plan of redemption must be clearly defined. The lessons of theOld Testament must be fully set before men." DA 33-34.

"The disciples traveling to Emmaus needed to be disentangled in theirinterpretation of the Scriptures. Jesus. . . opened their understanding that theymight understand the Scriptures. How quickly He straightened out the tangled endsand showed the unity and divine verity of the Scriptures. How much men in thesetimes need their understanding opened." 1 SM 21

"[God calls for] a diligent study of the Scriptures, and a most criticalexamination of the positions which we hold.

"God would have all the bearings and positions of truth thoroughly andperserveringly searched, with prayer and fasting. Believers are not to rest insuppositions and ill-defined ideas of what constitutes truth. . . .

"The subjects which we present to the world must be to us a living reality. Itis important that in defending the doctrines which we consider fundamental articlesof faith, we should never allow ourselves to employ arguments that are not whollysound. . . . We should present sound arguments, that will not only silence ouropponents, but will bear the closest and most searching scrutiny." CW 40.

II. Foundational Principles for Biblical Interpretation

A. The Bible and the Bible Only

"In our time there is a wide departure from their [the Scriptures'] doctrines andprecepts, and there is need of a return to the great Protestant principle--the Bible,and the Bible only, as the rule of faith and duty." GC 204-5

"The Bible, and the Bible alone, is to be our creed, the sole bond of union; allwho bow to this holy word will be in harmony. Our own views and ideas must notcontrol our efforts. Man is fallible, but God's word is infallible. . . Let us lift upthe banner on which is inscribed, The Bible our rule of faith and discipline." 1 SM416 (RH 12/15/85)

1. The Primacy of Scripture

"The Holy Scriptures are to be accepted as an authoritative, infalliblerevelation of His will. They are the standard of character, the revealer ofdoctrines, and the test of experience....The Spirit was not given--nor can itever be bestowed--to supersede the Bible; for the Scriptures explicitly state thatthe word of God is the standard by which all teaching and experience must betested." GC vii

"But God will have a people upon the earth to maintain the Bible, and theBible only, as the standard of all doctrines, and the basis of all reforms. Theopinions of learned men, the deductions of science, the creeds or decisions of

134

ecclesiastical councils, as numerous and discordant as are the churches whichthey represent, the voice of the majority--not one nor all of these should beregarded as evidence for or against any point of religious faith. Beforeaccepting any doctrine or precept, we should demand a plain 'Thus saith theLord' in its support." GC 595

"God's Word is the unerring standard. . . . Let all prove their positionsfrom the Scriptures and substantiate every point they claim is truth from therevealed Word of God." Ev 256

"I recommend to you, dear reader, the Word of God as the rule of yourfaith and practice. By that Word we are to be judged." EW 78.

"He [Christ] pointed to the Scriptures as of unquestionable authority, andwe should do the same. The Bible is to be presented as the Word of theinfinite God, as the end of all controversy and the foundation of all faith." COL 39

"The more he [the Bible student] searches the Bible, the deeper is hisconviction that it is the word of the living God, and human reason bows beforethe majesty of divine revelation." 5T 700

"He who has a knowledge of God and His Word through personalexperience has a settled faith in the divinity of the Holy Scriptures. He hasproved that God's Word is truth, and he knows that truth can never contradictitself. He does not test the Bible by men's ideas of science; he brings theseideas to the test of the unerring standard. He knows that in true science therecan be nothing contrary to the teachings of the Word; since both have the sameAuthor, a correct understanding of both will prove them to be in harmony. Whatever in so-called scientific teaching contradicts the testimony of God'sWord is mere human guesswork." MH 462

"Those who suppose that they understand philosophy think that theirexplanations are necessary to unlock the treasures of knowledge and to preventheresies from coming into the church. But it is these explanations that havebrought in false theories and heresies." COL 110

"The Scriptures need not be read by the dim light of tradition or humanspeculation. As well might we try to give light to the sun with a torch as toexplain the Scriptures by human tradition or imagination." COL 111

2. The Sufficiency of Scripture

"The word of God is sufficient to enlighten the most beclouded mind, andmay be understood by those who have any desire to understand it." 5T 663

"In His word, God has committed to men the knowledge necessary forsalvation." GC vii

"The word of God is the standard of character. In giving us this word,God has put us in possession of every truth essential to salvation." GW 250

(See also under "Primacy of Scripture.")

B. The Totality of Scripture

1. Inseparable Union of the Divine and Human

"But the Bible, with its God-given truths expressed in the language ofmen, presents a union of the divine and the human. Such a union existed inthe nature of Christ, who was the Son of God and the Son of man. Thus it istrue of the Bible, as it was of Christ, that 'the Word was made flesh, and dweltamong us.' John 1:14." GC vi

"When men, compassed with human infirmities, affected in a greater orlesser degree by surrounding influences, and having hereditary and cultivatedtendencies which are far from making them wise or heavenly-minded,

135

undertake to arraign the Word of God, and to pass judgment upon what isdivine and what is human, they are working without the counsel of God." 5T709

2. The Bible Equals, Not Just Contains, the Word of God

"The Bible is God's voice speaking to us, just a surely as though we couldhear it with our own ears. If we realized this, with what awe would we openGod's word, and with what earnestness would we search its precepts! Thereading and contemplation of the Scriptures would be regarded as an audiencewith the Infinite One." 6T 393

"Do we receive the Bible as 'the oracle of God'? It is as really a divinecommunication as though its words came to us in an audible voice." 5T 533

"Many professed ministers of the gospel do not accept the whole Bible asthe inspired word. One wise man rejects one portion; another questionsanother part. They set up their judgment as superior to the word; and theScripture which they do teach rests upon their own authority. Its divineauthenticity is destroyed." COL 39

"There are some that think they are fully capable with their finitejudgment to take the Word of God, and to state what are the words ofinspiration, and what are not the words of inspiration. I want to warn you offthat ground, my brethren in the ministry. 'Put off thy shoes from off thy feet,for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground.' There is no finite manthat lives, I care not who he is or whatever his position, that God hasauthorized to pick and choose in His Word. . . .

"Do not let any living man come to you and begin to dissect God's Word,telling what is revelation, what is inspiration and what is not, without a rebuke.. . . We want no one to say, 'This I will reject, and this will I receive,' but wewant to have implicit faith in the Bible as a whole as it is." 7BC 919

C. The Analogy of Scripture

1. "Scripture is Its Own Interpreter"

"The Bible is its own expositor. One passage will prove to be a key thatwill unlock other passages, and in this way light will be shed upon the hiddenmeaning of the word." FE 187

"I saw that the Word of God, as a whole, is a perfect chain, one portionlinking into and explaining another." EW 221

"The Bible is its own expositor. Scripture is to be compared withScripture. The student should learn to view the word as a whole, and to seethe relation of its parts." Ed 190

"The Old Testament sheds light upon the New, and the New upon the Old. Each is a revelation of the glory of God in Christ. Both present truths that willcontinually reveal new depths of meaning to the earnest seeker." COL 128

"The minister of the gospel should gain a thorough knowledge of both theOld and New Testament, that he may present them in their true light to thepeople as an inseparable whole--the one depending upon and illuminating theother."

"Nothing is gained by endeavoring to prove by argument the divine originof the Bible; it is its own expositor. It carries its own keys; Scripture unlocksScripture." MS 40, 1895

"The Bible is its own interpreter. With beautiful simplicity, one portionconnects itself with the truth of another portion, until the whole Bible isblended in one harmonious whole. Light flashes forth from one text to

136

illuminate some portion of the word that has seemed more obscure." UndatedMS 142

"We are not to accept the opinion of commentators as the voice of God;they were erring mortals like ourselves. God has given reasoning powers to usas well as to them. We should make the Bible its own expositor." TM 106

2. The Consistency of Scripture

"But I saw that the word of God, as a whole, is a perfect chain, oneportion linking into and explaining another." EW 221

"There should be a settled belief in the divine authority of God's holyword. The Bible is not to be tested by men's ideas of science. Humanknowledge is an unreliable guide. . . .All truth, whether in nature or inrevelation, is consistent with itself in all its manifestations." PP 114

"Its [the Bible's] great system of truth is not so presented as to bediscerned by the hasty or careless reader. Many of its treasures lie far beneaththe surface, and can be obtained only by diligent research and continuouseffort. The truths that go to make up the great whole must be searched out andgathered up, 'here a little, and there a little.'

"When thus searched out and bought together, they will be found to beperfectly fitted to one another. Each Gospel is a supplement to the others,every prophecy an explanation of another, every truth a development of someother truth." Ed 123-4

3. The Clarity of Scripture

"The Bible was not written for the scholar alone; on the contrary, it wasdesigned for the common people. The great truths necessary for salvation aremade as clear as noonday; and none will mistake and lose their way exceptthose who follow their own judgment instead of the plainly revealed will ofGod." SC 89

"The language of the Bible should be explained according to its obviousmeaning, unless a symbol or figure is employed." GC 599

"The truths most plainly revealed in the Bible have been involved in doubtand darkness by learned men, who with a pretense of great wisdom, teach thatthe Scriptures have a mystical, a secret, spiritual meaning not apparent in thelanguage employed. These men are false teachers." GC 598

"No one is to put truth to the torture by cheap imaginings, by putting aforced, mystical construction upon the Word." 7BC 920

"Even the prophets who were favored with the special illumination of theSpirit did not fully comprehend the import of the revelations committed tothem. The meaning was to be unfolded from age to age, as the people of Godshould need the instruction therein contained." GC 344

D. "Spiritual Things are Spiritually Discerned"

1. The Role of the Holy Spirit

"A true knowledge of the Bible can be gained only through the aid of theSpirit by whom the word was given." Ed 189

"The deep meaning of the truths of God's Word is unfolded to our mindsby His Spirit." 8T 157

"Every student, as opens the Scriptures, should ask for the enlightenmentof the Holy Spirit; and the promise is sure that it will be given." TM 108

"Yet the fact that God has revealed His will to men through His word, hasnot rendered needless the continued presence and guiding of the Holy Spirit.

137

On the contrary, the Spirit was promised by our Saviour, to open the word toHis servants, to illuminate and apply its teachings." GC vii

"Without the guidance of the Holy Spirit, we shall be continually liable towrest the Scriptures or to misinterpret them." 5T 704

"Without the enlightenment of the Spirit, men will not be able todistinguish truth from error, and they will fall under the masterful temptationsof Satan." COL 411

2. The Spiritual Life of the Interpreter

"We shall advance in true spiritual knowledge only as we realize our ownlittleness and our entire dependence upon God; but all who come to the Biblewith a teachable and prayerful spirit, to study its utterances as the Word ofGod, will receive divine enlightenment. There are many things apparentlydifficult or obscure which God will make plain and simple to those who thusseek an understanding of them." 5T 704

"Whenever the study of the Scriptures is entered upon without a prayerful,humble, teachable spirit, the plainest and simplest as well as the most difficultpassages will be wrested from their true meaning." GC 521

"No man is safe for a day or an hour without prayer. Especially shouldwe entreat the Lord for wisdom to understand His word. Here are revealedthe wiles of the tempter and the means by which he may be successfullyresisted. Satan is an expert in quoting Scripture, placing his own interpretationupon passages, by which he hopes to cause us to stumble. We should studythe Bible with humility of heart, never losing sight of our dependance uponGod. While we must constantly guard against the devices of Satan, we shouldpray in faith continually: 'Lead us not into temptation.'" GC 530

"One reason why many theologians have no clearer understanding ofGod's word is, they close their eyes to truths which they do not wish topractice. An understanding of Bible truth depends not so much on the powerof intellect brought to the search as on the singleness of purpose, the earnestlonging after righteousness.

"The Bible should never be studied without prayer. The Holy Spirit alonecan cause us to feel the importance of those things easy to understand, orprevent us from wresting truths difficult of comprehension. It is the office ofthe heavenly angels to prepare the heart so to comprehend God's word that weshall be charmed with its beauty, admonished by its warnings, or animated andstrengthened by its promises." GC 599-600

"The spirit in which you come to the investigation of the Scriptures, willdetermine the character of the assistant at your side. Angels from the world oflight will be with those who in humility of heart seek for divine guidance. Butif the Bible is opened with irreverence, with a feeling of self-sufficiency, if theheart is filled with prejudice, Satan is beside you, and he will set the plainstatements of God's word in a perverted light." TM 108.

"When the word of God is opened without reverence and without prayer;when the thoughts and affections are not fixed upon God, or in harmony withhis will, the mind is clouded with doubts; and in the very study of the Bible,skepticism strengthens. The enemy takes control of the thoughts, and hesuggests interpretations that are not correct. Whenever men are not in wordand deed seeking to be in harmony with God, then, however learned they maybe, they are liable to err in their understanding of Scripture, and it is not safeto trust to their explanations. Those who look to the Scriptures to finddiscrepancies, have not spiritual insight. With distorted vision they will seemany causes for doubt and unbelief in things that are really plain and simple." SC 110-111 705

138

"When we are truly seeking to do God's will, the Holy Spirit takes theprecepts of his word, and makes them the principles of the life, writing themon the tablets of the soul. And it is only those who are following the lightalready given that can hope to receive the further illumination of the Spirit." 5T 705

"The Bible student must empty himself of every prejudice, lay his ownideas at the door of investigation, and with humble, subdued heart, with selfhid in Christ, with earnest prayer, he should seek wisdom from God." CT 463

"God has not passed His people by, and chosen one solitary man here andanother there as the only ones worthy to be entrusted with His truth. He doesnot give one man new light contrary to the established faith of the body. . . .

Let none be self-confident, as though God had given them special lightabove their brethren." CW 45

"The only safety for any of us is in receiving no new doctrine, no newinterpretation of the Scriptures, without first submitting it to brethren ofexperience. Lay it before them in a humble, teachable spirit, with earnestprayer; and if they see no light in it, yield to their judgment; for 'in themultitude of counselors there is safety.'" 5T 293

"Men must themselves be under the influence of the Holy Spirit in orderto understand the Spirit's utterances through the prophets." 2SM 114

III. Specific Guidelines for Biblical Interpretation

A. Text and Translation

"The Bible is the most ancient and the most comprehensive history that menpossess. It came fresh from the Fountain of eternal truth, and throughout the agesa divine hand has preserved its purity." CT 52

"God had faithful witnesses, to whom He committed the truth, and whopreserved the Word of God. The manuscripts of the Hebrew and Greek Scriptureshave been preserved through the ages by a miracle of God." Letter 32, 1899.

"But the Lord has preserved this Holy Book by His own miraculous power inits present shape--a chart or guidebook to the human family to show them the wayto heaven." 1 SM 16

"I saw that God had especially guarded the Bible; yet when copies of it werefew, learned men had in some instances changed the words, thinking that they weremaking it more plain, when in reality they were mystifying that which was plain, bycausing it to lean to their established views, which were governed by tradition."EW 220-221

"Some look to us gravely and say, 'Don't you think there might have beensome mistake in the copyist or in the translators?' This is all probable, and themind that is so narrow that it will hesitate and stumble over this possibility orprobability would be just as ready to stumble over the mysteries of the InspiredWord, because their feeble minds cannot see through the purposes of God. . . .Allthe mistakes will not cause trouble to one soul, or cause any feet to stumble, thatwould not manufacture difficulties from the plainest revealed truth." 1SM 16

B. Historical Context/Questions of Introduction

"The lives recorded in the Bible are authentic histories of actual individuals. From Adam down through the successive generations to the times of the apostleswe have a plain, unvarnished account of what actually occurred and the genuineexperience of real characters." 4T 9-10

"The Bible is the most ancient and the most comprehensive history menpossess. It came fresh from the fountain of eternal truth, and throughout the ages a

139

divine hand has preserved its purity. It lights up the far-distant past where humanresearch in vain seeks to penetrate. In God's Word alone do be behold the powerthat laid the foundations of the earth and that stretched out the heavens. Here onlydo we find an authentic account of the origin of nations. Here only is given ahistory of our race unsullied by human pride or prejudice." Ed 173

"The greatest minds, if not guided by the word of God in their research,become bewildered in their attempts to trace the relations of science and revelation.. . . Those who doubt the reliability of the records of the Old and New Testaments,will be led to go a step further, and doubt the existence of God; and then, havinglost their anchor, they are left to beat about upon the rocks of infidelity." PP 113

"We are dependent upon the Bible for a knowledge of the early history of ourworld, of the creation of man, and of his fall. Remove the Word of God, and whatcan we expect than to be left to fables and conjectures, and to that enfeebling of theintellect which is the sure result of entertaining error. . . . But having in ourpossession an authentic history of the beginning of our world, we need not hamperourselves with human conjectures and unreliable theories." MM 89

"An understanding of the customs of those who lived in Bible times, of thelocation and time of events, is practical knowledge; for it aids in making clear thefigures of the Bible and in bringing out the force of Christ's lessons." CT 518

"There is not always perfect order or apparent unity in the Scriptures. Themiracles of Christ are not given in exact order, but are given just as thecircumstances occurred, which called for this divine revealing of the power ofChrist." 1 SM 20

"Understanding what the words of Jesus meant to those who heard them, wemay discern in them a new vividness and beauty, and may also gather for ourselvestheir deeper lessons." MB 1

"He [Jesus] did not make new revelations to men, but opened to theirunderstanding truths that had long been obscured or misplaced through the falseteaching of the priests and teachers. Jesus replaced the gems of truth in theirproper setting, in the order in which they had been given to the patriarchs andprophets." CT 462

C. Literary Context/Analysis

"The Bible points to God as its author; yet it was written by human hands; andin the varied style of its different books it presents the characteristics of the severalwriters. . . .

"Written in different ages, by men who differed widely in rank andoccupation, and in mental and spiritual endowments, the books of the Bible presenta wide contrast in style, as well as a diversity in the nature of the subjects unfolded. Different forms of expression are employed by different writers. . . ." GC vi

"The Lord gave His word in just the way He wanted it to come. He gave itthrough different writers, each having his own individuality, though going over thesame history. Their testimonies are brought together in one Book, and are liketestimonies in a social meeting. They do not represent things in just the same style. Each has an experience of his own, and this diversity broadens and deepens theknowledge that is brought out to meet the necessities of varied minds. The thoughtsexpressed have not a set uniformity, as if cast in an iron mold, making the veryhearing monotonous. In such uniformity there would be a loss of grace anddistinctive beauty." 1 SM 22-23

"The earliest as well as the most sublime of poetic utterances known to manare found in the Scriptures. Before the oldest of the world's poets had sung, theshepherd of Midian recorded those words of God to Job--in their majestyunequaled, unapproached, by the loftiest productions of human genius [Job 38:4-27, 31,32, cited].

140

"For beauty of expression, read also the description of springtime, from theSong of Songs [Cant 2:11-13 cited].

"And not inferior in beauty is Balaam's unwilling prophecy of blessing toIsrael [Num. 23:7-23; 24:4-6, 16-19 cited]." Ed 159-161.

"Help them [the Bible student] to appreciate its [the Bible's] wonderful beauty. Many books of no real value, books that are exciting and unhealthful arerecommended, or at least permitted to be used, because of their supposed literaryvalue. Why should we direct our children to drink of these polluted streams whenthey may have access to the pure fountain of the word of God? The Bible has afullness, a strength, a depth of meaning, that is inexhaustible. Encourage thechildren and youth to seek out its treasures both of thought and of expression." Ed188

"The outward beauty of the Bible, the beauty of imagery and expression, is butthe setting, as it were, for its real treasure--the beauty of holiness." Ed 192

"The Bible is made up of many parts,--history, biography, song and praise,prayer, and prophecy. But all is inspired of God. . . . In the term 'scripture' isincluded the whole treasure house of revelation and knowledge, in whatever form itis given." Undated MS 142

"Every principle in the word of God has its place, every fact its bearing. Andthe complete structure, in design and execution, bears witness to its Author. Such astructure no mind but that of the Infinite could conceive or fashion." Ed 124

D. Verse-by-Verse Analysis (Grammar, Syntax, Word Study)

"In order to sustain erroneous doctrines or unchristian practices, some willseize upon passages of Scripture separated from the context, perhaps quoting halfof a single verse as proving their point, when the remaining portion would show themeaning to be quite the opposite." GC 521

"[Judas] would introduce texts of Scripture that had no connection with thetruths Christ was presenting. These texts, separated from their connection,perplexed the disciples, and increased the discouragement that was constantlypressing upon them." DA 719

"Some will take a text, wrest it from its true bearing, and force it into serviceto sustain some preconceived opinion. By linking together isolated passages ofScripture, they may deceive others. But what appears to be Bible proof for theirposition is no proof whatever; for the Scriptures are not used in their true setting. In this way error is often magnified, and truth diminished." Undated MS 142

"We must be careful lest we misinterpret the Scriptures. The plain teachingsof the Word of God are not to be so spiritualized that the reality is lost sight of. Donot overstrain the meaning of sentences in the Bible in an effort to bring forthsomething odd in order to please the fancy. Take the Scriptures as they read.

"The Bible is not given to us in grand superhuman language. Jesus, in order toreach man where he is, took humanity. The Bible must be given in the language ofmen. Everything that is human is imperfect. Different meanings are expressed bythe same word; there is not one word for each distinct idea. The Bible was givenfor practical purposes." 1SM 20

"Merely to hear or to read the word is not enough. He who desires to beprofited by the Scriptures must meditate upon the truth that has been presented tohim. By earnest attention and prayerful thought he must learn the meaning of thewords of truth, and drink deep of the spirit of the holy oracles." COL 60

E. Theological Context/Analysis

1. Methods of Theological Study

141

"In daily study the verse-by-verse method is often most helpful. Let thestudent take one verse, and concentrate the mind on ascertaining the thoughtthat God has put into that verse for him, and then dwell upon the thought untilit becomes his own. One passage thus studied until its significance is clear ifof more value than the perusal of many chapters with no definite purpose inview and no positive instruction gained." Ed 189

"The Bible is its own expositor. Scripture is to be compared withscripture. The student should learn to view the word as a whole, and to seethe relation of its parts. He should gain a knowledge of its grand centraltheme, of God's original purpose for the world, of the rise of the greatcontroversy, and of the work of redemption. He should understand the natureof the two principles that are contending for supremacy, and should learn totrace their working through the records of history and prophecy, to the greatconsummation." Ed 190

"The central theme of the Bible, the theme about which every other in thewhole book clusters, is the redemption plan, the restoration in the human soulof the image of God. From the first intimation of hope in the sentencepronounced in Eden to that last glorious promise of the Revelation, 'Theyshall see His face; and His name shall be in their foreheads' (Revelation 22:4),the burden of every book and every passage of the Bible is the unfolding ofthis wondrous theme,--man's uplifting,--the power of God, 'which giveth usthe victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.' 1 Corinthians 15:57.

"He who grasps this thought has before him an infinite field of study. Hehas the key that will unlock to him the whole treasure house of God's word." Ed 125-6.

"The Bible is its own expositor. One passage will prove to be a key thatwill unlock other passages, and in this way light will be shed upon the hiddenmeaning of the word. By comparing different texts treating on the samesubject, viewing their bearing on every side, the true meaning of the Scriptureswill be made evident." FE 187

"Make the Bible its own expositor, bringing together all that is saidconcerning a given subject at different times and under varied circumstances." CG 511

"We should not take the testimony of any man as to what the Scripturesteach, but should study the words of God for ourselves. . . . The mind willenlarge if it is employed in tracing out the relation of the subjects of the Bible,comparing scripture with scripture and spiritual things with spiritual. . . .

"Some portions of Scripture are indeed too plain to be misunderstood, butthere others whose meaning does not lie on the surface to be seen as a glance. Scripture must be compared with Scripture. There must be careful researchand prayerful reflection." SC 90-91

"My brother, you have been deceived yourself, and have deceived others. You have not searched the Scriptures in the right way. You must search themto learn the mind of God, not to prove your theory. You read the Word ofGod in the light of your own views. You build up a false structure, and thenbarricade it with texts which you claim prove it to be true; but you pass overthose passages which prove it to be untrue." 2SM 82

"As an educator no part of the Bible is of greater value than are itsbiographies. These biographies differ from all others in that they areabsolutely true to life. It is impossible for any finite mind to interpret rightly,in all things, the workings of another. None but He who reads the hear, whodiscerns the secret springs of motive and action, can with absolute truthdelineate character, or give a faithful picture of a human life. In God's wordalone is found such delineation." Ed 146

2. Problematic Theological Passages

142

"Scriptural difficulties can never be mastered by the same methods that areemployed in grappling with philosophical problems. We should not engage inthe study of the Bible with that self-reliance with which so many enter thedomains of science, but with a prayerful dependence upon God and a sinceredesire to learn His will. We must come with a humble and teachable spirit toobtain knowledge from the great I AM. Otherwise, evil angels will so blindour minds and harden our hearts that we shall not be impressed by the truth." GC 599

"If there was nothing in the Scriptures hard to be understood, man, insearching its pages, would become lifted up in pride and self-sufficiency." 5T533

"Both in divine revelation and in nature, God has given to men mysteriesto command their faith. This must be so. We may be ever searching, everinquiring, ever learning, and yet there is an infinity beyond." 8T 261

"Different forms of expression are employed by different [Bible] writers;often the same truth is more strikingly presented by one than by another. Andas several writers present a subject under varied aspects and relations, theremay appear, to the superficial, careless, or prejudiced reader, to bediscrepancy or contradiction, where the thoughtful, reverent student, withclearer insight, discerns the underlying harmony." GC vi

"Those who take only a surface view of the Scriptures will, with theirsuperficial knowledge, which they think is very deep, talk of the contradictionsof the Bible, and question the authority of the Scriptures. But those whosehearts are in harmony with truth and duty will search the Scriptures with aheart prepared to receive divine impressions. The illuminated soul sees aspiritual unity, one grand golden thread running through the whole, but itrequires patience, thought, and prayer to trace out the precious golden thread." 1 SM 20

"Men of ability have devoted a lifetime of study and prayer to thesearching of the Scriptures, and yet there are many portions of the Bible thathave not been fully explored. Some passages of Scripture will never beperfectly comprehended until in the future life Christ will explain them. Thereare mysteries to be unraveled, statements that human minds cannotharmonize." GW 312

3. Scriptures Pointing Beyond Themselves

a. Predictive Prophecy

"That which God purposed to do for the world through Israel, thechosen nation, He will finally accomplish through His church on earthtoday. He has 'let out His vineyard unto other husbandmen,' even to Hiscovenant-keeping people, who faithfully 'render Him the fruits in theirseasons.' Never has the Lord been without true representatives on thisearth who have made His interests their own. These witnesses for Godare numbered among the spiritual Israel, and to them will be fulfilled allthe covenant promises made by Jehovah to His ancient people." PK 713-714

"There are but very few who are readers and searchers of theScriptures, who compare the prophecies of the Old Testament with thestatements of the New, and by searching find the key that unlocks thetreasure house of heaven." MS 67, 1898

"Even the prophets who were favored with the special illumination ofthe Spirit did not fully comprehend the import of the revelationscommitted to them. The meaning was to be unfolded from age to age as

143

the people of God should need the instructions therein contained." GC344

"There is need of a much closer study of the word of God; especiallyshould Daniel and the Revelation have attention as never before in thehistory of our work. . . . Read the book of Daniel. Call up, point bypoint, the history of the kingdoms there represented. . . ." TM 112

"The light that Daniel received from God was given especially forthese last days. The visions he saw by the banks of the Ulai and theHiddekel, the great rivers of Shinar, are now in process of fulfillment, andall the events foretold will soon come to pass.

. . . .The book of Revelation opens with an injunction to us tounderstand the instruction that it contains. . . . When we as a peopleunderstand what this book means to us, there will be seen among us agreat revival. . . ." TM 113

"When the books of Daniel and Revelation are better understood,believers will have an entirely different religious experience. They will begiven such glimpses of the open gates of heaven that heart and mind willbe impressed with the character that all must develop in order to realizethe blessedness which is to be the reward of the pure in heart.

"The Lord will bless all who will seek humbly and meekly tounderstand that which is revealed in the Revelation. This book contains somuch that is large with immortality and full of glory that all who read andsearch it earnestly receive the blessing to those 'that hear the words of thisprophecy, and keep those things which are written therein.'" TM 114

"The great waymarks of truth, showing us our bearings in prophetichistory, are to be carefully guarded, lest they be torn down, and bereplaced with theories that would bring confusion rather than genuinelight. . . .The prophecies of Daniel and John are to be diligently studied. .. .

"The Scripture is all true, but by misapplying the Scripture menarrive at wrong conclusions. . . . Some will take the truth applicable totheir time, and place it in the future. Events in the train of prophecy thathad their fulfillment away in the past are made future, and thus by thesetheories the faith of some is undermined." 2SM 101-102

b/c. Typology and Symbolism

"The whole system of types and symbols was a compacted prophecyof the gospel, a presentation in which were bound up the promises ofredemption." AA 14

"The Jewish economy, bearing the signature of Heaven, had beeninstituted by Christ Himself. In types and symbols the great truths ofredemption were veiled." COL 105

"But it was necessary for them [the disciples on the way to Emmaus]to understand the witness borne to Him by the types and prophecies of theOld Testament. Upon these their faith must be established." DA 799

"Christ Himself was the originator of the Jewish system of worship,in which, by types and symbols, were shadowed forth spiritual andheavenly things." 7BC 933

"The tabernacle, or temple, of God on earth was a pattern of theoriginal in heaven. All the ceremonies of the Jewish law were prophetic,typical of mysteries in the plan of redemption." 6BC 1095

"And what was done in type in the ministration of the earthlysanctuary is done in reality in the ministration of the heavenly sanctuary." GC 420

144

"In the typical system, which was a shadow of the sacrifice andpriesthood of Christ, the cleansing of the sanctuary was the last serviceperformed by the high priest in the yearly round of ministration. It wasthe closing work of the atonement--a removal or putting away of sin fromIsrael. It prefigured the closing work in the ministration of our HighPriest in heaven, in the removal or blotting out of the sins of His people,which are registered in the heavenly records." GC 352

"[In the schools of the prophets] The great truths set forth by thetypes were brought to view, and faith grasped the central object of all thatsystem--the Lamb of God that was to take away the sin of the world." PP594

"The ceremonial system was made up of symbols pointing to Christ,to His sacrifice and His priesthood. This ritual law, with its sacrifices andordinances, was to be performed by the Hebrews until type met antitype inthe death of Christ, the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of theworld." PP 365

"The types of the Jewish economy are made plain by the gospel." Ed124

"The significance of the Jewish economy is not yet fullycomprehended. Truths vast and profound are shadowed forth in its ritesand symbols. The gospel is the key that unlocks its mysteries. Through aknowledge of the plan of redemption, its truths are opened to theunderstanding." COL 133

"The language of the Bible should be explained according to itsobvious meaning, unless a symbol or a figure is employed." GC 599

"Others, who have an active imagination, seize upon the figures andsymbols of Holy Writ, interpret to suit their fancy, with little regard to thetestimony of Scripture as its own interpreter, and then they present theirvagaries as the teachings of God's word." 4SP 344

d. Parables

"Jesus taught by illustrations and parables drawn from nature andfrom the familiar events of everyday life. . . . In this way He associatednatural things with spiritual, linking the things of nature and the lifeexperience of His hearers with the sublime truths of the written word. And whenever afterward their eyes rested on the objects with which Hehas associated eternal truth, His lessons were repeated." CT 140

"Natural things were the medium for the spiritual; the things of natureand the life-experience of His hearers were connected with the truths ofthe written word. Leading thus from the natural to the spiritual kingdom,Christ's parables are links in the chain of truth that unites man with God,and earth with heaven." COL 17-18

"Jesus desired to awaken inquiry. He sought to arouse the careless,and impress truth upon the heart. Parable teaching was popular, andcommanded the respect ant attention, not only of the Jews, but of thepeople of other nations. No more effective method of instruction couldHe have employed." COL 21

F. Contemporary Application

"If you read the Bible carefully, you will see what reformation is needed inyourself in order for you to be a faithful shepherd of the flock of Christ. Comparescripture with scripture, and then open your own heart. Gain light yourself andthen from an experimental knowledge, you can set before the people of God whatconstitutes Christian character." Letter 13, 1888

145

"In order to be benefitted by the reading of the words of Christ, we must madea right application of them to our individual cases." MM 37

"We should carefully study the Bible, asking God for the aid of the HolySpirit, that we may understand His word. We should take one verse, andconcentrate the mind on the task of ascertaining the thought which God has put inthat verse for us. We should dwell upon the thought until it becomes our own, andwe know 'what saith the Lord.'

In His promises and warnings, Jesus means me. God so loved the world, thatHe gave His only-begotten Son, that I by believing in Him, might not perish, buthave everlasting life. The experiences related in God's word are to be myexperiences. Prayer and promise, precept and warning, are mine. . . . As faiththus receives and assimilates the principles of truth, they become part of the beingand the motive power of the life. The word of God, received into the soul, moldsthe thoughts, and enters into the development of character." DA 390-391

"O, it makes every difference with those who study the Scriptures as to whatan how they shall understand the word, whether they eat it or not. The word ofGod, if eaten, will give spiritual sinew and muscle. Those who eat and digest thisword will practice it. Their eyes, anointed with the heavenly eye salve will seeother lessons in the holy word than those seen by readers whose hearts are notcleansed, refined, and elevated." Letter 34, 1896

"Let us in imagination go back to that scene, and, as we sit with the discipleson the mountainside, enter into the thoughts and feelings that filled their hearts." MB 1

"Merely to read the instruction given in the word of God is not enough. Weare to read with meditation and prayer, filled with an earnest desire to be helpedand blessed. And the truth we learn must be applied to the daily experience." Letter 69, 1901

"Let God's servants preach a 'Thus saith the Lord.' Let them becomeacquainted with His instructions, reading and studying every sentence, every word,with softened, subdued hearts drawing near to God, that the Comforter may teachthem. Christ's teachings are our lessons for today, our lessons for tomorrow. Themore frequently they are studied, the better will they be understood." Ms 22, 1890

IV. The History of Biblical Interpretation

A. The Inner-Biblical Hermeneutic

"Intent on maintaining the separation between themselves and other nations,they [the Jews at the time of Jesus' first advent] were unwilling to impart theknowledge they still possessed concerning the symbolic service. The trueInterpreter must come. The One whom all these types prefigured must explaintheir significance. . . . He, the Author of truth, must separate truth from the chaffof man's utterance, which had made it of no effect. The principles of God'sgovernment and the plan of redemption must be clearly defined. The lessons of theOld Testament must be fully set before men." DA 33-34.

"The disciples traveling to Emmaus needed to be disentangled in theirinterpretation of the Scriptures. Jesus. . . opened their understanding that theymight understand the Scriptures. How quickly He straightened out the tangled endsand showed the unity and divine verity of the Scriptures. How much men in thesetimes need their understanding opened." 1 SM 21

"After His resurrection Jesus appeared to His disciples on the way to Emmaus,and 'beginning at Moses and all the prophets, He expounded unto them in all theScriptures the things concerning Himself.' Luke 24:27. The hearts of the discipleswere stirred. Faith was kindled. They were 'begotten again unto a lively hope'even before Jesus revealed Himself to them. It was His purpose to enlighten their

146

understanding and to fasten their hope upon the 'sure word of prophecy.' Hewished the truth to take firm root in their minds, not merely because it wassupported by His personal testimony, but because of the unquestionable evidencepresented by the symbols and shadows of the typical law, and by the prophecies ofthe Old Testament. It was needful for the followers of Christ to have an intelligentfaith, not only in their own behalf, but that they might carry the knowledge ofChrist to the world. And as the very first step in imparting this knowledge, Jesusdirected the disciples to 'Moses and all the prophets.' Such was the testimony givenby the risen Saviour to the value and importance of the Old Testament Scriptures." GC 349

B. Early Jewish Biblical Hermeneutics

"The rabbis spoke with doubt and hesitancy, as if the Scriptures might beinterpreted to mean one thing or exactly the opposite. The hearers were dailyinvolved in greater uncertainty. But Jesus taught the Scriptures as ofunquestionable authority." DA 253

"They [the leaders in Israel at the time of Jesus] studied the Scriptures only tosustain their traditions and enforce their man-made observances. By theirinterpretation they made them express sentiments that God had never given. Theirmystical construction made indistinct that which He had made plain. They disputedover technicalities and practically denied the most essential truths. God's word wasrobbed of its power, and evil spirits worked their will." CT 439

C. Early Christian Hermeneutics

"Almost imperceptibly the customs of heathenism found their way into theChristian church. The spirit of compromise and conformity was restrained for atime by the fierce persecutions which the church endured under paganism. But aspersecution ceased, and Christianity entered the courts and palaces of kings, shelaid aside the humble simplicity of Christ and His apostles for the pomp and prideof pagan priests and rulers; and in place of the requirements of God, she substitutedhuman theories and traditions." GC 49-50

D. Medieval Hermeneutics

"Satan well knew that the Holy Scriptures would enable men to discern hisdeceptions and withstand his power. . . . In order for Satan to maintain his swayover men, and establish the authority of the papal usurper, he must keep them inignorance of the Scriptures. The Bible would exalt God and place finite men intheir true position; therefore its sacred truths must be concealed and suppressed. This logic was adopted by the Roman Church. For hundreds of years thecirculation of the Bible was prohibited. The people were forbidden to read it or tohave it in their houses, and unprincipled priests and prelates interpreted itsteachings to sustain their pretensions." GC 51

"In lands beyond the jurisdiction of Rome there existed for many centuriesbodies of Christians who remained almost wholly free from papal corruption. Theywere surrounded by heathenism and in the lapse of ages were affected by its errors;but they continued to regard the Bible as the only rule of faith and adhered to manyof its truths." GC 63

"The Vaudois churches, in their purity and simplicity, resembled the church ofapostolic times. Rejecting the supremacy of the pope and prelate, they held theBible as the only supreme, infallible authority." GC 68

E. Reformation Hermeneutics and the Historical-Grammatical Method

147

"He (John Wycliffe) saw that Rome had forsaken the word of God for humantradition; he fearlessly accused the priesthood of having banished the Scriptures,and demanded that the Bible be restored to the people and that its authority be againestablished in the church." GC 81

"Wycliffe now (following his English translation of the Bible) taught thedistinctive doctrines of Protestantism--salvation through faith in Christ, and the soleinfallibility of the Scriptures. . . . Wycliffe accepted the Holy Scriptures withimplicit faith as the inspired revelation of God's will, a sufficient rule of faith andpractice. He had been educated to regard the Church of Rome as the divine,infallible authority, and to accept with unquestioning reverence the establishedteachings and customs of a thousand years; but he turned away from all these tolisten to God's holy word. This was the authority which he urged the people toacknowledge. Instead of the church speaking through the pope, he declared theonly true authority to be the voice of God speaking through His word. And hetaught not only that the Bible is a perfect revelation of God's will, but that the HolySpirit is its only interpreter, and that every man is, by the study of its teachings, tolearn his duty for himself. Thus he turned the minds of men from the pope and theChurch of Rome to the word of God." GC 89,93

"Zealous, ardent, and devoted, knowing no fear but the fear of God, andacknowledging no foundation for religious faith but the Holy Scriptures, Lutherwas the man for his time. . . ." GC 120

"He [Luther after receiving his Doctor of Divinity degree] firmly declared thatChristians should receive no other doctrines than those which rest on the authorityof the Sacred Scriptures. These words struck at the very foundation of papalsupremacy. They contained the vital principle of the Reformation.

"Luther saw the danger of exalting human theories above the word of God. He fearlessly attacked the speculative infidelity of the schoolmen and opposed thephilosophy and theology which had so long held a controlling influence upon thepeople. He denounced such studies as not only worthless but pernicious, andsought to turn the minds of his hearers from the sophistries of philosophers andtheologians to the eternal truths set forth by prophets and apostles." GC 126

"To a friend of the Reformation Luther wrote: 'We cannot attain to theunderstanding of Scripture either by study or by the intellect. Your first duty is tobegin by prayer. Entreat the Lord to grant you, of His great mercy, the trueunderstanding of His word. There is no other interpreter of the word of God thanthe Author of this word, "They shall be all taught of God." . . .'

"When enemies appealed to custom and tradition, or to the assertions andauthority of the pope, Luther met them with the Bible and the Bible only." GC 132

"He [Zwingli] submitted himself to the Bible as the word of God, the onlysufficient, infallible rule. He saw that it must be its own interpreter. He dared notattempt to explain Scripture to sustain a preconceived theory or doctrine, but held ithis duty to learn what is its direct and obvious teaching. He sought to avail himselfof every help to obtain a full and correct understanding of its meaning, and heinvoked the aid of the Holy Spirit, which would, he declared, reveal it to all whosought it in sincerity and with prayer."

"'The Scriptures,' said Zwingli, 'come from God, not from man, and even thatGod who enlightens will give thee to understand that the speech comes from God. The word of God. . . cannot fail; it is bright, it teaches itself, it disclosed itself, itillumines the soul with all salvation and grace, comforts it in God, humbles it, sothat it loses and even forfeits itself, and embraces God.' The truth of these wordsZwingli himself had proved. Speaking of his experience at this time, he afterwardwrote: 'When. . . I began to give myself wholly up to the Holy Scriptures,philosophy and theology (scholastic) would always keep suggesting quarrels to me. At last I came to this, that I thought, "Thou must let all that lie, and learn themeaning of God purely out of His own simple word." Then I began to ask God forHis light, and the Scriptures began to be much easier to me.'" GC 173-4

148

"They [the Muenzerite false prophets in sixteenth-century Germany] rejectedthe great principle which was the very foundation of the Reformation--that the wordof God is the all-sufficient rule of faith and practice; and for that unerring guidethey substituted the changeable, uncertain standard of their own feelings andimpressions. By this act of setting aside the great detector of error and falsehoodthe way was opened for Satan to control minds as best pleased himself." GC 186

"Fearlessly did Luther defend the gospel from the attacks which came fromevery quarter. The word of God proved itself a weapon mighty in every conflict. With that word he warred against the usurped authority of the pope, and therationalistic philosophy of the schoolmen, while he stood firm as a rock against thefanaticism that sought to ally itself with the Reformation.

"Each of these opposing elements was in its own way setting aside the HolyScriptures and exalting human wisdom as the source of religious truth andknowledge. Rationalism idolizes reason and makes this the criterion for religion. Romanism, claiming for her sovereign pontiff an inspiration descended in unbrokenline from the apostles, and unchangeable through all time, gives ample opportunityfor every species of extravagance and corruption to be concealed under the sanctityof the apostolic commission. The inspiration claimed by Munzer and his associatesproceeded from no higher source than the vagaries of the imagination, and itsinfluence was subversive of all authority, human or divine. True Christianityreceives the word of God as the great treasure house of inspired truth and the testof all inspiration." GC 193

"'What! We [the protesting princes at the Diet of Spires] ratify this edict!. . . There is no sure doctrine but such as is conformable to the Word of God. . . . TheLord forbids the teaching of any other doctrine. . . . The Holy Scriptures ought tobe explained by other and clearer texts; . . . this Holy Book is, in all thingsnecessary for the Christian, easy of understanding, and calculated to scatter thedarkness. We are resolved, with the grace of God, to maintain the pure andexclusive preaching of His only word, such as it is contained in the Biblical booksof the Old and New Testaments, without adding anything thereto that may becontrary to it. This word is the only truth; it is the sure rule of all doctrine and ofall life, and can never fail or deceive us. He who builds on this foundation shallstand against all the powers of hell, while all the human vanities that are set upagainst it shall fall before the face of God.'" GC 203

"In the presence of the monarchs and the leading men of Sweden, Olaf Petriwith great ability defended the doctrines of the reformed faith against the Romishchampions. He declared that the teachings of the Fathers are to be received onlywhen in accordance with the Scriptures; that the essential doctrines of the faith arepresented in the Bible in a clear and simple manner, so that all men my understandthem. . . . He showed that the decrees of the church are of no authority when inopposition to the commands of God, and maintained the great Protestant principlethat 'the Bible and the Bible only' is the rule of faith and practice." GC 243

"The grand principle maintained by these [later English] Reformers--the samethat had been held by the Waldenses, by Wycliffe, by John Huss, by Luther,Zwingli, and those who united with them--was the infallible authority of the HolyScriptures as a rule of faith and practice. . . . The Bible was their authority, and byits teaching they tested all doctrines and all claims." GC 249

"Said Mary [Queen of Scotland]: 'Ye [John Knox] interpret the Scriptures inone manner, and they [the Roman Catholic teachers] interpret in another; whomshall I believe, and who shall be judge?'

'Ye shall believe God, that plainly speaketh in His word,' answered theReformer; 'and farther than the word teaches you, ye neither shall believe the onenor the other. The word of God is plain in itself; and if there appear any obscurityin one place, the Holy Ghost, which is never contrary to Himself, explains thesame more clearly in other places, so that there can remain no doubt but unto suchas obstinately remain ignorant.'" GC 251

149

F. The Enlightenment Hermeneutic and the Historical-Critical Method

"The war against the Bible, carried forward for so many centuries in France,culminated in the scenes of the Revolution. That terrible outbreaking was but thelegitimate result of Rome's suppression of the Scriptures." GC 265

"Rome had misrepresented the character of God and perverted Hisrequirements, and now [in the French Revolution] men rejected both the Bible andits Author. She had required blind faith in her dogmas, under the pretendedsanction of the Scriptures. In the reaction, Voltaire and his associates cast asideGod's word altogether and spread everywhere the poison of infidelity. . . .

When error in one garb has been detected, Satan only masks it in a differentdisguise, and multitudes receive it as eagerly as at the first. When the people foundRomanism to be a deception, and he could not through this agency lead them totransgression of God's law, he urged them to regard all religion as a cheat, and theBible as a fable; and casting aside the divine statutes, they gave themselves up tounbridled iniquity." GC 281,285

"For the fifty years preceding 1792, little attention was given to the work offoreign missions. . . . But toward the close of the eighteenth century a great changetook place. Men became dissatisfied with the results of rationalism and realized thenecessity of divine revelation and experimental religion. From this time the workof foreign missions attained an unprecedented growth." GC 288

"The Protestant churches in America,--and those of Europe as well,--so highlyfavored in receiving the blessings of the Reformation, failed to press forward in thepath of reform. Though a few faithful men arose, from time to time, to proclaimnew truth and expose long-cherished error, the majority, like the Jews in Christ'sday of the papists in the time of Luther, were content to believe as their fathers hadbelieved and to live as they had lived. Therefore religion again degenerated intoformalism; and errors and superstitions which would have been cast aside had thechurch continued to walk in the light of God's word, were retained and cherished. Thus the spirit inspired by the Reformation gradually died out, until there wasalmost as great need of reform in the Protestant churches as in the Roman Churchas the time of Luther. . . .

"The wide circulation of the Bible in the early part of the nineteenth century,and the great light thus shed upon the world, was not followed by a correspondingadvance in knowledge of revealed truth, or in experimental religion. Satan couldnot, as in former ages, keep God's word from the people; it had been place withinthe reach of all; but in order still to accomplish his object, he led many to value itbut lightly. Men neglected to search the Scriptures, and thus they continued toaccept false interpretations, and to cherish doctrines which had no foundation in theBible." GC 298

"Many are teaching for doctrine the commandments of men; and theirassertions are taken as truth. The people have received man-made theories. So thegospel is perverted and the Scriptures misapplied. . . . Men's theories andsuppositions are honored before the Word of the Lord God of hosts. The truth iscounteracted by error. The word of God is wrested, divided, and distorted byhigher criticism [the historical-critical method]. . . .

"When men talk of higher criticism; when they pass their judgment upon theword of God, call their attention to the fact that they have forgotten who was thefirst and wisest critic. He has had thousands of years of practical experience. He itis who teaches the so-called higher critics of the world today. God will punish allthose who, as higher critics, exalt themselves, and criticize God's Holy Word." The Bible Echo, Feb. 1, 1897, pp. 34-35.

"Even Bible study, as too often conducted in the schools, is robbing the worldof the priceless treasure of the word of God. The work of 'higher criticism,' indissecting, conjecturing, reconstructing, is destroying faith in the Bible as a divine

150

revelation; it is robbing God's word of power to control, uplift, and inspire humanlives." Ed 227

"What is the condition in the world today? Is not faith in the Bible aseffectually destroyed by the 'higher criticism' and speculation of today as it was bytradition and rabbinism in the days of Christ?" MH 142

"As in the days of the apostles men tried by tradition and philosophy to destroyfaith in the Scriptures, so today, by the pleasing sentiments of higher criticism,evolution, spiritualism, theosophy, and pantheism, the enemy of righteousness isseeking to lead souls into forbidden paths. To many the Bible is as a lamp withoutoil, because they have turned their minds into channels of speculative belief thatbring misunderstanding and confusion. The work of higher criticism, in dissecting,conjecturing, reconstructing, is destroying faith in the Bible as a divine revelation. It is robbing God's word of power to control, uplift, and inspire human lives." AA474

"The position that is of no consequence what men believe is one of Satan'smost successful deceptions. . . . Elijah, Jeremiah, Paul, firmly and fearlesslyopposed those who were turning men from the word of God. That liberality whichregards a correct religious faith as unimportant found no favor with these holydefenders of the truth. . . . By the cry, Liberality, men are blinded to the devices oftheir adversary, while he is all the time working steadily for the accomplishment ofhis object. As he succeeds in supplanting the Bible by human speculations, the lawof God is set aside, and the churches are under the bondage of sin while they claimto be free." GC 520,522

"God's holy word, which has been handed down to us at such a cost ofsuffering and blood, is but little valued. The Bible is within the reach of all, butthere are few who really accept it as the guide of life. Infidelity prevails to analarming extent, not in the world merely, but in the church. Many have come todeny doctrines which are the very pillars of the Christian faith. The great facts ofcreation as presented by the inspired writers, the fall of man, the atonement, andthe perpetuity of the law of God, are practically rejected, either wholly or in part,by a large share of the professedly Christian world. Thousands who pridethemselves upon their wisdom and independence regard it an evidence of weaknessto place implicit confidence in the Bible; they think it a proof of superior talent andlearning to cavil at the Scriptures and to spiritualize and explain away their mostimportant truths." GC 583

H. Bible-Based Hermeneutics in the Advent Movement

"He [William Miller] determined to study the Scriptures for himself, andascertain if every apparent contradiction could not be harmonized.

"Endeavoring to lay aside all preconceived opinions , and dispensing withcommentaries, he compared scripture with scripture by the aid of the marginalreferences and the concordance. He pursued his study in a regular and methodicalmanner; beginning with Genesis, and reading verse by verse, he proceeded nofaster than the meaning of the several passages so unfolded as to leave him freefrom all embarrassment. When he found anything obscure, it was his custom tocompare it with every other text which seemed to have any reference to the matterunder consideration. Every word was permitted to have its proper bearing upon thesubject of the text, and if his view of it harmonized with every collateral passage, itceased to be a difficulty. Thus whenever he met with a passage hard to beunderstood he found an explanation in some other portion of the Scriptures. As hestudied with earnest prayer for divine enlightenment, that which had beforeappeared dark to his understanding was made clear. He experienced the truth ofthe psalmist's words: 'The entrance of Thy words giveth light; it givethunderstanding unto the simple.' Psalm 119:130

151

"With intense interest he studied the books of Daniel and the Revelation,employing the same principles of interpretation as in the other scriptures, andfound, to his great joy, that the prophetic symbols could be understood. He sawthat the prophecies, so far as they had been fulfilled, had been fulfilled literally,that all the various figures, metaphors, parables, similitudes, etc., were eitherexplained in their immediate connection, or the terms in which they were expressedwere defined in the other scriptures, and when thus explained, were to be literallyunderstood. 'I was thus satisfied,' he says, 'that the Bible is a system of revealedtruths, so clearly and simply given that the wayfaring man, though a fool, need noterr therein.'" GC 320-321

"It [the Great Disappointment of 1844] would teach them [the Millerites], asonly such an experience could, the danger of accepting the theories andinterpretations of men, instead of making the Bible its own interpreter. . . . Theywould be taught to examine more carefully the foundation of their faith, and toreject everything, however widely accepted by the Christian world, that was notfounded upon the Scriptures of truth." GC 354

"Those who are engaged in proclaiming the third angel's message aresearching the Scriptures upon the same plan that Father Miller adopted. In the littlebook entitled 'Views of the Prophecies and Prophetic Chronology,' Father Millergives the following simple but intelligent and important rules for Bible study andinterpretation:--

'1. Every word must have its proper bearing on the subject presented in theBible; 2. All Scripture is necessary, and may be understood by diligent applicationand study; 3. Nothing revealed in Scripture can or will be hid from those who askin faith, not wavering; 4. To understand doctrine, bring all the scriptures togetheron the subject you wish to know, then let every word have its proper influence; andif you can form your theory without a contradiction, you cannot be in error; 5.Scripture must be its own expositor, since it is a rule of itself. If I depend on ateacher to expound to me, and he should guess at its meaning, or desire to have itso on account of his sectarian creed, or to be thought wise, then his guessing,desire, creed, or wisdom is my rule, not the Bible.'

The above is a portion of these rules; and in our study of the Bible we shall alldo well to heed the principles set forth." RH Nov 25, 1884