Do you have a Bible verse[s] to back up your hermeneutic?

[Greektim]

This was a question I posed to a guy on an ordination council. It however haunted me for a while until my hermeneutic adjusted to match a Biblical practice.

So for me, my hermeneutic is a Christocentric one (John 5:39; Luke 24:27, 44-47; 2 Cor. 1:20; Gal. 3:16). This means there will be figural understandings many times. There will be canonical understandings (inter & intra-textuality). There will be a theological interpretation of scripture (TIS) considering the Author. And my interpretation should be guided by the meta-narrative of Scripture (the gospel in all its comprehensive form; the kingdom; the covenants; the presence of God; the mission of God to bless the nations; and other Biblical theological motifs).

What is your hermeneutic, and do you have a verse to back it up?

 

[JesusFan]

This was a question I posed to a guy on an ordination council. It however haunted me for a while until my hermeneutic adjusted to match a Biblical practice.

So for me, my hermeneutic is a Christocentric one (John 5:39; Luke 24:27, 44-47; 2 Cor. 1:20; Gal. 3:16). This means there will be figural understandings many times. There will be canonical understandings (inter & intra-textuality). There will be a theological interpretation of scripture (TIS) considering the Author. And my interpretation should be guided by the meta-narrative of Scripture (the gospel in all its comprehensive form; the kingdom; the covenants; the presence of God; the mission of God to bless the nations; and other Biblical theological motifs).

What is your hermeneutic, and do you have a verse to back it up?

just a few questions...

what is the difference between that and the 'plain and literal" meaning for the text?

is there a different rule guiding intepretating via translations and via the hebrew/greek texts?

Is a Christ centered view mean that we have Jesus as the source of doctrine?

For example, the Bible is inspired because he said that the HS would do that act, and not try to prove its inspired first?

 

[Greektim]

just a few questions...

what is the difference between that and the 'plain and literal" meaning for the text?

is there a different rule guiding intepretating via translations and via the hebrew/greek texts?

Is a Christ centered view mean that we have Jesus as the source of doctrine?

For example, the Bible is inspired because he said that the HS would do that act, and not try to prove its inspired first?

The way the apostles in the NT use the OT often goes against the "plain and literal" meaning of the text. They would frequently interpret it with a theological/messianic/Christocentric motif (Matt. 2 being a good example and Acts 15:16ff. being the best acid test).

Your second question seems somewhat arbitrary. After all, isn't proper exegesis of a verse (no matter what the translation) best done in the original languages? I don't care much about the "rule guiding interpreting via translations."

Not sure what you mean by "Christ centered view" or if I explained a Christocentric hermeneutic well. But I am leaning towards a canon within a canon approach to understanding Scripture. I like the understanding of the early church where the 4-fold gospel account is the keystone of the Bible archway. Jesus is the goal of the OT. Redemption is being initiated in Abraham, extended in and to Israel for the sake of the nations at the Exodus, renewed in David, and accomplished in Jesus. It is ultimately consummated at the new creation when the reign of God is re-established as it was in the garden of eden.

Your last question was a bit confusing. Could you rephrase or clarify?

 

[percho]

The way the apostles in the NT use the OT often goes against the "plain and literal" meaning of the text. They would frequently interpret it with a theological/messianic/Christocentric motif (Matt. 2 being a good example and Acts 15:16ff. being the best acid test).

Your second question seems somewhat arbitrary. After all, isn't proper exegesis of a verse (no matter what the translation) best done in the original languages? I don't care much about the "rule guiding interpreting via translations."

Not sure what you mean by "Christ centered view" or if I explained a Christocentric hermeneutic well. But I am leaning towards a canon within a canon approach to understanding Scripture. I like the understanding of the early church where the 4-fold gospel account is the keystone of the Bible archway. Jesus is the goal of the OT. Redemption is being initiated in Abraham, extended in and to Israel for the sake of the nations at the Exodus, renewed in David, and accomplished in Jesus. It is ultimately consummated at the new creation when the reign of God is re-established as it was in the garden of eden.

Your last question was a bit confusing. Could you rephrase or clarify?

Explain what you mean in posting Acts 15:16ff. I ask because not being educated as some of you I do not understand what you are saying about this passage.

 

[stilllearning]

My view on interpreting Scripture is “Literal”;
And the Scriptures I use to support this view are.....
2 Timothy 3:16-17
V.16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
V.17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

and

1 Corinthians 2:9-13
V.9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
V.10 But God hath revealed [them] unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
V.11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
V.12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
V.13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

Et.al.

 

[Greektim]

My view on interpreting Scripture is “Literal”;
And the Scriptures I use to support this view are.....
2 Timothy 3:16-17
V.16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
V.17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

and

1 Corinthians 2:9-13
V.9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
V.10 But God hath revealed [them] unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
V.11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
V.12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
V.13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

Et.al.

Even though none of those speak on interpretation at all (at least not in the sense of literal or figural or something else).

 

[Greektim]

Explain what you mean in posting Acts 15:16ff. I ask because not being educated as some of you I do not understand what you are saying about this passage.

Read Amos 9:11ff. and interpret that passage first. Then come back to Acts 15 and see how the apostles interpreted and applied it to their own setting. Pretty interesting hermeneutic they apply. Definitely not "literal".

 

[Jim1999]

The basic intention of hermeneutics is to rightly understand the word of God. To do this we must understand the biblical audience, the historical and cultural setting and then determine what is actually being said. We may then apply our theology and how the particular passage affected the audience and how we may apply that theology to us to-day. Plain logic in a spiritual sense.

A good study in hermeneutics goes hand-in-hand with one's biblical studies, and a good hermeneutic study will save a lot of bad interpretation and misapplication of the word that we see time and again to-day.

Cheers,

Jim

A good book in my opinion is:

Grasping God's Word, Zondervan by J. Scott Duvall and J. Daniel Hays.

 

[Greektim]

The basic intention of hermeneutics is to rightly understand the word of God. To do this we must understand the biblical audience, the historical and cultural setting and then determine what is actually being said. We may then apply our theology and how the particular passage affected the audience and how we may apply that theology to us to-day. Plain logic in a spiritual sense.

A good study in hermeneutics goes hand-in-hand with one's biblical studies, and a good hermeneutic study will save a lot of bad interpretation and misapplication of the word that we see time and again to-day.

Cheers,

Jim

A good book in my opinion is:

Grasping God's Word, Zondervan by J. Scott Duvall and J. Daniel Hays.

Not to be rude... but what basis do you claim to apply "plain logic in a spiritual sense" to the text of Scripture. As something as important as hermeneutics (since it will inevitably affect all other areas in one way or another), it would seem that "bible-believers" would want biblical support for their hermeneutic.

 

[JesusFan]

The way the apostles in the NT use the OT often goes against the "plain and literal" meaning of the text. They would frequently interpret it with a theological/messianic/Christocentric motif (Matt. 2 being a good example and Acts 15:16ff. being the best acid test).

They would be able to exegesis/inyerprete the OT from the perspective of Christ fulfilling in the ultimate sense the OT verses pertaining to him in a prophetic sense, but that was ONLY due to the Holy Spirit "allowing' for that understanding from the text!

Example, matthew under inpiration from/of HS could link Jesus as being the one referenced in OT quote"Out of Egypt i have called My Son" but that would NOT be the "way" a Non inspired reader would have seen it!

So there is indeed 'special hermenuetics" in play for the Apostles, as they were granted means to "take liberty" with interpreting the Bible none of us have today, as the HS guided them to seeing those in OT!

Your second question seems somewhat arbitrary. After all, isn't proper exegesis of a verse (no matter what the translation) best done in the original languages? I don't care much about the "rule guiding interpreting via translations."

Agreed the final exegesis should be seen via the greek/hebrew texts, but what if one is 'stuck" with good English versions? Shouldn't good and valid rules apply also then?

Not sure what you mean by "Christ centered view" or if I explained a Christocentric hermeneutic well. But I am leaning towards a canon within a canon approach to understanding Scripture. I like the understanding of the early church where the 4-fold gospel account is the keystone of the Bible archway. Jesus is the goal of the OT. Redemption is being initiated in Abraham, extended in and to Israel for the sake of the nations at the Exodus, renewed in David, and accomplished in Jesus. It is ultimately consummated at the new creation when the reign of God is re-established as it was in the garden of eden. [/QUOTE

jesus should be the 'filter/lense' through which the entire Bible is interpreted by!

see the OT as Him being the One that the prophetic OT is pointing towards, and that the NT is to be seen as Him fulfilling/completing the prophetic Word!

also, the promise of the OT would revolve around the coming messiah and his coming Kingdom....

And the NT would have this carried through, as to the coming Kingdom age also would be highlighted, as there is a tension between messiah did come, but His kingdom here/not here yet!


]Your last question was a bit confusing. Could you rephrase or clarify?

basically that we need to interprete based upon the method of the "plain and literal" meaning/sense of the texts still, but allow for the NT Apostles to have the priveledge of having "HS exegesis" to see OT texts in a way NOT that we could see them as being, as we do not have their inspiration to do such!

 

[Greektim]

They would be able to exegesis/inyerprete the OT from the perspective of Christ fulfilling in the ultimate sense the OT verses pertaining to him in a prophetic sense, but that was ONLY due to the Holy Spirit "allowing' for that understanding from the text!

Example, matthew under inpiration from/of HS could link Jesus as being the one referenced in OT quote"Out of Egypt i have called My Son" but that would NOT be the "way" a Non inspired reader would have seen it!

So there is indeed 'special hermenuetics" in play for the Apostles, as they were granted means to "take liberty" with interpreting the Bible none of us have today, as the HS guided them to seeing those in OT!

This is why I mentioned Acts 15. It was not just "under inspiration" what Luke recorded. It was the way the early church used the OT scriptures to verify the ingathering of the Gentiles with the understanding that the restoration of Israel has begun. We can't just say "they had the HS" b/c we have the same HS. Acts demonstrates the hermeneutical practices of the early church. Luke records those facts. He doesn't make the same kind of interpretations as Matthew does in Matt. 2. So I think that is more of a cop-out.

Agreed the final exegesis should be seen via the greek/hebrew texts, but what if one is 'stuck" with good English versions? Shouldn't good and valid rules apply also then?

That is fine and well and good. But it makes no difference in your basic interpretive philosophy.

basically that we need to interprete based upon the method of the "plain and literal" meaning/sense of the texts still, but allow for the NT Apostles to have the priveledge of having "HS exegesis" to see OT texts in a way NOT that we could see them as being, as we do not have their inspiration to do such!

Your sentiment is admirable, but you are assuming the biblical writers wrote from a western understanding post-enlightenment. Not to mention that you have not provided a verse to verify your claim of interpretation in the "plain and literal" meaning. Not to mention further that this was not the practice of the early church. The pre-modern mindset sought for figural understandings and christological understandings. WEre they always right? Probably not. Did they offer great insight into the apostle's doctrine? I think yes. At the very least, they offer great insight into the apostles use of Scripture since they are so close in time to the apostles. This matches 2nd temple literature better than the "plain & literal" camp of hermeneutics.

 

[JesusFan]

This is why I mentioned Acts 15. It was not just "under inspiration" what Luke recorded. It was the way the early church used the OT scriptures to verify the ingathering of the Gentiles with the understanding that the restoration of Israel has begun. We can't just say "they had the HS" b/c we have the same HS. Acts demonstrates the hermeneutical practices of the early church. Luke records those facts. He doesn't make the same kind of interpretations as Matthew does in Matt. 2. So I think that is more of a cop-out.

We BOTh agree that is the way that the Apostles viewed the OT texts in relation to Jesus coming in the NT... BUT

Still think they had a "unique" perspective afforded them by the HS that we do not have today, but good news is that we CAn and DO take their 'special" insights as how to see the Bible!

IF the Apostles interpreted on e way the text, we can foolow their understand, but if they did NOT see it that way, we cannot "see" our own special understandings read back into the texts!

That is fine and well and good. But it makes no difference in your basic interpretive philosophy.

just was saying that Christians can still greatly profit from use ONLY of translations by following rules to understand the Bible by!

Your sentiment is admirable, but you are assuming the biblical writers wrote from a western understanding post-enlightenment. Not to mention that you have not provided a verse to verify your claim of interpretation in the "plain and literal" meaning. Not to mention further that this was not the practice of the early church. The pre-modern mindset sought for figural understandings and christological understandings. WEre they always right? Probably not. Did they offer great insight into the apostle's doctrine? I think yes. At the very least, they offer great insight into the apostles use of Scripture since they are so close in time to the apostles. This matches 2nd temple literature better than the "plain & literal" camp of hermeneutics.

just saying that we take the Apostles at their teaching on doctrines, as they WERE inspired by God to record that understanding of the scriptures, but that the "plain and literaral" meaning of the words and terminology still would be the approach to take!

 

[Greektim]

just saying that we take the Apostles at their teaching on doctrines, as they WERE inspired by God to record that understanding of the scriptures, but that the "plain and literaral" meaning of the words and terminology still would be the approach to take!

Except you do not list any verses to back up your modernistic, post-enlightenment hermeneutic that was never in the minds of the authors of Scripture.

Plus... Luke records the practice of the early church in Acts. He is not changing their words to make a theological point. The way in which the apostles interpret the OT is very telling in the early church. What Luke does in Acts is not the same as Matthew's use of the OT. Not that I agree that being an apostle gives you a special hermeneutic. After all, Jesus had to explain to them repeatedly that the OT was about him. He even promised that they would remember these things when the Spirit was given to them. And we have that same Spirit in us, given to us.

 

[Jim1999]

Hermeneutics applies to literary writing as well as scripture. It is a fundamental principle in understanding what is written.

To properly understand what Paul was saying, one must apply a hermeneutic principle first. Otherwise, even scripture can be misapplied.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[JesusFan]

Except you do not list any verses to back up your modernistic, post-enlightenment hermeneutic that was never in the minds of the authors of Scripture.

Plus... Luke records the practice of the early church in Acts. He is not changing their words to make a theological point. The way in which the apostles interpret the OT is very telling in the early church. What Luke does in Acts is not the same as Matthew's use of the OT. Not that I agree that being an apostle gives you a special hermeneutic. After all, Jesus had to explain to them repeatedly that the OT was about him. He even promised that they would remember these things when the Spirit was given to them. And we have that same Spirit in us, given to us.

except that promise jesus made was JUST to the Apostles, in the sense that they would be able to have the inspiration from/of HS to allow them to record divine revelation/understanding of the OT to us ...

So we would NOT even be able to come to the same understanding they had, as we would not inteprete the OT as they did apart from the HS revealing it to us as they had it...

The HS does grant to us illumination, but they had instead revelation/inspiration, and we cannot claim that!

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Here are a few of the hermeneutical principles that I use.

1. We should always seek to find Christ in all the Scriptures (Luke 24:27; John 5:39).

2. Scripture must interpret Scripture. The truth is not always found in, 'It is written,' but in, 'It is written again' (Matt 4:6-7).

3. The Old Testament must be interpreted in the light of the New (eg. Isaiah 7:14 & Matt 1:23; Amos 9:11-12 & Acts5:16f)

4. The truth is not always found in a woodenly literal interpretation (John 3:4; 6:52).

Steve

 

[JesusFan]

Here are a few of the hermeneutical principles that I use.

1. We should always seek to find Christ in all the Scriptures (Luke 24:27; John 5:39).

2. Scripture must interpret Scripture. The truth is not always found in, 'It is written,' but in, 'It is written again' (Matt 4:6-7).

3. The Old Testament must be interpreted in the light of the New (eg. Isaiah 7:14 & Matt 1:23; Amos 9:11-12 & Acts5:16f)

4. The truth is not always found in a woodenly literal interpretation (John 3:4; 6:52).

Steve

What would you see as being a 'wooden/literal" one?

 

[Greektim]

except that promise jesus made was JUST to the Apostles, in the sense that they would be able to have the inspiration from/of HS to allow them to record divine revelation/understanding of the OT to us ...

So we would NOT even be able to come to the same understanding they had, as we would not inteprete the OT as they did apart from the HS revealing it to us as they had it...

The HS does grant to us illumination, but they had instead revelation/inspiration, and we cannot claim that!

Still no Bible verse to back up your claim. That was my problem too when I held to a plain & literal view.

Plus, you keep arguing from a modernistic, post-enlightenment understanding of literature. This is foreign to the authors of Scripture. What justification is there for such an approach.

You also seem to ignore the fact that the early church practiced figural/messianic interpretation demonstrated in Acts 15. This was not just the apostles either. This was the church in Jerusalem. So you can't just claim the revelation/inspiration battle cry b/c this was their method of interpreting Amos.

Hope this is a good discussion. I'm enjoying it!

 

[JesusFan]

[

QUOTE=Greektim;1729916]Still no Bible verse to back up your claim. That was my problem too when I held to a plain & literal view.

[/QUOTE


should define literal and plain first!

that we take each passage of scripture based upon history/contex/word meanings, and genres types of speech used!

Once that is done, than we can proceed to see if anything other than a literal/plain meaning better fits the text!


]Plus, you keep arguing from a modernistic, post-enlightenment understanding of literature. This is foreign to the authors of Scripture. What justification is there for such an approach.

You also seem to ignore the fact that the early church practiced figural/messianic interpretation demonstrated in Acts 15. This was not just the apostles either. This was the church in Jerusalem. So you can't just claim the revelation/inspiration battle cry b/c this was their method of interpreting Amos.

Again, HOW the Apostles interpreted the scriptures was by the HS working, and their understanding is as God intended us to understand the Bible...

because they were 'allowed" to exegete the OT verses back into the NT as they did by God does NOT mean that I can do such!

When they gave interpration on scripture passages is 100 % accurate, but I cannot do an exegensis aprt from what they were allowed to do!



Hope this is a good discussion. I'm enjoying it!

ditto, lots to chew on!

 

[Greektim]

ditto, lots to chew on!

should define literal and plain first!

that we take each passage of scripture based upon history/contex/word meanings, and genres types of speech used!

Once that is done, than we can proceed to see if anything other than a literal/plain meaning better fits the text!

Perhaps I should define plain and literal. But I would imagine it is the similar meaning as you. I think both words are self explanatory.

Again, HOW the Apostles interpreted the scriptures was by the HS working, and their understanding is as God intended us to understand the Bible...

because they were 'allowed" to exegete the OT verses back into the NT as they did by God does NOT mean that I can do such!

When they gave interpration on scripture passages is 100 % accurate, but I cannot do an exegensis aprt from what they were allowed to do!

But Acts 15 is not just about the apostles but the entire church at Jerusalem. It is the way the early church interpreted the OT. They looked at things messianically, figurally, intracanonically. I think we would do well to emulate that.

And I might argue that since we are to follow the apostles model of faith and practice, then we should find the christological meaning of a verse in the OT b/c they taught us to do so would be correct.

And I am not talking about a 100% correct interpretation. We know that what they wrote in Scripture is 100% correct b/c it is also inspired. But we are given revelation and should do our best to follow the practice of the early church starting w/ the apostles.