Here is an interesting post from Justin Taylor’s weblog today:

http://theologica.blogspot.com/2007/01/hermeneutics-as-spiritual-warfare.html

Hermeneutics as Spiritual Warfare

“A friend passes along this excerpt from the epilogue of Graeme Goldsworthy’s new book, Gospel-Centered Hermeneutics: Biblical-theological Foundations and Principles, published by IVP-UK. (The US version is due out in March 2007 by Inter-Varsity Press.)

“Hermeneutics is about reading God’s words with understanding so that we might be conformed more and more to the image of Christ. Whatever the role of the intellect in hermeneutics, it is still a spiritual discipline. We can go further and remind ourselves that any spiritual discipline is characterized by spiritual warfare. We are not engaged in Trivial Pursuit or in solving lateral thinking problems in order to feel some sense of satisfaction if we can come up with acceptable answers to various questions and problems. That is why biblical interpretation must be seen as the spiritual struggle that it is. The New Testament describes our warfare in many ways, one of which is in Paul’s exhortation, ‘Put to death therefore what is earthly in you’ (Col. 3:5), followed by the instruction, ‘Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly’ (Col. 3:16). Furthermore, it is not only the sinfulness within us that is the problem, for the Bible makes clear that the goal of the great deceiver himself is to seduce us to worship the beast (Rev. 13:14). Resistance to this assault requires endurance and confidence in the saving power of him who has written the names of his own people in the Lamb’s book of life (Rev. 13:8; 14:12).
------------------------------------------------------------

I hadn’t thought about the discipline of Biblical interpretation as a matter of spiritual warfare, but I think that it certainly is.

All cults and false religions have as their basis some method of hermeneutics or Biblical interpretation that revolves around a certain basic principle.  A lot of times that hermeneutical principle revolves around the understanding and teachings of some charismatic individual who claims to have special secret visions or knowledge. In these cases, the Bible is interpreted through the writings of these charismatic individuals.

But, how should the topic of hermeneutics or Biblical interpretation be applied?

I will supply some further thoughts on this as I get time, and I would appreciate your comments.

Stan

Over the last 24 years since becoming saved, I have gone through major revisions in my concept of Biblical interpretation. I don’t think you have to be a trained theologian (in the formal academic sense) to use good general principles of Biblical interpretation. Here are some general principles I use:

1.) Generally the New Testament should interpret the Old Testament. This is especially true when it comes to certain laws and covenants established at various times. But there are certain timeless principles that apply in both Covenants.

2.)The clear didactic principles taught in the epistles and the gospel of John should help interpret not only the Old Testament, but also help us interpret the synoptic gospels which have a lot of Jesus’ teachings in parables as well as Jesus’ application to uniquely Jewish themes such as the coming destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 (The gospel of John was likely written after AD 70, but the book of Revelation was also likely written before AD 70, and a lot of Revelation also has to do with AD 70 which was a major apocalyptic event.)

3.) When determining what the Bible has to say about a certain topic, we must examine everything the Bible has to say about the topic. An interesting concept is the Law of first mention, and of last mention in the Bible. (This is especially applicable with regard to the first and last mention of the Sabbath (Exodus 16; Colossians 2)

4.) Always use the clearest and most didactic teachings on a certain topic to explain or clarify less clear or more obscure passages. A text without a context is a pretext.

5.) Examine context and historical background. Who and what was in mind in the historical context?

6.) The most important principle of hermeneutics is to ask for the Holy Spirit’s guidance in your study. Since we believe that the Bible is God’s inerrant, infallible Word, and that the Holy Spirit inspired the scriptures, then asking for His guidance is of paramount importance.

2 Timothy 3:16:

“All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.”

Stan

[quote author="Stan Ermshar"]
1.) Generally the New Testament should interpret the Old Testament. This is especially true when it comes to certain laws and covenants established at various times. But there are certain timeless principles that apply in both Covenants.

I am going to have to disagree slightly with this. In that the typology is met in anti-type of Jesus, yes. However, many will take this to the extreme and pit the OT against the NT. When it seems that the NT contradicts the OT, rather than make it harmonize with the OT (or vice versa), many take the NT as being the opposite and disregard the OT and pit the two against the other forgetting that the scriptures cannot contradict itself. The nature of man and death and the punishment of the wicked are prime examples. Fulfillment and contradiction are two different things. It is irresponsible to disregard the OT in favor of one’s interpretation of the NT regardless of contradiction

[quote author="Stan Ermshar"]The gospel of John was likely written after AD 70, but the book of Revelation was also likely written before AD 70, and a lot of Revelation also has to do with AD 70 which was a major apocalyptic event.)

I think it is the other way around is it not? Revelation has been dated at around 98 A.D.

[quote author="Stan Ermshar"]3.) When determining what the Bible has to say about a certain topic, we must examine everything the Bible has to say about the topic.

I agree and it is here where false doctrine rears its ugly head. Even this is not prone to fail, however. Your examination of everything the bible has to say on the Sabbath leads you to the conclusion that it is no longer valid. My examination shows me otherwise.

[quote author="Stan Ermshar"]4.) Always use the clearest and most didactic teachings on a certain topic to explain or clarify less clear or more obscure passages. A text without a context is a pretext.

Which goes in hand with # 3. If the two worked together and preconceived notions and assumptions were left on the shelf, all of Christendom might be more in tune doctrinally.

[quote author="Stan Ermshar"]
6.) The most important principle of hermeneutics is to ask for the Holy Spirit’s guidance in your study. Since we believe that the Bible is God’s inerrant, infallible Word, and that the Holy Spirit inspired the scriptures, then asking for His guidance is of paramount importance.

Ah, but when is the Spirit working? I have had some feel the doctrine of eternal torment is valid because they and many others who ‘asked for the HS’ guidance’ felt in their heart that it was validated to them. How does the Spirit work and when do we merely use the Spirit as a manipulative tool to validate our preconceived notions?

These are all good principles to follow, Stan. Thanks for sharing.

Thanks Guibox for your reply.

Guibox said:

“I agree and it is here where false doctrine rears its ugly head. Even this is not prone to fail, however. Your examination of everything the bible has to say on the Sabbath leads you to the conclusion that it is no longer valid. My examination shows me otherwise.”
----------------------------------------------------------

I would just point out that it is interesting that the first mention of the Sabbath is in Exodus 16, in association with the manna--manna which pointed to the bread of life which is Christ. The last mention of the Sabbath in the Bible is Colossians 2:16,17, where it speaks of the Sabbath as a shadow which points to the substance--the bread of life which is Christ. And we celebrate the sign of the New Covenant when we break bread and we “take eat in Remembrance of Him--so we are to remember Christ instead of the Sabbath.

Also Guibox, as to the dating of the New Testament books. It is quite clear that the synoptic gospels and Acts were written before AD 70. But recent excellent research by Dr. Ken Gentry is quite credible showing that even the book of Revelation was written before AD 70, and many scholars believe the book of John was written after Revelation, about AD 90. But again, none of this is provable.

But it seems so clear that the book of Acts, John, and the epistles have such clear teaching that was meant for the church age. There was a time of transition from when the church was born at Pentecost to the time of AD 70 when the Apocalypse for the Jewish nation occurred, and Jesus was speaking primarily to the Jewish nation in much of the synoptic gospels. Jesus teaching in John is in many ways different in John, than in the synoptic gospels. At least the clearest teachings of grace that Jesus taught are in the book of John.

But all scripture is profitable for correction, reproof…

Stan

[quote author="Stan"]but the book of Revelation was also likely written before AD 70, and a lot of Revelation also has to do with AD 70 which was a major apocalyptic event.)

This is the Catholic position, too. And I’ve come to think it has some merit, although I’m not completely sold one way or the other.  One the problems for the modern reader is that, in addition to the complex symbolism and imagery, is the apocalyptic’s manner of conflating earthly events, such as the fall of Jerusalem, with end of the world meanings. Many of the minor prophets in the O.T. employ this tactic, as does the author of Matthew in chapter 24 and the authors of Mark and Luke in their parallel chapters.