A

(lMPOSI811
H E ~ b * c s
Editedby
Gordon
~ e
@Copyright. 1974, by the
General Conference of Seventh-day Adventtste
Dedicate.d to
11 alt e l' 8. Read
Printed by
The Review and Herald Publt.hiog Association
Washingtoo. D.C.
Chairaan, Btb1ical Regearch Commdttee
1952 - 1958
EDITORI S PREFACE
Throuahout their short history Seventh-day Adventists have
thou&ht of themselves aa people of the Book--people of the Blble.
They have accepted its authority in the tradition of the Protes-
tant Refonnatioo, whieb srose on the ..nage of the "Bible ooly"
priDciple--that Scripture is to be interpreted by itself ratber
than by externa1 traditions or philoBopbies.
The aenersl of the Seveoth-day Adventist Church
may heve been ooly dtmly aware of the ehallenges to this principle
tbat heve come from vartous forms of blbllcsl criticlsm.
generations of the Church, however, in their quest for advanced
education bad inereasing exposure to the presuppositions and
methodologies tbat bave challenged the Protestant prlnciple. Thls
fact has led the BibIieal Research Committee of the General Con-
ference of Seveoth-day Adventists in recent years to concentrate
its work 1n the areas of (1) revelation-lnsplration--the ground
of the Bible's authority, and (2) biblical hermeneutics--the pr in-
ciples by which to derive the intended meaning.
Some tvo yesrs aga the North American Division of the General
Conference decided to call aseries of Bible Conferenees in 1974
for the becefit of the pastoral, evangelistic, and Bible-teaehing
miofstries in particular. The Biblical Research Committee and
its officers were drawn ioto the planoing of these conferences.
They sU8sested that tbe agenda of tbe Bible Conferences be built
around the revelation-inspiratioD and bermeneutical l$sue$.
It was about that same time that the Blbliesl Research Com-
mit tee had a Ber1es of papers in progress dealing with biblical
hermeneutics, and it was decided that these be drawn into a
posium to be prlnted prior to the Bible Conferences as resource
material prepared to meet the partieular needs of the mlnistry.
A Sympoeiwrl on BibUcat Hermeneutws presents the God-to-man
downreach of tbe, processes of revelation and inspiration as the
foundation of the Bible's authority. It proceeds then to trace
the history of the principles by which the Bible has been inter-
preted during the Christian era. It includes a survey of the
sourees, courses. sud effects of the presuppositions and method-
010g1es of modern biblleal eriticism. especially in their impact
on the authority of the Bible.
For the gu1dellnes provided, considerstion 18 glven to the
ways in which insptred writers use and interpret earlier inspired
wrltings. The Symposium then moves to a review of the principles
by which the Seveoth-day Adventist Church (following largely in
iv
the Reformation tradition) interprets the Bihle. The presentatlon
of general principles undergirds consideration of such eategories
of biblical literature a. prophetie, typological, symbolic, apoca-
lyptic. eschatologieal, poetic, wisdom, and historical.
The ehapters of this symposium are essentiallyaseries of
essays. vith the 11Ditations of spaee, a miniwl. of quoted materi-
als, and the general absence of footootiog and full dOCU3entation.
Fot the guidance of the minister-reader particularly, an introduc-
tory annotated reading list representing vsrious points of view
is provided at the end of most of the chapters. Although the
individuality of the several contributors is evident, there is
an essential consensus on aecepted presuppositions and prlnciples
thst gives a un1ty of perspective to the Symp08ium. Thls consen-
sus reflects to a eonstderable degree the work of the Bibl1c&!
Research Committee.
Tbe chapter on the application of hermeneut!e principles to
the work of preaehing 1s iodieative of the hope of all of the eon-
tributors to this Symposium that tbe .tnisters and Bib1e teschers
of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, as a result of their study
of this voluae, will be even more confident of the author1ty of
the Bibie. of the integrity of the1r blblieal exposition, and of
the urgency of their divine mandate to "preach the ward. tl
The ateady erosion of confidence in the authority of the
Blble as Godts revelation to man may glve uoique significaoce to
the fol10wing prediction that was made early in Seventh-day
Adventist history:
(But) God will bave a people upon the earth to
maintain tbe Bible, aud the Blble on1y, as the stand-
ard of all doctrines and the basis of all reforas.--
Ellen G. Wbite, The Great Controversy, p. 595.
--Gordon M. Uyde
Secretary of the Bib1.iool R8S8a:t'ch CO'11J1ri.ttee and a
fieZd secreta:1>y 01 the General Conference of Seventh-day Advent-
iete sinDB 1969# [)Po Gordon M. Hyde's education, pastoral and
tetwhing minietri98 have been diTJided beWeen Engtand and th9
UnitfJd states. H9 reoeived the Ph.D. degree from Miehigan Stau
University in 2963 and liJ7'OU 12 ease study appJ"OaCh tc th6 Washiflg-
ton prlUIJ'hing of Peter NarshaU- [or hia dissertation.
v
ACKNOWLEDGHENTS
In addition co his appreeiacion of the work of the individual
eoncribucoTs to this Sympo8ium
J
the editor wishes to acknowledge
specific iodebtedneS9 co the followiDg persons and organlzstlons:
Andrews and Lama Linda Universities. for accommodaeion of
eom.ittee meetings.
Review and Herald Publishing Associatlon. for unprecedented
cooperation in meeting printing deadlines wirh utmost economy.
General Cooference of Seventh-day Adventists. for appropria-
tions in support of the project.
Biblical Research Committee of the General Conferenee, which
has vetted this project wirh enthusiasm snd candor.
E. Edward Zinke. metlculous and unfla88ing alter e80, critic,
and collaborator in the BlbIicsl Research office.
~ 1 1 1 1 8 J. Hackett. 8Diable and dlscerning vice-presirlent of
the General Conference. wbo hes aerved with genuine interest a9
chairman of the Biblical Research Cc.mittee.
Norval P. Pease. for his Invaluable aid in speeding the
editorial process. particularly for the West Coast contrlbutions.
Authors and publishers. who by accepting the tradition of
permitting their werks to be referred to end commented upon.
serve the goals of shared knowledge and viewpoint.
Typists, copy editor, and proofreaders, who worked with a
gense of involvement to prepare photo-ready copy before ehe print-
ing deadline date.
vi
OT
NT
JB
LXX
Mt
NAB
NASB
NEB
RSV
AA
CT
DA
Bd
B.
FE
Ge
MH
PK
pp
TM
ABBREVlATIONS
Old testament
Nev Testament
.Jel"U8a1.em Bibl.
The Septuagint
Maso7'etia Text
New Ameriaan Bibte
N6'W Ameri-aan StandaPd BibZe
New Eng'Ush Bib1.6
RMsed Standard Ve7'sion
The Acta of the Apoatles
COU1t8e1.B to Parents.t TeachersJ and students
The Deaire 0/ Agea
Edllootion
EtJangeUsm
PwuiamentaZs of t:nristian Education
The G1'6at Controvel"sy
Ths Minianoy of BeaUng
Propheta and Kings
PatI'rrchs and P.t'ophets
Tsstimonies to Ministers a:nd Gospel WOl"krs
vii
-.
IV. PRlNClPLES OP BlBLlCAL INTERPRETATION
1.
C 0 N T E N T S
1. U"TRODUCTION Ta HERHENEUTICS
Revelation. and Hel pDeutics
Raoul. Dedtomt
------- 1
10. General Pr1nciples of Interpretation
Gerhard F. Hasel
- - - - - - - - - 163
--------
2.
3.
Ir. HISTORY CF BIBLlCAL INTERPRETATION
Jewlsh Interpretation in the Apostolic Age
Si6gfned B. Born
Interpretation of the 8ible in the Early
end Medieval Church
.Kenneth A. Stl'lUu2 tmd
Walter B. Douglas
-------
17
29
11. Interpretation of History.
"'isdom. and Poetry - - - - - - - - - - - - 195
Bor.tn'd E. Se ton.
12. Interpretation of Symbols. Types,
Allegoriea, and Parablee - - - - - - - - - - - - - 209
W. G. C.
13. Interpretation of and
Prophecy - - - - - - - - - - - - 225
Hans K. LaRondsHe
4. Principles and Blblical Autbority
in Reforcation and Postreformation Eras - - -
V. No1'skot.J Ouen
- - - -
47
v. th'"TERPRETATION IN PROCLAMATION
5. Postreformation Critlesl Biblical Studies
E. EdLxzrd Zinke
-------
67
14. Preachiog aDd Biblical Interpretation - - - - - - - - -
NCMJ4l F. Peaae
251
6.
7.
Modern Protestant Conservative Biblical
Stud1es in Amerlca - - -
Xenneth A.
Blbites! Interpretation In the
Advent Movement
Don F. NeufeU
III. INSPIRED YRITERS I INTERPRETATION
OF INSPIRED WRITINGS
--------
89
109
APPENDIX
Tools of iblical Interpretation -
Sakae Kubo arid
Leona G. Running
---------- 265
8. New Testament Uses and Interpretation
of the Old Testament _
F'Pank B. BoZbrook
---------
127
9. Ellen G. White'g Evaluation
and Uu of ehe B1ble _
Raymond P.
viii
--------
143
ix
'.' ,,'., ,
ilith a bac1<.g7'Ound of 17 yeara of nrin-
ietry and teac.hing in. Be19ium and
DP. Raou."L Dedertm ie profeas07'
cf tJuwlogy and ahai"""" of the dpart-
ment of thology anti C1rristic:n philostr
phy at thB Seventh-day Adventi8t T"neQ-
Z.ogical. AndrBIJB
Bez>nen Springe where he haB
served sinee the year in which
his doctoral. studies weN corrrpl.eted at
tht!l UnilJersi ty of Geneva. Hia dis8er-
tation waa a stw:iy of the ol"igina of
014 CatholiM811I anti the ecumenioa"L
MClVement in the conte:r:t of Vatican
CounciZ, I.
PAR T I
INTRODUCTlON TO HERHENE1.rncs
1. Revelatioa, Inspiration, and HeraeneutlC8
RAOUL DEDBREH
SDA Theotogica"L 5eminary
AndreW8 Univereity
The Bible holds an eminent place in the hlstory of manklnd
snd in the life of Christians. There have been and still are
other influentla1 religious writiags. knovn ond venerated by large
groups af people. We eould mention far their loog-lasting role
lslaa's Koran, tbe PJlndu Vedas and Brahmanas, the Buddhist Writ-
logs, and the Taoist Principlee. Unquestionably, bawever, none
of these bas knOlom a dissemination comparable to that of the Chris-
tlan Scriptures. scattered today all over tbe world and traoslated
ioto almost every language of any importance. No ether volume has
areused so universal an interest Dar left 80 profound an tapaet.
Even so, such considerations are of but 11ttle value CO the
Christian. Even if it were ignored by ehe reet of mankind, the
Blble would remain in his vie'" what he knows it to be. To Christ's
disciple the Bible i8 not merely one of man's outatanding reli-
gious productiona but also a book of unique dimension that keeps
it distinet within the eategory of a11 religious realit1es: It 18
the Word of God. The Bible 18 the place where God 1s encountered,
where K1.s message 18 spaken and His w:ill is proclaimed.
Interpreting the Seriptures
God has spaken! But ..,hat has He sRid? Every utteranee.
every written document. demands interpretation. And tbe need in-
ereases in proportion to the distance the text stands in time and
2 A on Bib1ical Hermeneutics
Reve1ation, Inspirat.ion, and Hermeneut.ics J
,:,.. , .,
culture from our own.. Tbe more remote tbe writer 18 in time and
place. tram his heat'ers and the more the opinions and circuustances
of his age and country differ from ours, the more there is need
for specif1c .ru1es to underatand his statements. A gap 1s to be.
bridged und obstacles to understandins are. to be removed. This 1s
precisely tbe purpose and alm of bermeneutics, or hermeneutic--the
distincUon betveen tbe tvo torms of the word is It:'111ateriaL Al-
though the term is derived fra. a Greek ward
that me.ans to interpret, to explain. Biblical henreneut1cs 18 tbe
science of correctly understanding the Scriptures. of ebserving
principles wbereby Godls Word can be correctly and profoundly read.
lts object 1s to determine the tbought the biblical writers had in
mind and expressed in words under specific circumatances.
Interpreting Scripture. I believe, is astewardship we have
from God. It 1s part of "the Jrlnistry of the. Word" (Acts 6:4). as
exemp11fied by the Lord Himself. Indeed. in Luke's account of the
""alk of the risen Christ with the two disciples on tbe way to
ETw>aus this Gospel writer teUs us that Jesus, "beginn1ng with
Hases and all the prophets, he interpreted ["di.Bnnimeusen"] to
them in all the scriptures the things concern1ng himself" (Lu 24:
27, R:iV).
Hardly any study could be more important than the 8cience of
hermeneutics as applied to the Scriptures, for they slone are able
to inatruct us for salvation. In its absence, a eraas literal
interpretation of the Bible without regard to idiom, context, or
literary form in wh1cb a statement has been made 18 often the re-
sult. tbe outgrowth of a determination to cling to 8
superficial understanding of the Bible st all cast, even the cost
of real understanding. Thus, for lack of a sound
Bcriptural atateaents more than once have been unctitically and
unrealistica1ly applied to Cbrlstian morality. Because the patri-
archs practiced polygamy, same have c1aimed, we may practice it
too; or because the Scr1ptures make certain remarks about the
suffering of woman in childblrth we are not to approve any method
of easing the pain.
How can we a$cert.ain \o-hat Gad has de.c1ared 10 Scripture? How
can we determine t.be meaning of wat He has said? Also, bow will
we actual1ze the. biblical message and translate It In such a way
that it becomes contemporary whlle faithfully proclaiming t.he gos-
pel once for all delivered? dces one distinguish between the
proper sense of Scrlpture and the different ways in which it may
be applied1 19 there a literal sense and a mystical one? Which
cODsideretions sbould guide U8 in tbe interpretation of prophecy7
How cen we understand the b1hlical viCVI of time and event and d18-
cera how past and present and future are related?
These questions--and many more--point to the extraordinary
importance of the hermeneutical question. Indeed, the history of
the church can be seen as an ongoing effort to interpret God's
Ward and make the gospel meaningful to contemporary man. Dur gen-
eration is no exception.
Hermeneutic and lts Presuppositions
At this point find ourselves in a dilemma srising from the
nature of tbe matter. To set our rules of interpretation aeans
asking tbe question: Wbat are the methods of interpretation tbat
are best fit ted to the whole of the bib11cal message1 In fact, we
must already understand this message as a whole befoTe ..e can set
our rules for interpretlng the single texts. In ether words, the
interpreterls understanding of the whole message of Scripture and
his view of the nature and authority of the Bible largely determine
his hermeneutical methods. DoeR not this approach show a lack of
objectivity? In any discipline. I believe, the student without
auy presuppositions 16 eSientially an abstraction who never existed
in the past, does not exist in the present, and fram all we knov
of human beings will not exist in the future. When ooe attempts
to deal with such questions as are raised in the effort of inter-
preting the Bible, he approaches them from the viewpoint af a par-
ticular heritage.
Roman CatbolicB, identifying the church with its Lord, there-
fore declare that what the Bible aays and 1Ileans cannot be discov-
ered outside the declarations of the teaching office of the church.
With equal earnestness, other Christians, taking the Scrlptures as
evldence of the hlstorical evolution of religion fram a primitive
religiosity up to JesU8, have emphasized the ethical side of Chris-
tlaDity. Kere relations with the Bible rem.ain fundamentally loose
or indeed "free," since one is not to be bound by tbe letter of
the Bible. The neo-orthodox i8 llkewise devoted to basic assump-
tions, which contral his study of Scr1pture. It is not therefore
a peculiarity of Adventist interpreters that they are gulded in
their study of the Bible by What they think of It. Presuppositions
there must be, and preauppositions there are. But ideally, tbe
basic difference between our presuppositions and those of many
other groupe 1s tbat those of the Adventi8t are provided by the
Scripture itself, whereas I fear many of those of the other groups
are Dot.
Tbe basic presupposition of Adventist believers--whlch they
share with evangelicals in general--is that the Bible as Godls
Ward demande an approach set in reverence and falth. From within
Scripture itself we meet more than once with the assertion that
4 A Symposium on Biblical Hermeneutlcs
Revelation, Inspiration, and Hermeneutics 5
faith is essential to understanding. This attitude does not imply
any preconceived notioo of what the Bible ought to contain but
merely anticipates ehat the object investigated will be glven a
chance co speak for ltself, that tbe will be studied for what
it has to 8ay. And what it does say 18 that it 1s God's testimony
to man. the revealed Ward of God.
This fact leads us to two basic questions that will occupY
our actention in the reaainder of chis chapter. First, in whlch
vay did the revelaelon come to the authoTs of the varlous book8
of the Bible? Secend, what can we say regarding Its inspiration?
Both questions are at the very heart of ehe current theologieal
debate.
Revelatlon. Proposition or Encounter?
From its beginnings Christianiey has considered it8elf to be
a revealed religion. And divine revelation was foraally defined
as the supernatural ce-nunication of truths in prop06itional form.
UutU the modem period everyone fra. scholastics to <leists, frOlll:
pietist5 to tatiooalists, operated on the basis that the content
of revelation i8 knowledge about or hoUl. God in the fon of prop-
061tl008; that 1s to say, of statements tbat affirm truths neces-
sary for salvation. Revelation was regarded as the of
knowledge or information. This proposltional concept of revela-
tion has been challenged by eonteaporary theology. whieh in 80
doiug has introduced a startling new chapter in ehe history of ehe
interpretation of revelation. Drawing upon the "I-Thou" c.oncept
aa a central category in its exposition of the Christian faith.
encounter theology seeks to elaborate the understanding of revela-
tion as lying beycmd the "information barrier." Revelation is
understood to be the personal self-d1sclosure of God to man, not
the lmpartation of truths about God. It 15 an "I-Thou" eneouater
with God, the full presence of God in the consciousneS9 of the
believer. Its content is not Bome thing about God, but same one..
God addressing the soul and calling for aresponse.
Encouuter theologians do not think they are some-
thing new, but rather that they are promot1ng areturn to pristine
Christianity. Ihe biblical view, they say, 1s "truth as eoeounter"
over against "truth as proposition." FrODl this point of view, cf
course, the Bible i8 00 langer revelation nor God's revealed Word,
but a witnes8 to revelatlon. Its content i8 merely the reeult of
later rational reflect10n by its authors upen God'a self-manifes-
tation. Its funetion 1s not to pass on doctrinal information that
ooly God knOW$ but to bear witness to and provide a promise of
revelation. It points beyand itself to an event to which 1t bears
vitness and which 1. not the Bible ltself but God's personal dis-
closure or revelation to the individual Christian soul.
Ward, [vene. and Meaning
Does revelatlon conslst of facts. truchs, or knowledge? Tbc
issue 15 sensitive lndeed. It 19 crucial for many aspeets of the
Christian gospel. snd 1t has important t.plicatiDDB for one'e
hermeneutics of Serlpture. God , to be sure, is not we
find by Dur own efforts. In order for man to came to any true
understanding of Hlm, he needs a revelation from above. Such a
revelat10n of God exists. And it 1s described in Scripture a6
tsking place and unfolding within history. What dharacterizes the
etr revelatlotl 151 that God has freely chosen to enter Into a per-
sonal relat1onsh1p man, and that history 1s understood as the
medium vithin vh1ch He reveals Himself. Thence, the Jewish falth
in a self-revealing God focuses its attention on particular local-
ities and perlods-on Creation and the Flood, Abrahaa and Jacob,
the Exodus from Egypt, and a covenant made at Mount Sinn. These
events. of course, reaain accessible to every man's natural percep-
tion, and although aets of God, they way be explained away by the
analogy of history As divine aets, however, they are full of
theologieal meaning. Therefore, by His grace God does reveal
the1r mea.'ling. Tbe "word of the Lord" that raises Creation out
of nothingness (see an 1; PSI 33:6, 9) 1s also the divine d1scourse
of truth. It 18 salv1f1c event and interpretation. The Ward of
Gad brings to pass s8lvation-history events; it also interprets
their aeaning, taking from them the anonymity of meaningless
strokes of fate.
Ihe prophetie mlnistry. therefore, i8 the other form of his-
torical revelation. What distingu1shes the biblical prophet 18
the fact that he has been the object of a privileged exper1enee.
He is the man in whom the ward of the Lord resides, in whose moutb
1t has been plaeed or has came (see Jer 1:9; 5:13, 14). He i8 the
man of the word (see Jer 18:18).
Without ceasing to be a living word, the prophetie ward in
time becomes more and more a written ward, sud the prophet's mes-
sage written on a seraIL will have the fixed eharacter of a divine
decree. Ezeklel, for instaDce, is the minister of an lrrevoeable
word, IJhich announees events and llakes their accomplishment infal-
lible (see Eze 12:25-28; 24:14). The word of the Lord 18 no Ionier
exclusively an event but also a message; even more. a command. It
1s not enough to hear the ward; it must be obeyed. Better, it
muat be 11ved (see Eze 33:30-33). Aecording to whether divine rev-
elatien 18 accepted or refused. 1t becoaes for man grace or judg-
6 A on Blblieal Hermeneutlcs Revelation, Inspiration, and 7
ment. life or death (see le 1:20; Jas 1:7, 8). Revelatjon undoubt-
edly 19 the reveLation of someone. but it also aims at addressing
811 men. asking the_ questlons. and making the- partners in God's
plan with a vlew to their salvation.
Christ the Revelation. Event sud Meaning
In contradistinction co the cyclic conception of time, the OT
revelatian announced ehat the cootinuou8 succession of temporal
evenes e.mhraclng present and future was Wlfolding toward a
goal.. And in fact history as a personal dialogue betveeo God cmd
man reached a definitive peak in the incarnation of the San of God.
Christ. the 1ncarnate San, did not simply bring another revclation.
He iB the revelation, God revealing and revealed. It docs not fol-
low, however, that revelation i8 identified only with the event of
the Incarnation. Its _aning, as in olden needed to be de-
elared. Thus, it is through the words of Christ addressed to us
in explanation that the event and me.aning of the Inc8Tnation as
divine self-revelation is unveiled for uso Rere again. a8 in OT
times, the Word of God made Himself known in two related ways: In
meaningful cvents that werc parts of the unfo1ding of salvation
his tory and in words that made the meaning of these events exp1icit.
At the same time. however. tbe apostles oceupy a unique pLace
in the process of divine reve1ation. Their ro1e is W\repeatable.
Having experienced in their lifetime the Man who was God in person,
they were cOMmissioned to represent Him ameng their fellows. They
were to be His (see Acts lO:41)--witnes8es first of all
co the Risen One (see !eta 26:16). but in fact to everything they
had seen and baard of Christ (see Acts 4:20); vitnesses to the
..mole of Christ' s person and work, event and interpretation. Thls
proelamation of God's .essage would have been iapossible without
the mediation of objective propositional statements and judgmental
formulations. And it is the apostles' consensus that this develop-
ment took place under the movement of thc Spirit (see Eph 3:5;
Acts 4:8. 31. 33).
As the Lord tarried. a time came whcn tbe need for written
testUIDny increasingly obvious. What had tak.en place in
tbe lncarnation and was being proc1aimed by the apostles was never
to be surpassed. nut neicher was it to cease, because it had hap-
pened for all men until the end of time. !hus, in order to help
caming generations of Christians sift authentie tTUth about Christ
from the spurious, and above all to ensure that the revelational
experience in Christ would be continued. a written deposit of the
apostolic testimony was deve1oped. Their written word--like their
preaching--a1though not Identiea1 to the divine Ward Bimself, i5
ebe ooly reliahle source of firsthand witnessing concernlng the
Person through who. God revealed the sav1.!lg knowledge of Himself
to tbe world. A 1n the days of the prophets end the apostles.
coday's believers are chose \lho have COllie co "believe . through
theit word" (Jn 17:20).
A False Dichotomy
It is not difficult to see what contemporary writers on reve1-
ation are dissatlafied with. They are opposed to reve1ation de-
fincd in terms of a certain number of truths to be believed. Thcy
tend, for that reasOD. to set revelation-encounter over against
revelation-doctrine. But the d1sjunction between tbe God who acts
or meets and the Gad ..mo spealts i5 not so obv10us to ma, at least
on b1blical grounds. It i8 true that the understBDding of revela-
tiao developed in this cbapter Ulay be characterized as an intellee-
tusl aod rational coneept. And it be admitted that BOre than
once wa Adventisrs have indeed given the impression that revelation
i5 identica1 with a set of divinely authenticated truths. Revela-
tion has tended to be thought of as correct doctrine. But I wonder
whether this rightly describes wh.t we really believe. On the
bas1a of scriptural data I conceive cf revelat10n 88 primarily the
self-disel05ure of God Bimself giving man abrief glimpse of the
mystery of His being and love. But I do not wish either to dispute
or deny that it makes sense to speak of the content or the truths
of revelation. Godlg sovereign activity in hlstory dces not be-
intelligible as revelation unless it i8 accompaaied by the
Word that expresses its meaning.
Faith, aanls answer to Godls self-disclosure, is directed to-
ward aPerson. Ie ts first a personal response to the revealed
intentions of a personal Being. It 18 acknowledgment before being
knowledge, ''belief in" before "belief that ," although both aapects,
in eaeh instanee. are indissolubly linked to one another, and dif-
fieult to distinguiah. Thus the fourth Gospel exhorts us to be-
lieve in Christ (see Jn 1:12; 10:26), receive Christ (see Jn 5:43).
eome to Christ (see Jn 6:35. 37. 44. 65). abide in Christ {see Jn
(see Jn 15:4, 7), reeeive His Word (see Jn 12:48; 17:8). receive
His testiBODY (see Jn 3:11), and abide in His (see Jn 8:31).
Thus, fa1th in Christ is at the same time adhertng to u.t.. and to
His Word. receiviog Him and believing everything His envoys say
(see Jn 5:43; 20:31), for like the person of Christ His Word is
lUe and truth.
As a student of Scripture I must underline that revelatlon 18
an .vent. an eneounter. But one's eneoWlter with Christ i8 effee-
8 A Symposium on Bib!ica1 Uermeneutics Revelation. Inspiration, and Hermeneutics 9
ted only througb hearing the prophetie and apostolle proclamatlon
conslgned to Scrlptures. These fragile words of ScriptUTe passed
down to us from the OT ud the NT writeT6 are intrinsie to the
revelational proccss. !hey are as true as tbe Christ event they
explicate. and they share in the "once-for-all" character of the
divlne revelation. This explains why the apostles, as tbe propheC8
of oid, expected chose wbo received tbeir message to recogni%e 1t
aa authoritative, as "the ward of God.
ot
II t he COI!IDl8nd.ents of the
Lord" (l Th 2:13; 1 Cor 14:37; see 2 Tb 3:14). 1t 15 this apos-
tolte doctrine--or truth--entrusted to hiu as a deposit tbat Paul,
for lnstance, wants to see preserved (see 1 Ti 4:6; 2 Ti 1:13, 14).
It 15 evident by now that encounter theology does not go far
enougb in its understandlng of the role of propositional elements
in revelat100. True doctrine as expressed in Scr1pture, far from
beiog potentially detrimental, is, in fact, indispensable for a
vital relationship with Jesus Christ. It i8 the instruaent through
which God works in human 11fe. Tbe words of Scripture are not
ueraly arecord of or a witness to a prior revelatory event; they
are intrinsic to the revelatiooal proce8s and contribute to Hs
constitutloo. It should be obvious, therefore, that if the text
of Scr!pture is to be revelatory of God it will be approached by
the Chdstian in an attitude of total trust io a11 it teaches.
The conviction tbat the BlbLe is God's written Word, having its
origin in divine acting snd speaking, can but deeply affect our
entire hermeneutical approaCh.
Wbat About Inspiration?
Tbe pattern of divine revelatioo males 1t possible to address
ourselves briefly now to the 1ssue of inspiration, another tenet
of historie Chr1stianity a160 challenged by modern thought. Tbe
issue Is quite clear: Once God had revealed Himself to His ser-
vante, the prophets, as we noticed, d1d He exercise any determining
Influence on the writera of the OT and NT in order that they might
proclaim and set down in an exaet and truseworthy way the message
they had received from Him? Or were the Scrlptures written by men
who wrestled w1th the prOble. of interpreeing God's self-disclosure
to thelr inner souls in terms relevant to the conerete historical
situation of their own day?
For hundreds of years, in fact until approximstely the begin-
ning of the nineteenth century. Scripture was traditiooally under-
stood as 8 divine communieation to man cast in written fora under
the express inflow of the Holy Spirit. The whole picture has
changed cousiderably during the past hundred yesrs. Ibis turn of
events is due mainly to the rise of modern scientific literary and
historical criticism and application to the 8ible. Votil then
it was generally believed that the Bible was a unique hock, wrltten
down by human writers at the dlctation of the Holy Spirit, which
gave lt an unquestionable normative value.
Tbe Age of roUgh tenment
Tbe age of enlightenment questioned 811 things, inc1uding the
idea of 8 divinely dictated body of inspi red writings. By the be-
ginning of the nioeteenth it began to iosist that there
was 00 essential difference between the Bible and any other liter-
ary production. It said that far from beiog unique, the Bible
ought to be interpreted by the same critical-grammatical and his-
toriesl methods as any other book.
A genuine interest in resurrecting the past had brought about
progressive refinement of histor1cal criticism, of methods of his-
torieal research. Ibis effort eventually had also reached the two
testa.eots. Altbough not io itself directed again8t the Christian
church, this perfectly legitiaate independ-
eutly of the church, with it8 methode and vith 00 intention of
serving the churcb.
It shortly taken up by thinkers who joined to it a philo-
sophical criticism coapletely detached tram the Cbristlan ta1th,
in the oame of they presumed to stand in sovereign
over the content of the Bihle and sometimes over religion itseif.
Opposed in principle to the very idea of revelation and inspiration
in the biblical sense, rationalist philosophy took over literary
analysis, historieal eriticism, and the conclusions of both soci-
ology and the history of religion. It made tham instruments in
its at tacks on all fOTDB of Christian dogmatism.
The theories thus eonstructed claimed to be independent of 80y
preconceptlon and of any faith. In fact, however, tscltly admitted
before any investigation, 1s the prineiple that the values appear-
ing in the course of one's study of the biblical documents were
the products of purely human factors, neither more nor less trans-
cendent than any other religious society. The Bible 1s merely the
record of aan
1
s experience of Ged aud man'e progressive
response to God. As such, it is a religious bock of inestimable
value but devoid of the supcmatural dimension that faith acknowl-
edges in lt.
Tbc influence this view exercised and continues to exercise
on the biblical hermeneutic of not a few of our conteaporar!es is
weH knO'W'n.
10
A Symposium on Biblical Hermeneutics
Assets and Llabilities
Re.velatlon. Inapiration. and Herm.eneutics
Thc Testimony of Scripture
11
Ibis new attitude tovard the Scrlptures brought ahout by the
application to them of the methods of literary and historlcal
crlticism has provided UB vith a fload of light on our ubackground"
knowledge of the Bible. loTe are !Wcb better informed taday chan
before on the period in which the various books of the Bible were
written. the kind of meo they vere written by. the particular prob-
lems tbe writers faced. snd the bistorical conditions under which
chey lived. But ite tendency to regard the Bible as ooly one
record ameng others of the evolving human reitgtalls consclousness
ha5 been carried too taro No longer. goes the argument, does
modern scientific study of the Bible support the theory that the
Scripture came by way of visions and voices or that the prophet8
end apostolic writers reached their message by the passive accept-
ance of words dictated while their rational and critical faculties
were asleep. The inspiration of the Bible i6 not different in kind
from that of other religious writings but only in degree.
Thc Existentialist Approach
Hany, ir. fact, aceept tbe same pogtulates, even when they
attempt to avoid tbeir consequences through thelr existentialist
interpretation of ehe biblical record. Thus has it frequent1y
been said that when we speak of the inspiration of Scripture we
ought to speak. 00 langer in terms of a cOtllposition taking plaee
under tbe constant directlon and inflow of the Holy Spirit, but
we ought priAari1y to meao thae men wo \o"ere progressively deepen-
ing their experience of God and bad eome to eall Uie. holy, right-
eous, and Father wroee tbe Seriptures. These.cu actus11y were
engaged in thinking out the given problems of a concrete situation
in the light of ceresin hietorieal happenings and experiences that

through the illumination of the Spirit of God. had brought
eo them a new understanding of mauls nature and destiny. Their
experienee was not different from that of Clristian teachers in
suhsequent ages, ineluding many Christians in our own time. The
blblical writers possessed 00 supernatural faeulty of knowing
divine trutb and enjoyed Da experiences diffarent from those of
Christians of later generations. Nor need thelr writLngs any
longer be regarded as produced in auy aanner generically different
from that whieh gave birth to tbe wide range of Chrlstian litera-
ture produced since the days of Christ. The latter eao appropri-
ate1y be deseribed as inspired by the Ho1y Spirit in precisely the
same formal sense as were the books of the Bible.
This modern approach to the issue of inspiration, which devel-
oped out of an ongoing dialogue between philosophy and theology,
has been 90 preoccupied with the study of the Bible a8 a human
doc"ment that ie has been unable to show eonvincil1g1y tbat it is
a180 God's Word. It 1s, to be true, on biblieal grounds tbat the
Christian Chureh has traditionally attributed to all the bocks
eomposing the Bible the special eharacter of being inspired. Rere
the Blb1e is presented a8 rhe Word of God addressed to .en, the
Word 1n writing. This idea in any case is cootaioed in the vari-
ous expressions used by the biblical writers to deseribe the min-
istry of the prophets and their particular endowment. Or eould it
be thae in these days we not accept the test1mony of Scrip-
ture regarding itself? Yet to refuse its testimony 1s really to
be unscientific, for the first requisite of scienee is to take
eaeh thing for what it i8, and not for another thing. This means
withle the limits of our diaeussion, to make the attempt at least
to aeeept the Bible st its own evaluation and with its own presup-
positioos. Iwander wheeher in tbe end ehat process does not make
more sense than any alternative .ethod.
What, then, is the blb1ical testiDony on cbis particular
point? If one listens to what the Scripeures have to 9ay he soen
will diseover that the people of the OT believed that God guided
tbeDl. in a miraculous and supernatural way. TItey believed that the
great figures wo shaped their heritage-Abraham, Moses, and tbe
prophees--acted and spok.e under the Spirit. Abraham was God's
friend (see 18 41:8); God appeared to him ac Mamre (see Go 18:1).
Mases reeeived the reve1ation of God's name (see Ex 3:1-15), and
God spoke to him face to face (see Nuo 12:4-8). The Spirit of the
Lord came upon His prophet (see Is 61:1) and His ward was upon His
servant's tongue (see 2 5a 23:2). Surely, adds Amos, the Lord
"does nothing, without revealing his seeret to his servants the
prophets" (Antos 3:7, RSV). God's Spirit moved men ta Bpeak, not
neeesesri1y to write, though we must recognize that very early in
IsraelIs life mueh must have beeu written (see Ex 17:14; Jos 1:6-8;
24:26). No wonder Judaism csme to be1ieve that the books of the
OT were from God, inspired by His Spirit.
This belief also became part of tbe Christtan faith, as indi-
cated by the NT, which continually cites tbe OT and affitES its
divine origin. IIIt is vrltt.en" is a typical way in which Jesus
referred to t.he or (see Mt 4:4, 7, 10; 11:10; 26:24), a8 do Paul
(e.g. Rom 9:13) and Peter (I Pe 1:16). It was really God
spoke through David (see Aet.8 4:25), and '''the Holy Spirit: was
rlght in saying to your fathen through Isaiah ehe prophet
(Acts 28:25, RSV). The texe of the Scriptures was 90 habitually
12 A SyapoS1um on Bibitea! Hermeneutics
Revelatioo. Inspiration, and Hermeneutics 13
identified with the utterances of God thet 1t had become natural
soelet1meS to interchange the terms God and Scripture: "And the
scripture. . . preached the gospel. beforehand to Abraham . . ."
(Gal 3:8. RSV; cf. Go U:3); "as God said ..11 (2 Cor 6:16, RSV;
cf. Ex 25:8; see Heb 1:5-7; cf. Ps 2:7, 1 Sa 7:14). So Iong as
the words are in the OT they are sttributed to God, the Holy Spirit,
or Scriptul@ without distinction. Peter sums 1t up by declaring
that timen moved by the Holy Spirit spoklll fram God" (2 Pe 1:21. RSV) I
Paul asserts that "all Bcrlpture 18 inspired by God" (2 Ti 3:16,
RSV) . These "oracles of God" (Rom 3 :2) call for man I s response.
that 18 to say. faith. ror If God speaks man listens.
Non-Christians certsinly .ay choose to hold that the exper-
ience the biblical writers bad was falsely interpreted by them,
that same other interpretation i8 more plausible. But st least
this was the experience sppeared to the cen who undet'W'ent it,
and who, after a11, were in a much better position to estimate its
significance than those who never bad it.
By Way of Conc1u8ion
The Bible is a book, a document. This book ia the Ward of
God because men spake and WTote from. an impulse that carae from God.
Does tbat fact indicate that in our atteapt to understand end to
interpret 1t DO human method of studying dOCU1OeDtS is relevant to
it'? Not in the least:.
Ged is the author of the Bible, but in terms of its COGIposi-
tion It is a collection of human wrltlngs. It actuel1y was writ-
ten by men not suspended bet\o1een heaven and earth but firtal.y
established on this earth. men of adefinite race, born on a defi-
nite date. following adefinite occupation. The Bible i$ involved
in the flux of human evenC8. It i6 payt of hiscory. lt also has
its geography. Ihis being so, there 16 in the Bible--coosidered
as a human document--an ares in whieh philolog16ts, historians,
end areheolog1sts, for lnstanee, may free!y practise their compe-
tene1es. For a personal study of these mattera we need methods
and guide11nes, a that will help UB taward a correct
understanding of the biblical text.
But we need more than that. lt 1s always possible to tyeat
the Scriptures as an ordinary document and Co regard the history
of Israel as B history like any other. In one sense this is
legitiuaate, snd in this way we ean obt.a1n real knowledge &baut
Israel. valid at its own level and in its order. But both
that level and order are inadequate to explain God really
effected in Israel and axpressed in the Bible.
There 18 anaeher approach, proceeding from Dur inner resources,
that llight be sU1II2d up as "seeking God"--if it ""ere not for the
fact that He 80ught us first. We need divine illumination. the
lnterior grace that aoves man to give his free assent to the ex-
ternal Ward thae confronts him. A grace that invites belief,
moves to faith. snd makes us eager to find God, to obey Him and
to be faithful to Him. This i8 a light not from below but from
sbove, which ennbles us to read the Bible with fresh and ever
deeper understanding, precisely because it has been received 8S
the revealed and inspired Word.
lrnen ve approach the Bib!e in this way, vith the inner re-
sources of a profound Christian awareness, lts text seems to be
l1ghted from. within. Tbe Word of God no longer confroo.ts me as
external to myself, as an objeet to be analyzed and dissected.
It i8 a living arrow that piereea my heart. a sharp sword that
penetrates to the joints and the marrow (see Heb 4:12). Tbe Word
of God ceases to be an object. a thing. I see it as something
alive. In and through the Ward, God addres&es me personally, not
sieply as an echo of the past but as a Ward speaking nO'W. I find
\.lords in the Bible I no longer simply read but that speak to me,
introducing me to the crucial drama of life, the conflict
truth sud falsehood, life aud death, snd cornmunieate the message
that God redeems those who trust In His mercy.
These tvo levels in the reading of tbe Bible are not cODtra-
dictory. Tbe ideal would be to aslilellble into a unity our knowl-
edge of the bib11cal envirou.ent, a good translation, an explana-
tion of the literary forms snd human contexta in wmeb the books
ware written, and ensure reverential snd receptive reading. And,
if possible. to check one stage by another.
From what we have seen it can be sald that in the proper
Chr1stian sense of the term revelation i6 the decisive and first
event of Christiunity. In biblical interpretation anything de-
pends on revelation, and everything gees back to it. At the same
time, the meaning of inspiration for me is thnt I recognize that
God's revealed message has been sent to the world w1th ay name
and address on it. It all means that God's 'Ward claims me, my
faith, my trust, and my obedience. In the midst of the maoy
voiceg that salicit my allegiaoce today, such an understanding of
revelation and inspiration can but have a deteradning influence
on my hiblical heY1IJeneutic, on the basic principles I shall follow
in interpreting and rediscovering the Word cf God.
14 A Symposium on Biblical Hermcneutlcs
READING LIST
Revelation. Inspiration. and Hermeneutics
sider the doctrine of biblical inspiration in the light of
the contemporary dlscusslon.
15
Baillie. Jahn. The Iooa 0/ Revelation in Rectmt Thought. New
York: Col\lllbia Universlty. 1956.
An incls1ve study of key questlons in the conlemporary
diaeusslon of revelation and tbe Bible.
Henry. earl F. H ed. Revelation anti the Bib7.e. Grand Rapids:
Baker, 1958.
Twenty-four international scholars e%press
evangelical thinking on the major lssues of revelatlon, in-
spiration. and the autharity af Scriptures.
Hart. "arold E. Eneauntering Truth.
A helpful evaluation of the
the vlewpoint of bocb encounter
The author's synthesls includes
Nashville: Ablngdon. 1966.
concept of revelation from
and propositiona! theology.
ele.ents of both.
RalIDl. Bernard. Speeiat Rsvel.ation and the 110M of God. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans. 1961.
A vsluable study by SI Protestant conservative concerned
wirh t.he cooteUlponry problem oE special revelation over
agsinst general reveLatlon. Fresh, stimulating, and practical.
__-=-_. The Pattern 01 Rflligious Authority. Grand RApids:
Eerdmans. 1968.
A remarkable attempt to offer to the Chrlstian publ1c an
introductian ta the difficult and important proble. of rellg-
iaus authority. A model of conciseness and clarity.
Hordern. William. A Laynnn's Guide to Protestant T'hsology. Rev.
ed New York: Hacmillan, 1968.
Llke every other science, theology bas lts OWD technlcal
terminology, lts jargon. This vo1ume interprets contemporary
theology for the nontechnical reader in terms tbat he can
understand. ODe of the best of its kind.
Latourelle. Rene. TheoZcgy of Revelation. Staten Island: Alba
Hause. 1967.
A major book, by a Roman Catholic theologian, on
notion of revelation in the Scriptures, the writings of the
church fathers, and the Catholic theologica1 tradition.
Haran. GabrieL Theol.ogy of ReveZation. New Yark: Rerder and
Rerder. 1966.
A provocative effort fram a Roman Catho1ic vlewpoint to
provide Christians with an adequate understanding of the
nature of revelatian.
Pache I Ren'. The InspiPation and Authonty of Soriptu:t'6. Chicago:
Moody Press, 1969.
A refTesh1ng reaff1rmation of the authent1city and 8uper-
natural authority of the B1ble. Its major part 16 devoted to
the 188008 of inspiration and authoriey.
Pinnock, Ctark H. Bibtical. Revelation. Chicago: Moody Press.
1971.
In n straightforward style a young evangeltcal theoloa;ian
al-s to expose the very foundations of tneo1ogy and to con-
Dean of the Seventh-day Adventiet
Senrin=y. 1Jro. SiBflfri.ed H.
Born i8 atBo chairman of the department
of Old Testament and profe88o!' cf trr'-
ohaeology and hi.tory of antiquity.
been on the facutty alnce 19,51.
His d:S8Bl"tation fO'l' the Ph.n. degree,
t.n the University of
Chtoago was enti.tled: "The Rotations
Bef:J.Jeen. Egypt anti Asia lJtaoing the
Egyptian Middle Xi"fldan." Dro. OOPn
haB nude 18 ezpedi tionB to the Middte
East# MB 1IVat reaent being the third
at Heshbon du:ring t1u! 8um-
mer Qf 1973.
PART 11
HISTORY OF BIBLlCAL INTERPRETATION
2. Jewlsh Interpretation in the Age
SIEGFRIED H. HORN
SDA &minary
AndPews Univsrsity
All people who believe thar the Bible 1a Cod
1
s Ward and a
norm according to Which they regulare thetT I1ves are forced
to interpret its teschings, precepta, snd lays. We need interpre-
tation because the books of the Bible were wrltten many centurles
ago by and for people vho lived in cultura! and environmenta! sit-
uations and spake languages different from ours. Although the
Jews of the apostolic age lived much closer in tiae to tbe wrlters
of the OT than ve de. thelt citcumstances dlffered sufficiently
from those existing ieveral centuries earlier that they needed to
interpret the OT precepts and teachings in a manner relevant to
their time and situation. This was not done unifor-ly by a1l
classes of Jews because of the variety cf theit educational and
cultural backgrounds. surroundings. and outlooks. Jews living in
the Hellenistlc world outside Palestine interpreted the Scriptures
differently from the way those lived in their homeland didj
and Jews who belonged to striet seets such a6 the Pharisees or
Essenes regarded their Scripturea differently from the way theit
Dare liberal compatriots regarded thea. of whom the Sadducees are
good examples.
The Sources
We are weIL acquainted with the metbods of interpretation as
practised by orthodox Jews. matnly the Pharisees. Their written
interpretation of the Pentateueh has survived in the Talmud. Same
18 A Symposium on Bibllca1 Hermeneutics Jewish Interpretation in the Ap08tolic Age
19
parts of the Talmud cara be traced back to tbe 2d century B.C.
They were handed down orally and a.ugmented from generation tQ gen-
eration as the needs arose unt!l the end cf the 2d century A.D.,
when Johanan Ha-Nasi wrate them down. Ibis monumental work. coo-
818t1ng cf sixty-three traets, became known aa the Hishnah. er
Second Law. In the course cf time the Mishnah itself became the
subject of a written interpretation. the Gemara, and tbese two
works cCll!lblned are generally known as ehe Talmud. Tbe TalDud.
next to the or, has formed the autboritative rule cf life for all
orthodox Jews to the present day. On the other hand. any werks
cf an interpretative nature produced by liberal-minded Jews of
apostolic times, such as the Sadducees. are lost. The de.structioo
of tbe Jerusalea Temple and the cessatlon of priestly
caused the Sadducees, who were largely Temple personnel, to lose
their iofluence, identity. even their existence, and 'whatever
literary works they may have produced.
Of tbe religiolls works of Jews living in the diaspora, the
works of Philo of Alexandria (c. 20 B.C.-A.D. 50) have survived
as examples of their interpretation of Scripture. They give us
an excellent 1ns1ght 1uto the mathods of biblical interpretation
employed by Jewa \Ibo lived far their homeland. These writ-
ings shOW' how &trongly their intellJretation of Scripture was
influenced by the allegorlzational and philosophical met.hods eto-
ployed in the Hellenistie vorld.
Thanks to ehe diseovery of the Dead Sea seraIls at Qumran,
ve have some reiigiallS works, including commentaries of biblieal
books. from the Esaenes of Cbrist's day. The Qumran scralls are
the remains of the literature af astriet monastic Jewisb sect
that used the Scriptures aB a basis of and justification for its
existence and it8 teaehings, rules, and e%pectations.
Interpretation of Scripture by Orthodox Jews
During the age wben the NT came into being the Jewish tradi-
tion, concerned chiefly with axegesis of the Seriptures. flourished
in an oral manner. It used the biblieal text to find inspiration
and direction for daily applications. The Jewisb rabbis distin-
guished between the "c1ear
1f
(l1terally. naked or undressed),
tma:mbiguous meaning of a Bible passage, which needed 00 interpre-
tation. and the derush.. the "eearched" meaning of a scriptural
passage. FrOll tbis ....ord was obtained the noun "exegesis."
The exegesis dealing witb historicalor dagmatic subjects was
called haggadic Midrash-haggadah meaning "expression"-indicsting
that this sort of exegesis made a bibIicsl passage aore understand-
able. liare theologieal and lnspirational thoughts are of primary
importance . and they are often conveyed by the use of ioaginative
stories snd legends. On the other hand, exegesis dealing with
legal matt crs was called halaUe Midrash, sinee hal.akah has the
meaning "advanee." Thus the halakie Midraah provides advanced,
or up-to-date, legal information based on the biblical laws.
Before looking furtber intO Jewisb interpretation it should
be pointed out that a certain amount of scriptural information does
not need aoy learned interpretation and ean be applied as given.
!bis fact was reeognl%ed by ehe rabbis and was stressed in tbeir
writing& (Chul11n 6a). On tbe other hand, there were many situa-
tions in lifa that were not eovered by clear biblical statements.
Hence rules of interpretation were needed to find scriptural guid-
anee for all kinds of situations in life a8 weIL as support for
papular ideas and teachings.
In many eases interpretative eonclusions were drawn from textS
that went far beyond tbe actual scriptural statements. An example
is Gn 26:5, wblch simply stetes tbat Abrahalll. "obeyed TJ1'f (God's]
voice, and kept my charge, my COT!DDandoents, my s:atutes, and my
laws." The official Jewisb interpretation of thJ.s pasSage wss
that: Abraham bad known and k.ept the l.aw of God 1n its totality as
the Jews knew it in the days of Cbdst. This meant that he was
aequainted wlth all regulations regarding ceremon1es of cult, sac-
rifices, washings. and civil and moral is&ues, wbether or not they
were contained in the Deea1ogue, in the other laws of Moses, or
even in the oral law, whieh the NT calla "Tradition" (Qiddushim
1V.14).
In same cases an allegorlzing interpretation was given to
scriptural passages if they eontained expressians that were con-
sidered to be either offensive or trivial. Tbe Hasaic law, for
exareple permitted an officer to e::ll:cuse a man fron. serving in the
armed if he was lIfearful and fainthearted
u
(Dt 20:8). so
that he would not undermine the martial spirit cf his coarades.
The Jewish political and religious leaders of the Maccabean and
later ages evidently found this regulation unacceptable, and thus
interpreted it to apply only to -an who feered death beeause of
certain grave ains they had ca-mitted aud for whieh they had not
yet found forgiven8SS VIl1.S).
Samet1lnes a play on wotds was applied to texts, resulting in
a more colorful .eaning than was obvious in the original. In this
way the passage of 1 Sa 2:2, "[there 1s 00) rock like our God,"
h
'" h1 "(ar"
was ioterpreted to _an that t ere was 00 aB ouer crea-
d "k"
tar") like the God of the Jews, for the Hebrew wor
sounded similar to the ward uayyaP, which has the meaning fash-
ioner," etc. (Mekbilta on Ex' 15:11).
20 A Symposium on !iblical Helccreutics
Jewish Interpretation in the Apostolic Aga 21
How far from litera.! interpretation the JeVB ..ent In their
search for proof texts to support certatn beliefs shows in their
use of Amos 9:6, vhere the statement 18 made that God "builds bis
upper chUlbers in ehe heavens. and founds his vault upon ehe earth"
(RSV). Because It was held that God's presence 18 always accom-
panied by His a Jewlsh tenn meaning "divine glory.1l ehe
Shekinah was seid to be preeent wherever three men sit together
8tudying Torah. The number three in chis interpretation 1s
obtained from the numher cf consonants thae make up the Hebrew
ward earth" 11' 8rel!" (Aboth 111.2).
Tbe later Jewish writings attributed to Hillel. the great
sage and Pharisee of Christ's time (died ca. A.D. 9), outlined
seven hermeneutic rules, whieh will be explained by examples so
that one can see haw tbe Scriptures were understood and taught by
orthodox Jews in the apostolle snd suceeeding ages. Later, in the
early second century A.D Rabbi Ishmael ben Elisha increased
Billel's seven rules to 13, They were spplied by orthodox Jews
throughout their Iater history. Although it is not absolutely
certain that all seven rules of interpretation attributed to Hillel
were actually promulgsted by that famous rabbi and thus applied in
the time of Christ's ministry. some of them can be traced to that
time. We will list them here with some examples of application to
show the ressoning of Jewish reiigiolls thinking in Chri8t
'
s ti.e.
1. 1nference From Ligbter to Heavier Heaning (gal
!bis me.ans tbat any rule applicabie to an t.tem of inferior quality
.ust be applied much more strictly to a superior ttam. To give an
example: Because the weekly Sabbath was considered to be more
portant than other festival days, a restrietion made with regard
to an annual festival was cODsideTed to be alch more applicabl.e
to tbe Sabbath (Baba Ka-ma II.5).
This rule was even further extended, aB tbe following exampie
shows: Ex 23:19 forbids boiling a kid in its mother's milk. But
this prohibition was enlarged to apply to the boiling of aoy kind
of meat in any kind of milk, and finally came to mean that the com-
bined use of any meat and milk products during any meal "'as counter
to the law (Chul1in II5b). This regulstion 15 the well-known basis
for one of the kosher laws of orthodox Jews.
2. AnaloRY of Expressions (geztrah shauJahJ. This expression
was used to indicate that a eertain ambiguous passage of Scripture
can be explained by another passage in wich the same expression
occurs in a clearly understood way. Lev 16:29. for example. re-
quIriog that Jevs "sffltet ['anah] your sou18" an the Day of Atone-
ment, does not defiDe the nature of tbeiT afflictlon. Uowever. in
Dt 8:3 the verb 'aruih ("to Buffer. affltet") ill used in eonnection
with hunger. for which reason the rabbis interpreted Lev 16:29 to
mean ehat ehe Jeva had to abstain fraa. food on ehe O3y cf Atone-
uaent.
Another somewhat ambiguouB i9 Ex 21:2. where the ex-
pression 'ebed 'ibri can be rendered "Hebrew slave" (RSV). meaning
either that the slave was a Hehrew or IIthe slave of a Hebre..., man."
not indicating the nationality of the slave. On the other hand,
tbe parallel passage of Dt 15:12 is clear in this respect by call-
tag the slave your brother. Hence, the first-mentioned
translation of Ex 21:2. "Hebre'" slave," must be applied, according
to the rabbis.
). Application by Analogy With One Provi.sion tb1yan ab
maktab 'e2adJ. According to tbis rule, texts were applied to cases
tbat vere not expressly mentioned in the texts, although tbey dealt
situations of a similar nature. Tbe result was that in seme
cases where this interpretation was applied tbe text used as
basis for reasoning not mentioned in the text. Por example. in
Dt 19, among other things, regulations are given vich regard to a
man who accidentally killed his fellow workeT in a {orest while
both were engaged in cutting down trees. Tbe killer was conse-
quently allowed to flee to s City of Refuge, wbere he could not be
apprehended by the svenger of the desd man, 1f it was proven that
he had not intentionally killed his friend.
Tbe rabbis explained thst this judgment can be similarly
applted to any accidental desth resulting when two .en were build-
log a wall or doiog other work in a public plsce (as the forest
mentioned in tbe text was publie dom.aln). TIds. then. means also
by analogy, aceord1ng to the rabbis. thst an accidental deatb oc-
curring on the killer's private properey is not punisbable, because
the dead person presumably bad no business being on that property
Vheo his sceidental death oceurred (Haccoth 11.3).
4. Applicstion by Analogy With Two Provisions (binyan 'ab
mishna ketnbtmJ. This rule of exegesis 1s cloBely related to the
previous rule except tbat the anulogy is strengthened by same kind
of neer repetition. Ex 21:26. 27. for exampIe, provides that a
servant would gain his freedom If his master had destroyed one of
his eyes or one of his teeth. In this case two provisions are
aade--one concerniog the eye and another concerning the tooth.
Altbough they are different in use. both eye and tooth are essen-
tial parts of the body that cannot be replaced If destroyed. The
rule tberefore was extended to all other parts of the body, thus
explsining tbe force cf the text as say1ng that if a man muttlates
or destroys auy me.oer of his servant's body he must set him free
as a ccnsequence of tbat brutal treatment (Klddushim 24s).
22 A Symposium on Biblical Hermeneutics Interpretation in ehe Apo9tolic Age
23
5. The [Heet cf General and Particular Terms (kaz.aZ.
nis rule was actually used in two different ways. depending on
wherher a general term was by a specific designation. or
whecher a specific designation followed by a general term. !wo
eXaIlples will mak.e clear hew the rabbis appl1ed [Me rule.
(a) Dt 22:11 (RSV) decrees that mdngled stuff, nacely \1001
and linen. should not be warn together. The general term "mingled
stuff" was follawed by the speciflc explansrory statetrent "wool
and lioen." This statement meant that Ir waB [his partlcular ce--
bination that was prohlbited. The explanatory statement therefore
Wa cODsidered to restr!ct the general tenn "mingled stuff" to
only this specific ttdxture, and that any other combinatiODs of
fabric would be permlss1ble (Khilayim X.I).
(b) On the other hand, when specific terms followed by a
general term, the oppos1te rule of interpretation bad to be given.
An examp1e 1s Ex 22:9, which states that tf a .an lends another man
an ox, ass, sheep, garaent, or any other thing, and the loaned
thing i8 lost, double restitution must be oada. Here the geoeral-
izing tenn "any manner of lost thing" shows that OXt ass, sheep,
and garment are to be t&keo ooly as examples and ehat therefore any
borrowed tbing, living or dead, if lost, must be refunded in double
value (Mekhllta on Ex 22:9).
6. AnaloRY Msde Fron Anotber Passage (kay"ge' bO mimeqtJm
'ahaz'. This rule was s1milar to that of No. 2. already explained,
a.s tbe following example will 111ustratc. The law provided that
the Jelo'S bad to keep the Passover "at It8 appointed t1lDe" (Num 9:2.
RSV). Hi.llel was asked wether this lll8ant that the Passover laDlb
bild to be killed even on a Sabbath if the 14th of Nlsan, the l'ass-
over eve, fellona Sabbath day. He replied that the law expressly
decreed that the "doily" s8crifices bad to be offered also on the
Sabbath (Num 28: 10). Consequently, the expreesion "at its appolnt-
ed timen ueans, by analogy, that the Passover 1amb had to be slain
on the 14th of Nlsan, whet.her that day fell on a Sabbath day or 011
any atber day of the week.
7. The Explanation Obtalned FrOll the Context (taba:I' hilmad
me'antnaJ. This rule decreed that a passage should not be inter-
preted as an isolated atatement. but on1y in the light of lts con-
taxt. Por e
x
amp1e, the statement of Ex 16:29, "let 00 man go out
of his place on the seventh day." taken out of its context could
be interpreted to mean that no man was allowed to leave his home
for auy reason whatsoever on t.be Sabbath. However, areading of
the precedlng and following passages clearly shows that tbis pro-
hibit.ion applied to those gathering manna in the wilderness, say-
ing that the Israelltcs should not go out on the Sabbat.h day to
look for manna, ",ilich tbey would not find anyway on ehae day
(Erubln S1a).
Philo'6 Interpretation cf the Scriptures
Tbe Jewish rabbis in Palestine actively resisted the philo-
sophical and cultural lnfluences of tbe Hellenlstic world and did
everything in their power to shie1d their people from these inf1u-
ence.. But the diaspora Jews, especia1ly those living in eities
that were centers of intellectual Hellenistic life, such as Alex-
andria, were strongly influenced by Greek philosophy, especially
Stoicism and allegory. Ibis is already noticeable in the Creek
translation of the Bible, the Septuagint, produced in the third
and se.cond centuries H.C., which carefully tried to change gross
anthropomorphic er anthropopathic 8tatements about Cod into a
language more acceptable to intellectuals influenced by Creek
reasoning and thinking. For example. the statement made by God
accordirlg to GD 6:7, "It repenteth that I have -.ade them," is
translated in the Septuagint, ul am angry that 1 have .ade ehen."
According to the Creek thinking, gods could not be visualized as
regretting their acts but could be angry about their products.
The Greek philosophers used a1legory to justify deeper and
hidden meanings in the rather blunt and often bawdy stortes about
tbeir gods that revealed huaan character trait.s, weaknesses, and
passions. In some apocryphal and pseudepigraphic Jewish works
these allegorizlng .ethods of tbe Creeks are applled--mostly. how-
ever, in a rather ticid and careful way--so that orthodox Jews
would not be offended.
llowever, Philo of Ale:Jtandria, a prolific Jewlah writer and
exegete. used allegory with great force. Hany of his commentaries
on biblical books have survlvcd, and tbey provide clear picture
of his methods of interpretation in which allegory played a major
role. Tbe title of his COlD!Dentary on the Pentateuch, "Allegorical
Exposition of the Holy Book of the Law, 11 speaks for luelf. Here
Philo explains tbat the treus of knawledge and llfe in paradise
had not really existed but wcre rat.her syshols, just aa the serpent
who seduced [ve to sin was actually a symbol of lust (Leg. alleg.
111.21). Phtlo stated that whenever a text prcsented dlfficultles,
roade 00 sense, contained cootradictloos, or was unworthy of Scrlp-
ture, the litera! meaniDg should be given up in favor of an &11e-
gprical interpretation. He called this type of interpretation the
"18\ols of allegory" (On Abraham, (8). Phi10 also t'cjected auy idea
of vlsualizing Cad in human form because doing so would lead to
the conclusion that God was also subject to human pasaions--a
moost.rous ides (On the Sacrifices of Ahel and Cain, 95).
24
A Symposium OD Biblical Hermeneutics
Jewlsh Interpretation in the Apostolic Age 25
Tbe result of this SOTt of interpretation was that little
of the biblical stortes was retained as fact in PhiloI s com:neotar-
ies. Kverything was spiritualized and allegorized in a philosophi-
cal language appealing to the edueated intelleetuals of the Hellen-
iatie world. Philo more than any other non-Christian writer influ-
eneed the Greek-speaking church fathers for eenturiea. It took
the chureh a long time to rid itself of the allegorieal interpre-
tation of Seripture inherited from philo.
Tbc Qumran Sectarian Interpretation of Scripture
Through the diseoveries of the Qumran seroils 2nd the exeava-
tion of the remains of the eomaunity center at Khirbet Qumran we
have gained a rather good insight of astriet monastie Jewish seet
of Christls tt-e. It i8 now at.ost universally admitted that this
aect was the Essenes, described or referred to by Joaephus, Philo.
Strabo. snd otheT ancient writers. We lenm that these people
were avid studeots of the Bible. of which many copies have eome to
light--although most of them in fragmenta--in the cavea around Qum-
rau. Furthermore. a large number of extreblblical booke. mostly
reiigious in nature, were found in the Qumran area. Several of
these are com.entaries on b1blieal books. mainly on those of a
prophetie nature. Among them ehe c01lllle.ntary on Habakkuk froa Cave.
1 i8 the. best preserved. but also frag.entary copies of
ies on Isaiah, Hosea. Mic:ah. Nahu:n. Zephaniah. aod the. Psal,E from
Caves 1 and 4 have thus far been published.
These commentarles clearly reveal that the Essenes were an
eachatological sect. convinced they were living in the last days
of this world's histoTY, with the expected Messianic age just
araund the corner. All predictive propbecies were applted to sit-
uations of theiT time. some refeTTing to the general pol1tlcal
conditians. others to the his tory of tbe sect.
The commentaries usually quote a brief passage of one to three
verses of the biblical text. ealled the "wo-rd," which i8
followed by the phrase "!ta peahel' 15" fpeehel' meaIling "interpre-
tation"). 'For this reason same seholars have suggested that tbe
term f.Jidrash p6ehel' should be used fOT this sort of eschatological
Jewish interpretation; although the 1IajoTity of scholaTS simply
eall it Pe8Ml'. Even though it is difficult to recognit.e any her-
ueoeutical roles in the interpretation of Scrlpture in the Qumran
literature. some scholars have attempted to list recognlzable rules
of interpretation used by the Essenes.
Tbe following examples an typical of interpretations used by
the Essenes: the "righteous" of Hab 1:4 i6 the "rescher of Right-
eousness t 11 the fouoder of the seet ...hose name 1$ nowhere recorded
in Qumran literature. His authorltative teachings are reflected
in all the nonbibllcal writings fO\Dld at Qumran. He was perse-
cuted. perhaps even killed. by the "Wicked Priest" or "Man cf Lies"
--prObably one person. This explanation 18 also recognized 1n the
sect'g interpretation of Hab 1:4, which 8ay8 ehat "the wicked aur-
round the righteous
tl
(RSV). Thc Chaldeal1s cf Hab 1:6 are thc Ro-
mans. who appear under the name Kittim in the sect's literature.
The l10n and his lo1helps cf Nah 2 :12 are interpreted to be a Deme-
trius and an Antiochus cf the Seleucid ruiers who lived in the
Maccabear. period, as weIl aa their successors down to the appear-
ance of the rulers of the Klttie (the Romans).
On the other hand. same interpretations of the Quaran eectar-
ians have been helpful toward a better understanding of certain
biblical passages. although ehe total theologieal harvest in this
respect has been rat her meager. One beautiful expansion of a
scriptural passage i5 the Aaronitic blessing of Num 6:24-26. used
by the Essenes in their meetings. as recorded in their Manual of
Discipline. In the following translation the Essene additions are
in itaUe:
May he bIese you V1"!f good,
and keep you fPom all
and 1Iay he shioe [into] your heart with wisdom of
and be sraeious to you TJith etemal
and may he lift up bis meroifUl face upon yOU.
for eternal peace (Manual of Discipline, 11.2-4).
Conclusion
A study of the voluminoUB ancient Jewish religiou8 literature
shows that, just like modern Christians. the lews of the apostolic
age wrestled with problems of lnterpreting their saered writings.
This was not done in a uniform way. as the forcgoing pages and
examples show. From these examples one can clesrly see that so.e
of the hermeneutie principles employed by the Jewlsh teachere of
the ap09tolic age were sound end valid. They can still be applied
to enhance our eorrect understandlng of the Scrlptures and to make
their teachings relevant for the situation in the twentietb century.
On tbe other hand. the Jewisb writings also reveal that the rabbis
frequently employed farfetched interpretations and made the Serip-
tures Bay things they hardly implied. much less said. in order to
aake them practical to first-century Judaism.
Ibus tbe orthodox Pbarisees manipulsted the texts in order to
obtain a scriptural basis for their teaChing6 dealing with every
26 A Symposium on Biblical HermeneutlcB
detail of da11y ltfe and thought. The Jews in the Hellenistic
world. on the other hand. a11egorized the Bihle to make it palat-
ahle co tbe Creek m1nd. whereas tbe eschatologically oriented DO-
nastie Essenes read ioto the texts things they deslred to find
tbere. Ta ODe trained co apply sound p r i n ~ p l e s of scriptural
herceneutics, the resultant interpretatIons often seem absurd.
Whether tbey originate wich the ancient orthodox rabbis of Pale.-
tine. the intellectual Hellenists of Alexandria, or the Danks of
Qumran, uany of these interpretations cannat be accepted by modern
students of the Blble.
It 18 in the light cf these frequent aoeient Jewish m1s1nter-
pretatlons of the Bible that we can understand ehat Jesus said to
the Pharlsees. "FOT the sake of your tradition? you have made vo1d
the yord of God" (Mt 15:6, RSV), and to the Sadducees, "You are
vrong. because you know nelther the scr1ptures nor the power of
God" (Mt 22,29. &sV).
READIHG LIST
Brownlee. Will1am R. The Meaning of the Qumran Scrolls for ths
Bible. Ney York: Oxford Oniversity Press. 1964. Cbap. 4:
"'[he Heanmg for Old TestalM>nt Interpretatioo.' pp. 62-109.
Knig. Eduard. Hemwmeutik des Alten Teatanents. Bonn: A. Kar-
cus & E. Weben Verlag, 1916. ehap. 4: "Geschichee der Aus-
legung bei den Juden," pp. 6-16.
Mielziner. M. IntroduO'tion to the
11shlng Co., 1925. Part 11:
Talmud," pp. 117-187.
Talmud. New York:
ilLegal Heraeneutlcs
Bloch Pub-
of the
Siegfrled. earl. Philo von A'lexandria als auslegtU' 008 Alten
Testaments. Amsterdam: Phl10 Press, 1970 (reprint of ehe
1875 edition).
Sowers, Sidney G. The Hermeneutica of Phil.o and Babl'6lJS. Rich-
mond. Va.: John Knox Press, 1965.
Born in Grenada.. Weat Indies.. lJr. Wal.-
ter B. Douglaa is an assutant profes-
801' 01 chureh history cd; th SetJenth-
day Adventist ThBological.
where he has been uaching aince 1969.
His studies compLeted at
McMastBl' Hanriltcrn, Ontario..
in 1972, centared on 17th century PUri-
taniam. The p880arah fOT his dis8erta-
tion involved a new approach to the
interpretation 01 the hietopY of the
Fnglieh Churah [rom 1660 o17ZiXU'd.
(POl' biographical sketch of lJr. .'Clmnth
A. please see p. 88.)
3. Interpretation of the Blble in the
Early and Hedleval Church
KENNETH A. S1"RA..W aod
WALTER B. DOUGLAS
SDA TheoLogieat Smrrinary
Andrel.Js UniVe1'8ity
Biblical interpretation among the early church fsthers tended
to follow the lines indicated in the NT use of the OT sod to uti-
lize same of the contemporary Jewlsh rabbinic modes of dealing
with the Bible text. Certsin of these church fathers leaned toward
the Phllonlc allegorization mentioned in the immedlately precedlng
chapter. During the Ages there was a heightening of the
tendency to allegorize. However. there was also sa.ewhat of a
return toward literal interpretation, whicb kind of interpretation
finally faund a more camplete revival in the werk of the .ajor
Protestant Reformers.
In this short chapter 1t 18 t.poss1ble to glve more than the
briefest survey of Scripture interpretation during the early-church
snd medieval per iods. Therefore. rather than trying to be campre-
hen.slve we simply will look at a fev individuala OT group8 as rep-
resentin. same of the proa1nent tendencies.
Early-Church Use of Scripture
for Purposes of Exemplification
A good deal of scriptural quotation or al1us10n to Scripture
in the early-church period--part1cularly in letteTs, and
treatises 1ntended for Christlan readers--utilizes the Scripture
texts or passages as illustrations of what Christlans should be
or do in the particuLar clrcumstances before them. Thls use of
Scripture 18 evident, for example, in epistolary materials fram
same of tbe earliest fathers, such aa Cleoent of Rome.
Cle-ent VTote to the Corlnthian church possibly as early as
A.D. 95 exhorting it co unity 1n view of its schi8matic tendencies.
In his letter he uses OT Scr1pture freely to illustrate such matters
aa the ev11 of jealousy; the value of repentance; snd the need for
30 A Symposium on Biblical Hermeneutlcs
Tbe Bible in the early and Medieval Church 31
humility. untty, orderliness. and respect for regularly consti-
tuted authority. As an exacple of he refers to
and quotes the first seventeen verses of Ps 51, and aa an illus-
tration of how sedition regarding the priestly office was averted
in anclent Israel he calle attention to the experience recorded
in Numbers 17 about Aaron's rod tbat budded. He alludes to NT
writings as 8uthoritative too, even tbough st this early time the
NT eanon bad not yet been declared. There are a number of reflec-
tions fram varlous of the Gospels aad epistles. aud special .en-
tlon 18 made of "tbe eplatle of the blessed Apostle Paul ,. in

which uoder the inspiration of the Spirit, he wrote to you con-
cerning bimself. and Cephas, and Apollos, because even then parties
had been formed among you." (Por tbe abave illustrations see
chaps. 18, 43. and 47 of Clement's epi.tle. Most translations
herein are from Ante-NiC6ne and Nieene-Post-Nicens Fathere.)
Clement represents the way in whlch the earliest Christian
writers used Scripture for hortstory purposes, naaely. to draw
illustrations for applic8tioD to tbe practical matters at hand.
Not only in letters but also frequently in homilies and in doc-
trinal. disciplinary. and polemical treatlses a like use of
Scripture occurs.
Use of Pagan Sources in Apologies
and in Other Early Christian Literature
A type of early-church literature that sometimes may be puz-
zling because of its references ta pagan writers !8 the apologeti-
cal works of the 2d and 3d centuries. Among the more important of
various apologists are Justln Martyr. Whose extant writings are
dated to about the middle of the 2d century; and Tertullian of
Carthage. who wrote his fam.ous ApoZogy about A.D. 197. Indeed.
Tertullian was a prolifie vriter. producing a nomber of polemical.
doctrinal. and practical treatises aa weIl.
Tertullian's illuatrates the manner in which Chrt.tian
apolog1sts endeavored to defend Cbristlanlty against its hesthen
perseeutors by repudiatlng false charges, asserting the superiority
of Christian literature over pagan literature. and explaining
Christian belief and practice to those not familiar with the ttue
nature of Chri$tianlty. FrequentIy non-Christian writings are
mentioned for no other reason than to prove them inferior to the
sacred Scriptures of the Christians.
There are exauples of the use of such writings to explicate
Christian doctrine. Tertullian when explalning Christtg spiritual
nature refers (chap. 21) to the Stoie philosopher Zeno's tesching
about the Zog08 and also to Cleanthes' ascription of Creation to
an all-pervasive spiritual essence. Such use of pagan sources
represents comounicative cancern rather than adoption of Creek
thought. Indeed. Tertullian utilizes coneepts from Creek philo-
sophical thought. tao. in such a polemical work as Against
agaln from the standpoint af their being a communicative vehicle.
It should be noted that inasmueh as apologists were addressing
pagans they naturally incorporated language and concepts fa-iliar
to the intended readers. This represents a hermeneutical considera-
tion of first rank akin to that faced by modern-day missionaries
who earry the message of the Bible to peoples whose backgrounds
are quite allen to the tradltioQ.
Par present-day missionaries, terminological problems may be
severej for how ceR one make meaningful ehe "Lamb of God" to
people wbo bave never seen sheep and laabs, or "wbiter than snow"
to persona who beye never seen snow?
The communleation problem of the early apologista was not
entirely dissimilar. Although it is true that some of these writers
had absorbed certain Creek notions (including imDortality of the
soul), mo.t frequently thefr mode of expression was simply the
result of an honest effort put the Bible message snd an expla-
nation of Christtan practice iota terms heathen addresses could
understand.
Iertullian's Use of a
Extrabiblical Source
Tertullian io af his writings 1l1ustrates an interesting
use of a Christ!an extrabiblical source. Tbis ehurch father first
became converted to the Catholic mainstream branch of Christlanity
late in the 2d century, but during the first decade of the 3d cen-
tury moved his allegiance to a strieter wing, calIed Hontanism.
This wing was considered by many ss same sort of offshoot of the
universal cburch. The group originated about the .iddle of the
2d eentury in Phrygia in Asia Hinor. where the "prophet" Hontanus
and the "propbetesses" ?tbc!lla and H.a.x!milla bad had visions
they eonsidered to be manifestations af the era of the Haly Spirit
(their own time) in contrast to earlier periods of supposed lesser
light--the era of the Father (the OT period), and the era of the
Son (the NT period).- Tertullian as a Montanist aceepts the nev
revelations (ar new prophecy, aB he calla it) as authoritative.
In bis treatise On the Yeiling of Vipgina be utilizes it as a
solid basis for belief in to Scripture.
)2
A Symposium on Bibl1cal Hermeneutics
The Bible in the Early aod Medlevsl church
))
Indeed. tbe Montanist revelations also had their effect on
his understanding of the biblical text itself, ae may be Doted in
regard to hia interpretation of the des cent of the haly city New
Jerusalem. Un Against Book III. chap. 25). Ameng the
MoDtsnist "revelations" was one claiaing ehat the New Jerusalem
wuuld very 800n descend in Phrygia. Although Tertullian shifts
the scene of lts descent to Palestine, he places thnt des cent at
the beginning of the millennium Instead of st the end of the 1 000

years, as would be indicated by a literal understandlng of the

20th Bud 21st chapters of Revelation. The Influence cf the Monta-
nist extrabiblical souree in modifying the interpretation of tbe
biblical text 18 evident bere.
Tbe Use of Allegor1zation in tbe Early Churcb
Generally. the various early ehurch fethers had st least a
tendency tovard allegorizatlon of Bible references. One aay take
as an exaople a disciple of who in turn was a
disciple of the apostle John. In his famous Again8t
written about A.D. 185. he referred (Book V. chap. sec. 4) to
OT description of clean and unclean an1mals as figuratively
delineating classes of mankind: Those enltl1s1s that "have a dou-
ble hoof end rUlllloate [che\{ the CUdJ" are clean. Tbey represent
the true Christians. "who make their way by falth steadily towards
the Father and the Son" as "denoted by the steadiness of those
which divide the hoof .. and who med itate "day end night UpOR the
of God" a8 indicated by chewing the cud. Tbe lt unc1ean" fall
ioto three clas8es: (1) the wbo divide the
hoof nor ruminate" ("those persoDS who bave neither faich in God
nor do .editate on His words"); (2) the Je....s. "represented by
the animals tbat chew tbe cud hut lack the double boof"; and (3)
heretics. indicated by the animals that bave split hooves but do
not cbew the cud.
A more pervasive form of a11egorization than that of Irenaeus
had appeared in the Epistle of Barnabas (wr1tten as early as about
A.D. 130. probably from Alexandria). Tbis Barnabas, now generally
recognized by seholars as not the companion of the apostle Paul.
seems to have endeavored to heighten a tendency toward allegoriza-
tion, noticeab1e in Gal 4:22-31. where the apostle uses Sarah and
Hagar and Isaac and Ishmael as o.f old-covenant and
new-covenant concepts. Th1s sort of illustration (it 15 referred
to as "allegory" in Gal 4:24) does not deny the reality of the
original experienees to vhicb reference i9 made but, rather. draws
a relevant Christian lesson from tbern.
BarnabaG
t
departure from Paul's methodology in this respect
1s twofold: (1) Barnabas allegorizes profusely; end (2) bis
of allegor1zation 1s such as often to deny or at least
tbe original intent of the OT Scrlptures. We aay notice bis ref-
erence (chap. 10 of his book) to wbat be calls three doctrines 1n
Mo8es' mind when Mases spoke of unelean animals: (1) Thc prohibi-
tion of swine's flesh means that God's should refrain fram
the company of tImen who resemble swine" (who in time of pleasure
forget their hut in time of want aeknowledge Him); (2) the
mentlon of certsin birds of prey signifies the need to avoid aeso-
eiation with persons who "knall not how to proeure feod for them-
selves by labour sud sweat. but seize on that of others
ll
; (3) the
commaod not to eat "tbe lamprey. or the polypus, or the cuttlefish"
means that oue should not join himself "or be like to such men as
are ungodly to the end. and are condemned to just as those
fishes "malte their abode in the mud ....hich lies at the bottom" of
the sea.
Barnabas thinks that althougb the lsraelite people in general
understood Hoses' statements a8 only to literal meats.
David in the first Psalm grasped the real meaning of the ll t hre.e
doctrines
1t
: "'Bleased i5 the lDun ....ho hath not walked in the coun-
ael of the ungodly.' even as tbe fishes [referred to] go in dark-
ness to the depths lof the seal; 'and bath not 8tood in the of
sinners I even as those who profess to fear the Lord, but go astray
. ,
like swine; 'and hath not sat in the seat of scorners. even as
those birds tbat lie in for prey.tl
It would appear that Rarnabas bad a high regard for Scripture
in view of the extnt to which he uses it throughout his epist1e.
Ho....ever. the way he treats the OT in an effort to give it Chrlstian
meantng leaves little doubt tbat he ia on a dangerous hermeneutical
track. With his kind of exegesis and interpretation each exegete
or interpreter can become virtually a law to himself.
Origen's Threefold Interpretation
The Epist1e of Barnabas 18 the earliest extant Christian
witness for a tendency prevalent in Alexandria that
crops up agaln in the writings of later churcb fathers from there.
auch as element of Alexandria and Origen in the late 2d cel\tury
and first part of the 3d century.
The latter. vho for sa-e years sueceeded Clement a8 head of
the catechetical school in that city. can be considered to rapre-
sent tbe pinnacle of allegorie.I-type interpretation in the early
cburch. Tbis chureh father concluded that Scr1pture bas a three-
fold meaning comparable to bady, soul. and spirit in the human
34
A Symposium 00 Riblical Hemeneutics
Tbe Bible in the Early and Hedieval Church 35
As an illustrat.ion of Origeo's "spirituaI
1
' interpretation,
one may note his refercnce (in Series of Commentarie8 on
chapter 50) to t.he "second advent" of the Word as a "daily" expe-
rienee in "the prophetie clouds"-in "the writings of the prophets
and apostles," which reveal Cbrist.
Origecls exegetieal method aod interpretational results were
far fram universally accepted in the early church. Nevertheless,
touches of his influenee on; and his threefold interpre-
tation was later expanded into a fourfold one that became standard
during the Middle Ages. This kind of interpretation, which will
be treated in more detail 1ater. conceived of Scripture as embrae-
ing "literai." "allegorical.
tt
fftropological." and "anag081ca1"
Origen obviously represents a heightened and more sophisti-
cated form of the tendencies already apparent in Barnabas. Origen.
.areover. !ncorporates Greek concepts !nto his theology a9 an
integral part of that theology rather than as simply the sort of
eommunicative tools noticeable in the writings of other Christian
apologists. He thinks. for exomple, of universal salvation and
a form of metempsyehosis (transmigration of soul.) akin to Platonic
philosophy. He also holds Greek notions regarding tbe relation-
ship of form and matter.
for his Scripture interpretation he placed the
least slgnificance on the corporea1 ("11tera1
11
or "material")
meaning, attributing lncreasing va1ue to tbe "soulish" ("psycbical")
aud especially "spiritual" aeanlngs. He did not. reject the idea
tbat the literal, or corporeal, 16 present in much of Scrlpture
aud that it has a certain degree of value. but he concluded tbat
the "spiritual" significance i6 the most important aud thilt Scrip-
ture someti-es includes "material" or "literai" falsehood in an
effort to provide "spiritual" truth.
Two illustrations of Augustiners mode of interpreting Bome
of the specHies of Rev 20 must suffice here: The "bottomles8
pit" or "abyss" ioto which Satan was thrown represents "the count-
less multitude of the wieked whose hearts are unfathomably deep
in malignity sgainst the cburch of God; not that the devil was
not there before, but he 16 said to be cast in thither, because,
when prevented from baraing believers. he takes .are complete pos-
session of the ungodly.1f The "fire out of heaven" that devours
the wicked, he says. "is weIl understood of the firmness of the
saints. wherewith they refuse to yield obedience to those wbo
rage against them"; by God's grace "the saints bec.ome unconquerable.
snd so torw.ent their enemies."
meanings. It was a method even Hartln Luther used in his early
theological lectures st the University of Wlttenberg, but fram
which the Reformer 8000 broke away in favor of a grsmmatical-
hlstorlcal approach.
Augu6tine vas not always consistent in his Scripture inter-
pretation. He bad onee beeo a preuillenarian. but apparently his
dis toste for the grossly materialistic earthly millennium pro-
pounded by the chiliasts (or premillenarians of his day) led him
toward his amillennialist position. Among various factars influ-
eneing his hermeneutie was his changing attitude in view of what
he deemed to be the needs of the times. One may note. for example.
his early attitude of seeking to vin Donatists to the orthodox
cbureh by ffdiscussion. reasorlng, and persuasion,ff 10 eontrast to
The Role of Augustine
Illustrations of the way in which he allegori%ed Scripture
appear in Book XX of his City 01 where he propounds the
"amillennial" view. which became standard Christian interpretation
of Rev 20 for many centuries. In his opinion. the "thousand years"
could be understood in two ways: either "tbe sixtb thousand of
Yellrs" of earth' s history , Ol" "the whole duration of this world. n
Thus. the "1000 years" of Rev 20 are considered as applying either
to apart or to the whole of this Garth's not to
a future m111ennial age.
The early-church father who undoubtedly had the greatest
influenee in molding both doctrine and hermeneutic for the entire
medieval period Augustine of Rippo (d. A.D. 430). Although
his system of allegorizing was not preeisely like that of Origen,
similarities may be noted. Like Origen he imbibed Neo-Platonic
concepts that led him toward his allegorieal interpretation and
Influeneed some of his doctrinal positions.
Platonic or Neo-Platonic concepts. he viewed Imbued with
negatively.
being.
matter
In Book IV. chapur 1, of his On Fi1'6t lJhere he
treats the subject in detail. he says. for exDple. that "the
principal aim being to announce the 'spiritual
t
connection in those
things that are done. and that ought to be done, where the Word
fouod that things done according to the history could be adapted
to these mystical senaes. He 1I18de use of thern.." On the other hand
" .
where in the narrative of the of Bupcr-sensual things.
there did not follow the performance of those eertaio events."
the Scriptures incorporated in the aceount " scmle eveDt that did
not take place; vbat could not bave happened; sometimes
wat could, but did not."
36 A Symposium on Biblical Hermeneutics The Bible in the Early aud Medlevsl ahureb 37
his later attitude of compelling them by force, for which (as
noted in his epist1e 93) he thought he had Scriptura1 support in
the words "campel them to come in" (Lk 14:23).
Synopsis of Early-Church Developments
The patristic writers often used hermeneutical principles in
which great dangers inhered, but what has been said above should
not be taken to mean that all treatment of Scripture during the
early-church per iod was basically unsound. As has already been
noted, a good deal of the use of Scripture by ehureh fathers in
addressing Christian readers was for the purpose cf providing
praetical example. Also, the apologetieal works utilized the
sound prineiple of making the Bible message and Christian practice
understandab1e to non-Christians. Works of the kinds just men-
tioned, plus various polemical writings, frequently reveal an
extensive use of Bible texts aeeompanied by analysis and exegesis
weIl thought out and solid.
One may think, for example, of Irenaeus, to whom reference
has already been made in i11ustrating an al1egorizing tendency
quite generally preva1ent amons the church fathers. But certainly
he is to be remembered, too, in his significant role as a champion
of the eause of Christianity against various Gnostie heresies that
were endeavoring to split the church apart. In refuting the Gnos-
tie claim that the Saviour, who descended from heaven, did not have
areal body, Irenaeus used such texts as Mt 1:18 and Jn 1:13, 14,
plus severa1 passages from Paul' s epistles, to show that a "Divine
Christ" was not a distinct entity from a "human Jesus," as Gnos-
ties wou1d claim; but rather that the lISon of God was born of a
virgin, and that He Himself was Christ the Saviour whom the proph-
ets had foretold."--Against Hereaies, Book 111, chap. 16.
We may think also of Tertullian, who ehampioned the cause of
Christianity against Gnostic heresies and against Marcion. MOre-
over, in his Against ~ e a 8 he dealt with a Monarehian view that
had taken hold of part of the church itself; namely, that God the
Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit represent simply one
divine Person who manifested Himself in different ways at differ-
ent times. To this, Tertullian aptly responded with various pas-
sages of Scripture. asking. for example, the quest ion as to whether
if this were really so, to whom did Christ pray when He said, "Dur
Father wbich is in heaven"?
Finally, in elosing this seetion, we may again mention Augus-
tine, who although he provided medieval interpreters with a herme-
neutie cf somewhat allegorica1 nature. also gave a good deal of
sound interpretation in various of his works. His treatment cf
the relationship cf grace sud law in his treatise On spirit and
Letter 18 beautiful, sud was influential on Martin Luther st a
crucial point in the Reformer's career. For purposes cf illustra-
tion we note oue conclusion therein. relating to Rom. 3:24. "It
18 not, therefore. by the law nor 18 it by their own will," that
men are justified. Rather. justificatioll comes freely by God's
grace. !luot that it 18 wrought without Dur will; hut Dur will 18
by the law shown to be weak. that grace may heal lts infirmity;
sud that Dur healed will may fulfill the 1aw, not by compact under
the law, nor yet in the absence of law" (chap. 15).
The PI ace of the Bible in the Middle Ages
The Bible was the most studied book in the Middle Ages, and
Bible study represented tbe highest braneh of learning. Yet in
the opinion of one scholar, there is not much in medieval inter-
pretation that is strikingly novel (see Farrar, History 01 I n t e ~
pretation, p. 245).
So in approaching the subject of medieva1 exegesis it is our
des ire to highlight the salient principles of interpretation
employed by the medieva1 theologians in tbe exposition and dis-
covery of the message of the Word of God. Hopefully, these prin-
ciples will provide a fruitful basis for our understanding of the
hermeneutics of this per iod.
Insofar as the interpretation of the Bible is concerned the
medieval per iod can be deseribed as aperiod of transition from
patristic emphasis on exegetical theology to the divoree between
bib1ical interpretation and theology, which beeomes most notieeable
i ~ the writings of Themas Aquinas. As will be seen, Aquinas in-
slsted on the literal interpretation as having primary importance,
upon which all other interpretations are based. Although the men
of the Middle Ages developed their own technieal aids to study
their auxiliary scienees of textual critieism and biblical lan-
guages, the material of bib1ical study remained the same. As
Farrar remarked, "We find very litt1e exegesis except the glimm.er-
ings and decays of patristic expositions." They give us volumes
of dogma, morality, and system that profess to be used in Scrip-
ture but for the most part have no real conneetion with the pas-
aages to which they are attached (see Farrar, Histor-y of Interpre-
tation, pp. 245ff.). One might suggest that the reason for this
practice and its result is the interpreters' assumption that
revelation not only is expressed in Seripture but also is hidden
in it, and this assumption led them to pereeive a multiplicity of
senses or meanings in Scripture.
38 A Symposium on Biblical Hermeneutlc9 The Bible in the !arly and Medieval Church 39
Thc A11egoriC41 Method of Interpre:tadon
As already noted. during the later patristlc period snd in
the Middle Ales a system of allegorization was developed accord-
iog to which four meanings were to be 80ught in every text. Some-
times, indeed. there were as many Ba seven, but the more normal
number of senses was four: the allegorieal, whieh sets forth what
should be bel1eved the literal. whieh 1s the plain evident
Ing; the tropological, whieh 18 the DOral sense. telling men what
to dOj snd the anagogical, which centers in what Christians are
to hope.
From tbe beginning of our period (ca. A.D. 600), al1egory
held a dominant place in the minds of medleval theologians. Indeed,
severe crit1cism of Catholic exeget es has srisen because they made
so much Uge of the allegorlcal interpretation. Bowever, these
exegetes did not iotend in any way to questlon or reject the his-
torica! foundations of Scripture. On the contrary. their purpose
was to find a symbolic value in histary.
Claudius of Turin points approvingly to this practlee. The
Word of God, he dec1ares, ie incarnate in Scripture, which 11ke
man has a body and a soul. The body is the warding of the sacred
text, the Illetter," the literal meaning; the soul 1s tbe spiritual
sense. To eKplain tbe literaI sense 1s to expound
veZ carnaliter; Zittern is almost interchangeable
Bery1 Smalley in her book The Study 01 the Bible in the MUJd1,e
Agas observea that if in rare moments of skepticism a .edieval
scholar quest10ned tbe truth of Scripture, he never doubted tbat
it had letter and spirit; he oo1y feared that tbe spirit might be
bad. Naturally, then, he understood relationship between letteT
and spirit in the same way as he did the Telationship between body
Bud soul.
What WB now ca1l exegeais based on the study of the text and
of biblical history, in the widest sense belongs to the literal
exposition. The spiritual exposition generally consists of picus
meditations or religious teachings for which the text was used
mere!y a6 a eonvenient point. It 1s obvious that pickiog
meanings out of the Bible like this, rather than on the basis of
context, can lead Iar astray. But tbe modUs of medieval
interpretation of Scripture 1s founded on the belief that all things
created ean find a basis in Scripture in the sense of being sacred
words or signs of divine things.
Thomas Aquinas expte8ges this view most clearly in his writ-
lngs. "Physical creatures,U he dec.lares. Ilsignify Bomethlng sacred.
namely the divine \ilsdom and goodness"; and "hy mesos of the l1ke-
ness of the pbysical things in divine Scripture, scriptural things
are described for \lS. u__Sunrna Theo'Logica, III, 860. art. 3, 8nd 1.
According to this premise and other related ideas, all things
are consldered to have sacramentsl significance that leads to eod.
This is, in fact, the secret of medieval interpretation of the
Bible. It i8 evident in Bonaventura's view of the relationship
between the interpretation of the Bible snd theology. For him
theology hag its foundation in Scripture, which 18 divine revela-
tion made evident througb tbe Holy Thus, the Bible COD-
tains the words of eternal life, wrltten not only that we aay
belleve but also that we may possess eternal I1fe. It is hardly
surprising, then, that the medieval theologians and exegetes seemed
mainly interested in fiDding in the Word of God what they thought
was spiritual nourishment fot the people. In fact, so firmly
established was this approach to Scripture that ir bad a direct
and lasting influence on medievs! eucharistie teaching.
Examples of A11egorization
Tbe modern reader may be tempted to ask: Can it be true that
the preachers and the faithful were taught that the ward mountain
in Hely Scriptures is to be interpreted priaarily to meao "virg1n,"
or in tbe plural to stand for "angels," "apostles," "precepts," or
th. 'IIestame.nts
lt
?
By 100king at a few more exa.ples of allegorizing we begin to
rea11%e ehe complexity of the interpretation of Scripture in the
medieval period. Accordlng to the allegorical sense, the raising
of signifies a man in mortal ein who repents, confesses,
and receives absolution. This 16 quite a cammon interpretation.
After the rBising of Lazarus it was said to the disciples, "Loese
him." This was taken to mean that God quickene a repenting sinner
but that he is never loosed except by the ministers of the church.
The use of allegory is also shewn in the example of the word
8ea# vhlch could be understood in seven different ways. It could
aean a gathering of water, Scripture, the ptesent sge, the human
heart, the active life, heathen, or baptism. the allegotical
interpretation survived largely in preacbing. But for a rational,
almost rationalistic, theologiea! method, such a subjective atti-
tude tovard Seripture could not prove satisfactory.
40 A Symposium on Biblical Hermeoeutlcs
The Bible in the Early and Medieval ChUTCh
41
The Influence of the Universities
sud Religious Orders
[t 1s cf estreme importance co bear In mind that the movement
for understandlng and ioterpreting the Bible derives fraa the uni-
versities snd the new reiigious orders. According to H188 Smalley,
"lf we are looking for a criCleal approach Co interpretation in
the 12th and 13th centuries. ve BUBt go Co the new rellgious orders,
Cistercians, Cauons Regular, Vrlars Preacher and HinoT, all %ealots
for the hieh and the papacy. "-Study of tr.e Bible in the
Ag68, p. xx.
must follow the centralization of studies at Paris, the
development of classroom equipment, the Gloss (standard cocmentary)
and its uses, and the development of functlons supple-
mentary to the leetures--tbe university sermon and the disputation.
These exereises determine the form and to an extent the eontent
of medieval exegesis.--Ibid., p. xv.
At tbe universities all interpretations were based on the
multiple senses of Scripture. Tbe reason for this method seeas
to have been twofold. In the first plaee. for the leadlng seholars
and writers in the early Middle Ages (and for many wrlters even
later) the problem of the relation of revelation to reason posed
particular hardship. The fact i& that throughout the patristie
period theology had been largely a matter of exegesis. Theo10gical
systems were atte-pts to interpret as broadly as possible the vords
of God in Scrlpture. But as Professor Grant points out, natural
theology was used as rarely aa pessible.--R. M. Grant, The Bibte
in the p. 102. In view of this fact, the one thina naces-
sary was to discover what was predicted snd prefigured io Scrip-
ture as insights given by God for His people. Thus Cassidoru8
affirms that the Psalms are full of the liberal arts.
Thc sccond reason relates to the influence of the Creek
fathers and the "vitality of PlatoniSlll,11 which reac.hed the medieval
scholar largely through Augustine. These influences dctermined
the world vlcw of the medieval thinkers; and it was ordioarily
believed, as Miss Smalley expresses It. that "Scripture. like
the visible world is a great mirrer reflecting God, and therefore
a11 and every kind of truth. "--See R. M. Grant. The Bibte in the
p. 102.
Tbe questien was always raised: What i9 God saylng in His
Ward? Did He iotend to conceal Ris meaning or did He Intend to
express It? The Aristotelian exposition of nature. which was
curreocy a-ong the newer theologians, did not take seri-
oue1y the idea of symboliem. And io view of thle, one begins to
see emergtng a new emphasis on interpretation. namely, the literal.
Sa.e Interpreters of Scripture
Enougb bas bean said co indicate the variety of interpreta-
tion in the Middle Ages. We must now look briefly at same of the
.ure important figures concerned witb the interpretation of the
Bible. From the galaxy of weIl-kaowu expositors we may ehe
following as among ehe .ure important: Bernard of Clalrvaux, Hugo
of St. Victer. Aadrew of St. Vietor. Langton. and Aquinas.
Bernard (ca. 1091-1153) was famous not only for his preaching
but also for his interpreting. Ameng his extensive written werks
are 86 sermons on tbe Song of Songs. Bernard utilizes a traditional
threefold sense--historical, moral or figurative, and mystlcal--and
interprets the Song of Songs as an allegory of the relation between
Christ and the soul of the individual Cbristian. His vay of study-
ing and interpreting Scripture seemed more eongenial te Itfe wlthin
the clolster than to the vorld outside. He engaged in fanclful and
exaggerated but bis overriding concern was alwaY8
to be practtcal. Beroard's &im was to encourage and deepen
the sptrituality of tbe faithful.
A notable exemple of bis interpretation is reflected in his
treatDant of Song of Songs 1: 2: IlThy love is better than wine."
Rere the maid addresses her beloved. According to Bernard, these
words refer to ChrIst, snd they mean his patience snd clemency.
The fol1owing verse states. "Therefore do the virgins love thee.
tl
Bernard interprets the word virgilUJ ae "angels 11 snd then he
proceeds to discuss ehe nioe orders of angela.
Rugo of St. Vieter (1097?-ll41) was one of the most learned
interpreters of Seripture. Although his tendency was in the
directlon of the Alexandrlan threefold principle, he distinguished
himself for his emphasis on the literal sense. However. for him
the literal sense was more than the bare ward; it was indeed the
meaning of the word. despite the fact that the meaning eould be
figurative. It 18 aeaerted that although Hugo lived more than a
hundred years befoTe Aquinas. he seems to have grasped the Thomist
principle that the elue to prophecy snd metaphor i8 the writer'.
intention; the literal sense includes everything the sacred writar
meant to say.
A remarkable advance was made in biblical interpretation by
Andrew of St. Victor, a student of Rugo's who flourished in the
second half of the 12th century. He learned from bia master the
ability aud the importance of utilizing a11 available knowledge
42 A Symposium on Biblical Hermeneutics The Bible in the Early aud Meclieval Church
43
in interpretation. His methodological principle was to treat
selected portions of the BibIe, to aim at removing hindrances to
a literal interpretation, aud to leave aaide both the spiritual
aud the theological aspects.
When Andrew dealt with controversia1 passages he made use of
a twofold exegetical method. One was based on the Vulgate with
a Christian explanation; the other was based on the Hebrew text
with a Jewish explanation. This methodology 1s 11lustrated in
his treatment of Is 7:14-16: "Behold. a virgin sha11 eoneeive."
etc. Here Andrew aeeepts the Jewish interpretation because it is
the 1itera1 one. and he seems to doubt the adequacy of the Chris-
tian interpretation. Andrew was cr1ticized for finding too-easy
agreement with Jewish exegetes. Neverthe1ess, one of the valuable
resu1ts of his work is the interest he aroused in the original
sourees.
Stephen Langton (1150-1228). Arehbishop of Canterbury, was
another signifieant interpreter of the Bible. Quite apart from
his reputation as an interpreter, he is credited with introdueing
the present system of chapter division. Langton displayed a prac-
tiea1 bent in his work on the Bible. He aimed at ensuring asound
text. His energies were spent in attempting to elarify the dis-
tinetion between litera1 and spiritual interpretations. Consistent
with the prevailing eoncept of his time was his belief that the
spiritual interpretation was superior to the literal. But even
during fiis lifetime a change was already notieeab1e in the coneep-
tion of the spiritual meaning. In the 12th eentury the spiritual
interpretation exerted a greater influence on preaehing. It beeame
a means for instructing the ordinary simple Christian in a eonerete
and pietorial form. Instead of explieating the Bib1e text in terms
of abstract virtues and vices as these struggle within the human
soul, interpretation came to deal with .. the behaviour' of groups,
of types, and religious and soeial abuses. "--Smalley , Study of
the BibZe in the MiddZe Ages, p. 245.
Langton, who was at the center of eeelesiastieal and politieal
affairs. took an active part in this change in interpretation.
For him the one test in interpretation was simply eonformity with
the Cbristian faith. If the interpretation was in aecordanee with
the faith, it could be aeeepted. To be sure, Langton found greater
freedom in spiritual meaning. as distinct from literal. Neverthe-
1ess, the spiritual sense had to be based on what is signified by
the Word.
We now come to the greatest of all the scholastic theologians
of the Middle Ages. Themas Aquinas, who by his emphasis on rational
philosophieal arguments was foremost in setting forth an early
speculative form of "natural theology." It 18 interesting to
note that Aquinas approached the interpretation of the Bible aa
a philosopher-theologian rather than as a biblical scholar in the
more specific sense, aud there were several basic tensions in his
position. The meaning of Scripture was of tremendous significance
to him, aud yet he engaged in philosophical reasoning aud discus-
sion perhaps more than any of his contemporaries. Again, while
he took the position of defending the primacy of revelation as
eontained in Scripture, his use of Scripture. 1ike his utilization
of philosophy, was also for the confirmation of ecelesiastical
dogma.
It is of great importanee. Thomas eontended, to understand
what the Bible says. Tc be sure, Scripture uses metaphors. he
knew. but these can be understood easi1y and naturally: "It is
natural to man to attain intel1ectual truths through sensible
objeets, beeause all our knowledge originates through sense; hence
in Holy Seripture spiritual truths are fittingly taught under the
likeness of material things. "--8'u1rrra TheoZogioo, L l: 9.
Aquinas defends the view that the literal sense of Scripture
is the basis for the other senses. which ean be built upon it.
He resists all who would argue that it is possible to have several
senses in Scripture. His thought on this idea proceeds along three
main lines. The first is the most serious. He observes that "many
different senses in one text produee eonfusion and deeeption and
destroy all force of argument. Hence no argument, but only falla-
eies can be dedueed fram a multiplicity of propositions. But Holy
. "
Scripture ought to be able to stste fhe truth without any fallaey.
(Cf. Grant, ThB BibZe in the ChU'i'ch, p. 106.)
His second objeetion merely points to the confusion and lack
of system in the al1egorieal method and raises questions ahout use
of this method. The third objeetion foeuses on the fourfold divi-
sion, and is severely critical. Aquinas maintains that the literal
sense is coneerned with the meaning of words, which can be used
both proper1y and figuratively. The literal sense is not the
figure but the thing that is meant. Ihus. the litera1 meaning of
"the arm of God" is not that God has an arm. but the meaning cf
the expression "operative power. 11 Aquinas concludes with the suc-
eint remark that "nothing false ean even under1ie the literal sense
of Holy Seripture. "--Ibid. # p. 107.
Thomas uses the story of the garden of Eden as an example of
his literal interpretation of Scripture. He says that "the things
whieh are said of Paradise in Scripture are set forth by means of
an historical narrative. Now in everything which the Scripture
thus sets forth the truth (of the story) must be taken as a
44 A Symposium on Biblical Hermeneut1cs
The Bible in the Early snd Medieval Cburch
foundation and upon it spiritual expositions are to be bulle. lI __
Cf. Grant. The Bible in the Church, p. 107. At ehe saue time.
Thoaas by 00 means stood clear of the allegorical method 88 dld
the Protestant Reformers later.
through allugion to concepts familiar co those addressees.
ta101y. chis attitude toward aud treatment of Scripture has
vance for today 88 weIl as in the past.
Cer-
rele-
Consequences cf the Medieval Developments
Ie 18 obvlous ehat there was not very much noticeable change
in interpretation in ehe Middle Ages. Yet what there was 18
important. Largely due to Aquinas. a so-ewhat clearer underetand-
ing developed es co what was meant by ehe litera! interpretation.
Tbe conaequences of this particular medieval insistence on the
litera! interpretation of Scripture were incalculable. In the
first place. an immediate impetus was given to the study of Hebrew
and the production of literary and historical commentaries on the
OT. More important was the measure of rejection of the patristic
tbeological method with the divorce of theology from exegesis.
The divorce was immediately followed. if not preceded. by the
remarriage of theology to phl1osophy.
But as Professor Grant has noted, there still reaained chil-
dren of the first marriage who were not content with their oew
father. Tbis becomes evident when one realizes the slow develop-
met of Scbolasticism. Another factor in this connectiOn can be
seen in tbe work snd influence of Nicholas of Lyra. who in his
commentaries WTote about the spiritual as weIl as the literal
sense. He did so when the need for allegorization seemed sbsent.
And the final influence was the Reformation. which insisted that
its concerns were directed toward areturn to the method of
theolagy chrough exegesis.
Side by aide with this emphasis on historical studies was
the claim to objcctivity. The iuterpreter's claim to direct
inspiration by God in his exegesis became less and les8 credible.
The argument took the other direction; thnt is to 9ay. all knowl-
edge comee through the senses. aud scriptural interpretation
requires no special inner grnce. Indeed, in the medieval claim
to objectivity we discover the genesis of modern scientific snd
critical study of the Bible.
and I.plications
We have seen that the early church illustrates practical1ty
as an important criterion in use of Scripture for Christlans them-
selves; and that it reveals, too. an eifort to aake the gospel
message underatood snd appreclated by non-Christian addressees
Hawever. the patristlc tendency to allegorize eventually led
to devaluation of tbe literal significance of the text
aod became the bane of early-church hermeneutic. It was an il1
heritage passed on to the Hiddle Ages, and was heightened by the
medieval church. Certain medieval theologians saw the danger
inberent in allegorlzatlon and raised their voices against it.
In spite of this and in spite of the fact that the Protestant
Reformation in particular brought a wide-scale return to emphasis
on the literal sigoificance of the Scriptural text as a base ror
drawing spiritual lessons. we can recognize that in our own day
there has been areversion to emphasis on meaning sa.etimes vith-
out adberence to adequate literary and historical foundations for
projecting that meaning. In this respect some of the hermeneutlc
of today bears astrange resemblance to the embodied
in Origen
l
s "threefold interprlltation" and in the "fourfold inter-
pretation," which was so popular during the Kiddie Ages. And. of
course, the dangers inherent in the procedure exist today a8 euch
as tbey did in those earlier times. Indeed. the vagaries of the
allegorical method 8S illustrated in the early-church and aedleval-
church periods serve as astern warning against any hemeneut1c
that would destroy the historical foundations of Scripture or
subordinate them to a eult of meaning per BB.
On the other hand. the correctlves by the literal aad
objective approach to Scr1pture led to a MOre consistent and stable
mode of Seripture interpretation, as we have seen. Even here,
ever, a caution be lifted against the sort of aethodology that
in the hands of certsin critical scholars has virtually destroyed
present-day relevance of the Bihle message by overemphasizing
purely historical and linguistic concerns as eods in themselves.
The spiritual message of Scripture must not be lost sight of.
The important thing 15 to base that spiritual message on solid
historical and lingulstic foundations rather than on mere specu-
lation--a need made abundantly clear by developments 1n the early
aud medieval periods of church history.
Provost of th6 La. Si6rra. of
LoM:1 Unda Univel"aity at Riveraide,
CaUfo1>nia, anti dean. of the univeJ"Bity'a
cotzege of arts anti sancea, lJr. V.
Norakov Ol.sen joined the facul"t!f aB
professor' of chuzoch mstory in 1968.
He was a pastor and evangelist tal" ten
years pM.ol" to his aeademic aBsig1VTlents
and BePlJed equaZ te1'mB aB acaderrric dea:n
anti president 01 NewboZd CoUege in
EngZand wer a 12-year period. He
1"60aiVed the Ph.D. degree from thB lJni-
versity of Landen and the D.Th. degree
from the tmiversity of Basel. Fort the
laUer his dissertation waa entit"led:
''ThB New Te.t<:unent Logia on Dit>oZOC6, A
Study of Their Interpretation Fr'ao
Era8mus to NiZtcn."
4. Hermeneutical Principles and
Biblical Authority in Reformation
and P06trefonnation Eras
V. NoRSKOV DLSEN
La Sisl"1'a Campus
LCI11U Linda Unive1"Sity
Formative Decades
Wben Martin Luther at the trial in Worcs. lS21. made his
PO
ints of defense lrrevocable by the words "Bere 1 standl I can
"th
do no otber!" his decis10n became. as Lord Acton 1o'rote. e most
pregnant SIld maonentous fact in our history. " !.ven though the Ref-
ormation haa been viewed--and with good reasons--froa the partic-
ulars of polltical. soctal, ratlonalistic. liberal. and economical
forces at work. it was essentially rellgiou8 in character. Within
the sphere of religion the primary issue was religious authority
and how to articulate the true meaning of Scriptures. Tbe Refor-
mation began with a reappraisal of the principles of biblical in-
terpretation and grew ioto arevolt against current hermeneutics
and I:he creation of ne'" exegetical tools by wbich true biblica1
theology and NT Chrlstianity could be restored. In the light of
the bistory of the Christian Church and its theology, which is tbe
story of the Scriptures were interpreted (a fact that is often
overlooked and sadly neglected). the Reformation became areal
re-formatioo and re-orientat10n in the field of hermeneutics. The
crux of the religious lssue at Worms was posltlvely stated by Lu-
ther when he claimed: "I am bound by Scriptures and my con-
Acience is captive to the Ward of God."
As in the first quarter of the 16th century and also in the
20th century. the role of bibUcal aul:hority and a reexalDlnation
of exegetical principle8 occupy the minds of Catholic and Protes-
tant theo!ogians. It i8 our purpose in this chapter, first. to
point out the factors that created the platform on which Protes-
tant authority could be bullt and to define the of exe-
gesis that emerged; nut. to give a bird' s-eye view of the varioU5
phases through which Protestantism passed in order to show how men
reacted and related themselves to the doctrine of biblical author-
ity held by the early Protestant Reformers. Thos it 18 hoped to
48 A Symposium on B1blical Hermeneutics
Reformation and Postreforaaclon Eras 49
create 8 theological vantage ground from which presant-day her-
meneutical issues can be seen in a true historlcal perspective.
The Christian Humanists
Since the 14th century the Italian humaniSC6 had been sc work
recovering t.l),e culture of andeut Greece and Rome. The awakening
of an lnterest in claasical literature gave birth Co new intel lec-
tual lnqulries and revlved loterest in the study of Latin, Greek,
and Hebrew languages. In the first quarter of the 16th century
the Christian humanists availed themselves of tbe linguistic
advances in gramnar and syntax aud made them useful in the study
of the Bibie. Thus prior to the Reformation we find a bib1ical
humanism that became a pl'Bparatio evangeUa.. The Christian human-
iats in thelr historical und phil010gical approach sought to as-
certain what a given text sctus11y mesnt in tbe context of Christ'a
tesching and primdtive Christisnity. The chief early represent-
ative of Christian humanism was John eolet (1466-1519). After
haviog imbibed the spirit of the new learniog in Ita1y he returoed
to Bngland, 1496-1491, and began to give bis famous
first on the epistle to the Romans, and tben on 1 Corintb1ans.
Bis objective was to bring out practical meaning the apostle
Paul sought to convey to bis readers; therefore, he il1ustrated
his sermon with cooments on tbe l1fe of the apostles and refer-
eocea to the historical eonditions in which the epistles were
written. He delivered his aermons in English end rejeeted the
allegorica1 aod mystical exegesis of the seholastie theologians.
In 1498 Erasmus (1461-1536) arrived in England and attended
Colet1a lectures, and encouraged by them, he took up biblical
studies, the froitage of wbich is seen in hh Creek lIT (1516);
his Annotcrtion8; and his PQ.fOQPhMses of the Gospels. Erasmus' NT
became the basic tool for Luther during the polemie and formative
years of the Reformation. After the Diet of Luther withdrew
to Wartburg Castle, and by ehe help of the Greek NT he translated
the NT into German within eleven weeks. Later the OT was trans-
lated into German from Hebrew. A better underatanding of the OT
bad been made possible by a profound study of the Hebrew language
by Johann Reuehlin, an uncle of Philip Melancbthon. It seemed
that medleval seholastic1sm was being supplanted by a new herme-
neutie more akin to that of the first expositori of the NT.
Because the Christian humanista relied on the Rebrew and
Creek texts, they den1ed the canonical value of the OT Apocrypha.
Tbe Apoerypha was first included in the Septuagint, a Greek trans-
latJon of the OT. Indirectly they repudiated the ecclesiastical
tradition. In thefr historico-gramnatical method of interpreta-
tion the humanists renounced ehe fourfold exegetical system of
medlevsl 8cholasticism and replaced It witb the literal principle
of interpretation. whieh concentrated on Unding tbe literal mean-
ing of a passage. In doiug chis. they dethroned the significance
of ehe Vulgate, the Lat1n vocabulary of whicb was the vehicle for
a medleval theology and ehe organ for ecc1esiastical autharity
snd tradition.
At the Cotmcil of Trent. whieh met. in twenty-five sessions
fraa 1545 to 1563, the Counter-Reformation ereedalized its denials
of thc tenets of the Protestant Reformation. Thc fOUTth session
(April 8, 1546) deereed coneerning thc Bible. The canonical Serip-
tures, including the OT Apocrypha, Bnd the eeeleeiastical tradition
were to be received aod venerated "with an equal affeetion of piety
aod reverence," they saldo It was also deelared that the Latin
Vulgate edition, "which, by the lengthened usage of so many ages
has been approved of .in the Chureh, be, in publ1e lec-cures, d1s-
putations. sermons, and exposi-cions, held as authen-cic; and that
no ane 18 to dare, or presume to rejeet 1t under any pretext what-
ever." The saae was restated more tban tbree eentur1es late-r at
the Vatican Counc.il of 1870, where the question of ecclesiastical
tradition further reinforced by the dogma of Papal infalli-
bility and
Roman Catholic.ism tried to undo the influence of the Christian
humanists, who aought to go back bayond Thomist-Ariatotelian Chris-
tian!ty by replaeing scholastie tbeology vith biblical theoLogy.
ibl1cal Authorlty end Indlv1dualism
Thc significance of biblical authority and its impact on
Christi an thought ever since can be tul1y appreciated only in the
light of 80me basic philosophical concepts that doadnated medieval
tbeological thinking.
In Themas Aquinas (1225-1274) medieval scho1asticism attained
fts cleareBt expression, and Aquinas beeame the foremost typical
exponent of the Roman Catho11e mind. His Summa is the
standard of Catholic orthodoxy and the basis cf theological in-
BtructJOO. On the hand, tbe Reformers spoke of Aquinas SB
the foootain of aU heresy and error. Aquinas represented the
scholaatie philosophy termed realiem. For the purpose cf our
study all that is neceasary to state 18 that medieval realism
maintain. the pawers of being tbat transcend the individual, as
in all totalitarian systems. Aquinas was an Aristotel!an, and
with Ariatotle he believed that the best government of a multitude
is that ruled by ane. In the relig!ous life it means that the
so A S}'q)OSiUD on Bibl1cal Her:neneutic:s
Reformation and Postreformation Bras
51
church comes before ehe individual, as in Roman Catholicism where
ehe episcopalian concept of Cyprlan ehat "ehe bishop 18 in the
churdl and ebe cbureh in ehe bhhop" attains tee: SIIld t in ehe
pope. Consequently, ehe pope has absolute teaporal and spiritual
jurisdictioo. and Boniface VIII (1294-1305) eould 88Y. "All law 1s
locked w-lthin my breast." and io Ynam Sa'tctam declare U that sub-
mission on the part of every man co ehe b1sbop of Rome 18 alto-
setber necessary for his salvation."
The 14th century reacted strongly co realism and ehe Unam
Sanctam. It 1a in this Tcaction that we find not on1y the theo-
log1cal roots of biblieal author1ty but also the beg1nnings of the
democratic pr1nciplea of the right of the individual. Notice that
the theological and philo8ophical principle undergird1ng the Re-
formers' concept of authorlty ties together democracy and Protes-
tantlsm, whereas Aquinas binds together totalltar1anism, collectiv-
i8m, and Raaan Cacholiel,. in the rule by one.
William of Ockham (1300-1349), wbo owed bis reputation to his
tbeological and pol1tical theorles and bis definition of tbe 81ble
as the final became a distant voiee of the Reformation.
Ockham countered medieval scho1astlc theology as it vas represented
by Thomas Aquinas. He represented what we call nom1naliSlll. and
fiercely attaeked realism. For nominal191ll oo1y the individual
Object ex1sts. and contrary to rea1ism it emphasizes the value of
the individual. Thls 1s the basis for true demecracy and Christian
individualis. as found in It 18 essential for the
dOctrloe of biblical authority and true individua11sm. As a nom-
inal1st. Ockham finds the source cf pO\IIer in the people. This
tdea undermined papal autbortty and made the Scriptures the final
souree of authortty.
It is characteristie of Ockham to appeal to the Bible con-
stantly. No doctrine incapable of being proved from Holy Scr1pture
was to be acknowledged ae catho1ic and necessary to salvation;
neither the church nor the pope could make new articles of faith.
In this way he contributed to the unsettlement of the medieval
theory of the source of authorlty and a8s8iled the traditional
doetrines of his time.
Luther's referenee to the Bible as the source of rellgious
suthority and the saerednesa oE the cooscienee of tbe individual
18 reminiscent of Ockham. but this view was oaly to be expected1
tor most of Luther1s university professors were Ockhamists and
Luther hiaself callad Ockham "my dear Master."
Tbe late Cardinal who beca.e the first director of the
SCcretariat for the Promotion of tbe Unity o( Christ1ans duriog
ehe Second Vatican Council. perceived the Protestant concept under
discuselon and aC the same underscored ehe geest difference
between Protestantism and Gatholicism on chis point boch in ehe
past and in ehe present. Wroee Bea:
In days gone by, Protestantism, espeeially in lts
Lutheran form. had a distlnctly individualistic charscter.
Be (man] was to live in God1s 5igbt quite simply.
rcading and interpreting the 81ble under the guidance
of the Holy who enlightened him and dlrccted his
life [Roman CatholicismJ places them [the doctrines]
in the great eurrent of tradition. Fundamentally it is
the method of the Cscholte Church, which i5 anti-individ-
ualist . The whole Reformation world rejected in prin-
ciple any authority in the Church which could oblige the
consciences of the fsithful to follow it. From this atems
a very practical obstacle to all efforts at unity.--The
vnity of ChriutianB. pp. 144, 176-177.
Aceording to the Reformers each Cbristian has not only tbe
privilege but also the duty to examfne end judge ehristian beliefs
and praetise15 on the basis of the 8ible. Wrote Luther: "Ta ascer-
tain end judge about doctrine pertains to a11 and every Christlan;
and 1n such a way that let hi. be anathema who injures their right
by a siogle hair. "--Farrar. Hietory of p. 331.
iblieal Authorlty in Faith and Reasoo
The element of rationalism was prevalent in eaJ:ly wedieval
scholasticisC1 but vas held in check by Augustinian Neo-Platanic
mystlcism. For Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109) the teaching of
the church laid down in the Blble and the creeds of the ancient
church possessed full authority; hawever. he souaht to establish
a defenee of Christian teaching on the aale basis of human reason.
It was Aquinas who made medleval synthesis of reason and rev-
elation by teaching "that one eould reason his way through natural
theology (philosophy) to revealed truth (faith)." It was the
rationaI18m of Anaelm and Aqu1nas that Ockham sought to overthrow
by holding that divine revelatlon rather than hwaan rassen 15 the
souree of theology.
As a student in the scheol. of Via Moder-na (whieh was the name
of Ockham's school) Luther io bil5 training developed appredation
for bib11cal authority and deprecation of reasen in matters of
fa!th. Being an Augustin1an mook he was undergirded by an Augus-
tinian theology of God, sin. depravity. predestinatioc, and grace.
At \torms Luther not onl,. sud: "Unless I am convinced by testimony
52 A Symposium on Bib!ical Hermeneueies Reformation sud Postreformation Eras 53
from Seriptures" but also added " or evident reason." Here reason
1s not used in a Thomistic or later rationalist sense, but in the
sense cf eleat" deductioDS from the Bible. Correct reason 18 bound
by the Ward and enlightened by faith und the inner witness of the
Haly Spirit.
Tbc Personal Encounter Wich Gola Scriptura
Before the Reformers began to use the Bib1e in their task of
cal.ling the church to renewal they tbemselves bad been transformed
by a personal encount.er with the Bible. Zwtngli relates how he
removed himse1! from the influence of theology aud philosophy and
the influcnce of the Spirit of God became sensitive to God's
Word. Luther 80ught the Bible when he had "lost hope in himself"
and continued to study the 8ible unti1 it became to him the sole
authority in soteriology.
The Reformers. as already noticed io ehe esse of Luther. were
among the best-educated .en of their age. They ware steeped in
ancient and Wldleval philosophy, thorougbly acquainted with the
church fathers, bandled vith ease al1 the knowledge and tools m.ade
avaiLab1e by the renaissance end the huaanists (and let us be
thankful for tbat) , but tbey did not have peace with God. They
were engaged in an inner soul struggle. The Bible gave the aoswer
to the quest of their souls. Through tbe medium of the BOLa Borip-
(the Bib1e alone) principle, d1vlne grace was found, and
thenceforward thc Bible was central in the Reformation. Thus the
belief was finoly fixed that God in His present redemptive work.
man in and through the Scriptures. It was as biblical theo-
logiaus and preachers of the Word that some Chr1st1ans in the
16th century beca.me reformers.
Ihe Personal Encounter With Sola Fide and Bola Gratia
Luther's acceptance of the literal. or historico-gramm8tlcal,
principle of interpretation (mentioned earlier in this chapter)
instead of the fourfold onc of .edieval exegetes meant in general
that & given BibI.. passage had hut one .eaning. In h1s difficul-
ties in understanding the relationship between the justice and
righteousness of God on the one hand and justification on the
other, Luther took the true (thst is, the simple and litera!) mean-
ing of the biblical phrase "The just shall live by faith" (ROCl 1:
17) as the iOlputation of the nrighteousness of God" by sheer grace
through faith. Ihis Bola (by f81th alone) and BOLa gPatia
(by grace alone) princip1e became a hermeneutica1 tool by making
the OT and the NT a un1fied witness to Christ (ChristuszeugnisJ
and a divine record of God's redemptive acts in history (salvation-
history). Lucher descrihes his inner struggle for clarlfication
end for the final vlctory by grace and faith alone in these words:
Night and day I pondered until I saw the connection
between the jU8tice cf God and the statement that "the
just ahall live by his laich." Then I grasped tbat the
justice of God 19 that rlghteausness by wbich through
grac:e and sheer mercy God justifies us through hieb.
Thereupon I feIt myself to be reborn aod to bave gone
through open doors lote paradise. The whole of Sc:ripture
took on a new meaning, and whereas before the "justice of
God" had fi11ed me with hate. nO'J it became to me inex-
pressibly sweet in greater love. Thia passage of Paul
became to me a gat.e to heaven.--Baintoo, Here I
p. 65.
This newfound faith with its hermeneutical consequences made
its protest against the Cathollc concept of salvation and works.
Ihe Counc11 of Irent reaffirmed Roman Gutholic belief. Canon XII
of the sixth session (Jan. 13, 1547) reads: "If anyone saith,
that justifying fa1th 15 noth1ng else- but confidence in the d1v1ne
mercy wbleh remits 81013 for Chrlst's sake; or, that this confidence
alone i8 that wereby we are justified: let him be anathema. "-
Schaff, CreedB of Christendom, vol. 2, p. 112.
In the Roman Catholic doctrine of justiflcation the Reformers
saw the heterogospel that the apostle Paul wrote against in the
epistle to the Galat1ans. Consequently, the understanding of the
right relationship becween Law and grace was a vital point in order
to comprehend and interpret the Scriptures correctly. In Reforma-
tion thought in general a twofold use of the law was held (or a
threefold use., depend1r\g on definition). Tbe first functian of
the law 1s civil, being a means by wbich society should be organ-
ized and discipline exercised. The second function 1s apiritual.
snd it has two sspecte. First, it 18 a "mi-rror" or a "tutor" by
which man sees his sins and is led to Chrlat as his refuge. Thus.
the law and the gospel are not contrary to each other. Second.
the 1aw 1s a standard for Christian living. When deallng with
bib1ical authority, Luther dethroned reason and favored faith, a
faith tbBt had expedenced the dynamies of soLa gratia. We may
therefore speak of the sota gratia-soLa fide principle of inter-
pretation. The significance of this princ1p1e then and now is
clearly defined by a present-day Catholic theolog:l an:
Ihe Catholic does not say 1n the first !nstancc,
What does the Book s8y1 Rather he Bsks, What does the
teaching Church say? Over the Book stands the Church,
54 A Symposium on Bibl1cal l:Iermeneutic.s
Reformation aad Eras 55
Sa'La Sariptura
A new era in biblieal interpretation and theolog1csl devel-
opullimt began with tne Reformers cballenging the traditionsl tneo-
logical p08itions in tbe light of a siJrple but positive message of
SQl.a fid8 end sola gratia.
"The Holy Spirit speaks" is an often-repeated statement. Tbe
Bible is eonsidered the proclamation of the Holy Spirit, and the
sole medium througn which the Holy Spirit speaks. Tbe intrinsic
validity of the Scriptures with all inherent truth i6
and conf1rmed by the inner witness of the Holy Spirit.
The reLationship between the scriptkra concept end the
Holy Spirit 18 s1m11arly expressed by Lutber. Inasmuch a6 the
church 18 tbe creation cf the Bible and not vice verS8. the Spirit
gaverns the ChUTCh only through the Scripture. No new revelation
19 necessary, he maintained, because the werk of the apostles was
adequate.
Cbristianity has a much broader meaniDg than aany
have hitherto given it. It i& not a creed. It i6 the
word of Hirn who liveth and ahideth forever. It is a
living. animating principle. that takes possession of
mind. heart. motives. and the entire man. Christianity--
oh. that we might experience its operations! It 1s a
vital. personal experience. that elevates and ennobles
the whole man.--Ellen G. Ybite. Testimonies to Minist6'1'6,J
pp. 421. 422.
Holy containeth all things necessary to
Bola Bariptura a.nd the Canon. Tbe churches of the Refol"1'J8tion
on tbe one hand limited the Bola 8cPiptura to the canonized hooks
of the Bihle and on the other hand emphasized the unity of the
same. The Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England are rep-
resentative when they state:
The 8"ible. end the Bible alone. is to be our creed
the 80le bond of union.--E11en G. Wbite. Sewa"ted M98- )
sages) book 1, p. 416.
ternal prlnciples on whlc.h correct interpretation rested. It also
-ade the Scriptures sufficient in themselves.
BoLa Scriptura end tbe Creeds. Tbe early formative period of
the Reformation began with a personal Itdiscovery" of the truth tbat
man 1s "justified by faith alone." It was followed by a formula-
tive peTiod 1n which the Christian fsith soogbt to be purged of
heretical teaching. order to save the center of Chr1stlao the-
ology. confessional statements of faith were up. It vas,
however, clearly understood tbat such statements should out
of ehe Scriptures and eontinual1y be under tbeir tutorage. It was
further recognized that there i5 increased light as history moves
on to consurnatioD and that so!:u! faeets of biblieal truths -.ay
sudden1y take on nev sign1f1eance. Any creedal statement, there-
fore. was ooly a relative authority, but tbe Scriptures were the
absolute authority. The Bible was sufficient in itself, hence
Scr1pture lnterprets Scripture. letting obscure passages be com-
and collated with obscure passages. Tbis eommon concept
u ""ell expressed in the F1.rat Basel ConfeBsion 01 Faith (1534).
It concludes with this senteoce: ''We submit this our Confession
to tbe judgcent of the dlvine Scriptures, and hold ourselves ready,
always thankfully to ohey God and his Vord if we should be eorrec-
ted out of sald boly Scriptures. "-Schaff. The. Creet1 of Christ-
val. 1. p. 387. According!y, the Bible for the Reformers
was an unregulattd regulator. Tbe follawing early Adventist
statements are In full aceord with early Reformation thought:
while ac:cording t'o the Reform c.onception. over the
Church stands the Book --Yeigel, in Fremantle, The
Papal. Encyc'Lica18j p. 11.
For the Reformers the Bible became the only reliable 60urce
of authority. The Catholles, on the other hand, confirmed inherent
truth by the of the churdh. Ihe human1sts eettled doc-
trinsl questions by rational disputation. The Reformers did not
repudiate use of reason as such but did aake it elear that it8
scope was limited. The Spirit cannot be inconsistent with Himself.
end He will never bring any doctrinal instruction Dot already
found in the Bible. This vas the Reformers' argument against both
the radicals and the Catholic.s. The inspired Blble and tbe testi-
many of the Holy Spirit bec.-e respectively the extern.l sod 1n-
80la
They
must
Althougb the doctrines "by faith alone" and "by grace aloDe"
cODstituted the material prinelple of the Protestant Reformation,
"the Bible alone" was its formal principle. and it bee&::le a con-
stitutive and corrective norm of Christian doctrine& and practices.
The exegetleal rules of the Reformers in stressing the litera!
.eaning and the self-interpretation of Scripture and their practi-
cal usage cen be understood only in the light of that principle.
Bola ScM.ptura and the Hob Spirit. Tbe Reformers based the
scriptura prtnciple on a twofold activity of the Holy Spirit.
maintained that the same Spirit that inspired tbe propbet6
penetrate the hearts of those who read the prophets.
56 A SymposiUJll on Biblical Hermeneutics
Reformation and Poatreformation Eras 57
salvation: so that whatsoever 19 not read therein
9
nor
.ay be proved thereby. 16 not to be required of any man.
ehat it should be belleved as an artiele of the F&lth,
or be tbought requisite or necessary to salvation.--
Schaff. Creeds of Christendom. val. J. p. 489.
I t 18 characteristic that Luther over and over refers to "all
Scripture." "nIl of Holy Writ," and "the antlte Bible," and appeals
to "the constant and unanimou8 judgmeot of Scripture.
11
Scr1pture
is not aga1nst ftself but "is in excellent agreement wHh itself
and 18 un1fomly coosistent everywhere."
One additional point should be mentioned. HaYing accepted
the canonical Scriptures as authoritative, the Reformers always
recognized that any theological conclusioDa should be drawn fram
the OT and the Greek NT, wbich generally were placed for
reference et the table when they had their disputatloos.
Bola Sffletura and Catholicity. The relationship
80la 8criptura and catholicity, which we define aa faithfulness to
the early Mcient church in life and docttine. tW'ofold. On
the one hand the Reformers demonstrated that what they taught
(based on 80la 8criptura aa a constitutlve norm of doctrine) had
beeu held by the ancient churen. On the other hand the Scriptures
became also a corrective norm, because much in the traditioos, the
fathers and tbe eouneils wet"e not rooted in the "Bible alone fI
The Refonaers 60ught to maintain a vital sense of continuity
with the past. Tbe early creeds were accepted by Lueher not be-
cause they had been accepted by the fathers and the churcb but be-
cause he found them in conform1ty to the Word of God. Late in 1517
he ",-rote same explanations to hi.s Ninety-Five Theses:
First, I testify that I desire to S6y or maintain
absolutely nothing except, first of all, what is in the
Holy Scrlptures and ean be maintained from them; and then
what 1s in aud from the of the church fathers
and i5 accepted by the Roman Church and preserved both
in the eanons and the papal deCTeeg. --Luthe1"'8 Worke,
XXXI, 83.
Luther considered ehe Scr1.ptures tbe tbe yard-
stick, to be used for the evaluation of tbe of ehe fathers
and the dec1sions of the chureh.
Sol.a SCf'iptul"a and Preaching. Before the Reformation a cler-
gyaan's main performance was at ehe altar. but after the Reforma-
tion it was in tqe pulpit. Accordingly, his name was chansed from
priest to preadher, gospeler. D1n1ster of ene gospel. Tbe preach-
ing of the was the basic functlon of the ordained winistry
and It grew out of the doctrine of soZa scl""iptura. The Refor:!lera
were great preadhers of tbe Ward. Luther lefe. bebind him
c.han 2.000 prlnted sermons.
The Reformers' preaching WQ.8 never a movement from men, from
situations, or from problems to the text, but 1t always advanced
from the text to men and problems. Tbe sermons were basically
exposltory, and they were subject to Scripture throughoutj other-
vise, the truths of the doctrine of Bota 8criptura could not be
realized. The wrttten had to preserve the oral word--the
proclamation--froo error. Further, the Holy Spirit can work with
preaOhing only when both are uni ted in the sola scriptura prin-
dple.
If the Reformation era teaches us anything, It 1a that Cbris-
tian theology, in order to be [0 lts taak .ust be biblieal
theologyj likewise, Christian preaching muse be biblical preaching.
True i8 the famous dictum of Williall Chillingworth: "The Bible, I
say, the Bible only, i8 the relii,ion of Protea tants. "
Summary cf the Reformers' Heraeneutical Princi:e.lea:
Tbe Reformen I untfied doctrine of 80la scriptura dictated
the cowmon principlea of hermeneutics, which may be listed as fol-
lows:
A passage should first be understood in its literal or obvious
(simple) meaning.
Tbe text should be studied la lts context by means of the
historicograrnmatical method, wbich takes into cansideration the
conditions of the tlmes and the people to whom the Scriptures
first written. The Hebrew and Greek texts of the OT and the NT
should be consulted.
Scripture is to be used to interpret Scr1pture, the canooical
Scripturea being a self-sufficient authority 1n religious matters.
The Christocentric rule, which makes Christ the focal point
in the Bible, 15 [0 be applied.
Understand!ng the correct relationship between law and gospel
and the threefold usage of the law is basic to the interpretation
of the Scriptures.
58 A Symposium on Blblical Hermeneutics
Reformation and Post reformation Eras 59
The interpreter should be il1uminated by the Holy Spirit and
a personal Bola fide and Bola experience.
Thc significance of the Reformers' contrlbution to the study
of the Bible 18 epitoaized by F. W. Farrar. Speak1ng about Luther.
he loITites: "And he not. on1y gave tbem the open Bible, hut taught
ehe.. and aU the world how best it m1ght be interpreted. u_-B.istcry
of Interprotatiorl, p. 323.
Postreformatlon Developments
Sinc.e the formative decadss Protestant theology has passed
t.hrough many phases and zigzag movements. It. was God c.entered.
man c.entered, snd Christ. c.entered. The feelings, the power of
reason, and the moral values vere singularly important in differ-
ent periods. There vere great c.ontrasts. such as lntellec.tuallsm
in contrast to emotiona1ism. transeendentalism versus iamanence.
the religion of divine sovereigney as egainst inward conseience.
All together and each separately influenced in different dur-
ing various per iods ehe Protestant concept of biblical interpre-
tation and authority.
Protestant Orthodoxy
During the latter half of the 16th and the early decades of
the 17th centuries Protestantism entered aperiod of dogmatism,
attempting to purge the Christian faith of all errors. Tbe doc.-
trtna! controversies amang the Protestant bodie9 as wel1 as their
c.ommon defense against Cathollc beliefe, especially after they
were defined 8t. ehe Counc.il of Trent, ac.centuated the need for
c.oufessional stat.ements of fa1th. !bUB the basis was 1aid for
Protestant orthodoxy wit.h its emphasis on correet doctrinal be-
liefs. In this nec.essary task the authority of the Bible as t.be
inerrant Ward of God was taken seriausly. However, there developed
within Protestantism a greater concern for the orthodoxy of the
letter over against the piety of the hesrt. People were asked to
believe statements of falth, but the faith they were meant to safe-
guard often took second place. Tbe Bible was approached mainly a8
an arsenal of proof texts for Christiao doctrines, and a mechanical
inspiration of the Bible was endorsed. The Fomruta Crme67lsUB Het-
vetica (1675) even 8Sserted tbat the vowel points in tbe Hebrew
taxt of tbe OT were as mucb inspired by God as the words of the
Bible. This dogmatic approach resulted in c.oining the term Prot-
estant. sc.holastieism. ItScholsstic.ism essentially means an
intellectua1 te.per vhich may invade auy subject in any age; in
religion, it i8 the spirit of law overbearing the spirit of tbe
Gospel."--Mackintosh. Types of Modern J!heokJgy: Schlsierm<roher to
Barlh. p. 9.
PietislD
Protestant scholasticism had assuqed a rational spirit and an
argumentative nature, resulting in religious formalls.. Pietism.
which had lts beglnning in Germany in the seventeenth century,
sought to renew a living t81th fram a rigid and legalistic ortho-
doxy. The Pietists, generally, did not attack any of the doctrines
of the Protestant system, but their emphasis on the personal ex-
perience of conversion and practical of piety was a kind of
protest of individualism against institutionaliss and theol08ica1
dogmatis.. Tbe conversl00 experlenee took on a certain normative
role vith respec.t to basic religious consciousness. Acc.ordingly.
all doctrines were not of the same value and to theD.
Such Pietist leaders as P. J. Spener and A. H. Francke sought to
reduce the traditionsl doctrinal system to a few important doc-
trines. the measuring rod being their role in the aet of eonver-
sion and their influence on the practical religious life of the
Chrlstian.
A h1erarchlcal arrangement of Chrietian doctrines was at var-
ianc.e with the funda.ental tenets of Protestant orthodoxy. Here
a doctrloe had to be accepted because it came from God. To con-
sider same doetrines of 1ess importanc.e than others would therefore
be to show contempt for the Giver. Tbe Pietists approaehed their
study of the Bible from an ethies1 and devotiona! point of view.
Although chis approach was necesssry te counteract the negative
influence of Protestant ortbodoxy, les emphas19 held the dangers
that (1) the doctrinal strueture of t.be Christian faith would be
weakened, that (2) in tbe quest for a devotional interpretation
the historical Bnd literal ueaning of Sc.ripture passages would be
obsc.ured by typological and allegorical exegesis. and that (3)
prac.tical reiigious life rather than the Word of God vould become
the authority.
One fruit of PietislD deserves notice in t.he valuable contri-
button made to the history of exegesis by J. A. Bengel (1687-1752),
who publlshed a Greek NT in 1734 and was the first to stress the
genealoglcal method, namely, the classification of manuscripts
into faailies on ehe basis of evident kinship thus introduclng a
new principle for the authority of a given biblical passage. Re
also renounced the idea of mechanica1 inspirat.ion, and as a true
Pietist he rejected the concept of the Bible as a col1ection of
doctrinal truth8. Ac.cordingly, his biblica1 studies vere directed
toward a continuous exegesis of the entire Bible, for him
60
A Symposium on Bibl1cal Hermeneutlcs Reformation and Postreformation ETas 61
was a dlvine record of God's Beting 10 bistory for the purpose of
man'e salvation rather than an exposition of doctrlnes.
!beDlegtesl Rationalism
The chUacteristic notes of :::1odern thought bad -theit beginning
early 1n the 17th century. Tbey may be listed as (1) refusal to
be bound by tradition in any (2) emphasis on reason, and (3)
acceptance of the method fol1owed in natural science as the norm
for all investigation, including Christianity. In biblical studies
lt meant rejection of the authoritative Bola seriptura prineiple
and affirmation of an indlviduallstic spiritual independence 80-
chored in reason as the ultimate norm of religious truth. Phil-
OBophy was chal1enging tbe claim. of blblica1 authodty in the name
of reason through the WTltings of Rene Descartes
Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679). Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677), and John
Locke (1632-1704).
In the thinking of Deseartes the beginning of all knowledge
was doubt. Cousequently. be raised daubt regarding the authorlty
of Scripture. All concepts had to be proved with tbe certsinty of
mathematical demonstration. In this philosophieal framework Hobbes
suggested methods Ior critical study oI the or and challenged the
Hosaic authorship of the first five bocks of the Bible. Spinoza
disputed the of the miraeles recorded in the Bible and
claimed that the Scriptures sheuld be treated as any ether book.
Locke userted in his R2asonobZeness o[ ChJ-iBtianity that tbe _s-
aage of the 8ible cannot be contrary to reuon but lINst be in ae-
cord with natural religion; aecordingly. he had little regard for
myatery. Tbe Deists (8 group of English intelligentsia who emerged
during the latter part of the 16th and tbe 17th centuries) made
use of questions raised by natural science and tbe arguments of
the philosophers.
The aim of the Deists was te find a religion that all would
want to reeognize , a "natural" religion, which might serve as a
eam-on denomdnator for a critical exagination of supernaturalism
in any form. Significantly ehe subtltle of the Deistic Blble by
Hatthew Tindal. reads: "Tbe Gospel a Republication of the Reiigion
of Nature.
1I
If Chrlstianity teaches more than is contained in
natural the additions belong to the realm of supersti-
tion or to earruption of true religion. Perfeet in itself. natural
religion cannot be augmented by reve1ation. making reason mau's
ultimate guide and challeuging the traditional view of the authar-
Ity of the Bible and tbe rede-ptive uniqueness of Christlanity.
In Ger-any the counterpart of English Deism was fouod in the
Enlightenmeot. as the gtaup named itsel!. After the perlod cf
Pietism during the 18th century this movement shaped a new relt-
gious and pbllOBophical atmosphere, 1n ..mich the individual con-
scienoe became the ultiaate ocr- in deciding rellgious truth. All
through the history of Christian thought there has beeu the problem
of rlght relationship between revelation and reSBen. EmphaslS in
the one or the ether directioQ has a bearing on the principles of
exegesis.
In the historical development of Rationalis. the accent was
placed more and more on reason. which gradually became the ultimate
authority. In the first phase of Rationallsm, the Bible was to
set.tle religioUB IDatters but reuon \Jas a very iJuportant guide.
However, even in this fom it \018B easy to a11cw reason to create
conccpts tbat became a l'riori in one I s exegetieal endeavors. A
rationalistie approach to Scripture was appareot in the 16th cen-
tury aDOng the Socinians with their stress on the human1ty of
Christ and their denial of the doctr1ne of the Trlnity. Tbe fall
of man was replaced by a mere Inclination to eVil, and the sat1s-
faction theory of the atonement was considered absurd aod Immoral.
In other yards, the basic soteriologica1 and cbristolog1cal facts
of Christianity. as in the t.ime of the apostle Paul, became a stum-
bl1ng block for one's reason. With lts rationa11zing impulses
Socinianlsm appeared a8 Unitarianism 1n Eng1and, where It was
strengthened by the Deistic movement. After the decline of the
latter. Unitadanisll lingered \o1ithin many Protestant churches 1n
the Eog1ish-speaklng world and distorted tbe soteriological and
christological Bcriptural passages. Duting the early dec.ades of
its history, Seveoth-day Adventism was not exempted from this
rationalistic influence. but was rescued to fidelity to scriptural
authority by the writings of Ellen.G. White, especially those pub-
lished during the last two decades of the 19th century.
The real founder of theologiea1 Rationalism was Christian
(1679-1754). He did not deny a Christian but re-
quired it to be in aceerd with natural religion. A more extreme
Rationalism was expressed by Bermann Reimarus (1694-1768), who
denied special revelation. Tbe Deistic eoneepts are ful1y
pressed by hia, for he marle natural religion the oo1y criter10a
for Christ1anity. Accordingly, he 80ught to undo historical
Christiaoity and the revelatory authority of tbe Bible. G. E.
Leasing (1729-1781) in his book Education of the Human Raoe sub-
mitted the theory that the Bible had been helpful in past stages
of human development, but aank1nd, vhieh naw found itse1f in its
I18nhood. was to be guided by reason. JUda:lslD aod early Christian-
ity were CDRsigned to an inferior and past perlod of huaan devel-
opment.
62 A Symposium on Bibllcal Hermeneutics
Reformation and Postreforaation Eras
63
Ta the Rationaliata Christ vas DO more than a moral teaeher
and an echtea! example. aB His life and death were nachiug else
than hi&torical events. Everything that was to develop within
liberal theology and des[ructive biblical critlclsm in thc 19th
century bad been inltiated by Rationalism.
Tb!! Wesbyan Revival
In the life end preaching of John Wesley (1703-1791) Deism
was effectively conteated. The best of the Geraan Pietist DOVe-
-ent i8 seen in the Wesleyan revival. which met the need of aociety
and the chureh. The power of the gospel .ade ltself evident in
the livea of men end women challengtng the spiritually barren di8-
putations of the Deists. Tbe enthronecent of human raason and the
balittlement of the divine authority of the Scrlptures were cam-
bated by a preaching anchored in the belief that God's Word is
absolute authority. The verscity of the Bible was confirced by
the witnes$ of the Holy
Wes1ey was uore orthodox in bis view of the Blble than Spener
and Francke and a110wed 00 separatioo betweeo Scripture and Christ.
No matter how he emphasized the eooversian experience. the
bib1ieal not.e remained st.roog. He was not. an ionovator in tbe
hi.story of exegesis. but. be read the Bib1e as ort.hodox Christians
generally did in the Chureh of Eogland.
The Wesleyan revival demonstrated anew tbat in manls sesreh
for Gor! the gospel "i8 the saving pO'W'er of God for everyone who
has h1tb" (Rom 1:16. NEB) , recognizing that "the world failed to
find hi. (God] by ltll viadoa." but God "chose to asvl! those who
had hith hy the folly of the Gospel" (1 Cor 1:21, NEB). Here
lies the highc6t proof for biblical authority. Wesley rcvived the
material and formal prineiples of true Protestant hermeneutlcs.
namely, "by fsith alone," and "the Bible aIOfle."
The wesleyan emphasis on sanctification (which a180 character-
ized Calviniam and Puritanism) plays an important role aa aper-
sonal quality of the exegete. A progressive biblical undcrstand-
ing depends on the interpreter's ohedience to light already given.
Christ seid, "lf any man will da his will. he shall know of ehe
doctr1ne" (Jn 7:17, KJV).
Looking st the Wesleyan revival in historieal perspective.
it should be noticed that whereas German Rationalism followed the
age of Pietism. in England the situation was ehe oppoaite. When
the 19th century opened, the religious life in England marked
by a bote of aplritua1 fervor. which was not the ease in Germany.
Tbe Iatter was in DO small degree a factar in -aking Germany the
mainsprtng of liberal theology.
Nineteenth Gentury Liberal Protestantism
A twofold legacy "las passed Oll to the 19th century. nazaely,
PIetiso and Rational!.a. Religiously they took new Tbc
subjective 5ide of Piettam was developed to tbe point that a per-
existential experience wlthin the framework of religious
feelLDgs .ud intuition became the seat of religious authority as
cold raasen had been 1n Rat1onal1sm. Rationaliem. wbich had been
occupied partly with criticism of the Bible. now concentrated its
maiu effort DU the same. With reason no longer the center for
reiigious autbority. any result bigher criticism might arrive at
could not be emharraseing to or a disturbing influence on a per-
san's reIig10us experienee. Thus basically the latter was made
independent of hietorica1 research. sc1ence. and philosophy but
also of biblical authority as understood by orthodox Protestantlsm.
A new distinctlon was made between faith and know!edge.
Before the turn cf the 19th eentury Immanuel Kaut (1724-1804)
eritieized religion that vithin the bounds of reason 001y
but it was FTiedrich Schleiernacber (1768-1834) more tban
one else, changed the theo1ogical climate and bee.u.! the founder
of modern liberal Protestantiam. Kaving been edueated in both
pietistic and rationalistie circles. he brought together the twe
tendeneies, and uuder th. influenee of Kant he gave theology a new
base, aa defined above.
does not bagin with God's attributes aB the
great first cause but with the feeling within people of absolute
dependence on a power outside themselves. All advances in reliiion
are end greater manifeBtations of the human feelings
or the coneciousnes8 of the hlll.anent God. Therefore Bin
1S not. as with the Reformers, arebellion against the d1vine will
but a disturbance of the harmony between man's natural powere,
which hinders the assertion within him of his relation to Cod.
A person's God concept expresses his religion (and specifi-
cally bis soteriology) more clearly than anything else. und bas a
direct hearing on his view and interpretation of the Bible. The
Refox.ers bel1eved in a transcendent God. who is absolute, personal.
and holy. the Creator snd Sustainer of the universe and the Re-
deemer of mankind. Ihie males an objective revelstion
neeessary (as opposed to s man-originated subjeetive CQDCept of
revelatian). Transcendency end object!ve reve1stion are correla-
64 A Symposium on Hermeneutles Reforaatlon aud Postreforaatlon Eras 65
READING LIST
Fann. Y. W. Histotty of Int81'pl"etation. GraDd Rapids, Mich.:
Baker Bock Hause, 1961.
Kackintosh, Hugh Ross. Typ88 of Hodsrn 'fhsology: Sahl.eierm:wher
to Barth. New York: Cbarles Scrihners Sonst 1937.
Greenslade, S. L ed. Th9 CaniJridtJe History of the Bible.
University Press, 1963.
Barth was ea1led neo-orthodox by liberal tbeolo-
his hiblieal "realism" 15 not that of 16tb-century
Pelikan, Jaroslav. Luth6r'8 Companion Volume: Luther the
Expositor. Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing Hause. 1959.
Ramm, Bernard. The Pattern of ReZigious Authority. Grand Rapids,
Mich.: wm. B. Eerdmanl Pub. Co 1968
Hordern. William. A Layman's Guide to Protestant Theclogy.
&ev. ed. Landon: Collier-Macmillan. ttd 1969.
In the present discusslon of 1mmanence versus transcendency
it beCODe8 crystal clear that a true God concept 1s abasie premise
for asound understanding of biblical autborlty and for correct
heraeneutlc. Tbe lssues presented and the picture dravn of Prot-
estant thought wieh special reference to biblical authority will
be clarlfied further in the ligbt of the hlstory of biblical
studie. during the last two centuries.
Bible followed.
gians; however.
Protestantism.
Barth, Kar!. ITotSBtant Thought: From R0U88Sau to Ritaoht. New
York: Harper &Brothers. 1959.
Joho, and Welch, Claude. PFotSBtant
New York: Charles Serlbner's Sons. 1954.
---;;--c' Protestant Bibtioal Interpretation. Rev. ed. Grand
Rapids, Hieb.: Baker Book House. 1956.
Tbe CODcept of an lumanent God makes an objective revelation
unnecessary. All advances in religion 88 seen in the soul of the
individual, in seeiety, in history. and in nature are in a true
sense revelations. This God concept aceount. for the outlook of
liberal theologians and the characteristics of liberal Protestant-
i8m as, for example, the humanity of Christ. the dignity of man,
end the optimism of soeial progress. Tbe immanent God was at work
not only in man and society but also in nature. thus the evolution-
ary theory was in accord with the new Protestantiam. In the light
of all this it i9 understandable that bib1ical authority becsme
subordinate to the "revelatlO11s" of the inmanent God.
tive idess. In Deisa God ...,as pusbed far back iota the universe.
leaving this W"orld and lIlaD to be ruled by il1herlted laws and man' 8
reSSDn. Here Da revelstlon was needed; on the contrary. it would
destroy the God concept. Tbe doctrine of the Immanence of God
tsugbt by Schleieraacher created a complete nev orientation in
Protestant thought. and prcssed ta its extreme led to Pantheism,
whieh also flourished in the 19th century.
While emphasized the Gefht (human feelings)
as the seat for our God consciousness, Albert Ritschi (1822-1889)
eonsidered Christianity to be based on va1ue judgment; the ethical
side. or moral value. of Christianity was stressed. Ibus. not the
feeling or the intelleet but the will was of paramount iIllportanee.
Here moral consciousness is the seat of authority. An important
Ritschlian was the great chureh bistorian Adolf von Rarnack (1851-
1930), who exercised great tnfluence in 1iberal1sm. In tbe bock
What Is Chriatianity? he urged areturn to the religion of Jesus,
not: the religion about Jesus. 'Ihat religion 18 very simple. and
it. 18 found in the synoptic Gospels after t.hey have beee purged of
the mythologica1 framewerk of the first century. as, for example.
apoealypticism, demons, and miracles. In his werk
Hlstory of Dogma he mainta1ned that the religion of Jesus had beeu
Obscured and distorted by hel1enization (refleeted in the Gospel
of John and most of the eplstles), Christian dogmatism, and iosti-
t.utlonal Christianity. Harnack was in grest sympathy with Marcion,
of the 2nd century. He reduced the biblical author1ty to the per-
sonal1ty of Christ and His simple teaching of the fatherhood of
God and His kingdom. the infinite value of the human soul. snd the
law of love and higher righteousneaa as exempllfied in the 11fe
of JesUB.
Tbe magnitude of liberal Protestantism can best be perceived
when seen in the light of Its rejection by Karl Barth (1886-196B).
AB Schleiermacher created a new epoch by stressing the iumanence
of God. Karl Barth became the gre.at theologian of the 20th century
by reestablishing God' s transcendency. and a "ne\ol reallsu." of the
Wood, J&me9 D. TM InteJ"JU6tation of the Bible: A Historica.l In-
troductio1t. Landon: Gerald Duckworth end Co Ltd., 1958.
Wood. Skevington A. The Proincipla of !J'o;bZical. Interpretation.
Grand Rap1ds, Mich.: Zondervan Pub. House. 1967.
In 1971 EZder E. EdJiJard Zinke became
research aBsistant and asBistant seo-
retary 01 tM BiblicaZ Research Com-
mittee 0/ ths GeMrol Conferenc9 of
SetJent1t-day Iibshingt"onJ
D. C. During the pNWious fOta' Y8aP6
h.e both 6errJed aa a pastor in the Al'-
kansas-Louisiana ConferencB and ean-
in the Master of Divinity
at the Seventh-day Adventist
Theotogical Seminary at Anc::iretll's Unive'P-
sity. He was O1'da:ined in 1973 at
Taka"" Park. Mary land.
5. Postreformatlon Crltleal Blbliesl Studies
E. EDWARD ZINKE
Biblical Resea:t'Ch Department
Gerufl"al Conference of SDA
Biblleal studies in the past tvo eenturles vere concerned
largely vith determlning the method by which the Bible received
lts present content and form. Thls cancern was motivated and
guided by pbilasophical presuppositions based largely on naturalism
and evolutionism.
This paper purposes to traee the hermeneutical principles
developed by recent biblica1 studies, noting particular1y their
presuppositions in the light of those outlined in chapter I--those
touching on the transcendenee of God. His activities in hls-
tory. and His objective se1f-revelat1on in the Bib1e.
As we have already seen. diverse interpretations of the Bible
are largely the result of the philosophical presuppositions of the
interpreter and h1s attitudes taward revelation-inspiration and
the reaultant authority of Scripture. Because presupposit1ons of
19th century liberalism centinue to influence the methods used in
biblical studies, It will be helpful to review
br1efly their presentation in the previous chapter. beginning with
the tracing of some of their maln roots.
Rects cf 19th Century Liberalism
Protestant l1beralism developed 1n the 18th and 19th centu-
ries, in part aa areaction against the rigidity of Protestant
orthodoxy with its narrow dictational concept of inspiration.
Liberalisa then went to the other extreme by rejecting all cen-
cepts of an objective reve1ation.
Protestant 11berallsm had lts beginnings in several streams
of thought. Among them was ratlonalism. wbich attempted to reduce
Chrlstianity to a religion of reason rether than of revelation.
Another line of thoogbt came from rgeanuel Kant (1724-1804), who
as apart of the "enlightenment" reacted OD the one hand aga1nst
68 A Sy-posium on Biblical Herweneutics
Post reformation Critical Biblical Studies
69
Protestant orthodoxy and on the other agatost rationalism, placing
his emphasis on the voice of conscience for the discovery of truths
that cannet be seen either from the viewpoint of "pure resson or
frOlD divine revelation." Religion for hiD was closely irlentified
with IKlrality.
Fridrich Scbleieraacher (1768-1834). probably the most infla-
eotial theologian of Protestant liberallsm. sought the essence of
religion in general aQd that of Christlanlty in particular in
experience. Religion for hia was based on intuitive feeling rather
than on objective revelation or dogma. The subjective element
beeame dominant.
Empiriclsm or historleism contributed to tbe aethodology of
biblical studles in Protestant liberaligm, tbe methods of strict
historical observation. Another contribution was philosophical
idealiam, Whlch tn C. W. F. Hegel (1710-1831) resffirmed that
reelity 1s reasonable and described tbe process by which the imM6-
nent "absolute spirit" attained self-awareness in mankind, namely,
by way of sn evolutionistic proeess in which pure reason (thesis)
18 subjected negatively to aetuel experience wbich
results in a new reality (synehesis) a9 a result of the opposing
ele.ents (thesis and antithesis) Beting on each other in the flux
of h.lstory.
Up to this time theology had dominsted the scholarly scene
evan in secular studies. But now such categories as reseon and
experience were dominating both secular studies and theolegy.
Crudal Presuppos1t1oDs of 19th Century Liberal1su
AB can be seen from this brief sketch of same bistorical roots
of ProtestaDt liberal1sm, there are within tbat movement many
diverse eleaents drawn from the thinking of different individuale
snd schools of thought. We ahall attempt a characterizstion of
the1r crucial presuppositions.
Tbe basic a tenet of liberal1sm was that the origin
and development of tbe Bible was tbe aBae aB that of any other
buman documeot aod thus it must be studied and interpreted in
accordanee tbe standards of scholarsbip in science. philosophy,
snd other disc1plines. Tbe Bible, then. was co be int.erpreted in
the saae way 8S any other literature. such as the Creek classics.
In the place of the Bible, the liberaloutlook preferred the scien-
tifle method snd the ethieal standards of educated people as the
standard for fsith and doetrine. Por example. because Reformation
uDderstanding of the bib11cal concepts of sin and salvation offeoded
the moral sensibillties of the liberals, these doctrines were
rejected by them. (Sinfulness often was regarded aa a lack of
knowledge or insight, and salvation aa simply the supplying of
this lack of understanding.)
The concept of a tranacendent deity was substituted. a
r' _._,
totally by s concept of God's immanence. Tbe idea thet God acts
in any supernatural or niraculous way in the history of mankind
was rejected.- If the airaculous in the classlcs muse be rejected
by scientific judgment so it must be in the Scrlpture. In either
cage let it be treated as folklore or mythology.
Religious liberalism likewise rejected the concepts of
revelation-inspiration, which asserted tbet God bad revealed
self objectively end normatively to man in Scr1pture. Authorlty
of individual tbought or experience was substituted for autbority
of the Word of God. Thought or experience was not evaluated by
Scripture. Each bad its own valuQ as beiog individual, a manifes-
tation of the diviae Spirit immanent in all things. Biblieal
writings had va1ue on1y as arecord of remarkable manifestations
of religious expetienee. In the end God was dethroned and man
became a lew uato bis own thlnkfng or feeling self. leason or
experience became autonomous and was placed above scriptural
revelation. The doctrinal eontent of the Bible was no langer
binding for faith or practlce.
Rejectten of the revelatory aspects of the Bible csused not
ooly denial of its normative aspect but also disregard for ita
unity. This result effected a method of study that tended to
frsgment the Bible.
Protestant liberalism studied the religion of Israel and the
form and content of tbe Bible on the basis of the human-progress
theory. As a result, the blblical sequence was rearranged t.o pre-
sent a neat evolution of reitgtous thought. Tbe substitution of
the wholly immanent God for the transcendent God, with its impli-
cations fer revelation-insplration snd acceptance of the principle
of the progress of man. gsve rise to the "history-of-religions"
school. Tbis syate. of thought DO longer recognized the histor1-
cal uniqueness of Christtanity butt rather. saw it as oue religion
a-ong other religions. Whereas this school reeognized Chrtstianity
as the highest manifestation of religion, it also consldered the
possibi1ity of its being Buperseded. Religtous truth, therefore.
could best be studled comparatively by placing tbe Bible alongside
all other books of religion, poetry, history, snd experiential or
rational truth.
Liberal1sm tended to disregard tbe bistortcal events in whlch
70 A Symposium on Biblical Heymeneutics
Postreformat1on Critlea! Biblical Studies 71
God acted on behalf cf mankind. The uniqueness of Chrlstlanity
came to be seen in fts profound understanding cf God; cf man, in
his relationship with ether men; of the moral example of Jesus;
sud the effect of these concepts upon the progress of soclety,
rather tban in fts portrayal of God'g activitles in history. The
Blble was interpreted by a thoroughgoing historlcal-critical
method not so much for the purpose of painting fes hlstorical
as to explain the deve10pment of fts contene and form
without recognition of the guidiog hand of God.
In liberalism the origin of Scripture was explatned on the
basis of the evolution of religion. buffeted by such 8ceial con-
ditlons 88 created a c1imate favorable to the of
specific theologieal concepts. The task of the interpreter. then.
was not to study God's aessage to mankind but to understand the
historieal eonditions that supposedly had uolded the Scrlptures--
the surrouoding religion, culture, and po1itica1 units--not vith
the iatent of clarifying the context in which God revealed Himself
but to understand the process by wbich relig10us concepts in the
Hebrew cu1ture and ear1y Christian fatth were borrowed. restruc-
tured. brought together, and purified.
Liberalism1s method of studying Scripture in the 19th century
was based on the presuppositions and categories of eontemporary
ph11osopbleal movements. Unfortunately this foreing of the Bib1e
ioto varlous phi1osophica1 framevorks dlstorted its message and
reduced its declared power to transfors human 1ives. There have
beeu reaetlone to the excesses of the liberal position. even from
within liber8liK& itself. Stranger reactions have come from the
neoorthodox group. as represented by Karl Barth (1886-1968) (see
the prevlous chapter) and _ore so from evange1ical aud fundamen-
talist groupe. Nevertheless. the presuppositiofiS and concepts
concern1ng the nature of God, religion. and tbe Bible as generally
held by Protestant 1ibera1ism have had a major effeet on the fast-
developing method of that category of bibl1cal studles known aB
bib11CBl crit1cism.
Blb1ica1 CriticisID
The method of bib1ical criticism is the applicatlon of modern
literary snd histor1cal-critical methods to the study of the Bible
to establiah, as far aa possible, the manner and date of lts com-
position, including tts sourees, authorship. and literary
ment. One of the primary questions asked by blblics1 critic1sm
1s: 8y what process snd at vhat time did this passage or book
recelve ite present content and form?
For tbe layman the term "biblical criticism" may give the
connotation of depreciation of the Word of God, but its speeific
intent is rather appreciation through a fu11er understanding of
its literary history and message. At tbe same tt-e. this appre-
ciation i8 not concerned to lead readers to conviction, faith,
and action but simply to discriminatory understandiog of the peo-
pIe. culrure. history. and religion froe wbich the book arose.
Thus the basic motives of bibllca! crlticlsm are s1milar to the
motives of otber disciplines; for example. mosic crit1cism. which
attempts to deve10p appreciation of a particular type or piece of
musie; and historical criticigm. whlcb attempts to reeonstruct 8
historical event.
Hlstorlca11y. biblica1 criticism has developed along seversl
interrelated and interdependent lines. Higher cr1ticia. attempts
to deal with the literary history and meaning of the text tbrough
such dlsclpilnes as literary form criticlsm. end tra-
dition criticism. Literary, or source. crlticism attempts to d15-
cover the documents or sources presumed to Iie behind the present
record. Form criticism attempts to d1scern the structure snd tbe
life setting that required or produced a given kind of atcucture.
Tradition cTiticis. conslders both the history of the development
of a passage and the final editorial work on it.
The questioDs asked by biblical criticism sre: How are we
to what 18 contaLned in the final bib1ical record?
is the psycho1ogiea1 framework in which this sort of writing would
be feasib1e? Vhat are the anthropological snd sociological forees
tbat would lead to the formation of a particular concept or to the
use of a part1cular Ilterary style? What are the aoldlng forces
of the 1iterary style? What i6 the matrix of polit1csl and his tori-
ca1 forces which would cause this or that interpretation to be
p1aced on an event in history? Why does the record have the thema
it has? ls it advocatiog a politica1 or a religiaus ceuse, or has
It been influenced' by aoy combination of such forces? What part
does this document play in the history of mauls religion 8S he
maves toward a more mature religion?
Developing Stages of Biblica1 Criticism
17th snd 18th Centurles
Tbe 17th and 18th centuries saw the formation of that aspect
of bibllcal criticism known as literary criticism. Men such aB
Rugo Grot1ua (1583-1645). Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), Benedict
Spinoza (1632-1677), and Richard Si.on (1638-1712) begen to l8Y
the groundwork for a study of Scr1pture that ena1yzed and scrurl-
nized the Bible just as one would study any other literature. Por
72 A SYMPosium on Biblical Hermeneutlcs
Post reformation Critical Blblical Studies 73
example. the concept of Hobbes that the Bible 18 not itaelf the
revelation of God, but that lt mere1y contains the record of men
who received that revelatioD led to the atudy of Scripture 88 a
aerely buaan book. SLaOD. arguing from the standpoint of the
authorlty of cburch tradition, stated that tbe Cbristian fa1th
could be sustained without the Scriptural record. As the result
of such thinking sen began to daubt the Mosaic authoTship of the
Pentateuch. seeing these books aa rather the result of a Ions
proceBs of compl1ation and redaction (the werk of many editors).
Old Testament
Jean Aseruc (1684-1766). a Freneh physieian. by pu1ling
tagether the observations of uany before him provided the bssis
for the doeumentary tbeory of Pentateuehsl composition. Astrue
(predecessor of souree criticism) claimed that Moses in writing
Genesis drew on two major sourees. To substsntiate this claim be
pointed to (I) the distribution of the Hebrew names for deity.
Elobim snd Yahweh, (2) the repetition of similar 8tories. and
(3) he considered to be chronological coofusion in the book
of Genesis.
Tbe movement in OT studies toward the humanistic insight which
claimed tbat tbe OT should be subjected to the princ1ples of
careful 8crutiny 45 were applled to secular vritings vas crystal-
lized by J. G. Eichhorn (1752-1827), who brought togcther in his
to ehe otd Testament the results of OT critlcism to
that time. He rejected concepts of divine inspiration and authority
of the Scriptures on the basis that the OT dtsplayed more of the
flavor of the Hebrew nationalliterature than weu1d be expeetcd of
a d1vinely inapired book. He extended the source er literary
critical concept of Astruc by pointing out that underlying sources
could also be discovered in other portions of Scrlpture by giving
close attention to diversities of literary style and by identifi-
cation of worde or phrases characteristle of doeuments previous1y
categorlzed.
Hew Testament
The lnfluences of rationalism and deism were strongly feIt
during the period of NT eriticism. The antisupernatural-
Isa of the 18th century dominated the scene to the extent that
even ehe mlracles of Christ were considered to be superitltious
wonder tales. Liberal Protestant tbought was developed largely in
German universities. vhich being rather free fTotI churcb control
bec:ame advocates of the "enlight.enment." At the saae time
pietism was worktag wlthln the German churches to break down
orthodox dogmatism and to lnject religious life lnto formalized
religion.
The werks of H. S. Ret.arua (1694-1768). pub1isbed anony-
mously after his death, brought ratiooalistlc and delst1c phi1080-
phy to besr hesvily on the 8tudy of the Relmarus found fsith
and reason to be irreconcllable. For bim the real Jesus of history
vas not the Jesus described in tbe NT writings. The supernstural
events in the life of JesU8 and the portrayal of HiB divine nature
were to be accounted for 00 the basis that the disciples fals1-
fied the story rsther than on the basis of actua1 historiesl fact.
Although Reimarus' extreme positions have -been accepted by only a
few, nonetheless he enunc1ated what are still consldered to be
the major problems 1n a reconstruction of the life of Jesus.
19th Century iblieal Criticism
The 19th century mood vas dom1nated by the development of
the natural sciences, the latter half of the century hy Darwin'a
theory of evolution partlcularly. Han's feel1ng that he had be-
come autonomous in bis study of nature led hia to a greater fe_l-
ing of autonooy in the reaL. of religion. As indicated eaelier.
the predominant pbilosopher was Hegel and the most influential
liberal theo1ogiaa vas Friedrich Schleiermacher.
Old Testament
As a result of the increasing influeoces of philosophic
approacbes to critieal biblical studies, there was by tbe midd1e
of the 19th century general acceptanee of the theory of a second
Isaiah and the dating of much of the biblical material late in
the history of Israel. The book of Daniel, for example, was now
firmly assigned to the 2d century B.C. A number of souree hypothe-
ses were introduced thot built models of biblieal interpretation
dependent on sourcesj compilers. snd redactors (editors) acting
over a long per iod of time as the basis for the final stage in
which the Bible now appears.
Ag a re.ult of the work of Karl H. Graf (1815-1869), Abraham
Kuenen (1828-1891), and others a hypothesis: emerged recognizing
four sources in the Pentateuch with placement of the priestly
souree after the Baby10nian exile and reconstructing Israelis
history in aeeordance with such a late dating. Julius Wellhausen
(1844-1918) became the most noted and brilliaDt exponent of this
theory and the most influentia1 in wlnning its acceptance.
74 A Symposium on Bibllcal Hermeneutics Postreformation Critical Biblical Studies 75
Wel1nauscn. worklng on the foundation of literary critlcism.
added the dimension of a historical criticism baaed on evolution-
latie philosophy. The hlstory of the religion of Israel was seen
in the light of the development of a natural religion rather than
a revealed religion. The influences Bt play were the evolution of
mauls religion, modified aad redefined in of the Hegel1an
concept of tbesis, antithesis, aud synthesls. rhus. the portions
of the Pentateuch that demonstrated supposedly more advanced reli-
glaus characteristics had to be dated st a later period of bisrory.
Ihis dating resulted in the elat. that tbe patriarchs, and even
Moses himself (tl ehey even existed). were not monotheists, and
tbat the documente referrlng to monotheism early in the his tory
of Israel were the result of and literary activity
after the Exile. Even Israelis contact with the Csnaanite reli-
gions vas seen as a faetor in IsraelIs development of monotheism.
According to the Seventh-day AdVentist Bibte Commentary, vol.
S. pp. 151. 152, the Graf-Wellhausen theory conslsts of the f01-
10wtDg schene:
Ihe Blble writer calIed Jahvist (J), a eitizen of
the southern kingda. of Judah, W'l'ote his soutce material.
ameng which. for example. are the patriarchal storles
from Abraham to the Exodus, in the aiddle of the 9th
century B.C. A century later the writer called Elohist
(E), living in the northern kingdom of Israel, wrote
his account. These two documenta were cleverly com-
bined ioto one bock, JE, by a redactor 0'1' (RJE)
about 650 B.C. In 621 B.C. the book of Deuteronomy
(D) was produced, although not in the form we know it.
This book waa YOrked over by anotber redactor (RD)
about 550 B.C. Between the years SOO aad 450 B.C. a
priestly wr1ter (P) wrote the legal and rel1g10lls parte
of the Pentateuch, which were then incorporated iDto
the otber books of a presumed MOssic orig1n by another
redactOT (R
P
) , who did his final work of editing about
400 B.C. 0'1' a I1tt1e later. Since that time, according
to the theory, the Pentateuch has not experienced
appreciable modification.
himself had little to add to tbe cr1tical conclu-
sions of his predecesBors. Yet bis wort aB an able spokesman was
a cI1-a
x
in the crltical investigations of 1ibera11sm. He had
brought togetber a ayst.:. that was bath simple aod "scientific,"
and upon it many scholars have bullt in app1ylng tbose principles
to every portion of the OT. Although there have been reactions
by evangelica1s sgsiast this scheme, and even by l1berals against
its excesses, tbe major results of Weilhausen's studies are given
ah1ding value by many.
A major presupposltion of the 1iterary critica1 method 18
weIl stated by J. eoert Rylaarsdam, editor of the Fortre8S Press
series on or biblical critieism: "Ihis movement assumed that the
produetion of Scripture was eonditloned historieally not on1y by
the fact that it had combined doeu.ents with a prior his tory of
their own but also that wider movements in human life had influ-
enced their contents. Implicit questions about revelation and
inspiration of were Dade more presslng. n_Litara:ry
CY-i"ticism 01 the otd Testament, p. iv. This major presupposit10n
has been a 8tanding one with the aajority of critical biblical
scholars to the present t1oe.
The following presuppositions, also found in other areas of
critiea! biblical scholarship, have crucial Implications for con-
servative biblieal studies: (1) A widespread skepticism regard-
ini the trustworthiness of the blblica1 aecounts that nsrrate
earlier. noncontemporaneous events; (2) the tacit assumption
that the cu1ture and religion of ancient peoples. Israel,
evolved gradually from early and primitive forms to later aud
developed ooes, thus assuming evolution; and (3) an
apriori rejeetion of all miraculous or Bupernatural elements,
which are explaiced away io natural ways. if ac all possib1e.
New Testament
During th_ 19th century. aa in the ease of the or, NI studies
were generally controlled by antisupernaturaliatic assumpt10DS.
An illustration of the mood of the time was liberalism's quest for
"the historical Jesus." It was feIt that tbere was a radical dif-
ference between the Jesus deseribed by tbe NT sud tbe Itreal" Jesus
of bistory. 8y a careful analysis of the Gospels it was argued
that the church's faDciful clat.8 regarding Jesus--for the pur-
pose of provlding a rationale for her existence--eould be laid
seide so that the aeutel facts of the l1fe and character of Jesus
could be aaeertained. Such reconstruction attcmpts were made by
D. F. Strauss (1808-1874). who reduced the historical Jesus to a
mere Jewish w1seman, by F. C. Baur (1792-1860). who saw the history
of Cbristianity through the pbiloBophical principle of tbesis,
ant1thesis. synthes1s (vbere the thesis vas a primitive JewiBh
concept in which Jesus was ooly a human tescher. the antitheeis
was the Pauline concept of the supernatural Jesus. and the
was the early church concept of the dual nature of Jesus),
aud in tbe extreme by Druno Bauer (1809-1882). who denied the
h1storlcal existence of Jesus, and Wilhelm Wrede (1859-1906). who
stated that Jesus never tbought of Htmse1f as the Messiab (a con-
ecpt still wide1y aecepced).
76 A Symposlwa on Bib1ical Hermeacutics Postreformatlon Critiea! Blblical Studies
77
Those s'e.eking the "historlcal Jesue" tried to explain on
"scle.ntific" grounds the events in the IHe of Christ, or to pic-
ture Him aa an individual who received a greater than
not unlque. measure of spiritual power. The re8ult was
tbat the "hlstorical Je.sus" was little more than the ideal man of
19th century liberalism.
Albert Scbweltzer's book Qu88t 01 the BiBtorioal JeoUB, which
came early in the 20th century. marks the end of liberallsm's
voluminous sesreh. Schweitzer (1875-1965) maintained tbat Jesus
cannot be separated trom tbe eschatologieal teachings attributed
to Mim by the Gospels. in depicted Jesus as a
radical eschatologise vho vent so far aa to precipitate His OWD
deaeh, ehlnk1ng that It would bring about His ova second coming
and tbe kingdom of God. Schweitzer's extreme interpretation,
knovn as "consistent eschatology." although modified, i8 still
influential in critical NT atudies.
20th Century Biblical Studies
fortes Preparlng for Change
Ag bibllcal critlcism entered the 20th century, there vere
forces preparing it for change. One of these was inherent within
licerary critlcism itself. The attempt to discover sources be-
hind the bibllcal material became such an obsession to some that
they 80ught the sources behind the aources behind the
Reactions to these excesses created a climate in which literary
criticism leself could be scrutinized,
!Icha.ology bad produced new data on the bistorical and
linguistic backgrounds of the Bible. This new information at
times c8l1ed iota question the results of previous I1terary criti-
cal studies. Although aany of its positions were thus modified.
literary critlcism in general was by 00 means making areturn to
orthodoxy. Even though it was beginning to take a more careful
look at Itself, biblical criticism was still operating on the
basic presupposition that the Biole must be lnterpteted and
explained on tbe same hases as any other literature,
Literary criticlsc bad also raised a nuaher of quest iODS for
which it could not provide acceptable aUBWers. For example,
although there was general agreement that the Pentateuch was built
from four sourees, there was disagreement as to whicb portions
belonged to which sourees, There were also questions aa to
whether these 80urces themselves were based an other sourcea; and
if so, whether tbe underlylng sources could be detected. There
questions about the role of the redactors in the final
edition of the Pentateuch and whether thelr rale could be clearly
determined.
Form CrltlciS3 of the Old Testa-ent
Bermann Gunkel (1862-1932) thought that a new approach would
be necessary to the literary history of tbe OT. This new approach
Involved the study of comparative religions and form criticism
Gunkel's work rested on the presupposition that much of the OT'
literature developed first of all in an oral form as folk litera-
ture--just as stmiLar types of literature bad supposedly developed
in atber cultures. He was thus interested in trying to set up'
categories of types or genres (the hymn, tbe blessing, the oath,
the legend. or the lament) of bibllcal literature in order to note
the influeDces of otber religions and cultures on them and to
discover the setting that a partlcular genre. (A modern
cxaaple of a genre would be the rather fixed foraat of a business
letter.)
Gunkel was interested in conjettural study of the preliterary
and oral stages behind tbe final literary vorks ehat make up ehe
OT, He al,o concentrated on the particular setting or Sitz im
Leben out of which a particular literary type or genre originaterl
(The Sit im Leben 18 the Sltu8tioD, such a9 the school. tbe cul-'
tic activities. the home, or the customs of royalty, which pro-
duced and maintained respective literary type8--this, more than
the historlcal perlod.) In doiug so. Gunkel also compared the
genres of Hebrew I1terature with the cultic end mythological DOtifs
of the religions of Egypt and Mesopotawia in order to determine
whether and how ISTael was indebted to and also reacted againat
these religions.
In add1.tion to the fon or structure aod "setting in life"
of each genre, Gunkel also sougbt the special intention or func-
t10n of eaeh genre for the original author, community. Bnd collec-
tor or and the particular mood or tone appropriate to
the genre as weIl as its content, wbich he feIt was sI.ilar
through the genre. In establishing fon criticism. Gunkel opened
up and outlioed a discipline thet ha8 contrlbuted to the develop-
ment of hoth OT and NT studies.
Among those who have folloved Gunkel in OT fore criticiso is
Sigmund Mbwlnckel (1884- ). Both Gunkel end Mowlnckel made
their primary contributlons on the book of Psalms, Thc emphas1s
of Mowiockel. however. differed fram that of Gunkel in that the
latter consldered the Psal_s to be essentially personal and pri-
vate ca.poaitioDs. He wa. therefore more interested in the thought
of the author than in tbe cultic setting in which the Psalm
78
A Symposium on Biblical Hermeneutlcs Postreformation Crittesl Biblical Studies 79
Buppoacdly was used. Mowinckel. on the hand, 8ssuned tbat
the Psalms were writteo specifically for thefe role in ceremonlai
worship rather than 8a a means of expressing the expertence of
an individual. He was .cre Interested. therefore, in
the setting in which he tbought a particular form was used snd
the role the form played in that setting. Kovinckel has thus
conjectured numerous stereotyped settings in the life cf Israel,
&uch aa a New Year festival or an enthronement festival.
An illustration of far- criticism will be taken G. E.
Mendenhall's study of the covenant. Mendenhall (1916- ) dls-
covered a suppoaed parallel berween the form of the Bittite
suzerainty treaty &Dd the of the Decalogue. Ibis parallellsm,
for Hendenhall, explained the unity "of such a diverse group as
Israel." Others have usRd this parallelism to the extent tbat
they have built a covenant theology based on the Hittlte traaty
fora and life setting rather than on the OT.
What 15 of interest to U9 i& that the basic presupposltlon of
or crlticlsm ls that the Blble DUSt be studled on the same
bases as any other literature siace lts origin 19 supposedly the
same as that of any otber literature. Rylaarsdam haa tadle. ted
that form eriticism presupposes that the people of Israel durlng
tbeir blscory eontrlbuted to tbe makiog of the Bible by virtue of
tbefr having had a communal existence as laraelitea. (See
Utexea:roy Critiaism, p. vi.)
The Uethod of form criticism as applied to the OT ls not
without cTucial deficiencies. Because oral unita were assumed to
be short, the erit.rion of brevity was developed. This led to
the assumpt10n that the shortest accounts are necessarily the
01de8t and that they grew by later accretions. Archaeologlcal
discoveries effectively challenge this assumption. On aeeount of
tbe a88umption of the growth fram 8mall to large complexea aod
narratives. It i8 believed that objective elements of history
cannot be found in the OT. Finally, the assumption of form cr1ti-
cism that a partieular genre 1s firmly linked to a part1cular
institution haa led to grass misconceptions. A basic problem of
form criticism is that it carries within itself tendenciea of
evolution such as from smsll to large and fram primitive to
advanced.
Fora Criticism of the Nev Testament
Form critlclsm of the NT was developed primarily by K. L.
Schmidt (1891-1956), Hartio Dibelius (1883-1947), and Rudolf
Bultmsnn (1884- ), who bullt on the aethod of Gunkel in OT
studies. It 19 tbe for. criticism of Bultmann that we ahall
notice bere. His form crlticisa of the Gospels attempts to trace
the oral preliterary stage of the Gospels. Its approach 19 based
on several ass.....ptiona-the IIOst fund8llental being that the Gos-
pels are built basieall, on sayings and narratives.
They were developed as oral folk literature coaposed of many saall
unats circulating effortlessly aa separate units fOT aperiod of
before they were brougbt together 10 the sources used in the
formation cf the gospel. Added to this basic presupposit1on 19
another--tbat the Sita im Leben of the Gospels is the chureh and
not the life cf Jesus; that 1s to 9ay, the picture of Jesus pre-
sented in tbe Gospels 1s largely the creation of the imaginative
community of believers. Ibe contents of tbe gospel then reflect
more the developlng life aad nReds of the Christian community
than the life cf Jesus. The concern of the early chureh, it
presupposRd, was not 11terary er historical but evangelistic.
This ioterest in preachln& cultivated and formed the traditions
regarding the life of Jesus.
On the basis of these presuppositions it was only natural
that Bulemann should feel tbat a genulne biograpby of Jeaus was
impossible. For ht- the community out of vhicb the Gospels (the
only primary souree for tbe 11fe of Jesus) arose was not concerned
to transmit biographical information. It transmitted instead
individual gayinge snd narratives that bad been formulated for
the community's own purposes.
The preaupposltlons of NT form eriticism led to the position
that the Gospels result fro. an imaginative community, refleet1ng
its own life-style snd need. Not only does this method counter
the evangelical eoncept of revelation-inspiration but it also
fails to take adequate account of the presence of eyewitneases In
the early church. It is likewiee not in harmony vith more receot
understandings of the development of folk 11terature vhicb indicate
that this type of literature cannot be accounted for on the basis
of the creative imagination of a community.
Tradition Criticism
Another reeent development in biblical studies 18 that of
tradition crit1eism, which attempts to come to grips with the
questions raised by source criticism and left unanswered by form
Thus it is a nev attempt to tell the whole story about
the origin and development of the Bible.
Source critieis. dealt prtmarily with the supposed literary
sourees. Form critic1sm dealt with individual literary untts snd
80 A Symposium on Biblical HCnleneutics Postreformation Critles! Biblical Studies 8l
the setting of these unlts In the life of the people. Tradition
crLticism presupposes aod leans heavl1y on both source sud form
crltlcism as It uakes a new attempt to trace the of
the Rible from lts conception through It8 oral aud literary
history to lts final form.
Tradition critlcism 18 Interested in tbe history that has
beeu Involved in tbe formation, aodificatlon. and/or syntheals of
the original oral and WYltten 80urces that eventually weTe brought
together to form tbe Blble. And it is interested in knoving tbe
unique motivation--whether theologieal, polteteal, or soc1al--for
the varlous stages of this history.
01d Testament Tradition Criticism
For the 01, Ivan Engnell (1906-1964) and Hartin Noth (1902-
1968) wbo amplified aod popularized the views of Albrecht Alt
(1883-1956) are of pioneers in tradition The
work of Noth aod Engnel1 illustrates same of the dlfferences in
emphssis within tTadition criticism itself. Engnell. vorking
frOD the perspcctive of the Scandlnavian "Uppsala School,"
rejeeted the Yellbausen idea of anonymous redaetors, explaining
the formation of biblical materials rather on the basis of cfreles
aod sehool9 of tradition, working both fra. oral snd wr1tten mate-
rials. Noth, on the ocher hand, plaeed more eaphasis on tbe writ-
tcn material.
An illu8tratiou of Natb's method ean be drawn from a 81ng1e
faeet of his attempts to show how Israelis complex traditions were
made to aerve the unification of the twelve tribes. For him, the
nation developed slowly by unifying unrelated emaIl clans and
tribes, brought about, in part, by the development of a common
store of traditiona. Tbe story of Jacob, for example, 18 88sumed
to be derived from eeveral strands of tradition representing aDces-
tors of differeot North Palestinian groups of people. Assuming
unification, from a eommon ancestry, to be 8 major goal, Noth sees
it met by such a development of the tradition cf the journey of
Jacob 88 to unlte the several strands in one But the
ancestra! beroes of the southern tribes were Abraham and laaae.
8y the dQvelopment of the tradition that Jacob was in the line of
descent of Abraham snd laaae it was possible for unity to cxlst
amoDg the Bouthern snd northern tribes.
Again of interest to us i8 the fact thst tbe hasic presuppo-
sition of tradition criticism 18 thet the 3ible must he treated
on the same basss as any other literature, for the reason that its
development is the same. As Rylaarsdam again has indicated, tra-
dieien criticism 18 based on the recognition that. the very exist-
ence of the community gives shape to the tradition and results 10
handing Lt on to one generation after another.
New Redaction Criticism
Thc term "redaetion criticis." 1s more generally used to
describe the NT dlselpl1ne beeause It eoncentrates on the finel
edition, the time span for the development of the tradition being
much le89 in the NT than in the OT. NT redaction criticism has
been interested in the authorls theological motivation for the
colleetion, arrange.ent, and modification of traditional material
in its final for-. This interest in theological motivation 1&
not, hovever, an interest in the theology of a book or of the
Bible. It i8 coneerned more with the way in wbieh the theological
emphasis of ODe author differs frOD that of another. By a eompari-
son of the similarities aod the differences of the Gospels in their
final form, in their use and omission of sources and 1n their com-
ments, it is feIt that it 1s possible to identify the unique tbeo-
logical motives tbat compelled the suthor to bring tbe material
together in s particular way.
NT redaction criticism has built largely on the work of
Bultmann in that be was more eoneerned for the motivational factors
lnvolved in the final form. redaetion critieism developed under
the werk of Gnther Bornkamm (1905- ), Bans Conzelmann (1915-
), and Will1 Marxsen (1919- ). Tbe work of Conzelmaon 00
the Gospel of Luke will ll1ustrate briefly the types of
reached by redaction criticism. Conzelmann completely hroke with
the view that Luke was the first church historian. 8y his analysis
of the Gospel of Luke, aoting the sources in the Gospel, Conzelmann
came to the conclua1on that Luke was a self-conscious theologian
rather than a church hietorian because the details of his compo-
sition could be shown to have been theologically motivated.
Recent Developments in Biblical Studies
As a result of recent archaeological discoverie8 and other
correctives to the Wellhausen theory, OT scholarship has mev.cl
away from the most extreme liberal views of the 19th century. The
trustworthiness of the bib11cal materials and the early date for
the many traditi008 recorded in that material are now more gener-
ally Tbc uniqueness and grandeur of Yshwiam 1& gener-
al1y reapected. end it i5 recognized tbat this religion did not
develop along the lines of a nest evolutionary scheme. The 8th
eeotury prophets are no longer considered the origlnators but
82 A Symposium on Biblieal
Critical Bibitea! Studies 83
the heirs of a eonotbeism tbat in same ferms coulrl have
reached back to the times of the patriarchs. Tbe discovery of
the Dead Sea Bereils hag brought about more respect for the prevl-
ously available OT texts. It also helped to 111uminate the history
of the 1ntertestamental period and provide background material
out of whicb the NT could be more fully understood.
NT studies have ofeen tended to move lIWay from extreme
approaches. Tbe Gospel of Joho. for exa.ple. 1s more ftequeotly
placed in the first ceneury A.D. and by same is considered to be
reasonably trustvorthy hi&torically, as also the book of Acts.
The letters traditionally attributed to Paul (with three or four
exceptions) are becoming more widely accepted a8 Pauline. Great
strides have also been made in textual critical snd linguistie
studies.
BibIica1 studies, and NT studies in particular. sre still
wreatling with the questions raised by the her-eneutical approach
of Bultmann. This approach Is an apologetical approach that
attempts to demytbologize the Bible in order to make its message
acceptable to modern Q4D. Ta cemythologize menns to reioterpret
mychologicsl terms aB those that are existentially (using particu-
lariy the categories of the Germsn existential philosopher Kartin
Heidegger) relevant to manls understanding of his own existence.
In turn, for Bultmann mytbology is aoything not acceptable to tbe
.adern scientific world view. Anything botdering on the supet-
natural (such aB miracles. divine intervention in human history,
angels, Satan, or heaven) is considered mythology. While strip-
ping off the mythology Bultmann desires to maintain the
the essential message--that whicb is existenttally relevant to
man'g uDdetstanding of his existence.
Buleaann believes that 1t is possible snd proper to demytholo-
gize the Bible beeause he sees the Bible writers as portraying
their understanding of the1r own existence tsther than recording
an objective rea1ity. (Por a discussion of ehe propositional aod
objective aspects of Scripture, over agalnst concepts that consider
it to be purely subjective. see chapter 1.) Bultmann thus thought
that It 16 possible to relate the functional aspects the myth had
for the author to contemporary man's understanding of his existencc.
Bultmann approches bibllcal eschatology and Creation, for
cxanple. as myths. He sees the concept of the end of the age
thtough 9upernatural intervention (accompan1.ed by a final judg-
ment tbat assigns destinies) a5 an absurd superstition to contem-
porary man. History. contends Bult.ann, will not come to an end
through some supernatural means. If an end should come. it will
be by such a natural meane ar> war or a change in the sun's
radiation patterns. Yet the essential message of the eschatologi-
eal "lDyths" 16 not unrelated tO c.onte-porary Ilan' 5 existence, for
every man 18 destined to die. There i.s urgency, then; in making
decisioDS about oDe's own personal existence in that every moment
contalns the possibility of heing the eschatological moment.
Bul.tmann considers the "myth" of Creation not as a fanciful
account of the world's orlgin but aa a description of tbe crea-
turely dependent state of man.
Bultmann, in bis approach tO the BibIe, has brought togethet
systematically and apologetically many of the more important recent
trends in theological and philoaophical thought. Not ooly does
Bultmann bave roots in 19th century liberalism but also in dialec-
tiesl theology. He hag cspitalized 00 the form cr1tlcsl method
and 20th century existentialist thought, while remalning aware of
contemporary philosophies of his tory. Not onIy did he cambine
these theological interests but also he had the modern eommuniea-
tive intetest of attempting to speak to contemporary seeularized
whose living and thinking has been conditioned by modern
scienee.
The hermeneutical approach of Bulomann recognizes one aspect
of the biblical picture. snd that i8 man in his relation God;
howevet. It denies God's tranecendence as weil &8 Hi8 ability to.
act in the events of history. Stailarly, the biblical message. 1t
sbould be noted. not only speaks about man in bis relation to God
but a180 about God apart frOD man, and about God's divine acts in
history. (The concept that the biblical record of God's aetivities
in history--as for example in the Resurrection of Christ--must be
taken seriously has recently been championed by W. Pannenbetg.)
Hany scholars of the ultmann 8chool. a8 well BS others. bave
stressed ehat Bultmann's approach leads to a serious reduction of
the Christisn message to a subjectively controlled bare minimum.
In recent years there has been reemphasis in both OT and NT
studies on biblical theology. Critical methods have a tendency
to deal only with parts of Scripture or even with certain phases
of a specific Scripture, such aa the linguistic phase or the his-
torical phase. Ihus eritical methodologies themselves do not
deal with what might be considered the essence of the blbllca1
material. Biblical theology, on the other hand, ia an attempt to
understand the biblica1 message as a whole. It haa the potential
of studying the biblical message froe the standpoint of the Bible
itself rather than from that of some external philosophical model.
Thus it can move in the direction of a .ere eonstructive and use-
ful spproach to the understanding of tbe .essage of the Bible. The
usefulness of this approach in the future, however. viII depeod on
the willingne.ss to lay aslde those presupposltlons that make the
84 A Symposium on Biblical Hermeneutics Postreformation Critieal Biblical Studies 85
Bible only a human book aud to accept the Bible's self-understanding.
namely, that it 18 also the Ward of God.
Implicatious of Biblical Criticism
for Adventist Biblical Studies
The more careful approach to the study of the Bible in this
century should not be taken as an uncritical return to Protestant
orthodoxy or to eoncepts of revelation held by the Reformers.
Although liberal eritieal studies have reexamined many former posi-
tions due to the availability of new information and the appliea-
tion of new methodologies, they have not abandoned the original
presuppositions of liberalism. Critical biblical studies are not
in general moving in the direction of recognizing the Bible as the
Word of God to mankind aud thus they do not give the impression of
moving in the direction of attempting to bring about a fuller
understanding aud acquaintance with the God of the universe.
Modern critieal studies explain the content and form of
biblical material on the basis of the natural outworking of the
forees of history, soeiology, anthropology, psychology, politics,
aud the laws of literature as seen through the eyes of naturalistie
aud evolutionistic philosophies rather than as the outworking of
God's efforts to speak objectively to mankind. The Bible is
seen as a resultant of these forces among and within nations and
societies rather than as the reeord of the activity of God in his-
tory and the giving of an inspired message. It is an individual
or a community speaking to itself rather than God speaking to that
individual or community. It is domina ted by a study of the reli-
gion, eulture, and history of a people rather than a study of God's
plan in his tory to reconeile mankind to Himself. It is the study
of pieees of Hebrew and early Christian literature rather than a
unified body of revelation.
Rylaarsdam, writing within the general framework of biblical
eriticism, affirms that the basic presupposition of modern criti-
cism is that the Bible has developed historieally according to the
same laws of history that have governed the development of other
ancient national traditions.
This, he insists, 18 what makes the eriticism "modern." It
had to make its way cautiously against the long-standing "tradi-
tions of dogma and confessional authority" that saw the language
of Scripture as the vehiele of the divine absolute. This modern
eriticism, by contrast, saw the contents of the Bible ss condi-
tioned by the same human lfmitations and situation as modified
aoy other kinds of historical tradition. (See L i t e ~ Criticism,
pp. viii sud Ix.)*
The presuppositions of modern biblical studies, then, are
radical1y different fram those outlined in the first chapter of
this symposium. Tbe Bible. having been reduced to the level of
a mere human book, 18 00 langer the normative, authoritative Ward
of Garl recording His will aud purpose for mankind. God's transcen-
deuce aud His acts in his tory are denied or radically transformed
on the assumption that these eoneepts confliet with the mood of
modern man and his evolutionistic seientifie outlook. The Bible
thus contains man's reflections about God rather than God's
message to man.
Due to space limitations it has not been the intention of
this chapter to deal with every major trend or development in the
history of eritieal biblical studies. It has been our purpose
primarily to trace some of these developmentB in order to show
the basis on which these eritical studies are founded in order,
again. that their value in eonservative biblieal studies might be
seen.
Although declaring so plainly that the underlying presupposi-
tions of biblical eritieism are contrary to those on whieh the
message of the Seventh-day Adventist Church is founded, this writer
recognizes tbat certain aspects of modern biblical studies have
done much to establish an accurate text of the Bible and to sharpen
our understanding of the language of the Bible. They have greatly
illuminated the background and climate in which God revealed Him-
self to His people. They have also at times provided new dimen-
sions for interpreting the biblical message. Although liberal
criticism has contributed in its own way to an understanding of
the Bible. the question must be raised as to whetber the presuppo-
sitions can be separated from the method without destroying the
latter. This issue must likewise be considered whether one is
formulating or applying a valid methodology in the study of Scrip-
ture. It is undeniable that the developments outlined above depre-
ciated the authority and funetion of the Bible in Christianity.
Over against these effects. the binding funetion and authoritative
nature of the Bible must be reasserted, for the Bible is, after
all. the Word of God. the norm by whieh is revealed to man God's
eharacter and will aud His plan for reconciling man to Himself.
*Grateful acknowledgment is made to Fortress Press for permis-
sion to quote from Literwoy CI'itiaism of the Old Testament by Nor-
man Habei, edited by J. Coert Rylaarsdam. 1971.
86 A Symposium on Biblical Hermeneut1cs
Postreformation Critical Blbliesl Studies
87
READING LIST
Buttrick. George Arthur. ed. The Interpreter's l>ietic:mary of thD
Bibl8. 4 vola. New York: Abingdon Press, 1962.
Cootalns belpful articles surveying the thlnking of
those involved in critical studies in naoy topfe areas.
Neill. Stephen. The Interpretation of the NBIJ Testament 1861-
19S1. A Galaxy Book. New York: Oxford University Press,
1966.
A of methodologies employed for the study of the
NT
Basic IS8Uee in the
Wm. B. Eerdaans Pub.
The New BibLe Cormte'1taJ"y:
wm. B. Eerdaans Pub. Co.,
Barrison, Roland Kenneth. Introduction to the OU Testament.
Grand Rapide, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co 1971.
The introductlon and rnethod of study of the or 18
considered io detail by a conservative scholar.
Hahn, Herbert P. The Old Testa:rumt in Modrn Reaem-ch. Phila-
delphia: Fortress Press, 1966.
A survey i8 given of the developmeDt of crltlcal 8nd
other approaches to the study of the OT.
Hieho!. Frands D ed. J TJw Seventh-day Adventist Bible Ccmmerl.
tary. 1 vola. Washington. D.e.: Review and Herald Pub.
ABsoc 1953-1957.
This commentary contains helpful surveys and cTitiques
of crftieal blblical studies.
Richardson. Alao, cd. A Dictianmoy of ChriBtian TheoZogy. Phila-
delphia: Westmlnster Press, 1969.
This volume 19 usefu1 as a survey tool for bibliesl
studies in areas where theology has implic8tlons for blbl1-
cal her-eneutics.
Rylaarsdam, J. Cout or Via, Dan 0 . Jr eds. Guides to BibZicat
Schotarship. Philadelphia: Fortres8 Press, 1969-1972.
Thts series. Indudlng Uterary Criticism of the OZd
TS8tammt, Form Critiaism o{ the Otd Tradition
Hiatory 0/ the OU Tes'taM1nt, Uiterary Cri-ticiBm of the New
Testament, What Is Ponn Criticism? end 1Ihat Is Redaction
Criticism? surveys the disdplines of bibUcal critldsm
frau within ehe disciplines
Young, Edward J. An Introduation to the DU Testament. Grand
R.a.pids, Mich.: W'm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co.. 1970.
A conservative discussion of introduction to and methods
in the study of the OT.
mate-
recent
Gutbrie, D. and Motyer, J. A. eds.
Revieed. Grand Rapide. Kleh.:
1970.
This one-volume com.entary contains introductory
rials that glve a survey and conservative critique of
studies.
Hasel, Gerhard F. Otd Testament Theology:
Current Debate. Grand Rapids, Hieb.:
Co 1972.
Presents a discussion of methodology in OT theology
with propossls for a conservative approach.
__-.",.-' NeJ:t1 Testament Introduction. 3 vola. Chicago: Inter-
Varsity Prees, 1966.
These volunes. The GoBpe LandActa, Hebrmus to Reve Za-
tion, and The PauLine EpistLes deal with the questlons of
introduction and methodology for the from a conservative
v1evpolnt.
Hyact, J. Phllip. ed. The Bible in Modern N8Sh-
ville: Abingdon Press, 1965.
Contalns a symposium of papers on trends in biblical
scholarship which were presented at the 100th meeting of the
Soe1ety of Bib11cal Literature.
Ladd, George Eldon.
Rapid,. Mich.:
An attempt
pr'esuppositlons
NeIN Te8tament and Cri tici8m. Grand
WM. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1967.
to restructure in terms of eODservat1ve
current methods in bibllcal study.

6. Modern Protestant eouenative

Bibl1cal Studles in America
KENNETH A. STRAND
SDA Theol.ogical s-i""'1l
AndN:we Univereity
ReceiiJing his early education in his
home State of anti with a
numbel' 01 years of Ministmal asJP'.Jice
in the Michigan ConfBrence. of Seventh-
day Dto. Xenneth A. Strand
is p'l'Ofessol" of c'Jr.zaoch history at the
Seventh-day Adventist TheoZogicat Semi-
nary and haB taught then eine, 1969.
His ooatol"ate in ahUl"Ch hi8tOl"Y wae
CllIXU'ded by the University o! MiaIJigan.
His dissel"tation was entitl-ed: "A Low-
Ge.ztman Edition of the Gospels and Book
of Acta Baeed on Hieronymus Emee,.' 8
Version and Published by the B'rethPen
of the Corrrnon Life at Rostock About
1530. n
At tbe bcglnning of the twentieth century Protestant cooserva-
tive Bible 5cbolarship in Ameriea was generally held in high esteem.
but berween the ewo vorld warB it neglected to keep pace vith lib-
eral scholarsblp 1n producing carefully researched publications
cODsequently it experienced serious 1088 in 1nfluence sod prooi-
neuce. However, recent yeaTs have witnessed a change of emphas!s
whereby are aga!n beginning to regale dlstlnctlon
by the1r serlous efforts In biblical sud theologieal research.
snd abrief descrlption of certsin recent trends ameng them will
be worthwhile beTe.
In treating the spec1f1c question of the hermeneutical con-
cerns of modern Protestant conservatlve Btble scholarship in Amer-
les it be necesaary firat to define whst 15 meant by the term
This designation, l1ke the term Ziberal
J
covers a
great variety of attltudes and approaches. In conjunction with
the need for definition. abrief historical survey will be neces-
aary. After treating these preltminary matters. we will proceed
to a discussion of bermeneutical questions as they reIste to four
main areas of cancern among conservatlves: (1) The matter of in-
spiration of Scripture, (2) the question of utilizing modern
scbolarly tools and techniques in Bible research, (3) the quea-
tion of the Bible in Telationship to scientific discovery.
and (4) trends in thc f1eld of b1b11cal eschatology. Although
other topics could weIl claim our attention, space necessitates
limiting tbe discussion; snd these four areas will serve to focus
on the major issues germane to the subject.
Thc "Conservatives":
Definition and Brief Historieal Survey
Conservative Cbr1stianity as we know it today is a variegated
phenomenon. Not ooly doee 1t represent a variety of views among

90
A Symposium on Biblical BermeneutiCliii Conservative Bibl1cal Studies in America 91
Ita adherents but also It often crosses denominations! 11oes. to
Include verlous groups of Baptists, Lutheraus. Hethodist Pres-
byteriana. and athers. In some casea tbe conservative ving of a
particular denomination or confession tepresents a small minority
of the adherents of the affiliation or conlession; but tn other
casea. entire denominations may l1e wichtn the framework of con-
18 the ease, for example, with Seventh-day Advent-
fsts. Conservatlves of todsy vary greatly with respecr Co such
matters 8S aDeial c9ncern. soae taking a real sud active intetest
slang these lines sud athers virtually negieetlog this SteB of
service. Thete are also degrees of openoeSB to sciencific dls-
covery and to using .etbodolog!es in vogue in biblica1 800 theo-
logtcsl studies.
Just who, then, are the conservatlves? What characteristies
bind them together?
In a general way it may be sald thec conservatives. in con-
ttast to liberals. (1) e-phasize the Bible as directly the reve-
lation of God, inspired by Hirn. and put more emphasis on propo-
sitional truth than liberals do; (2) place revelation 8S a souree
of knowledge of God above such things as reason or intultlon;
(3) proclaim the de1ty of Christ as traditionally held and stress
Jesus' virgin birth and the miracles He performed durlng His .in-
iscry; (4) emphaaize the reality of Christ's resurreccion fram
the dead; (5) look forward to His second advent; (6) stress the
redemptive nature of Christ's substicutionary death on ch@ cross;
(7) take both sin and salvation fram ein by grace seriously.
attaching great slgnificance to the conversion experlence of the
Individual; (8) believe in predictive propheey; and (9) recog-
nize God's supernatural aetlvity in Creatlon and at varloua t!mes
io as recorded in Scripture. In addition, cooservatives
of our time characteristically have held a negative aad pes-
stmlstlc view of modern culture than have the liberal,. (It
should be noted that the term conaervative as used herein ls a
broad deslgnation that includes fundamentalists. new evangelicals
[or new conservatives]. and other groupe. a5 will beeome more
elear as we proceed.) ,
Ihroughout the Christian era there bave been numerous con-
servative Chrlstians. Tbe major Protestant Reformers of tbe six-
teenth century should be classifled as such, of course. More
recent roots from which Dodern American Protestant conservatlsm
has stemmed may be found in Pietism. in English Puritanism. in the
Wesleyan revival, and in other s1milar -.ove-ents that In due
course crossed the Atlantic. The Great Awakenings on the North
Ameriean eontinent Itself provide still further backgrounds. Bow-
ever, an especially critical development that has been basic to
the formation of .ajor trends in present-day American conservative
Protestant1sm is the liberal-funda.entalist controversy and Its
after.ath. In order to defend traditionsl Christian vievs on such
matters as the inspiration of Scripture, the deity of Christ, and
the supernatural activity of Cod in Creation and redemption, same
twelve volu_es entitled The FUnaamantals were published froa 1910
to 1914. About three million coples of these volumes were die tri-
buted throughout the English-speaking world; and a number of otber
works repudisting liberalis., higher criticis., snd modernism
appeared. Thera ware sttacks on 8cience and on the scientlfic
aethod. especially beeause of uoiformitarian and organic-evolutlon
theorles propounded by scientists and aecepted by the oodernist
Chri.tian theo10gians.
Because of the slgnificance of the set of volumes entitled
The the name fundamentalist became attaehed to the
defenders of the faith whose views were represented in these vol-
umes. Fra. that day to this tbe so-called fundacentalists have
tended to be rilid in their doctrine of scrlptural inspiration,
and often place great emphaais on adherence to certain traditional
or orthodox doctrlnal positions. On the other hand, they fre-
quently have been 8ccused of failing to make the B1ble message
to modern man snd of failing also to become 1nvolved In
the sres of soelsl concern. Doubtles8 fearful of the eonnotations
of the social-gospel movement. they have shrunk fra. meeting tha
needs of soc1ety, and in this respect bave revealed astrange
departure from the truly strong soeisl concern of many of th8ir
for.runners in the nineteenth and earlier eenturles.
During the 1920's and 1930's various literary battles and
oral eonfrontatlons took place between outstanding liberal and
fundamentalist representatives. It seemed for the most part chat
liberal scholarshlp repeatedly aalned ground aad that tbe overrigid
stanee of the fuodamentalists seen aB untenable. Whereas dur-
i08 those decades the liberals had many qualifled scholars. funda-
mentalists eould boast but few. In fact, fundamentalists often
took a rather defensive position agslnst advanced education.
In large part. the fundaaentalist regression came about
through lass of seminaries for trainiog the ministry. fsilure to
reach the general publie. and a cendeney to become so excluslve
as to bring about not only isolation from liberals but also divi-
sion witbin fundamentaligc. It 18 pertinent to say that in addi-
tion to the fundamentalist tIOVeJDent as such there i9 a fundamen-
talist .entallty. and that the latter bears within it the seeds
of divisiveness. As Edward J. Carne11 polnta out. the mental1ty
of fundamentalisa i8 characterized by such things as ideological
tbinking (which i8 "rigid, intolerant. and doccr1naire"), intel-
92 A Syaposium on Blbiteal Hermeneutics
Consarvative Bibllcal Studics in Amariea
93
lactusl stagnation. and negative ethte (see Th6 Case for Orthodox
Theotogy [1959l. pp. 113-125).
By the 1940's sud 1950's a concerned group of conservatlve
Chrlstlan echolsTB vithln the fundamentalist movement endeavored
to infuse neu life ioto It. Adhering to the traditiona! funda.en-
tals of the Christian falth--inc1uding belIef in the 81ble 89 the
IDsplred Ward of Cod, acceptance of the deity of Christ 1" its
historically accepted sense, and other basic tenets of the funda-
mentalist posltion--they were more flexible than so.e of their
colleagues with regard to such aatters as the findings of science
and the use of newly developed tools and methods for Bible study.
Frequently they manifested real cancern for society and its needs--
without. of courSB. denying the necessity of the individual con-
version experience.
An early hsrbinger of this new attitude may be found in dis-
cussions that created the National Assoeiation of Evangelieals
for Uni ted Action in 1943, a group referred to as new evangelicals
(ta dlstlnguish these particular conservatlves fro. the fundamen-
tsllsts, from the evangelicals of earlier t!mes, and from evangel-
icals in other parts of the world). The National Assoclatlon
itself was to be interdenoainational. and it had a test of fellow-
ship covering only doctrines held to be most essential (a list of
seven basic teachings Is conveniently quated by Bruce Shelley in
his 8vangeticatism in America, pp. 71, 72). A softening attitude
toward 80eiety and it8 needs was seen in the work of affiliated
organizations such aB The World Relief Commission and The Co-mis-
sion on Social Action. Although ehe relief snd work of
these new evangellcals may be comparatively modest, it reveals a
signific&Ot break from the attitude of older funda.ental1m.
Perhap one of the most striking steps in the division be-
tween fundamentalism and the new evangellcalism came in 1947, when
one of the prominent leaders of the new movement, Carl F. H. Henry,
published his book The Uneaay Conscience of ModBrn Fundamentatism.
Aeeording to his preface Henry did not intend to deny any of the
fundamentals of doctrine but he was quite eritleal of the posi-
tion fundamentalism had taken with regard to meeting the needs of
society. Ihe following year Edward J. Carnell published his
Introduction to Christian Apologetic8, whieh i8 somet1mes con-
sidered a aajor turning point in eonservative endeavor to dialogue
wlth modern philosophers and with theologians of nonccngervative
stanee.
A further slgnificant step in the his tory of the aew evangeli-
cals was the establishment of the Evangelical Theological Society
fOT mutual Bssociation and discussion amang biblical scholars and
theologians of CODservative viewpoint. Further treatment of the
position of this soclety with respect to the question of inspira-
tion of Scripture viII be given in our next section. where we will
discuss the soclety's doctrinal basis wblch was adopted as part
of tts cODstitution in 1951.
So the older fundam.entalislll has now beeu divided by ehe emer-
gence of the oew evangelicalism, but it i5 not always simple to
differentiate between the two groups because of the variety of
belief within each. Indeed, positions held by the more liberal
fundameotallsts may vell tend to merge witb thase held by the more
eonservative new evangelicals. However. a distlnction usually can
be made between the two groups on the basis tbat the new evangeli-
eals show a greater openness taward dialogue with the modern world.
including ao atte.pt to make tbe gospel message more relevant to
modern man in both theologieal presentation and aoeial action.
Not all present-day conservative Protestant Cbristians are
co be classlfied as either fundamentalists or new evangellcals.
as bas been iDdicated earlier. This terminology, in the first
place, i8 .ost approprlate to the Horth Americao scene. Preseot-
day conservstisa in England and on the continent of Europe, for
example, has for the most part a so.evhat different line of develop-
ment. But even in America there are conservative groups, such as
the Seventh-day Adventlsts, that cannot essily be classified as
either fundaaentalists or n8W evangelicals.
Inspiration of Scripture
One of the most basic eoncerns of conservative theologlans
relates ta the quest ion of the inspiration of Seripture. The old
fundamentalists took a rigid position that the Bible was vcrbally
inspired. Not all fundamentalists would see eye to eye on this
matter, but for same the total effect of their position haa been
to suggest that Seripture was given virtually by a dictation method.
Even though the term is often repudiated by thern, same
seem to say that God inspired not only the men but also the very
words in which the dlvine messages were transeribed by prophets
and apostlea. A few fundamentalists would earry the point as far
as to elat. that the Eoglish King James Version was uniquely
authoritative or inspired. There has also been some skepticism
toward auy type of study relating to the text and the history of
Bible books or of Bible psssages. Tbe difficulty in establishing
the exact vlews of inspiration held by the new evangelicals .ay
be somewhat represenced by Wiek Broomall's book entitled BibZicaZ
Criticism, produced in 19S7. In it he points out (pp. 23. 24) that
many liberal scholars equate "verbal inspiration with dictation"
94
A Symposium on Bibl1cal HermeneuticB
Conservatlve BlbI1ea! Studies in America 95
and chereby endeavor [0 make ebe conservative position look ludi-
crous. But he goes OD [0 say that "whatever Day he the unjust
caricature of the conservative vtew, the Bible most de!lberately
teaches the verbal inspiration of Its documents." He even goea
so far as to say that "ehe modern idea that only the thought (but
not the words) was inspired 18 utterIy foreign to the Scriptures
and absolutely obnoxiou8 to any true vlev of inspiration." Broo-
mall, on the ether hand. recognizes the value of oalng certain
t0019 for better understanding of the text, and he emphasizes the
need [0 be weIl versed in bibl1cal Ianguages.
TheTe i8 growing that the new evangelicals bave
broadened the concept of inspiration held by the fundamentalists.
An indlcatloo of this tendency is seen in the newer attitudes
toward the uae of tools by which to gain a better understaoding
of Scripture. Edward Caene!l, for example, in his
to C1uistian ApoZogetics (pp. 192-194) in 1948 made a distinction
between the acceptability of lower criticism, which deals with the
state of the biblical text, and higher crlticism. whicb deals wlth
tbe application of secular scientific historlcal aethodology to
the study of the biblical text. He belleved that the former was
legitimate but rbe latter was not. By 1959, however. he was wl11-
ing in his The Caee for TheoZogy (p. 97) to go ae far as
to declare that "any investigation tbnt throws light on tbe lit-
erary and hlstorlcal background of the Bible" would be welcomed
by orthodoxy. BerDacd llamI had earlier expressed a siAl1arly
favorable view toward the use of both lower and sQae aspects of
higher criticisa in bis FPotestant Ch:ristian EvitUmcs of 1953
(see pp. 19-21). Indeed, Ramm Dotes that the nfactuatity of the
Bible as a document" wou1d be vindicated by proper use of such
methoda.
We more speclfica11y oow come (0 the question of what inspira-
tion of Scripture signifies co the new evangellcals. Again, it
1s difficult to generalize their maiostreaa position. but their
basic understsnding of inspirstlon at an early stage of develop-
ment was perhaps characterized by the const1tution of the Evan-
gelical Tbeological Society. adopted Jaouary I, 1951. In Article
111. entitled "Doctrinal Basis," 101e find the following stateaent:
"Tbe Bible alone aud ehe Bible in Ha entirety, is the Word of God
written, and therefore inerrant in the autographs," All members
of the society were required to subscribe to this doctrlnal basis
yearly. It seems evident that this particular statement, although
it broadens somewhat the position of the earlier fundamentalists,
adberea basically to a verbal-inspiration theory, sometimes re-
ferred to as plenary inspiration. Tbe matter of verbal 1nerrancy
18 safeguarded In the phrase "lnerrant in the autograpbs."
Apparently the new evangelicals were quite ready to recognize
obvious fact that different extant Bible aanuscripts vary
somewhat. bot in 1951 they may have vished to maintain the idea of
an original God-given Be that as It may, the decade of
the 1960's brought about a breach within the society itse!f aad
a8Qng evangelicals in generalover this matter. Especially 1m-
portant was Dewey H. Reegle's publication The of
wbich appeared in 1963. In Beegle
1
g opinien conserva-
tives have erred in using a deductive approach to the question of
inspiration, based on the postulate of God's sovereigney. They
bave deduced that a sovereign God must needs have revealed Him-
self inerrantly. However, the very fact that extant mnnuscripts
often differ bas shown that not all of th8D can be error free,
and thus there has bad to be a furtber deduction that the
must have been error fTee.
Beegle himself would break with this sort of reasoning and
use an inductive approach to the question of inspiration. Instead
of beginning with generalities froa vhich aseries of deductions
are drawn he thought it better to go to the Scriptures theaselves
to see they say about tbe manner in whicb they are inspired.
According to Beegle, the Bible does prcclaim for itself inspiration
and autboritativeness, but it does not proclaim a doctrine of
inerrancy. In feet. one should remember that when Jesus and the
apostles appealed to Scripture they utilized the manuscripts of
their time, not the supposedly ioerrant autographs. B@egle also
points out tbe problem of whether hucan language is really capable
of glvL"l8. inerrant cam.unicatlon from God.
Beegle is not the only scholar among tbe new evangelicals who
seems to have broken with the view given in the 1951 "Doctrinal
Basis" of the Evangelical Theological Society. but he perhapa rep-
resents as radlcal adeparture from that position as any first-
rate evangelical scholar not all aspects of his
position have been rreated heTe). Koreover, although same of the
original excitement within evangellcal circles on the question of
insp1ration has subsided, probab1y the debete is not yet over.
Nevertheless, in spite of mutual disagree.ents on tbe matter.
evangelicals of rather differiDg views can--and still do--live
wlthin what is to them a generally acceptable conservatlve
confraternity.
Although on the North American scene a great deal of proml-
nence has been attached either to the fundamentalist viewpoint or
to the somewbat similar evangelical attitude toward the questioD
of the inspirat10n of Scriptore. it should be noted that not all
conservatlves have accepted elther astriet or a modlfled verbal-
inspiration theory. In fact. the more recent indlcations are that
96
A Sy.po8ium on 81blical Hermeneutics
Conservative Biblical Studies in Aaerica 97
so.e evangelical posltlons--althougb retalnlng tbe exprea910ns
verbal or pLe.nar;y iospiratlon--may be close to that held by the
Seventh-day Adventists , a.oug athers. aB gtatcd in the introduc-
tion to the book by Ellen G. White (pp.
vii-ix) :
Tbe Bible points to God as lrs suthar; yee It was
writ.ten by human hands; aud in the varied style of its
different books it presents tbe characteristics of the
several vrlters. Tbe truths revealed are all "given hy
inspiration of God" (2 Timothy 3:16); yet chey are ex-
pressed in the words of men. Tbe Infinite One by His
Ho1y Spirit has shed light iDto the minds aud heatts of
His servants. He hag given dreams sud vieions. symbols
sud figures: aud those to whom the truth was thus re-
vealed.have themselves embodied the thought in human
language.
The Bible, with its God-given truths expressed in
the Ianguage of men, presents a union of the divine with
the hupen. Such a union existed in ehe nature of Christ.
who was the Son of Cod and the San of ean. ThuB 1t 19
true of the Bible, as it was of Christ. tbat "ehe Ward
was marle flesh, and dwelt aDOng us." 30hn 1:14
The testimony 15 conveyed through the taperfect
expression of huaan lsngusge, yet it 1s the testimony of
God; end the obedient, believing ehild of God beholds in
it the glory of a dlvine power, full of grace end truth.
ReasoDs for the unacceptability of the inspiration theory
1rDplied in the "Doctrina! Basis" of the Evangellcal The010gical
Soelety have been aptly discUBSed by a Seventh-day Adventist
scholar, Dr. Ra,-ond F. eottrell, in aseries of editorials in
the Review and HeraZd during 1966. On the one hand eottrell points
out that the wording "the Bible alone" imposes a limitation on
God's ability to reveal Hlmself--a limitation that Seventh-day
Adventists eannot accept. eottrell calla attention to the fact
that Scripture ltself mentions other inspired writings that have
not been incIuded in the eanon, and he warns against the danger
of cloeing the door to the pOBsibility of God's revealing Himself
any further after the Last material in the eanon was produced.
Such a Itmitation obviously wculd preclude God's choosing to re-
vaal Blaself in aoy special way today. (See Review and
February 17. 1966. p. 13.)
Cottrell has also challenged the usefulness pnd meaningfulness
of the statement "inerrant in tbe autogrsphs" because of its by-
passing "the real question--can we have confidence in the 81ble as
it exists today?" As Cottrell clearly points out. "The state of
the original text is irrelevant to faith today. but It does make
all the difference in the world whether we can have confidence in
the adequacy of the text of $crlpture tbat has come down to uso
as a means to salvation." Such adequacy of the pTesent text
Cottrell. cf course. fully accepts. (See Review and HeraLd,
l'ebruary 24, 1966, p. 13.)
The position enuncisted sbove regarding the divlne-and-human
nature of God's Ward. together with the convictlon that God has
indeed preserved in the transmission cf His Ward all that is
essential to salvation, provides a truly sound basis for a genuine
canservative approach to the question of inspiratfon--one that
harmonfzes with the Scripture's own teatimony regarding inspira-
tion end reveiational method.
Utilization of Hew Too1s end
Techniques in Biblical Stud1es
We heve elready briefly mentioned that as twentieth-century
canservative Christianity DOVed generally in a direction away from
strict fundamentaliso to nev evangelicalism, there was also greater
acceptanee of scholarly techniques and of too18 for use in bibli-
cal and theologieal studies. lndeed. frOD a very early time,
arehaeology was reeognized by conservatives as a useful aid in tbe
9tudy of the Bible. Although fundamentalists tended to use archae-
ology to "prove" the Bible. 1IOst conservatives today would ratber
call attention to tbe remarkable confirmation thae archaeological
diacovery has made at many points witb regard to historieal data
recorded in Scripture. Coneervatives heve been among the foremest,
for example, to hail the value of such discoveries PS the Nuzu
Tablets for the light they shed on patriarchal times aod for numer-
ous other fiadings that illumioate the backgrounds of the OT and
the NT.
AB briefly noted above. conaervatives have also become in-
creasingly willing to eoter into dialogue with nonconservatlves
(although the nonconservative response has not always been enthu-
siastic). and they have shown thmnselves to be generally in
biblical languages and in knowledge of tbe history and transm1s-
sion of the biblical text. They have come to the place wbere they
are often quite ready to look seriouely st the -ethodologies of
literary eriticism. fora criticiam. and otber approaches used by
modern liberal scholars in treating tbe Bible text. We may note
that a number of fairly solid studies by conservatives have been
fortbcoming to deal with critical questions pertaining to the OT
98 A Symposium on Biblical Hermeneut1cs
Con6ervative Biblical Studies in America 99
and NT books. Varlous eonservatlve publlcations Bueh as Edward
Young's Introduction to the OLd Testament and Donald Guthrie's
New Testament Introducuc:m carcfully weigh the strengths a.nd weak-
nesses of the various modern methodologies in common use, and they
are a180 fairIy substantial works in their own right. Men such as
Young and Gutbrie, in their critiques of biblical criticism. give
oeeasion for the quest ion Co be ralsed as Co whether a student of
the Bible caD adopt the methodologies of critical biblieal schol-
arship vithout eabracing consclously or otherwise the presupposi-
tions on which those methodologies are built. (See chap. 5.)
The historical introductions. grammars. and I1nguistic-
lexigraphical tools of high quallty thBt have been produced in
recent yesrs by conservative aeholars are too numerous to mention
bere. But it may be noted that conservatlve scholarship has taken
on an air of less bitterness toward the position cf the libersls;
furthermore. that where conservatives have adopted same of the
oewer .ethodologies thetr use of them is frequently .ore balanced
than has been the ease with liberals. Tbe latter sltogether tOO
often have tended to carry oce methodology or anocher to extremes.
Indeed, 1t 1s fmportant to observe that ebe incisive critiques
often glven by conservatives of the methodologies used by liberals
are weIl worth pondering by liberals and cODservatlves alike.
Whether the liberal scholar recognizes It--and it appears that some
such scholara are beginning to do so--conservatives have often
brought a wholesomc corrective luto the field of present-day bibli-
cal and theological study. Wherein the conservative thus far gen-
erally has faiied i8 in not having sufficlent creativeness to
develop new methodologies aud approaehes that would enhance our
understanding of the biblical text aud ite message.
\lith regard to hermeneutic itself, conservative scholars have
been siving increaslng attention to the need for work here too.
Horeover, representative publ1cations by evangelical seholars in
this area have not neglected historien! antecedents nor been una-
ware of contemporary trends. One may note, for instanee, A.
Berkeley Hickelsen's the Bible (1963) 88 weIl as
the.symposia edited by John F. Walvoord, Inspirntion and Interpre-
tation (1957), and by earl F. Henry, Reve'Lation and the Bibl.e
(1958). Also worthy of .entlon are Clark H. Plnnock Biblicat
(1971); the paperback reprint of Seetion j of Baker's
Di;at;iOf'/.ary of P70actical. TheoZogy (1967) under the title He1'T1l8Tl6u-
ti.ca; . the aedes of ell8ays in Merrill C. lenney. ed., The Bible:
The Umng word 01 RelJelatian (1968).
In closing this section It may be useful to notice one strik-
ing exampie of the kind of recognition that eonservative seholars
have begu to gain. The lengths of reign and synchronisills of the
kings of Israel and Judah aa recorded in the OT have 10Dg baf-
fled seholars beeause of apparent inconsistencies and contradie-
tlons, but a Seventh-day Adventist scholar, Edwin R. Thiele,
unraveled the mystery in his book The Myate1"iou8 Numbera of the
Hebrew Kingo. In this book, first published in 1951 by the Uni-
versity of Chicago and Cambridge University presses and sgain in
a revised edition in 1965 by the Eerdmans Publishlng Co=pany,
Thiele shows ehe rellab11ity of the b1blieal text. A lIberal
scholar, Williaa A. Irwin, states In an introduction to Thiele's
volUile that the "unique feature of Professor Thiele1 8 vork is
that he has attained bis resulta by the moat rigid appllcation of
8cholarly facts aod 1Dechods." Indeed, Irwin goes so far as to
declare thac "it 1s a matter of first-rate i.poreance to learn now
that the Bocks of Kings are reliable in precisely that feature
which formerly excited on1y derision" (rev. ed pp. xxi, xxiii).
Religion aDd Science
As noted earlier. one of the basic characteristics of early
fundamentalism was inherent toward the scienees--
antagonism largely connected wich the fact that thearies of uni-
formitsrianlsm and biologteal evolution not only were strongly
promulgated by Bcientists but also were adopted by liberal theG-
logiaD8 iDto their "modernist" theology. The ncw evangelieals
have endeavored to be true to the orthodox position, but they also
have taken a more open attitude toward seient1fic diseovery. fre-
quent1y. new evangelicals have produced defenses of fiat Creation,
the biblical account of the Flood. aud siwllar aatters. There is
even an effort by many conservatlve9 to beeOGC adept in various of
the 9ciences by advanced study in these di8ciplines.
An interesting new developaent among certain proainent indl-
viduals of evangelical persuasion i8 aposture toward scientlflc
theories that would. in the opinion of many of their brethren,
lead awey from a genuine Bible position. Many evangelicals still
hold a chronology of Creation baaed on the genealogies in Genesis
as given in the Masoretic text. Others, while reteining a rels-
tively low chronology, either point out that genealogy should not
be treated as chronology or util1ze the 90IIlewhat longer LXX ehre-
00108Y. Still others teod to dismiss chronological eoncerns when
they deal vith the earIy chaptere of Genesis. It still would be
Incomprehensible. of course, that any of the new evangelicals
""'Ould deny fiat Creation, but SQfae have made unusual concessions
to the theory of biologieal evolution. Bernard Raam, for example,
spcaks favorably of theistic evolution, although he would rather
classify bimself as a progressive creationist for his feeling i.
h
"
t at in progressive creationism there is the best accounting for

100 A Symposium on Bihlical Hermeneutics

Conservatlve Bibllcal Studies in America 101
811 the facts-biological. geologieal. aud Biblical" (see bis The
Chrietian View 01 Science cmd ScPipt;ure [1954]. pp. 292. 293). He
elat.s that many evsngelicals would place the origin of man about
10,000 B.C "whereas etbers are willing to admit tbst .an 18 hun-
dreds of thoussnds of years old"-lbid.... p. 347.
Parallel to his posture toward the or1g1n of man, has
also argued against an 8othropologically universal Flood--a posi-
tion cballenged in a 1961 publicatioD by John C. Whltcocb. Jr. I
sud Henry H. Morrh. The Genesis FZood: TM BibZioal Rtlcord and
Its SOientific lmplioations (see pp. 36ff.). Verlous articles in
the Crsation Sbciety Quarter'Ly foster the concept of a
univer8al Flood. together with a low chronology of thst Fload as
weIl as of Creation.
Hany well-informed conservatives eontinue to bold a relatively
low chronology for Creation and the Flood. Tbey recognize that
newer types of scientific tt.e clocks are yielding "reaults out of
witb their own concept of bibllcal time, but they a190 tend
to stress that tentativeness should be attached to the findings of
such time eloeks. What may appear to sone researchers as 5cientific
certainty may in reallty be quite tentative, tbey would suggestj
snd a8 one Interestlog example. they cao point to 00
the laIe of Surtsey, whicb ls1and appeared aud took shape in 1961-
1964 througb volcanic action in ehe Horth Atlsntic Ocean near lce-
land. Although acientists have suggested that sandy beaches require
millennia or even .il1ions of years to develop. a sandy beach ap-
peared on Surtsey in a matter of a few weeks! (See Sigurdur
Thorarinason, tr. by S. Eystelnsson (1964J. p. 39.) AI-
though this phenomenon cannot be eonsidered quite parallel to the
more sophisticated time clocks, it does indicate the appropriate-
ness of a critical attitude toward supposed seientific knowledge.
Biblical Eschatology
In the ffeld of biblical eschatology, the August1nlan smil-
lenniallam dominated the scene for centuries, eveo until after the
Protestant Reformation. But early in the eighteenth century a
view called postmillennialism was set forth by Whitby and Vitrlnga.
It was 800n espoused by such religious leaders as Jonathan Edwards,
and It found wide clrculation through such famed Bible comaentators
as Adam Clarke. Albert Barnes, Thomas Scott, Matthew Henry, snd
David Brown. Eventually. in the early nineteenth century thete
was a resurgence of premillennialism. Ibis went hand in hand with
the wideapread proclamation of the soon-expected second advent of
Christ aud was similay to the pre-illennial views held among most
of the early church fsthers prior to Augustine.
Whereas the amillennialists looked upon the thousaod yesTs
of Revelation 20 as a figurative or symbolic nuaber that depieted
the Christian dispensation of Lhis earth's history. the postmil-
lennial16ts thought of the millennium in terms of a sort of uto-
pian thousand years (not always taken to be a literal figure) tbat
was to C03e before Christ'a second advent. Tbe premillenniallst
view Is tbat Chrlst's second ca.ing will be prIor to the thousand-
year period of Revelation 20. Premillenniallats so generally be-
lieve in an millennial reigo of the Jews that Seventh-day
AdventiBts, becauae of their differiug view on the millennium, are
somet:1mes thought tO be amillennia.lists. Hovever. Seventh-day
Adventiats do believe in a premiltennial second advent of Christ
and areal .illenniutt. and hence are indeed premillennialists.
Tbey obviously do not hold the amillennialist position.
The aforementioned varylng views regarding tbe millennium
relate spec1ficslly to interpretation of the 20th chapter of
Revelation. As for interpretation of the whole book, there has
been a tendency--especially from the time of tbe Protestant Re-
formers onward--to regard various of its prophecies aB finding
fulfillment in the course of this earth's bistory, especlally duY-
ing the Christian era.
From small beginnings of such historical-type interpretation,
wherein laolated prophecles were treated as having hiatorical ful-
fillment. eventually arose full-fledged historieist, or con-
tinUOUB historical. expositions. Most frequently these looked upen
the prophetie messages in book of Revelation as s1gnify1ng a
sequence of historieal events in a straight liDe down through the
centuries. culrninating in Christ's second advent and subsequent
events. Ameng adherents of this straight-line historieist inter-
pretation were such outstanding expositors as Albert Barnes and
E. B. El1iott.
Same hlstoricists. such BS Uriah Smith. also viewed the book
of Revelation aB being for the most part fulfilled In historicnl
events during the present age; but instead of seeing a straight
line through the book. these expositors found evidence of repeated
sequenees throughout Christian history. In other words. the pro-
phetie messages of the churches. seals. trumpets. and so forth,
gave l'Bcapitulation of history from the NT period to the grand
eschatologieal climax.
A.ong sorne premillennialists of the early nineteenth century
a futuristic outlook emerged. It was similar to that of the
Jesuit scholar R1bera l who fostered such a concept dur1ng the late
s1xteenth century. To futurists virtually the entiTe book of
Reve1ation. except possibly the messages to the seven churches
102
A Symposium on Biblical Rermeneutics CoDservative Bibl1cal Studies in Allerlca 103
aod the material in the final few chapters. 19 thought of as refer-
ring speclflcally to a short period of time near tbe close of this
eartb"s bistory. Tbe message to the Beven chUTches could be raken
as rclatins either to the churches in John's awn day or to the
church down the ages (or to both). Otherwise. hlstory
virtually was l.ft out of the book except for a short period just
before second coming. Ta this period almost the eRtire
book up to 19:11 18 supposed to addres8 itself.
A particular variety of futurism known as pretribulat10nism
originated esrly in the nineteenth century through th. work of
Jobn Nelson Darby aud variOU8 of his in the Plymouth
Brethren movement in the British 181es. This view is also preadl-
lenniallst. but inserts an additional seeret second coming of
ChriBt seven years pr10r to Christ's open snd visible second advent.
Tbe term pretribuZationism atems from the belief that at this se-
eret secoDd com1ng, All true Christians are raptured and taken to
heaven so as to escape th. lTeat tribulatlon that 1s to take p!aee
during the closing seenes of earth's hiatory. The rapture aspeet
of the doctrine is popu1arly known aa the secret rapture.
Followers of the Darbylan pretribulationism are also often
referred co ss dispensationalists, becauee of their belief that
earth's history may be divided up Into a nu_ber of eras or dispen-
aations wherein God haa used different tlean:a: in deallng \ritb His
people and in testing them with respect co obedience. In the vords
of oue of their spokesmen, Wi1liam Trotter, in his Plain Papers on
Prophetie and other Subjects these dispensations "bave
run. are running, and have yet to run their course, so vide1y dif-
ferent in their eharacter, that wbat is simple obedience and for
the glory of God in oue dispensation. may be entirely foreign to
the character of 8nother."--p. 401. He ttates further "that ...hat
God sanctiona under one dispensation, may be so diverse from the
spirit and of another. as to be the subject of rehuke
to those who desiTe to im1tate it."--p. 402.
Pretr1bulationism originated in Brieain, as we have noeed.
but then it spread to America, where by ehe last two decades of
the nineteenth century it began to enjoy rather widespread popu-
!arity. The Seofield Reference Bib1e. whlch was first published
in 1909 and has sold widely, helped greatly to foster the spread
of ehe movement. especially among laymen

and today in Aae.rica
this variety of eonservative esebatology appears to be the most
widespread of any conservative position on tbe subject.
The question O8y well be asked. Wby ehould this partlcular
view take such firm hold in North America? Certainly the popu-
larity of the Scofield Reference Bible, just mentioned, accounts
to considerable degree for thi.. But there aay also be anarher
important especially as far aa the early years are con-
cerned; namely. tbat cOQservative Christians tended to see this
premlilennial position as more biblieal than postmillennialism.
aod aeeepted it in reaetion againat the latter. This pos.ibillty
hau been suggested by George Eldon Ladd in his book The Bls8sed
Hope.
Pretribulation1sts, of course, cannot provide any strong
bibllcal evidence for their secret-rapture idea. Rather, this
idea comes by inference from texts relating to dellveranee from
tribulatlon, as well a8 from a peculiar interpretation of such
Bibl. passages as "one shall be taken, and the other left" (Mt 24:
40. 41). Also, a frequent practice of adherents of this particu-
Iar v1ewpoint is tO utilize Revelation 4:1, John ls b1dden
to "Ca.e up hither," es an Indicatlon of the sa-called secret
rapture of ebe church!
Aceording to the pretribulationlsts-dispensationalists , the
prophecies of the bock of Revelation from 4:1 to 19:11 deal spe-
cifically with events that are to occur durtng a still-future
aeven-year per iod of earth's hi.tory just prior to Christ's visi-
ble advent. lt i5 further believed by them that this seven-year
period is tbe "70th ""eek" of the prophecy of Dan1el 9. The first
69 of the 70 weeks of yesrs al10tted to the Jew5 in that prophecy
extended to Christ's first advent. Then caae an interlude in the
of the Christian dispensation. Final!y this 70th week--seven
l1teral years--will find fulfillment after the aeeret rapture of
the church. At this time tbe Jews will agBin become prominent in
fulfi11ing God's purpose. During"this 70th week a personal anti-
christ will st first favor the but in the middle of the week
viII turn against them and persecute them. F1nally, at the close
of this seven-year period Christ will eome snd viii set up an
earthly millennial kingdom for the Jews. Th1e kingdom, pretribu-
latlonists think, 18 in reality the kingdoa promised to the Jews
by the OT propheta and then by Christ Bimself, but whieh was nver
fulfilled because of their rejection of Him aa Messiah. But God
i5 trUi! to His ,",ord; He does not fail His promise: therefore
f1D8lly the kingdom will be given the Jews. in the millennial age!
In addition to the tenuouSnC$9 and unbibl1eal nature of the
secret-rapture and dispensation ldeas of the pretribulationists.
otber difflculties in their hermeneutic may be mentioned here.
In the first place. the eoncept of such a litera1iatie and unal-
cerable fulfil1ment of prophecies about ancient Israel, regard1ess
of conditions and cireumstances, flies 1n tbe face of the
ovn prineiples. One may refer, for example, to Jere.iab's propheey
about two direct10ns Jerusalea might take and whlch would lead to
104 A Symposium on Blbliesl Hermeneutlce Conservatlve Biblical Studies in America 105
very different consequences (see Jer 17:24-27). Also importanr
1s the fact that the NT looks on certsin OT prophecies regarding
ancient Israel as findlng fulfillment in connection wirh God's
new Israel, tbe Christlan Church (see e.g., Acts 15:13-16 and
Gal 3: 26-29).
In the eecond place, pretribulationists dTaw unwarranted dis-
tinct10ns regard1ng certain terminology in the Scrlptures. They
differentlate, fOT example, between Christ's use of the expres-
sions "kingdolJl of heaven
ll
and lIkingdom of God." Thc former i8
supposed to iadlcate the kingda- promised to tbe lews and even-
tually to be set up as the .illennial kingdom, wbereas the latter
is taken to depict God's over-all rule in the universe. In this
regard, seriou8 question may be raised ins wch as there 18 00
biblical evidence to substantiate such an application of the ter-
minology. Even more crucial are the facts that the context of the
statements frequently defies such differentiation and that the two
terms are used interchangeably by Gospel writers.
Thls leads us to a further point of great henoeneutical 61g-
niflcance--the pretTibulationist cootention for the need of "right-
Iy div1dlng the ward of truth" so as to distinguish in the Gospel
records between things pertaining co the Jews and things pertain-
ing to the Christians. For example. Ir is a Ca-mOD dispensation-
allsr belief that Christ's Sermon on the Mount i8 a message for
the Jews. not the Christians. What basis can there be for this
kiod of arbitrary treatment of the text, except that it arises 89
a natural consequeDce from other unvarranted and unfounded presup-
positions?
By no heve all conservatives in America adopted dispen-
sationalism. There are nondispensationalist premillenariane.
among whom Seventh-day Adventists stand out as a prominent group.
There are also a number of amillennialists. especially in Christian
Reformed and Dutch Reformed groups and among conservotive Presby-
terians. Certain amillennialists. such as Floyd Hamilton in his
Basis for Faith and Oswald Allis in his FTopheay and
the hove given critiques of dispensationalisw. Perhaps
even more important 1s the work of George Eldon Ladd, a one-time
pretrlbu1ationist vho has moved away fram that positiOn to a general
kind of premillennialist futurism. Ladd. who 1s more impartial than
.1ght be expected from one who has left the .ovement, analyzes
fairly and quite extensively in his book The Btessed Hop6 the weak-
nesses of dispensationallst theology on the aatter of eschatology.
He also provides some excellent chaptere on the same top1c in his
eruciat. Qussticns About the Kingdom of God. There seems Uttle
doubt but that dispensationalist-type bermeneutic has brougbt a
certain of disrepute to conservative biblical scholarship,
and It has become point of atrack from conservatives who da not
sharv such a hermeneutic.
A further vord aay be sald abouc futurism in general. Even
futurists who are not prQtribulationlsts tend co claim tbat tbQ
earliest church fathers held the futurist position. And. in fact.
many church fathers of the first several centuries d1d speak of a
personal antichrist who vould dominate for 1260 dayg at the elose
of time rather than an antichrist system that would rule for 1260
years. But it Dust be remembered ehat by virtue of the very time
in which they lived, those church fathers were o[ nscessity futur-
iatic 1n their out look concerning fulfillment of the prophec1es of
the hook of Reve1ation. After all, most of Christian bistory was
still ahead. and there was no concept of how long that history
would last. The end wa. feIt to be rather near. and hence a so-
called "futuristic" outlook vould have been natural. But were
tbose c.hurch fathers truly "futuristic" in their basic pel'spective?
Perhaps this perspective is bett er revealed by thetr attitude
toward the book of Oanlel. and here the com.on interpretation of
the major prophecies was in a veinl
One migbt just add from the blblical evidence that texts in
1 Jobn 4 snd 2 Thessaloolans 2 already imply more than a personal
antichrist wbo was to reign for 3 1/2 literal years, for tbe coo-
cept of a "spirit" of antichrist is set forth--something already
Ln evidence aa early as apostolic times.
In closing this section. it should be noted that in recent
years conservatives have begun to take an interest in the presence
and meanlng of apocalyptic in the synoptic Gospels--an area of
study that heretofore has beRn dominated hy liberal b1blicol echol-
arship. Ag indicative of this new thrust one may just mention tbe
appearance in 1964 of George Eldon Ladd' 9 JesU8 and ths Kingdom
and in 1972 of Leon Morris' ApooaZyptia.
Summary and Conclusion
We have traced briefly the his tory and'the main trends that
reIste to the hermeneutica1 stance of present-day conservatives,
especi8lly in North America. We have noted the basic issuee and
questions to ehe inapiration of Scripture, and in this
connection have provided the essence of tbe Seventh-doy
Adventist poeition as enunciated by Ellen G. White.
we have noted the growing respect for and use of scholarly tools
for Bible study among conservatives. We bave looked, too, at
changing conservat1ve attitudes tovard scientific discovery and
even scientific theories. Pinally, we have touched brieflyon
106 A Symposium on Bibl1cal Heraeneutlcs
Conservative Blbliea! Studie6 in America 107
conservative biblical eschatology, with primary attention glveo to
diepenaationalism.
In all tbis we have been able to observe that there has been
astrang tendeney for swings among conservatives. Dut
balance abould be a key vord for sound Cbristian hermeneutlc. The
balance in auch hermeneutic may readily be reallzed in the position
enunciated by Ellen G. White with regard (0 revelatlon snd inspira-
tion aa we noted earlier. This position safeguards against the
extremes of the liberals on the one band and protects from the
extreme v1ews of verbal-inspiration adherents on the other hand.
With respect to scientifie diseovery. here again it 18 neees-
sary for the eonservative Chriatian to find balance by keeping his
.ind fully open to truth from both of God's books that reveal Him--
tbe Bible snd tbe book of nature. The Christian must take eare
not to become overly ena-ored of his own theologieal views and pre-
suppositions; on the other hand, he should not be hasty to reject
long-held theologieal positions simply because of a 8upposed seien-
tifie discovery of the mocent. While he needs to avoid the overly
critical snd aomettmes injudicious attitudes of oId-line fundameo-
talism, he should beware lest he subordinate his bibl1cal under-
stand1ng to certain scientlflc tbeorles, a8 same new evaogelicals
oow appear co be deing. [t i8 importsnt to be eognizant of the
revelat10nal intent of blblical passages, and not to seek 5cleo-
tifie understaoding from Scripture where such sc1entlfic uoder-
standing 15 not intended. Equal care must be taken to SAun any
methodology or approach that would make the biblical text subserv-
ient to whatever sclentific theories and scient1fic world view
might be in vogue at any particular moment. God's truth transcends
all of thstl
Finally, our quick glance at pretribulationism-dbpetlsat.ional-
1sm has been given. first of all, because adherents of this belief
are so numerous that most gospel workers who deal with eonservative
Christlans to any slgnificant degree are highly likely to encounter
the view. Horeover. importance may be attaehed to the fact that
the dispensationalist-type hermeneutic provides an example not only
of the manner in which unsound principles ean lead to erroneous
conclusions but also of the way in whieh discredit ean be brought
upon conservatives when they lack sound scholarly methodology in
thelr work. Fina11y. the history of dispensationa1ism portrays,
once again, the tendency of the pendulum to swing too far--this
time away from the postmillennialism so popular in same conserva-
tive circles when Darby's ideas reached America.
There 15 slways the danger of moving too rar aod too fast 1n
any dlrection. The bistery of conservative Protestant
in Amertea unfortunately illustrates this fact. Hawever. many
conservatlve Protestant Christians in America da recognize that
God 18 a eod of balance, and they seek to be estsbllshed by "1m
"io every good ward end work" (2 Tb 2:17).
hJsocLte editor of the REVIEW AHD
HERALD, Jfashin.gton. D.C einoe 1967,
Don F. lieufetd t.>aB aBBociats e41tor of
THB SDA BIBU cot#fBNTAKl. editcr of the
SOA BTBIE DIC'l'IONARY. editor 0/ the $DA
ENCYCLOPEDIA, and ooeditcr. SDA BIBU
STUDEllTS' SOlJRCE BOOK. His denomina-
tionaz. seMCfl began in CctnaL1a as a
pastor. then BibZs teaanel' tIf; Canadian
fJnion College. AndreWB lhtive1'Sity con-
ferred on him the Doctor of Divinity
d6groee i71 1972.
7. Biblical Interpretation
in the Advent Movement
DON F. NEUFELD
Review and Herold
PubUshing Association
The hermeneutic:s of prophecy will be d1.scussed first because
tbe early unique emphasis of the Adventist movelDent was on proph-
ecy. General principles of hermeneutics will then be exaatned.
Hermeneut1cs of Prophecy
In the restricted sense. an Adventist is a member of the
Adventist (or Millerite) movement, or of one of the bodies that
sprang from it. In Its broad sense, the term 1s sometimes used
to describe one who belleves that the personal Second Advent of
ehrtet 18 neer. Todey the term 15 used almest exc1usively in lts
restrlcted sense. This i8 the sense in whieh it i5 used in this
ehapter. Of the etnergent bodies. only the largest-the Seventh-
day Adventist Church--will be considered.
As oue aspect cf tbe general Advent expectation of the early
19th century, the Adventist, er Millerite. movement flourished in
Acerica from 1840 to 1844. Tbe leader of the aovement was Wll1taa
Killer (1782-1849). a faroer and a Baptist preacher. He was joined
by other wdnlsters. notobly Joslah Lltch (a Methodist ainister)
and Joshua V. Himes (a lainister of the Christian Connection) .
Estimates run fra. 200 to 800 ministars who during the height of
the movement ware Identified with it. Estimates of followers
range from a cOservative 50.000 to a million.
The principal feature of William Miller's preaching was the
of apocalyptie Bible prophecy and the resulting
announcement that the second coming of was to occur in the
"Jevlsh year" 1843, wilich would end in the spring of 1844. He
based his argument for tbe expeetation oe several lines of propb-
eey. prlnC'.ipally the prediction of Dan 8: 14. vhich stated. "Onte
thousand and three hundred days; tben sball the sanctuary be
cleansed. n By applying to thi.8 time period the year-day principle.
a principle already in use 8mong interpreters for centuries. he
arrtved at aperiod of 2300 years. Tbc beginnlng date be found
in Dan 9:25, "Tbe COIllllsndment to reatore and to build Jerusalem."
110 A Symposiu. on Blbliesl Hermeneutics
Biblical Interpretation in the Advent Movement 111
Tracing the word 10 the Scriptures, this minority
group noted that the 'Bible speaks first of an ancient s8Ilctuary.
or tent. at wbieh the lsraelites worshiped in the wllderness.
This portable tent was later replaced by Solomon's Temple and
still later by Zerubbabells. But Zerubbabel's temple, enlarged
and beautified by Bered the Great, was destroyed in A.D. 70, and
with its destruction the Israelite sanetuary passed out of exiat-
enee. Henee this sanctuary eould not be the sanetuary designated
in Dan 8:14 to be cleansed in 1844, the terminal date for ehe
2300 years.
But they noted that the Bible speaks of another sBnctuary,
one in heaven. after whicb the earthly had been patterned. to
vhich Jesus Christ 8scended after the resurrection and in whieh
He functioos as High Priest. This, they concluded. must be the
sanetuary of Dan 8:14, for it was the only sanctuary mentioned in
the Bible that was in existence in 1844. In the book of Uebrew-s,
...here this heaven1y sanctuary i8 described. they noted a reference
to a cleanaing (Heb 9:23), a work they concluded the heavenly High
Priest eo-nenced in 1844. In abrief but unspecified time they
expected Rim to return to the earth to gather His people.
"''ben the "Jewish yeaT" 1843 passed without the realization
of the Second Advent I and the :aore specifically detenained date
of Oetober 22, 1844. projected in the S"lJJ!JlE'r of that year, also
passed, it became evident that there bad been same basic error in
interpretation. Miller aud 'IlOst of his followers of that tu.e
eoncluded that they had been rlistaken in their calculatlon of the
tt.e, and they continued looking for the Advent to oceur shortly.
A group of his fo11owers spiritualized the Advent and held that
it bad actually occurred on the antieipated date. R.estudying the
Millerite positions, another group coneluded tbat vhereas they
could find no error in the ca1cu1atious by whieh Getober 22, 1844,
bad beeu derived, there vas same ni.stake in ehe event expected.
Some from this group, concentrating on the term sanctua.ry.. beca.me
convineed that there was na biblieal evidence for tbe Millerite
assertion that this earth was the sanctuary to be cleansed by fire
at the Second Advent. Tnis little handful became the pioneers of
the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
vhich he appl1ed to Artaxerxes' decree issued in 457 B.C.
subtractlon brought hill to his "Jewish year" 1843. To the
ing of the sanctuary he gave the primary interpretation of
cleansing of the earth at the.Second Cocing of Christ.
Simple
eIeaos-
th.
succeSSOTS cf the -avement. as retaining and carrying on to com-
pletion the wain principles of Millerite doctrine aad correcting
and clarifying tbe misunderstanding that had caused the disappolnt-
ment and bad resulted in the repudiatioo of tbe 1844 message by
tne leaders. "-BDA EncyclopedUzj p. 796.
Turning now to our investigation of ehe hermeneutics (pro-
phetie and general) of Adventists, we begin vith that of the
Millerites. tben follow with that of the Seventh-day Adventist
Church. The Millerite aove-.ent was an interdenominational
ment. 1ts adherents came from many churches and, although
ing Miller's teachings. eontinued to hold membership in their
ehurches if 80 perwitted. Tbe raUying point in Millerism was
belief in an imminent advent end the ending of human probstion st
that advent. In otber doctrinal positions, adherents held gener-
ally to the teachings of their respective religious bodies. Thus
there wa9 no unlfied doetrina1 position among the Millerites.
By what hermeneutical principles did Hiller arrtve st his
eonvietion that the Advent was to be expected about the year 18441
Three sehools of prophetie interpretation were 10 existence ...hen
the Millerite movement began to flourish: (1) Preterism. ehe
belief tbat the major portion of t.he book of Revelatioo was ful-
filled long ago; (2) historicism. the belief that the eveots of
Revelation have bee.n fu1fi111ng all through hlstory, ...Hh same
having beeu fulf111ed. others being fulfilled. and still others
yet to be fulfilled in the future; and (3) futurlsm, the belief
that what 16 predieted from Rev 4 onward is yet to take place;
nothing has been fulfilled. nor will it be fulfilled until just
before the end of this age.
Futurism origlnated wich Ribera, the Spanish Jesuit who in
1590 published a commentary of Revelation. In the early 19th cen-
tury futurism took root ameng Protestants. Today it dominates the
portion of the Protestant scene that is most vocal in the area of
prophecy and It8 fulfil1ment.
Miller be10nged to the historieist school. He looked in his-
tory for fulfi1lments of the varlous features of the visions of
John the revelator and, for that matter, of Danie! also. He be-
lieved that both prophets gave an outline of his tory from theLr
day to the end cf time. He did not originate the historieist
system; many scholari before him had followed this system, and
many in his day held it.
Although the Seventh-day Adventist Chureh had its roots in
Millerislll. t.be chut"ch took a direction of its OWD. Nevertheless
"they (members of this group] regarded themselves es the true
In fact, the Reformers were historieists. George EIden Ladd
says that "this 'historica.l' type of interpreta.tion with its ap-
plication of the Antichrist of papal Rome so domioated the Prot-
112
A SY"'-posiua on Riblical HeTtDeneutics
Biblical Interpretation in the Advent Hovement 113
6. The smallest unit. ehe ward, must be given lts scrlpture
meaning.
8stant study of .prophetie truth for three centuries that it has
frequently bee.n called I the Protestant' interpretation. "--The
BleSBSd p. 32. 7. The largeT unit. the sentence. must have It8 proper hear-
Albertus Pieters calla historic.isa "ehe standard Protestant
interpretation. "--Stwiiee in the Reve1.ation of St. p. 43.
In other words. although initially independent, Millar and
his assoc1ates aetua!!y bullt on ehe work of theiT predece88ors.
retaining auch of what had already beeu developed by a methodology
that had beeo practiced for centuries. Ioto ehe general pattern,
which bad already be.en established, they insert.ed a few unique
ideas.
Thi.s bu11d.ing on the paat has been abundantly demonstrated
by L. E. Fream. in his four-volume work The Pttophetic Paith of Dur
Fathere. He lists scores of interpreters who expectcd th_ end of
the 2300 days saoetime around 1844 er 1847. altheugh they differed
as to the events to be expected st that time.
In his discourses Miller frequently referred to the rules by
which his conclusions were reached. He firmly believed that on1y
1f correct pr1nciples of interpretation are appl1ed can correct
conclusions be arrived at.
ing.
8. The ward and sentence must have their proper hearing in
the grand whole.
How did the Millerites in particular or how da historlclsts
in general determine whieh events in his tory are fulfil1ments of
speclfic prophec1es? They elosely the specifications of
prophecy, then study secular and rellglous history to find a eor-
event. Te verify whether the true histerieal event
has beeo discovered Hiller suggested the following:
"If you find every word of the prophecy (after the figures
are understood) 18 litera!!y fulfilled. then you may know tht
your history is the true event. But if one word lacks 81 fulfi11-
ment, then you must look for another event or wait its future
development. For God takes eare that his tory end prophecy doth
agree, so that thc true believing children of God may never be
ashamed. "--VielJB 0f the Prophftcnfts and Prophetie Chrono
Selected from Manuscripts of William Milier with a Memo!r of His
Llfej by Joshua V. Himes, 1841, p. 22.
1. Much of the 1le8s&ge of prophec:y 15 cOlllDulcsted by sym-
bols. For example, beasts represent kingdoms; and water. people.
s. The biblical. student 1DUSt select and bring toget.be.r every
part of the subject he vUhes to investigate.
2. All figures have both a litera1 and a metaphorical me an-
ing. Thus, literally. a beast would represent a kingdOttl but
metaphorically, for example, if it were u lion, the power to rule.
A d1Scussion of ttiikr' s rules appears in his introduction
to his printed lectures Bvidence from scnptUl"e and BistOl!/ of
the Secand Coming of waut tM 'tear 1-843. His 1836 edition
eontained 16 leetures; his 1840 edition. 19. Following i5 a sum-
mary of his mIes:
In turn the Seventh-day Adventist interpreters later correc-
ted and clarified earlier prophetie positions. So far as apoes-
lyptic heroeneut1cal principles are eoncerned, Seventh-day Advent-
ista introdueed few if any new principles. though they enlarged
and aysteaatized ehe interpretation particu1arly ef the two apoea-
lypt.ic biblical books Daniel and Revelatioo. In 1882 they pub-
lished a bock entitled Thoughts an.d Practical on the Book.
Resides requiring a thorough knowledge of Seripture the
historieist method demands also s thorough knowledge of history.
Group effort bringing togetber minds skilled in various disclplines
19 important. But it should be that by the time Miller
did his work the basic interpretations of the books of Danlel and
had already been set forth by various expositors in
commentarles or in works on prophecy. After his initially inde-
pendent study, Miller his own conclusious and examined
all objectious. On the basic outlines of prophecy, for example.
the four heasts of Dan 7, he found bimself in agreement with the
expositors. But he reached eertaln independent conclusions. Thus
he stood on the shoulders of his predeeessors. His associates in
turn stood on his shoulders sud corrected and clarified some of
hi8 positions.
cample-
a hetter
16 d1scovered by finding
Scripture must be eom-
a figure
figure.
is unity in the Scriptures. ODe prophecy
"There never a book vrit teu that has
harmouy than the BibIe."
4. There
ments another.
conneetion and
3. The literal meaning of
other Scrlptures to explain the
pared vith Seripture.
114 A Symposium on Biblical Hermeneutics
81blical Interpretaticrn in the Advent Movement 115
of Daniel- and Revelat1.on, vhlch had already appeared as [WO sepa-
rate volumes. the ODe on revelation first printed in 1867. and the
Olle on Daniel in 1873. The authar. Driah Smith (1832-1903).
came a Sabbath-keeping Adventist about the end of 1852 and in 1855
became one of the editors of tbe primary church publicatioD, The
Review and 8eral.<l:. and servcd as editor for m.any years. Re also
authored several other theologiea! hooks. The book has gone
through many editions and eOUle revisions.
The book takes the historieist principle for granted. The
introduetion of the 1897 edition argues against those wbo spirit-
uallze prophetie fulfill-ents.
"There are two general syste1a8 of interpretation adopted by
different expositors in thelr efforts to explaln tbe saered Serip-
tures. Tbe first i5 the mystical or spirltualizing system invented
by Origen. to the shame 01 sound eriticisa and the eurse of Chris-
tendoa; the is the system of litera! interpretation. used
by such men aB Tyndale. Lueher. and all the Reformers. and furnish-
ing the basis for every step whleh has thus far been made
in the reformation fram error to truth as taught in the Scriptures.
to the first system. every declaration is supposed to
have a mystlcal er hidden sense. which it 15 the provinee of the
interpreter to bring forth; by the second, every deelaratlon i5 to
be taken in its most obvious and literal sense. exeept where the
and ebe we.ll-known 18'013 of language show that the terms
are figurative. and not literal; and whatever i8 figurative must
be explained by other portions of the Bible whieb are litera!.
"By the mystieal method of Origen, it is vain to hope for any
uniform understanding of either Daniel er the Revelation. or of
any other book of the Bible; for that system (if it e.an be ealled
a system) know8 00 1av but the imagination of its adher-
ents; henee there are on iu side as wany different interpretations
of Scripture as there are different faneies of different writers.
By the literal method. everything is subjeet to well-established
and clearly-defined law; and, viewed fram this standpoint. the
reader will be surprised to see how simple. easy. and elear many
portions of the Scriptures at once become, which, aecording to any
other system, are dark and unsolvable. It is admitted that many
figures are used in tbe Bible. and that much of the books under
especlally that of the Revelation, 1.s clothed in
symbolie language; but it 1s also c1ai-ed that the Seriptures
introduee no figure which they da not somewhere fumish literal
language to explain. This voluae i.s offered as a eonslseent expo-
sition of the bocks of Daniel ond the Revelation according to ehe
litera1 system. "--Da.niel and the Revelation (1897). p. 4.
In 1953-1957 the church published the Seventh-day Adventist
Bibte Ccmnentar'!iJ a cOOIII1entary on the entire Bible. This ccmaen-
tary in the main endorses Smith's positions on the prophecies of
Danie! and Revelation, st the same time enlaTging and clarify1ng
some of the interpretations. But the historic.ist prindple remains.
With futurism dominating Protestant prophetie interpretation.
Seve.nth-day Advent.ists today are alIllOst the only ones ehwnpionlng
tbe h1storieist view. Characterlzing the current Protestant scene
in prophetie interpretation. Bernard Ramm does not make
specifie .entloD of the historie1st sehool. He says, Aaong Prot-
estants three prinelpal schoole stand out: there is the premil-
lenuial school that follows a l1teralistie 1IlIethod of prophetie
interpretation; the amillennial sehool ".. 'hieh t.s spiritualistic in
its interpretation; and ehe post-aillennial school that 19 aidway
between literalism and spiritualization. It 1s axlomatie that
the 'root of their differenees lies in the method of Biblic.al in-
terpretation. It'--Pro'testant BibUcal Interpmtation... pp. ISS. 156.
While Seventh-day Advent1sts are premillennialists so far 8a
the literal meaning of the term ia eoncerned (that is, they believe
that the seeond eoming of Christ preeedes the millennium) they do
not belang to the premillennial school that Ramm de5erlbes. Raww's
premillennialists look for the Temple to be rebul1t at Jerusalem,
the Jews to turn in large numbers to Christ. and for probation to
eontinue through the millennium. His amillennlalists spiritualize
many of the prophecies.
Thls observation 1s signifieant in that It lIlaY show why cur-
rent Adventist prophetie interpretation is 1argely ignored by
current scholars in the fleld of prophetie. interpretation.
One point of difference between the Adventist position and
literalist premillennialism deserves attention.
Whereas Miller and later Adventists affirmed that human probation
ends st the time of the Second Advent. literallst premillennialists
look for a millepnlum during which the Jews. restored. not only to
Palestine, but also to God's favor. will rule over mortal kingdoms.
Against these literalist nations the Adventists contended
frou the beginning. Thelr opposition was evident, for example,
in a recommendat1on of the twelfth Millerite Second Advent Con-
ferenee (1842). from whieh 11teralist premillenniallsts were ex-
cluded: "All persoRs wilo reject the doctrlnes of telDporal millen-
nium and the restoration of the Jews to Pa1estine, either before
or after the SeeoDd Advent. and who believe the Advent of
Christ and the first resurrection to be the next grest events of
prophetie history, be invited to enroll the1r names as memberls]
of this conference."--The Signs of the 'limes ... 3:69. June 1, 1842.
117
116 A Symposium on BlbI1esl Rermeneutics
Biblical Interpretation 1n the Advent Movement
Tbe coniereoce also affirmed: "No portion of the New Testa-
Dent scriptures give(s) the most indireet intimatian of tbe l1t-
eral restoration of the Jews to old Jerusalem; we believe tbat
the argUMents drawn fra. the Gid Testament prophecies are based
on a mistaken view of thoBe prophecies. "-Ibid.
Concerning the millenarian view, Milier declared. "TheTe is
not a text., prOOlfse. or prophecy. "'''Titten or given of God" to sup-
port the idea that tbe OT prophecies requlre a future restoratlon
of the Jews.-Views 0/ . . William ed. 1842 by J. V.
Himes, p. 233.
AMeng the earliest clearest explanations of this viewpoint
several in the Review and Heratd in 1856 and 1857
by J. H. Waggoner. In a hook on the subject he said, "All of God's
purposes of grace to man, are eonditional, [and} as the blessings
set before them [the Jewsl were eonditional, chey eould alaim them
only on the fulfil1ment of the . We eonsider that
this was conditiona1 prophecy. the prourlses of which have been
fot'feited."--J. H. "'.ggoner, The Xingdom of God (1859), pp. 87-109.
"This Ithe old] covenant was -ade at Horeb, and was condi-
tional. as recorded in Ex. xix. Tbe Lord said to the_, 'I! ye
will obey my voice indeed. and keep my covenant, then ye shall be
a pecullar treasure. unto me above all people. '''--J. H. Waggoner
in Re1Jiel,JandHeroald, 9:77, Jan. 8, 1857.
Adventists looked for tbe ancient propbecies to be fulfilled
in principle in the Christian Church. The Boston Sec.ond Advent
Conferenee (1842) affirmed that "the old Testa-e.nt propheeies
have beeu fulfilled in what tbe gospel has already done. or
remaln to be fulfilled in the gathering of all the spiritual seed
of Abraham into the New Jerusalem."-The Sigrw of the Times, 3:69.
June I, 1842.
Ellen White stated the principle as follows: "Tbe glorious
purposes which he bad undertaken to accomplish through Israel were
to be fulfilled. All who, through Christ. ahould becorne the chil-
dren of faith. were to be eounted as Abraham's seed; they were
inheritors of the covenant-promises. "--Patriarohs and P""""'hets
p. 476. ,
"That which God purposed to do for the vorld th['ough I8['3el,
the chosen nation, He viII finally accomplish through cburcb
on earth today. "-Prtcphete anti Kings, pp. 713, 714.
The concept that propheeies may be conditionally stated 1s
consonant with the general Adventist view--that wan's will aad
action may alter the canner in whlch God's purposes are carried
out.
On the ether hand. literallst premillennialists emphasize the
sovereignty cf God and maintain that since God cannot go back on
His prouises to Abraham, Abrllhu's literal in the
future mUSt experience fulfl11ment of the pra-lses.
General Hermeneutical Principles
We turn now to a consideratioa of general hermeneutical pr1n-
ciples followed by Adventists. The Millerite contribut1on was
largely in the ares of prophecy. In general principles the Miller-
ites represented the var10us churches out of whieb they eame, whieh
usually followed the Protestant hermeneutic.
The group of Millerites that organized itaelf into the SDA
Church also represented diverse backgrounds. Thia group faced the
task of unifying its beliefs not ooly in the area of prophetie
interpretation but also in the area of doetrine. This proeess
went on over aperiod of some ten years, from 1844 to about l8S5.
During this time ehe leaders of tbe embryonie SDA Chureh eonducted
private Bible study groups and beld numerous conferences. Arriv-
ing eventually at uaiformity of belief, they organlzed themselves
in 1860.
Although no one set bimself to tbe task of formolating a
hermeneutie by which Scripture interpretations were
arrived at. certain princ.iples were or earried over fro_
the1r Protestant denominational heritage. The nature of these
principles became evident as doetrines were adopted and defended.
Although no thorough and compiete survey of Adventist herme-
neutie has yet been attempted, a modest survey of the literature
of the formative period reveals many references to princ1ples.
1. Sola soriptura. In the flfth issue of the earliest per-
iodical publlshed by the group--Present Truth--edited by one of
tbe fouaders of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. James White
(1821-1881). appears this affinnat1on: "The B1ble is our lamp,
our guide. It is our rule of faith and practice. "-P. 40.
Th1& same issue reaffirms the ib1e'g paramouot pos1t1oo:
"the Bible 15 our chart-our guLde. It i5 our ooly rule of laitb
and prac.tice, to which we would closely adhere."-P. 46.
When in 1850 tbe Review and Bezoa1.d Pr>esent Trwth,
118
A Symposium on Biblical Hermeneutics
Biblieal Interpretation in the Advent Movement 119
it too affinned the primacy of the Bible: "Every Christian 1s
therefore duty bound to take the Bible aa aperfeet rule of faith
and duty. He should pray fervently to be aided by the H01y Spirit
in searching the Scriptures for the whole truth. and for his whole
duty. He Is not at liberty to turn from thern to leam his duty
through any of the gifts."--1:70. April 21. 1851.
Chiding Protestants for adopting the rule of the Romanists--
the Bible and tradition--J. N. Andrews (1829-1883), a prominent
early minister, in a later issue enjoios: "We answer, make the
word of God your anLy rule, receive what is written therein and
rejeet all beside. That the Protestant wor1d now cherish
institution without foundation in Scripture, whieh was established
by the gradual development of the great apostasy [sicl, ean ooly
be accounted for by the fact that Protestants have adopted the
rule of the Romanists in the p1ace of their own. "--Review and
Herald 1:88, May 19. 1851.
The question constantly raised by those who formulated the
system of belief was "ls it sustained by the Word of God?" With
respect to a certain unacceptable interpretation of Rev 1:10 the
b1unt denia1 was made, "We object to this view, because it not
sustained by the Word. In fact it is entire1y destitute of sup-
port from the Ho1y Scriptures. Dthers may refer to the 'Fathers"
but we appeal to the Word of God. "--Review and HeroLd 1:76, May
6, 1851.
In the face of conflicting views they would "take the Bible
alone as the sure deteetor, as that which will discover ODto us
the truth."--J. N. Loughborough, Rview and HeraLd 7:33 Sept 4
1855. ' .,
And again: nBut in all doctrinal questions which arise in
the theological wor1d, there must be some ground upon which we
can anchor; there must be SOtlle standard by which to test and
conf1ieting opinions. Such a standard is the word of God."
--Remew and Herold 12:196, Nov. 11, 1858.
2. The unity of Scripture. Tbe unity of Scripture is
affirm.ed in a reprint from Ameriaan Messenger: "Throughout the
who1e Blb1e, there runs one great idea--man's ruin by sin. and
his redemption by grace; in a word, Jesus Christ the Saviour.
runs through the 01d Testament, that pre1ude to the New. " __
Rem.ew and HeroLd 27:123, March 20. 1866.
This assumption of the unity of Scripture is evident through-
out these early writings. where one part of Scripture is constantly
made to explain another. Unity of authorahip is assumed.
3. Let Scripture explain Scripture. This principle 18
corol1ary of the principle of the untty of Scripture. The pr1n-
eipte 18 appealed to, for example. in an 1851 editorial by James
White: "Scr ipture must explain Scripture. then a harmony may be
seen throughout the whole. "--Review a:n.d Herold 1:62. April 7. 1851.
4. The words of the Bible must be given their proper me an-
ing. An unsigned fi1ler in an 1855 isaue states. "To ascertain
what any passage says, consider what the words mean, according to
their common aceeptation and according to their usage e1sewhere in
the Scriptures' if they have more meanings than ane, consider their
conneetion and' subjeet of discourse.
lI
--Review and Herald 7:38,
Sept. 4, 1855.
This ru1e was expanded, at least in praetiee, to ine1ude the
definition of words from the original languages. Thus Hebrew and
Greek terms are frequently quoted, and authorities cited as to
meanings of the original terms. Those not versed in the original
languages frequently resorted to variOUB translations in order to
clarify the meanings of words.
5. Attention to context and historical backgrounds. With
reference to Paul's writings in Romans 14:1-6 the direction 1s
given: "lf we would rightly Wlderstand the words of the Apostle
.. R' d we should first 1eam the subject of his dis course. -- an
Herald 1:68, Apr. 21, 1851.
This rule is repeatedly demonstrated as the question is
raised, What was the Bible writer speaking about, what was he say-
ing, and what did he mean by what he said?
6. The Bible must be interpreted according to the plain, ob-
vious, and litera1 import unless a figure is employed. This rule
was a recurring therne at a time when critics attempted to demolish
the positions taken by the Adventists. D. P. Hall sets forth the
problem:
"1 never realized the importance of being governed by correct
principles of interpretation more fu11y than at the present time,
just having had an interview with a minister of one of the popular
denominations, who denied the l1terality and tang1bility of every-
thing taught in the Bible. The second coming of Christ, death,
resurreetion, and in fact everything taught as the foundation of
faith and hope are by this mysticism swept away, and the past,
present and all thrown into chaos, and left without form
and void. But there is a remedy for a11 this jargon and confusion,
and 1t 15 to be found in the use of the literal prineiples of in-
terpretation. Interpret the language of the sacred writers as you
120 A Symposium on Bibllcal Hermeneutics Biblical Interpretation in tbc Advent Moveaent 121
do the language of a11 and chis d1.fficulty would be speed-
Uy ohvlated. "--Review and Herold 6: 17. Aug. 29. 1854.
J. N. Loughborough (1832-1924) dealt with the same proble.:
"Tbc beauty of Divine Revelatioo has been shut fl.'Way from the minds
oE the oommon people. by their being taught. and supposing that
the Bible does not mean wnat it says. or that the sense of the
6cripture writers 1s not contained in the scriptures themselves,
but that they are laYstical and bave a hidden .eaning. If this be
a fact. we inquire, Haw shall we arrive at just conceptions of
that word and its true interpretation?"-Remew and Heral.d 7: 34,
5e.pt. 4, 1855.
He continues: '"We admit that figures are there used, and
explained. but must claim that a plain statement should be under-
stood the same as "'hen made in any other book. We can form no
just c.onceptions of God's cha"tacter as revealed in the word, if
this be not the truth of the matte"t. If God had Tevealed his viII
in suc.h a manner that man cannot understand it, and then pronounced
in tbat ",ord eondemnation and death to those who did not obey his
will. we should at onee conclude that he man1fested none of the
character the word represents hi. as possess1ng. "-Ibid.
As to the mystieal meaning Bnd its source, Uriah Smith speaks
of it as that "hidden. spiritual and mystical interpTets'tion of
the word of God. whlch was introduced by the fachers of the specu-
lative philosophy. and bas been eontinued by their successors to
the present tille. Of these persons Hosheim (Church Hist. Cent. U,
part 2, chap. ii, 55) thus speaks: They attributed a dOubte sense
to the words of Scr1pture; the one obvlous and literal. the other
hidden and mysterious whieh lay concealed a8 It were under the va!l
of the outward letter. Tbe former they treated with the ut.ost
neglect, and turned tbe .mole force of their genius <Dld applicatice
to unfold ehe latter; ort 1n otber words. they were .ore studious
to darken tbe Scrlptures with their idIe fietions than to investi-
gate their true and natwoat sense. I But fot' this course on the
part of early commentators, views opposite to the obvious and
litera! teaching of the Scriptures would undouhtedly never have
obtained in the church."-Review and Herald 15:4. Nov. 24, 1859.
Ibis antipathy to a bidden aysterious meaning was not intended
to rule out typology, or amplification of litera1 meanings, that
a later inspired writer m1ght bring out. Tbc rule of permitting
Scripture to explain Scripture took c.are of the latter.
7. Tbe tyPolo&lcal principle. Perhaps the earliest e1ear
of this principle after 1844 1s the fo11owing by O. R. L.
Crosier, who wrote on "The Lav of Mases" in a Day Star lxtra. Feb.
7. 1846. He 6aid. "Tbe Law should be studled and I reiIletDberedI as
a simplified model of the great system of redemption containing
eymballe representations of the work begun by Dur Savior at his
first advent, when he 'came to fulfill ehe Law,' and to be com-
pleted in 'the redemption of tbe purchased possession unto thc
praise of His glory. I Redemptlon 15 deliverance purchased by the
payment of a ransom, henc:e it cannot be complete t111 man and the
earth shall be deli?JeJOed from the subjection aod consequences of
sin; the last act of dellverance will be at tbe end of the 1000
years. Ta this the shadow of the L8lo1 extended."-P. 37.
There are repeated instanees of the application of the typo-
logieal with reference to the ancient ritual services. The
key for the application. as noted eaTlier. the Se.venth-day Advent-
ist fouaders discovered in the book of Hebrews. which speaks of a
heavenly sanctuary where Jesus Christ minist.ers as priest. With
reference to cleansing. it is stated that "it was therefore nec-
essary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be puri-
fied with these; but the heavenly things themse1ves with better
sacrifiees than these" (Beb 9 :23).
Hidstream ConfirmatioD of Formative Hermeneutic
As ind1eated esrlier in this ehapter, no cOlJ1plete survey of
the Seventh-day Adventist hermeneutie fram 1840 to the present has
yet been The Deed for such a work may weIl be pointed
up both by this cha"pter and this book.
Same c1ues tO the general princlples of interpretation recog-
nized in the formative period have just been given. The tentative
thesis tbat there has beeu little change in these principles may
find same confirmation in an editorial appearing in rwo successive
iasues of The Signs of the TUnea (an Adventist c.hurch public:atiOll
of evangelistic lotent) from the pen of E. J. Waggoner. who was to
play a significane role in thc epochal 1888 General Conference of
Seventh-day Adventists.
In the second of these editorials (Jan. 6 and 13. 1887) Wag-
goner sunear1zed the principlea of interpretation, wich were the
subject of the first:
Wa noted first, that the Bible 15 absolute truth and
that anything that disagrees wieh it in the slightest par-
ticular must be false. Secoud, that the 8ib1e. though
composed of many boOks, 15 one 800k with oDe ADehor; that
there 1s perfect in all fts parts. Third, that
the Bible contains a11 truth, because tbat by It a man
U2
A Symposiu- on Biblical Hermeneutics Biblical Interpretation in tbe Advent Hovement 123
These same 1saues af Present Truth examined the variaus Scrip-
tures usua11y quoted to prove the abolition of the Sabbath. It is
in the exawination of these thae hermeneutical principles are
appea1ed to, such as attention to historical backgrounds, impar-
tance of context, importance of the meaning of words and sentences,
and ana10gy of Scripture.
Iheir argument was that the Scriptures enjoin the keeping cf
the seventh day cf the week. Dot the first day. They noted ehat
the Sabbath was Instituted ar: the end of Creatton week (On 2:2. 3)
and was made for Mn. generte man. not: merely the Jew (Hk 2:27).
Ir: was embodied in the Decalogue (Ex 20:8-11) but originated before
Sinal. aB evident not only GD 2:3 but a180 from Ex 16, vhich
describes the incident of the giving of the manna, which occurred
some 30 days before Sioai.
may be "r:boroughly furnished unto all good llOrks

" and
that tberetere ir: muat be fts own interpreter.
that ane part cf the Bible cannot be fully understood
if taken out cf It9 connection. er without reference to
the Bible as 8 whole. There is no book in the Bible
upon which light is not thrown by every other book in
the Bible. . .
Lssr1y, we showed that a term u8ed in one place in
the Bible taUSt have the same .e.aning 1n every othet place
where it OCCUtS, espeelally if ehe same subject 19 under
conslderation.
Yaggoner concluded the second editorial with cautionary com-
ments on the lielection and use of cOOiIIlE:ntar1es.
Hopefully, an outgrowth of this present symposium on herme-
neutics may be the carefu1 and survey of the extensive
denoalnational literat ure in order to trace tbe evidence for the
church I s hermeneutic.
From such texts as Mt
18 permanently bind1ng and
law, which \las telllporary.
Sabbath vas enforced there
5:17-33 they ahawed that the Decalogue
must not be confused with the remonial
Tum1ng to the NT chey showed how the
as well.
Hermeneutics AeP1ied to Sabbath
A demonstration of early Adventist hermeneutical pr1nciples
may be seen in the Seventh-day Adventists defense of the seventh-
day Sabbath, one of their cardinal doctrines.
During the Millerite movement of the 1840's the "Sabbath
ll
was
discussed, but there was DO widespread agitation. Sabbstb-keeping
among Millerites see-s to have begun in Washington, Ne", Hampsbire,
in 1844. ",hen certain me.mbers of the Christian Church there read
literature distributed by Rachel Oakes (later Preston), a Seventh
Day Eaptist. T. M. Preble. a prominent Millerite minister. living
not far from Washington. Ne", Hampshire, probab1y learned of the
Sabbath through eontact with the Sabbathkeepers there. He pub-
lisbed a traet on the which was read by Joseph Bates (1792-
1872), one of the founders of the SDA Church. Convineed, Eates
bimself wrote two tracts on the Sabbath, the second of which was
studied by Jaaes White. the principal fouader of the SDA Church.
and his wife. Both began keeping the Sabbatb in 1846. White and
Bates were both strang leaders, sud fre. them tbe Sabbath doctrine
spread to ether Advent1sts by means of eonferences held in various
areas, and through puhlications advocating the Sabbath.
When the e.wryonic cburch began pubUshing a perlodical in
1849. the first tbree issues--the first pub-
lished in Ju1y. 1849, and the next two in August, 1849--dealt
alaost exelusively with the Sabbath.
Another artiele examined the evidences ptesented for the
first-day sabbath and found each one of them lacking when the
accepted Protestant hermeneutic is applied.
A reprint fra- Tract No. 6 of the American Sabbath tract
Soc1ety tiats 20 reasons for keeping holy in each week the seventh
day instead of ehe first day. les reason No. 17 appeals directly
to the sota sePiptura principle:
"17. Because. if the fundamental princlple of Proteatantism
be right and true, thae 'the 81ble alone i6 the religion of Prot-
estants. then the Seventh Day DUSt be the true and only Sabbath
01 for, unless that day of the week be kept. ehey
have no Sabbath st all. "-The P:resent Truth.. Aug 1849,
p. 21.
Number 18 chides the Protestants : "Because the pertinacious
observance of the First Day of the Week, in the stead of the
Seventh, has accua1ly given occasion of great scandal to the Prot-
estant faith; it has caused the Papists to deelare that Protestants
achaH the authority of hW7t'.Ul tradition in matters of religion; and
it has 1ed to intolerance and persecution. "-Ibid.
In a reference to the Reformers' position, number 15 8ays:
" the leaders of the Reformation never claiaed for the First
Dsy the name of the Sabbath. and never eoforced the observance of
tbat day by any other autbority than that of the Church. "--Ibid.
124 A Symposium on Biblical Bermeneutics
Bihl1cal Inter-pretation in tbe Advent Movement 125
Summary and Cooclusions
A preliadnary e.xar.rlnation of the heraeneutical principles
follcwed by the Adventists reveals that tbey worked within the
established Protestant syate. snd did not introduce new rules of
interpretation. They appealed constantly to the Bible and the
Bible ooly a8 their rule of faith aud practice. They defended
their faith by presenting what they frequently referred tO as
"Bible evidenee." So strongly was their faith rooted in the Bible
tbat they refused to write a formal creed. maintaining that the
Bible vas the1r creed.
In tbe area of prophetie interpretation they followed. in
general. the h1storieist system, the standard Protestant interpre-
tation. Teday. it appears. they are almost the only ehaapions of
the system and of the condlt1onal nature of God's promises to
litera! Israel.
By tbe time the Seventh-day Adventist Chureh was organized
in 1860 the over-all doetrinal system had been established. Sinee
that time there have been clarifleations and amplifications but
no changes in doetrine.
The same may be suspected concerning hermeueutica! princlples.
These. inherlted from a Protestant background. still serve the
church today. As the chureh developed lts educatlonal system and
established lts seminary in 1934. these principles were reassessed.
and they began to be more clearly and sysCematically stated. This
present symposium i5 the church
1
s first 8ttempt to set forch in
detailed and more campiete form its present system of hermeneutics.
Lesser attempts were made in the past, notably in the book ProbZem8
in BibZe TPanslation, published in 1954. This work. although de-
slgned pri-arily to deal with translation problems in the newly
published Revised Standard Version, had several chapters dealing
",ith hermeneuclca! prineiple51: llThe Transmission and Preservation
of the Bible Text." "A Survey of Translation Problems." "The PIaee
of Biblical Languages in the Life of the Church." "Principles of
Biblical Interpretation,t1 "Appl1cation of Old Testament Prophecies
to New Testsant and Later times."
'Wben the church produeed a cOUl':lentary on the Bible (1953-1958)
it was necessary to have a clearly understood system of hermeneu-
tiCf:i aB the base for the COTl'f!\e0ts. Although this system was not
foraally stated except in part, various of Its prtnclples are
appealed to and deaonstrated in the various c ~ ants. But it
remained for this symposium to attempt to set it forth in an organ-
lzed way. In the light of the continuing conflict between tbe
liberal and the new conservative brauches of tbeology. it may prove
a rost timely attempt.
The founders of the church laid tbe foundation weIl. None cf
theut possessed advanced educational degrees. But thefr work ha&
stood the test of the years aod the scrutiny of scholarly minds.
The doctrines they focmulated are still the doctrines of the
Seventh-day Adventist Cburch. They stand on sure footing, having
nov stood the test of the decades and the appllcstlon of constantly
reflning disciplines in the ares of biblical studies.
PAR T I I I
Afte:t' 12 years 01 mtnistry in the Poto-
11nc Confer>ence of Seventh-day Advent-
ieta.. Professor Frank B. HolbJl'OOk joined
the roeligion faeult;y 01 SouthlJm Mis-
sionaTy College, Collegedate, Tenn6ssse..
in 1964. He i8 an assooiate professor
of religion and l"saently served aB act-
ing chairman of the religicm depar'tment.
He hotda the Master of T1w.ology degree
fr'om the Seventh-day Adventist Th,ologi-
'-'al seminary of Andrews
INSPlRED WRITERS' INTERPRETATION
OP INSPIRED WRITINGS
8. Ne....- Testament Uses and Interpretation
of ehe eId Testament
FRANK B. HOLBROOK
Southem HisBicmary Cou,ege
No serious interpreter of the Bible can fail to recogn1ze
tbe sign1flcance of the princlples by which the NT WTiters 1nter-
preted the OT. Although the principles are aeidum expl1citly stat-
ed, they can be derlved by careful analysis. Such an atteupt 15
made in this paper. It 19 considered a vital link in the herme-
neutle chaln a8 an 18 made to discover lnspired writers
f
use of inspired WTlrings.
Even a casual readlng of the NT tmpreSB the reader with
the fact that ir 15 repiete with OT citations and alluslons, a1-
though scholars wIll differ on the count of direct quotations.
The writlngs most often citad are the located in the third
division of the Hebrew Scriptures. Of the books of Hoses t Deuter-
onomy Is the most often directly quoted. Isaiah 1s the favorite
prophet. Same OT statements such as Is 6:9, 10, are repeatedly
cited. If 15 53 were to be lost, it has been suggested that the
gist of Its message could be recovered by means of NT c1tations
and a11u810n8.
The book of RevelatioD makes DO direct citations to thc OT.
An analysis of It9 contents, however, reveals it to be saturated
with OT iaagery. 'or an example the reader may wish to co-pare
the 1anguage John usea ta describe mystic Babylon (Rev 14-19) and
the prophetie state.ents regarding ancient Baby10n as penned by
1saiah, Jerem1ab, and Ezekiel. (See charting, SDA Be, Vo1. VII,
----
866-896) .
128
A Symposium on Blb11esl Uennenautics
New Testament UseB of the Qid Testament
129
Some Basic of the NT Writers
1. Tbc OT 1 authoritative for {alth and practlce. The NT
writers In harmony with the viewpoint of Christ regarded the OT aa
normative Scrlpture. tbe "oraeles of Gad" (logia tau theou)# "Iiv-
log snd acUve" (1.00. 3:2; Heb 4:12, RSV). (All citaUons herein-
after are from the RSV). Peter views the Ward of Cod aa vital seed.
"imperishable," "living aud abidiog" which, if planted in the
hesTt, vill bring about 8 nev 11fe (see 1 Pe 1:23). Paul refers
to the OT ss "holy scriptures" (groaphaia hagiaie) sod "sscred
writings" (hieM grtilJllutaJ (Re- 1:2; 2 Ti 3:15).
The NT wrlters da not see the OT aa ever in va1ue
for tbe Christian. "For whatever was written in former days," de-
clares the apostle Paul, "W8S written for our instructlon. that by
steadfastness and by the encouragement of the scriptures ve might
have bope" (Rom 15:4). With reference to ehe e:xperlences of an-
eient Israel he eays. "They vere vritten down for our 1nstruction,
upon whom the end of ehe ages has come" (1 Cor 10: 11).
2. The Hol, Spirit 18 the divine sutbor of the 07. The NT
wrlters acknowledge that there i5 but ODe Autbor bebind the many
hua:an wrfters who wrote. "The scripture had to be fulfilled.
which the Holy Spirit spake beforehand by the mouth of David"
(Acts 1:16). OITherefore. as the Holy Spirit 9ays " "By this
the Holy Spirit indicates. ." (Reb 3: 7; 9: 8). "No propbecy
ever came by the impulse of aan. but men maved by the Holy Spirit
spake from God" (2 Pe 1 :21). In one Instance the apostle Pet er
a9serts thst the Spirit who DOVed the prophets to wrlte of the
Saviour's sufferings and glory was "the Spirit of Christ" (1 Pe I:
10. 11).
3. Dlvine revelation i5 progressive in nature. Although the
NT writers recognize and acknowledge the divine authorlty of the
OT. they are conscious cf the Holy Spirit's witness also through
themselvcs (see Eph 3:5). The OT was promise and shadowy outline.
NT writers wcre witnessing to the glorious fu1fillment of the prom-
ise in of Nazareth. whom they declared to be the long-
looked-for Hesslah (see Acts 17:3). The apostle Paul proclaimed
to his Itsteners, "\.le bring you the good news tbat what God pl"O-
mieed co the faehers. this he hae jUZfiZled to U8 their children
by rs1sing Jesus" (Acts 13:32. 33).
Tbat the NT writers recognized the principle of progressive
revelation--a gradual unfolding of the divine plan tbrough suc-
cessive ages--ls seen by the opening statement in the eplstle to
the Hebrews. "ln many and vsrious wsys God spake of old to OUT
fatbers by the prophets; hut in these last days he haa spoken to
us by a San" (Heb 1: 1. 2). In the Son chey perceived God had giv-
en mankind the fullest disclosure of Himself, the capstone to ehe
edifice of revealed
4. There 1s unitr betveen the OT and the apostolic witness.
The NT wrlters da not view their witness as a new gospel or as 8
new religion different fram that taught by the QT. Ratber. chey
sssert an inseparable unity between the vitness of ehe OT and their
OWD. Chrlstians are admonished to "remetlber the predictions of
the ho1y prophets and the commandment of the Lord-snd Ssvlor
through your apostles" (2 Pe 3:2).
The NT writers supply both historical facts aud spiritual in-
sigbts that supplement snd il1uminate the OT. For exaaple. Paul
notes the names of the magicians vith whom Hoses contended in Phar-
aoh's court (see 2 Ti 3:8). Genesis does not state that Noah
preached to his contemporaries abcut the Flood with a cal1
to repentance. But the N1' informs that he was "a herald of right-
eousness" snd taught righteousness by faith (2 Pe 2:5; see Heb 11:
7). The OT sees forth the fact that the earth was created by a
personal God. The NT writers this truth by ehat
God created the world through the agency of Jesus Christ (see Heb
1:1, 2; Jn 1:1-3, 10). Were it not for ehe illumination provided
in the book of Hebrews. the ancient ritual of Israel's tabernacle
and te-ples would be largely But viewed in the light
of the NT the anclene ritual reflects back a broader understanding
of the entire plan of rdemption.
The movement is in both directions. Salvation from sin
through Jesus Christ \IOuld not be meaningful without the OT
account of the foll. The two Testaments are like two acts of a
play. They provide insights into each other. but the whole drama
15 more fully understood in the light of the conclusion--in this
instance the NT.
5. Thc historical records of the OT are accepted as genuine.
The NT wrlters refer to numerous incidents for didactic purposes.
hut they never queltton their historieity. Some examples are the
creation of Adsm snd Eve; the temptation of [ve by the serpent;
the fall of man; the murder of Abel; Noah aud the Flood; the suf-
ferings of Job. Hany incident5 are noted fram the 10ng history
of Israel, including the miraculous experience5 of Bslaam, Elijah,
and Jonah.
6. The moral and spiritual tTUths of the OT are of
value. "For wbatever was wr1tten in former days was written for
our instruction..." (Rom 15:4).
130 A Symposium on Blbltesl Hermeneutic8
Nev Testament Uses of the Old Testament 131
7. Christ 15 the fOCU8 of all divine action in tbe OT whether
It be through histor1cal experience, prophecy, or ritual vorship.
"Ta ht- [the Christ] all the propbets bear witness." states tbe
apo.rIe Peter (Acts 10:43). The whole Hebrew econo.y pointed for-
ward to Christ. He was the confirmatiou an<! the conS1!!nmation of
"tbe promises given to the patriarchen (Rom 15:8).
8. Christianity 18 the nev Israel. co.poaed of boro-again
,persons vhether of Gentile or Jewish origln. "For neither circum-
cision counts for anything, nor uncircUDcision, but a new creation.
Peace snd merey be upon all vho walk by tbis rule, upon tha
of God" (Gal 6:15, 16).
9. In Christianity tbere 15 a discont1nuity with tbe tyPical
'r"tem of Judaism. In the perspeetive of the NT writers the ritual
types of the aneient worship have met the 8ntitype in the person
of Jesus Christ. The shadow has vanished in the i11uminating
ence of the Substance. "For since the lsw has but a sbadow of
the good things to come instead of the true form of these reali-
ties, it can never aake perfeet those who draw nesr .'
Por it 18 impossible that the blond of bulls snd goats should take
away sins. But... Christ offered for all tae a
single sacrifice for sins
tt
(Reb 10:1-4, 12).
10. God's WOrd 18 valid in translation. This presupposit1on
18 evident in that the NT writers feIt free to use different ver-
sions of the Scriptures that were available to them. For this
reason areader of the NT may be puzzled by the form of a quota-
tion vben he compares it wirb tbe original statement in tbe OT.
He .ay note that st times it does not read exactly aa the verse
reads in the OT. He also may be disconeerted by the fact that st
tbes he cannot even find the NT citation in his OT. For example
the quotation, "Let all God' sangels worship him" (Heb 1: 6) 1a not
found in our common ver"ions of the OT.
Thc NT writers were apart of a multilingual environment.
Archaeological evidence Indicates that the three languages--
Hebrew, Arama1c, and Greek--were used by the Jews in first-
century Palestine. Our 18 sketchy, but it may be that
the NT writers or their amanuenses could speak snd read in one or
more of these cam.on tongues, and the OT was available to them in
Hebrew, Greek, and the interpretative Araaalc translations known
8S Targurns. Although the variants between these several sources
seem to heve been of no cancern to the NT writets (who were _ore
interested in the general thrust of tbc statement), a word about
each of them .tght be of help in explaining how citations from
these 90urces wou1d very at tfmes fram the Masoretic Hebrew
type (abbr. MT), fram which our English and other translations of
the OT are made today.
(a) Creek. Somettme durlng the 3d to tbe 2d centuries B.C.
the Hebrew Scriptures were translated !nto tbe Greek language for
the beneitt of Greek-speaking Jews. This Greek version, known as
the Septuagint (abbr. LXX). became the version that Cbristlans
used as they carried the gospel to ehe Greek-speaking peoples of
the Kediterranean world. Most of the OT quotations cited by the
NT writers are dravn from the LIX. This does not mean that a
glven quote 19 identical in every detail with the LXX, but it
appears to be largely, if not entirely. derlved from this version.
The citations by Luke aud those in the book of Hebrews are the
most closely related to the LXX.
Some reasons why LXX c1tations may vary from the MT are as
foliows: (1) Tbe LXX transIstor may have read the unpointed
(without written vowels) Hebrew text differently fram the way the
later Hasoretes did. For examp1e, in the OT statement: "Israel
bowed himself upon the head of his bed" (Gn 47:31), the consonants
for bed are "mtth.
1I
Thc LXX translators read the term as mappeh,
"staff,11 but later Hasoretes read it as miptah.. "bed." Con-
sequently the OT reads bed (based on the MT), but the book of
Hebrevs drawiog from the LXX, reads that Jacob bowed "in worship
over th; head of his sta.ff" (cf. Gn 47:31; Heb 11:21). (2) Evi-
deuce fra- the Qumran materials indicates that some LXX transla-
tors apparently worked from a 8ebrew text type, which differed
from what the HBsoretes copied. (3) Tbe NT writers may bave
derlved sa-e of their citations fram non-Septuagintal versions of
the OT in Creek.
eb) Hebrew. BeIare Rabbi Aqiba aad his associates estab-
lished a Hebrew text (ancestor of the MT) at the beg1nning of the
2d ceatury A.D. there were evidently several Rebrew text types in
circulation. Some or citations are, of course, in agreement with
the MT. In a few instances an OT citation seems to agree bettel'
with the Samaritan Pentateuch than with the MT or the LXX. This
does not necessarily mean that the NT writer cited the Samaritan
Bible directly. but it may mesn that he cited a Greek non-
Septuaaintal OT that preserved s reading from a HebTew text type
simi1ar to the Samaritan form.
Earlier it was noted that the state-ent "Let all God's an-
gels worship hira , " could not be found in the OT of our versions.
The substance of the quotation, however, is to be found in the
LXX (Ot 32:43), an Englisb translation of which reads in part:
Rejoice, ye heavens. slong with Rim,
And Let the eons 01 God IJOr8hip Him;
Rejoice. ye nations. with His people,
And Let aU the angels 0/ God be streng '/.n lfn
132 A Symposium on Biblical Hermeneutlcs
New Testament Uses of ehe Old Testament 133
Altbough chis passage t. not in the MT, it was based on a Hebrew
original. aa 1. now evidenced by the discovery of this chapter of
Deuteronomy in Hehrew at Qumran. which corresponds elose!y to the
LXX. Tbc cl tat ion In the book of Hebrews appealS to be a confla-
tion of the rwo italicized phrases.
(c) Aramalc Targums. It became a postexillc prsctlce in the
synagogues Co render Scripture readings loto Aramalc. which had
beca.e the Cc.Don language of the people. These interpretative
traD81ations were eventually written down. A few are QOV knovn
to have beeu wrltten in pre-Cbristian tt-es. ethers later. SODe
OT citations in the NT seem to have beea influenced by these Tar-
gums, either in written or oral form.
FOT example, Mark depicts Jesus citing the familiar passage
of Is 6:9, 10, regarding IsraelIs spiritual dullness. The last
part of th. cltatlon reads: "lest they should turn again, and be
forgiven" (Hk 4:12). Tbe LXX, however, has "and I shal! heaZ
them." The Kr hu also the term for heal. But the phrase il1
Markls aospe1 18 the same as 19 used in the Targum of Jonathan.
Anoeber example is Paul's app11catioo (Eph 4:8) of Ps 68:18 to
Christ's ascension in wich the last phrase reads: "and he gatJs
gifts to men." Both the LXX and the MT have the word reoeived
in8tead of gaIJs. But tbe TarglUll on tbe Psalms reads, "Thou hast
given 81fts to lIlen."
Hermeneutical Principles Employed by NT Writers
Such statements todleate that snd the NT were accep-
ting the Scriptures in theiT natural sense and context.
The apostle Peter's citation of Joel's prophecy (Joel 2:28,
29) was in with tbis principle. Joel had predlcted that
in same subsequeQt age God would pour out ais Spirit upon mankind
in a marked manner. In the events of Pentecost the apostle ssw
it:s fu1fillment. "Tbis is what was spaken by the prophet Joel
u
(Acts 2:16).
2. Analogy of Scripture principle. The unity ef Scripture
i8 fouod in the Holy Spirit, who spoke tbrough all the writer
Hence, what He revealed in one passage on a given subject may be
eompared by the reader vith what He diselosed in anotber on the
sa.e topie in order to ensure full understanding of tbe subject.
Jesus used this principle to estab119h the truth of His
Hessiah.hip. "And beginning vith Moses and all tbe prophetB, he
interpreted to them 10 all the seriptures the things concercdng
hhaself. . Then he said to tbem, 'These are my words whicb
I spake co yeu, wh11e I was still vith you, tbat everything writ-
ten about me in the lav of Moses and the prophets and the psalms
.mst be fulf1.l1ed. Then he opened theic IIl1.nds to underatand tbe
scrlptures. ." (Lk 2.q: 27, ", 45).
A good example of the operation of this principle is Faul's
cltation in Rom 3:10-18 of six different p8ssages to indicste the
universal of man snd of the Jews 1n part1cular (Ps 14:
1-3; 5:9; 140:3; 10:7; h 59:7, 8; Ps 36:1).
In this citation the apostle conflates Ia 28:16 snd apartion of
Is 8:l.q, which 1s noted spproximate1y by the hrackets.
'Behold 1 am laying in Zion a stone
[thnt will make men stumb1e,
a rock that will lIlake them fall;]
and he who be1ieves in him will not be put to shame.'"
Related to the analogy of Scripture principle and certa1nly
based on the same a8sumption of the Ho1y Spirit's authorship is
the NT writers' practice of sometimes conflating, or fusing, tvo
or more OT pssssges into a single quotation. In Rom 9:33 Faul
says, "It 18 written,
H8ving examined same of the presuppositions of the NT writers,
we .ay DQW attempt to induce and elucidate a few of tbe principles
they used to interpret the message of the OT.
1. Grammatical-historical prineiple. Thls principle indi-
cates that a passage i5 to be understood in 1ts historical context
and its natural grammatical sense. Christ and the apostles make
many citation. from th. OT on this principle as tbey drsw les80ns
of encouragement, warning, or reproof. For example. Jesus warne
tbat the aituation among men at the Second Advent will be s1mi1ar
to that in the t1mes of Noah and of Lot. (And He cautions, "Re-
member Lot's wife" (see Lk 17:26-30, 32). James encourages be-
lievers to greater patience and earnest prayer by citiog the
examples of Job and Elijah (see Jas 5:11, 17, 18). Jesus corrects
the Pharisees' view of divorce on the basis of the conceasion of
Dt 24:1-4 because of the nat1on's lov spiritual condition ot the
of tbe Exodus by citing God's original purpose for peTmanency
in the m4rriage relationship. as il1ustrated by tbe uniol1 of Adam
and Eve at the beginning (see Mt 19:3-9 citing Gn 1:27; 2:24).
Sometimes a quotation snd an a11us100 may be combined.
Jesus said, "'ls it not writteo, "Hy hause shall be cal1ed a
of prayer for all the nations"? [But you have made it a den
robben)'" (Hk 11:17), He was not ooly citing Is but
When
house
of
He
134 A Symposium on Blblieal Hermeneutics New Testament Uses of the Did Testament
135
mayaiso have beeu alluding to Jer 7:11 (enclosed in brackets).
The latter passage reads: "Has this house, which 19 ealled by my
name, become a den of robbers in your eyes?ll
A citation may be made by a NT writer which is not a direct
quotation but represents the gist of two or possibly more state-
ments. For example, John writes, "For these things took place
that the scripture might be fulfilled, 'Not a bane of him ahall be
broken'" (Jn 19:36). This statement combines the thought of Ex
12:46 regarding the Passover lamb, "you shal1 not break a bane of
it,ll snd Ps 34:20 app1ied Messianieally, "He keeps all his bones;
not one of them is broken."
3. New-Israel principle. Passagas of Scripture that coce
had significance hut have lost that significance because of their
conditional nature sud nonfulfillment are applied to new situations
by the NT writers. This principle 1s particularly employed in
applying tbe prophecies about ancient Israel to tbe new Israel,
Christianity.
The author of Hebrews appeals to the prophecy of Jer 31:31-
34 as a divine predietion of a new order. '''The days will come,
says the Lord, when I will estab1ish a new covenant with the house
ef Israel and with the house of Judah '" (see Heb 8: 8-12).
But God was not able to renew His covenant with the Jewish people,
for they rejected the divine rule (cf. Lk 19:14). Nevertheless
Christ became "the mediator of a new covenant" made with a new
Israel to whom have been transferred the spiritual privileges and
responsibilities that anee belonged to the Hebrew people (Heb 9:
15; see Mt 21:33-43; Gal 3:27-29).
The apostle Peter, as another example. appropriates the an-
cient names snd titles to the new Israel, and alludes to Hos 1:10;
2:23 (which originally applied to ancient Israel) as finding par-
ticular fulfillment now in the new community of Christians.
But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a
ho1y nation, God's own people, that you may declare
the wonderful deeds of him who called yeu out of dark-
ness into his marvelous light. Once you were no peo-
pIe but now you are God's people; once you had not
received mercy but now you have received mercy (1 Pe 2:
9, 10).
4. Englargement principle. A NT writer under inspiration
may expand or extend the meaning of a given passage without deny-
ing or abrogating the permanent truth set forth in the original
meaning. An example of this principle may be found in the famous
passage of Hab 2:4 to which Paul appeals twice in support of the
doctrine of righteousness by f81th (see Rom 1:17, Ga! 3:11).
"The righteous ahall live by his faith."
In ehe original prophecy, God informs Habakkuk of His design
to permit the Babylonians to devastate sinful Judah. But though
impending destruction is about to sweep over the nation God en-
courages His loyal ones to live calmly, trusting in Him. The NT
writers are not ignorant of this context or its general truth, for
the writer to the Hebrews makes a similar application of the pas-
sage to his readers. "For you have need of endurance 'For
yet a little while, and the coming one ahal! come aud ahall not
tarry; hut my righteoua one shaU Live by faith, and if he shrinks
back, my soul has uo pleasure in hiID'" (Heb 10:36-38).
The apostle Paul under inspiration enlarges this faith prin-
ciple enunciated in Habakkuk to inelude not only trust in God dur-
ing physical ealamity but also trust in God for spiritual salvation.
The Christian lives by faith in God in all aspects of life.
The RSV translation of the Habakkuk eitation in Rom 1:17 and
Gal 3:11 reads, "'He who through faith 1s righteous shall live.'"
This translation of the Greek is grammatically possible, and it
fits Paulls argument, but it 1s arbitrary. as is evidenced by the
fact that the same transIstors render the same Greek phrase in
Heb 10:38 as '''my righteous one shall live by faith'" and footnote
both references in Romans and Galatians with an alternate reading
" ' The righteous sha11 live by faith." The eitation need not read
differently from Habakkuk's original statement for the apostle to
make his point on the faith principle.
5. Augmentation principle. Under inspiration the NT writers
often supply details to OT accounts that are not explieitly set
forth in the original writing. For examp1e. the OT does not in-
form us as to how Abraham resolved the terrible confliet in his
mind regarding Isaae. God had promised descendants through his
only san, but God also had commanded Isaac to be offered as a
sacrifice. The writer to the Hebrews augments the account by ob-
serving that Abraham proceeded to carry out the command because
"he considered that God was able to raise men even fram the dead"
(Heb 11: 19).
6. Accommodation principle. The NT writers were steeped in
the language and imagery of the OT. It would be but natural for
them at times to borrow the phraseology of an OT passage to express
a truth. Same believe that Paul's use of Dt 30:12-14 in Rom 10:6-9
is a case in point. In the OT context Mases was exhorting Israel
to obedienee, and observed that the nation was not ignorant of God's
136 A Symposium on Biblical Heroeneutics
New Testament Uses of the Old Testament
137
will, neitber need they search for tt, for It was near, evan "in
your mouth and iu your heart. so that you can da it." Since It
19 also true ehat rlgbteouSDeBB by faitb 18 not diffieult to ob-
rain, the worde cf Hases with same adaptation nlcely express the
language of fa1th:
But the righteousness based on falth says, Do not
aay in your heart, "Who 10:"111 ascend iota heaven?" (that
iso to bring Christ down) or "Who will descend into the
abyas1" (that Is, to bring Christ up from the dead).
ut what does it 8ay? Tbe ward 18 near you, on your
lips sud 10 your besrt (that Is. tbe ward of faith whlch
we preach); because, If you confess with your lips that
Jeaus 18 Lord Bnd belleve in your heart that God raised
him fraa the dead, you will be S8ved.
7. Adaptive translation. Tbe practiee of interpretative
tranalating of the Hebrew Serlpturea 1n the synagogues was
among the Jews in postexilie times. as we have noted earlier. Tbe
resultant translations were known as Targums.
An example of a targumic rendering may be the priests
l
eita-
tlon of Hie 5:2 to Berod the Great regarding the birthplace of
the Hessiah. nAnd you, 0 Bethlehe!!1, are by no means 'teast
" (Mt 2:6). In context the statement aetual1y says ehe
opposite: ":But you, 0 Rethlehe. who are littZ6 . .."
Rendering the passage interpretatively, the priests see the town's
9mallnese in s1ze evolving into its greatness in distlnction as
the birtbplaee of the Messiab, ehe great King.
The Cbristian. Paul, apparently gives a similar adaptive
translation of the 5th eOlllDl.andment: "'Honor your father and
mather' (this 15 thc first eommandment with a promise). Ithat it
may be weil with you and that you may Zi V9 Zong on tJ:e eaPth' n
(Eph 6:2. 3). The phrase that 19 in tbe parenrheses is an injec-
ted commentary. but the italicized phrase is an interpretative
rendering of the commandment.
As spoken fra. Sina! the Ten were addressed to
the nation of Israel, and 80 the comraandment rends in part: "that
your days lDaY be lang in the land ",hieh the Lord your God givee
yau" (Ex 20:12). That land was Canaan, as far 8S was eon-
cerned. But the Decalogue i8 applicable to all mankind in that
it def1nes a man's duty toward God Bnd his duty to his fellows.
Consequently the apostle catches the spirit of the 5th eommand-
ment as it relates to a.!l persans and renders this part: nthst It
may be weH with yoo and tbat yau II18Y Live long on the ea:rth'l
(Eph 6:3). AdaptIve translations by NT writers may help to ex-
plain why some citationa in the NT d1ffer from the OT originals.
8. Christ principle. Christ asserted that there was a defi-
nite aim aud focu8 In the OT. Tt was .are than just arecord of
Israelis apostasles and rellgious experiences. Of the OT Serlp-
tures He affirmed: "they bear witnes6 to me" (Jn 5:39).
Thus the NT wrlters see ehe purpose of the OT to be the
revelation of the Messiah by means of its prophecies, rituals.
and precepts.
(a) Prophecy. All direet Messianic prophecies are fulfilled
in Jesus of Nazareth. "To him all the prophets bear witness"
(Acts 10:43). An exa.ple 1s Jesus' own citation of Ia 61:1. 2.
which foretold the mlnistry of God's Servant. Jesus' assertion
to His townsmen of Nazareth was startling: "Today this scripture
hag been fulfilled in your hearing" (l.k 4:16-21).
(b) Ritual. Tbe book of Hebrews evidences the fact that the
NT vriters regarded the tabernacle-temple sanctuaries, the sacrl-
fices. and the Levltical priesthood as types and shadovs of the
heavenly sanctuary, the atonJng death of Cbrist, Bnd His high-
prieetly ministry in the presenee of God. The festivals also had
typieal significance. as Paul observes: "Christ. our paschal lamb.
has been aacriflced," (1 Cor 5: 7).
(e) Prece2t. The NT writers see that the divine plan for
ehe salvation of man was disclosed in the OT aa weIl as in their
own witness. (Salvation was by faith then as weIl ae now.) Noah
18 des1gnated "a herald of righteousne8a" (2 Pe 2:5). who beeause
of the deatruceion of the Plood became "an beir of the rlghteous-
ness which come. by faith" (Heb 11:7).
The assertion of the book of Hebrews 1a tbat "good news came
to U8 [Christiaos] just as to them [Israel]; but the _essage wh1cb
they heard did not benefit them. because it did not meet with faith
in the hearers
ll
(Heb 4:2). Paul argues in Romans that "
t
he law
an<! the prophets hear witness to it." that ls. to tbe doctrlne of
righteousoess by {aith, and citea Israel's great heroes, Abraham
and David, to show he 18 advancing no new doctrine (Rom 3:21i 4:
1-8). Jesus expresses apparent surprlse at Nicodemus' ignorance
of the eoncept of the new birth. "'Are you a teacher of Israel.
an<! yet you do not understand thb?'" (Jn 3:10).
9. Typteat princlple. A large proportion of NT eitations
seem to be torn from their original settings. This is particularly
true of passage. that are appllad to Christ. must not think
tbe NT wrlters move lrrationally tbrough the Scrlptures blindly
selectlng here and there. They must have on some valid her-
ueneutieal princlple. Tbe evidence would auggest that the NT wri-
ters at times u8ed the principle of types.
138 A on Biblical Hermeneutlcs
New Testament Uses of the old Testament
139
The lsraelite tsught to take hlstorlcal events seriously
and to catch th.ir spiritual overtones. For the forty
yesrs of -anna In the wilderness were intended to teaeh Israel
more than the simple fact that God could supply their daily bread.
Hases points out tbe spiritual dimension God designcd for them to
grasp trom this pbysical experience: IIHe humbled you snd let you
hunger sud fed 10U wlth manna, whieh you did not know. Dar dld
your tubers knOWj that he rrright make Hou 1cnGu that man does "IOt
live by bnad al.one.. bwt that nun livea by everything that p'rO-
ceeds out of the mouth 01 the Lord
n
(Dt 8:3).
The NT SBW certain persons and events 8S bl$torical
typea foreshadowlug SODe aapeet of Cbrist. Per example, Paul seea
in Adam "s type ltupoB] of the oue who was to coae" (Rota 5:14).
Inasmueh a8 Adam 18 80 character1zed. 1t wou1d be natural for the
NT writers under the illumination of the Roly Spirit to see 1n ebe
anDinted prophets, priests. and kings--and even in the chosen na-
tion of Israel itself--God-intended types of the ultimate Anointed
One--the Prophet, Priest, and King, ths Overcomer.
In t:l.ak1n.g these links between the OT and Christ 1t W'Ould
appear that the WT1ters emp10yed the interpretative pr1nciples
eomaonly u.ed by the rabbis of Qal Waba.er (inferenee fre. .1nor
to major) end Cez@rah Shawah (coRstruetion of analogie.) (see
earlier ehapter by Slegfried Horn, ..Jewish Interpretation 1n ehe
Apostolic Age").
for example, in Heb 1 a number of OT eitations are applled
to Christ. Two may be noted for the sake of illustration. The
first eHation iso "!hau art my Son, today I have begatten ehee"
(Heb 1:5; see Ps 2:7). The overtones of the psalm are very Hes-
sianie, but it also may have app1ied to David in a IDeal setting,
for the Lord 18 described as saying, "'I have set my king on Zion
h1
"'(
my 0 y hilI Ps 2:6) (cf. Aets 4:25 on Davidic suthor'hip).
But the NT wrlter using the princip1e of types may eite ehi. pas-
sage with propriety a8 a reference to Christ. He sees Davld, the
anointed king of Israel, as a type ef Israel's ultimate King, the
Messiah. Here i8 an analogy between David and his dynastie Heir.
Furthermore, If David the king may be termed God
1
s "son," how much
more appropriate for God to designate David's greater descendant
"my Son."
The seeond passage cited reads, "'r will be to him a father,
and he sha11 be to me a son'" (Heb 1: 5) The quotation la from
2 Sa 7:14 and 18 God's statement to David regarding the estab-
lishment of Dsvid's dynasty. The worda aetuslly refer to Solomon,
who sueeeeded David on the throne. Again an analogy may be made
and the Qal Wahomer principle app1ied. If God regards the
anolnted king, Solomon, who bulids His physical Temple 88 "son,"
how much more does He regard as "San" the Hesslah, who 19 greater
than 5010mon, and vho will the spiritual temple of the Lord.
Robert Gundry eODcludes fra. Ws analysis of hoth the fortnal
eitaeions and alluslons in the Gospel of Hatthew that many of
them whieh ,re applied to Jesus rest OD ehe following typieal pat-
tern. Tbis mayaiso be the pattern used by the other wrlters:
Jesus is ehe greater Hoaes.
Jesus i$ the greater Son of David.
Jesua ia tbe representatlve prophet.
Jesus i8 tbe representative Israellte.
Jesus 15 the representative righteous sufferer
rejeeted by men.
Perhaps the diffleult passages in Hattbew--such as his clta-
tion of I, 7:14 (1:22, 23), Hos 11:1 (2:15), and Jer 31:15 (2:17,
18), aa weIl aB Paul's e1tation of the civil law pertaining to
oxen in Dt 25:4 (1 Cor 9:B-10)--may be best explained by 8uggest-
log that ehe writers e.ployiog the typ1eal principle with
those of analogy end of inference from to major.
10. Ethieal principle. The NT weiters saw in the OT a pre-
eious storehouse of materials for moral instruetion in Christian
11ving. Human nature being the same in all ages, what was valid
and permanent moral instruction In one age would be valid in an-
other age if 8 s1milar 81tuation arose. "All scr1pture 18 In-
spired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for eor-
rection. and for training in righteousness. thst the .an of Cod
may be eomplete, equipped for every good werk" (2 Ti 3:16, 17).
Consequently. under the Holy Spirit they eontinually app1ied the
moral 1nstructlon to ehristlan 11ving. Matthew reeorded Chr1st's
Sermon on the Mount, the Saviour's great exposition of the Deea-
10gue. Both Paul and John spoke with regard to the prineip1e of
impartial love aa fulfl111ng the obligations of the second table
of the law (Mt 5-7; Rom 13:8-10; 1 Jn 3:14. 15). The eounsels
on practica1 god1iness that may be found in the epistle of Jamee
and that generally make up apart of each of Paul's letters, have
roots in the OT.
Coneluslon
The above sketch ia an attempt to induce from the NT th@
basic presupposltions with whteh the NT writers spproached the OT
seriptures. aud ehe hermeneutteal prlnciples they eaployed in
interpreting its eonteuts to the ehurch and to the wor1d.
140 A Symposium on Bibllcal HermeneuticB
New Testament Usea of ehe Old Testament 141
It _ust not be forgotten that in Buch a study we are
men who themselves were belng moved by the Haly Spirit (0 tranamit
the fullness of the gospel, whieb was but outline sud shadoW' in
the CI. Under inspiration of the Ho1y Spirit they saw divine har-
monles tbat the uninapired expositor might not be able to perceive
witb his l1c1ted comprehension.
Tbe Cbristlan expositor would be in harmony wirh the basic
presupposltlons of the writers. But wich the h1r wrltings also
vouchsafed co him, he will be obliged to view the OT through ehe
further illumination. enlargement. and clarificatlon of the NT
witness.
AB an uninspired investigator of the Scriptures the Christian
expositor will be 1argely limited to the grammatical-hlstorical
and analogy of Scripture principles of interpretation. He may
a passage in order to present, perhaps. s universal
truth. but his audience should know he Is not givlng sn exposition
in context. Adaptive translating as apparently done by the NT
writers i8 similer though not identical to paraphrasing. A para-
phrase of a 6crlptural passage can often be helpful in explaining
its And of course the Scriptures are the ainister's
autbority for tbe presentation of truths related to Chrlstian
ethics.
reference to the princip1es of enlargement, aug.entation,
types, as weIl ss the principle and new Israel principle.
the uninsplred expositor .ust 1tait himself to searchlng out what
the insplred vriters themselves dlsclosed. In this t8sk sud privi-
lage his constant prayer to the Author of all truth must ever be:
"Open my eyes. that 1 aay behold wondrous things out of thy law"
(Ps 119: 18)
READING LIST
Bright, John. The Authority of the Old Testament. Nashville:
Ab1ngdon Press. 1967.
A general study on the authority cf the OT and its place
in Christian preaching. Conta1ns a helpful discu8sion on the
theological links between the two Testaments and the nBture
of OT types.
:Bruce. P. F. Th.e Books and the Pcarchmenta. 3d rev. ed. Westwood,
NJ: Fle-ing H. Revell Co 1963.
Helpful for understanding the text-form problems in OT
cltations.
Bruce, 1". F. New Testament dsuQZopnent of 014 Testament Themes.
Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. [erdmaus Pub. Co . 1969.
A survey of OT themes as further developed by the NT
writers.
Ellis, David J. "The New Testament Use of the Old Testament,"
A HeL) Testament Co,mumtaPy. EdHed by G. C. D. Uowley.
Grand Rapids, Mt: Zondervan Pub. House, 1969.
A general artlcle with selected blbliography surveylng
varlous aapects of chis subject from a conservative vlevpolnt.
Ellis. E. Barle. Paut's Uae of the OU Testament. Grand Rapids.
MI: wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co 1957.
A useful werk concerned with understanding the rationale
underlylng Pauline usage of OT citations. ea.pares Pauline
exegesls with that of first-century Judaism. Contains appeo-
diees cataloglng Paul's citations and alluslons.
Gundry. Robert Horton. TM US6 01 the DU Testament in St. Mat-
COsp6t. Leiden: E. J. Drill. 1967.
A doctoral disgertation (under P. F. Bruce) largely coo-
cerned with an analysis of the text forms of OT eitetton.
hoth explicit snd allusive in tbe Gospel of Hatthew, togetber
wich a discussion of Matthaean hermeneutics.
Smith, D. Kood,. Jr. "The Use of the 01d Testament in the New."
The ase of the QU Testament in the Neu) and Othsr Essays
(Studies in Ronor of Wl11iam Pranklin Stinespring). Edlted
by 'ames H. !fird. Durham. NC: Duke University Press. 1972.
Tasker, R. V. G. Th8 OZd Testament in the NeJJ Testament. 2d uv.
ed. Grand Rapids. MI: Ym. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co. (2d Aaerican
ed.). 1968.
A short work proposing to show the unity of the Testaments
as evidenced by Christ and the NI writers.
Wright. G. Ernest. God Who Aots. London: SCM Press. Ltd. (No. 8
in "Studies in Biblical Theology"). 1952.
A discussion of the significance to the Hebrew mind of
h1stor1cal events 1n OT tlmes and their typ1cal nature.
8001<. editor, Re-I.Ji&> and Hel"Qld PubZi.h-
ing A.asociation, Washington, D.C.,
Raymond P. Cottrell tJa8 senior assod-
ate editor of THE SDA BDLE CCJttIlENTARY
<md a nrzjor OC7f:tributol' to both i t aN1
ths $DA BIBLE DIC'l'IONARl am:l SDA ENCY-
CLOPEDIA. Ordai.ned in 193'1 while a
missi<:mary in Manahuria, M r>etumsd
du:tting the WQ1" years tc Pacifie Unicm
CoLlege whsrs he taught on the religion
staff from 1941-1962. Be ha8 been at
ths Review "ince 1962. .4ndlrA18 Univer-
sity confer'Nd on hiM the Doctor of
Divini:ty degPee in 1972.
9. Ellen G. White'e Evaluation and
Uee of Bible
RAYHOND F. COTTRELL
RetJi..lN and Bemld
Publiehing A88oeiation
Ellen G. White her primary role to be that of God's
special mes.enger to the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Her task
as ehe saw it was to point men aad to the Bible as the in-
spired. authoritat1ve Word of God. to appIy its principles to tbe
experiences the church and its members encouoter in tbe world
todsy. snd to gulde them in their preparation for Chr1st's return.
Attitude Toward the Bible
Ellen Whitels attitude toward the Bible es reflected in many
statements such as these 1s fundamental to a correct understanding
of her use of it:
Tbe B1ble 18 Cadls vo1ce speaking to uso just as
surely as though ve could hear It wlth our ears.--
Testimoni88, val. 6. p. 393.
The Holy Scr1ptures are to be accepted as an
authoritat1ve. infallible reveIat10n of His will.
--7116 Great Cuntl"overay, p. ix.
The Bible i8 tbe only rule of fsith and doctrlne.
--Fundamentals 01 C'h:t>istian Education, p. 126.
In our t1ce there 18 a wide departure fram their
{the Scr1ptures'] doctrines and precepte. and there 18
need of areturn to the great Protestant principle--
tbe BibIe, aod the Bible on1y, as the ru1e of faith
and duty.--The Great Controversy, pp. 204, 205.
Tbc Spirit wes not given--nor CSD it ever be
bestowed--to supersede the Bible for the Scripturea
expllcitly state tbat the ward of God i8 the standard
144
A Symposium on B1bl1cal Hermeneutic Ellen G. White's Use of the B1ble
145
by wich all teaching and experience must be tested.
-The -Great p. Ix.
Concept of Her Relation co the Bible
Ellen White conaldered her mission to be in fulfil1aent cf
Bible propbecy. particularly the promise of Joel 2:28, 29.
in Acts 2:17, 18:
I to you, dear reader. the Ward of God
as the rule of your faith and practice. 8y that Ward
we are to be judged. Gad has, in that Ward, promised
to give visions in the "Zast days"; not for a new rule
of faith, but for the camfort of His pcople. aod to
correct thoBe who err from Bible truth.--EarLy
p. 78.
She conceived of her ministry aa a lesser light to lead man
to the greater light. the Bible. She dtd not look upon her writ-
inga aa auperseding the Bible or as an addition to it or as "new
light" but as clarifying the Blble and showing Ha relevance to
the needs of Godls people today:
the Testimoniee were not given to take the place
of the Bible.
The Testimoniee [are not] an addition to the warp
of God. [But] ead has seen fit in chis manner to
bring tbe miods of His people to Dia ward, to give tham
a clearer understanding of it.--Testimoniea vol. 5
p. 663.
Tbe Lord has given a lesser light to lead men and
wornen to the greater light.--CoLportaur p. 125.
Ellen White describes oue way in which. duriug the early years
of the church. ahe became "a leaser light" to enable men to under-
stand the Bible:
When tbey came to the point in their study where
they said. "We can do noth1ng more." the Spirit of the
Lord would ca.e upon me. 1 would be taken off in vision,
sud a clear explanation of the passagea we bad heen
studytng would be given me, with instruction as to how
we were to labor and teach effec:tively. Thus light was
givea tbat helped us to understand the scriptures in
regard to Christ. His Il1ssion. and His priesthood.--
Selected book I, pp. 206, 207.
ackoawledging the prtmacy of the BibIe, Ellen Whlte
claimed for her writings the same inspiration she attributed to
it aad Inslsted that there 15 basic harmony between the two:
The Haly Ghost 1s the author of the Scriptures and
the auther of the Spirit of Prophecy.--E. G. White Letter
92, 1900.
UIn ancient times Co<! spake to IDen by tbe fIOuth of
prophets and apostles. In these days He speake to tbem
by the test:1l:lonies of His Spirit. val. 5,
p. 661.
The writings af Ellen White are aB thoroughly permeated with
Scripture aa the air is with oxygen. They testify to her profouod
knowledge of the Bible, and when she encoursges other people ta
study it with diligence snd eare she does so fram the depth of her
own experience. Whatever the subject. ahe thought--and WIote--
in the language and thaught farms of Scripture.
Attitude Toward Troth
In Ellen White's counsel to others we may see a reflection
of her attitude toward truth. Among the qualitiee of wind she
commends are sincerity of purpose in eeeking truth, dedication of
mind and life co it. willingness to live in haraony with ie. an
earnest desire for it, willingness to leam. an open .iod. She
comaends diligent, persevering systeaatic study; patient reflection;
and where necessary exerclse of suspended judgment:
Tbe spirit in whicb you come to the investigation
of the Scriptures. will determine the cbaracter of the
assistant at your side.--Teatimonies to Ministers and
Goapel Wopkers, p. 108.
The perception and appreciation cf truch. He [Christ]
said. depends le9s upon ehe mind than upon the heart.
--The Deeire of Ages. p. 455.
His [the seeker'aJ affections aud all his c:apa-
bilities must be c:onaec:rated to the searc:h.--Christ'a
Obiect Les80718. p. 112.
Whenever man are nOt seeking, in word snd deed, to
be in harmony witb God, then. however learned they may
be they are liable to err in their underatanding of
SC;1pture. And it i5 oo1y those vho are following
146 A Symposium on Blblical Hermeneuties
the light already given tbat can hope to receive the
further illumination of the
val. 5, p. 705.
Ellen G. White's Use of ehe Blble
God would have all the hearings aud positions of
truth thoroughly and perseveringly searched, with
prayer and fastlog. Believers are not to rest 1n sup-
positions aud il1-deflned idca. of constitutes
truth.--COW1Uls to writel's and Edito1'8. p. 40.
147
Frame cf M.ind
The student cf the ward sbould not make bis
oplnioDs a center around which truth 15 CO revolve.
He should not eeateh for the purpose of finding
texts of Scripture that he enn construe co prove
his theories. for this 15 wrestlng the Scrlptures
to his OWD destruetion. The Bible student Dlust
e.pty himself of every prejudice, lay bis own ideBs
at the door of investigBtion, aud vith bumble, sub-
dued heart, wiCh seH hid in Christ, with earnest
prayec, be should seek visdom from God.--Counsels to
Parents, Teaehers, and Students, p. 463.
Tf there 16 a point of truth that yau da not
. upon which you do not agree, invest1gate.
compare scripture vith scripture, sink the shaft of
truth down deep into tbe mine of God's vord. You
must lay yourselves sud your opinions on the altar
of God, put away your precoDceived Ideas , and let
tbe Spirit cf heaven gulde iDto all truth.--
Testirrtt:mi6s to Ministers and Go8p61 WO.1'ke1'8, p. 476.
Thc sin that 1s !!I08t nearly bopeless snd incura-
ble 18 pride of opinion, self-concelt. Tbis stands
in tbe way of a11 gyowth.--Pesti.'l'kn'lies
J
vol. 7. pp.
199, 200.
Exacting InvestigatiOD
Before accepting any doctrine 01' precept, we should
demand a plain "Thus saith the Lord" in tu support.
--The Great Controversy# p.
We should never allow ourselves to arguments
tbat are not wholly sound. We sbould present
sound that will not only silence our opponeDts,
but will bear tbe closest and most searching scrutlny.--
Testimoniea, vol. 5, p. 708.
(God calle for] a dl1igent .tudy of the Scriptures,
aod a most critical examination of tbe positions wbich
we hold.
Diligence With Patience
Tbe most valuable teaching of the Bible i8 not
gained by occasional 01' disconnected study. Its great
system of truth 1s not so presented ae to be discerned
by the careless or hasty reader. Hany of its treasures
lie far beneath ehe lurface, and can be obtained only
by d1ligent research and continuous effort.--Signs of
the Times
J
Sept. 9, 1906.
Tbere must be patient study snd .editation and
earnest prayer.--Tstimonies to and Go8pel
Workers
J
p. 108
Tbe Holy Spirlt's Guidance
Ken !!lust themselves be uoder the Influence of tbe
Holy Spirit in order to understand the Spir1t's uttcr-
ances through the propbets.--Seleeted bock 2,
p. 114.
No aue 1s able to explain the Scrlpturcs wltbout
tbe eid of the Holy Spirit. Bot you take up the
Word of God with a bumble, teachable heart. the angels
of God v111 be by your side to impress you witb evi-
dences of tbe truth.--selected book I. p.
411.
Coucept of the Nature of Scripture
Prerequlsite and basic to a vlable hermeneutical metbodology
18 an accurate understanding of sucb matters BS the relationship
bctween the divine and the human elements in Scripture. the nature
of inspiration, tbe text snd canen of Scripture. tbe progressive
nature of revelation, snd the unity of Scripture:
"Tbe Bible pointe- to God aa its author; yat it was
written by human bands; and in the varied style of its
different books it presents the cbaracteristics of the
148
A Symposium on Biblical
Ellen G. White's Usc of the Bible 149
several vriters. The truths revealed are all 'given
by inspiration of Garl' (2 Tim. 3:16); yet chey are
expressed 1n the words of men. The Infinite One by His
Holy Spirit has shed light 10to tbe minds and hearts of
His servaots. He has given dre8m
s
snd visions, symbols
and figures; and those to whom the truch was rbus
revealed, bave themselves embodied the tbought in haman
language..."-Selec.ted book 1, p. 25.
Tbe Bible 18 written by inspired men. but Ir 18
not God
1
8 mode of thought and expression. It 18 that of
h"menity. Coo, as a writer, 18 not represented. Ken
will often say such an expression is not like God. But
God h.. not put Himself in words, in logie. in rhetorlc,
on trial 1n the Bible. The writers of the Blble vere
God's peomeD. not His pen. Look at the different writers.
--Ibid. . p. 21.
The Nature of Inspiration
It 18 not the words of tbe Blble that are inspired,
but the men that were inspired. Inspiration acts not
on tbe aanls words or his expressions but on tbe man
self, who, under the influence of the Holy Chost, is
imbued vieh tboughts. But the words receive the impres8
of the individual mind. Tbe dlvlne miod 16 diffused.
The divine mind and viII is combined wich the human mind
aad vill; thus the utterances of the man are the word of
God.-Ibid.
The Text aad Canon of Scripture
The Blble is the most ancient and the most compre-
henaive his tory that men possess. It came Eresh from
the Fountain of eternal truth, and throughout the sges
a divine hand has preserved ita purity.--Coun66Zs to
Parents.. '1'eaoherB. anti students. p. 52.
God had faithful witnesses, to whom He committed
the truth, Bnd who preserved the Word of God. The manu-
acripts of the Hebrew and Greek Seriptures bave been
preserved through the ages by a miraele of God.--E. G.
Wh1te Letter 32, 1899.
Revelation Progressive
The Scrlpturas were given to men, not in a contlnu-
oua chain of unhroken utteraRces, hut piece by piece
tbrough suecessive generations, as God in His providence
saw a fitting opportunity to man at sundry t!mes
and divers places. Hen wrote as they were aoved upon by
tbe Holy Ghost. There 18 "first the bud, then the blos-
som, alld nut the fruit," "first the blade, then the ear,
after tbat the fuU corn in the ear." Ibis i8 exac.t1y
wbat the Blble utterancea are to u8.--Selected Messages.
book I, pp. 19. 20.
Tbe Unit! of Scripture
The books of the Blble present a vide contrast in
style, as well aa a diversity in the nature of the sub-
jects unfolded. Different forms of expression sre em-
ployed by different writers; often the same truth 1s
more strikingly presented by one than by anotber. And
as several wrltera present a subject under varled aspects
aud relations, there may appear, to the superfieial, care-
less, or prejudlced reader, to be discrepancy or contra-
diction, where the thoughtful, reverent student, with
elearer insight, diseern5 the uuderlying harmony.--
Ibid. p. 25.
Ellen White's Bibl1cal Hermeneutic
Hermeneuticsl prlnclples snd procedures followed today by
censervative Bible scholars vere not in general use during Ellen
White'g lifetime. Shc nevertheless recognized these principles,
advocated their se. aad demonstrated them in her own exposition
of Scripture. For instance, ahe commends attention to such things
as the historieal setting, the writer'a personal characterlstics
and cultural background, his literary form snd purpose in writlng.
the werds, the context, the analogy of Scripture, textual variant',
inaccuracies of translstlon, and literal/figurative language.
When her purpose in wrlting and her mode of expression are taken
into account, her use of Scripture comports both with the way In
which later inspired weiters of the Bible made use of earlier
inspired writings and wlth sound contemporary biblical scholarship.
Although an exhaust1ve analysis has yet to be made of the
biblical hermeneutic commended and praeticed by Ellen White, cer-
tain faeets of it are clearly stated and Illustrated in her pub-
150 A Symposium on Biblical Henr.ene.utics
Ellen G. White's Usa of the Blble 151
liahed works. One faetar that could weIl he given priority in
any future study 19 an occasional exposition of Scripture in which
ahe attributes to a passage a meaning tbat 18 not readl1y apparent
from sn applicstion of the hermeneutical principles aha herself
cOmBends--a practice demonstrated st tices by the Bible writers
t.hem.selves.
What we migbt call Ellen White's bib1ical her-eneutic takes
note of:
1. The Historical aud Cultural Setting. She recognized the
importance of the historiesl snd eu1tural setting and the meaning
a passage of Scripture bad for those to whom it was first addressed.
as prerequlsite co correct understanding of the passage. In her
oYn exposition of Scripture--notab1y in the Cenfllet of the Ages
Series--she habitually devotes eonsiderable attention to tbese
faetors.
An understanding of the customs of those who lived
in Bible of tbe loeation and time of events. is
practlca1 knowledge; for it aids in making elear the
figures of the Bible aad in out the force of
Christ I S lessons.--cotmsBls -to Teachere and
p. 518.
Understanding the words of Jesus meant to
those who heard them, we may disceTD in the. a new
vividness and beauty, aod mayaiso gather for ourselves
their deeper lessons.--Thoughts From the MOunt cf
Btess1.ng, p. 1.
2. The Cultural Background and Personal Charseteristics of
ehe Writera. She recognized that the differences between Olle
writer and another with respect to cultural background and personal
characteristics hove a bearing on understanding what each wrote:
Tb. Bible points to God aa its author; yet it was
written by human hands; aod in the varied style of its
different books It presents the charaeteristiC8 of the
several
Written in different ages, hy men who differed
widely in rank and occupation. snd in mental end spir-
itual endowments, the books of the Bible present a wide
contrast in style, as weIl as a diversity in the nature
of the subjects unfolded. Different forma of expression
are e.ployed by different writers; often the same trutb
1s more &tt1kingly presented by ODe than by another
As presented through different individuals. the
truth 18 brought out in its varled aspects. One
18 more strongly impressed with oue phase of the sub-
ject; he grasp8 those points that barmonize with bis
experience or with his power of perception and apprecia-
tion; another seizes upen a different phase; snd each.
under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. presents vhat is
most forcibly iapressed upon own mind--a different
aspect of truth in each. but a perfe.:.t harmony through
all.--The Great pp. v. vi (1950 ed.).
The Lord gave His ward through different
. toITiters, each having his own indiv:i.duality, though going
over the same history. They do not represent
things in just the same style. Each has an experience
of his owo, aad diversity broadens and the
knowledge that ia brougbt out to meet tbe necessities
of vsried minds. The thoughts expressed not a set
uDiformity.
It 1s seldo. that two persons will vlev and ex-
press truth in the very way. Each dweIle on par-
ticulsr points whlch his constltution and educatlon
have fitted hta to appreciate.-Selected
book 1, pp. 21, 22.
3. Ward Meanings. She stresses the importance of word
meanings snd implies the need for ascertaining as accurstely aa
p08sible the meaning of the words of Scripture in the sense
intended by the writer:
Human minda vary. The minds of different e4uca-
tion and thought receive different impressions of the
same uords. aad it is difficu1t for ODe mind to give
to one of a different temperament, erlucation. and habits
of thought by language exactly the same idea as tbat
which i5 clear and distinct in his own mind. Yet to
honest men, right-minded men, he ean be so simple aod
plain aa to convey hia meaning for all practical
purposea.
The Bible must be given in the 1anguage of men.
Everything ehst i8 human 1s imperfect. Different mean-
lugs are expressed by the same word; tbere is not one
ward for each distinct idea. The BibIe was given for
practical purposes
Inspiration acts not on the man's words or his
152 A Symposium on Bibliesl Hermeneutics
but on ehe man ht.self, wbo, under ehe lnflu-
enee of ehe Haly Ghost, 19 tmbued with thougbta. Bur the
'lords reeelve the iDpress of the individual m1nd.-
Se!ected M6sSagSS, book I, pp. 19-21. jJat!81rn.
Ellen G. Whlte's Use of the Bible
The truths thus revealed unite co form a perfect
whole, adapted to seet the wants of .en in all clrcum-
stances and experlences of life.--Ibid.# p. 26.
153
8y earnest attention and prayerful thought he (the
Bible student] must leam the .eaning of tbe \lords of
truth, and drink deep cf the spirit of the haly oracles.
--Ch1'iet '$ Object LeBS0n6.J p. 60.
4.
struil'l.g
The Context. 'Ellen White ehe
8 passage in harmony \11th lts context:
importance. of COD-
I S8W ehat the Ward of God, 8a a whole. 18 aperfeet
ehsin. one portion I1nking iota and explaining another.
-Early IiXtings .. p. 221.
Scrlpture .ust be compared with Scripture. The.re
be careful research and patient reflectlon.--
R8'lJitilW a11d Hemld., Oct. 9, 1883, p. 2.
In order to austa1n erroneous doctr1nes or unchrls-
tian practices, sose viII seize upen pssssges of Scrip-
ture separated fram the context, perhaps quoting half of
a single verse aa prov1ng tbeir point, Vhen the re.aln-
ing portion would ahov the meaning to be quite the
oppoaite.--The Great COntroversy., p. 521.
[Judas] would iDtroduce texts of Scrlpture that
bad DO connectIou wIth the truths Christ vas presenting.
These texts. separated fra. their connection, perplexed
the discIples, and increased the discouragement that
was constantly pressing upon them.-The Dssti1'8 cf Ag68.,
p. 719.
5. Thc Analogy of Scripture. Although recognizing differ-
ences in time, historlcal background, literary skili, cultural
perspectIve, and indIvIdual characteristics between one Bible
writer and anoeber, Ellen Wh1te nevertheless perceived an over-all
unity in ehis dlverslty and affirmed that passsgea of Scripture
deallng with aspects of the same subject should be
brought together in order to form a more complete understsnd1ng
of the subject 89 a whole. She mentions also the progressive
nature of revelation. whlch should be borne in mind whcn correla-
ting var10us psssages cf Scripture.
The books of the Bible present a wide contrsst in
style. ss weIl as a d1versity in the nature of the aub-
jects unfolded. Different forms of expression are em-
ployed by different weiters; often the same truth 16
more strik1ngly presented by one than by another. And
se several WT1ters present a subject under varied aspects
end relations, there may appear, to the superficial,
careless, or prejudiced reader. to be discrepancy or
Where the thoughtful, reverent student,
wich clearer insight. diecerns the underlying harmony.
--seloeted Messages, book 1. p. 25.
The B1ble 18 its own expositor. One passage viII
prove to be a key that viII unlock other passages, and
in this way light will be shed upon the hidden aeBning
of the word. !y coaparing different texts treating on
the same aubject, their bearing OD every slde,
tbe true of the Scriptures will be made evident.
--Ftmdamental-s of Christian Eduaation., p. 187.
The Scriptures vere given to .en. not in a con-
tinuou9 chain of unbroken utterances. but piece by piece
tbrough SucceS$ive generations. as God in His providence
saw a fittiog opportunity to impress man st sundry t1mes
and divers places. Ken WTote ss they vere moved upan by
the Holy Ghost. There i8 "first the bud, then the blos-
SOl:l. and nut the fruit," "first the blsde, then the ear,
after thst the full corn in the ear." Ihis i5 exactly
what the Bible utterances are to us.--Seleeted
book 1. pp. 19, 20.
The 81blc 19 its own expositor. Scripture 18 to
be compared with Scripture. Ihc student should learn to
view the word aa a whole, and to see the relation of its
parts.--Eauoation., p. 190.
6. Textual Veriants. Ellen Wb1te's recognition that cbanges
have been made in the text of Scripture by copyists, editors. and
translators fmpliea that attention should be given to an evaluation
cf the textual variants. Sbe mentions also the importance of the
Hebrew and Greek manuscr1pts.
Some look to U5 gravely and say. "Don't you think
there might have been some mistake in the copyist or in
the trallslators?" This 1s a11 probable (but] a11
the mistakea will not cause trouble to one soul. or
cause any feet to stumble. that would not manufacture
difficulties from the plainest revealed truth.--SeLeeted
book 1. p. 16.
154 A Symposium on Biblical Hermeneutics
I saw thet Gad had especially guarded the Bible;
yet when copies cf lt were few, learned men had 1n some
instances changed tbe wards. thicking thet they vere
making It more plain, when in real!ty they vere mysti-
fying tbat which was plain. by causing it to lean to
their established vievs. which vere governed by tradt-
tion.--EarZy pp. 220, 221.
Ellen G. Whlte's Ose of the Bible
provide a fair sampling of the various waye in which ahe makes
use of Scripture. These vere arranged in twelve cstegories. soae
cf which could be subdivided sti11 further. In a general way the
order 18 fron the simple (which pose little 1f any exegetlcal prob-
lem) to the complex. some of whlch--especlally the last--do present
$Iomc problems.
God had faithful witnesses, to whom He comm1tted
the truth, end who preserved the Ward of God. Tbe
manuscripts of the Hebrew and Greek Scr1ptures bave
been preserved tbrough the ages by a miracle of God.
--E. G. White Letter 32, 1899.
7. Literal Heaning; Figurative Language. Ellen White insists
on the obvlous, literal meaning of a passage of Scripeure unless
the context aakes evident that figurative Ianguage is being used,
aad that when Buch Ianguage 15 used the Bible 18 to serve as its
own interpreter:
The laoguage of thQ Bible should be explained
according to its obvious unless a symbol or a
ftgure 18 employed.--The GPeat Controveray, p. 599.
Others. who have an active imagination. seize
upon the figures and symbols of Holy Wrlt, interpret to
sult their fancy. with little regard to the testfmony
of 8S its own interpreter. and then tbey pre-
sent their vagaries as tbe teachings of God's word.--
Spirit of vol. 4. p. 3/.4.
Tbe truths DOst plainly revealed in the Bible have
been 1ovolved in doubt and darkness by learned cen, who
wirb a pretense of great wisdom. tBach that the Scrip-
tures bave a mystical, a secret, spiritual meaning not
apparent in the language employed. These men are false
teachers.--The Great p. 598.
Mode. of Vsins Scripture
More tban 500 pages of Ellen White's books were read specifi-
cally for the pur pose of evaluating her use of Scripture. Bach
quotation from or allusion to the Bible was anslyzed and classi-
fied. Only an exhaustive analysis of all of her published works
with this objective in view could provide a definitive ansver to
rhe question of how she uaed the Bible. Such a study would be
eminently worth while. However, the following illustrations will
Category assignments were made on the basis of the fmport of
the Bible passage in teras of its own context, and a stmilar deter-
mination was made af Ellen Whlte's uae of that particular 8ible
passage in the context in wbich she uses it snd aa to her evident
purpose in uslng it. For eacb category one or more illustrations
are given. Almost Gny two of the thirteen categories have certain
eleaents in common, end often one passage cited as illustrative of
a category might also serve to illustrate one or more other cate-
gories. In such instances assignment i8 more or less arbitrary
althougb usually made on the basis of the most norevorrhy fsctar
involved.
1. Direcr Quotation. in which ahe narrates 3n event or dis-
CUBsee a passage of Scripture in context by quoting a portion of
the passage:
"And Jesus being full of tbe Holy Gbost returned
from Jordan. and was led by the Spirit !nto the wilder-
aess." The words of Hark are still ItOre signlficant.
He says. "1nInediate1y the Spirit driveth Him into the
wilderness. And He was tbere in the wllderness forty
days, tempted of Satan; and was with the wild beasts."
II And in those days He did eat nothing. "--The Desire
0/ Ages, p.
2. Indirect Quotation. in Whicb sbe narrates an or
discusaea a passage of Scripture in context by rephrasing it. often
using seme of the same words:
So with E1ijah, wbo bad stood undaunted before
King Ahab. who bad faced the whole nation of tsrael.
with the four hundred end fifty prophets of Baal at
their head. After that terrible day upon Cax.el. when
the false prophets bad been s18in. and the people bad
declared their allegiance to God, Elijah fied for his
life before the tbreats of the idolatroua Jezebel.--
Ibid., p. 120.
3. Actual Converaation, in wbich she recounts a Bible inci-
dent in her own words but quotes conversation:
156 A Symposium on Biblical Hermeneutics
Polotlng to ehe stoues which strewed the desert,
and which bad the appearauce cf loaves. tbe tempter
said. "lf Thon be the Son of God. eo=nand that tbese
stooes be made bread."
Ellen G. White1s Use of ehe Bible
One of the DOst powerful cf the angels, he says.
has been banished from heaven. The appearance of Jesus
indicates that He is ehat fallen angel. forsaken by God.
and deserted by aan.-The DeBire 01 p. 119.
157
Ibough he appears aa an angel of light, these first
words betrsy bis character. "If Thou be the Son cf God."
--The Deeire of Agee. p. 118.
4. Hypothetical Conversatlon. in which she either puts words
of Scripture fram an altogether different context on the I1ps of
cen or supernatural beiugs. or creates speeches for the- aare or
less in her own words:
The high honors c:onferred upon Lucifer were not
appreclated aB God's special gift. and therefore called
d h
"T.1'- " forth no gratitu e to i5 Creator. wuy. ques-
tioned this .ighty angel. "should Christ have tbe
supremacy? Why 18 he honored above Luc1fer?"--
Pat>oiarohB and P>'OphBt8. p. 37.
s. Amalification. in which she augments a Bible narrative by
providing additional factual or clrcumstantlal information such
as sn eyewitnes8 mlght give. to 111uminate the narrative by aaking
it more vlvid snd mesningful:
The Lord Moses ta turn aside iDta a rocky
defl1e, and encamp beside tbe sea. It was revealed to
him that Pharaoh would pursue them. but that God would
be honored In their deliverance.
In Egypt the repert was spread that the children
of Israel, Instead of tarrying to worship in tbe desert.
were presslng on toward the Red Sea. Their great
men, recovering from their fears, accounted for the
plagues as the result of natural causes.
The king himself, attended by the great men of his
realm, headed the attacking army. To aecure the favor
of the gods. sud thua insure the success of thelr under-
taking. the priests also accoopanied them. The
Hebrew8 were encamped beslde the sea. whose pre-
sented a seemingly impassable barrter before them.
while on the south a rugged mountain obstructed their
further progress.--Ibid'
1
pp. 283. 284.
6. Insiaht. in which abe pravides tactual information beyond
that whlch ao eyewitness could give. in order to make clear the
significance of the event:
Through the gifts of the mag! from a hesehen coun-
try, the Lord supplied the means for the jaueney ioto
Egypt snd the sojourn in a land cf strangers.--Ibid.,
p. 65.
1. General Blblleal Principles 8Pplied to a specific Bible
situation:
[Abraham's] conduct 11luatrates tbe Inspired maxim,
"Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. "--Patri.az>chs
and p. 136.
"The seeret of the Lord Is with them that fear hiJIl."
Abraham had hOOOTed God. aod the Lord honored hl taklng
htm into his counsels, and revealing to him his purposes.
--lbid., p. 139.
8. Homily. in whlch she draWB lessous from a pasaage of
Scripture:
ICrossing the Red Seal The great leSBan here taught
18 for all tt.e. Often the Chrlstian life 18 beset by
dangers, and duty seems bard to perform. The imagination
pietures impendtng ruin before, snd bondage or death
behind. Yet tha voice of God speaks elesrly, "Co forward."
--Ibid. p. 290.
Heaveo sud esrth are 00 wider apart todsy than when
shepherds listened to the angels' song. To us in
the eommon walks of 11fe, heaven may be very near.
Angels from the courts above will attend tbe steps of
those who come and go at God's eommand.--The Deaire of
Ages, p. 48.
9. Borrowing words, phraaeology. and thought forms of Scrip-
ture to express her own thought. without implylng an attempt to
Scrlpture:
God's vonderful purpose of grace, the mystery of
redeetrlng love. 1B the theme into which "angels desire
to look," and 1t will be their study throughout endless
ages. In the light from Calvsry it will be seen
that the law of self-renouocing love 18 the law of life
158 A Symposium on Biblical Hermeneutics Ellen G. White I s Use of the Bible 159
for earth sud heaven; that the love which " geeketh not
her own" haB lts sourc.e in the heart of God; sud that
in the meek sud lowly Oue 18 manifested the character
of Hirn who dwelleth in the light which na man can
approach anto.
In the beginning, God was revealed in all the
works of creation. It was Christ that spread the
heavens, sud laid the foundations of the earth. It
was His hand that hung the worlds in space, and fash-
ioned the flowers of the field. "His strength setteth
fast the mountain8." "The sea is His, and He made it."
Ps. 65:6; 95:5.--The Desire of Ages3 p. 19, 20.
10. Prophetie Fu1fillment, in which she identifies a predic-
tive propheey with a specific historical situation of Bible times:
That day completed the history revealed to
Abraham in prophetie vision eenturies before: "Thy
seed ahall be astranger in aland that i8 not theirs,
and shal! serve them; and they shall affliet them four
hundred years; and also that nation, whom they sha!l
serve, will I judge; and afterward shall they come out
with great suhstance." The four hundred years had
been fulfilled. !fAnd it came to pass the selfsame day,
that the Lord did bring the children of Israel out of
the land of Egypt hy their armies. "--Patriarciw and
Prophet8
3
pp. 281, 282.
11. Messianie Fulfillment, in which she applies an OT pas-
sage to the person snd mission of Christ:
Among the Jews there were yet steadfast souls, .
[who] strengthened their faith by dwelling upon the
assurance given through Moses, "A Prophet shall the
Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like
nnto me; Him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever He
shall say unto you." Acts 3:22. Again, they read how
the Lord would anoint One "to preach good tidings unto
the meek," "ta bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim
liberty to the captives," and to declare t"he "acceptable
year of the Lord." Isa. 61:1, 2. They read how He
would "set judgment in the earth," how the is1es should
"wait for His law," how the Gentiles should come to His
light, and kings to the brightness of His rising. Isa.
42:4; 60:3.--The Desipe of Age8
3
p. 34.
The quiet homes of the city of David witnessed those
acenes of horror tbat. six hundred yesrs befare, bad
heen opened to the prophet. irIn Ramah was there a
voice heard, lamentation, snd weeping, sud great mourn-
lug, Rachel weeping for her children. snd would not be
comforted, because they are DesiPB of Ages,
p. 65.
12. Extended Application. in which she applies a Bible state-
ment in a sense not apparent fram tts original context or applies
a Bible predtction to a historical situation not clearly evident
fram the immediate context:
"Affliction sha!l not rise up the seeond time" (Nah 1:9). In
context, Nahumla declaration, "He will make a full end; he will not
take vengeanee twice on his foes" (Nah 1:9, RSV), specifieally re-
fers to the destruction of Nineveh, whieh God purposed to destroy
so thoroughly that the process would never have to be repeated.
But Ellen White applies Nahum's prediction to the permanent anni-
hilation of all evil at the end of the age, in a universal escha-
tological sense (see The Great ControversY3 p. 504). The parallel
is perfeet: the permanent destruction of Nineveh mutely witnesses
to the fact that ODe day God also will permanently annihilate all
evil.
"The vision is yet for an appointed time" (Hab 2:3). When
the Lord told Habakkuk to "wr ite the vision, and make it plain,"
that it was U yet for an appointed time," and "though it tarry" to
"wait for it," He spake af the divine purpose, stated in chapter I,
that the Chaldeans were to be an instrument in God's hand to punish
the Jews. In and Kings Ellen White comments on this pas-
sage in its historical context (pp. 386, 388), hut in The GPeat
Controversy she applies it to the experience of the Advent believ-
ers during the "tarrying time" between the twe disappointments of
1844 (p. 392). The patience and fa1th God commanded to Habakuk,
helped the Advent peeple of 1844 relate to the delay in the ful-
fillment of their hopes.
The 1aw in Galatians. The law concerning which Paul wrote to
the Galatians was the Jewish religious system ordained at Sinai as
the way of salvation in OT times. But. says the apostle, salvation
is now by faith and not by "the works of the law" (Gal 3:2), that
is, the ritual requirements prescribed by the law of Moses. When
Ellen White deals with Paul's message to the Galatians historically
she comments on the law in its original eontext. But in applying
the epistle homiletically to our day she defines the lQ';v as "both
the ceremonial and the moral code of ten ccmmandments" and adds
160
A on Blblical Hermeneutics Ellen G. White's Use cf the Bible 161
that-to us--"the Haly Spirit through the apostle 1s speaking
especially of the moral law." Her cotrrDent in The Acls oj the
Apostles 15 accurate exegesis-an expOSit.ion cf what ehe .postle
lntended to say (pp,. 383-388)--whereas that in Seleete.d
book 1. 15 an inspired homily on hov GO<! would have us apply the
same principle in OUT day (pp, 233-235). The Galatians were not
to seek salvation through mechanical ohservance of the ceremonial
law; we are not to seek salvation through -echanical obaervance
of the moral law--or 80y other law. fot that matter.
Ellen Whlte's spplication of a passage of Scripture in a
sense not spparant from its original context is comparable to the
practice of NT writers in applylng OT passages in a sense not
always apparent fram the OT eontext:
Abraham's "seed." In Hs OT context the "seed" (Gn 22:18)
prc.ised Abraham referred to laaae prtmarily snd by projection to
all of AbrahamIs pasterity. But Paul specifically excludes lsaac
and restricts the predlction to Christ. who was the "seed" promiaed
to Adam aad Eve in the garden of Eden (see Gal 3:16).
"A virSin shall conceive" (ls 1: 14). Contextually lsaiah' s
""(17
young woman s :14. RSV) might have been either his wife or
some me-ber of the royal family. In the LXX and in Matthew tbe
term yowtg LIOntm is rendered "vi.rgin" (Mt 1:23). and Matthew
applles tbe passage to Mary (va. 18). Authority for the Messianic
import of the statement rests on him ae an inspired writer coming
later than Isaiah. rsther than on Isafah.
"Out of Egypt lIoy son" (Mt 2: 15) In Rosea tbe "son"
God brought fortb from Egypt is a figure of speech for the Bebrew
people at the time of the Exodus. but Matthew uaes the stateoent
as a prediction of Jesus' return frollo 19ypt. Christ was God's
Son in a personal sense as Israel was in a corporate metaphor1cal
sense. Hatthew than Hosea is the suthority for this appli-
eation.
Oxen threehing out grain. Moses' command not to muzzle oxen
tbreshing out grain bad to do vith literal oxen on Palestinian
threshing floors (Dt 25:4). But Paul twice indicates that the
instruction given to H08es by God bad a cancern beyond the literal
Paul applies tbe comnand to the support of the gospel min-
l.6try and dec:1ares that God had tbis in miad when Be spoke to
Mosea about the oxen (1 Cor 9:9. 10; 1 Ti 5:18). The prineiple
i8 tbe same. but it 15 g1ven a parallel and extended application.
Paul. however. should be recognized as the inspired authority for
the application made of Muses' inspired words.
As these illustrations indicate, NT wrlters often quote from
or allude to OT passages. amplifying the1r import beyand whBt 18
readily apparent from the statement in Its original eontext. Both
are authentie authoritative statements of trutb inspired by the
Holy Spirit.
Conclusioo
Ellen White was God'a appointed messenger to the church In
our day--even ae the prophets of old represented Rim to the cove-
nant people in the 10ng aga. Her role was to convey a message
troc God appropriate for our tt.e. She eonsidered It her task to
direct men and wa.en to tbe Bible 8S the iDspired. 8uthoritative
Ward of God. to apply fts principles to the problems the chureb
und its members encounter 10 tbe world todsy. and to guide them
in their preparation for Christs return.
In her writings Ellen White constantly refers to and quotes
from the Bible in a wide variety of ways. As the preceding illus-
tratione 1nd1cate. ahe often does so in context to illu.inate a
passage of Scripture in its historlcal settins. and often he-lleti-
cally to apply a B1ble principle to a modern situation.
Perhaps the most notewortby tmpress10ns resulting trom this
relatively preliminary sampling are: (1) The extent to which
Ellen White's own thinking and expreesion were bound up with the
Bible. snd (2) the great variety of ways in which ahe uses the
Bible.
Rightly understood Ellen White's use of the Bible comports
with sound. recognized princ1ples of interpretation. which abe sets
forth st length. We may SUDe that she purposed to follow tbe
principles she coemerAed to others. When ber use of
the Bible is taken into consideration. her literary faithfulness
to it fs remarkable.
Dr. Gsr1tard F. from is
as80Ciate professor of 014 Testament
and bibtica! theology at the Seventh-
day Adventist TheQZogioal
where he joined the faculty in 19S'?
He eerved aB a pastor in New England
and taught prevUJusly in TenneeBee.
In his dor:tora1. corrtpZeted ai;
VanderbUt Univeraity in 1970# he pPe-
sented the dissertation: ''Th Origin
and Ea:l'ly History of the Remnant Motif
in Ancient Israel."
PART IV
PRINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL INTERPRETATIOO
10. General of Interpretation
GERHARD F. BASEL
8ll4. TheoZcgica1. Semi7U1.Y'Y
Andrs!J8 Univereity
Biblical interpr-etation 16 both a science and an art based
on a c1early deflned methodology that wOIks with a set of princi-
pIes prLaarily derived froz and adequate to the Bible aa the 10-
spired Ward of Gad.
Tbe knowledge that the Bible 1s in need of interpretation 18
as old a8 the Bible ltself. The isaue of interpretation comes
through in the quest Ion of Philip, who spake to the eunuch read-
ing in the book of beiah: "Understandest theu what thou Teadest?"
and the answer WDS definite: "How can I. except seme man ahould
guide me?" (Acts 8:30, 31).
The need for interpretation rests in the fact that the Bible
was written in a different culture. separated from Dur time by
the distance of many ages. and that it arose under certain apecific
situations. The fact that the Bible was written in languagee
ether than our own ca!ls for translation, and the variety of ver-
sions (translations) compounds the need of interpretation. Inter-
pretation is neeessary on the one hand in order to dlscover the
original aeaning of the Bible writers and on the other hand to
understand the Blble'g relevance for our time. The major dlacua-
sion of this chapter dealing with general principles of biblieal
interpretation finds lts basis in the foundations of biblical
interpretation.
164 A SympoSiUDl on Biblical Hermeneutics
Principles of Biblical Interpretation
165
A. Foundatione cf Biblical Interpretation
I. Tbc Unlgueness of tbe Bible and Interpretation
1. A Divine Author and Human Writers
At the heart of Chtistian faith i8 the certainty that God
Himself has spoken in Seripture. Thus the Bible contains the
divine revelation of God's will and purpose in words and deeds
reeorded 1n human language over aperiod of some 1,500 yeata. As
inspired revelation the Bible has God as Its Author. This divine
orlgin is attested by the testiaony that "no prophecy ever e8DIe
by the t.pulse of man, but men .aved by the Holy Spirit spake
from God" (2 Pe 1:21, RSV). Paul haa writ.ten that "all scripture
is inspired by God" (2 Ti 3: 16. RSV). The divine ori8in of the
Bible i9 the most basic fact and fundaaental rea!ity of Chrlstian
faith.
God bas chosen to unfold truths about Rimself in human lan-
guage despite its dimensions and limitations in order to speak to
uso This twofold origin vith its divine and human dimensions
requires of the interpreter of the Bible that he develop and employ
sound and adequate princlples of interpretation ba8ed on this two-
fold ori8in of Scripture.
The self-revelation of God as embodied in Scripture possesses
an authority superior to any other source of knowing God. This
fact has definite imp1ieations regarding bibliea! interpretation.
The nature of biblieal inspiration and seriptural authority demands
that tbe Bible be regarded 88 the "unerring standard" 462) by
whicb human ideas--vhether in the reabs of philosophy, science,
or tradition--are tested. Althougb it Is true that modern erit1-
eal study of the Bible could not have arisen without the radieal
break of the Reformers from medieval principles of interpretation,
it 1s equally true that the methoda of modern eritieal interpreta-
tion of Scrlpture have come ioto ex1stence in the age of rational-
i8m, snd thus have broken away from the Protestant principle of
80ta scPiptuna. By the end of the 18th century the rational-
critiea! study of the Bible was ful1y developed, and it led to
ful1-fledged historical crltlcism under philosophieal presupposi-
tions that in one vay or another detee.ined and to tbis
day tbe methodologies of eritieal investlgationa of the Seriptures.
Hodern rational-eritieal study of the Bible employs admittedly
externa! keys that deny in princip1e the seIf-interpretation of
Seripture. and thus undermine the authorlty of the Bib!e. Proper
recognition of tbe uniqueness of the Bible with Its divine suthor-
ship and human writers demands that it not be interpreted by ex-
ternal means such as tradition. philosophy. geienee, and the like
but be allowed to function 8S 1ts own interpreter.
2. Tbe Christian Ganon aB ehe Context for BibItes1
Interpretation
God's providence provided the origin of the sixty-six
biblical books snd their selectlon and preservation over a 10ng
period of time. Henee. the number of OT and NT books 18 what it
1$' 00 more sud 00 less. Although the historical Investigation
of"development of biblical eanon 1& important in itself, in the
final analysis the authoritative bodies that bad a part in tbe
for-ation of the biblical eanon did not provlde the Bible with lts
authority. The Bible 18 self-autbenticating. It was the content
sud message cf tbe inspired WTitinga funetioaing authoritatively
within the eOTI"lInities of believers that determined the aeceptanee
of those vritings in the bibl1cal eanon. In tying theiT faith to
an authoritative body of the communities of believeTs
sought to establish the truth of theiT faith in ter-s of its his-
torieal and theologieal eontlnuity with that of the prophets and
the aposties.
The affirmation of the ennon as the proper context fOT inteT-
preting the Bible implies that Christian faith is tied to a par-
tieular historieal witness or set of WTitings adjudged to eontain
the "rule of faith
u
(l'egula fidiJ fOT the lUe of the cOIlmlUnity
of faith. In the foraation of the eanon tbe comounity of i8ith
acknowledged tbat God eODtinues to lIlake known His will and pur pose
to His ehureh thTough the medium of Seripture, whieh 15 not
a memorial of the past but also the bearer of life for the preaent
and the future. Implieit in the use of the canon as a context for
interpreting the Bible is rejeetion of the mtthod that would im-
priso
n
the Bible vithin astriet eontext of the historieal pas
t

Appeal to the 8criptural eanon based on the position that the

Bible i9 a vehiele of divine reality, whieh indeed eneountered an
aneient people in the historien! past but eontinues to confront
the ehurch and men through its pages.
Reeognition of the eanon of Scripture as the eontext for
interpretation of the Bible has extraordinary hermeneutieal impli-
eations. It 18 to be aeknow!edged that today man no longeT stands
in basic harmony with biblical falth, and thus he conduets his
investigation from a uaiverse constructed outside the realities
of faith. A major break from earIy Protestant of
the Bible eame through the development of the hLstor1cal-critieal
J:Detbod, beginning with the age of enlightetllllent. This change haB
brought about a relatively new relation of man to the Bible.
The historieal-critieal method werks on three basic prlnciples:
166
A on Blblical Rermeneutics Principles of Biblical Interpretation 167
(1) Correlation. (2) analogy. aud (3) critlcism (E. Troeltsch).
On the basis of the principle of correlation It 18 argued that DO
event or text can be understood unless It 19 seen 10 Irs historlcal
context. This meaos that oe critlcal Investigator can make use
cf supernatural intervention as a princlple of historical explana-
tion. because this approach shattera the cODtlnuity of natural
events 89 to cause end effect. Thus the bistorical-crltical method
understands his tory as an unbroken ser1es of causes and effects in
which there 18 00 roam for God
1
s activity. Accordingly, historieal
events must be explalned by earlier historlcal causee sud under-
stood in terms of other historicsl experiences. On the other hand
ehe Bibleis claim of God's 8upematural iot.ervention in hiscory ,
involves depths of bistorlcal experienee and reality that the
historical-critical interpreter 1s unable to fathom (G. von Rad).
The second basic pr1ncipie of the htstorical-crittcal method
1s the pr1nc1pIe of 8nalogy. or the claim that the present and the
past are analogous. It i8 8sserted that there must be 8imilarity
or there cannot be dissimilarity. If the principle of analogy is
employed in this rigorous sense, Christian faith i8 confronted
vith a serious problem. because there i5 DO room in this setting
for the of Jesus Christ's virgin birth. deatb on the
cross. aad reaurrection.
The principle of analogy cannot be accepted in an uncritical
manner. first becausc tbe histor!an haa to construct his analogies
on his knowledge of the prescnt, and it i8 not to be assumed that
the present is known completely by any individual. Furthermore,
manls total experience as to of and
societies is compiex. In addition, the presupposition that ehe
past has to conform to the present 1s to be denled (R. G. Co111ng-
wood). It 1s well known that the ancient Greeks and the Romans
controlled the size of thetr populations by exposing newborn
infants. This fact has no analogy to our pre.ent experlence. but
1t must not thu5 be rendered doubtful. Asound hermeneutic cannot
be bound by the principle of analagy. because there is evidence
not only for similarlty but also for dissimilarity.
The third prineiple of the bistorical-critlcal metbod i8 the
principle of according to wbich aoy historical assertion
i8 only a of probability. According to soce pbilosopher9
of bistory one 19 to apply the principle of crlttcisa psycholoSl-
cally according to the varying mental states of the docu.ent1s
Buthor. It determines (a) what he meant, (b) whether he believed
what he said, (c) whether his belief was justified. Inasmuch as
any statement of probability i8 subject to revision, one cannot,
fOT exa.ple. avoid skepticism concerning events described in
the Gospels.
Thc lengthy and heated di8eussion as to whether the resur-
rection was an Betual event illu8trates the problem the historical-
critlcal method raises. Many pre,ent-day theologians claim that
the resurrectlon of Jesus is a "non-bistorical
lO
happeni.ng. So_
(K. Barth, 'W. Paonenberg, W. Knneth. A. von Campenbausen) , how-
ever, insist on the historicity of the resurrection.
Thc careful interpreter recognizes that a con6istentIy
applied historical-critical method cannat do justice to the Bible
claim to truth. Tbe trsnscendent, or divine, dimension of the
Bible as the Word of God cannot be adequately dealt with by the
historical-critical method. If it vere true that all historlcal
events by definition .ust be explained on tbe basis of cause and
effect on the physical level. there would be no room for God to
act in history, becaUBe God 1& not a hlstorical individual for
whom rbere 15 sn analogy. A .ethodology tbat rules out apriori
the divine action in hietory through word and deed i8 unablc to
deal adequately and properly with the manifest testimony of tbe
Bible. Because the reality expressed in the biblical texts testi-
fies to a dlvine dimension, which goes beyand the self-impo8ed
limitations of tbe historical-crltlcal .ethod, there must be
employed a hermeneutic adequate for tbe Bible to account for botb
the divine and bmTIan dimensions.
11. the SeIt-interpretation of Scripture
1. The Seripture Principle
Tbc classical understanding for the self-interpretation of
Scripture 18 rhe f&mOos Protestant principle of Bota 8criptura--
"the Bible only"--often referred to a8 the Scripture principle.
Tbe Seripture principle--the formal affirmation of the position
that the Bible i$ it8 own interpreter--is based on tts divine-
human origin. 1t Involves the 9upreme authority of the infallible
Holy Scrlptures to the cxclusion of all human authority in matters
of doctrine and salvation. It is based on the Bible's inspiration,
unity. canonicity. and $upreme authority.
Jesus illustrated this princlple when. beginning the
wr1tings of Hases and continuing through the remaining writings.
He "explained to them the things concerning HbseH in all the
Scriptures" (Lk 24: 27, NASB). Adventist interpreters of the
Bible ecnerally have accepted this principle and maintained that
the Bible only 18 our infallible rule of faith. doctrine, reform.
and practice.
Proper understanding of the BoLa aoriptura principle--that 1s,
168
A Symposium on Biblical Hermeneutlcs
Principles of Blblical Interpretation
169
the scripture principle--mil1tates ag8109t the vell-known herme-
Deutle whereby tbe Bible 15 interpreted by the intelligence of the
individual at his own discrerioD. Tbe Blble taay not be subjected
to private interpretation, nor .ay 1t be Interpreted under the
domination of an external ploy such as philosophy, science, or
uadition.
An additional 8spect of the Scriprure principle requlres rhar
a difflcult passage of the Bible be interpreted by 8 clear passage
or clear pastages. Obviously, this procedure .ust not be followed
indiscriminately. Ir would be amistake to bring just aoy passage
to hear on any ather passage. In the process of comparing text
wirh text, scrlpture wirh scripture, one needs to let one text on
a given subject interpret another text on the sane subject (see
FR, 187). By vlewing tbe hearing of passages or texts on the same
subject 00 every side, the interpreter of the Bible is expected to
arrive st the true meaoing of the text (see EvJ 581; 521). A
distortion of this principle would be to take the opposite route,
naaely. to interpret a elear passage with an obseure or dlffieult
on
2. The Bible Hs own Interpreter
The prineipie of seIt-interpretation of Scripture rests not
only on the Scripture prineiple but also on the principle that
Seripture i8 its own interpreter. The Reformation princ1ple of
Seripture ita own interpreter is endorsed by Seventb-day Adventists
(see 190; 521; ete.). Tbe eonsistent ad.onition, Make
the Bible its own expositor (see 511), comes in full recognl-
tion of the prineiple of ehe Bihle as its own interpreter. Th1s
prineiple implies that one portion of Seripture interprets anotber.
As one passage of Scripture on a given subject i8 the key to
another passage on the same subjeet, 80 the OT interprets the NT
and the NT the OT.
The moat adequate context of the interpretation of various
sections. passages, or texts of Scripture i5 tbe Bible
aecording to the aoalogy of falth. God as the Author of both
testaaents asv the end frOD tbe beginoing; He foresav the future
in a way the hu.an author did not, and thus He bad cognizance of
this future in ioapiring the human writers tO wrlte the documents
that are reeognized as Scripture. Although God spake to the gen-
erations contemporary to the of ebe biblical books, He
sav to it also tbat the reader of books in the future vould
find tberein depth of meaoing and relsvaoee beyond loeal and
limited eireumstances io vhieh snd for vhich the origLnal vas
produced. The propbets are not to understood merely as
spokeamen of God for their own ttmes (with a divinely given fore-
knovledge of God's plan of salvation for the 1". ediate future)
but also they must be understood to bave predieted events in the
dlstant future (see 1 Pe 1:10-12).
It i$ evident that the Bible eontains a fuller import and
deeper meaning than ls on the surfaee. For exacple, the prophet
Isa1ah eephas1zes a eonnectiOD between the Exodus from Egypt and
the return from captivity. Such paralle11s. Is based on the
understanding that God
1
s actions on behalf of His people follow a
pattern of fidelity in which the Lord shows Himself the same yes-
terday, today, and forever (Heb 13:8). What 1s expressed here is
that behind each verse of the Bible there atands not only the mind
of the man who contributed to it9 wrlting but in a special way the
mind of God who thus intended to communicate truth for all people9
and all tiJIes.
In letting the Bible be its own interpreter. the person
engaged in biblical interpretation i9 eompelled to attempt to the
best of bis ability bringing together all that 1s said about a
partieular subject frou different tt.es and varied circu.stanees
as revea1ed in Seripture. Also although it is stTongly iDsisted
that the various p8ssages on the 9ame be compared and
studied together, the fullest meanlng of Serlpture will not be
made evident unleas the respective passage9 from the same aud
other bibllcal WTiters of vsrlous ttmes and eireumstanees are
brought together. This procedure i8 justified on the basis of
recognition of the divine dt.ension of SCTlpture as the 1nsp1red
Ward of God. Properly applied, it does not do injustice to the
varicd aspects of the subject as brought out by the several
inspIred writers.
3. Objectivity and Interpretation
Anyone who engages in biblical interpretation has wi11ingly
or unwillingly a certain preunderstanding. It 19 a well-koown
truism that absolute objeetivity is not available. It 1s equally
true that one eannot apply the so-eal1ed empty-head prlnciple,
whereby it 1s supposed that one can drop all preeonceived notions
and opinions. eome to the text fra. a ca.pletely neutral ground.
and engage in biblical interpretation. Although this procedura
may sound reasonable it is hardly dependable beeause if ao inter-
preter of the Biblc knows the biblieal laoguages. for example. he
obviously must have learned the meaning of words and gained an
understanding of grammar that generations of seholars heve helped
to deteraine. And he comes to tbe text with this "full head" to
find to the best of his ability the meaning God has in the text.
170 A Symposium on Biblical Hermeaeutlcs Prlnciples cf Biblica1 Interpretation 171
11. Tbc of Translation
The fact that GGd has chosen to let His divlne thought beeome
incarnate in human lauguages other tban Dur OWD calls for transla-
tions. Tbe Blble is written in three different languages--Hebrew,
Araaalc, and Greek. It must be recognized that these languages
have to be understood and analyzed in the same manner a8 any other
ancient tongues. The insplred writers using the languages of
their day e.played terms that had particular ceaniog in the his-
torieal context in wbich the vriters lived. These words were
employed to conmUlDicate div1ne thoughts to men.
Knowledge of the procedures and nethods of textual studies
is needed for recovery of the original text or closest approxima-
tion of the veriauB books of the Bible. The following three steps
are essential: (I) Colleetion and arrangement of readings in the
preserved manuscripts, (2) Examinatioo of the various readings,
aad (3) Determination of the correct or aast likely reading. A
ful! and proper use vf the rext can best proceed on constant
reexamination of the readlngs in manuseript form, which involves
comprehensive understanding of the of the text and the
rules for deciding quest10ns of textual criticism.
The main objeet of the work of translation i8 to achieve a
new presentation of the original message. The translator must
strive for equivalents rather than literal identity. He must seek
to reproduce as aeeurately as possible the original meanlng in the
of the here end Secause most of the readers cf this
book will not engage in translation praetices. it is not necesaary
to dweIl on this subject longer except to say that it must not be
expected that any single translation will be perfect. Variou5
good translations complement each other because 00 translation ean
capture every nuance of thc semantic emphasis of the original.
No ather ancient doc-
than has the Bible.
whole er in part in abaut 5,500 manuscripts.
ume.nt has bean preserved in I:1Ore 1lUIDuscripts
111. The Goal of Biblieal Interpretation
Proper and adequate bib1ical interpretation seeks (1) to
determine What the inspired blblical writer as God's chosen instru-
ment understood nimself and meant to communlcate to hearers snd/or
readers; (2) to comprehend and expound the fuller import and
deeper meaning intended or implicit in the words of the prophet.
whether or not he himself was aware of it; and (3) to translate
and transmit these aspects to modern -en. making them relevant to
the histor1cal situation of our times.
On the basis of the foundstions of biblical interpretation
outlined above. 1.e tbe nature the 81ble. its uniqueness.
authority. and unity, wich its her.eneutical corollarie5 of "the
Bible only" and "Scripture lts own interpreter" we formulate the
ebjective of biblical interpretation as fellows:
Tbe interpreter of the ible muse remember tbat he 18 deal-
ing ""itb "living onc1es" (Acts 7:38) of God. whieh fact iI:lposes
on him the requlrement to possess reitgtolls tnsight end sympathy
for tbe blblical text. It must be constantly tbst it
Is God Himself who through tbe Bible end the Holy Spirit creates
in the interpreter the necessary presuppositions and the essential
perspective for understanding Scripture. The more comprehensive
the interpreter's experlence spiritually end otherwise; the deeper
and fuller the developoent of his understsnding

the more detailed

his knowledge of the milieu. the time. end the hackground of the
work he 15 to interpret. the better balanced be his judgment
end the greater will be the likelihood that be will discover pre-
eisely what the text menns.
It 16 a mandate thnt the interpreter seck to be objective.
must atte.pt to al1ence his Bubjectlvity as much ae possible if
he 15 to obtain objective knowledge. The more he 18 aware of his
awn preunderstandlng sod presuppositions the more he 15 in a posi-
tion to contral them. These requirements make good sense loscfsr
as they are taken to mean ebat the interpreter has to silence his
personal with regard to the outcome of the interpretation.
111. Understanding Vords
B. General Princ1ples of Interpretation
I. Literal Meanings
I. Thc Original Text of Scripture
It 15 a well-known fact that although Da autographs of 80y
book of the Bible are preserved, the text of the Bible has been
preserved in thousands of mauuscripts. The NT aloo.e 1s known in
It i5 natural to expect that the person engaged in seeking
to understand Scripture begins with tbe smallest entity of communi-
cation. namely, words. Jt can hardly be empbasized enough. how-
ever, that words do not come isolated. Words are joined to other
vorda to make up phrases and sentences. Sentenees are joined to
172 A Symposium on Biblical Hermeneotics
Principles of Bibliesl Interpretation
173
make paragraphB. units. and chapters to form th. individual scrip-
tural books which together campose the Blble. According to the
hermeneutic circle ve cannot grasp the aeanlng of a ward uniess
ue look st the ward in ita grammatical aud syutactical setting In
the sentence. Ihis 19 to say that the ward 19 receivlng lts par-
tlcular contextual .eaoing and makes its contextual contribution
within tbe sentence. 00 the basis of linguistic semantics it 18
recognlzed tbat each seotence with its 9urrouoding cootext 18 ehe
setting that determines the meaning of the particular ward or
term, just as each ward or term in a sentance deflnes by lts coo-
tent, grammsr. snd ayntactical structure the meaning of the claus.
er sentence of which it 1a apart. Thi. means that a particular
term, despite its 8t1OOology, can mean different things in differ-
ent contexts or sentences. We can also put it this way: Whatever
a particu1ar term may mean cannot be arrived st exclusively on the
etym010gy of the term. but only from the connection or eontext of
the sentenee in which it i8 used and the mutual relationship of
word to sentenee and sentence to ward.
Prom tne vaotage of codern semantlcs it is inadmissible
to overlook contextual aeaniog of a word in the phrase, sentence,
or paragraph in which It is used. On the one hand. it serves as
a much oeeded corrective agaiost tbe tendency to read root aeaaing
into al1 contexts. which makes it impossible to recognize that a
blblica1 wrlcer aay have uaed the term wich his own eonnotatioa
and semantlc emphasia. Ihis ls what has been called root fallacy
and etymologizing (James Barr, TM Semtmtics 01 Bibt.ical Languag8
[London, 1961]).
On the otber hand, according to the hermeneutical circle ODe
can grasp the whole only through the single parts, as the indi-
vidual parts contribute to the whole. Ihis implles a self-correct-
ing process of understaodlng tbat spirals into tbe .caniog of the
whole by Ietting each new part fill out, qualify. and amplify the
underatanding reached in reading the earlier individual parts.
At times scholsrs have placed great emphasis on the "etymo-
logieal" meaning of a ward. Etymology is coneerned with the
origin and derivation of vords from previous forms. In other
words, 1t i8 a hiAtorlcal Investigation of the his tory of a term
during usage in a language, or even from prior forms in other
langu3ges.
On the basis of new understanding it must be recognized thae
tbe bistory of a word and its etymological ori&ln 18 DO infal-
lible guide to the aeaning of the \lOrd In a glven context. Ibls
fact 1s 111ustrated by the hundreds of words in the King James
Version that have cbanged thelr meaning radically and In today's
usage have completely different semantic ranges. These considera-
tioos lead us to the for.ulation the following prlnciple: Ibe
proper determinant for the tIleaning"';c-f a \lord i8 the 1Imlediate
context in its clause or seotenee. Ihis contextual priority has
a determining funetion for the -eaning of this \lord. DO matter
what It8 roct meaning or etymology may be. Asound prlnciple of
interpretation i9 to avold superimposing etymology and roct aean-
ing on a ward of its usage io a particular context. An
t.portsnt ald in tbe study of the meaniog of s word ia to see its
relation to metonyas, synonyma, and antonyms.
It is not infrequent ehat a particular ward in the Bible i8
u8cd rarely. In these eaS6S ir is difficult to determine tbe
meaning of the respeetive Lexieographers have therefore
rcsorced--and rightly so--to the study of this particular word
and related terms in eognate languages of available nonblblieal
LIterature. Although these methods and procedurcs have proved
helpful. they are by 00 mesne without serious probleas. For
example. if a particular Creek word i9 used 001y onee in the NT,
how do 1i1e find Hs respeetive meaning? It was customary in the
past to turn to Creek literature to deteraioe lts meaning. In a
good number of instances such \lOrds are used or fouod ooly io
classical Greek. separated from the Greek used in tbe NT by sev-
eral centuries. But does lt follow that the meaaing of a ward in
elassical Greek is the same 8S the meaning of the word eenturies
later1 Is the use of a word by Plato neeessarily ehe same as Its
use by a NT writer? It is obvious that greae eaution must be
axerclsed in the study of euch ten.s.
We oust also emphaslze the influence the lan&uage of ehe OT
(both the Hebrew and the Septuaglnt Creek) bad on the creativity
of the NT weiters. For the reaaon that Christian belief and prac-
tiee not identical to Jewlsh or Hellenistie background, a
"t" db oew eon ent was expresse y the Sime \lords, aeoteoees, and
complexes used by NT writert;. This means thBt the "new contene'
givcn to NT words may have been foreign to the Hellenistie back-
ground snd ethos. Still the "new content" was expressed in words
and aentences used in the Greek language, which .eans that a dif-
ferent semantic funetion aod value was given to the Graek word or
words. Ihis "new conteot" can be recovered ooly by aoalysis of
the basic unit of eoamunicatlon--the senteoce. This recognitlon
leadA to methodological necessity to with great diligence
the .ultilayered cultural and religiaus situation of a Creek word
in extrabiblical literature so as to avoid reading a content frum
one situation and usage into another situation and uaage.
Individual vords .ust DOt be torn out of thelr religie-
cultural moorings and treated in isolatIon fram the total eODtcxt
174
A Symposium on Biblical Renneneutics Principles of Blblical 175
in which they are found. Tc treat them in isolation of theologi-
eal context and phenomenologicaL conception 18 to run the danger
of reading elements of one and religion into the teras of
another. with Inevltable distortion. This would mean that va could
read a pagao nation into a bibl1cal idea. With these -ethodologi-
cal precautions, we are able to venture into studying the back-
ground of words used by biblical writers without openlng ourselves
up to mlsTepresenting and misinterpreting bibllcal thoughts. It
must be constantly recognized that the biblical writers expreased
a "new content" in \lOrds whose usage can be deteI1llined only on
the basis of the contexe in which ehey are found in Scrlpture.
Therefore, the following princlple of seems sound:
Tbe careful student of studies the similarltles and
differences of identlcal words 1n the extrabiblical and bib11cal
languages but seeks to avoid readlng the content of extrabiblical
religion snd culture the biblical usage, because he i8 aware
that the biblical context Ill8Y indicate a "new couteut" far these
respeceive words as used 1n Scripture.
What we have 8tated so far applies not only to the NT but also
to the OT. In the case of the OT the situation 1s even more com-
plicated than of the NT, because the OT Is written in Semitlc
languages, which differ in theiT structures and norms from the
lndo-European languages to vh1ch Greek belangs.
To this problem is added another one, namely, that we have
relatively few extrabibl1cal texts in the Hebrew language fraa
OT times. It 1s for th1a reason that scholars have been relying
heav1ly on cognate Semitlc languages in determ1ning the mean1ng
of words 1n the lIebrew OT. From the last century onward, millennia
of human histary have been recovered io the life of entire civili-
zacions restored to view. When the spade of the archaeologist
uncovered 1cportant cuneiform archives of the Assyrlans, Su.erlans,
and Hittites, tbe brilliant d1scaveries at Ugarit, and tbe archives
from Hari, anc1ent c1vilizations were resurrected. In the last
century the EgYPtian hieroglyphs and Mesopotamlan cuneiform were
dec1phered, and in this century the languages of the Rittites,
Canaanites. Hurr1ans, and others were added. The resurrectton of
Esyptian, Mesopotamian, and Anatalian civilizations has thrown an
unusual amount of light on the cultural and religious background
of the or. Tbe recovery of all this background material has
brought with it a revolution in the understanding and evaluation
of the OT.
In many respects these phenomenal finds from the ancient
world have well-established critical theor1es. The
views of Wellbausen, which dooinated the scene of biblical inter-
pretation at tha turD of the century, no longer are held in their
classical form. The implications of many facts ind1cate that the
Pentateuch--five books of HOseS--a&'3 whole could have or1g1uated
in the second millennium B. C., that '$amnel aetually could have
issued the varnings recorded in 1 Sa 8, and that the first few
chapters of Proverbs (1-7) are samething more than what a late
scribe could da. It 18 therefore obvious that the importance of
the archaeologlcal finds can hardly be overestimaeed, and it is
equally obviou8 that the collateral evidence available today makes
the OT oore intelligible.
It certainly i8 correct that the world of the OT i8 that of
the anelent Near Bast, whose geography, hi.tory, and culture have
heen recovered by archaeology in a most unusual fashion. Humanly
speaklng, the OT 15 apart of this world of the anclent NeaT Bast,
with it9 literature, h1story, and culture. Therefore, the history,
literature, and culture of the ancient Near East does have a bear-
ing on related aspects in the OT. Llkev:Lse the OT shares, st
least to a certain degree, in the contexe in both space and tine
of the related Near Bastern materials. However, If con-
ceived correctly, the OT is not on a par with the extrabiblical
materials that have beeu recovered from the same historical era.
Inasmuch as the OT 1s lnspired Scr1pture it has a share in the
unique biblical context, and whereas it uses words that can be
found in extrablblical cognate!:),8terials, there still is the "new
content" tbat the OT authors thought to express.
Tbis be illustrated by De8nS of a word fouud in Gn 1:2.
Tn ehe present day there are interpreters who suppose that
1s a direct relationship between the word tlfhOm, "deep" (GD 1: 2),
snd the term Tiamat, the female monster of the Babylonian national
epic Enuma eZish. On this basis same seholars malntain that
in the biblical creat10n account contains "an echo of the old cos-
mogonic myth." This means that the descript10n of creation in
Gn 1:2 1s read in terms of the so-called Babylonian creation epic.
On the basis of comparat1ve Semitics as known today it DO
longer can be maintained that the Hebrew ward tehOm derive& from
the Babylonian term The implicatioDs of these new insights
are crucial for an uoderstand1ng of the usage of the term
in Gn 1:2. The wurd does not suggest that there is a latent
conflict between a monster of the abyss and the ereator, if inter-
preted in terms of its own context. In tbis biblical verse
is noth1ng but a passive, powerless, and inanimate element in Godls
creation. To interpret the ward ti'!hm in Go 1:2 in terms of a
cognate ward in Babylonian mythology meaus to read into thc thought
content of the Hebrew term a ootloo. that is allen to it.
Thls example again that whereas the cognate Semitic
176 A on Biblical Rermeneutics Principles of Blbitea! Interpretation 171
languages prove extremely uaeful in bringing about more campiete
insights of Hebrew words, sound bermeneutlcal methodology requires
ehat religlo-hiscorical parallels be considered against tbe total
phena.enological conceptlon of tbe literature in vhich such
parallels appear (cf. C. Westermann. ThLZ. 40 [1965], 489-496).
With due recognition of the limitations indlcated, the esre-
ful interpreter of the Bible cen witb profit earry on comparative
studies by recognizing tbe siailarities and dlfferences between
tbe terminalogy, rel1g100. culture, Bad aDelai patterns of bibli-
cal writers and those of their neighbors. The interpreter will
always be most sensitive to the "new content" of words, which is
predicated on biblical faith and reality. On the basis of these
princ1ples of interpretation one can recognize more clearly where
the insp1red writers hnve forcefully rejected what tbey feIt
irreconcilable with their faith and underst8nding of reality and
the revelation that came to thern supernaturBlly. To take ser1-
oU5ly the meaning and limltations of parallel pheoomena is to
shield onels self agaln.t reading elements of one religio-cultural
setting in terms of anotber. Inasmuch as the method of comparative
philology 16 still Dot refined to a degree tbat aakes its conclu-
sioos sure beyand the shadow of a doubt
l
one must apply the princi-
pIe that terms for words of tbe biblical languages can be enligbt-
ened by cognate languages only wben tbe recover.ed meaning is in
harmony with the iBnediate linguistic context in the Bible and
the context of the biblical .essage as a whole. Tbe application
of this principle makea It possible to avoid reading elements of
one cultural setting IDto another.
2. Nonliteral Heanings
Tbe basic principle of biblical interpretation Is to take
words always in thelr literal sense unless there i5 an unmistakable
contextual indication to the contrary. Words in blbllcal languages
8S weIl as in all the other languages certalnly have meanings
88signed to them that are very different from a primary literal
one. For the sake of convenience such mesnings may be cal1ed
nenliteral meanings.
ldiomatic expressions or idiocs. which are a semantic unit
of their own. bave a aeaning tbat 15 more than the sum of tbeir
individual parts. Por exaap1e. the idiO!!1 "horn of salvation"
(see 2 Sa 22:3; Ps 18:2; Lk 1:69) meaDS "great: Saviour."
Hetapbors and s1miles are figures of speech ehat express
with tbeir werde figurative or nonliteral meanings. The same i5
true of the figure of speech of personification, wbich is used
both in tbe OT and in the NT. The Bible also knows hyperbale
(see Dt 1:28; Ja 1:25).
Without atteapting to be ezhaustive in our delineation of nonlit-
era1 _eanlngs, we also may refer to symbols. which belong to tbe
class of terms or category of words with figurative or nonliteral
meanlngs. Tbe symbol of the pillar of cloud was indicative of
divine guidance (see Ex 13:21) end glory (see Ex 16:10). Exa.ples
of other objective syobols cou1d be multiplied.
In interpreting symbols the guiding principle is to let the
Holy Spirit, who provided the symbol. be also the gulde in 1denti-
fying the symbol. With regard to symbols the interpreter must
exercise eare so as not to fall iota the trap of allegorical
interpretation, where the Hely Spirit does not explicitly provide
guidance. Asound principle for the interpretation of words with
figurative or nonliteral meanings i5 to avoid interpreting figures
of speech beyond the meaning they seek to comaunicate.
A basic principle of interpretation with regard to vords is
to investigate the same ward er tera in it9 usage in the same
book. by the same author, end ehen beyoDd in the recaining writers
of the Bible. Ag this i8 dene the interpreter takes iDto account
the various u..cdiate contexta of the ward and its sentence combi-
nation. He 19 constantly aYare of the purposes and developments
of thought in a particular writer and among the varlous inspired
Bible vriters.
IV. Understanding Sentences
We bave already affirmed the individual ward 1a properly
understood within the sentence and the sentence by ueans of It8
words. Thls reciprocal relationship we have referred to as ehe
hermeneutlcal circ1e (spiraling out from word to entire Bible).
which i8 a structural 1aw of understanding. There 18 mutual de-
pendence of the general knowledge on the particular knowledge and
the particular know1edge on the general knowledge. This meana.
again. that the individual word', sentence, unie, book, and bibli-
ca1 suthor ean be understood properly only within the hermeneutical
clrcle of the entire witnes8 of the 9criptural canon and vice versa.
This 15 the fundamental structure of hermeneutkal methodology
adequate to Scripture as the Ward of God. with its dlvine and
huaan dt-eosions.
In the interpretation of the b1blical WYitings the bermeneuti-
cal circle takes on specific emphasis: Tbe understanding of the
sentence. unit
l
chapter. autbor, or whatever form 19 possible only
178 A Symposium on Biblical Hermeneutics
Principles of Bibiteal Interpretation 179
on the basis of a preunderstanding of the biblical witnesses in
their totality, their origin, aud their kerygmatic intention.
Contrariwise, the total understanding of the biblical witnesses
18 constantly corrected, enlarged. and amplified by means of the
interpretation of the single part.
The exegete in interpreting the sentence will use the most
np-to-date know1edge avai1ab1e to him in grammatica1, syntactical,
stylistie. ete., analysis. An understanding of the grammar in-
volves a know1edge as to whether the original 1anguage is analytie
or agglutinative, i.e., whether the language basieally stresses
ward order or the meaning is understood only partia1ly by word
order and mueh more by ward endings or ease endings. An under-
standing af inflection, dee1ination, conjugation, and other forms
is basic.
Gramrnatical understanding usually is more easily pereeived
than syntax understanding iso Syntax considers the relationship
of words to one another. Hebrew snd Aramsie, mueh as in the ease
of the English language, lost their case endings at an early period,
and so depend largely on position for syntaetieal funetion. The
signifieanee of word order in Hebrew and Aramaie has not been fully
appreeiated.
In syntax, attention must be given to the syntax of the noun,
with its relationship of number, gender, and case. Tbe syntax of
the verb pays attention to the tense or aspect, the voiee, the
theme or stem, and so on. Equal attention must be given to tbe
syntax of prepositions, adjeetives, numerals, pronouns, articles,
and partieles. Finally, one must speak of the syntax of elauses.
An understanding of the syntax of the Greek of the NT must be
seen'in relationship to the syntax of elassieal Greek and to that
of the Septuagint, the Apostolie Fathers, the papyri and inscrip-
tions. and modern Greek.
Outstanding among the reeent eontributions that aneient
Semitie languages have made to a better understanding of the He-
brew language has been tbat of Ugaritie in tbe rediseovery of gram-
matieal forms and syntaetieal usages of biblical Hebrew. whieb had
gone unrecognized and so had given rise to textual diffieulties.
For example, the isolation of a particle eonsisting of the letter
m plus a vowel (-i or -a) in Ugaritie as a stylistie device has
led to its rediseovery in biblical Hebrew (enclitic mem),
Anotber example may be faund in that the letter w sametimes
appeared in the Hebrew of the OT in unexpeeted places before words
where its presence seemed superfluous. In tbe past this faet often
led scholars to excise the offending letter or reinterpret the
sentence with or without more drastic emendation. However, recent
studies have shown that this apparently superfluous, or pleonastic,
W 1s a stylistic device used for emphasizing a ward or for variety
in style. Other examples. where Ugaritic has helped. reiate to the
use of prepositions.
The syntactical and grammatieal eontributions of Ugaritie to
the understanding of Hebrew are of great signifieanee. Any care-
ful scholar and interpreter, of course, will not fall into the
trap of reading Hebrew through the eyes of Ugaritie. That this
danger exists can be abundantly demonstrated.
When speaking about the interpretation of the sentenee one
eannot avoid speaking about poetry. It is a well-known faet that
fully 40 per cent of the OT is ~ i t t e n in poetry, as i8 refleeted
in more recent translations (RSV, NEB, NA). It is not pos8ible
here to go into the ramifieations of the proper understanding of
Hebrew poetry, but it has to be pointed out that earlier critieal
seholars denied the antiquity of Hebrew poetry and considered many
paetic passages in the OT to derive from late per iods. The ration-
ale for this proeedure was based not on the ev1denee as actually
found but on a philosophieal system of unilinear religious evolu-
tion. But now it has been demonstrated that both poetry and prose
go baek to earliest times in the Hebrew Bible and that one ean no
langer maintain that the earliest poetry followed the oldest prose
in the OT. Rere the finds from Ugarit, which go back to 1400 B.C.
and befere, have aided in an unusual manner in rediseovering the
complex patterns of repetitive style in Rebrew poetry. (See W. F.
Albright, Ya:hweh and tM Gods 01 Canaan [Garden City, New York,
1968J. pp. 1-52.)
Whereas the understanding of Hebrew poetry--espeeially its
repetitive style but also other features--has been a i ~ e d to an
unusual degree by ancient Near Eastern texts (espeeially those
from Ugarit), it is not to be assumed that the procedure of eom-
parative study of poetie literature is not without its problems.
There 1s the eonstant danger that biblieal poetry will be read
through the perspectives of nonbiblieal poetry. Although it 1s
true that Hebrew poetry has many similarities to non-Hebrew poetie
literature, it must not be assumed that this means identity. Thus
a great deal of metieulous study, with careful attention paid to
the similarities as weIl as the disstmilarities between Hebrew
poetry and the poetry of aneient West-Semitie literature, must go
into these so-called parallel phenomena. Some have reminded reeent
biblieal scholars tbat there is today the danger of pan-Ugariticism
just as there was earlier emphasis on pan-Babylonianism. These
warnings do have their plaee and need to be heeded.
1SO
A Symposium on Bibitesl Hermeneutics
Prlnciples of Blblical Interpretation 181
Because tbe smallest poetic unit 1a the sentence. the funda-
mental foraal feature of the poetry of the OT 19 the correspond-
ence of thought in succeasive liDes. knovn 8S parallelism of
members (paralLeUsmus menbrorurn). Thc thougbt content 1II.ay be
repeated. contrasted. or advanced in synonymous (see Ps 59:1).
antlthetic (see Ps 1:6), er synthetic parallelism (see Ps 55:6).
Thc paralleliSlll may be both within I1nea and betveen lines. Thus
in Rebrew poetic parallellsm there 18 a balanciug of thougbt
ags1nst thought. phrase against phrase. ward agalnst vord. accord-
ing to the habit of the Hebrew author. (See "Thc PoetTy of the
Dible," Seventh-day Adventist Bible val. 3. pp. 17-28.)
The Hebrew poet had a keen ear for the texture cf words and
knew how to model them Into brilliant effect with devices of
alliteration, assonance, paronomasia, and onomatopoeia. An under-
standing of these devices of Hebrew poetry 1s essential for inter-
pretation of the Hehrew sentence.
v. Understanding Vnits
A unit 18 a larger that 18 made up of a aeries of
sentences or clauses, and it deals vith a partlcular thought or
an aspect of a laTger thought. The understaodlng of the units has
a spiraling effeet on the understanding of the larger whole.
In our discussion of the sentence. whlch i8 the next smaller
component of the unit, we heve nored that in lIebrew poetry certain
structures are used (parallelts- of members and meter). The poetlc
phrases and sentences are grouped inta langer strophie divisions.
Aecordingly, each strophe is the next larger unit. Syametrical
articulation of the thought st tt-es argues strongly for the divi-
s10n of poetic sections into strophes. We may choose Isaiah's
famou8 "Song of the Vineyard," wich falls naturally into four
subdlvisions: (a) The eare bestowed on the vineyarcl, Is 5:1, 2;
(b) the appeal for judgment between the ewncr and his vineyard,
VS8. 3. 4: (c) the of the vineyard's destruction,
VS8. 5. 6; and {d} the interpretation, vs. 7. Strophes are not
all of uniform length by aoy means. Also they do not manifest a
particular regularity. Tbe attempts of scholars to achieve regu-
larity by deletioS and rearrangement of the lines as weIl aa
strophes must be judged subjective. Ezendations snd reshuffling
of the text (as has been introduced recently in Bible translations
such as NEB snd NAB) have no textual evidence to go 00. They are
also eontradicted by Ugaritic poetry. with its analogous freedom
of form.
Since we are deallng with units and their interpretation it
is inevitable that ve touch on what has bece-e knovn in Englisb
as form cr1tic19D, also known aa for- h1story (Pormgeschichte).
Th1s is not the place to diseuss the rise of this methodology in
biblical stud1es fraa H. Gunkel {1862-l932} to the present. Tbe
funda.ental insigbt underlying this methodology that 18 w1dely
applied in OT and NT studies today 18 the premlse that folk memory--
the vehicle of tradition--operates 9upposedly with small units,
often 00 larger than a single couplet of poetry. A scrutiny of
irreducible units of primitive tradition eame on the basis of Ger-
man folklore, whieh recogni2ed and defined the differences between
folk tale, myth, saga, and legend {J. and W. Grimm}. On the basis
of this study the assumpt10n arose that sindlar units reappear--
slmllar not so much In content aa in structure, length, aud
tendency.
The aasumption of a uni linear evolution from small literary
units to large more complex entitiee is now proved to be a fallacy.
This eao be demonstrated with regard to the OT on the basis of
comparaclve study of ancient Near Eastem literature fram about
2500 B.C. onward (cf. K. A. Kchen, Ancient Orient and Dld
Testament [Chicago, pp. 13lf.).
The variou8 assumptions and premlses of for. eriticism as
applied to the OT and NT are ba.ed on the invest1gations of folk
_ary, as we bave in Germanic philology. It 19 highly
significant, therefore. that the results of recent investigatlons
of folk memory by folklorists have called !nto question the earlier
assumptions taken over by biblical scholsre {cf. Th. Boman, Die
Je8US-lJberliefsl'".mg im Uchte der neue:ren VolksJamde (1967]).
Nevertheles9, form critieism has brought about a grester
awareness of external forms and hag emphasi2ed aad stimulated the
appreciation of literary units. Objective criteria must be looked
for that will aid in identifying a unit on internal grounds. Great
discrimination and discernment must be epplied in order to avoid
a reading of one literary form, one basic unit. from one type of
literature or tradition into anether.
Perhaps before leaving this section on units it may be appro-
priate to add a ward parenthetically with regard to the fUetion
and purpose cf Bible commentar1es. Among Bible commentarles there
is great and distinet variety in terms of quality and Out look. In
consulting commentaries the interpreter musr never a8sume that
there 18 an infallible ODe that 19 correct in every instance. AB
a matter of fact, the interpreter must always evaluate for himself
a variety of points of view and the evidence presented. whieh re-
quires not infrequently great skill and technical knovledge. Com-
mentaries vritten by individuals who have a high view of divine
182 A Symposium on Blblica1 Hermeneutics
Princ1ples cf Blbllcal Interpretation 183
inspiration end who manifest a firm belief in the truatworthiness
aud practieal relevance of Scripture are to be preferred to those
wrltten on the basis of different presuppoaltioDs.
The person who seeks to understand Scripture must constantly
keep in miod that commentaries should be taken for what ehey are
and not as instruments tbBt dictate what the Bible says. It is
a truism that infallibility eludes auy eommentator and every com-
.entary. The earnest student of Scripture will rely on the
meutaries that not only are most thorough sud abreast of up-to-
date seholarship but also loyal to the Scriptures as God's autbori-
tative self-revelation. Good commentarles do indeed bave a place
for the one wbo seeks to understend although tbey must
be used with dlseretion.
VI. Understanding Books sud Authors
Biblical books by the various authors form the next larger
wbolea, and they are made up of aseries of units. The understand-
iag of books and authors depends on the understanding of the units
of whieb the books are composed. The uoits in turn are better
understood through the totaloutlook and meaning of the euthors and
the bocks. To speak again in terms of the hermeneutie eirele, each
of tbe words, phrases. sentences, and units contributes to an
understanding of the total end product. But at the same tme ehe
end product aids in the interpretation and uoderstanding of ehe
single part. Understanding the single part spirals to eonstantly
higher levels on ehe basis of tbe understanding of the book, and
vice Vep9Q.
Undoubtedly every interpreter fr9m the viewpoiDt,
interests, and eoncerns that he bad prior to studying tbe partieu-
lar text or book. It .ust be emphasi%ed that the study of a text
of Seripture 19 a proceSB of learning. In the process of learning
one discovers more aud more the questions tbat concerned tbe author
of the part1cular biblical book. the i9sues that eonfronted him,
the problems be was trying to solve, and tbe aaterial aud methodi-
eal re90urees that were his disposal for solving them. This 1s
to say that ideally ooe comes finally to pur aside one's owo ioi-
tlal ioteresta, eoneeros. and viewpotnts aad comes to share those
of the author by coming to reeognize ever more elearly the eontext
of tbe author's thought aud speech under divine inspiration.
Fram the 1nvestigative vantage point the eontext of the word
1s the sentence, unit, bock, or books by the same suthor. Beyond
this the eontext of each of the books of the NT 1s the canon of
the NT aud the eanon of the OT i8 the eontext of each of the books
of ehe OT. Finally the entire Scripture 18 the context for esch
word, sentence. untt, and ather division.
Wben ve speak of the context of the entlre inspired Scrlpture
ve da not meSD to 1mply that the individual huosn writers of the
scriptural books da not have thelr own nuaoces, emphases. snd
vertous contributions to make to the total revelation as presented
In the Bible. Ic 18 imperative. tndeed. to respect the message
snd theology of 1881ah. Jereaiah. Ezekiel. and Daniel, aud not to
confuse ehem with one another, just as it i8 imperative to respect
the message and theology of Paul and not to confuse them with
those oE Jobn, Luke, or auy other NT writer. Bach writer of the
Bible must be studied in and for himself. - This emphasls,
19 not meant to t.ply tbat there 1a no unity of the biblieal oe8-
sage; it is not mesnt to fmply that NT theology 1s impossible; It
19 also not meant to tbat contradietioDs are to be expected
between the OT writers aud the NT writers. The Bible bears wit-
neS8 to a faith in one God, one Lord, oue baptia. (see Eph 4:5, 6),
and a presentation explaiuing that one faith is not an
biltty. But its presentation will be so much the rieher if the
nuanees, emphases, aud special eontributions of the individual
biblieal writeTs are respeeted and allowed to form a unity withln
thc diversity. Thc Bible must be viewed as a whole in order thnt
the relation oE its parts may best be seen.
A proper undeTstanding of the biblieal writers' thought thus
ceo groy only on the basis of the 1ntrinsic metbodology of bibU-
eal interpretation outlined so far. Tbe guidtng prineiple ean
thus never be an extrinsie or externaioDe, whether it be tradition,
philosophy, or anything else. Any external or extrinsie prineiple
of interpretation will lead to some distortion of the biblleal
message.
Although ehe interpreter in attempting to discover what the
biblleal writers meant employs carefully developed rules of inter-
pretation, he differs from the hietorlan of religion (be he agnos-
tie or believer) in that he 1s convinced that through the biblical
authors an inspired message 18 commun1eated for modern man. The
fundamental presupposition 18 the inspired eharaetcr of the eanon
of Seripture to which Seripture testifies. 1t 16 important to
emphaslze that the meaning for the faith of men today cannot be
something dif'ferent hOll the meaning Intended by tbe
bib11eal WTiters for their eonteaporaries. Any attempt to under-
stand the biblical suthors tb8t fails to reeognize a basic homo-
geneity between the interpreter' s meaning "now" aud the meaning
of the message II t hen" fails to brIng eheir inspired .essages to
aaen of today.
184 A Symposium on Biblicsl Hermcneutlc5
Principles of Biblical Interpretation 185
A valid and normative interpretation of the message of the
biblical suchors, therefore. must ascertain first of all what they
meaut. aod to tbis degree it must be a descriptive presentatlon.
The De8DB co acbieve this are not tbe logte er the metaphyalcs of
a philosophieal or sclentiflc system foreign to the bibllcal writ-
ers, however Interesting chis mode of interpretation mlgbt be for
ather purposes. The methodology !S. [aCber, that of tbe self-
lnterprecatlon of Scrlpture. lts empbasis on the literal
meaning of the text (unless a figure, symbol, ete., 18 used) sad
due emphasis on philologieal, historieal. aDd theologiea! research
joined to eupathy for Christian faith.
On the basis of vhat we have said so far ir 18 elesr that a
hermeneutic adequate to the Scriptural witness must hsve fts her-
meneutic starting point in the prineiple of the self-interpretation
of Seripture based on the biblieal teaehtng of inspiration and on
reeognitioD of the total eanon as the valid eontext for the inter-
pretation of Scripture. It has its basis in the recognition that
God is the suthor of all Scripture and that He has chosen human
authors to eam.un1eate His truths 1n human language.
VII. Understanding Scripture aB a Whole
The final ata of all biblical interpretation la Dot only to
understand the single parts of the Scripture, wbether vords,
phrases, clauses, sentences. units, books, or entire blocks of
writings with thetr interrelationships but also to understand God's
will and purpose in the Blble as a whole. We have been counseled
to "learn to vlew the vord as a whole, snd to see the relation of
Its parts" 190).
The emphasis throughout this ehapter has been not only to
understand what the inspired writers intended to SBy but also to
understand precisely what God intended to say in, with, end through
the words of the Insptred prophets. Peter wrote, "The prophet8
who propheeied of the graee that was to be yours searehed sud
inquired obout this salvationj they inquired what person or time
vas indieated by tbe Spirit of Christ within them when predicting
the sufferinge of Christ aDd the subsequent glory. It was revealed
to them that they were serving not themselves but you, in the
things whieh have DOW been announced to you by those who preached
the good nevs to JOu through the Haly Spirit sent from heaven,
things into wbieh angels long to look" (1 Pe 1:10-12. RSV). Peter
indieates that the propheta of the paat to whom these great scenes
\lere revealed "longOO to understand their full import" 731).
Thls indicates that the tnspired writers the-selves reeognized
that their werde had a deeper level of aeaning and a fuller import,
whieh they sensed but did not fully comprehend thellselves. '''rhe
prophers who were favored with the special illumination of the
Spirit did not fully co.prehend the imporr of rhe revelationa
COIEitted to them" 344).
The fuller import snd deeper .eaning of Seripture i8 a meac-
ing that ia intended or implicit in the words of the Bible vhether
or not the inspfred autbor 1s avare of it. Tbe fuller t.port and
deeper meaning is not a reading Into the litera! sense and meaning
of ideas alien or extraneous to it. Tbe fuller sense or fuller
t.port and deeper meaning of Seripture is not something that is
alien to the intent of ehe biblleal words. To the eontrary, it
15 a characteristic of the fuller t.port anrl deeper meanlng of
Scripture to be homogeneous with the literal neanlng and sense;
that is to say, it 1s a development aod ouegrovth of what the
original inspired writer put into words. It se8mS to be clear
beyond the shadow cf a doubt that the fuller t.port and deeper
meaning of Scripeure has nothiag to do vith a threefold or a four-
fold sense of scripture of medleval times or vith the allegorical
method of exegesls. A basic prinelple of interpretation applieable
in the diseovery of the fuller import and deeper meaning of Scrip-
ture is to let an inspired wr1eer funetion in the recovery of the
full meaning of the yards of inspiration.
In speaking on tbe aubject of tbe fuller iaport and deeper
meaning of Scripture, the eontention tbat the interpreter may
understand the text more fully and more aeeurately than the author
h-self neerls to be qualified. The interpreter may galn a more
eomprehensive understanding than the author had on the basis of
the eontext of the eatire inspired revelation, alloving the enttre
inspired Scripturea to illuminate the meaning of a particular text.
"The seriptural eanon can be expeeted to fulfill its hermeneutical
task only if It i8 allowed to beeome active in its totality with
regard to the interpretation of the single book and Buthor."
--K. Frr, Biblische Hermeneutik (Munieh, 1967), p. 65. This
hermeneutical functton of the eanon as a whole also prevents that
seleetive treatment of Seripture known as a "eanon in the eanon."
The understnnding of the text by the original author. on the
other hand. i8 more complete in the sense that his ward spoke to
tbe conerete historienl situation of the people of the time whon
he wrote. Tbis aspect of the text cannot be better understood by
noy interpreter than by the inspired autbor himself. because the
interpreter presumably cannot have a firmer grasp of all the
details aad eireuDstances that vere known by the inspired writer
himself.
Christ htaself showed a fuller import aud deeper sense of
186 A Symposium on Biblical Hermeneutics Principles of Blbitesl Interpretation 187
Scripture when He talked to the disciples on the way to Emmaus,
Ba recorded by Luke. "And beginning wich Moses snd with a11 the
prophet8. he explained to them the things concerning himself in
811 scriptures" 24: 27. HASB). Tbe divine thought6 communic:ated
to the prophets by inspiration were embodied in hUBen W'ords. the
full t.port end deeper meaning of vh1ch these insplred WTlters
the.selves longed to know. Tbrough furCher Insplred revelation
God opened up the fuller import and deeper aeaning of the earlier
words of Scripture.
In speaking of further revelation it DUst not be assuaed tbat
the Holy Spir1t ceased to eommunieate light after the biblical
eanon was elosed. The OT knO'ilS of prophets named and "ho
received revelations in order to give eounsel and 1nstruetion.
warning aDd in matters in no way relat1ng to the
giv1ng of ehe inspired Seriptures. There are numbers of lnstsnces
in 1oo"hieh prophets spake forth during OT and times wbose words
were not recorded and embodied in the eanon of Scripture. In like
manner, when the biblical eanon was closed the Holy Spirit did not
cease to work in enlightenlng the understanding end opening to
the mind of sincere seekers of truth tbe deep things of God's
inspired Word. When Jesus gave the promise of the Comforter, He
said. "But vhen He, the Spirit of Truth, comes. He will gu1de you
into all the truth; and He will disclose to you wbat i& to
come" (Ja 16: 13. NASB). It is apparent that the Holy Spirit will
continue to vorlt UDtil the end of time.
Paul prayed for the believers at Ephesus. "That the GQd of
our Lord Jesus Christ. the Father of glory, may give to you a
spirit of ..... lsdom and of 1"evelation in the knowledge of Hi... I
pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened, 80 thet you
may knaw what i8 the hope of His calling, what are the riches of
tbe glory of His inheritance in the saints" (Eph 1:17. 18, NASB).
Paul here expresses his belief that God gives guidanee to the
community of believers in the understanding of revelat10n and in
providing understanding with regard to the deeper things of Scrip-
ture. God does this tbrough the Holy Spirit on a peTsonnl level
through illumination. The person i11uminated by the Ho1y Spirit
ia always bound to the further revelation of the deeper Hense of
Scripture ae contained in all inspired writings.
The fulier import and deeper meaning of Scripture originates
with God. Tbe words of Scripture contain divine thoughts, and
it i8 natural that an understanding of these divine thoughts.
which could bcar fuller import and deeper meaning. could most
properly be gained by furtber revelation. A safe goide to lead
to tbe rlght understanding of tbe foller iaport and deeper mean-
ins of Scripture i8 another inspired writer. This criter10n and
principle 16 a safeguard against subjectivity on the part of tbe
individual interpreter. Let U8 now turn to a number of examples
that are illustrative of tbe fuller iaport and deeper ueaning of
SCTipture.
1. TyPOloBY
Typology 18 based on historical connections and is bound to
the hiBtorical sense of Scripture. In biblical typology the typi-
eal sense of words, deacriptions. events, actions, institutiOns,
and persons becomes ful1y apparent through tbe later antltype.
Thus the type 1s always incomplete untll the anti type brlngs out
the fuller import and deeper meaning of the type. God a9 the
author of Scr1pture placed within tbe type a pref1guration of
wbat is later identified as antitype. The fuller import snd deeper
meaning of the type 15 discerned uost adequately through further
inspired revelat10n.
We find the corre1ation of type and antitype already 1n tbe
OT. Isaiah speaks of the eschstological return to paradise (la
11:6-8; 65:17-25); Kosea looks back to tbe congregation of Israel
in the wildernes. a. a type of restored Israel (Hos 2:16ff.).
Tbe ideal time of the David1e reign i8 a type of future unity in
AIIos 9:11ff.
There is a strong typological relationship between the OT
and the NT. Stephen pointed to Hoses aa a type of Jesus, the
"Redeemer" or "De11verer" (Acts 7: 20-40). Paul develops a typology
built OD the Exodus (1 Cor 10:1-13). The history of Israel in the
Exodus i8 a type of spiritual Israel (1 Cor 10:11). Jonah's ex-
perience in the belly of the fiah is a type of Christ's reaurrection
(Mt 12:40).
The prophetie anying of Hos 11:1 may be seen as appl1ed to
Jesus in terms of typology (Mt 2:15). The passage in Hosen appenra
to refer to the Exodus from Egypt and a spenking of Yabweh to
anelent Israel. Tbe quotation of this passage by Matthew lndleates
that Jesus, the ant1type, 1s in part at least. tbe new Israel.
Just as ancient Israel placed itself in the bands of God. so the
Messiah. Jesus. placed Himself under the words of God, which are
also fulf11led in Rim (C. H. Dodd; G. W. Grogan).
Tbe correlatioo of "type" to "antitype." which ill of 8crip-
tural or1gin, indicates how the understanding of Scripture a8 a
wbole ill enhanced by tbe application of the princip1e of "Scrip-
ture its own interpreter." The typical sense beco.es fully appar-
ent vith the antitype. Thus the type 1s always incomp!ete unt!!
188 A SympOSiUlll on Biblical Hermeneutlc.s
Principles of Biblical Interpretation 189
the antitype brlngs out ehe fuller ilaport aad deepec meaning of
the type. The fuller import and deeper sense of Scrlpture aa
expressed in typology 18 brought forch by the larger context cf
inspired revelation. Thus It must be concluded that God as the
auther cf Scripture placed withln the type aprefiguration cf
what 1& later identified as aotltype.
2. Prediction Bnd fulfillment
The pattern of pramise or pred1ction end fulfil1ment 18 a
category of biblical thougbt that contains cruclal elements of a
fuller and deeper meaning (1 Pe 1:10-12). On the basis of
the assurance tbat the Lord's word i9 not "vaio" (Dt 32:46, 47),
there is an a11-prevailing correspondence between the promissory.
or predictive, worde of the Lord spoken through His servants the
prophets and their fulfillment in the historical events of the OT
and tbe NT.
Repeatedly the importance of the context of the whole Bible
has been emphasi%ed. Por the NT writers tbe OT provided the key
to recognition of Jesus as the Messiah predicted by the prophets
of old. The OT thus is tbe key to unlock the NT (see !V, 579) 8S
the NT unlocks the 01d (see er, 462f.). Each testament is essen-
tial to the understanding of the other. And hoth shed light upon
each other for mutual understsnding and self-interpretation. Tbc
well-known OT scholar W. Eichrodt expressed his convictions aa
fellows: "In addition to this historical movement frOll the 01d
Testament to the Nev there is a current of 1ife flowing in reverse
direction fram the New Test82ent to the 01d. This reverse rela-
tionship also elucidates the futl significance of the reaJm of
Old Testament thought."--TheOtogy of ths Otd Testament (Phila-
delphia. 1961) 1. 26. Tbc concept of the larger context i5 like-
vise affir-ed (a1though each holds bis own view) by tbe [amous G.
von Rad (Old Testament TheoLogy (Landon, 19651. 11. 369) and also
by the OT scholar H. W. Wolf!, who maintains that "in the Ne..,
Testament 15 found the context of the 01d, which, a8 its his tor-
ical goal. rcveals the total meaning of the Old Testament. "--"The.
HeTllCneutics of the 01d Testament." E8s/lVa 011 ota Teatanent Hero-
meneuticB, cd. C. Westermann (Richmocd, Va 1963), p. 181.
Crucial for the goal of the self-interpretation of the text
is the interpreter'. that the remaining scriptural
testimonies throw light upon the meaning of the individual text
(cf. H. Diem, Was heisst 8chriftgemss? (Ctersloh. 1958], p. 38).
Tbe fuller taport and deeper meaning of the pattern of promise or
prediction and fulfi1lment is not to be found behind. beneath, or
above the biblical text. It 18 inherent in the texts themselves.
Tbe pattern cf prediction and fulfillaent 19 fauod wlthin the
OT ltsel! and 1a not on1y between the OT and the NT. A predictlon
that Pharaoh would not listen to the lsraelites (Ex 4:21; 7:3) 18
noted to have been fulfl11ed in Ex 7:13. Tbc Lord had predicted
ehat the murmuring congregation at Sinai should die in the wilder-
nese (Nu. 14: 29, 32-33). Later it i8 reported that "aDOOg these
there vas not a .an of the. that were numbered st Sinai. FOT the
Lord bad 8ald of the.. They shal1 81,1rely die in tbe wilderness"
(Rum 26:65). There 1s an all-prevailing correspendence between
the Word of the Lord and its fulfillment in historical events as
noted in the books of Xings (2 Sa 7:13z1 Ki 8:20; 1 Xi 11:29ff.-
1 Ki l2:15b; 1 Ki Xi 23:16-18). Maay additional examples
cou1d be cited.
The pattern of promise and fulfil1ment also exists between
the OT predictiens and its NT fu1fillments. It must be clearly
recegnized tbat the basis of legittmacy for invoking the NT in
the determination of prophetie fulfl11ments lies in ca.mitment to
the unity of the Bible. lf the God inspired vith the same
Holy Spirit both testaments, then He must possess tbe right to
explain to us in one what he meant in the ether. Recogniz.lng ehe
untty of the entire Bible the OT pr.dicts the coming, mission, and
death of the Hessiah. which the NT describes as fulfilled in Jesus
Christ. The NT writers maintain consistently that in end through
Jesus Christ the word spoken in the OT in its predictions has re-
eeived its camplete fulfillment. Paul clearly expresses this in
2 Cor 1:20, "For all the p1'Cf1lises of God find their Yes in Him"
(RSV). The hesrt of the NT gospel was the proclamation of the
fulfillment of tbe OT pra.lses. The NT's com.1tment to the truth-
fulness of the Word of God demands an interpretation of prophetie
fulfilL.enta that is harmonious with God'g truth as under8tood
elsewhere in Scripture.
The first of tbe famaus quotations of fu1fillment in the
Gospel of Matthew states tbat tbe virgin birth of Jesus took place
1n order "to fulfill what the Lord hath spoken by the prophet:
'Behold.a virgin shail conceive aod bear a son. and his name aha1l
be called EtrmunueI
111
(Mt 1:22f.. RSV). The Hebrew ward under dis-
eusston in the original prediction in Is 7:14 1s Cabnh which
" .
means a young wamsn of marriageable age" and who generally would
be a v1rgin. Tbc ward chosen by Isa1ah could imply virginity and
allaw that the mocher-to-be was unmarried. and a woman of geod
rather than 111 repute. Various recent translations read in 18
7:14 "young WOIll8Jl
Il
(RSV. JB (margin), HEB). whicb does not deny
virginity, whereas ather translations continue with a traditional
rendering of "virgin
ll
(NAB, NASB).
Thc translators of the LXX chose the Creek term
190 A Symposium on Bibliesl Hermeoeutics
Principles of Biblieal Interpretation 191
meaniDg "virgin." which was not a llistranslation of the ltebrew
term picked up from one of its several posaible aemantie eonnota-
tions. The of the Gospel of Matthew. in turn. quoted from
the LXX. whieh was the authorized version of his day. According
to this line of connection God inc1uded this or prophecy
tbe reference to the virgin birth of Christ. even though tbe pos-
sibility exists that the prophet himself may not have beeo
of it. Tbere 16 abasie homogeneity between Is 7:14 and Ht 1:22f
wbieh indicates Matthew neicher read a new meaning iota tbe 18a-
ianle prediction nor a1sapplied it. Under inspiration tbe NT
writer was guided to unfold a futler import and deeper meanlng of
the original prediction. Inspiration is a sure guide to the fuller
import and deeper 8ean!ng of apart of Scripture.
The fuller import and deeper meaning in a scr1ptural passage
usually tbe characteristic of homogeneity. Tbe writer of
Hebrews quotes the phrase, "'Thou art my Son, taday I have begatten
tbee'" (Heb 1:5. RSV). Although the reference in Ps 2: 7 aay have
heen used at tiaes in the ce1ebration of the enthronement of the
king of Judah in the Davidic liDe (cf. 2 Sa 7:14), the words of
the Psalm refer to the ideal future king, whlch can be most clearly
seen on the basis of the writer of the letter to the Rebrcws. The
fuIler Messianie import and the deeper sense of this passage are
identified by further inspired revelatlon. Here again tbere i8 a
basic ho-ogeneity between the Psalmist 's words and the1r fulflll-
ment 1n Jesus Christ. Although. there was never a time wben the
Father could not say to Jesus. "Thou art. JI'I'f San," there came a day
in time, na-e1y. the "today" of Ps 2: 7, ",hen by the resurrectian
in glorified huaanity Jesus Christ was begotten to a status He had
never had before (Acts 13:33; Rom 8:29). Exa.ples i11ustrating
this principle of interpretation could be aultiplied times
over. For the purpose of this discussion it has, however, become
apparent thot the fuller import and deeper meaning of the Bible
do not conetitute a second sense in distinction or contradiction
to the intent of Scripture. The literal meaning of the 8lble with
its fuller import snd deeper sense share abasie homogenelty aud
that bind thern together.
It should be emphasized that one must not assume that every
single text muet be expected to have a fuller import and deeper
meaning. A genuine and normative fuller import and deeper meaning
8a intended by God through divine inspiration i8 unveiled most
properly by anarher inspired writer. This aeans that there is no
roam for any subjective and private interpretation of the Bible.
because this principle secures the self-interpretation of SCTipture
that we have emphasized throughout.
3. Patterns of Unity
Tbe unity of the Bible, of both testaments, has its source in
certainty that it i8 inspired by tbe same Holy Spirit who origi-
nates in the triune God. Tbe Christian interpreter mainta!n. the
unity of both testaments, but be recognizes that vithin this unity
there is diversity. But the diversity i5 not emphasized to such
a degree that tbe inner, underlying unity of Scripture is destroyed.
Tbe messages of the Bible writers belong so intimately to-
gether that one eao be fu11y understood without the other.
just as tbe OT cannot be fu11y understood without the NT, and the
NT 'Without the OT.
Tbe interpreter of rhe Bible will alvays work co the
of his ability to interpret the Scriprures wirh a view to the
whole. All books of the Bible cao be expected to fulfill their
hermeneutical task only if they are allowed ro become active in
their totality in interpreting the single bock or part v!thin it
as each part or bock functions hermeneutica1ly in the interpreta-
tion of the whole.
RBADING LIST
James Barr, The Semmties of Biblica"l Language. London: Oxford
University Press. 1961. 313 pp.
An exceedingly helpful vo1ume that analyzes BOUle w1de1y
used methods employed in ward studies in current biblical
lexicography, with special attention to the linguistic and
theological princip1es involved.
Louis Berkhof. PrincipZes of Interpretation. Grand Rapids: Baker
Book House, 1950. 169 pp.
A Reformed theologian outlines the history of hermeneuti-
cal principlcs among Jews and Christians and develops his
methods of, grallllllatical. historieal, and theolog:tcal interpre-
tation.
E. C. Blackman. BibZiaal InttwpI'ettrf;;ion. Philadelphia: Weat-
min9ter Press. 1957. 212 pp.
The author provides a helpful overview of the develop-
ment of hermeneutics from rabbinie exegesis to the preaent.
with more exteu.ive attention to the period of modern criti-
cis. and its influence on present methods of interpretation
fra. a neo-orthodax perspective.
192 A Symposium on Biblical Hermeneuties Principles of Biblical Interpretation
193
T. Boman, 'rhought Compared With G:t'eek. PhiladelJ)bla:
WesODinster Press, 1960. 224 pp.
An elaborate 5tudy based on full knowledge of ehe rele-
vant litersture, contrastlug lsraelite ways cf thinking virh
Greek thought In such a vay aa 1'0 create a maximal logical
and psychologtesl courTast thaI' has a definite bearing on
biblical interpretation.
Kurt Fror. Biblische Hermeneutik. 3d cd. Munieh: ehr. Kaiser
Verlag. 1961. 408 pp.
A comprehens1ve work on the nature and structure of
biblical herceneutlcs with emphasis 00 the function of the
bistorical-critical method, the hermeneutical circle, canon,
I1terary context, unity of Scripture, etc., vrltten
from a ltOderately liberal perspectlve.
J. C. K. von Hofaann
l
InterpNting the Bible. Mlnneapolis:
Augsburg Publ. House l 1959.
Thls work (first published posthumoualy 1n 1880 in
German) haa become a class1c in the field of conservative
werks on hermeneut1c.
Simon Kistemaker. ed Interpreting God's Ward 'rarJay. Grand Rap1ds:
Baker Book House. 1970. 313 pp.
A symposium of seven articles written by an international
team of evangelical scholars focuslng on the historlcity of
Genesis (esp. ehe. 1-11). event and interpretation 1n the OT,
the interpretation of the Gospels and the resurrection, and
the inspiration and authority of the Bible.
A. Berkeley Mickelsen, Inte1'preting the Bible. Grand Raplds:
Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co . 1963. pp.
A careful presentation of general and special priQclples
of interpretation by an evangellcal scholar be11eves that
much of the variety in interpretation by liberals and conser-
vatives 1s good.
Beroard Ramm. Protestant Bibliool Interpffltation. A 'l'eztbook of
HemIBneutics
J
3d ed. Grand Rapids: aker Bock House, 1970.
298 pp.
A w:idely used conservative textbook on methods and
procedures of biblical interpretation tbat provides conclse
critical evaluations of the hermeneutical views of schalaT8
of liberal persuasion.
James M. Robinson and JQhn B. Cobb, Jr., eds. I The New Hermeneu-
tic. New York: Harper aud Row. 1964. 243 pp.
An Introduction to recent developDents on bermeneutic
in contemporary liberal theology based upon the foundation
of historical-critical scholarship, the philosophy cf ehe
later Heidesger sud the thought cf Bultmann. The introduc-
tol'y essay on "Rermeneutic Slnce Bartb" (77 pp.) 18 of 81g-
nificance fot understandiog the position of liberal theole-
gians subacribing 1'0 ehe "new hermeneutic."
J. D. Smart. The Interpretation of Scripture. Philadelphia:
Westminster Press. 1960. 317 pp.
An extensive discussion of problems of the interpreta-
tion of Scripture in twentieth-century critical biblical
9cholarship with special emphasis on tbe unity. inspiration.
and authority of tbe Blble vritten by a liberal scholar.
John F. Walvoord. ed., Inapimtion and Interproetat:ion. Grand
Rapids: Ym. 8. EerdDans Pub. Co 1957. 280 pp.
Teo leading evangelical scholars discuss ehe methods
of blb1ical interpretation of Irenaeus
1
Augustine. Luther.
Calvin. Yeslcy. Sanday. Rowley. and Niebuhr aad provide an
essay on the revelation of Scripture.
An aBaociate 88rnoetary of the Genezla1.
Confe:zoence of Seventh-day Adventiata,
D.C. Bince Dr.
Bernard E. Beton BiilWed in evangelis-
educa.-
and administrative in
West Sout'h Africa,
Southern Europe, and the United
States. He ea:med the Ph.D. degrae
at the University of Cape South
in 1982.

'1. Interp'I:etatioo of BibUcal

Ristory. Wisdom, and Poet%)'
BERNAlW B. SETON
A880ciate
General. Confel'e:nee of SDA
Within the rieh varieey of 11terature available 1n the Bible,
a for the categories of history, wiedom, and poetry
18 the cancern of this chapter.
Tbe Jewish canon of Scrlpture recoguizes the law (Torah), the
propheu (Nebi'im). and the wrltings (KBthubtmJ. end arranges its
books according to these elassiflcations. The Christian Churcb
has followed the Hebrew canon from Genesis to Judges, but then has
preferred to bring together the remaining specifically historical
bocks, thus compassing Ruth to Esther. 1t has eben grouped the
books Job to the Song of Solomon in a combined cate-
gary. and its OT wieh the major and minor prophets.
In the twenty-seven books of the NT, suhdiv1sions are easily
defined. Ihe first five books cancern vith history.
then come the twenty-one letters. and Olle piece of apocalyptic
literature--the Revelation of John--brings the entire canon to a
clos
Ihis cataloging, no matter how convenient and attractive for
general purposes, dces not ent1rely meet our needs bere, where ve
are eons1dering the principles that govern our interpretation of
biblical history, wisdom. and poetry. History 18 a term tbat has
tvo diltinct applications: first, to the succeaaive events of
which I1fe 15 composed; and, second and somewhat more narrowly, to
the record and assessment of those events. The Bible contributes
to both kinds of history. lts production and compilation are part
of the hlstorical process, and its pages chronieie millennia of
events that furoisb the warp and woof of recorded b1&tory wb.ile
t.heIll8elves fonlling part of tbe suhstance from whieh additional
history i8 compiled.
Thc part of this chapter that deals wich history will confine
ftself [0 the second definition, to the written record tbat pur-
196 A Symposium on Blbitesl Hermeneutics
Blbliesl History, Wlsdom. and Poetry 197
ports to pin down areport of events that actually occurred in
ti.e. It must be remembered, however. that the Bible ranges be-
yond time, delvea into eternity. both past and future, and thus
penetrates awe-inspiring sreas wbere merely human capacities can-
not adequately operate. This concept must necessarily deal with
a philosophy of history aa weIl as vith the records that comprise
bistory.
Such introduce the idea that history in ehe Bible
cannot be corralled vithin those bocks thet obvious1y eontsin the
cbronological record of happenings thae took place in the lives of
certain end peoplas. It must be broadened to inelude ehe sec-
tions of biblical literature--such as poetry, prophecy. and epis-
tles--that are rav material from which foraal biscory
can be quarr1ed. This approach makes the ent:ire Bible a histori-
cal souree book that aust cOMmand the serious attention of those
who claim to interpret history.
In a 8imilar though less significant way poetry occupies
large sectioos of bocks that are not pri.arily regarded as poetical
--Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, end most of the sinor prophets. Sim-
ilarly, the diat1nctive Semitic production knowu S8 lItera-
ture crop$ up in unexpected places. Those who wlsh to acudy each
subject in depth eust therefore dig in many areas snd not restriet
their attentlons to the formal grouplngs but emhrace the wole
canon of Scripture in their research. Here. however, l1.Itations
of space demand that we concentrate on tbe brand divisions indi-
cated in our chapter beading. other contributors to
this symposium have abIy covered general and introductory material.
leaving 1,18 free to build in spec1fic areas on their foundation.
History
Although we accept the division of the Bible into thc OT end
NT, we must remember that they are but parts of a whclc end claim
the one Cod u cheir Insp1rer. As John Marsh observea: "In both
Testaments the same God offers the same salvation by the same
Savlour through the same actions."--BibUaat Autnority for Today,
p. 189. We therefore need to look at the whole and not er.ate an
artificial barrier between fts two main parts.
Adventist interpretation is built on same definite presuppo-
sitians. Tbcy are outlined in chapter 10 under the title "General
Principles of Interpretation.
1I
Bere they need only be sumnarbed.
The Church accepts the entire Bible as the inspired Word of
God delivered through human instrumentality under the guidanee of
the Holy Spirit. This position. based on an act of fs1th support-
ed by reasDn, deeply affects ooels approach to biblical history.
It formulates attltudes to sreas that are beyand the unaided resch
of man-creation. eternity. and heaven-and also to the .,re prox-
tmate resches of mants own doings on national end personal levels.
The acceptance of the biblical canon involves value judgments and
declares tbat tbe accepted books agree wiCh this overview of world
history. Whea such convictioos are established. the groundwork i5
laid for the oueworking of their implications in the historical
recoros contained in both Testaments.
Belief in the inspiration of Scripture, however, does not
re1ieve the interpreter of the obligation to examine the records
rigorously. Thia call& for textual eriticisII to estabUSh the
reliability of the Hebrew, Aracaic, and Greek texts; for literary
criticism to reach an understanding of what each suthor has
for ward study to detenrine the slgnificance of key words in their
context; aad for exegesis to utllize the results of
such study. But these disciplines are not cooducted in an intel-
lectual vacuum. They are inf1uenced by hermeneutical prlnclples
applicable to iospired vritiogs: by the need to perolt the Boly
Spirit to guide the understanding of ehe records, by recognltion
of the overrid1Dg spiritual intent of the vritings, by aCknowledg-
.ent of tbeir unity. by agreement to allow Scripture to interpret
Scripture, by acceptance of the concept of supernatura1ism. end by
drawing theologlcal conelusions the documents that are studied.
Blbllcal bis tory ralges and answers some of life's profoundest
questiOlls. Whence came man? When caae man? Why came aan? I8 man
going up or down? What will be his end? Is he his own judge. or
19 he responsible to an infinitely higher power? Whence came the
earth? Is it the reeult of natural or divine law. of chance or
design? What i8 lts age? What f its future? Is time endless,
or viII it end in a timeless eternity?
The Bible grapples with these mind-shaking questions; it does
not evade them. it confronts them. It categorically declares:
"In the beginning God ." (GD 1: 1). On this platfo-rm it builds
its whole philosophy; from it atems the Judeo-Christian approach
to the past, present , and hereafter. We may reject that approach,
but we cannot justly deride or ignore it. It commands a most
thoughtful, pOSitive respect and eventual acceptance or rejection.
The problem coofrooting the Bib1e student today differs on1y
in degree and not in kind from that which has always faced manlc.iod.
na-ely, haw to reiate to unbelief in his contemporaries vho have
access to the same sources of faith as are open to hlm. There
never has been universal acceptance of biblical claims, not even
198 A Symposium on Biblical Hermeneutics
Biblic.al H!story. Wisdom. snd Poetry
199
durtug Buch peaks of faith aa the Apostolic., Refor.atioo, aod
EV8ngellcal sges. We da weIl, therefore. to remind ourselves that
the val1dity of teac.hing does not depend on Ha espou.sal by a11
....ho lDeet it. Trutb 15 proud. lt 18 00 c.ring1ng suppl1ant curry-
ing papular favor. Tt tMlst be evaluated on tts 0'00"0 intrinslc
cerlts. and lts devotees must have the courage to ch8llpion its
cause irrespective of the numhers who keep them company. "rl the
Lord be Cod, fellow him" (1 Ki 18:21). and face the skeptics hon-
estly and courageously.
Old Teitament
Many hermeneutical methods have been and atill are beiog used
in OT atudy. They range tbrough tbe allegorieal, mythical. mysti-
ca!, piet1stic, naturalistic, rationalistic, moral1st1c, apologe ti-
cal, grammatical, and hi8torical--with the last tvo being moat
frequently used by the Advent1st interpreter.
The range of or h18tOry 1s vast, Immatched by aay coaparable
document. It covers a :ra.i.n1m"m of four thousand years in deailDg
witll human hiatory and illlpinges on eternity in its references to
Deity. It looks st the Creation scene, vis1ts Eden, Ararat. Ur.
Bethel, Raamses. Sinat. Jericho. Sh110h, Salem. Babylon, Sbushsn.
and Jerusalem, and penetrates beyand hlstory into an etern1ty to
CODe. Becau5e its approach 18 creatlonist. 1t 1s also eschatolog-
ieal. lts pattern 1s set by its theisD. by its consequent crea-
tiontsm, by its insistence that the etemal God i8 st the center
of all history. Tbc student must recognize this OT philosophy and
dRtermine his attitude toward it, for it 18 the keystoue around
Yhich succeeding bibllcal history 1s built. If f1at creation as
revealed in Genesis 1 18 rejected. one i8 st odds with all the
records that follow (e.g. Ex 20, Dt 5, 1 Ki 8. Job 38, Ps 19. Is
40. Hab 3. ~ t aZ.). At the same time it must be recognized that
Gn 1 i8 nOt given as a complete scientific explanation of the cre-
ation of our world and its solar system. It seeks to introduce
God es the Prime Ceuae, the Creator, the Lord of the universe and
of mankind. It sets the stage for Adam and Eve as prominent fig-
ures in the divine plan for a sinless eternity, enabling us to
measure their abbreviated history against that eternal background.
It a190 establishes a vital element in theology: God'g word 1s the
creating factor. No matter how that word functions. embodied in
the Word once made flesh. it 18 the agent that creates everything
,
that ia made (Jn 1:1).
The Exodus 1a a second focal point around which much biblical
history revolves. Its events are centTal to Israel's bistory. It
cannot be excised from Scripture without leaving a gap1ng wound
that ooly lts reatoratlon can heal. Furthermore, It8 typologieal
signiflcance. involving the person and work of Christ, makes it
of vital importance to Christian doctrine. Nonetheles8, we must
acknowledge that lts relation to secular hlstory still poses prob-
leas, that so-e critlcal queations recain to be answered. and that
caution 18 preferable to dogmatism until same vexing historlcal
cODuodru.s are settled.
Agnost1c9 spend co-paratively little time diasectlng propheey,
poetry, or the didactlc and spiritual elements of Seripture. !hey
foeus thetr fire on the histor1cal seetions. especially the Pen-
tateuch. with its records of Creation. the Flood. the tower of
Babel, Egyptian bondage. the Exodus, and the settlement of Pales-
tine. Thili focus gives protrinence to the Mstorieal books and
makes it imperative for the conservative interpreter to be a mas-
ter of thefr contenta, ~ e l l ahle to defend thetr authentie1ty.
Their study .hould sharpen legitiDate critical facult1es. encour-
age use of 1inguistic too18 and grammatical ins1ghts, promote a
grasp of the total scope of history. and lead to a God's-eye view
of the temporal scene. "Reaaon is a div1.ne. not a devili8h gift
to man, and piety aeeds to use it properly, not to apum it. "__
E. C. Blackman, BibUoaZ Interopretation, p. 33.
The exerc1se of resson viII re-tnd us of the many centur1es
~ h a t have passed sine. the latest OT words vere penned and of the
further centuries that flowed by before tbe canon vas fixed. Tbere
was a8ple opportunity for the ed1ting of original documenta before
they took the form in which we now know thelll.
It will also be acknowledged that Scripture 1a select1ve: it
does not a t t e ~ t and indeed could never succeed in telllog the
whole story (see 1 Chr 29:29); neither does it contain God's total
revelat10n. It records all that God saw necessary to lead men to
salvation. When considering that revelation we need to allow for
tbe divine s11ence, reserving room for what has not baen sald as
weIl aB giving'diligeat attention to all that has been preserved.
We ahall also be consC1OU5 of the loose maId iato which the Bible
record 1s cast, and never cease to marvel at the thoroughness with
which the Lord eonveys essential knowledge in so diffuse a form.
This discuraive style i8 the manner in which the Lord of hi.tory
ahose to convcy His revelation.
Part of our ta$k ia to discover the master pattern througn
Spirit-guided study, conatructing a unified picture out of the
heterogeneous pieces suppl1ed in the OT. Ibis can be a fascinat-
ing occupation, tantaliz1ng at times, but faith nouriah1ng not
faith destroying, holding out and satisfying the prospect of
spiritual dlscovery.
200
A Symposium on Biblical Her.eneutics
Blbitea! History, Wisdom. aad Poetry 201
lt has been custocary to Lay great stress on the traditional
authot"ship af-the or bocks. Where such vriters are naaed in the
NT the question of authorsbip is durly importunt beCBuse it in-
volvea the reliability of Scripture; but apart from such instances
(e.g. Christ's citing Koses) the question 18 not always vital to
a correct interpretation of a given book. The 8uthors of Joshua
and Judges are nowhere identified in the Bible. yet c...lrls silence
does not detract fr01l the value of the books. Recognitlon of
multiple authorship sad the work of compilers 16 quite cODsistent
wich lofty views of inspiration (see the Psalus). One should
therefore refrain from making unsubstantiable claims that will
create unnecessary difficultiea for the orthodox and call down
ridieule fram the critics. Generally 1t will suffice to accept
the OT's own claim that it records the speech, thoughts, and de-
signs of the Almighty (e.g. Gn 3:9-19; 22; 12:1-3; 32:24-30j Ex 3;
20; 1 S8 3:11-14; 2 Sn 23:1-3; 1 Ki 17:2-4; Job 1:6-12; 15 1:10-
20; 8:1; 51:16, 22; Jer 1:4-19; Eze 6:1; and throughout the minor
prophets). (See also chapter 1, p. 11.
Further coosideration of the selective nature of OT histery
reveals that it has a co_oo thread running tbrough its component
parts--God's covenantal purpose. ODe event 18 chosen for inclu-
sion in preference to another because of Its bearing on the devel-
opment of the covensnt theme, God's plan for His people and its
fu1filL.ent through Israel and Israel's Lord. let this does
produce a solely Israelitish, or, as soae would say, Jewish b1s-
tory. The Bible has an eutlook that embraces 811 mankind (Gn 1:1.
26; 3:15; 12:1-3; Ps 72:17-19; Jn 3:16; Rev 11:15).
ntla liDe of thought ia oeat1y SWD:llarlzed by tbe German term
Heitagescmchte ("salvatiOD bistory") the concept that suggests.
ameng others. tbat the eriterion for the seleetlon of biblical
aaterial is the relationship of individual events to the total
plan for mankind's redemption. We take this in its broad rather
than narrow sense, for we believe in the histOrlcity of tbe events
rccorded in the Bible. and da not reduce them to the status of
myths. We disti1l HeiZsgeschichte from the records :ather
atraitjacketing biblical history ioto the maId of
as if it were conforming to a set literary pattern. Correctly
coneeived and rightly used. the biblical approach to its own nec-
essarily liDited flelds of his tory can be the touchs tone for eval-
uating al1 his tory. Th1s thought suggests that thers is purely
seculsr history: it 1s p06sible to viev all hlatory as
8chichte, even that whiGh 1s distinctly secular (gesch1.CnteJ. But
unaided man cannot aecurately perceive this salvation element. Be
needs God' s revelatory word to keep him ever conscious of the re-
desptive direction in which all history 15 moving. That ward 16
rich1y present in the OT hi8torical books (e.g., GD 3:15; Abel'e
sacrifice. Go 4:1-8; Noah and the Plood. Go 6-8; the Exodus. Ex,
Num, Dt; Rahab, Jos 2, 6).
A defined, limited concept of progressive revelation i5 inher-
ent in biblical history. There 1s an increasing br1ghtness of rev-
elation as conveyed by man though not as seen by God. Tbe Almighty
1s not subject to progress. He i8 "the same yesterday. and today,
and for ever
Ol
; "183 the Lord. I change not" (Hb 13:8; Mal 3:6).
But man's understanding of God's wsys progresses as be studies the
way the Lord has led his predecessors. Revelatiou provlded through
experlenee 15 cumulative. and thua progressive. and we may legit-
imately look for an increaslng, thaugb not always even. intensity
of illumination on the continuum of hiBtory, while remembering that
"Yonder all before us lie. Deserts of vast etemity." The great
themes of creation, redemption. and eschatology are ae icebergs
with their tips showing above ehe surface of conventional his tory
while their bulk lies hidden below.
An important hermeneutle field 18 OT foreshadowing of Christ,
but it 1s fraught with pHfalls, .ast of which are dug by hind-
si8ht. Care must be exercised lest Dore prophetie message than
the tnspired writers received or inteoded to convey is read iota
passages wh06e primary intent 18 Ioeal rather than futurlstic.
Nevertheless, granted the inspiration of Scripture. It i5 reason-
ahle to expect that the Father ,"ould share Dews of the c:oming of
His San. The devout student is not d1sappointed: he finds the his-
todca1 books rich in type8 and symbols that realize their further
raison d'itre in the NT recording of the inearnation, 1ife, min-
istry, death, resurrection. ascension. priesthood. return, and
reign of our Lord. Examplss are: tbe provision of a ram that
spared Abraham fra. making a aaerifiee of Isaac--Gn 22; Josepb as
the aavior of bis people--Gn 42-47; the institution of the Pass-
over. foreshadowing Calvary--Ex 12:1-28; the sanctuary and its
services--Ex 25-40; the history of Ruth and Boaz as a link in God's
redemptive chain--Ruth 1-4. He traces the workiog of God's hand
in history, sees Him preparing the way for the New Testament era.
New Test8lllent
The general hermeneuticsl principles applied to the historical
writings of the OT are also valid for similar seetions of the NT,
and should be faithfully employed. In addition. the unique nature
of the reeord calls for other special consideratioos.
The four Gospels and the Acta of the Apost1es may be seid to
be a natural outcome, recorded by inspiration. of the experiences
Oll which they are based. A fev meo worked with the most extra-
202
A Syuposium Oll Biblical Her.eneutics
B1blical ltlstory. WisdOB, and Poetry 203
ordinary Person wha ever lived slI10ng m.en. The.y came to be.lieve He
was Gad "manifest in ehe flesh" (1 Ti 3:16). they worshiped Him,
and feIt impelled to share wich their fellows the news that the
San of God had been with them., had dled for [hetr redemptl00. had
eisen and aseended. and was minlstering as High Priest OQ man's
behalf. Tbe proclamatl00 spread througbout the Roman vorid and
led [0 ehe establishment of churches wOBe members needed. in addi-
tion to verbal reparts, wrltten reeords of the events ehat had
given birch to Christlanity. That need was .et by the wrlting of
the Gospels and the Acts.
Few if any documents have beeu so carefully analyzed as have
the Gospels. Every scrap of manuscript purporting to c.a.rry 30y
part of the four accounts has beeu minutely end expertly exa.ined
30d the findings incorporated ioto the total picture of the textual
critlclsm of Christian records. Tbe work continues.
The toward these documents 1s one cf ln-
formed confidence. with recognition that although not all questions
of origin. dating. and re1ated matters are yet aolved, and that
the Synoptic and fourth Gospels still pose problems. the present
state of knowledge justifies aceeptanee of the Gospels as trust-
worthy records of the life and ministry of our Lord. At the same
time. the1r limited objeetive 18 acknowledged: none of the. at-
tempts a full biography of lts Subject; each i8 highly and purpose-
fully selective. chooslng fro. the multltudinous events of a short
Paleatinian life some of the features that illustrate the eentra!
thesis. that "in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the kine"
there was born "a Saviour, whieh i8 Christ the Lord" (Mt 2:1; Lk
2:11). Tbe resultant story reveals ODe who is "so great that He
must be real." and that reallty declares that "the Word was awde
flesh. and dwelt mnong us. (and we bebeld his glory .)" (Jn
1, 14)
The focal point in tbe record is the Resurrection of Him who
undeniably died on a cross. This i5 to the NT what the Exodus i8
to the OT. but it has fared worse from the pens of the crlties (if
that be poss1blel) than has lts predece880r. We cannot aceept the
theology that reducea the Resurrection co a subjective experience.
denying the reality of the defeat of death. the tomb. the
risen Lord, the revicalized dlaclples, the pawer-filled aposcles.
and the victorious church. Wlthout the Master's literal Resurree-
tlon the hecomes s record of false hopes, a movement based ac
beat on s profound misunderscanding. st tbe warst on s dece1t. We
see in the separate and apparently even divergent accounts trust-
worthy reports of the central event in salvation history. Yet it
16 not an isolated event, out of character wich what gees before
and after. 1t 18 in eomfortable harmony with the Incarnation and
the Virgin Birth. wich Creation, the Exodus, and all ehe mdghty
acts of Gad. It 18 indeed the supreme miracle. but It has excel-
lent supportive company in the other miracles set forth in both
testaments.
Had tbere been no Resurreetion there would have been no Acts
of the Apostles, for its recital is a testiDOny to the reality cf
tbe risen Christ. The book succinctly records the rise of the
Christian Church as a Resurrection-based phenoaenon powered by
Christ's representative. the Holy Spirit. But it also is selec-
tive: "lt 18 a few acts of a few apostles at a few plaees dur1ng
a few years."-Bernard Ra.. SpeoiaL ReveZ-ation and the Word of
God, p. 170. In comllOn ehe rest of Scripture. pd especially
with the Gospels. It possesses, in J. B. Phi1l1ps l apt phrase
"the ring of truth" snd i5 largely self-authenticating.
The NT pentateuch presents lts readers with speclfic report6
of many least 35 in the Gospels, with another 12 in
Acts, plus innumerable ethers to .....hieh col1ective references are
made. These miracles are often seen as obstacles that delay or
prevent Bcceptance of the Christian message. There 18 DO doubt
&baut the1r serv1ng as 03116 fram wh1ch great weiGhts cf skepti-
cl sm are hung. but this role i6 neutralized by the greater mirac1es
of the Resurreetion of Christ and the new blrth. which cbanges a
sinner tnto a saint. The God ..110 can effect such wonderful works
as these has more than enough power to heal lepers. restore
and feed five thousand people. "lUth Cod all things are posslble
l1
(Mk 10:27). Such ability be10ngs to Deity by definition. If it
be not granted God ls no langer seen as the Almighty. and the
ultimate basis for belief in Scripture 18 rel1oved. Faith ia called
for, but lt i5 closely associated wlth verifiable fact. and ChTis-
tians can aecept the narratives given in the Gospels and Acts in
quiet confidence, knowing they are demoostrably reliable.
Wisdom end Poetry
For the purposes of this study Job. Proverbs. and Ecclesiastes
are classified as literature. wbereas Psa1mB. Song of 5010-
and Lacentations are classed ae poetry, with each group cross-
ing into the other. Job tnay be treated as both wisdom end poetry,
and the poetry of the Psaw conta1ns much that may be ca11ed 'otis-
dom. of eaeh may also be in other parts of
the Bible, uaking the total field a w1de one. But each elass eO-
farms to acknow1edged literary styles common to Semitle writing.
pravidlng aphoristic ethical wisdom. Proverbs, for instanee,
largely cODsisu of meshaltm (plural of Hebrew "simUitude.,
compariaonOl)-"The fear of the Lord 18 the beginning of knowledge"
204
A Symposium on Biblical HermeneutiCB
Biblieal Hlstory. Wisdom. and Poetry 205
(1:7); "Take fast hold of instruction

let her not go: keep her'

for she 1s thy life" (4:13). Ecclesiastes contains prose. poet;y,
and some Proverh-like utterances--"To every thing there is a aea-
son. and a time to every purpose under the heaven" (3: 1); "Better
18 a pear and a wiae child than an eId and foolish king" (4:13).
Job 18 generally accepted as drama cast (apart fram its prologue,
chaps. 1 aud 2. and epilogue. 42:7-17) aa dialogue in poetlcal
form--"And Job spake. and said, Let the day perish wherein I was
born. Then Eliphaz the Temanite answered sud said. .
who ever perished, being innocent?l1 (3:2. 3; 4:1, 7).
Wisdom and poetry call for a different hermeneutical approach
from that used for history. History brings information and teaches
by illustration, recording God1s ways with man and man's response
to divine guidanee and commandments. The nature of wisdom and
poetie literature leaves room for a freer concept of inspiration,
because such books eontain much of man's musing on his everyday
1ife C'I have seen the wicked in great power, and spreading himself
like a green bay tree" [Ps 37: 35]; 'rI acknowledge my transgressions:
and my sin i5 ever before me
n
[51:3]), and are not restricted to
his thoughts about God. They display the human element in pure
religion CIThere i5 a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the
end thereof are the ways of death" [Pr 16:25]: "Whatsoever thy
hand Hndeth to do. do it with thy might" [Ee 9:10]). They also
represent religion I S marriage with morality (''Whoso eommitteth
adultery with a wamsn lacketh understanding: he that doeth it de-
strayeth his own soul" [Pr 6:32]). Nevertheless. they, as Serip-
ture, also eome under the Spirit's guidance. His influence en-
sures the high qua1ity of spiritual benefits to be derived from
the wlsdom books. A thoughtful study of the Psalms can but impress
the reader with a sense of wonder that such lofty eoncepts of God
were attained in so barbarie an age as that in whieh the several
authors composed their poems. (See Ps 103:13, 14; 139:24.)
The most prominent metrical feature of Hebrew poetry is par-
aZZetism, a stylistie deviee usually eonsisting of a couplet in
which the thought expressed in the first line i8 reproduced in the
second by a parallel but differing form. A simple and well-known
example is found in Ps 119:105:
"Thy word is a lamp unto my feet,
and a light unto my path.
ll
Three generally reeognized primary forms of parallelism oecur
frequently in the Bible, and are illustrated here:
Synonymaus parallelism:
"Reuben, thou art my firstborn.
my might, and the beginning cf my strength" (Gn 49 :3).
Antithetieal or eontrasted parallelism:
"The kingis favour is toward a wise servant:
but his wrath is against him that eauseth shame" (Pr 14:35).
Synthetic or constructive parallelism:
"1 sought the Lord, and he heard me,
and delivered me from a11 my fears" (Ps 34:4).
In addition, there are seeondary forms of parallelism (emblem-
atie, elimaetic, and introverted) with variations on all forms men-
tioned here. The student 1s referred to chap. 10, pp. 179, 180 and
for a fuller study of the subjeet to the SDA BibZe vol.
3, pp. 17-28. The various modes are listed here beeause of their
effeet on interpretation. If parallelism is it can lead
to same untenable interpretations. When its presence 1s recognized,
the writer's intention can be correctly determined.
Few books in the Bible have beeu the subject of so many inter-
pretations as has the Song of S010mon. Some regard the book as an
Oriental love poem or a eo1leetion of love lyries that tell of
Solomon ' s wooing of the Shulamite. Dthers see it as a poetical
reeord of the Shulamite's rejection cf the king's advances in
loyalty to her shepherd lover. The traditional rabbinical view,
which is still held by same interpreters, treats the Song as an
al1egory that portrays the Lord's love for Israel. This has been
Christianized by those who see the book as a depiction of Christ's
love for His church. The most useful hermeneutic is probably that
whieh combines the seeular and the sacred so that the love element
is eventually transmuted iuto an inspired illustration of the
Saviour'g love for His bride, the ehurch.
Tbe Bible student will do weIl to uti1ize the praetica1 nature
of the wisdom and poetieal books rather than to impose rigid theo-
logieal uses upon them. When abused, these books can lead astray:
when rightly studied, they yield rich rewards by impressing life's
leasons upon the student, increasing his knowledge of the way
divine planning works. e1evating his understanding of God's ehar-
aeter. aud quickening his spiritual pereeptions.
Conclusion
The foregoing eornments on the trip1e subject of this chapter
have sought to emphaaize that each of these three sections forms
206 A Symposium on Biblical Hermeneurics
Biblical aistory Wisdoa, ond Poetry 207
an essential part cf the total corpus cf Scripture and has bene-
fited fro. the same creative inspiration as ether portions of the
Bible bave. Althougb 8Ware of higber critical attitudes. we can-
not accept them, for find the sections studled conducive to
belief. haraoniz1ng 'ilith ehe companion books cf the Bible, ferming
part of God's overall plan of revelation. indispeosably contribut-
tog to the total disclo5ure. We find the same God speaking through-
out, guidlng men inro all truth toward one falth and ODe Lord. We
recognize, however, that the hermeneutic task 18 never done. Ir
has explored a few aounta1n ranges cf Scriptural thought: van
undeveloped terrltories await out occupation.
Greek text. The book will help in a close study of the Scrip-
ture under guidance of a dcvout. scholar.
Dr. Brucc's relat.ed works on Luke and tbe book of Acts sre
also recommended.
Butterfield, Herbert. Christianity and Hietory. New York:
Scribnerls, 1950.
A heartening look into history by a Christian scholar.
History takes on ne.... meaning when viewed in the light of his
perceptive analysis.
llarrison, R. K. Introduction to the 014. Testament. Grand Raplds:
Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1969.
A eomprehenslve survey of OT studies fairly presenting
many divergent vie\ls on interpretation and theology. A use-
ful reference work for those who ean evaluate opposing views.
Terry, MUten S. BibHeal. Hezmen.eutics. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
no date.
Although produced in the 19th century. this volume still
merits attention. Hueh of its exhaustive survey is still
valid, especially in referenee to particular sectlOOs of
biblical literat ure.
Edited
West-
BibZia!lZ Authority for Today.
w. Scbweitzer. Pbil.adelphia:
World Council of Churches.
by Alm R.1charcl.son and
minster Press, 1952.
A eolleetion of essays covering weIl the tltle's pramise.
Tbe several eontributors bring a rieh variety of interpreta-
tion to light. Tbe standard of writing is high, the poten-
tial benefit to the reader 18 great.
READING LIST
Anderson, Bernhard W. Und1'8tt:Dtding the o'td Testament. Englewood
Cliffe. N.J.: Prentice-Hall. 1957.
A study of OT hlstory. setting it in a c1ear though crit-
ieal outllne. and enabling tbe rBader to see it as a whole
while still referring to sections of particular tnterest.
But the final ward most be neither tecbnical nor professional;
it must be devotionsi. spiritual. transcending the formalitie9 of
scholarship, opening the reader's eye to the wenders of Godls ways
with man. and to the demands tDade on Deity by man I S ways with God.
Tbe Ward has a continual homdletie purpose. even when handling
formal bistory (eee I Cor 10:11). It tries to share with wen lts
own cternal outlook. but does so only through the intermediary
work of the Spirit. Part of its uniqueness resides in thc neces-
sity of enlistin& the Spirit's aid for arrival st a correct herue-
neutie. The simplest historieal event, the aost eonventional
piece of wisdom, or the most modest of poetie flight& csn be mis-
interpreted without the inner directives that issue fram the Haly
Spirlt's m1n!stry in the mind of the reader. A spiritual partner-
ship such as this will subject the student to Seripture's over-
rUing objeetlve. making him IIwise unto salvation" (2 Ti 3:15).
Blackman. E. C. BibUca1- Intel'pNtation. Philadelphia: We8t-
minster Press. 195.7.
A eoncentrated gulde to bibllcal that dis-
tills the eseence of the suhject. WeIl written against a
background of wide eulture. Adventists will not subseribe to
all its teaching but will find its contents generally help-
ful.
Bruce, F. F. The Acta 01 the Apostls. Grand Rapide: Wm. B.
Ee.rdmans, 1951.
This com.entary 1s essentially for the student of the
,

Dean BMePit:uB 01 the Seventh-day

Adventist 'l'h1lC'togica'l Semintrty. Int.
w. G. C. Hu1.tdoch is pro/esso'!!' o[ Bys-
te:matie theology anti ehaiH.tDt of ths
dspa.rtment 01 chuJ.ch and ministroy. His
di8sertation [al' the Ph. D. degr-ee in
1946 fran the lMiversity of Bil'fffingham.
England. was tmtitled: "Terl;utlian as a
Montanist." The Medallion of MePit
Award. highest 8ducational aua.rd in
th9 Adventist Chureh. was presented
to IJr. Muzodoch in 1972 [ar his eon-
tributi.on to "tha education of the
Adventist miniatr>y. "
12. Interpretation of Sywbols.
Types. Allegories. and Parables
W. G. C. H1JRDOClt
BOA Theol.ogica'l 8eminary
An.dmtJs lJnivereity
The general principles of biblical interpretation presented
in chapter 10 have special applications in the verlous categorles
of b1bllca1 literature. Among these categoriea are syubols, types,
allegories. and parables, which are the subject natter of tbis
paper. For the guidance of the reader these categories are first
defined, then described and illustrated, with guidelines on their
interpretation following. It should be noted that these four cat-
egories may not be mutually exclusive in all aspects. particularly
when symbols and types, and allegories and parables, are camp. red.
DefiDitions
A symboZ i8 a timeleS8 representation of something or
pictures a meaning ratber than expresses it in spoken or written
vords. ReligiallS symbols point beyond to spiritual
reality. The value of religious symbols lies in their ability to
make plaiD in compressed form grest religious truths. They lend
themselves to the expression of faith, and divine revelation uses
them to communicate truth.
A biblical type. by contrast, 16 like a shadow cast on the
pages of earller literature, whieh presents a li.lted account of
a truth. the fu!l of whicb 18 amplified in a later rev-
elation. A type invarlably points forward in time to 1u antitype.
Types are rooted in history yet are prophetie in nature. Their
basic ideas lie in theil' earthly and human couespondence to a
heavenly and divine reality. Genuine OT types are not c.onc.erned
with unessenti.al s1tl1ilar1tles between type and sotitype (counter-
part). They are realities (persons, events. things) of the OT,
whlch later are showu by inspired writers to beve a corresponding
spiritual reality supereeding the blatorieal fact.
An atlegory i8 a rhetorical device that sets forth a hidden
210
A Symposiu. on iblieal HermeneutiCS Symbols Types. Allegories and Parahles 211
meaning not ioplied in the litera!. lt 15 a 1ION extensive form
of a metaphor. In allegoq the historieal value of the text 1s
not &0 Ie 1s the spiritual sense that 18
Often in the Scripture there 18 a point-by-potnt caaparLSon be-
tween the allegory and the interpretation of It. Allegory reads
iDto factual experience 8 beavenly signiflcance not found in the
earthly. allegory was aeidum used by Bible veiters.
A paPab1.6 18 an extended simile. It draws our attention to
the purpose of God by means of a story of human example. Tbe con-
tents of the parable may be taken from nature, political events,
or aoeial events. It aften is drawn from the surroundings of
everyday life. The most familiar kind of parable 15 the story
that il1ustrates one idea.
SyJlbols
The word symbol 1& derived froa the Greek verb sumbatl3
meaning II
to
bring together." Jt draws togethet: events or truths
so that they can be grasped in an intelligent way and made !nto
a coherent whole. In the Bible 1s sooettaes seen as the
U6a of something visible for depicting what 1, invisible.. It i8
a pictorial representation of a rel1glous or theological Ldea--an
object that rightly may be given a twofold 1nurpretatioo. One
of these is the obvious and natural meaning: tbe other is the
ve11ed and often supernatural. A symbol often involves an object
presented to c.onvey sOl:le lesson. A typ1esl example of a symbol
in the OT 15 tbe rend1ng of King Jeroboam' s garment by the prophet
Ahijah. This Tatber sudacious act was to sywDolize that the united
kiDgdaras of Israel and Judah "'ould be rent asunder by war and
strife (see I Ki 11:29-31).
It perhaps should be noted parenthetically that biblical sym-
bollsm. as a significant aspect of Seventh-dey Adventist tnterest
in biblical interpretation, has been seen as pointing to real
events in time and space. Tbe interest of contemporary theology
in religious symbolism wlthln a philosophical framework has never
been apart of Seventh-day Adventist hermeneutle or theology.
In the ares of predictive prophecy, for example. to make the
pred!ctioos of the Second Advent of Jesus Christ !nto syt:lbolic ref-
erences to a hi.gher level of h".an achievement ralher than refer-
enceB to a litera!. personal event breaking ioto history be
seen by Seventh-day Adventists ss both taking unwarranted 11berty
with the meaning of the language of Ser1pture and destroying the
Qntire mission of the Seventh-day Adventist movement.
Examples of Symbols-
Supernatural. Many supernacural symbols are found in tbe
Bible co teach men lessons from God. The flaming svord at the
garden of Eden was a sr-bol that man had disObeyed God and could
no langer have direet eo...m10n with bis Kaker (see Q:1 3:24). 'nie
burrdng bush portrayed to Ho6es the holines8 of God (see Ex 3:2).
Tbe pillar of fire by night and ehe pUlar of c10ud by day were
symbols to the children of Israel that God was le.ding them on
their journey (see Ex 13:21. 22). HiraculoUB symbols of nature are
sometimes employed by God to demonstrate His care for His people.
Prophets were frequentIy shown symbols in vision that assisted
them in portraying God
1
s messsge to men. Amos saw a basket of sum-
mer fruH, which was God' s way of telling him the hat:Vest of sin
for Israel was ripe (Amos 8). Jeremiah was shown bad and good figs
to represent bHo diatinct clas!es of people (see Jer 24). Zeeh-
ariah's two olive trees providing ample oi1 to glve light indieate
that God does not leave us in darkness, but light is provided for
those wbo trust Bim (see Zec 4).
Sanctuarv. There 18 a richly developed symbollsm foll of
spiritual 1essons in the Moaaic system. Tbe eourt surrounding the
tabernacle enclosed tbe brazen altar of burnt offer1ng and tbe
laver of "ashing. Here sacrifices were made, and sinners e%peri-
enced the cleansing power of the blood. Five different offerings
were made upan the altar. Tbe morning and evening sacrifice was
a sr-bol of Christ
1
s continual intet:cession for the sinner. The
.eat offering acknowledged God's ownersbip. Tbe peace offering
recognized Christ as the Prlo.C8 of Peace. The sio offering sym.-
bolized the bearing of sins on the cross. and the trespa8a offer-
lng showed that Christ haa takeD care of all acknowledged guilt.
In the Ho1y Place the tabla of showbread was a symbol of
Christ as the bread of life (see 'Jn 6:51). The incense ascending
from the altar assures us that our prayers are heard in beaven
(see Rev 5:8). The seven branched golden candiestick was emblem-
atie of Him who 1s the light of the vorid (see Jn 8:12). Tbc ark
in the Most Holy Place speaks of the sacred eharacter of God's
law. and the .ercy seat portrays God' s mercy beiDg extended to the
repentant s!nner. OVer and above all, the holy Shek1nah of God's
presence was ..anifested betw-een the cherubb. vbo thus have an
in diate relation to God.
New TestameDt. In the NT the Lord's supper supercedes tbe
Passover as a symbol. cODveylng to U8 in meaning the broken body
and shed blood of Jesus Christ. Tbe mode of baptism i9 a symbol
of our dying to the old 1ife of sin and rising to "alk in the
212 A Symposium on Biblical Hermeneutics
Symbols. Types. and Parables
213
Types
3. Let the expositor be aware of possible double imagery in
synbols, since the same symbol Day have more than ooe meaning. A
lion. for example. 1s a syubol of bOUl Christ and Satan.
Tbrough the centur!es certsin expositors have seen uo rela-
tionshlp between t.be OT and NT and, like Marcion (2d cent.) in the
early church. haye rejected the ent1re OT. Others. like Origen
(ca. 250 A.D.) , have gone to the opposite extre.e and have read
iDto tbe OT and faneiful allegorleal interpretations.
Cd) Comparc studies of Semitic and neighboring cultures,
possibly aB revealed by archeology. ""hich msy reveal the mean-
ing of a bibl1cal symoL
If sucb investigations do not reveal any clues to un-
int.erpreted in ehe text. Ramm sdvises tbat "it 1s ""iser to be si-
lent thau to speculate."
its
set-
clues to
cultural
using ehe same symbol for
Consider tbe nature of the symbol for
Take eare not to read the expositor's
the biblical.
Study ocher references
ies meanlng.
(b)
a clue Co
(cl
meaning.
ting into
Often there 1s significance at.tached to the color of the
bol. John presentB the four horses at the opening of the four
seals as distinctive in color (ReV 6:1-8). The ""hite borse pre-
sents the conqueror in all his purity. The red horse speaks of
war and bloodshed. The black horse depicts famine. The pale
horse suggest. sickness, death, and Hades. Tbe seven visla of
Rev 15. 16 speak of the total destruction of the wicked. The enemy
of a11 goad i8 represented aa a acarlet co1ored besst with aeven
heads and ten horns (Rev 17:3).
rlghteousnees of <:11rist's 11fe. Christian communion and Christian
baptism must be taken seriously by ehe Cbrlsclan. In studying the
emblems of ehe bread and ehe wine, ehe believer understands the
sytrilolic significance of eM expression "feediog on Christ."
Apocalyptic. Apocalypcic literature abounds in symbols, and
ehe images presented in such writings help UB CO interpret other
objecCs often p!aced in a future or eschacological setting. There
sre 00 books of ehe Bible rieher in symbols chan the book of Dan-
leI aud ehe Apoca!ypse of John. In the secand chapcer of Daniel,
Nebuchadnezzsr sees the world powers aB an awe-iIl6piring hilBen
statue. Rut in the seyenth chapter the prophet Daniel sees these
same 'World empires aB cruel ravenous beasts-a lioo. a bear. a
leopard. and a hideous nondescript. Nebuchadnezzar sees these
earthly kingdoms in aajesty, but Daniel them reduced to the
level of beasts.
Interpretation of Symbols
!here are biblic.a.1. ex:pos1tors w"ho so depreciate the use of
symbols that tbey leave them without any theologieal significance,
and others may grossly exaggerate their importanee, but the strang
presence of biblical symbols requires that. the serlous and con-
servative biblieal scholar give them more chan casusl considera-
tion. An effective exemplar of such scholarship i9 Bernard Ramm,
who suggests ehe following rules for the interpretation of biblical
symbols (Proteetant 13ibUca'l. Interpretation.. pp. 214, 215):
Te a degree. ehe me.aning given to types detena:1nes the view
one p1aces on the OT in relatioo to the !hat tbe NT ""riters
used OT types in their exegesis of the Word of God i5 ",,1thout.
queatlon. A notable example 1s fouod io Rom 5:14. where Paul sets
forth Adam as a type "of Him ehat was to come" (tup08 tau mlZQ1-
tos). 1 Cer 10:11. KSV. cites the experience of the Iaraelite.
in their wilderness wanderings ud affirms, uNow these things hap-
P
ended to them as a warning [tupiks]. but they were written down
" for our instruction, upon whom the end of the ages has come.
2. Yheo symbo1iSlr. 1s not interpTeted by Scripture. interpre-
tation sbould be sought by the following method:
1. Symbols interpreted by the Scriptures tbemBelves provide
sure ground for all furl:her studies in symbolism.
(a)
ponding
Exacine the cootext thoroughly, for the idea corres-
to the sY"i>ol might thus be reveaJ.ed.
Characteristics of Types
Types do not partak.e of I:he nature.of unrealities. TItey are
grounded in history. As the uplifted brass serpent saved those
who looked upen 1t in faith. so all wbo with up1ifted faith beho1d
the Son of God on the cross may receive salvation from the deadly
effect of sin (Jn 3:14). !bis OT event 1s typica1 of the NT event
of Christ's death 00 the cross. Types tend to look forward to
ultimate realities. They involye a higher applicatioo of meaDing.
The ear1ier events become more significant in the later. The
214 A Symposiua on BlbI1eal Hermencutics
Symbols. Types, Allegories. and PaTables 215
offering of lsaae by Abraham con be considered a type of Godts
offering of Bis only begatten Son (cf. Heb 11:17-19),
Types frequently have spiritual meaning fot borh the times
vhen they were given and the future. Especially are the OT types
Important to interpretation of the NT, so tbat there is great 1098
in attecpts to separate the study of the NT {rom a careful exeget-
ica1 sud theologlcal exposition of the OT.
Care must be exercised to different1ate between type and pre-
dict1on. Although a type has reference to the future, 1t 18 not
in itself aprediction. Rather, it 19 recorded as a historical
fact without evident reference to the future. The antitype proves
co be the "body" of which the type was a foreshadowing. and thus
18 a more vital and u1t1mate reality than the type.
Types and the Sanctuary Services
A notable example ef a heavenly reality i5 the heavenly sanc-
tuary. God showed Hoses on Hount Sinai a tabentt, or model, and
asked hilD to coostruct a buUding on earth aft"er- the beavenly pat-
tern (Ex 25:9, 10).
Israel's annua! festivals, same of which called the nation
(partlcular!y the males) to appear st the. sanctuary, had both a
backward and a forward look. There was definite correspondence
in these types of the coming ministry of Christ as the great High
Priest, who after having offered Hlmself as a sacrifice for man's
ains rose from the dead end ascended to heaven to continue His
intercess10n as c..an's substitute.
Ouring the Jewish year there were [WO group8 of holy convo-
cat1ons--one in the spring, the other in the fall. In the first
group the Passover was of outatanding impartance. and in the sec-
and the Day of Atonement was preeminent. The services on these
oCc8sions are described 1n detail in Ex 12, Lev 16 aud 23. These
yearly feasts may be slImmarized as fellows:
1. The Passover (end Feast of Unleavened Bread), to which
811 males were called. WQ6 a type of the death of Christ (see Lev
23:4-8; cf. 1 Cor 5:7. 9).
2. The Peast of First Prufts, or Feast of Weeks, to which
all males vere called, was 8 presentation before t.he Lord of the
first ripe sheaf. and oet lts antitype in Christ's resurrection
and a9cension to His Father (Lev 23:9-14; cf. 1 Gor 15:20).
3. The Day of Penteco6t, closely related to the Feast of
First reu1ts
l
found irs first and partial typical counterpart in
the ourpouring of the Holy Spirit on the early chuych co tbat very
day (Lev 23:15-21; cf. Acts 2:1-4).
Theae three feasts obaerved in the first months of the Jewish
year reprsssnted important events in the of Christ. Tbe
remaiaiag special days were observed in tbe seventh mantb.
4. The Feast of Trumpets, the sounding of an alarm :in view
of the approaching Day of Atoneroent, represented the $ounding of
a similar alarm preceding the antitypical work of judgment led by
Christ (Lev 23:23, 24; cf. Rev 14:6, 7).
5. Tbe Day of Atonement, or the cleansing of the sanctuary,
represented the concluding work of Christ in the heavenly sanctu-
ary (Lev 23:26-32; Dan 8:13, 14; cf. epistle to the Hebrews).
6. Tbe Feast of Tabernacles, er Harvest lngathering, to
wbich all males were called. represented the final harvest end
the ingathering of God's people at the Second Adveot of Christ
(Lev 23:33-44; cf. Matt. 13:39),
Te these might be added the observance of the year of jubilee
referred to in Lev 25, which the restoration of God's
people in the new earth (Is 65:17-25).
Although these festivals were repeated yesr by year, they are
not tO be considered as cyclical in their meaning. AB Von Rad
c.....nts in bis essay on OT bermeneutics. "the componeots of every
Old Testaaent witness, so inalienab!y historica1 in character. do
not at all permit a ccnsisteat1y developed nation of arepetition.
Indeed, ane must see the basic ideas of typolagy 1ess in the
not ion of 'repetition' than in that of I correspondence. '''--Co Wes-
termann, ed Essays in oU Testament HeIfllel"Wuti06, p. 20.
Literal Israel a Type of Spiritual Israel
Israel was God's chosen peop1e in the crr era. They'olere
ca11ad te de a special werk, but failed their commtsslon. In the
NT God called another people. who were free frOlll ethnie: restrie-
tions. Tbeir fsith and com::nitment centered in Christ. Tbe OT
promises are oow fu1filled to them wo are Jews inwardly (see ROll.
2:29). The comefssion to take the gospel to all ehe world will
be fulfl11ed by them. The church (spiritual Israel) CODsists now
of those who will proclaim Heaven' s last message ef _rcy to the
loIorld.
216 A Symposium 00 Blblical HermeneutiC6
Symbols, Types. AllegorieB. and Parahles 217
6. The interpreter should seek understanding of God's pur-
pose in giving both the type end the antitype. There should be
an evident similarity of meaniog between ehern. alchough the Iatter
u9ually represents a more vital and broader event or principle
than the former.
treats the broad
incidentals of
Here the NT is a guide aB it
of rede.ption ratber than the
minutia of detail.
the-.s of the plan
the type.
S. Sound typology must rest on the guidance of Inspired
wTiters. Wben the interpreter out of the areas designated
by inspiration to be types, he needs to acknowledge that he 18
moving iota the realm of speculat1on.
and the Ke.ssiah
We see a Christ-ceotered ideology in the OI 1n the .any Mes-
slan1e types that preflgure the Son of God com1ng to earth. He
was to came froD the seed of David according to the flesh. David,
the brilliant king of israel, was a type of the greaeer Davidic
K.1ng ","ho was to CCDB. Pa 69 port:.rays the suffering of the psalm-
ist, but his Buffering was but a shadow of the auffering that
Christ was to endul:e. Heb 3:1-6 depicts Hoses as the leader and
mediator of Israel, but a greateT than Moses came aa Redeemer of
all mankind.
Jonah's miraculous deliverance from death (Mt 12:39-41j Lk
h "i i " 11:29, 30) typifies the resurrection of Christ. T e mpr sonment
of both for a parallel length of time is signifieant.
Exesesis of Types a8 Method
In eaploying typology in biblical interpretation, we must be
careful ta note how the crr type is employed by the NT writers.
Not every OT type. however, meets its cO!:lplete counterpart in the
NT. There aften remains a further eschatological significance
that. being the ultiDate, is e:xtre'l:lly important for the modern
interpreter. Rere the temptation for the interpreter to 80 beyond
sober exegesis and present a fanciful exposition .ust be resisted.
Typology cau be legitimately Uged in interpretation of the
OT to bring out: the corrcspoodence betveen God I S -ethods of deal-
ing witb His people before and after the cross of Christ--thus
show1ng that His aver-all plan of salvation 1s Olle.
Criteria for Interpretation of Types
There are certain criteria that are neeessary to sound inter-
pretation of types:
A genuine application of typology contributes much to tbe
understandlng of the Bible by adding to tbe vertieal of revelation
the horizontal of salvation.
Typology Versus Allegorbm
A distinction .ust be made between typology and allegori6m,
which conceives of the Scriptures aa a bock ca.poscd mainly of
riddles or secret puzzles to be solved. Tbe commentator tries to
find the right clues to hidden meaniugs. This kind of interpreta-
tion differs radica1ly from the sober kind of typology. Which has
its foundation in historical evcnts, persons, institutions, and
actions.
The idea of an earthly counterpart of a beavenly reality is
plainly set forth in tbe OT. Ta expound the NT in this light 1s
true typology, and it takes away the unreality and artificiality
that is characteristic of the allegorieal. Tc set thc typieal in
the framework of the antitypical is not allegorizing but sober
typology.
1. The speeific points of correspondence must be eareful1y
noted between the types and the antitypes.
2. The points of difference and contrast between the types
and the antitypes should also be DOCed.
One a1m of allegorists was to establish Judsism as an intel-
lectually respectable faith in a Bophisticated pagan milieu. Tbus
they interpret anthropomorphic biblical referenccB allegor-
ically. Philo, Odgeu, Augustine. and Jerome freely indulged in
allegorical interpretation of Scripture, wbereas Luther, Helanch-
thoft. and Calvin maintained that this method was too subjective.
3.
stud.1ed
4.
Tbe points of eorrespondence and difference should be
in tbe light of the historical context of esch.
An attempt mU6t not be made to discaver me8ping 10 the
An exampie of the elaborate fantasies of sDIIle of the alle-
gortesl interpreters i5 found in a sermon among the Spuria of
ChrySOStOCl on flThe Msssacre of the Innocents.
1l
The writer states
that because the children of twa years and under 10tere murdered by
218 A Symposium on Bib!ical Hermeneutics
Symbols. Types, Allegories, and Parables 219
Kerod while those of three years escaped. tbose wbo hold the Trin-
!tartan viewo of the Godhead will be saved. but Blnitarians and
Unitarians will be lost.
Allegory
A df.st1.nction must be made bet'Ween allegory and allegortsm.
Allegory 15 a-legitimate category of literature. whereas allegor-
iSlII 18 a rather free method of interpretation. There is also a
distinction between the allegory sud the type aa categories of
11terature. Tbe type is rooted in the literal and historieal.
whereas allegory createa an imaginative event rather chan being
bOWld by the literal.
The Bible writers sometimes employed allegory to illustrate
God' s dealings with His people. An example of this in the OT is
found in Ps 80, where Israel is 1ikened to a vine from Egypt.
This tender shoot was transplanted and tock root in the PrORised
Land. This illustrates how God brought llis people out of Egyp-
tian bondage and tock the.. to the land of Palest1ne, where they
prospered snd multiplied.
Christ uses a sill1lar allegory of the vlne and its brancbes
(Jn 15:5). Re de8ired to show His how dependent they
were on His :Father (the Gardener) and Himself (tbe Vine) for the1r
spiritual sustenanee and develop.ent.
Paul pointed to an allegory to ll1ustrate the difference be-
cween the old and new covenants (Gal He made tbe sep-
aration of Bagar and Ishmael from Sarah and lassc i11ustrate the
freede. Christians have in Christ's grace 1n contrast to the bond-
age of trying to earn salvation by works. lsaac was the chi1d of
faith; Ishmael the san of works. As with them, there is always a
cooflict between faiCh and works. Faith i. free, works bring
bondage (see also I 5:6-8; 9:8-10; 10:1-11).
In attempting to interpret an allegory we sbould always bear
in m1nd the original hearers. the author's reasOD for using the
device, and tbe basic points of eomparison stressed by him. Ree-
ognition of the messages for the original and present readers i&
vItal to tbe interpreter.
Parables
Definition end Example
Tbe ward parabte is fro_ the Greek paMbote, ""'ich literally
means "a placing alongside of." thus signifying a cOOlparison or
an illustration. A parable 16 an extended simile that employs an
ordinary eircumstance in everyday life to illnstrate a religions
trutb. Jesu8 used this .ethod on aany oceasions. Same of His
most profound lessons expressed in parabolie langusge. His
parables vary from the brief paradoxical saying sucb aB Hk 3: 23
to the sustained comparison of the prodigal son in Lk 15:11-32.
Parables are not confined to the NT. The poets and prophets
of the OI often presented the1r messages in parables. They could
take the form of a story, a8 in Ez 17:2-10; an seted-out lesson,
such as the seething pot in.Rt 24:3-14; a popu1ar proverb as in
1 Sa 10:12, or seme dark saying calcu1ated to escape the super-
ficial observer, as in Ps 78:2.
lt 1s difficult to arrange Christ's parables according to
type. 8S tbey touch so many phuea of life. These lessons are
drawn from the field and show Jesus' loterest in agrieu1ture. He
spake of the sower and the soll, seedtime and harvest, vheat and
tares. Hany of His parables center in family lUe-the householder,
the ten brldesmBdds, the marriage feast, and the twO sons. Other
parables are taken from the business world. such es the two debt-
ors. the da11y 1oi'orkers, the cost1y pearl, and tO ll8ke vise
invest1llents.
Purpose of Parables
The purpose of the parable 1s to teach by eomparison, analogy,
and illustration. Jesus. tha master teacher, employed this method
with sreat success. He used parables to expound deep spiritual
truths. He told true-to-life 8tories to make elear to His hearers
the true meaning of 1ife. These brought out lessons that explained
the mysterles of His kingdoc. JesU6 was not coneerned with pro-
pounding proble-s. The pritoary function of Hls parable was to get.
a collDitment fro. His hearers to a new llfe experienca. He. bad
come to earth to set. up a new kingdom, and He was Invitiog His
hearen 1nto this kingde.. This 18 why many of His parables are
an exposition of the virtues of the kingdom of heaven. He was
eager tO reveal rather than eonceal the mystery of this ki.ngdoc.
Although llis parables 5eemed clear and convincing to many
220 A Symposium on Biblical Hermeneutics Symbols, Types. Allegories. aud Parables 221
who heard them. there were some to whom His teaching was obscure.
These were spectators more often than followers; they heard but
did not understand. Although generally those who were willing
to commit their lives to God could grasp the meaning cf the para-
bles. there were occasions when even the discip!es asked for in-
terpretation (see Mt 13:36). Heuls minds were darkened because
they either wil1fu11y refused to listen with open minds to the
Master's messages cf salvation or they distorted His message by
their preconceptions.
Repeatedly Je6us would preface a parable with the words "The
kingdom of heaven i8 like---" He taught the establishment of that
kingdom aud the judgmeut that would preeede it. His kingdom will
be eomposed of suhjeets who already have aeeepted the kingdom of
graee in their hearts. The kingdom in its eschatologieal setting
will culminate when Christ becomes vietor over every opposing
power. The parables illustrate the final and vietorious power of
Christ and His future reign over all the world.
Interpreting Parables
There are certain principles neeessary to guide us in the
interpretation of parables:
1. A parable often has one main point and Olle main message
that it was designed to eonvey. Injustice is done many times to
the interpretation of the parable when we introduce minutia ex-
traneaus to the central message of the illustration.
be certsin that Dur interpretation cf the parable 18 grounded
strictly in that given by inspired writers.
Take, for example, the often misunderstood and misinterpreted
parable of the rieh man and Lazarus. Tbis story is frequently
cited to prove the popular eoncept of the innate immortality of
the soul and to give us a glimpse into the future life. In this
interpretation the souls of the good are supposed to have passed
on to eternal bliss whereas those of the wicked have entered into
endless punisbmeut. If this portrayal is litera!, the gulf be-
tween heaven and hell is too wide for persons to eross over but
narrow enough to allow them to converse. Rather. Jesus was bere
using an argument that His hearers believed, but to whieh He did
not subscribe.
Tbe eontemporary Jewish eoncept pictured "Abraham' s bosom
rl
as a place of joy where the righteous go at death. Josephus in
his "Diseourse to the Greeks Concerning Hades" parallels cloaely
the narrative of the rieh man and Lazarus. Here we read of the
righteous being within sight and speaking distanee of the chamher
where the wicked are tormented.
The lesson taught in this parable is not whether the wicked
go to Hades at death or the righteous to Ahraham's bosam, but that
in this present life we have our only opportunity to make prepar-
ation for the future. There will be no seeond chance for auy
individual after death. It depends on our deeision here whether
we will receive immortality at the seeond eoming of Christ or
suffer annihilation.
2. The pa'Table should be examined with a view to reconstruct-
ing the circumstances that called it forth. Was the parable in
answer to a question? If so, what was the nature of the question?
Who were present when the parable was given?
3. Tbe parable must be understood in terms of the historie
background--the manners, eustoms. symhalism, and culture of the
people. If the parable deals with farming, for example, we must
understand the farming of its time befare we can fully understand
the parable. In considering the historieal backdrop of the par-
able, the OT and its terminology must not be neglected, for it
formed a real part of the lives of the people to whom the parable
was spoken.
4.
whether
5.
Parables must be studied in their context to determine
the meaning of the parable has been given.
If a parable is used to mold doctrinal thinking, we must
One of the most universally appealing parables is found in
Lk 15. It is called the parable of the prodigal son. A better
title, however, would be the parable of the pardoning father. Tbe
father did not treat the son as he deserved. He was so pleased to
see him come back that he freely forgave him all his wrang and re-
instated him to sonship. Re even made a great feast to celebrate
the wayward boy's return.
Tbe lesson of this parable is clear. When the sinner for-
sakes his sin and returns to God, his pardon is assured. His sin
is forgiven and he is treated as a san of God, and God looks upon
him as though he had never sinned.
A postscript to this parable i8 the eharacter of the eIder
brother. He represents self-righteous, bigoted, and unforgiving
hypocrites who feel no need of a Saviour. The parable ends with
the penitent sinner inside the father's house but the self-
centered, pious Pharisee outside. The father does not forsake
222 A Syaposium 011 Biblical HerDe.neuUcs
Symbols, Types. Allegortes, and Parables 223
In general, the parables l11ustrate nova lonng heavenly
Father treats His earthbound chl1dren. He 18 patient, kind, and
forgiving. und cootlnues to plead with them to accept the provi-
sion He has made for their salvation.
the eIder son.
come in to the
He goes
feast.
outside to hia aud ?leads with him to
This book 18 a revised form of the autbar's Ph.n.
thesis. He how crucial Jesus' OT interpretation was
to hds understanding of Christ's central place in the h1s-
tory of salvation snd the accompllshment of God's purpose.
Goppelt. Leonhard. "Tupos. TI Theo!ogicaL Diationary oi the New
TeBtament. 8 vola. Edit.ed by Gerhard P'riedric:h. Val. 8
(pp. 246-259). Grand Raplds: Wm. B. Eerdmaos Pub. Co. I 1912.
Conclusion
Ihis brief presentation of four of the special categories of
biblieal literature has served to indicate ehe usefulness of cat-
egorizing 8S a guide to the bibl1cal interpreter. With this in
ndnd the reader may wish to compare this chapter with those deal-
ing with general prlnciples, prophecy and apocalyptic. and bibli-
cal history, wisdom, and poetry.
RRADING LISt'
Andeuon. Bernbard W. The DU Testament anti Christian Paitk.
New York: Harper & Row, 1963.
A eomposite volume. Some of the eontributors are
Kmil Brunner, Rudolf Bultmann, Oscar Cullaan, John Dillen-
berger. John L. KcKenzie. Also Ricbardson, Wl1helm Viecher,
Clans Yestermann, and G. Ernest Wright.
Brown!ee. William H. "The Mean.1ng for Old Testament Interpreta-
tion." The Meaning 01 the Qwmtan Sarol.ZB for the Bibte.
(Chap. 4, pp. 62-109). New York: Oxford University Press,
1964.
Cope, Gilbert Frederick. Symbolism 1.)1 ths Bibl.e and the cr.uMh.
London: seM Press, c1959.
A historieal treatment of biblical symbols. Use of
symbols in worship. Psychologiesl types are diecussed.
Dl11istone, F. w. Christianity and SYmbolism. Philadelphia:
Westm1nster Press. 1955.
A sequel to an earlier work, The 01 the
Divin6 Society. Trends of the Church and of the Sacraments
as they have come to be formulated within the Christian
tradition.
France. R. T. Je8u.s anti the DUZ Testamtmt. Dovner',g Grove, 111.:
Inter-Varsity Press, 1971.
Johnson. Frederick Ernest. Religioll Symbotism. New fork.: Har-
per and Bros., 1955.
Includee such authors as Cyril Richardson, Daniel Flem-
log. Abraham Heschel. Paul Tillich. and Nathan A. Scott. Jr.
Trends of religious symbolis- in contemporary literature.
Lampe. G. W. H snd Woolcmnbe. K. J. Essays 071 'l'ypology. Lon-
don: S C H Press, 1957.
This i8 a small volume of some seventy-five peges, but
it 1s indispensable for a atudy of typology. It appeared
as volwae 22 in the series "Studies in Tbeology." These
essays originated in a conferenee of the Soeiety for the
Study of Theology held st Oxford in tbe spring of 1955.
Ramm. Bernard. Protestant Bibl.ical. Intel1'f'etation. Boston: W.
A. Wilde Co 1956.
A textbook of bermeneutic8 for eonservative Protestants.
Complete revlsed edition.
Westermann, C., ed. Eseaye on DZd Testament Be:rmeneu.ticB. Rlch-
mond, Va.: J. Knox Press, 1963.
Chapter One: "Typological Interpretation of the Old
Testament." by Gerhard von Rad. pp. 17-39. Cbapter Eleven:
"la Typologics1 Exegesis an Appropriate Method?J by WeIther
Eichrodt, pp. 224-254.
AfU!" 14 yeaPs cf ministry fcr ths
Adventist Church in Hot-
land Dr. Hans X. LaRondslte joined
t1w. Seventh-day Adventist Theotogicat
Seminary faeutty in 1967 and is nw
aBsistant professor of theolcgy. He
1o.1a8 granUd the 'l'h. D. Mgree in BYB-
temJtic theology by the Pree University
of Am8tel"dam in anti he tJrote his
dissel"tation in the eubject ar'ea of
perfecticm and perfeetioniarrt.
13. Interpretation of Prophetie
and Apocalyptie Eaehatology
HANS K. LA R{lfDELl.E
$DA Theotogicat Seminary
Univ61'Bi ty
Tbe Adventist Self-understanding
The Seventh-day Adventist Church is motivated by lts self-
und.rstandlng cf belog primarl1y a movement in fu1fi11ment of bib-
1iesl propbecies and arising st the provldential time for reforma-
tion aud revival to prepare a people for the second advent of
Christ Jeaus. This sense of mission was born out of the eritica1
religious disappointment of the Millerite movement in North Aaeriea
in A.D. 1844. countered by the eontinuing study of the apocalyptic
books--Daniel in the OT snd Revelstlon in the NT.
Seventh-day Adventiats believe that their divine eredentials
aa the "remnant ehurcb" are found especially in the promise of the
ca.ing of Elijah before the terrible judgment day io Mal 4 and in
the call of the three angela' messages of Rev 14 for revival of
true worship of the Creatcr and readlness for tbe judgment day.
This eschatologieal aod apocalyptic awareness 18 reflected in the
fact that elose to half of their statement. of fundamental beliefs
are based on apoealyptlc prophecies (see ehe YearbookJ.
Relation to Early Protestantism
Seen in religious-historical perspectlve. the Adventist Bible
interpretation agrees fundamentally with the BOta prin-
ciple of the sixteenth-century Reformation in Europe. i.e., tbe
Blble i8 fts own expositor (see L. E. Proom, MOvement of DeBtiny
[1971l. ehep. 5). In harmony with the Reformation interpretation
again, Seventh-day Adventista confeaa that tbe unifying theme cf
the OT aod the is Jesus Christ aAd tbe redemptioD that centers
in Bim. The distinction betwe8n Adventist snd early Reformation
theology does not 11e in tbe fleld of soteriology (the way of sal-
vation) so much as it does in the field of eschatology. especially
that which foeuses on the second advent cf Christ.
22. A Symposium on Biblical Hermeneuties
Prophetie and Apocalyptic Prophecy 227
The wrlter of chis chapter 18 aware of the cODsiderable
revival of tbeological toterest in apocalyptic but wishes to be
understood aa not reviewing that toterest here nor cf standing
withln lts boundaries. He sees the Seventh-day Adventist continu8-
cion cf tbe largely Protestant and bistorieist interpretation of
Bible prophecy aa making an Inevltable distinction fram the general
position. aa will be evident in the definit.ions cf eschata1,.ogy snd
apocaZyptic here adopted.
This chapter uses the term for the fulfilt-ent
of OT prophecies ranging from the first advent of Christ to the
establishment of Godls eterna1 kingdom. The term apocatyptic or
apocaZyptic 1s eoneentrated on the signa of the
leadlng to the seeond advent of Christ.
Seventh-day Adventist exp081tors in thetr eschato1ogy claim
to be cODtinuing standard propbetie interpretations of tbe Chris-
tian Church (see L. E. froom, Prophetie Faith of Gur Fatheru
l
vol.
4, pp. 1054, 1055).
Henee Adventist e8chatology may be eharacterized by not mere1y
ies uni<rAe interpretations but also ite retention of the standard
Reformation expositions.
Tbe eontinuity 15 basic. for the "new" is the result of fur-
eher but eonsistent app1icacion of the Christ-centered principles
of the Reformation. partieularly to the apocalyptic propheeies of
Daniel and the. Revelation. Although Protestant churches in gen-
eral gradually abandoned theil' historie p1atform on prophecy in
the 19th and 20th eenturies. the Great Second Advent Hovement eame
from and resulted in a revival of prophetie aod a
resumptioD prophetica11y of the arrested Reforaation of tbe 16th
and 17th eenturies (see SDA BibZe COiiihentary.. vol. 4. p. 76).
Coneistener in Christoeentrie
Prophetie Interpretation
This writer aees the Seventh-day Adventist prophetie inter-
pre.tation as folloviag the general prlnclple of scrlptursl inter-
pretation that honors tbe eontext of tbe entlre aible. not aerely
the imaediate context. This i8 evident from standard vorks pub-
lished during tbe past twenty years. The deeper diEension of the
literal sense of the Bible can be discerned on1y when the dynamie
interrelationship of the OT and the NT i9 fu11y honored (see chap.
10 of this book. "Gene.ral Prineiples of Interpretation").
The NT often reveah tbat not all propheeies in the OT
concerning Israel aud her enemles--such aa BabyioD. Edom. sud
Egypt--have fauod their final fulfillment. This does not mesn.
however. ehat the class cf fulfil1ed prophecies 18 irrelevant for
the Chrlstlan Church. Tbe NI frequently intimates a typological
relationship the experiences of Israel as the ancient-
covenant peop1e snd those of the churcb of Christ as the new-
eovenant people (see Gal 4:21-31; Heb 12:18-24; 1 Pe 2:9, 10).
Th1s correspondence of or and NT promises snd warnings finds les
fundamental unity in the God of the covenant. who spoke through
the OT prophets and then through Jesus Christ (Heb 1:1. 2; 2 Cor
1:19. 20; Rom 15:8, 9).
Tbe name Israel was given by Cod to Jacob a9 representative
of a God-centered life, of a guilt-ridden soul tbat seeks and finds
God's fsvor of forgiving graee by a confiding trust in His pro.ises
(Gn 32; H09 12; cf. FP
1
195-203). This first spiritual use of tbe
name Israel indicates the dlvine, and therefore deeper, meaning of
the name, which conditions full partieipation in the b1essing8
promised to Jaeob snd his 1itera1 descendants. Moses aod the proph-
ets continua1ly stress the conditiona1 factor in the alternative
of promised blessings to an Israel that walks in the fear of tbe
Lord and covenant curses on a disobedient Israel (Dt 27-30; Lev 26;
Is 1; Kic 6; Jer 7).
Under ehe unique character of Cod's gracious eovenant vith
Israel Hi8 promises were made eonditional on true obedienee for
their eamplete fulfl11ment (Ex 19:1-6; Jer 18:5-10). Loving
obedience to the eovenant of the Lord also was a gracious gift of
Cod Himself through the Holy Spirit (Dt 30:6; Eze 36:26-28; Jer
31'31-33),
It is essential to eOU8ider the exact tlae and pIaee of tbe
various covenant promises and eursea in the historical development
of Israel in order to establisb the specifie fulfillments in and
after thc Assyriao-Babylonian exile, as weIl ae those aspects not
then fulfilled due to failure to meet the divine conditions. What
15 cf erueia1 importance. however, 18 to reeognize the witness of
tbe apostles of Jesus Christ tbat .any OT promises of restoration
of Israel and of thetr gatbering out of exile to Mount Zion bave
found (and tberefore are finding) thetr fulfillment in Christ and
Bis chureh sinee Pentecost. vhieh is made up of both Christ-
believing Jews and Gentiles (compare Aets 15:13-18 and Amos 9:11,
12; 1 Pe 2:9 and Ex 19:5. 6; Beb 8:8-12 and Jer 31:31-33).
The OT covenant promises are not automatica11y fu1fi11ed in
the Chureh. She too is warned to take heed lest sbe form i1lieit
relations with the world's powers. The saeraments are no guarantee
against apostasy (1 Cor 10:1-11). On the contrary, indubitable
228 A Sr-P0sium on Blblical HermeneutiC$
Prophetie and Apocalyptlc Propbecy 229
predlctions point to that would coae within the church
snd also to a final cODfllet between heaven aad eartb, centered
on Christ sud people (e.g. Acts 20:29. 30; 2 Pe 2:1-3; 2 Tb 2;
Rev 17), Tbc NT envisions final restoration of ehe church of
Christ, made up of both Jews and Gentiles. in preparation for the
secoDd advent of the Lord JesUB (see Rev 12:17; 14:6-12). At
Chrlst's second coaing many cf the OT promises of Israel's restora-
tion will find glorlous final fulfillment 1n the visible gschering
of the saiuts to the returning Christ OIin tbe clouds to -.eet the
" ' Lord in the air (1 Tb 4:17; cf. Kt 24:JO. 31). Then the elect
viII receive the inheritance of a homeland and a city, whose
bui1der and maker 1s God (Reb 11:10, 13-16, 39. 40; Rev 21. 22).
The eonsistent Christological interpretation of the OT in and
by the NT has far-resching hermeneutical implications for escha-
tology. Like an ellipse with its two foci. the cwo advents of
Christ constitute the double foeus af the esehatology.af the NT.
Christ and His eovenant people of all the ages are the nora for
th. final fu1fillment af the eovenant promises snd curses (Mt 7:
21-23; 25:31-46).
the progressive fulfillment in redemptive history.
the Advent1st hermeneutie seems to aeknavledge a multiple fulfll1-
sent of the broad terms of God's aneient and conditional covenant
promises ta restare Israel and gatber them out of the dispersion
among the nations vhen they worship H1m in Spirit and trutb (Dt
30:1-10; Ia 11:11-16; !mOB 9:11-15; Jer 31:10):
1. Some initial fu1fi1lments to the faithful1y returning
Israelites when the Babylonian captivity ended vith the historie
decree of CyrusJ king of Persia, in 537 B.C. (Ezr 1:1-4).
2. A NT fulfillment not limited to ethn1e origins or
geographieal lacations with regard to Jews and Gentiles who are
gathered to Christ sud His chureh through the gospel preaching
inee the day of Pentecost.
3. A climax in the universal gathering into the kingdom of
Gad of all believers in Christ fram all time aud from all eods of
the earth at His glorieus second appearing. regardless of ethnie
or1g1n.
Tbis vriter's understandiog i8 that thi. threefold Christo-
centric applieat10n of God's coveuant with Israel of old consti-
tutes the uoderlylng hermeneutical foundacion of the seven volumea
of the Swenth-day Adventist Bibl.e Conrnentary (see val. 4, pp.
25-38; val. 3. p. and 00 Is 43:5; Joe1 3:2; aud Amos 9:11. 15).
the five books of the Conflict of the Ages Sertes of Ellen G. Vhite
(see pp. 703-721; 374. 375. DA
J
p. 106 (on Jer 31:31-37)).
ao<! QueBticns on Doetl"ineJ pp. 205-243.
It i8 significant that neither Christ ner the NT writers app1y
the reatricterl territorial promises of Jerusalem end Palestice te
the ehurch of Christ, the faithfu1 remnant of Israel (Roc 11:5).
Tbia is consistent with what might be cal1ed the Cbristo10gical
interpretation of the Israel of God as a nation (1 Pe
2:9). The NT covenant people are united as a people solely by the
bonds of faith and baptism into Christ (Gal 3:26-29). They are
the outworking of Jeaus' plan for Jews and Gentiles: "So there
shal1 be one flock, ane shepherd" (Jn 10:l6b, RSV). Tbe Christo-
logical qualification af the name Israel has superseded all former
religioua-national boundaries and ethoic limitations (Eph 2:14-16).
This has inevitable repereuisions on the traditionsl territorial
promises regarding the Middle East. Rather tban belng made void.
however. these territorial eovenant promises are extended world-
wide (Mt 5:5; Rom 4:13). 80 that the old limited bouodaries aod
restrietioDS are e1iminated. in barmony with the Christologieal
mean1ng of the terms embraeing Israel and Judah. From this point
of view. the cross of Christ and Pentecost, there i9 theo-
logtcally no langer a holy land. city, or mountaln on earth (Jn
4:21; Mt 23:38).
lnstead of being invalidated for spiritual Israel, the OT
terminelegy and imagery are uaintained in tbe NT with the new,
universal Christ010gieal unfolding (GaI3:29). The suthor of the
baok of Hebrews not only applies to the Cbristian Cburch the new-
cavensnt promises made to aneient Israel and Judah (Jer 31:31-33;
Reb 8) but also picture her cODiag to Christ 8S 8 coming to Mount
Zion and to the city of the 11ving God (Heb 12:22). The 8uthor
does not iotend to spirituallze away the OT territorial promises.
He rea1hes that the OT bel1evers "all died in hith, not having
reeeived what was pro.ised" (Heb 11:l3a, RSV). He explains that
these believers were not looking for same Middle East as
the aite far the final fulfillment of the promis8
If they had been thinklng of that land from which
they had gone out, they would have bad opportunity to
return. But a8 it i8, they desire a better country. tbat
i8, a heavenly one. Therefore God 1s Dot ashamed to be
called tbeir God. for he ha prepared for them a c1ty
(Heb 11:15. 16, 39. 40; cf. va. 10. RSV).
The apostle Peter also point! to this universal fulfillment of the
nld territorial promise:
But according to his promise ve wait for new heavens
230 A Symposium on Bibiteal Hermeneutlcs
Prophetie and Apocalyptic Prophecy 231
aud a new.eartb in which righteousness dwe1ls (2 Pe 3:
13. RSV).
Tbe apocalypse shot.l's hov John saw a new heaven and a new
eartht vith "the boly city, new Jerusalem. coming down out of
heaven Eraa God" (Rev 21:2, RSV). whieb 15 the ead-time fulfill-
ment of all the covenant promises of God to Abraham sud Israel.
The twelve apostles and the twelve tribes of Israel are integrated
iuto oue covenant people in oue city, in oue world (Rev 21:12-14).
Only then will the OT covenant promises be fulfilled com-
pletelyo for God's plan of redemption is "& plan for the fullness
of time. to uni te all things in him (Christ), things iu heaven and
things on earth" (Eph 1:10, RSV). The NT shows hov erucial to
oners theology Is a consistent interpretation of
the OT prophecies.
of good and evil between heaven and e.arth; a new eschatology that
retsins an underlying eontlnuiey witb the eschatology of the other
prophets (see pp. 264-271).
Trom an Adventist perspective. importanee
attaches to the observation by L. E. Froom that the three flour-
ishing periods of prophetie interpretation In the Christian Church--
the early ehurch. the Reformation, and the Second Advent Awakening--
recognized in the apoea1yptic books of Daniel snd Revelation
three unique characteristics (The Prophetie Faith, vol. 1. p. 164i
vol. 2, pp. 783-790; vol. 3. pp. 738-743):
1. Botb books contain several serles of outline prophecies
that unfold an unbroken sequenee cf eveots 1eading up to the
establishment of the eternal kingdom of God.
The Christoceotrie principle of iaterpretation testifies to
the underlying gospel truth that the OT and the NT constitute a
spiritual unity in Chriet, and that hoth testaments shed light on
each other, the OT being the appointed key to unloek the doors of
the NT aad the NT unfolding the mysterles of the OT.
End-Time Eschstologr
2. Tbe focus of these prophetie series is the perennial eoo-
fliet ehe nations and the Israel of God, between Anti-
christ snd Christ.
3. Each distinet series revea1s a and further
enlargement of certain parts of a prevlous series, aiways focus!ng
on redemptive history, speeificslly on the finsl confliet of good
snd ev!l.
4. Interpretation of the NT spoealyptie must first consider
the historieal and tbeologieal root context in the 07. yet recognize
3. ur apoealyptic prophecies tbat have remained unfulfilled,
generally beeauee of Israel's failure to meet God's eonditions,
will find their fulfillment in ehe faithful re.nant people of Jeaus
Christ, according to tbe NT snd its apocalyptie.
2. lt is important for the gospel interpretation of tbe OT
apoealyptie to determine. when the data permits, where each pro-
phetie outline 8eries passes the time of th. cross of Christ, for
OT terminolosy and 1magery from that point on vould receive a
Chrlstologieal interpretation.
These eharscteristics set the stage for some prineiples of
prophetie interpretation. On the basis that 1aw and
order reign in ehe rea1m of bibl1cal apocalyptie, Christ being
the bright center of all covenant pro-ises, ve suggest the follow-
iog as guiding heraeneutieal principlea for spoealyptie interpre-
tation:
The OT apocalyptie aad the NT apocalyptic eonstitute a
spiritual unity in and through Christ Jesus.
1.
general
In ebe NT. Jesus' Olivet discourse in Hk 13 (par. Mt 24i Lk
21), and Paul's treatise in 2 Tb 2 may be eonaidered apocalyptie.
with the apoealypae of John.
Among the .any attempts to speIl out the unlque charaeteris-
ties of apocalyptic literature 1s that of David S. Russell in his
book The Methad and Message of Je1JJish Apocalyptic (Lenden: SeM
Press. 1964). He mentions among others the height.ened sycl>olism,
the outlay of future events. time speeifieaclons,
angel ministries. and the eo&mJc dimensions of the final eonfliet
Aecepting the boundaries of the bib1ical eanon as the sole
normative authority for theology, we do not eonsider here the
many extraeanonical Jevish apocalyptle writings. The realm of OT
apocalyptle 1s concentrated speeifically in the book of Daniel.
Yet particular aeetioDs in tbe prophetie books aay also be counted
apocalyptic, sueh 3S Is 24-27 ("the Iaaiah apocalyp.e"); Eze 38,
39; Joel 2, 3; Zee 12 and 14; Jer 25:15-38. and other .imilar
portions. Many Psalme Iikewise possess adefinite apocalyptic-
eschatologieal dimension. baving a special relevancy for the
ehurch of Christ to ehe end of time. (See Ps 2, 11. 18. 20, 46.
91.)
232 A Symposium on Biblical Her-eneutics
Prophetie and Apocalyptic Propbeey 233
the hermeneutlcal weight of the wider conte%t of both testaments.
S. Although the same sr-bo1 in different: apocalyptic outline
series may carry tbe same basic meanins. cach symbol 1s co be
determined in lts precise historical appl1cation by les own imme-
diate contcxt. where it may have a different historicalor geo-
graphical application. (This hermeneutical principle is especially
relevant to a comparative study of the of the seven trumpets
and the series of the seven plagues in Revelation.)
6. Aa the apocalypse of John refers more than 490 t!mes to
the OT (aod thus theologieally. many other bocks of the Bible see.
to meet and end 1n tbe apoealypse) it beeattes a valid prineiple to
detercine bow the redemptive history and message of each book find
their culmination in the apoealypse.
A Multiplex Approach
In order to understand the mysteries of the biblical apoca-
lyptie a multiplex approach seems to be required. This writer
aees at least three approaches to hsve proved essen-
t1al--a reeognition of:
1. Tb. typologieal structure.
2. The promise-fuUl11.lllent idea.
3. The salvation-historical perspective.
Tbe Typolog1ea1 Structure
In the NT not on1y the OT aserifIces--together with the
priestly, kingly. and prophetie offlces--are explained to be types
of Jesus Christ snd His office but also some historical events in
the history of anc1ent Israel have typo1og1cal virtue for Christ,
Bis chureh, snd His avowed cnemies. lt 1s valid that a typo1ogical
structure be ldentified with eertainty by a NT witness only. This
principle protects the interpreter against allegorism snd rigid
literslism (see BUA Bible Commentary, vol. 4, pp. 37, 38).
In 5uggesting that typology in the Bible presupposes a redenp-
tive history in the past, the present, aad tbe future, cul_inating
1n the historical advents of Christ Jesus (see Heb 1:1-3), ve are
the generally aeeepted distinctioDs between typologieal.
allegoriesi, symbolieal. aad litera! interpretation as spel1ed out
by Leonhard Goppelt in his elassieal werk TlROS. Die typologische
Deutung des alten TQstamentB im Heuen (1939, 1966). A biblical
typalagtesl structure 19 characterized, chen. st once by 1es
analogy sud intenslficatlon of type and antitype. Ta chis basic
continuity belongs the reltgtalls conviction ehat "the God of the
Old !esta.ent 18 the Facher of JeBus Christ aod ebat Jeaus of
NBzareth 16 the Christ. tbat Is, He who fulfills and completes
the Old Testament redemptive hietory" (Gappelt).
On this basis Goppelt arrives at the fundamental conclusion
that the OT types are expressiona of a relationship with the God
of the OT. wherea& all NT antitypes are defined by Lheir relatIon-
ship with Christ. The OT therefore csanat be tTUly aod fully
understood apart from Jesus Christ and the NT (cf. 2 Cor 3:14-16).
The 1ndispensabillty cf tbe typological approach through ChrIst
for an exegetical Dethodo10gy of the OT has been expressed well
by R. w. \loHf in Essays on DU TBBtament HBrmeneutics (ed C.
Westeraann. 1966, p. 191).
The Chrlstological-eschatological qualifleatlon of the type-
antitype relationship was introduced by Christ Himself. He S8W
in the OT prophets, kings. and sanctusry cultu" types of His own
Me.sianie mission. Revealing Bimself to the Jews aa the Messiah.
He nnounced:
"Behold, sOtDething grester than Jonah 18 here" (Mt 12:41.
RSV)
"Behold, s01llething greater than Solomon is here
lt
(Mt 12:42,
RSV)
"I tell you, something greater than the temple 18 here" (Ht
12:6. RSV).
In this sense Jesu5 also related to David. Isrsel"s
greateat theocratie king (Mt 12:3. 4; 22:41-45, RSV).
David onee fal1ed miserably because of his aets of premedi-
tsted murder and adultery. In this he distor ted the role of his
royal office as typifylng the perfect Shepherd, the Messiah. Yet
David remains a type of Christ because of his true prefigurat10ns
of Christ, the shepherd kiug of Israel.
The Persian king Cyrus, vho defeated Babyion in 539 B.C. by
diverting tbe waters of the river Euphrates, was by laalah
"1d" f an ano nte one 0 Yahweh, aad his acts in de1ivering Judah from
Babyion were predicted by the prophets Isa1ah and Jere-
miah (ls 44:28; 45:1-6; Jer 50. SI). History fulfl1led these
promises of deliveT4Dce for ebe ISTael of God. together with the
234
A Symposium on Biblical Bermeneutics Prophetie and Apocalyptic Prophecy 2)5
paralleling prophecies fer Babyion (see PR, pp. 531, 552).
Although Ir all seemod finished tben. the last Blble hook SUT-
prisingly reveals that this history of Israelis suppression by
BabyIoD and her Budden dellverance by of the drylng up of
Babylon's vaters has typologlcal application to the final deliver-
anee of the Israel of God. (See Rev 14:8; 16:12-21; 17.)
In Rev 15 che future Tem.nant people of Christ. "those wilo had
conquered the beast and its image" (va. 2), are pictured as sing-
ing triUlllphantly "the song of Hoses, the servset of God, and ehe
song of the Lamb" (vs. 3, RSV). This U1ay be seen aa a reference
to Koses' sad IaraeI's song of triumph after their deliverance
fram Egypt snd the destruccion of thelr"persecutors st the Red Ses
by divine intervention (Ex 15). The implication, then. 1a elesrly
that the historie exodus experlence of sneient Israel snd even her
song of vietory have typological value for the remnant people of
Christ in the end. In this way the apoealypse .akes the OT rele-
vant for God's eovenant people today.
Every time the apocalypse of John mentioDs and appliea a
Hebrew Oa::l.e or pIaee or refers to an OT person or event. the typo-
logiea! pattern ca1la for determination of the orlginal redemptive-
historieal value of such a term ln relation to Cod's eovenant vith
anctent Israel. Oo1y tben ean the proper Christologieal and eecle-
siologieal meaniug be drawn by structural analogy.
Tbe typelogieal prineiple applies not only to the name Israel
but also to the names cf IsraelIs enemles--sueh as Babyion, Egypt,
and Edom--so that the anelent enemies of God's people function as
types of the eneoies of the true ehurch of Christ Jeaus (cf. Rev
19:13, 15, and Ia 63:1-6). the divine jud&mnt of the ten
plagues on Egypt (Hz 7-12) would seem to funetion as a type of
the last plagues to he sent on a rehe1l1ous and i.peniteot world
beat on the destructlon of the people of Christ who svsit an exodus
from the present age (see Rev 16:1-11). Tbe judgment 00 aneient
Babyion also is incorporated in the imagery of the seven last
plagues (Rev 16:12, 19).
The PromiBe-Fulfi!l.ment Idea
In another diaension the relationship of the OT aad NT 18 of
promise and fulfillment. The NT proclaims the Christologieal ful-
fillment of Codts covenant promises to Israel (Jn 5:39j 2 Cor 1:20).
Ihis fact implies confirmation and advanced unfolding of the GI
promises in Christ (2 Pe 1:19). Consequently, the GI remains the
book of hope for the Chrisrian Chureb (eompare 2 Pe 3:13 with 18
65:17; Mt vith Ps 37:22, 29).
In this sense the or's unfulfilled conditlonal prophecies
regarding Israel aad her enemies remnln 8a promises relevant to
the Christian Church, the new-covenant Israel. Here applies Paul's
ward: IOIt 19 not aa though tbe ward of God had failed" (Roll 9:6,
RSV). The bock of Revelation summarlzes, continues, and unfolds
the OI that ultimately God will dweIl among His eovensnt
people, speclfying them a8 the people who have washed tbeir robes
in the blood of the Lamb of God (aee Rev 22:14; 7:14).
Ihe OT curse of final destructlon will be rea1ized by the
enemies of God and the Lamb (see Rev 6:15-17; 17:14;
19:11-21). The apoca1ypse revea15 that only Christ--the Llon of
the trlbe of Judah, the Root of Dav1d--can seeure the fulfillment
of all tbe apoealypt1c prom1ses, for He alone conquered all eV1l,
end therefore He 18 worthy to open the seroll (perhaps the title
deed of the esrth) and its seals (see Rev 5).
Ihe underlying and all-important theae of tbe apocalypse cf
Jeaus Christ (Rev 1:1) i8 thst the God of Israel will faitbfully
fulfill His eovenant promisea through Christ Jesus. John sees in
vision a raiobow. symbol of promise. round the throne of God!
(Rev 4,).
A better understanding of tbe messages of the apoealypse will
result in a revival of falth. hops, and courage and awareness of
how elose aad dec1ded God's ecmmunion 18 His people. It also
will lead to faithful reformation of life in fuller obedience to
God's eternal covenant (Rev 1:3; 12:17; 14:12).
A eODmo hermeoeutical failing has been to interpret rhe OT
apocalyptle propheeies witbout regard for the NT Chr1.tologiesl
8Spect. Sueh an approach. therefore, may cling to the very letter
of raee and geography of OT prophecies, appealing to so-ea1led
normal and natural exegesis of these passages
l
and ,et lead to
unsound eonclusions.
In order to understand the Christelegical fulfillment of the
aneient spoealyptie prophecy of Daoiel (and portions of Ezekiel,
JoeI, Zechariah, and the PS8!ms) , it Is necessary to let the gos-
pel of Jesus Christ aod the NT apocalyptic determine in vaat 810-
rieus way Gnd will fuIfil1 all His covenant proaises. Ihis approach
will aeknawledge the indispensable funetion of the progress of sal-
vation historY, the history of divine fulfl1lment in Christ Jesus
and His covenant people.
236 A Symposium on Biblical Hermeneutics Prophetie and Apocalyptic Prophecy 237
The Salvation-Historienl Perspective
The Bible presents ltself not a9 a collection of moral codes
sud unconditional prophecies about the Jews butt rather. as the
witness of God's righteous deeds, His redemptive sud punitive aets
in the history of Israel, sud their culmination in the cross sud
resurrection of Jesus Christ. The conditional divine promises aud
threatenings, the blessings and the curses, are all embedded in
certain historica1 situations and cannot and may not be considered
in the abstract as a fixed guarantee irrespective of the re1igious-
moral response.
Divine election demands a living faith-obedience relationship
in God's covenant of grace. This is the message of Dt 28-30 and
Lev 26 aa reiterated in Jer 18:7-10. Even when the condition of
repentance 1s not exp1icit1y ment10ned, as in Jonah's judgment
message to Nineveh, it is implied. The judgments on Sodom and
Gomorrah and on the antedi1uvian wor1d, however, reveal that God
is free to set limits to His grace according to His will.
Ihe place and function of the Assyrian-Babylonian eaptivity
looms large in the OI. Practical1y all the prophets have written
their messages in conjunction with this captivity.
The NT proclaims that the first advent of Jesus Christ was the
irrevocable test of the Jewish ~ t i o n to be counted a9 the chosen
people (Mt 21:33-43; Jn 15:1-6). On the basis of Jesus' Messianic
authority, the twelve tribes of the chosen people were to be con-
tinued in the Mesaianie age exclusively through the twelve apostles
of Christ's own election (Mt 18:15-20; Jn 15:16).
Here lies the acid test of a Christoeentrie exposition cf a
general and end-time biblical eschatology. God has made Himself
aud His holy will fully end fina1ly known through Jesus Christ
(Jn 1:18; 12:48. 49). Jesus i9 appointed by the Father as the
judge of all the earth, of both Israel and the Gentiles (Jn 5:22).
This gospel truth has hermeneutical value for the interpre-
tation of Daniel's (and Joel's and Ezekie1's) apoca1yptic prophe-
eies and all other judgment prophecies. This Christo10gical prin-
eip1e ia essential1y simple. All thase OI prophecies that apply to
the time after the cross of Christ--that is, to eschatological time
--will find their fu1fillment solely in and through Christ and His
covenant peop1e as the true Israel of God and in their avowed ene-
mies. Here the NI' provides the key to un10ck the treasure house
of the OT apocalyptic. Without this salvation-historical perspec-
tive of Christ Jeaus the OI apocalyptic can be expounded only with-
in the literalism of a Chriat-rejecting Judaism. The Christian
iaith finds lts very substance in the confession that Jeaus aud
the NT interpret the OT covenant promises aud deern prophecies with
divine authority. The Gad of the OT 18 in the NT revealed to be
Jeaus Christ. The majestic and awesome theophanies (appearances
of Yahweh's glory) of old are explained to he Christophanies
(appearances of Christ's glory).
Before proceeding to some examples in which the above herme-
neutical princip1es are applied. this writer would indicate once
again that his concept and U8e of apocalyptic is not typical of
the current revival in apoca1yptic. Many seho1ars might be reti-
cent to consider as apocalyptic same of the scripture portions
about to be discussed. However, on the basis of the definition
presented and followed in this chapter, we shall proceed.
Ihis mayaiso be an appropriate juncture at whieh to deny
that allegorizing has infi1trated the hermeneutic presented. It
may be acknow1edged that some of the NT links to OI prophecies
are not exp1icitly named (as when Christ cites Daniel or when Paul
cites David). but this writer believes that the evidence of quota-
tions of or a1lusions to the OI by the NT apocalyptical writings--
especially the allusions in Reve1ation--justifies the interpreta-
tions given. Some details of the interpretations may not have been
generally accepted nor explicitly considered by sorne Adventist
writers. but careful evaluation of the lines of thought. the evi-
dence offered, and the reference9 given ia invited.
Relevancy of Joel's End-Time Eschatology
The OT prophet Joel announced the promise of a great outpour-
ing of God's Spirit on a repentant Zion (2:28, 29). Was this prom-
ise fulfilled prior to the cross of Christ? The OI seems to give
no evidence of it. The prophecy, therefore, still awaited its
fu1fillment when Jesus appeared.
On the day of Pentecoat the apostle Peter applied this proph-
ecy of Joel 2 to the dramatic outpouring of the Holy Spirit by the
aacended and exalted Christ on the waiting Christ-believlng Isra-
elites. Peter quoted the prophecy of Joe1 2:28-32 and proclaimed
its fu1fil1ment at Pentecost to be on the basis of Christ's aton-
ing death and heavenly enthronement as priest and king (Acts 2:
16-21, 33). Joel, however, had connected his prophecy with the
"great aud terrible" judgment day, when the final remnant of Judah
would be gathered together on Mount Zion in Jerusalem to receive
proteetion and refuge (2:31, 32).
Ihe antagonistic heathen nations besieging Mount Zion would
238 A Symposium on Blbiteal Hermeneutlcs Prophetie sud Apocalyptic Prophecy 239
be outside the haly city, gathered together in the valleys around,
aignificantly called ehe "valley of Jehoshaphat" by Joel (3:2, 12);
that is, the valley of Yahweh's judgment. Only God's intervention
would viodicate ehe falthful remnant of Judah and honar God's cove-
nant to cben sc the moment of extremity (see eh. 3). Thls judgment
would reseue Israel aod destroy her persecuting enemies. Was chis
prophecy of Joe1 al.o fulfilled at the first advent of Christ?
Were the nations gstbered In ehe "val1ey of Jehoshaphst.
Ol
and
destroyed? Bvidence from the NT se:"s rscher [0 recognlze a
spiritual-eschatological fulfillment on the day cf Pentecost. when
many nations were represented in Jerusalem (Acts 2:5-11). Paul in
Rom 10:13 quotes Joel 2:32 as applying to his gospel aiolstry to
both Jews anrl Gcntiles. With regard to the coaparative1y fcw
Chrlst-believing Jews he states explicitly: "So too at the present
time there is a reanant, chosen by grace" (Ro=1 11:5, RSV).
Sinee Penteeost the nations everyvhere can be considered in
o "valley of deeision" (Joel 3:14) about Christ ond Hls people.
same being eonverted to Christ through the preacblng of the gos-
pel. However, the great and tenible day of God's final and irrevo-
cable deeision has not yet arrived. CODsequent!y Joel 2:28-32 and
Joe1 3 still await their dramatic fioal application at the seeond
advent of Christ. Jesus Himself interpreted the terrible day of
Yahweh tO be His own second advent to judge the world (Ht 2S:31ff.).
Tbe most elaborate NT exposition of Joel 2:32; 3, is found in
Rev 14. Tbis ehapter of the apocalypse proves to be of highest
importanee for the mission and credentials of the remnant chureh.
Rev 14 con.ists of three which are intertwined with the
immediate context. Each part appears to have an OT root that
serve. to explaln the fundamental meaning of the whole of Rev 14
in salvation-historlcal perspective. For our purpose it .ufficea
to c1arify briefly the appllcation of our hermeneutieal prineiples
for biblleal apocalyptic.
Revelation 14:1-5 (part 1) portrays Mount Zion and on it the
Lomb (Christ) end with Hlm a triumphant Israel, 144,000, with
Christ's end the Father's names in their foreheads. Indicating to
whom they belong. These 144,000 are therefore true Christlsns.
yet also are pietured as coming from the twelve tribes of Israel
(as mentioned in Rev 7). Here a link vith Joel 2:32 becoroes visi-
ble. Furthermore. Rev 14:14-20 (part 3) appears to be a develop-
ment of the judgaent scene in Joel 3. Rev 14:15 elesrly refers to
Joel 3:13. end then unfolds it in the details of a double harvest.
Thls apocalyptic interrelationship of Joel 3 end Rev 14 i, strlking
in interpreting the judgment day of the Lord in Joel as the glori-
ous seeond advent of Jesus Christ, who will eome as kiDg and judge
(Rev 14:14). This i8 the Chrlstological interpretation of Joel's
apoealyptic judgmeDt of Yabweh. Consequently, the faithful rem-
nant of Judah in Joel'g apocalypt1c 1s ultimately rescued beeause
it belongs to Christ and follows Ht..
Tbe loeal 1magery of Joel 18 maintained in tbe background of
Rev 14 (thus implying the spiritual unity of both tbe old and the
nev covenant people). snd more speeifically tbat Joel's unfulfilled
propheey will ultimately be fulfilled in Christ's followers. Clear
indications are then given to eonfirm the universal applieation of
Joel's portrayal. Whereas Joe! pictured a litera! Judab on tbe
literal Temple mountain, the beathen nations being gathered
together in the literal valleys around MOunt Zion, Rev 14 stresses
six times that the earth as a who1e is the harvest fie1d, both
with regard to the faithful folIovers of Christ (the wheat barvest)
snd the Christ-denying people (the vintage).
The pleture of Rev 14:20 ahows the root relation with Joel's
apocalyptie. God's wrath ..-111 fall only "outside" the (holy) city.
that 18. outside Chrlst's rernnant. God's judgment i9 DO blind fate
that falls indlscrimlnately on all people. It means deliverance
for the fattbful Israel (144,000 seemB to have as its key nu-ber
12, adefinite syobol of the covenant people) and destruction for
their enemies (the 1600 stadia of blood indicate a9 their
key number 4, sycbollz1ng the four-cornered worldvide and coaplete
defeat of God's eneades [Rev 7:1]), Thus Rev 14 would advanee
Joel's apocalyptle on a universal seale, Christ being revealed as
the judge of the vorld.
Relevancy of Malachi's Apocalyptie Eschatology
Having indieated the OI root relationship of Rev 14. parts 1
and 3, with Joel's apocalyptie. we proceed to consider the root
relation of Rev 14:6-13 (part 2).
This part of Rev 14, including the three angelst messages.
elucidates the beliefs snd mission of the 144,000 remnant of Israel
(part 1). The three angelst messages are intended to prepare the
whole world for the final judgment (part 3), therefore they con-
stitute the divine credentio10 for the remnant church. They por-
tray the lost re1igious awskenlng snd reformation in God's plan
to prepare a people for the second advent of Jesus Christ, that
i8, the true cQvenant people. To establish the full of
this divine ultimatum to a rebellious and self-sufficient world,
we neRd to sesreh for the possible typologieal strueture in the
wider context of 8alvation history as reeorded in the eanon of
Scriptt1re.
240 A Symposium oe Biblical Hermeneutlcs
Prophetie and Apocalyptic Prophecy
241
How eao this be understood? In the first place, we need to
realize that Malachi's prediction of the sending of Elijah refers
back to the message and work of reformation of the original prophet
Elijah, who lived io the days of Israel's king Ahab aud his wife
Je&ebe1 (1 Kings 16:30ff.).
Thls typologieal gtructure can be Eound if we conalder Mala-
chits prophecy of the seDding of EUjah to God's people (HaI 4:5,
6) in the light of tbe revelation. Inasauch BS tbe OT cloaes--
or better, remains open--with this covenant procise of God. we
caD only look to che NT for any eschatological fulfillment.
According to Christ, His forerunner John the Baptist fUQctioned
aa the fulfillment of Malachits prophecy of the coming of Elijah.
(See Mt 17:10-13;
It was Elijah'g specific work to lead Israel beck to the true
and living covenant fellowship with Yahweh out of the confusion of
an amalgamation of Israel's religion and Raalism. Elijah finally
brought the hour of decision for Israel on Mount Carmel with his
last appeal: '''Ho\i long will you go UJlping with two different
opinione? tf the Lord [Yahweh) is God. fol10w ht.; but if Baal,
then fol10\0l bim'" (1 Ki 18:21. RSV). Tben God'. special mani-
festatIon of His power brougbt all people to a final stand for or
againat the true God. For the faithful ones there followed showers
of blessing. for the impenitent ones. execution. Tbe essentials
of the Elijah message could be suamarized as:
Restoration of the commandments of
williog obcdience (cf. 1 Ki 18:18).
Tbe people of the three angels' messages of Rev 14:6-12 func-
tion in this reepect as the apocalyptic aotltypical Elijah, as the
predlcted restoration message pp. 716. 227; SDA Bibl.e Com-
val. 4. p. 1184, on HaI 4:5. 6). Uow grest. tben, 1s the
responelbl1ity of that people which i8 called to be the fulfillment
of the three angels of Revelation aad to proclaim the Elijab mes-
sage for today! Their worlowide presence constitutes the grestest
eign of all that the second coming of Christ 15 st hand. Tbey can
be recognized by their faitbful pers8verance in keeping "the eom-
mandments of God. end the fa1th of Jesus" (Rev 14:12).
A detailed interpretation of the three angels' messages would
a careful investigation of the immediate context of Rev 12-
14, and of its wider root context in Den 7-11. Our main purpose
here has been to show hov our view of the Seventh-day Adventist
hermeDeutic of biblical eschatology and respeets aDd
honors the intrios1c multiplex structure of a God-and-Christ-
centered unity of the OT and NT. Th. dyna.lc interrelatlonsbip
of the OT and NT i8 discovered in joy through a recognition of
their typological structure of promtse and fulfl1lment acknowl-
edging God in Christ as the decisive center of all prom-
ises and prophecies.
relevancy of Malachi's prophecy. Yet Malachi's prophecy was not
exhausted in this eachatological fulfl11ment of Jabo's preparatlon
message prior to the first advent of ChriSt, because Malach! had
connected his prophecy with "the great and terrible day of the
Lord" (4:5). This day is interpreted by the NT as the day of the
second advent of Christ (Rev 14:14-20). Therefore it 18 legitimste
to ask for the apoealyptlc relevaocy of Halachl'a prophecy io COD-
nection wich the final judgment day.
blood
the Lord through a
througb the atoning
[1 Ki 18'30, RSV]).
true llorship
of the Lord"
Restoration of the
"repaired the altar
2.
new and
l.
(Elijah
When Malechi later predicts areturn of the prophet Elijah,
this propheey may indieate tbat in a t1me of renewed apostesy and
confusion God again will send Elijah's message of revival aad
reformation. Thie time came at the first advent of Christ, as
attested by Jeaus Himself and the angel Gabriel to the parents of
John the Baptist (Lk 1:13-11).
Jobn the Baptist prepared a peop1e to meet Christ through his
cessage and baptism of true repentanee and his fatthful stand for
the hely law of God's covenant before Herod the tetrarch (Lk 3:3,
16-21)
Therefore Je.us saw in John the Baptist the fulfillment of
Halachi' s prow.ise of Elij eh, who would lIreetore all things" (Ht
17:11). Even the disciples of Jesu8 were unaware at first of the
Relevancy of Daniells
ApocalIPtic Outline Propheeies
Jeaus apecifically mentioned the book of Daniel as ooe of
vital importance for the early Christian Church (Mt 24:15). The
Apocalypse of Jesus Christ by the many parallele to it e=phasizes
tbe increaslng timeliness of Daniel's apocalyptic visions for the
remnant churen. The history of Christian expositions of DanieJ
shows that many times current events have.bee.D made the focus of
prophetie interpretation. Groundless have brought
the book of Daniel ioto 111 repute. All the more therefore a
careful cODslderatlon and an applicatloD of apocalyptic herm;neu-
tical principles that are qualified by the everlasting gospel,
are mandatory.
242
A Symposiua on Bibliea!
Prophetie and Apocalyptic Prophecy 243
In the first place, it is necessary to respect the given
order of the four .ajor visions in tbe book of Daniel. in chap-
ters 2, 7, 8, 10-12. They begin with tbe simple outline of 6UC-
cessive polieiesl wcrld evants (ehap. 2). continue with an enlarge-
ment and aaplification of religious-ecclesiastical evants within
the prevloualy outlined palitteal fra-ework centering 00 the cove-
oaot people of God and their vorsbip (chaps. 7 and 8). end finally
tbe book eoda with a complicated and detalied outline cf all those
polittea! conflicts that have a bearing on the true covenant peo-
pie of God fra. Oaniel's time onward untll tbe elose of probat ton
and tbe day of resurrection (chaps. 11-12:2). Ta approach this
apoca1yptle book fram the end, tbat 19 from the last vision. and
to work backward to explain the prev10us visions. has been the
fundamental errot of many efforts to open the mysteries of the bock
of Daniel tbat wer.. sealed ti11 IItbe time of the end" (12:4, cf.
8:17) (d. AA.. p. 585, Ge.. p. 356).
The book of Daniel is ingeniously canstructed. and requires
recognition of its structure. First, the general and simple out-
line in ehapter 2. the so-ca11ed ABC of all further apocalyptic
prophecies. Only then can the seeond Iayer. the third. and ulti-
.ately the fourth be put on. Each stratua requires the knowledge
of the previous one(s).
Yet also s seeond fundameotal principle of apocalyptic expo-
sition must be realized: that portion of the book of OaRiel relat-
iog to the last daya being sealed "until the tiDe of the end"
(12:4. RSV) will be unsealed ooly in the time of the end, that is,
by Christ Jesu8 and His apoca1yptic. apeciflca11y in the book of
Revelatlon (see 1:1-3) and Hark 13 (par. Mt 24; Lk 21) (cf. TM..
p. 115).
The eontiouity of symbolic terminology and imsBery between
Danlel und Revelation has been eommon1y recognized. Yet not all
interpret Daoiel consistently through RevelatioD, the apoealyptic
unsealinB of Daniel by the exa1ted Christ. The kingdom of God
(Yahweh) in Daniel (2:44; 7:27) is now, in the time between the
two advents of Christ. revealed to be the kingdom "of our Lord,
and of his Christ" (Rev 11:15; Ps 2:7-9). Therefore the outlioe
propheciea of Dan 2 and 7 cover the per iod of time until the
second advent of Christ in all glory and power.
Inae-uch as the four major out1ine prophecies of Daoiel (chaps.
2, 7, 8. 11-12:2) begin with the world empires cf Daniel's own
days (Neo-Babylonia and Medo-Persia) and all four seriea end with
the judgment day. somewhere in eaeh serles the first advent of
Christ ia neeessarily passed. This may not be indieated expltcit1y
in any series, but 1t still 1s of cruc1al importanee for the
Christian expositor from a hermeneutical point of view.
Tbe NT teachea the eonsistent Christologieal applieatiOn--
ineluding Its eeciesiologieal aspeet--of the whole eovenant termi-
nology and imagery of the old dispensation as iar aa it applies
to the time after the first advent of Christ. The her.eneutieal
eonsequences of the gospel of Christ for Daoiel's outline prophe-
eies may now become evident. They vould require tbat the th&O-
logteal meaning of such terms aa Israel, Judah. holy land. Mount
Zion. sanctuary. saints. little horn. king of the north, and klag
of the south would be applied Cbriatologically snd ecelesiologi-
ea11y fram the point at whieh an outline series moves ioto the
new era. When Christ thus becomes the hermeneutieal key to unloek
the of Danial's apocalyptic. its profound eschatological
message can be unsealed for the Christian Cburch without arbitrary
interpretations or unspiritual Middle-East speculatlons.
Ihe conslstent Chrietologlcal applieation of Dan 7 gave the
ftrst Reformation in the a1xteentb century the conviction of
ident1fying the persecuting antichrist and Its desolating abo.l-
nation after the cross of Christ. (For doeu.entation. aee
Paith.. val. 2, pp. 245-247; 254-256; 433-439). The
consistent Christological application of Daniel 8, specifleally
with regard co tbe sanctuary and its cleansing (or restoration
in 1u rtghtful place) for "the time of ehe end" (see Dan 8: 14.
17). gave rlsa co the Seventh-day Adventist Chureh during tbe
nineteentb century and gave her the eanviction of a specific
.andate and mission as a movement of destiny (see Proom, Ibid...
vol. 4, pp. 877-905; and in Mbvement 01 Destiny, ehap. 36).
The conslstent Christo1ogical app1ieation to the teruioology
and imagery in the problematic chapter of Dan 11 cou1d provide an
interpretation that 18 not based on the shlfting sands of po11t1-
cal. racial, and territorial speculations but, rather. on the
everlasting Rock Jesus Christ.
Tbc eritiea! question 1s: wbere in the outline series of
Dan 11 does thc prophetie portrayal pass tbe first advent of Christ
and also enter ioto the time of the end?
The serie8 of Dan 11 may be believed to enter the time after
the cross of Christ. from verse 31 onward, beeause verse 31 speaks
about the setting up of "the abomination that makes desolate" (RSV) ,
profanation of the temple. the taking away of the "continual"
(burnt offering) or "daily" (mediation service). Here Dan 11
reveals It8 repetition and enlargement of ehapter 8, as i8 often
recognized. Dan 11. therefore, basically 18 an ampliflcation of
Dan 8. The wicked power described in Dan 11:31-39 possessea the
same charaeter18tiea aa the power portrayed in Dan 8:11-13. The
same terminology end imagery are used in both prophetie outllnes t
244
A Symposium on Biblical Hermeneutics
Prophetie and Apocalyptic Prophecy
245
each beglnning wich ehe rule of Medo-Persia: eventually a eruel,
self-deifying eneay of the covenant people of God will srlse,
Intrude ehe glorious land (Palestine). cast down ehe truch (that
Is, ehe [TUe reitgtaus worship). trample undexfoot both ebe sanc-
tuary snd les host (that iso ehe worshipers in te), snd replace
the truch by bis own worship in "transgression." ehe desolating
cr devastatlng abomination.
It 15 aelt-evident that the same principle snd
cons1stency of application would be required in Interpreting Dan 11
8a Dan 8. In hoth outlines ehe vicked King arises 8gainst the
Prince of ehe host, the Prince of princes (8:11, 25; 11:22). a
seeming refereoce to the Messiah, the leader of the Israel of God
(cf. also Dan 9:25; JOB 5:15).
The traditional interpretation by the Christian Churcb has
appl1ed the blaaphel!lous king of Dan 11:36ff. to the anelchriat,
whem the apostle Paul saw taking his seat with1n "the temple of
God" (2 Th 2:4)-that is, within the Chrlst1an Church (d. Eph 2:
20-22; 2 Cor 6:16) (see Proom, 7he Prophetie Paith, vol. 2. pp.
529-531, 793). Tbia Chrlstological-ecclesio!oglcal interpretation
of Dan 11:31-39 vas continued io the prophetic expositions of the
(from 1831-1844), and in those of tbe priocipal Sabba-
tarian Adventists (from 1844-1875).3 Tbe critical issue. bovever.
has to do with the interpretation of the final portion of Dan 11,
verses 40-45; 12:1. 2; for this part 1s commonly recognized as
still unfulf111ed prophecy. Here everythlng depends on one's
Christocentric hermeneutical principles of apocslyptic interpre-
tation and their cons1stent application. But at best. there i8
room for tentativeneS8 when moving beyond insplred interpretation
of unfulfil1ed prophecy.
As 800n aa Christ and His true covenant people are ignored
at the heart aad center of apocalyptic, immediately and neeessarily
the foeus of attention seems to be directed to such uDspirieual
matters ss territory and race by themselves. separate fram Christ
and His people. Thus Christ and the NT are subordinated to the
OT and consequently rejected as the superior and declsive norm of
apocalyptic interpretation. Neither the Jewish race or kings as
such. nor aoy Hiddle-East territory. nor some ancient national
enemy of the Jewish nation such aa Babyion or Egypt were ever at
the heart of God1a covenant with the patriarchs and vith Israel.
The God of the OT Himself 18 the center of all the promises that
He will dweIl &mong His people.
Early, the ereator of man chose Abr.. aad later the twelve
tribes of Israel for the benefit of the whole huaan race. that
all tbe familles (Gentiles) of the world mdght be blessed in

Christ Jesua, ehe Saviour of the world, and might worship God
through (see Go 12:]; Ga! 3:6-29). Aeeordingly, all four
major outlioe prophecies cf Danie!, inspired by the God of Abra-
ham, revea! this universal seope and significance for all Gentiles;
and even climax in a final cosmic cooflict between heaven and
earth. This universal purpose of God's e1ectioD of Abraa and
Israel, tbat God's "salvation I18Y reach tO the end of the eerth"
(Is 49:6, RSV; 45:22-25), is now further unfolded in the gospel
message of the apostle Paul (Eph 1-3; Rom 11) and in the book of
Revelation as beiog ultimately fulfilled in the doxologies to the
Father and the Son by all creatures in heaven and on earth (see
Php 2:5-11; Rev 5:13, 14).
We have shown above our vlew that the apocalyptlc portrayals
of Joel end Halach! are developed in Rev 14 in a worldwlde
fulfillment.
It i9 essential to the the unfulfil1ed passage oe
Dan 11:40-45; 12:1, 2, must be interpreted according to tbe same
henaeneutical prlnciple. as the apocalyptic of Joel and Malach!.
There can be only oue harmonious apocalyptic in the OT, S8
tbere i& only one apocalyptie In tbe And both the OT snd the
NT apocalyptlc are ODe in Christ. This tmplies tbat the OT apoea-
lyptic (including Dan 11:40-45; 12:1, 2) will be fulfilled accord-
ing tO the Chrlstologieal interpretation in Revelation, chapters
12 to 22 in partlcular. Any hermeneutic that fails to de.onstrate
tbe intrinsic theologieal unity of the OT and NT must be regarded
as an inadequste hermeneutic.
imagery of a faithful remnant gathered together on Mount
Zion in Jerusalem surrounded by confederated enemie& in the "valley
of Jehoshaphat" 8S pictured in Joel, Ezekiel. Zecharlati. snd Daulel
(11:40-45), ia not apiritualized away in Rev 14, but extended aad
universalized to encompsss the whole world (see Rev 16:14). Thc
matter at issue in this apocalyptic cosmic war ls not race or
territory but the name of God, the truth of His covenant. and the
vindication of His eOvenant people (see Joel 3:2, 3; Eze 38:16;
39:22, 25-29; Zee 12:5-8; Rev 12:17; 14:12).
Bastes!ly this seems to be the picture of Dan 11:40-45; 12:1.
The portrayal. ltke chapters 11 and 8. 18 couched in OI tcrminology
and therefore 18 Palestine The tlking of the north" (or
Babyion; cf. Jer 1:l5j 25:9) will once again (see va. ]1) invade
glorlous land (Paleat1ne) (Dan 11:41. 45) when he goes forth
with great fury co extezwinate aud utterly destroy many" (vs.
44, RSV). However. his aim 18 to conquer Jerusalem and destroy
the eovenant people of God gathered togetber on Mount Zion wbere
the Lord dweIls in Bis sanctuary (cf. Joel 2:32; 3:16. 17):
246
A Symposium on 8iblical Hermeneutics
Prophetie and Apocalyptic Prophecy
247
And he (the king of the north) ahall plteh his
palatl4! tents between the sea Bnd the gtaTions holy
yet he shall come to his end, with none to
hetp hla. "At that time ahall arise Michael. the
great prince who has charge of your people. And tbere
ahall be a tUne of trouble, such as never has been
sinet thete was a nation til! ebat time. but sc ehat
time your people shall be delivered. every oDe whose
name shall be found in the book" (Dan 11:45i
12:1, RSV).
Ihis 15 Danie1's portrayal of the OT apocalyptle war between
heaven and earth. crystallized between the fsithful remnant of
Israel and Babyion. Tbe final battleground centers on MOunt Zion,
wich is called "the glorlous boly 1nOUntain" (Dan 11:45) because
the Lord 15 dwelling in His Temple on Mount ZiOD 1n the corthern
part of Jerusalem (see Ps 48:1, 2).
In the portrayal of Dan 11, the Isst enemy of the Israel of
God will besiege the city of God. Taking his Beat elase to the
holy uounta!n (Zion), "betveen the [Mediterranesn] ses and the
glorlous holy mounts!n" (Dan 11:45, RSY). he prepares for a final
attack upon the holy city. Then comes the aurprise--"yet"--he
shall suddenly "coae to his end, with none to help h1Jll" (vs. 45.
RSV). The reason is given: "Michael. the great prince" (12:1)
of Israel aha!l arise to vindicate the covenant of God st the
haur of their extreDity. He viII at once destroy the persecutor
and deliver His chosen ones.
Th1s c1imactie end presents basica11y the same picture al
the prophets Joe1. Ezekiel. and Zechariah present. When Christ
comes as king and judge (Rev 14:l4)He will 1utervene on behalf
of His covenant people on "Mount Zion." snd destroy thc
tors "outside the city" (Rev 14:20, RSV). In this way the OT
apocalyptic contalns for the Chrlstian Church st once an exbor-
,
tat ion to be faithful to the covenant of God and a promise of
ultimate deliverance for those who persevere until the end. Those
who have died in hope. not having reeeived the promige, "shall
awake to everlasting life" (Dan 12:2, RSV).
When thus Daniel snd Revelation are connected, view1ng the
apoealypse of John as the advaneed unfolding and Christolosieal
interpretation of Daniel, not only is the tbeologies1 unity of
OT and NT apocalyptic maintained snd honored but also Christ 1s
upl1fted s' ehe divine and faithfu1 Saviour cf Israel. In all
eternity the covenant people of both the old snd the new dispensa-
tion will join the heavenly eboir in einging praises tO their Crea-
tor God. wbo has utto1ted. "all things in bi.a [Christ). things in
heaveu snd things on earch" (Eph 1:10. RSV).
NOTES
1J. F. Walvoord, in Ptoophecy (Zoodervan: Grand
Rapids. 1962), p. 93. This ca.partmentalizing exegesis of the OT
by itself in isolation from the NT can be seen in macy of the
presentations given st the "Jerusalem Conference on Biblical
Propheey." 1971. See P1'ophecy in the Naking. edlted by C. F. H.
Henry (Creat1on Hause, 111., 1971). Tbe position of G. D. Youog
19 typiesl for aodern 'Protestant Futurism when he states: "There
may be passages 1n the Scr1ptures in which the ehureh 1s spaken
of as the Israel of God. or even the new Israel. Our covenant 1s
the new covenaut. But it surely is a bit tao much to expect that
Jews eould 90 read the1r Bib1e and believe that" (p. 163). The
matter at 1aBue 1s not whether a Jew reading his Old Testaaent
eould ever conelude that the chureh 1s the peop1e.
Row could he? The real issue 1s whetber the Jew acceptB through
the New Testament Jesus of Nazareth as tbe Hess1ah of
Israel. then. aud only then, a Jew can be11eve that the new-
eovenant people are the ehurch of Christ Jesus and His twelve
apostles (see Eph 2:11-22).
A seeond point of misunderstanding, wbich i8 of no-1ess-
serious nature. is the eonclusion that Dt 30 foretells areturn
of tbe Jewish nation to Jerusa1em after a seeond dispersion, or
scattering, acong the nations; ss Young baving quoted De
30:5. "end t.his. God saldo would be their lot after an interna-
tional dispersion and not. merely the captivity in Egypt" (p. 164).
The idea often propounded il that the later Assyrian captivlty
(of the ten northern teibes of Israel, sinee 722 B.C.), and
Babylonian captivity (of Judah, from 60.5-536 B.C.). are not a
seattering of Israel aaong all the nations, as the propheeies of
Dt 30; Jer 30:3; 31:8-14: Eze 39:25-28; Amos 9:11-15; describe
(see also J. F. Ws1voord. "Tbe Future of Israel," in rbid., pp.
336f.; cf. his Israel in Propheay, esp. pp. 67-79). This evalua-
tion of the Assyrian-Babylonian exile, however. 8eems unten.bIe in
view of the fact tbat the beathen nations were trading their eap-
tured slavea throuih the Phoenicians (Tyre snd Sldon) to all
nations in all directions, see Eze 27:13; Joel 3:2-6. For a
thorough treatment of all the arguments of Futurism from the OT.
see the scholarly Het HersteZ van Ispael votgens het Oude Testa-
ment, by Dr. G. eh. Aa1ders (Kak: Kampen, no date given);
by sue Dutch author. De Oud-Testamentisohe P'Pofetie en d Staat
(Kak: Kampen. 1949).
2See , e.g., W. Zlnmerli, "Promise and Fu1fill.ment," in
Essays on OT pp. B9-122; esp. pp. 113-116. G. eh.
Aalders, De OT Profetie en d Staat Isroel (Kak: Ka.pen 1949).
p. 29. end his Commentaar op Daniet (1962), pp. 230, 234, refers
248
A Symposium on Biblical Rermeneutics Prophetie and Apocalyptic Prophecy
249
Frice. G. Me. The Graatest of the Prophets. Hountaln View, Cali!.:
Pacific Press Pub. Assoe 1955.
Ramm. B. L. Protestant Biblical Inte!"pNtation. A Tsztbook 01
Hermensutwa. 3d rev. ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book
House, 1971.
A valuable conservative Protestant treatise.
Strand, K. A. TM Open Gates of Beaver.. ABrief Introduction to
Literary Analysis of the Book of Revelation. 2d ed. Ano
Arbor, Hich.: Ann Arbor Pub. 1972.
A fine contrlbution fram an SDA scholar.
__ :l"he Time of the End. NS8hville. Tenn.: Southern Pub.
heoc., 1967.
These two bocks, the first on Daniel. the second on
Revelation. offer a deepening. but not always representativa.
SDA understaodios of biblica1 apoca1yptic.
Section 3 of Baker's
Grand Rapids. Mich.:
__--;=. et al. Bermeneutic8. A reprint of
Dioti<mary of Praoti=t TnBOlogy (1967).
Bakel' Book House. 1967.
to Dan 9:27 as the prediction cf the final desolation or rejectlon
of national Israel aa tbe true covenant people after the deetruc-
tion of Jerusslem in A.D. 70.
3See chart 4 on the principle Sabbatarian Adventista. FToom.
val. 4, pp. 1118. 1119. Uriah Smith differed
froa James White. Jose.ph Bates, Uiram MaoD. and otber Adventist
vrlters in that he interpreted the "king" of Dan 11:36-39 88
France during tbe French Revolution. Here be folloved 88 his
guid1na source snd authority Alexander Kelth aad other English
premillennialistB (see Froom. val. 4. p. 1113:
vol. 3, p. 744. ehart). The Study Report in March.
1954. pp. 22-27. ha5 indicated ehe incorrectness of this
interpretation.
40. Stith in 1871 sucldenly changed his vlew on the "king of
the north" from papacy to Turkey. aceepting the populal' inte-rpre-
tation of the British premillennialist8. Proom observes on this
matter: "ln this he differed from White and certain other Advent-
ist writers" (Prophetie val. 4, p. 1121; cf. also p. 1116,
note 15. See also the charts on pp. 847. 1119. On the 8ritish
exposltors. see cbart in val. 3, p. 744).
RRADIlfG LIST
Berkou'Jer, G. C. The RetuPn of Christ. Studies in Dogmaties.
Grand Raplds. Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co tr. 1972.
An up-to-date orthodox view on eschatology by the 1ead-
ing syetematlc theologian in Reformed Christianity today.
Especially chap. 11. "Israel as Sign?" 18 a contribution.
Froom. L. E. Movement ofDl!18tiny. Waahington, D.C.: Review
aod Hecald Pub. AS60C., 1971.
WolH. H. W. "The Beraeneutics of the Old Testament. n Essays on
0'1' Hermeneutics. Edued by C. Westermann. 3d ed. (pp. 160-
199). Richmond, Va.: J. Knox Press. 1966.
W. "Promise Bnd P'ulfilaenL
ll
Essays on OT
(pp. 89-122). Edited by C. Wester.ann. Richmond, Va.: J.
Knox Preis, 1963.
The essays of Wolff and Zimmerli represent the new
emphasls on the Christocentric unity of the whole Bible by
German evangelical scholars.
-
--;::::c. "The Advent Message Built Upon the Poundationt! of Many
Generations." Gur Firm Foundation. Vol. Il (pp. 77-182).
Washingeon, D.C.: Review and Herald Pub. Assoe. , 1953.
Henry, C. F. tl. , ed. boph6ay in th6 Making. Carol Streu, 111.:
Creation House. 1971.
Areport of the Jerusalea Conference on Bibllcal
Prophecy. Tbe general trend 1s futuriam and I1teralism.
Ladd, G. E. Crocial QuBstions Abaut the Kingd01l'/ of Gcd. 4th pr.
Grand Rapids. Micb.: wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1961.
Basical1y a refutation of Dispenaat1ona11sm.
Profuse' of raeUgWlI on the. La Siel'lU
campus of Lama. Unda Dr.
F. Pease haB conirined teaching,
paBtoral, and college administJutive
rrriniarnes to the Seventh-day Adventist
Church eines 1931. His Ph. D. in rhto-
ric and public address, received at
Etate University in 1964 is
retated to his speaialization in applied
thBology. Fram 1967-1971 he was
man of the reZigian department on the
La Sierru carPpus.
PAR T V
INTERPRETATION IN PROCLAMATION
14. Preaching snd Blblical laterpretation
NORVAL F. PEASE
La Siena Campus
Lo1ll1 Linde: UnilJereity
Ihis chapter 18 an incuraion iuto the ares known as the the-
ology cf preaching. 1t 18 intended particularly for the preaching
minister. with whmn I identify. The objective of this study 16
to explore certsin theological aspects of biblical interpretation
in the context of the work cf the preacher. The first part of the
chapter deals with recent and contemporary regarding
preaching and bibl1cal interpretation. For chis reason, more
tat ions and references to authors occur than in previous chapters
in ehis book. The second ares of cancern 1& principles of hibll-
cal interpretation as they apply to preac.hing. This chapter 1.s
intended as a sequei CO the material presented by the other suthors
in this symposium.
A regrettable tension often exists between biblical scholars
and preachers. The scholars think that preachers are superficial
in their handling cf ehe Scriptures. that they sacrifice aecuraey
a1'ld eontent for "inspiration." The preachers. in turn. think that
scholars are so techniesl and philosophieal that the average per-
son cannat understand what they are saying. Unfortunately, hoth
sides can produce ample evidence to substantiate their concerns.
Lawre.nce Tocabs observes: "The scholar goes OB his wey writiDg
books for bis pupils and for other scholars. and the minister
marehes resolutely on his, sat1sfied with little homilies on how
to live deeently. er rlth analyses. so-.e ac.ute end seme banal. of
tht social. political, and paychological scene of tbe present day,
vbich because they deal with eurrent topics. be has deluded him-
aelf !nto think1ng are relevant. "-The Old Teatanent in Christian
Preaching, pp. 13, 14.
252
A on Biblica1 Hermeneutics Preaching and Biblical Interpretation 253
Hall's concept may be cbarted as follows:
Contemporory Viewpoints on freach1ng
and Biblical Interpretation
It 18 iaportant for the minister CO recognize his reaponsi-
bUity as an interpreter of the Bible. Tbe average parish minis-
ter may not have SB much knowledge as tbe special ist in biblical
but he should have Bufficient understanding of ehe Bible
ehat he can rightly dlvide tbe ward of truch. And he must reallze
ehat he 18 alIoost ehe only 80urce froa whlch the average church-
goer will 1earn the ceaning and the relevance of ehe Billie. There
was a time wben ca.mon ordinary people studled the Bible far them-
selves. would indicate ehat this time has largely
paased.
Thor Hall, associate professor of preaehing and theology at
the Divinity Sehool, Duke University, 18 suthor of a book published
in 1971 entitled The FUture Shape of Preaohing. To illustrate one
of his theses he draws three circles. The first cirele represents
theological methodology. Eight different meehodologies are indi-
cated at 45 degree intervsls on ehe circumference of this
The second circle represents hermeeeutics, with eight different
kinds of hercaneutlcs indicated at corresponding points an the
cireumferenee. The third eirele represents religious language,
\lHh eight kinds of rel1gious language at corresponding points on
the cirele. Tbe author's idea is clear. Eech theological method-
ology results in a particular hec.eneutlcal theory. also in a
specific theory of eommunlcatlon.
In Hall"s analysis it is aignificant tbat the ooly theory of
reli&lous language that gives tu11 to the supernatural
18 the one that 18 based on revelatianal theology and henaeneutic.
This teIls us that in our communicat1on of Dur message we can
heed the observation of Paul: W8 have received not the spidt
of the ,",orld. but the Spirit whieh 1s from God, that we might un-
der.tand the gifts bestcwed on us by God. And we iapart chis in
werds not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, inter-
pretiog spiritual truths to those wo possess the Spirit" (1 Cor.
2:12, 13, RSV).
Hall refers to what he calls "cOlllllonsenBe hermeneutic." This
viewpolnt reduees the Bible to a work of great literary worth.
valuable as a Bource of religious ideas and moral values, but in
oe sense of supematural orlgin. This 18 the language of liberal-
iBm. based on secular theology. and expressed In the everyday
language of hU1IIan experience. This viewpoint stand. Olle hundred
eighty degrees removed from conservatlve Chrlstianity, so i8 not
likely co lnfluence the thinking of the SevaDth-day Adventist
preacher.
A bit more subtle 18 the existential herm.neutie, based
largely on the theology of Rudolph Bultmann. This hermeneutieal
school demythologizes the biblical message, reducing the contents
of the Bible to concepts acceptable Co twentieth-cer.tury man.
This viewpoint has bad a profound effect on preaching. ror exam-
pIe, 1 onee heard John A. T. Robinson preaeh a sermon on Jesug'
healing of the daughter of the Syrophoenician woman (see Hk 7:24-
30). He pictured Jesus es 80 ordinary mortal filled with Jewish
prejudices who found it difficult to respond to the request of
the mather who was appealing to Him in behalf of her daughter.
Bishop Robinson's hermeneutlc9, aB revealed in his sermon, left
nothing that eould not be reedily believed by the humanist, the
seeulerist, the antisupernaturalist. There was 00 divine Christ,
no miracle-working Lord--only a great man 9truggling to outgrow
his own weakness and prejudice. The biblical rccord had been re-
interpreted in a completely naturalistie context.
trouble 1f he tries to use encounter or existential hermeneutic in
his biblical interpretation. Conversely. 1f a Seventh-day Adven-
tist sdvocates encounter or existential hermeneutie he should not
be 8urprised if his theological methodology 18 questioned.
ReligiollS language
Logos-Word of God.
Ordinary language.
Two-nature theology.
3-dimensional theory.
Metaphysical event.
Liaguistie analysis.
Symbolic of absolutes.
Existential game.
Hermeneuties
Rcvelational hermeneutic.
Cowmon-8ense hermeneutie.
Eneounter hermeneutie.
Critlcal integration.
"Ne..... hermeneutie."
Historieal criticism.
Relational hermeneutic.
Existential hermeneutic.
Theolodcal
Methodology
1. Revelational.
2. Secular.
3. Dialectic.
4. Cdtieal.
5. Metaphysical.
6. Hiatorical.
7. Correlation.
8. Erlatentlal.
Th1s analysis tells U4 as Seventh-day Adventist ministers
lataething .we must never forget: /rfnen ioJe chocee our theology. owr
henneneut1-CS GUtd oW'" theory of !'e Ugitni l.angu.age C'ome in thB same
package. Ta be more apecific, the Seventh-day Adventist who
accepta "revelational theology" by definition finds himself in
Still core subtle i8 tbe "encounter bermeoeutic, U 80 influeo-
Ud io preaching c!rcles ainee Emil Brunner's Trouth as Enoow:tel'.
freachers who accept this coneept look at preaching not es the
interpretation of a passage of Scripture but as an encounter be-
tween God end the listener in whicb the preacher is a mediua of
254
A on Bibliea1 Hermeneutics Preachlng and Biblieal Interpretation 2SS
a sort of extension of Christology. that we shall be able to re-
diacover both tbe joy of preaching and the right of setting ahaut
it. "-PPeaching artd Congrngatiort, p. 15.
There i8 a eertsin convineing quality about these oft-repeated
statements linkiog preaching and the sacramenta. This viewpoint
seems to elevate preaching to a high level of importancej and as
every preacher knows preaching needs all the help it can get. But
to equate or relate preaching to the sacraments tends to reduce
the importance of the written Word aa the 8ubject matter of preaCh-
ing. This theology tends to shift the center of preaching from.
an h1storical revelation to an existential experlence.
It not hard to see the relationshlp between the preacher's
theology and his interpretation. The principles of interpretation
follawed by the conservative or evangelical preacher who aceepts
the Ible as the Word of God be different from those of the
liberal or neo-orthodox prescher. And preaching itself 1s modi-
Bed by the methode of bibl1cal interpretation em.played by the
preacher. A man holding the encounter theology. for example. may
be a biblieal preacher. but he will uae the Bible differently from
the way the preacher wo believes the Bible to be the revealed
Word of God uses it. The preacher who eonsiders the a9
saeramental may preach fram the Bible, but the authority he assign9
to the Bible be influenced by his theology.
To sltTrrnatize. a generation of preachers has been brought up
on Brunner's encounter theoloKY. the Barthien coneept of the Word
of God. and Christian ex1stentialism, espeeially as taught by
Bultmann. These, of course, are not the only influences that have
shaped the thinking of the clergy. but chey are ameng the moat
prominent. As a whole these cheologians who have influenced
twentleth-oentury preaehing have denled the Bible the p1ace in the
preacher's uorld that conservative Protestant theology would--or
should--deroand. The dilemma that has been produeed by this theo-
logleal trend is commented on by one of its advocates, Merrill
Abbey. of Garrett Theological Setninary: "The WOl'da af the texts
are no longer understood as authentie words of God. Since God
does not convey his trutb in propositions, texts are not eternal
pronouncements needing only to be explained and applied. Raving
lost this note of dlrect authority aa the chief interpreter of an
infallible Bible. and having fall.d to enter ioto full possession
of any adequate alternative af the autborlty of the Word. the pul-
pit has been left hesit.ant: and statllmering. "-The Word Interpreta
Ua. p. 38.
raised
Every
It must not be conc1uded that uo voices have been
c:.hallenging t.he trends that have been deseribed above.
Related to the encounter theology 18 the charismat!c -avement.
When the individual goes to church and receives the "spirit" and
speaks in tongues and sees people healed, ecripcural evldence 15
little likely to play a normative role for him. Re has experienced
an tlencounter" with God, be th1nks, that answers all his que.Btions
and .eets 811 his needs.
and the text 1$ involved but incidental. There 15
an element of truth in this viewpoint. Ibe listener shoul.d expe.r-
ience an encounter with God as ehe sermon 18 being preached. The
preacher shoutd be a mouthpiece far God. But when truth Itself
18 equated with this encounter. and when experience 18 placed above
revealed truth, those cf us who accept the Bible as the Ward of God
must object. Although truth 1s bigger than propoaitiona, it 1s
not eorreet to say that truth 18 not propos1tlanal.
Anothet contemporary viewpoint regarding preaching holds that
it i5 a sacrament. P. T. Forsythe preaching aB "the
sacrament whlch gives value to all ather S8craments. "--Positive
P1'eaching and the Modem p. 4. Kar! Barth deseribed preach-
ing and as "two nspects of the same thing. "--The Preach-
ing of the p. 26. Domenico Grasso, 11 Cathol1c spokesman
declares: "Preaehing as a vehicle of faith and grace has thus a'
certsin sacramentality. In it. under the visible sign of tbe
human a supersensible reality is preseat. snd acts jU8t as
in the sacrament."-P7oeaching God'e p. 251. Ronald
Sleetb. of Perkins Seminary. aays: "The sermon ftself should be
regarded as a saeramental act. "--P1'eaching the p. 2S. And
Jean Jacques von Allmen. of the Cniversity of Neuchate1 says,

And it i8 by saeramental waye of thinklng auout homiletics, by
Related to tbe encounter idea i8 the contention of Barth and
others that the Bible 16 not in itself the Word of God but that
it becomes ehe Word of God when it produces a spiritual lupftet on
the life of a person. In this context. preaching is considered
aa itself the Word of God. This cantention is espoused by Dietrich
Ritschl. Ronald Sleetb. Merri11 Abbey. and many others uho are
often identifted by the neo-orthodox label. The net result of
this approach is the derogation of tbe Bible aa the authoritative
Word of God. A subjective emotional existential experience. pos-
sibly induced by musie. stained-glass window8, personality. and
tradition IIl8Y be mstaken aB the voiee of God. Aod the theologi-
ca! presuppositlons of this school suggest that the "voice of God"
heard under these conditions may be as authentie as the written
Word of God. In fact, Dietrich Ritschl says: "It IalSt be con-
.sidered unbibUcal to 85SUM; tbat a true senaon i8 of lesa power
than the aayiogs of Jereaiah. or the worde of the Ser-ao. on the
Mount, or an Epistle of PauI. "-04 TheoZogy of Proclanation.. p. 31.
256 A Symposium on Bibitea! HermeneutiC9
Preaching and Blbiteal Interpretation
257
Seventh-day Adventist minister should read Edmund P. Clowney's
Preaching and Biblioal Theotogy. He points out the cbanges that
have taken place in ehe theology of preach1ng a.s a result of the
impact of changiQg attitudes toward religious autharlty. "Vtrtu-
811y any worda," he observes. "spaken in the situation may become
God' s Ward." After reviewing contemporary attitudea he declarea
ehat "the authority of preaching 15 not helghtened but lost if the
forsakes his place behind the Book. We are cal1ed to be
Christ I s but not Chrlsts. The Incarnation 19 not continued in us.
so that we may declare. 'I say unto you. U Dar are \oie apostles or
prophets, inapired cf the spirit to lay afresh the foundation of
the chureh for a oe.. day. We are ministers of the Word; by God'g
grace w1se men and 8cr1bee sent by Christ (Mt 23:24); evangelists.
pastors. and teachers; men of God thoroughly furnished by the Holy
Spirit for every good word of our cal1ing. "--p. 61.
"Christ's but not Christs.
ll
This would be a good motto for
preachers. When we presch. OUT message is not so Much a proclama-
tlon a8 an interpretation. We are dependent on the Holy Spirit.
who inspired the Bible, but also we are dependent on the Bible,
which the Holy Spirit Inspired. Dur sermons sre not S8craments
hut messages drawn from God's Ward. Preaching i9 not an "event"
but an unfold:1ng of truths already revealed. A concemporary
preacher. John R. W. Statt, says: "My first and deepest convic-
tlOft about preaching i8 that a i8 never more than the
srevard of goods entrusted to him and the herald of news which he
has bean commanded tO proclaim. Tberefore he i6 never the orig-
inator of new idea9, but ooly the dispenser of the old. His task
1s simply to expls1n, to interpret, and to apply God's revealed
sud written word,"--rroll. Roddy, We Prepa.re and h1each, p. 179.
This puts preaching in theological perspective. It doea not
mean that preaching is ure dry e.xegesis and rule-bound hermeneu-
ties. The Bible, whlch the preacher is to explain. interpret, and
apply, contains the good news of a Saviour who lived and died. who
was resurreeted from the desd, who is now our advocate, and who
18 coming again. The Bible i8 an authentie revelation of God and
Christ and the Holy Spirit. The Bible revealH how man should
relate to God. With the eid of the Haly Sp1rit the preacher has
plenty to explain, plenty to interpret, plenty to apply.
Applying Prtnciples of Her.eneutic8 to Preaching
The science and art of interpreting the Bible knawn as herme-
neuties, or, by same authors. hermeneutic. i5 the same for the
scholar. the tescher. the layman. and the preacher. The differ-
eoce lies in the use that is marle of the interpreted material.
The scholar cay write a book for fellow scholar8; the tescher may
exp!a1n the meaning of the Blble to his students; the layman may
hold Bible studies with a friend. But the preacher iDterpretB the
B1ble in order to persuade people ta become Christians and to
nurture those who are already Christlans.
Let UB look at several hermeneutica1 prtnciples thst have
been diecussed in this symposium with the purpose of relating them
to the peculiar task of the prescher.
. 1 "h "'1 1" 1. There i8 the BOla Bcn.ptUJ'la: princip t e LU e on y.
Tbis 1I6Sns that al1 preaching must be bihl1cal presching. I hes-
itate to use the term axpoeitory, because there 1s so much confu-
sion 8e to what this term melU'lS. The biblical sermon may take a
number of forms. It may analyze a Bible pa5!Jage. using the nat-
ural divisions of the passage as the points of the sermon. It may
dweIl on the theological snd behavioral impl1catiOP of a passage.
It may deal "11th a. subject er a htaan problem. uaing the BibIe as
the principal source of information on the subject or the key to
the 80lucion of a problem, This principle tells ehe preacher that
he .uSt never forget that the BibIe 1s the Word of God. the stand-
ard of fsith and praetice for the Christian. and the basic source
of preaching ideas and materials.
2. Then, there 1s the prlnciple of unity of SC1'ipture. This
means, as has beeu noted in other chapters of this bock, that the
Bible tesches one theology, not s variety of theologies. It means.
for example that there 18 no basic disagree.ent betweeu the the-
ology of Pa:u. and the theology of James. This unity is predicated
on the presupposition that the same Holy Spirit guided all ehe
Bible writera; therefore. despite their individual differences. a
fundamental onenesa pers1sts.
What does this mean fot' the prescheT? It mesns thst he will
understand biblical theology weIL enougb so that his on
Romans viII not contradict his sermons on James. In other words.
his preaching will unify his listeners' coneept of Seripture.
This insight will be deepened by an understanding of the plsce of
Christ in Scripture,
When s prescher plans a sermon he should always ask himself
the question "How does the message of this sermon relate to the
bibl1cal message as a whole? 1s it supporcive or is it irrele-
vant?" Ta make thiJ> evaluation correctly, the preacher needs to
know the teaching of the entire Bible about God, Christ. salvation,
man, law, revelation, the future, and any other top1es bearing on
the relationship between God and man.
258 A Symposium on Bibliea! HermeneutlcB Preaching and Blbl1cal Interpretation 259
3. The third principle? "Let Soripture expl.ain Soriptt-l.'m,"
comes from the Protestant Reforaation. Ir means that the ultiaate
criterla in determiniog the meaning of a portion of Scripture 1s
the testimony of other blbl1cal passages that deal directly or
indirectly \11th the same 6ubject. This principle is a corollary
of the ides of unlty of Scripture.
What does this imply for the preacher? It tells him that he
must da thorough work in comparing bis preaching portion virh other
related biblical passages. Ta da this aast effeetively be should
have a basic knwledge of blblical langusges. Whether or not he
knows Greek or Rebrev he must know hov to use sn analytlcal con-
eordanc.e effeetively. Re must be willing to scuttle a ''brilliant''
preacbing idea 1f he discovers it to be out of harmony with the
real meaning of the text in the context of parallel or explanatory
p8Saages.
.4.. The fourth princ1ple has to do wltb proper interpretation
of bibl1.cal worda and sentenees. !his principle reminds us of the
language gap that must be bridged. The whether or not
he i9 conVet9ant with biblical languages, must find ways of deter-
mining the word or wDrds he i8 stressing in his sermon
catry tbe idea that the Bible writer intended. Por the
word faith uy eean "saving faHh" 1n the highest Christian sense;
it may mean "assenting to an idea"; it -.y refer to faithfulness.
As fIl.8I\y as six different lleanings of faith heve beeo in
Paul's epistle to the Romans.
The preacher must also be aware of the importance of sentence
study. Tbe meaning of a word i8 DEten made clear by its cORtext
in the sentence (in the original, of course) in which the word i8
use.d.
Ability to cvaluate translations end paraphrases i8 a growing
need of m1r.ister as new versions proliferate. Ihis evalua-
tion must be based on sound scholarship. not on prejudicee and
personal preferences.
5. This prindple has to do with (!ontext and hietol'ioat bac*-
ground. Bacause liberal scholars talk about context end hbtorical
background, same conservatives have grown skeptical of the whole
concept. The fact that liberals may give undue stress to this
principle Dakes it all the more important that conservatives under-
stand ita proper usa.
The preacher lIU8t relate his preaching passage to the 11terary
unit in which the passage is found. He must be aware of the Buthor.
the cireumstanc:es of ."rHing. the time end place of writing. end
the reason for writing. This information uay not -ade obvlous
in the sermon. bur Ir needs to be part of the preacher's equipaent
as he prepares his sermon. At the same time this knowledge must
not be interpreted as reducing the Scripture to the saae level as
man-made literature. Tbe Scrlpture writers ma1ntained theit lndl-
viduality and weote to the coDtext of rheit tiae. but they were
God 's penmen.
Horrible blunders have been marle by preachers ",ho neglacted
to acquaint themselves with the contextual and historical back-
boch of ehe Bible and of the wrltingg of Ellen White. AB
preachers, ve owe it tO our listeners and to God to be reverently
meticulous In our interpretation of God I S Word.
6. Morber 1Japortant hermeneutica1 principle h that tJte
mes(l(J8 of the BibZe must be interpreted literal7.y unless it is
obviously figurative. Many a preacher has succumbed to the teap-
tation to depend too wch on allegory. One of the accompl1shme.nt8
of the Protestant Reformation was the sbattering of the allegorical
method of biblical interpretation that bad been popular for een-
turies.
The preacher has the Tight to drKJ lessons from biblical pas-
sages. Re may freely say. "'[his text suggests---
OI
or, uThis pas-
sage cay be applied--." But ..men he gays. "This text mean8---"
he had better stay close to the literal mesning intended by the
vriter. Deeper meaaings may be suggested by tbe text. but to be
autheneie they most have the elear support of other inspired
wtiters.
The interpretation of figurative expressions such as the
sywVols of prophecy presents dlfficult problems. Rere. again, the
safest procedure 18 te look for a clear statement from anothcr
inspired author. Preachers must exercise unusual care that they
do not mislead their listeners by fanciful and unsupporeed inter-
pretations. Disillusioned laymen may lose their faith if they
discover that their ministers da not know whereof they speak in
the area of prophetie interpretation.
The literal-figurative principle also wams against the de-
mytholegizing methodology of the Bultmann schoel. This merhod
of interpretation robs the Bible of its original meaning and sub-
stitutes philosophieal abstracticns. The minister who fellows
this course 1s replac1ng God's revelation with human theories.
7. An extension of the prlnc1ple just discussed i8 known as
ehe typo1.ogical prinoiple. Typology i8 a legitimste approach to
bib lical interpretation. Hany sermons have been pre.ached by
260 A Symposium on Hermeneutics Preaching and B1blical Interpretation
261
Seventh-day Advent1..st preachen using pa6ssges fram the epistle
to the Hebrews to unlock the mysteries of the OT sanctuary
This need not be unsafe allegory 01' undue spiritual1zing. It iso
TatheT, a process of recognizing tbe type (genera11y CI) that
finds it8 couaterpart in the NT anti type.
Preachers get in trouble when they use imasination toD
freely in this area. Inferences muse be supportahle by reasonable
evidence. UnsoWld analogies muat not be employed. Unreliable
authorities must not be used. "Private. interpretations" shake
falth in the preacher and, mors tragically, in the Bible ftscH.
COIlclusions
Ministers wbo read these pages may be tempted to exelaim. uIs
all this really necessary1" They may quest ion tbe iwportanee of
an understanding of current trends in the theology of preacbing,
and they may wender whether the rules of hermeneutics are real1y
meant for them.
In answer to this question, Bernard Ramm. one of the most
readable eontemperary writers on biblical interpretation. has this
to say: lOIt 15 felt tao frequentl,. by preachers that preach1ng is
of such a nature as to exempt the preacher from elose adherence
to rules of exegesis. Proper exegesis is necessary for commenta-
tors and theologians but. preachers--it i8 argued--have a 'poetic
1icense' with reference to scripture. This 18 most unfortunate
reasoning. If the preacher's duty 18 to minister the Word cf God.
hermeneutics 1a the means whereby he determines the meaning of the
""ord of God. '10 ask 101' e:rsmptior.s fr<mr tJle a'trict f'ULes of her-
meneutiaa is then to ask for an exemption /'t't7n pl'eaohing the true
rrsaning of the Ward of God. Th18 i8 precisely a repudhtion of
vhat a man 18 called to preach. namely. the truth of God's Yord.
"'!'his does not mean that preaching i8 nothing but pub1ie
exegesis or drab commenting on the saered text. There must be
energy, life. imagination. relevancy. illustration. and passion
in all preacbiog. Bookish, dry, technieal exp06ition is ooe aec-
essarily preaching the of God. But whenever scripture 15
used. it IIWSt be uaed according to soutld rules of her-eneutiCs."
--Protastant Bibtiaal p. 178.
Sound hermeneutics should enhance the preacher's sermons.
His messages should be .are iDteresting. more authentie. more
appealing, becauae they reflect more adequately the message of the
Scriptures. The Adventist prescher must take seriously the fol-
IOWing counsel fram Ellen White: student of the Word ehould
not make his opinioDs a center around which trueh 19 to revolve.
He should not search for the purpose of finding texts of Scripture
that he can construe to prove his theories, for this 1s wresting
the Scriptures to his destruction. The Bible student must
empty bimself of every prejudice. 18y his ovn ideas st the door
of investigation, sud with hUmble. subdued hesrt. with self hid
in Christ. with earnest praye.r, he should seek wiadom fram God."
--CounaeZe to Teaaners, p.
Preaching-real preachtng-iB blblical interpretation supp1e-
aented by the art of persuasion. snd all under the guidance of tbe
Roly Spirit.
R!.ADING LIST
Barth. Kar!. The Preaching o[ the Gospel. Philadelphia: The
Westminster Press. 1963.
A presentation of the Barthian theology of preaehing.
Baumann J. Daniel. An Introduction of Contemporary P!'eaahing.
Grand Rapids. Michigan: Haker Book Heuse. 1972. Chap. 6.
"B1blical Truths--Preach1ng the BibIe." pp. 93-107.
An evangelical approach to biblical preaching.
Brunner, EmiL Trruth as Encounter. Philadelphia: The Westlllinster
Press,
Contains the basic concepts of the Brunnerian theology
of preaching.
Clowney. Edmund C. Preaching and BibZical T1IeoZcgy. Grand Rapids.
Michigan: Eerdmana. 1961.
An effective defense of preaching as bihlical interpre-
tation.
Craddock. Fred B. AB One Without Authority. Enid, Ok,l.ahOtDa: The
Phillips Universlty Press. 1971. Chap. 6: Move-
IDl!nt and the Text," pp. 119-139.
A d15cussion of induetive preaching in relation to the
use of the Bib le.
Porsythe. P. T. Positive Preaclli1'1.g and tha Mode:m Mind. Grand
Rapids. M1chigan: Eerdmans. 1964.
One of the pioneers in the move away from the suthority
of the Bible in modern preaching.
262 A Symposium on Bibitesl HarmeneuticB
Grauo. DOGenico. Proclaiming God's Mosage. Hotre Dame. Indiana:
University of Notre Dame Press, 1968.
An effective pre8entation of a Roman Catholic theology
of preach1dg.
Mlller, Donald G. The Way to BibZ:ical PNaching. New York:
Abingdon, 1957.
A readable presentation of the neo-orthodox tbeology of
preach1ng.
Ramm, Bernard. Protestant Biblicat Intel'pNtation. Grand Rapids.
Kichlgan: Bakel' Book. llouse. 1970. Cbap. 7: "The Devotional
and Practical Dse of the Bible.
1l
pp. 185-200.
Tbc hoailetical observations of an evangelical authority
on hermeneuties.
Toombs. Lawrence E. T'ns O],d Testament in Christian Pnaaching.
Philadelphia: The West.Inster Press, 1961.
An appl1cation of hermeneutical princ1plea to the preach-
ing of the OT.
Semi.nary librarian for tr.e James White
librt:I1'1l at AndNtr.Je lJr.
Sakae Kuba holds .. ewadsmie rank of
professor of NfIW Testaml1nt. Be joined
th. faouUy in 1955 fotlot.>ing min-;
istry in HabJaii and Southern CahfornUl.
Bis Ph.D. TJa8 earned at the University
o! hie dissertation
carrying ths titl.e: "p 2 and Code:z:
Vaticanus. "
ProfeBsor of bib7.ica7. at tm;
Sl1'.JentJ:-day Adv81ltitJt ThAo"Logical Semi-
n<U'!I Vl'. Leona G. Running j<>ined
facuity in 1955. Sh l'"eaeived her Ph.D.
at Johne Bop1<.ins
Mary land. Her doctcra1- dissertation
'!JaS entitted: "An In.vestigation of thl1
Syri<re Version of Isaiah." She start8d
hBl" aB a Uacher in 1937 130m-
bining it numBrouB editorial. 1'e-
BponBibilities. She has aLso
on Va:t'iOUB as a research
Gssistant to the nated
10. 1/. P. Atbl"ight.
APPENDIX
Tools of Biblical Interpretation
SAKAE KUBO and
LEONA G. RUNNING
$DA Selln:naxoy
Androws Univel'sity
Tbe task of biblical exegesis according to Kaiser and KmBel
h "to discover tbe object1ve meaning of the text. i.e to learn
fram the text what it says about the subject matter d1seussed in
it. end vhat this means for me persona11y."--Exegetical Method:
A Student's Handbook. (New York: Seabury Press. 1967). p. 36.
In order to do this. it 1s neeessary [0 bave asound aethod and
re1iable tools.
Tbe first step in the proees9 is to determine what the text
iso The aafest thing to do 1s to begin with a Bible that has a
rellable text in tbe original languages. Por the OT this would
be the thlrd edition of R. Kittel. ed. Bibl.ia Hebraica (Stuttgart:
Wrttembergische Bibelanstale. 1937) until the BibZia HebFaiaa
(Stuttgart: Wrttembergische Bibelanatslt. 1968-).
edle.d by K. EIliger and W. Rudolph. 1s completed. Several fssci-
eIes have a1resdy appeared. For the NT the 25th edition of Nestle-
Aland's Novum Testamentum Grases (Stuttgart: lrdrttemberglsehe
Bibe1anstalt, 1963) remains the best beeause of its fuller appara-
tus. The United Bihle Soeieties
1
GPeek New Testament (New York:
American Bible Society, 1966). edited by Aland-Black-Metzger-
Wikgren, has a better type face and text but ita apparatu8 18 not
8S full as it should be for a good study Bible. Those who do not
use Greek Hebrew should evai1 the.selves of an English Bible
that is based on a good original text such aB the Revised Standard
Version. The Aaerican Standard Version 18 quite falthful in trans-
lation. but its Greek text is not the best. On the other hand,
the more reeent New Aaeric8n Standard Bible i8 a revision of tbe
Amerlcan Standard Version, and its Creek text 19 baaed on the
266 A Symposium on Heraeneutlcs
Toels of Bibllcal Interpretation 267
Nestle-Alsod. Those not too weIl acquaintOO with the seudy of tbe
text ahould consult Bruce Metzger's The Tert 0/ the New Teotament
(2d ed.; Nev York: Qxford University Press. 1968) and the same-
what outdated but standard werk of B. J. Roberts, The 014 Testa-
ment Te:z:t and Yersions (Cardiff: Dniversity of Wales 1951).
Tbe principles for determining tbe text in individual cases are
discussed in these books.
The best way to study the Synoptic Gospels 18 Co have the
parallel passages of all the Gospels in hand. The best Greek edi-
tion 15 Synopsis Quattuor EVangeLiorum (Stuttgart: Wrttemberglsche
Bibelanetait, 1964). edlted by Kurt Aland. The text of the Gospel
of John ts Included. sud in the footnotea variant readings and
parallele fram patristle Bources are found. Ibis has been pub-
lished 1n a Greek-English edition (1970), the English being the
RSV teltt.
After the text haB been detenrlned, one shou1d know prec1sely
what the text says. Two kinds of tools are needed for this. The
first of these is the LEllCON. For the GT the best lexieon in
English 1s nov Wl11ia3 Holladay's A Concise Hebrew and
Le:t:ieon of the DU Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1971), al-
tbough one still needs to resort to Koehler Bnd Baumgartner, Lexi-
con in Veteri8 'l'eatamenti Libl'08 (2d ed.; Leiden: 1958) for
more comprehensive text citation and for Donlexical items such as
etymologieal material, bibliographical entrie8, and the like.
Rolladay's work 18 mainly an abrids-ent of the third German edi-
tion (faaciele I, 1967) of the latter. Two th1rds of this edition
was completed in aanuscript form before the death of Professor
Baumgartner. Material on the last seven letters is based on the
2d edition. Tbe lexicon for the NT Is Walter Bauer's A Greek-
Englioh Lerioon of the New Testament an.d Othel' EaPly Christian
Literature (Chic8go: University of Chlcago Press, 1957). trans-
lated and sdapted by William F. Arndt and F. Wi1bur Gingrich.
The second type of tool for knowing what thc text aays 18
the REFERENCE GRAMMAR. For the best is tbat of Gesenius
and E. KautzIeh, translated by A. E. Cowley. Ge8eniu8' Hebrew
(2d cd.; Oxford: C1arendon Press, 1910), and R. J. Wil-
113ms' An OutZine of HebretV Syntax 1s a useful tool. For Gruk,
there are ewo exeellent ones: Blass-Debrunner's A Greek Gramrnar
of the New Testament (Chicago: Unlverslty of Chicago Press, 1961),
translated snd revised by Robert Funk; and Nigel Turner's
whieh is Vol. 111 of Moultonrs A GPammar of New Testament Gpeek
(Edinburgh: T. &T. Clark, 1963). Although not iotending to be
a thorouah or systeuat1c treatment. C. F. D. Koule's An Idiom-
book of the Neu Testament (Gambridge: At the University Press,
1953) is very helpful.
After we. have detex-.lned how the text reada we should go a
step farther than ehe meaning by Investigating more pre-
cisely the theologieal meanlng of certsin words. The best source
for this iD the Nt (although from a Uber'al perspect:ive) 18 Klttel-
Friedrich' 8 TheoZogiool Dictionary 0/ the New Teetar.ent (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964-). Eight of the nine projected volumes
have been translated from the Gen::J.an and published. Unfortunately,
tbere i8 in English 00 BUch comparable werk for the OT. However,
there 1s such a in Geraan (from the same liberal perspect1ve):
Botterweck-R1nggren's four-voluoe TheoLogisches zum Alten
Testament (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1970-), which is
in fascicles and no doubt soon will be translated into EDgl1sh.
Another s1m11ar work 18 TheoLogisohes Hand-
wlJ7"t8rbuch zum ALten Testament (2 vols.; MLmich: eh. lta1ur,
1971-). Same help can be fouod in R. B. Girdlestone, Synonyma 0/
the Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1948). Unti! the Cer-
Jaan works above have been translated. !nto English, the folloving
two works that cover words in tbe OT and NT viII be found useful:
Alan Ricbard80o, ed . A ward Book 0/ th Bibte
York.: Macmillan, 1959) and J. J. Von Allmeo, 00., A Companion to
the Bible (Naw York: Oxford University Press, 1958), which has
the title YooabuLary of the Bible (London: Lutterworth. 1958) 1n
the London edition.
Next, the immediate context of the verse should be elosely
scrutinized so that the argument aud train of thought of the
will be elearly seen. The exegesis of the will then be in
with its setting. This will help ODe svoid {alling iDto
the error of pulling statements out of context and thus distorting
thern.
After the loesl context of tbe verse has been scrutinlzed
larger context should be brought to bear on the verse. The author's
theology, style, waye of thought and expression, purpoae end objec-
tive, must be csrefully considered. What we need for these are
several types of warks: concordances. introductions, and theolo-
gies. Thc best Hebrew CONCORDANCE i8 S. Mandelkern's Veterie
Testamenti conoordantiae Hebmiooe a.tque ChaUlaica.e (3d ed.;
Jerusalem-Tel Aviv: Schocken, 1956, 1959). Tbe best Greek con-
cordance is Moulton-Geden's A to the Gl'eek Te8tament
(3d ed.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1926). Less comprehensive
though ussble are Llsowski' s KonkorodatlB zum hebrischen Alten
Testament (Stuttgart: Wrtteaberg1sche Bibelanstalt. 1958) for
the OT and Sehmoller's aum Neuen
Testament (9th ed.; Stuttgart: Wrttembergische Bibelan8talt,
1951) for the NT. lor those who do not read the Hebrew or Greek
tao well. G. V. Wigram'e Englis'hman's He1ntelJ and ChaZdee Concorod-
anee (5th ed.; London: Sa.uel Bagster and Sonst 1890) aod The
268 A Symposium on Biblical Her.neneutlcs
tools of Bibl1cal Interpretat:lon
269
EngZiahman's GplUlk Conoo1'drmce (London: Samue1 Bagster and Sous,
1839) are 8vailable. In boch of these, ehe yards in the original
languages are arranged esch ward 18 provided with
an lng11sh pronunciatlon, and the passages where the ward 18
found snd a translation of the passages with the Involved ward in
ftalies are given. For the Engllsh Blble (KJV). Robert Young'g
AnatytiCXlt Concordance to the Bible (rev. ed.; New York: Funk &
Wagnal1s. 1902) aud James Stroog's The EXhaustive of
the BibIs (New York: Methodist Book Concern. 1894) are the best.
Young's concordance 15 handier in that It Iiata the Greek or
Hebrew ward in the text and 115t8 the passages for the ward in-
volved according to tbe word in the original. For instance, the
English robber translates six different words, five Hebrew,
and one Greek. There are, then. s1% different listings for this
one Eng1ish word, one for each of the words. Youog also inc1udes
aB a bonus an artic.le by Willi.. F. Albright entit1ed "Recent
Discoveries in Bib1e Lands.
1I
Tbe advantage of Strong's b that
it 1s exhaustive in thet it liata every ward found in the Bible.
For the Creek OT there i8 available Hatch-Redpath'a A
to the S9ptuagint (Graz: Akademische Druck- u. Verlagaaostalt,
1954).
Concordaoces are usefu1 not ooly in determining the precise
meaning of a ward by its use throughout Scripture but also more
speciflca11y for our purpose 1n seeing how the author of the book
we are studylng uses a partlcular vord. ThTough the concordauce
we can check all bis uses of tbe ward in the book in question.
This analysis vill guide us 1n uDderstandiQS his use of this word
in the text 1n question.
Tbe best conservat1ve INTRODUCTIONS to the OT are R. K.
flarr1son' s Introduction to the otd Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerd-
aaDS, 1969) and Gleason L. Archer, Jr.'s, A SUrvBy of ota Teetament
Introauotion 1964;) sod to the NT, Dona1d Guthrie'g New
Testament Introduation (Downers Grove. 111.: Inter-Varsity Press.
1971). Not everyth1ng ean be accepted in the fo11owing liberal
iotroductions, hut much can be learned frOlll them vhen they are
used cautlously: Otta Eissfe1dt's Tne Otd Testament: An
duation (New York: Harper, 1965) and Peine-Behm-Km.el's Intro-
duction to the New Testament (14th rev. ed.; Nashvi11e: Abingdon
Press, 1966).
More uleful for our purposes are THEOLOGIES that deal with
the spec1f1c book ve are ezegeting. However, such are not always
availab1e. Same introductlons provide a limited the010gy for each
book. Unfortunately, there are 00 rea11y goad large theo10gies
of the Bible written from the conservatlve vievpoint. Dsed with
one can profit from the or theologies of Von Rad,
Eichrodt, Vriezen, and Jacob. The same 16 true for the NT tbeoIe-
gies of Bichardaon Jeremias. Bultmann (eapeclally in Faul). and
Conzelmann. H. D.' HcDonald baa come out witb UJJing Doctrir.stl of
the Testament (London: Plckering snd Iogl1s, 1971), which
trests separately the theologies of the different books or groups
of books.
The next step in exegesia 1a to be acquainted with Bible
backgrounds, so that knowledge of the geography, history, habitat
custa-s, pract1ces, thought, aud religion can i11uminate our
understanding of tbe text. FOT such purposes we need at1ages.
archaeologlcal books. hlstories, dictlooaries. and contemporary
sources. Tbe best ATLAS is st111 Wr1ght-FiIson's The Veatminster
Hiatoroical AtZ.aa to thB Bible (rev. ed.; Philadelphia: Wese.inster
Press, 1956); although tbe student should consu1t Grollenberg's
Atlas of the Bibte York: Nelson, 1956) for the excellent
photogTa'P
hs
and ehe Atlas of Israel (2d ed.; Jerusalem and Aml5ter-
dam: Israel Government - D8pt. of Surveys, A- Elsevier Pub. Co
1970) for geographical information. For the letter purpo8e Denis
Bs1y's of the Bibte (New York: Herper. 1957) i5 an
exce11ent soureo. E. M. B1aiklock'g Piatoriat BibIs Attas (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1969) has many good featurea sod can be used
with profit.
There are severa1 fine volumes dealing with ARCHAEOLOGY and
the One of the best from the star.dpoint of evangellca1
scholar 1s H. F. Onger, A:1'ch0.8ology of the Old Testament (tonder-
van. 1954). From a critica1 scholar. one of the best is C. Ernest
Biblicat A:t'Chaeotagy (rev. ed.; Philadelphia: Westminster
Press. 1962). Another good treatment 19 William F. Albright's
1'he Bib1.ioot Period Prom Abraham to Eara (New York: Barper. 1965).
Due that deals apecifically with the New Testament, though mainly
ehe Gospels. 18 Jack Finegan' s The Arehaeotogy of the NetJ 'l'eata-
ment (Princeton: Princeton University Press. 1969). For CO?tem-
porary sour ce materials none are better tban Pritchard s
two vo1umes. Anoient Necao Eastern Te:cts ReZating to the Old Teeta-
ment (2d ed.; Prlnceton: Pr1nceton University Press, 1955) snd
fhe Amnent Nea:J' Eaet in Piaturee Relating to th9 DU Teetament
(Princeton: Prineeton University Press, 1954), botb of which have
been brought up to date by T'he Aneient Near Eaet: Supptem61'ltary
Tezt;e and Picture8 Ret.ating "tC the OU Teetan/e7tt (Princeton:
Princeton Univer.ity Press, 1969). Less comprehensive i8 D.
""-1ntoo Themas' Document6 From otd Testament Timea (New York:
Harper. 1961). Source mateTial for tbe NT 18 found in C. K.
llarrett's The NetJ Teatament Backgrootmd: setected Doetmente (Lon-
don: S.P.C.K., 1956). Other contemporary sources inc1ude R. H.
Charles' The Apoorypha anti Pseudepigr'apha of the atd Testament
(2 vola.; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913) aod the Jewian Apocryphal
270
A 00 Biblical Hermeneutics
Toale of Biblical Interpretation 271
serles, edited by 5010-00 Zeitlin (New York: Harper,
1950-) for the 1ntertestamental period; Miliar Burrows' two vol-
umes T;"e Dead Sea Scl'oz.zs (New York: Viking, 1958) for tbe Eng-
lieh translation of tbe Quarsn SeraIls; the series Discoveries in
the Jlutaean Deee.rt (Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1955-) contains fac-
similes and translations cf the sereils hut not always in English"
and H. Danby's The Mishnah (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1933),
The BabyZonian Tanud (35 vOla.; Londen: SODCinO, 1935-1952), edi-
ted by I. Epateln, and Rabbah (9 vols.; London: SODcIno,
1951). edlted by H. Freedman end H. Simon, for rabbinie sourees.
Por OT HISTORY John Brigbt's ABistory of Israel (Pbiladelphia:
WesDlinBter. 1959) ia the best; EmU Schrer's A Histo7'1j 01 the
JM-sh Peap in thB Time o[ Jesu.s Christ (2d ed.; Edinburgh: T.
&T. Clark. 1891) recaina the best for the lntertestamental period;
and Floyd Fi180n'8 New Testament HiatoPy (Philadelphia: Westmin-
ster. 1964) sud P. F. Bruce's book (London: Nelson, 1969) by tbe
same title are the best for the NT period.
BIBLE DICTIONARIES are very useful tools for quick information
on a subject or identification of naaes of persons. places. or
things. They are a great tlmesaver for the exegete. The beat
Bible dictionaries from the critical point of view are The Inter-
pretel"8 Dicti07'laI'Y of the Bibl.e (4 vols.'i Nashville: Abingdon
Press, 1962). edited by Georgc Buttrick; and for a more conserva-
tive approach the International. Stan&:mi BibZe EncycZopaedia (5
vols.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmaus, 1930). edited by Ja.es Orr and
revised by M. C. Kyle. Th!s work is currently under revision to
be published by Eerdmans. It i8 expected to be the best Bible
dictionary fraa the conservative approach. Other smaller but good
dictionaries are TM ReM Wsstminst-el' Dicti<mary of the BibT.e (Phila-
delphia: Wese.1nster Press. 1970). edited by H. S. Gehman; Ths
SeventP,.,.day Adventist Bibt.e DiC'tior.ary (Washington. .C.: Review
, Herald. 1960). by Siegfried H. Horn. and The New BibZe Diction-
ary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962), edited by J. D. Dougles.
After the previous steps in exegesis heve been completed, one
is ready to put into an 8Xelesis of the passage all the information
obtained through these steps. This is on1y e tentative exegesis
of the passage.
After tbis has been dODe. and only then. should one read varl-
OU8 to see how others treated the passage 3nd evaluate
different viewpoint8 presented by these cOmDentaries. Ie 1s
portant to knov the ca enter1es that are profitable for this
purpose.
Of course to begin wich every Seventh-day Adventist minister
viII tbe basic I1brary of Ellen G. White writings and he
should have the Seventh-day Adoontiet IJible Com1J6ntary. The
'Ellen G. White volW!les Pat:Piarche and Prtophta and ProophetB and
Kingo on tbe OT; TM Desiree o[ Ages aud The Acta of the Apoattee
on the NT in general. Thoughts From the Mount of Bleeeing on the
Sermon on the Mount, and Chriet'8 Object LessQne on the parables
of Jesui!!l; and The Great Controva?"oy Between Ch:M.st and Satan on
the prophecies of Daniel aud Revalstion; wauld be basic. Without
negating tbe principle of the Bib1e beiog its own interpreter the
Sevcnth-day Adventist recognition of the role of Ellen White as
the "special messenger of cha Lord" to the church. gives to ber
writings a level oE autbority that 19 superIor to that given to
other sources and tools of Lnterpretation. At the same time, the
ainlster-teacher who would wish to grow in exegetlcal skills will
want to grapple with the biblical text. following tbe steps out-
lined above. before turnlng to these or any other commentaries.
The Adventist minister should have other types of commencaries.
preferably those based on the Hebrew and Greek texts. Conservative
commcntaries of chis type are rare. Tbe Biblical Cammentary 0/
the OZd Testament (Edinburgh: T. &T. Clark, 1872). based on the
Hebrcw text by Keil snd Delitszch. 18 old aud needs updating, but
because of the sparse reaources vailable still fulfills a need.
The best set of conservative commentaries 1s the New IntePnatlonal
Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951-), but it 1s far froe
complete. especially In the OT. The TYndate Otd Testament Cam-
which began to appear in 1964 and are now available in
a Dumber of OT books, are \Il'itten by conservative-evangelical
scholars who are united in their belief in divine inspiration. Tbe
International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: T. &T. Clark, 1895-)
is old and reflects a particular period in cricical b1blical .tud-
les. but several volumes in this ser1es continue to prove uaeful.
notably Romans by Sandsy and Hesdlam, 1 Corinthians by Robertaon
and Plummer, and Galatians by Burton. The Cambridge Greek Testa-
Commentary (Cambridge: At the University Press, 1957-) so
far has come out wlth twa excel1ent commentaries--on Mark by C. B.
Cranfield and on Colossians and Philemon by C. F. D. Moule. The
superb commentaries of J. B. LIghtfoot (Galatians. Phllippians,
Colo8sians. sud Pbl1emon) snd B. F. Westcott (John, Hebrews.
epistles oE John). though old. are 8tll1 unsurpsssed in metlculous
snd careful Several sets of moderately liberal commen-
taries if used judiciously will be fouod useful. On tbe OT. there
is the OU Testament pubUsbed by W'estminlilter Press,
1961-; on the NT. Harper's in England) New Cam-
mwntaries (New York: Harper. 1957-) and the MOlfatt New Tsstament
(New York: Harper, 1927-1959). For the entire Bible.
the following are 8Vai1able or are in proeess of publicatlon: the
Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday. 1964-), H12meneia (l'hilade1-
272 A Syapos.ium on Bibl1cal Hermeneutics
Tools of 81blical Interpretation
273
phia: Westcinster. 1971-),2nd the InterpretBr's Bibte (Nashvil1a:
Abingdon, 1956). Tbere are also sone veluable individual com-
mentaries not connected vith any serfes. We list only a few:
Vincent. Taylor. Th6 Gospel. Aaeording to st. Mark (London: MaCDil-
laD. 1959); John Kartln Creed. TM Gospel. Aocording to St. LuJc.B
(London: Macm111an. 1960); C. K. Barrett. The Gospel Aocording
to St. John (London: S.P.C.K 1960); F. F. Bruce. The Acta of
the Aposttee: Ths Cre6k Tezt ft'ith Introduction anti Ccmrr.entary (2d
cd.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmaus, 1953); Anders Nygren. Commentary
on Romans (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg. 1949); Joseph A. Robinson,
St. Paul's EpietZ.e to the EphesUms (2d ed.; London: MaCD.l11an,
1914); Joseph B. Mayor. The Epistte of St. James (3d ed.; London:
Macmillan. 1913). W. Beare, First EPistte 01 Peter
(2d ed.; OXford: B1ackwe11. 1958); E. G. Se1wyn. The First !pis-
He 01 st. Peter (2d ed.; London: MaCJllillan. 1952).
After checking commentaries. the preacher i8 now ready to
rework his exegesis. Pcrhaps he failed to take iota consideratlon
certain information or points of view that the have
suggested. Tbis may meso same Ilodification in the final form of
the exegesis.
Thc next step 18 to ask, What meaning has thls text for me?
Hov daes lt apply to my situation and clrcu.stance today? The
Word of God spake to men not only in ancient times but also speaks
to men today.
Other helpful BIBLIQGRAPHIES li8tlog tools for interpretation
are the folloving:
Danker. Frederick W. MUttipurpose Tools Bibte study. St.
Louis: Concordia Pub11shlng Hause, 1960.
Thls 18 an excellent volume that has full dlscussions on
each of the types of too1s, giving somethlng of their
history and explanation of how to use them to the fullest
advantage, aloog with the most fmportant tools. More de-
tailed aad comprehensive than Kelly and MilIer.
Glanzman. Georg. 5., S.J.; and Fitzmyer, Joseph A S.J.
An Introduatory BibZiOfPrra.phy tor thB study of Sc-riptlO'e. West-
.inster, Md.: Tbe Neto/UI&11 Press, 1962.
Though written by Catbolic scholatB. anyooe profit
from thla aonotated list of tools for the study of the
Bible. Reliable.
J(elly, almer H snd Miller. Donald G eds. Tools tor
Bibls StudY. Richmond, Va.: John Knox Pre88, 1947.
Stcilar to, though does not completely cverlap. Danker.

Another helpfu1 blbllography although coverlng the broader

Held cf theological study 18 Theologicat Bibl:>graph' Basic
Books 101' th8 Ninister's Libl'Q2'1h published by the Fona
of tbe Seventh-day Adventist Tbeological Se.inary. 1970, made up
largely from contributlona cf the Seminary Faculty aad edited by
Sakae Kubo, Charles Sandefur, and J1a Walters.
NOT E S