David Chilton's Hermeneutics

[Yeshua1]

The literal method to interpreting Scripture is never the "natural" method. It may be necessary at times, but Scripture determines its own required method. One has to look at the author, audience, context, culture, language, and literature. If all of that demands a literal interpretation, then interpret it literally. If all of that demands a "spiritual" or allegorical interpretation, then interpret it allegorically. Only primitive theologians seem to think that Revelation should be interpreted literally. The same can be said for the Genesis creation account. The truth is, the literal method requires the least amount of diligence, so people flock to it. As soon as people look at Revelation with literary styles in mind, the literal method is immediately disregarded for what I call the biblical method. The fact is this: the Bible was not written to us or to third world people. It is literature that was written to specific people in a specific literary style. We can love God and be good people by just reading one or two literal chapters, but we won't fully understand it until we actually study it and abandon our 21st century presuppositions.

Genesis though is best seen as being literal, as in 24 hr days, younger earth/creation time, no evolution etc!
And Revelation does use symbolism and types, but they all point to a real and physical events going on, such as worldwide tribulation, and demons on earth etc!

 

[Yeshua1]

Can you source this? I don't remember reading it anywhere. I teach church history, so you would be helping me out if you can source it.

My view is that when a source is obviously figurative, as was the statement here from Jesus, it is natural to interpret it figuratively. Most people easily understand figures of speech, unless they have been indoctrinated otherwise like Catholics have been. I mean, there was Jesus sitting before the disciples with His flesh and blood intact. So there is not reason whatsoever for whoever it was to originally interpret His words as anything other than figurative.
Granted, but that doesn't nullify my point.
The problem starts when you say that "literal" cannot be "spiritual." Many literal statements in Scripture are about spiritual reality. For example, in John 14:1-3, Christ was speaking of a real, physical place. If that is denied, then Heaven becomes a spiritual but non-corporeal place of some kind, and therefore physical resurrection is a myth. But our physical resurrection, based on the physical resurrection of Christ, is a spiritual reality. If an atheist refuses to believe that, it does not become ergo something only spiritual people can know, but is a physical truth taught by the Holy Spirit to our spirit.

 

[Yeshua1]

A literal meaning to the scriptures does not mean we ignore genres or types/allogories etc, its just that we take the plain meaning intended for the scriptures...

 

[Yeshua1]

If one ops for the allegorical hermeneutic, the Bible doesn't say anything objective. It becomes subjective - the passage is interpreted as "what it means to me" - with no authority or absolutes.

Reflects on the first attack on God's Word, back in the Garden. God gave a command that was plain, literal, absolute but the IM hermeneutic was obviously employed by Satan - "Did God really say/mean that?" Still used today to try to reduce the Word of God into the "what does it mean to you" mentality of modern man.

Who determines then what the symbols and spiritual meanings intended really were?

 

[John of Japan]

I didn't mean to suggest that there was a fully-fledged doctrine of Transubstantiation among the Church Fathers. Obviously, that did not get sorted out until 1215 and the 4th Lateran Council. But it seems to have been there 'in embryo.' Ignatius of Antioch, in his Letter to the Smyrnaeans (Chap.7) writes concerning the Docetics, "They do not confess the eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ which suffered for our sins and which the Father by His goodness raised up again."

Okay, thanks much.

 

[John of Japan]

I was taught that a prime rule of hermeneutics was, "If the plain sense of scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense."

And that is an excellent rule. Another one: "A text without a context is a pretext."

 

[Iconoclast]

"John of Japan,
そうこれはあなたの探求に失敗して、示してしなければならない場合、私の友人、偽証を負担しない.私 ofeered Isa 13、34 とジョエル. チルトンを言及する前にのであなたの防衛を他のスレッドで詩に与える

Several here on the BB, especially Iconoclast, have touted David Chilton's books as unanswerable.

OKAY , well let's help out our Dear Professor...[can't quite get it right]...let's see what Iconoclast actually said, then we will understand the desperate attempt of our dear professor to cover up his inability to respond to the verses inquestion.
Did iconoclast actually say...David Chilton is unanswerable? Or did iconoclast actually say something else , that is now being twisted to cover up where we have failed?

First off we notice...it was Iconoclast who offered the verses before even mentioning Chilton at all....so let's remove your Chilton excuse for your lack of response....here is post #38 of spiritual interpretation#2
[QUOTEWell...let's reopen the case....you mention Joel 2-3....I believe the symbolic language was literally fulfilled when Peter declared this is that which was spoken by Joel.
I do not think it was any kind of scientific literal fulfillment....eclipses and such.....It was a literal change of the rule and reign in Israel and among believers. The same language was already used by God describing the judgement on Babylon in Isa13......notice...in ver .8 they shall be in pain as a woman in travail....sounds like mt24....it was a judgment a day of the Lord.
Notice from verse 10-13.....stars ,sun ,moon, shaking of the earth.
The same with the language in Isa34 in the judgement of Edom.The Heavens Rolled Up as A scroll?The Stars Falling? Did that happen literally, or was there a literal change in who controls Babylon?
The same exact language is used in revelation.....explain how you are consistent in your teaching where you do not explain away the language.

Show where it is not correct....
Or give your explanation to clarify where we have nothing to offer.

There is nothing cynical toward you in the post....I think the system you defend and teach has issues that do not allow you or others to defend it.][/QUOTE]

JOJ offered a weak response to a bit of Acts 2,[post47] but did not engage the language of Isaiah at all.

Iconoclast offers a quote from Chilton in post [55]

In post [57] icon responds to PB...look at what ICONOCLAST ACTUALLY says-

I understand.....I could not answer Chilton either....that is why it stands until someone can show he is off course.
If you cannot give a better account of the language isa34 uses as it shows up in Rev....what can you do but claim it is nailing jello to the wall?
If the heavens rolling up.like a scroll and the stars were falling from heaven ?.
The Ot....isa. ,joel,etc....we would not exist.
All premillennialism and it's followers are forced to ignore the language employed ,make like it does not exist....I understand.

I used to hold that belief system....but I could not answer any of these verses with that system...

Eclipse, blood moons, earthquakes.....do not get it done.

I did not like what I was reading at first....but I realized I could not or had not connected the pieces as David Chilton and other men had.
He may or may not be correct on some or all of his conclusions....but very few have tried to take this on.....it is quite a task indeed.


For someone who teaches languages....maybe do a study on...May or may not be correct

icon said;
.I offered it to show that the language God has used all throughout the bible has consistent meaning.
The figurative use of these phrases has literal meaning in scripture. When God in Mt 24....writes about the travail of a woman....we all need to pay attention.
When God speaks of the heavens rolling up like a scroll we can learn from scripture the meaning.
Chilton makes a solid case....not many want to deal with the language.....

What answers your question is that no Premillenialist can make sense of the Isa passages of Joel in any consistent way.
The passages are dismissed as if they have no relevance.
Post and Amill writers and theologians see clear connections as Peter did with Joel in Acts 2.
They do not go outside the bible to look for solar eclipses, or silly blood moon ideas.
They recognise the language as God uses the figures over and over and see what were the results historically ....then understand Revelation and mt24, in light of a proper understanding of the language used. They do not fragment and avoid the scriptures as a
Premillenialist does.


[Primitive Baptist acknowledged the language in post [79]]

Icon said;
Now please address the language of the heaven rolling up like a scroll....stars falling to the earth....
PB...if one star,or sun fell to the earth...it would be the end of this earth.....the earth did not end when Babylon, or Edom was judged.....explain the language.....or read Chilton....explain why what he said was wrong.

1]what does it mean that the stars of the heaven fall to the earth?
explain what this figure of speech is actually describing..
2] are these literal stars?
3]do they fall to the earth?
4]what does it mean the mountains were moved out of their place?
5] what does it mean that the heaven rolled up like a scroll?

Is it literal, and if so...what does it describe?
If it is figurative what does it describe?

I am just asking you to address the passage.
Forget which system it might be....answer the questions I just asked...
I do not think any Premillenialist can do it and remain consistent.
I do not want to hear a general statement right now....just the text explained.

Then you confuse Gary north's comments with mine....before you finally correct it.

What I have said is no premill person will take on or correct Chilton on those passages I quoted in this earlier thread...and i repeat it now.....you are dancing "with the stars" so to speak...avoiding the symbolic language and the links to other OT. portions, because for you to try and answer them will show why your system fails......


So...do not bear false witness because you are struggling with this my friend.

 

[Mike Stidham]

North claims that Chilton is unanswerable in the forward to Days of Vengeance. The truth is, it is so poorly done with such lousy hermeneutics that scholars dismiss it out of hand. But one scholar, actually a friend of Chilton's, has done a negative review of that book here, especially criticizing Chilton's hermeneutics: <Option>SW197--The Aftermath of Jewish Wars

'''

While I found Paradise Restored a pivotal book in the midst of the whole Edgar Whisenant ruckus in 1988, further reading in "Tyler theology" left me confused. The fact that Greg Bahnsen wrote this review is telling in light of the fact that Bahnsen was considered one of Tyler's golden boys himself until he fell out of favor with Rushdoony. That context lends a lot of credibility to Bahnsen's criticisms. Thanks for posting the link.

 

[John of Japan]

"John of Japan,
そうこれはあなたの探求に失敗して、示してしなければならない場合、私の友人、偽証を負担しない.私 ofeered Isa 13、34 とジョエル. チルトンを言及する前にのであなたの防衛を他のスレッドで詩に与える

You must have used Google translate, because this is pretty much nonsensical Japanese. (The last line says you gave me a poem. )

So...do not bear false witness because you are struggling with this my friend.

I'm sorry you feel I am bearing false witness. In Post #32 of "Spiritual Interpretation....pt6" I showed exactly where you agreed with North that Chilton was unanswerable. Please show me on that thread where I misquoted you. And sorry, I'm struggling with nothing.

But here you are with another of those long, long, long posts (7823 characters according to Word, so 100s of words; now Word tells me 987 words) which actually seeks to derail the thread. And now you may go ahead and crow that I haven't answered you.

I would appreciate it if you stick to the OP and show where Chilton's IM is a good method. So I'll ask you the 3rd time: Do you agree with Chilton's IM method?

 

[John of Japan]

'''

While I found Paradise Restored a pivotal book in the midst of the whole Edgar Whisenant ruckus in 1988, further reading in "Tyler theology" left me confused. The fact that Greg Bahnsen wrote this review is telling in light of the fact that Bahnsen was considered one of Tyler's golden boys himself until he fell out of favor with Rushdoony. That context lends a lot of credibility to Bahnsen's criticisms. Thanks for posting the link.

You're welcome for the link. Sounds like more of a mess than I knew it was.

 

[John of Japan]

Chilton's Paradise Restored (PR) was copyrighted in 1985, two years before DOV, but in it he appears to already be following IM. He writes:

So, when the Bible tells us a story about water, it is not "really" telling us about something else; it is telling us about water. But at the same time we are expected to see the water, and to think of the Biblical associations with regard to water. The system of interpretation offered here is neither "literalistic" nor "symbolic"; it takes the "water" seriously and literally, but it also takes seriously what God's Word associates with water throughout the history of Biblical revelation. What are some of the Biblical associations which might have occurred to the woman at the well, and to the disciples? Here are a few of them:

1. The watery, fluid mass that was the original nature of the earth at the creation, and out of which God formed all life (Gen. 1);

2. The great river of Eden that watered the whole earth (Gen. 2);

3. The salvation of Noah and his family by the waters of the Flood, out of which the earth was re-created (Gen. 6-9);

4. God's gracious revelations to Hagar by a fountain (Gen. 16) and a well (Gen. 21);

5. The well called Rehoboth, where God gave Isaac dominion (Gen. 26);

6. The river out of which the infant Moses, the future Deliverer of Israel, was taken and made a prince (Ex.2);

7. The redemptive crossing of the Red Sea, where God again saved His people by water (Ex. 14);

8. The water that flowed from the stricken Rock at Sinai, giving life to the people (Ex. 17);

9. The many ritual sprinklings in the Old Testament, signifying the removal of filth, pollution, sickness and death, and the bestowal of the Spirit upon the priests (e.g., Lev. 14; Num. 8);

10. The crossing of the Jordan River (Josh. 3);

11. The sound of rushing waters made by the pillar of cloud (Ezek. 1);

12. The River of Life flowing from the Temple and healing the Dead Sea (Ezek. 47).

Thus, when the Bible speaks of water, we are supposed to have in our minds a vast host of associative concepts, a complex of Biblical images that affects our thinking about water. To put it differently, water is supposed to be something like a "buzzword," a term that calls up many associations and connotations. When we read the word water we should be reminded of God's saving acts and revelations by water throughout Scripture. (PR, pp. 19-20)

So you read about "water" in the Bible, and you're supposed to think about every single mention of water in the Bible? That's just bizarre. It's not exegesis by any stretch of the imagination.

Frankly, I don't see how any of Chilton's writings whatsoever are useful. If your hermeneutics are messed up, everything else gets messed up. After his heart attack and coma, Chilton became a full preterist (not a big step from his views in DOV), and even his publisher Gary North separated from him and called him a heretic. See the story here:
My Obituary of David Chilton -- Three Days Before He Died

 

[Yeshua1]

Chilton's Paradise Restored (PR) was copyrighted in 1985, two years before DOV, but in it he appears to already be following IM. He writes:



So you read about "water" in the Bible, and you're supposed to think about every single mention of water in the Bible? That's just bizarre. It's not exegesis by any stretch of the imagination.

Frankly, I don't see how any of Chilton's writings whatsoever are useful. If your hermeneutics are messed up, everything else gets messed up. After his heart attack and coma, Chilton became a full preterist (not a big step from his views in DOV), and even his publisher Gary North separated from him and called him a heretic. See the story here:
My Obituary of David Chilton -- Three Days Before He Died

We should NOT be getting any biblical understanding from a heretic!

 

[John of Japan]

We should NOT be getting any biblical understanding from a heretic!

I'm certainly not.

 

[John of Japan]

"John of Japan,
そうこれはあなたの探求に失敗して、示してしなければならない場合、私の友人、偽証を負担しない.私 ofeered Isa 13、34 とジョエル. チルトンを言及する前にのであなたの防衛を他のスレッドで詩に与える

It's always fun to back-translate machine translations, which are inevitably unreliable. Anyway, here is the Google back-translation of this Japanese paragraph:

"So if this fails in your quest and shows you should not bear my friends, perjury ... My ofeered Isa 13, 34 and Joel. Before mentioning Chilton, Give to poetry by thread."

 

[John of Japan]

Speaking of poetry, here is another bizarre statement by Chilton on hermeneutics:

"For those readers who truly wish to pursue the serious study of Scripture, I suggest the following as an absolutely necessary first step: Pack all your books on hermeneutics in a trunk until you have read Laurence Perrine, Sound and Sense: An Introduction to Poetry (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, sixth ed., 1982). (fn, p. 34 of DOV)

Really??? But this is a book of poetry. And it's secular poetry at that! So how does this book teach hermeneutics? Here's the deal. In Chilton's hermeneutics all prophecy is poetry: "Prophecy is poetry" (p. 151 of PR).

This begs the question: what exactly is poetry? Poetry might be described as symbolism with structure. In English, good poetry (free verse is not good poetry) has rhyme and meter. In Japanese, poetry has a syllabic structure: haiku is three lines of 3, 5, and 3 syllables with a reference to the season.

The nature of Hebrew poetry is also well understood: parallelism, either 2 or 3 lines usually, with either the same or opposite meanings. (I'm simplifying, I know.) But if prophecy is poetry, as Chilton's hermeneutics have it, then we need to completely redefine the term. But I doubt that anyone wants to do that just for Chilton's sake. (Granted, prophecy often contains poetry. But it is not poetry.)

 

[Iconoclast]

You must have used Google translate, because this is pretty much nonsensical Japanese. (The last line says you gave me a poem. )

I'm sorry you feel I am bearing false witness. In Post #32 of "Spiritual Interpretation....pt6" I showed exactly where you agreed with North that Chilton was unanswerable. Please show me on that thread where I misquoted you. And sorry, I'm struggling with nothing.

But here you are with another of those long, long, long posts (7823 characters according to Word, so 100s of words; now Word tells me 987 words) which actually seeks to derail the thread. And now you may go ahead and crow that I haven't answered you.

I would appreciate it if you stick to the OP and show where Chilton's IM is a good method. So I'll ask you the 3rd time: Do you agree with Chilton's IM method?

I answered this saying it was a good critique in that in Rev 7 in that it appears Chilton tried to force his interpretation there...but notice there was no attempt to be critical of rev.6...
Derail the thread???? As if you stayed on topic on the spiritual interpretation threads....you ran for the hills rather than answer on topic....lol. ... (ran for the hills)....must be my allergorizing again.....lol....

 

[Iconoclast]

It's always fun to back-translate machine translations, which are inevitably unreliable. Anyway, here is the Google back-translation of this Japanese paragraph:

"So if this fails in your quest and shows you should not bear my friends, perjury ... My ofeered Isa 13, 34 and Joel. Before mentioning Chilton, Give to poetry by thread."

I like that better than what I wrote....

 

[John of Japan]

I answered this saying it was a good critique in that in Rev 7 in that it appears Chilton tried to force his interpretation there...but notice there was no attempt to be critical of rev.6...
Derail the thread???? As if you stayed on topic on the spiritual interpretation threads....you ran for the hills rather than answer on topic....lol. ... (ran for the hills)....must be my allergorizing again.....lol....

The problem was, I never quite figured out what the topic was. I mean, "Spiritual Interpretation" (6 times, no less) is so general and ambiguous. Was your topic Rev. 6? Rev. 7? Chilton? What's good about spiritualizing? What's bad about literalizing? What? If I only knew.

As long as I don't even know what in the world your thread is about, you are free to say I didn't answer it.

Now, as for this thread, for the fourth time, do you agree with Chilton's Interpretive Maximalism (IM)?

 

[Iconoclast]

The problem was, I never quite figured out what the topic was. I mean, "Spiritual Interpretation" (6 times, no less) is so general and ambiguous. Was your topic Rev. 6? Rev. 7? Chilton? What's good about spiritualizing? What's bad about literalizing? What? If I only knew.

As long as I don't even know what in the world your thread is about, you are free to say I didn't answer it.

Now, as for this thread, for the fourth time, do you agree with Chilton's Interpretive Maximalism (IM)?

John ,
I am trying to keep it simple for you.
All teaching has a literal meaning somewhere down the road.
No matter what form of communication. ...symbol,metaphor, parable,simile,metonomy,hyperbole,allegory,....there is a literal meaning.....a symbol eventually translates to a literal concept or teaching.

In thread 2 offered verses from isa13,34,, joel,.....before I mentioned Chilton..... I posted those here...you and others can read all about it......
You offered briefly on acts2/ joel.....but did not link the language.....your system does not allow you to do so....
I believe you are forcing literal ideas on the symbols thereby changing the intended understanding....
You miss it....because you do not LOOK.
You reject, rather than Look.

In Thread 2 and 3......I offered on the phrase woman in travail...you complain it was too long....
I offer on thorns and briars.....(apostates).... you say no..
That's fine....but do not complain you do not understand we we are saying...

 

[John of Japan]

John ,
I am trying to keep it simple for you.
All teaching has a literal meaning somewhere down the road.
No matter what form of communication. ...symbol,metaphor, parable,simile,metonomy,hyperbole,allegory,....there is a literal meaning.....a symbol eventually translates to a literal concept or teaching.

In thread 2 offered verses from isa13,34,, joel,.....before I mentioned Chilton..... I posted those here...you and others can read all about it......
You offered briefly on acts2/ joel.....but did not link the language.....your system does not allow you to do so....
I believe you are forcing literal ideas on the symbols thereby changing the intended understanding....
You miss it....because you do not LOOK.
You reject, rather than Look.

In Thread 2 and 3......I offered on the phrase woman in travail...you complain it was too long....
I offer on thorns and briars.....(apostates).... you say no..
That's fine....but do not complain you do not understand we we are saying...

Time #5: Do you agree with Chilton's IM? Because this thread is about Chilton's hermeneutics, you see, not your perception of my posts on other threads. Please, just read what Chilton wrote about IM in the book you recommend, and then say "Yes" or "No" and tell us why. That would be following the OP of this thread.