Worldview and Hermeneutics

EDEN TO ZION VIDEO SERIES

Transcript

Introduction

Welcome, this is the second part of the Eden to Zion bible series, ploughing through the grand narrative of the bible to build the big-picture-gospel and form a biblical framework, a biblical worldview in which to live by.

To reflect the character of Messiah we must attempt to view reality in a way that reflects His view of reality. The closer we get to Gods starting point, the closer we get to know him, his character, his word, and the plan he has for mankind and the earth.

So, it makes sense before we get stuck into Genesis 1, to firstly understand what a worldview is, then I’ll briefly underline the truthfulness of scripture, and finally, we’ll touch on Hermeneutics – the methods of interpreting scripture which are led by and play a part of forming our worldview.

Worldview

What is a worldview?

You and I have a worldview. Subconsciously, everybody styles a pair of lenses through which they view the world. It governs our thinking processes, our reasoning, interpreting, and knowing. You decide through it whether something is real or unreal, important or not important. You depend upon your worldview like a computer operating system. This system of beliefs enables you to navigate daily life from determining what makes you laugh to managing hardship. We filter everything through our worldview. Philip Johnson describes it as “collection of prejudices”, accepting or rejecting in a regulatory fashion.[1] Like a computer, our worldview system is constantly being updated and developed by essentially either the Word of God, or the capricious dogmas of the world. For Christians a worldview not only establishes an emphatic credence of total reality, it determines how we live out our faith.

Understanding our own worldview is without exception an internal view. It is comparable to attempting to take off and examine our own viewing lens, except we can't see without it. We do not typically see our own worldview, but we see everything else by looking through it. But it is important to be aware that we have a worldview, and as Christians we should be intentional about developing a biblical worldview.

Battle of worldviews

Have you ever been frustrated with others because you couldn’t understand why they would come to certain conclusions? Their worldview determines who they will vote for, what kind of spouse they will pick, what type car they drive, what they do in their spare time, what they think about their identity and so forth. So, we must be aware of this whenever we are doing evangelism, debating or discussion, or any interaction, because it’s not the evidence, so much as re-orientating their viewpoint that is the key to transforming minds.

When someone becomes a Christian, or a Jew has faith in Jesus as Messiah, it's not so much a conversion of conclusions - they don't just out of the blue conclude Jesus rose from the dead - rather their worldview has shifted to allow them to observe through a different lens and make new conclusions based on those observations. It's the starting point (and direction from that view) that has changed, the symptom being a changed character due to a new end belief. And the Holy Spirit is the quickener who assists with that transformation of worldview to reboot you.

When scientists debate over the origins of the universe, it is not a matter of the battle of evidence (for we all have the same evidence), it is a battle of worldviews. Arguments tend to comprise of competing interpretations of the same evidence with little reference to starting points.

Therefore, you can never argue someone into the Kingdom of God. We can't just offer a piece of our worldview to fit into theirs; We are required to show them a new jigsaw, placing in the framing components in which they can then solve the puzzle themselves.

You may contend that you have an unbiased, independent, well-rounded, “neutral worldview”. I observe people wanting to be perceived this way all the time. The reality however is that this belief, or posturing, in itself is a worldview. Jesus refuted the notion of neutrality when He stated, “Anyone who isn’t with me opposes me, and anyone who isn’t working with me is actually working against me” (Matt. 12:30 NLT).

Can we know Truth?

Trying to make sense of the universe and our place within, on the understanding that each of us host just a tiny fraction of knowledge and experience, has been said to be impossible through religion. Several analogies have been employed to dismiss the idea of anyone discovering truth with a capital T.

My analogy would be that of placing ten children in a classroom filled by a smoke machine, with loud music, discovering their surroundings. If you ask them to describe their ‘view’ of the classroom, you would get ten different answers, all true according to their personal experience. This is where the religious pluralist would like to leave it – suggesting that all ways lead to God, all religions are true with a small t, all religions are false with small f, or any other deduction to reduce Truth to truth. However, the illustration does not stop there. The biblical worldview suggests that we can know Truth. This illustration as well as others (the ancient Indian fable of the blind men each experiencing a different limb of the same elephant, being the popular choice) have been cleverly debunked. The missionary Lesslie Newbigin, noted that these analogies are all from the point of view of someone that does have 'Truth'.[2] One overlooked fact is that the Elephant was not mute, and neither is God – which changes everything.[3] Logic too would suggest that it would be impossible to make an absolute statement about truth, if there are no absolutes.

Paul said, "creation was subjected to frustration” (Romans 8:20-21 NIV). While it is true that we live in a creation that has been temporarily ruined, blinding us to some degree from its creator, some children "deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago… by the word of God" (2 Peter 3:5). Applied to my illustration, certain children have chosen to put on blindfolds to further hinder their viewpoint.

The children experience the classroom in its current condition previously trashed by the earlier classes, and conclude there is no Headmaster in charge, ignoring the concept of the original newly constructed state. While we have wrecked our home in planet earth, "his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse" (Rom. 1:20). The children in the classroom can ignore the Headmaster all they want, the design around them shouts of His existence, and when he finally enters the room, their excuses are exposed.

The Bible argues that God (The headmaster) has in fact revealed Himself not just in general revelation (creation and conscience) but also in special revelation (Scripture and Messiah). Although the children have a tiny fraction of information in which to base their judgement, the Headmaster has written a letter to those who see, albeit dimly, who are told to describe this perspective to the rest of the children. Of course, I'm speaking here of scripture. The Headmaster sends greater proof of His sovereignty by speaking directly to one child to guide the others (prophets), sending his teaching assistants (angels), and eventually his son the deputy-head (Jesus). Some children recognise this, but continue to splash paint on the wall; some choose to put on ear defenders; others are obedient in speaking to and learning from Him… continue the crude analogy at will.

Apologist Aaron Brake argues, “If Christianity is true, then we can abandon our radical scepticism concerning knowledge of God in favour of the radical claims of Christ: ‘Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father’ (John 14:9).”[4] And this is just the point, if Jesus is who he said he was, then those who follow the Jewish Messiah are following Truth. As Francis Schaefer argued, “with a capital T.”

While we possess an internal view of the home we live in, we can have knowledge of reality from an external or more accurately/poignantly the architect’s point of view - Gods view. We'll never have the entire scope of His design, minutes of history, or complete and perfect doctrine for that matter - "For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known" (1 Cor 13:12). We're creature not creator, child not master, but we can be assured that we are on the correct path of Truth. We lack perfect understanding, but we have plenty of material to describe. We’ve been given the 66 volume library of the Bible. A truthful framework based on the inspired Word of God can be mapped out.

Erroneous beliefs

Even between Christians there is a wide range of worldviews that determine our doctrine. The way you look at the world determines your belief about it. Doctrines flow from frameworks which affect our attitude, actions, and of course our view and presentation of the gospel. The gospel you speak reflects the character of God you believe in. For example, if God’s jealousy, his anger, his righteousness, and his wrath is brushed under the politically correct carpet to make way for today’s western culture, we reduce God and His gospel to a pink heart shaped box. Invariably it's a battle of God’s Word vs man's word.

You can frequently find committed Christians who have forged a worldview that allows them to, as Johnson puts it, “ignore their Christian principles when it comes time to do the practical business of daily living. Their sincerely held Christian principles are in one mental category for them, and practical decision making in another”[5]. Living as though Jesus is the coming King to judge the world, and at the same time conform to the patterns of this world (Rom. 12:2). It can be common to see Christians who place educational studies in one mental category and their faith in another. Students under tension at university can be found walking this line, only to take off their remaining foot on the word of God and turn their back on the creator to view the world that condones their sinful pleasures. The fashionable tides of "facts" pulls on sandy foundations, swamping their faith into a private, irrelevant, bubble for the heart, leaving the mind back in the secular classroom.

We’re arrived at this mishmash of worldviews because from babies to youth club, we're forever telling detached stories, shelved next to Harry Potter, without teaching them how to develop a biblical worldview.

Erroneous beliefs among Christians are often developed because certain aspects of their biblical metal map have not been drawn out or potentially faint. When their worldview is challenged, they conveniently replace or overlay the intersection from secular mapping they know to be popular or impinged through worldly osmosis.

This merger of worldviews creates conflict within the mind distorting the fundamentals of philosophical thought. I’m convinced it’s one of reasons Christians struggle with anxiety. In the context of laying up treasures in heaven and commanding them not to be anxious, Jesus said, “No one can serve two masters” (Matt 6:24). You can’t serve two contrasting worldviews either – they pull you in different directions.

To ask about suffering and the source of evil, we would turn promptly to 'the fall' in Genesis 3, navigating to a firm answer. Without this crossroad clearly defined, a whole host of ideologies smudge the biblical lens. The reason the UK church has at large sold out to cultural trends is because we’ve failed to be intentional about building a biblical worldview. It’s, “tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes.” (Ephesians 4:14)

Worldviews as storylines

Worldviews can be illustrated as storylines. This is how my brain is wired – as long as I can remember I view everything through a timeline. In fact on once, at previous church, I was asked to preach on evangelism, and I was given the classic picture of the cross as the bridge from one side of a chasm to the other, and in my mind the congregation required the biblical storyline for context, but my suggestion didn’t go down well. Each (worldview story) has a beginning, a middle, and an end. Each story must answer the same fundamental questions such as: How did we get here? What went wrong? What can be done about it? Where are we heading? The answers to these questions determine our thoughts on purpose, identity, morality, salvation, accountability and so forth.

Pearcy provides a grid in which we can analyse our worldviews with the three words: Creation, Fall, Redemption. And when you apply those categories with the fundamental questions attached you can see where various Christian worldviews go wrong.

My preference is John Harrigan’s use of the words: Protology (Existential Origination), Soteriology (Existential Remediation), Eschatology (Existential Conclusion). Don’t worry if you get lost in unfamiliar words. The study of origins we call protology, just think origins. The study of salvation we call soteriology, or progress for the naturalist. And the study of end-times, eschatology. Protology – beginning, Soteriology – middle, Eschatology – end, to keep it simple.

As we are sat in the middle of the story, figuring out our Soteriology, it’s helpful to know that the biblical worldview is, as Harrigan puts it, “protologically based and eschatologically oriented”. Imagine putting a stake in the ground that represents the beginning, where the story will pivot from, and then once you’ve correctly established where the end hope lies, you can put the end stake in, you know the orientation of history, then you can draw a line and navigate the story from beginning to end.

Being human we tend to make ourselves the centre of the story, the central character. Culture today says, “you are your own stake, and you can orientate and head in any direction you feel.” For us, we must know which relative direction the stakes are positioned as well as knowing the approximate distance they positioned relative from you. If my story is like this… [arms diagonally] or like this… [one arm up and one arm down]… your story will look very different. Or my axis is correct, but my origins is three miles that way – your story will look very different than if you staked it in relatively close proximity. You need to know roughly how long those lines are either side of you. Perhaps you stake it like this [one arm close, other arm at length], with your protology near but your eschatology far off. Or as I would appeal more accurately, stake your protology not so distant to your left [reverse], and your eschatology orientates your story just to your right.

As we detailed last time, most Christians don’t have either their protology or eschatology staked in the correct ground, so their bases and orientation of the faith are all over the shop, and therefore their answers to those fundamental questions leaves them susceptible to false doctrines around order, identity, purpose, etc.

Worldview as a game

Worldviews have been compared to games.

Games have a self-contained existence: a world within a computer game, or a football pitch will have a field of play with boundaries. Games have players with varying degrees of influence or power, with their own strategies. There are a unified set of rules, with underlying assumptions about the purpose or goal. And these collections of assumptions within that contained existence form the players worldview. All too often each player has it’s own version of the rules in mind which they play by or use as a yardstick to measure others. And games tend to have historic and proposed development.

The biblical worldview too speaks of a self-contained existence in which we “play”. Human and Angelic players, for example, each with their own strategies, and each player explicitly or implicitly preaches their worldview. Universal laws with local expressions. As well as the history and future of existence.

How is this helpful? If you fail to recognise the players, you could be wrestling with which you don’t know (Eph. 6:12). If you get the playing field wrong and you think it's a game of basketball when we're playing football, you'll be trying to dunk on football net. You’ll be using the wrong tools on the wrong thing in the wrong area at the wrong time. If you get the goal of the game wrong, you get mission wrong. When I witness Christians who are struggling with life, particularly mental struggles… as they talk, I think to myself, “they don't grasp the biblical worldview”, therefore they are fighting, or trying to achieve, or think they should be here or there, but it’s because they don’t grasp the game they are in, they don’t grasp the biblical worldview that they play a part of and are bound by.

The Biblical Worldview

The biblical worldview as a storyline is as follows [see video illustration]: Creation by Creator; shortly followed by the Fall (sin brought about curse); Corruption for the best part of 1700 years means the catastrophe of the Flood of Noah’s day (represented by N); A century of four generations later, the city of Babel and the creation of nations (represented by B); Kingdom Covenants – Abraham, Moses, David; Four millennial since creation – Messiah came, the Cross, burial, ascension; Just under two thousand years later, we exist; Soon is the Day of the Lord – the return of Jesus.

In future sessions we will explore the field of play – its makeup of material and spiritual and the layout of the heavens and earth, the characters, the rules or the laws of God. And we’ll intermittently contrast it will be opposing worldviews.

As we stare into the worldview of the bible as a storyline, we can see our place within it. Greatly valued by God, but we’re insignificant in the grand narrative of things to the point it should be humbling. Rather than being the stake and main character of our own game, we should seek God the master of our world and play the part that he desires for us within his story. That basic outline should begin to assist you to stake your protology and eschatology correctly. We are positioned just under six thousand years from the beginning and very possibly close to the end of the age, before the new creation.

We require a Jewish cruciform view. Or cruciform-apocalyptic view. Cruciform simply means in the shape of, or the pattern of the cross. History has been re-shaped by the implications of the cross (and empty tomb).

As Christians we live in the latter days of the creation week – the final third, the last two of the six millennia of this age - between the first and second coming of Messiah. A time of great mercy, before the recompense to come. Of suffering, before glory. Of carrying a cross, before receiving reward. Of dying daily to self, before resurrected to life. Of Gods kindness, before severity. Of grace, before judgement.

An awareness, “that repentance for the forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations” (Luke 24:47). And we look forward to the Day of the Lord when, “each one's work will become manifest, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done.” ( 1 Cor 3:13)

Closing Worldview section

Ultimately there are only two worldviews, one based on God’s Word, and all the flavours of one based on man’s word. Only God’s Word provides the correct foundation for life.

We’ve only scratched the surface of worldview studies, but I want you to be conscious that you have a worldview and how it affects your beliefs and therefore our daily walk with God.

While the series is insufficient to fully equip a generation to analyse and critique competing worldviews, in laying out the gospel skeleton from head to toe, you can flesh-out for yourself, predictably generating a holistic worldview to defend and proclaim.

We are going to attempt to put on the specs of the Holy Spirit—the worldview that God has—from His word written in the oracles of scripture. How does God view life? How does he interpret existence? How does God see history and the future?

It begins with total submission to our Creator: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind" (Luke 10:27; cf. Deut. 6:5). Are we prepared to learn from His point of view in His Word written down for us to frame?

Truth of the Bible

The assumption throughout this series is that of the Bible being the inspired word of God. This is our starting point—it's the true lens through which we view the world rather than impart the world onto it. We start with the Bible that speaks of truth and has authority. As sons and daughters of our Lord Jesus who quoted scripture, lived a life according to the laws of scripture, fulfilled prophecies of scripture, gave future prophecies to be written as scripture, rebuked Satan on stripping a verse from its scriptural context, he read scripture in the synagogue, and he proclaimed that if you believe scripture you would believe him (John 5:46-47). It is exceedingly clear that Jesus declared the Judeo-Christian scriptures as His authoritative Word he loved… with his heart (being satisfied by it), his mind (understanding it), and his will (obeying it).[6]

The inspired apostle Paul declares: “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16-17 ESV).

The writer of Hebrews says: “For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart” (Heb. 4:12).

It’s the “word of God” (Luke 8:11; John 10:35; Acts 4:31)

It’s called as “the oracles of God” (Rom. 3:2; Heb.5:12)

It’s “the counsel of the Most High” (Ps. 107:11)

“Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35), according to John.

Research professor of Bible and theology Wayne Grudem articulates: “The authority of Scripture means that all the words of Scripture are God’s words in such a way that to disbelieve or disobey any word of Scripture is to disbelieve or disobey God.”[7]

The Bible is not a library of books we mix with other stories, slipping in or out new collections, but one that speaks timelessly of the unveiling historic plan which God is in complete control of, that will not waver, that will not change, that will not contradict itself, that continues to be true today, and the entire earth will one day recognise.

When Christians deviate from the central gospel thread, or large runs of it are willingly unheeded, it is suspiciously, invariably connected to the issue of authority. Two people can claim to hold the Bible as authoritative, both sincerely labouring for the Lord, and yet one could espouse a false belief on a certain subject while the other holds fast to ‘true’ doctrine. It’s a case of the infiltration of man’s word pushing back God’s Word. It's often committed subconsciously. When one or two beliefs are askew, so other beliefs are knocked off balance also, because all doctrines are linked in some way. Consequently, it isn't surprising to see a group of people who hold a particular belief, also all hold another belief, seemingly unconnected yet subtlety extruded through the same filter. As we demonstrated with staking your protology correctly. If you believe in theistic evolution, for example, I could guess what other doctrines you hold, because your protolgy informs your soteriology, which in turn gives rise to your eschatology. Therefore, as careful students of scripture our foundational framework must exclusively spring from the pages of the Bible. All other information outside of the Bible can be interesting and helpful, but peripheral. We must let the Bible speak for itself, viewing other sources through its lens.

A question that I ask a fellow brother, when I suspect they are off point, is this: "What makes you believe that, from what you have read in the Bible?". I am amazed at how many times people answer with no reference to scripture. You can see if their answer followers the shifting sands of culture. Or if they do go to scripture, is it stripped from its context?

Scripture is clear that the Bible is to be our standard for living (2 Timothy 3:16, John 17:17, Psalm 119:142). Do we trust God’s Word as the ultimate authority? How big is your God?

Hermeneutics

Intro

So, we need to understand a little about hermeneutics.

Biblical hermeneutics is the study of the principles and methods of interpreting scripture.

Of note: Our method of biblical interpretation is fashioned by our worldview. What is also true, is that our hermeneutic, fashions our worldview. Circular fashioning. But we all do this, but having an awareness of our internal process can help us shift away from seeing what we want to see, to what the scripture is actually saying.

Let’s face it. The entire bible was written by Jews/Hebrews in different, unfamiliar languages, locations and times than our own. For gentile believers living in the 21st century West, like myself, there is a need to work a little harder to grasp the big picture. Yet, while the bible contains all forms of literature, from history, poetry, wisdom, prophecy, letters, apocalyptic writing, with symbolic and figurative language, legal writing, parables, even satire… the lion’s share is straightforward to understand. Yes, prophecy of the future can be like piecing parts of a puzzle together, but as good Bereans (those who read and studied every day Acts.17:11) the general timeline of events fall into place. The bible is not so much difficult to understand, rather it’s difficult to accept and believe. Of course, some passages we will wrestle with (possibly for our lifetimes), and there is always more to learn, but I’ve often heard the phrase “problem passage” referencing a text which meaning is plain to see. It’s a case of “problem people” not “problem passages”. Sometimes we refuse to except what it says for a whole variety of reasons, and then it becomes part of our corrupted message we deliver to those around us.

It should be a livelong goal of a Christian to align with God’s viewpoint having employed good hermeneutics. We should desire the correct interpretation of scripture. Paul exhorts us to, “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved… rightly handling the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15). Without good biblical hermeneutics you can make the bible say anything you want. Some people take scripture and “twist to their own destruction” (2 Peter 3:16), Peter says. You could prove from the bible God doesn’t exist, because in Psalm 14 is says, “There is no God.” Of course in context it reads, “The fool says in his heart, “There is no God”” (Ps. 14:1). So, we want to guard from misinterpreting, misapplying text. The goal of good biblical hermeneutics is to help us discover truth and protect from falsehood. Ultimately our hermeneutics will be held accountable.

Someone once said to me, "You're not going to stand before and him say to you, "well done on your good theology", or "I am unpleased with your bad theology"". Yes he is - maybe not with those words, but ultimately our hermeneutics will be held accountable, because what we beleive and how we go about discerning truth matters.

There are various broad groupings of methods each with their own label. The prominent historical ones being:

Literal interpretation - according to the “plain meaning” conveyed by its grammatical construction and historical context. Jerome, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, evangelicals today – bible believing Christians should be in this camp.

Moral interpretation – is about selecting texts to derive ethical lessons. Unbelievers will use this method to form lessons from the bible.

Allegorical interpretation - second level of meaning beyond the literal. Clement of Alexandria and Origen would employ this method among other methods, which added to the over-spiritualisation of the gospel.

Anagogical or mystical interpretation - typical to Jewish study than Christianity. This approach interprets biblical events as prefigures of the afterlife.

Now, because hermeneutics is an art as well as a science… people will disagree within each camp.. but it’s good to be aware of the broad grouping of approaches.

And there are many more, with new methods popping up as culture develops such as liberation hermeneutics - reading the Bible through the lens of their own experiences – which I thought was a joke until I heard a pastor of a church I once attended uses that method; explains a lot! It’s the opposite of good hermeneutics. It’s like dumping all your baggage on the bible and hoping you can see the truth through it. Reading your own personal experience into a text is the definition of eisegesis.

Exegesis is and eisegesis are two terms worth noting.

Exegesis means “to lead out of.” “Ex” – “out of” - We read out of. The ideas of the text leads us to conclusions. What does the passage mean? What are the universal truths? How do I apply it to my life?

Eisegesis means “to lead into”. “Eis” – “into” – Read into a passage our own ideas. You have an idea, you find a passage you think could support it, then apply your own idea to your life. You’d be surprised how many sermons are like that.

All of us to some degree, even if inadvertently read into the text ideas that aren’t there – remember - It’s not about you. We should be exegetes - Expounding the word of God.

You could come up with your own hermeneutic. You could say, I have a principle of reading with one eye open and connecting every third verse… Call it the one-eye-tri-verse hermeneutic. And this is the thing… there are teachers and pastors up and down the country that are given a mic with no hermeneutical guidance or they’re passively taught progressive principles – no wonder we are in a mess.

Some have made the mistake of saying that Hermenutical methods limit the Holy Spirit helping me interpret. But the reality, firstly, everyone has a hermeneutic whether you’re aware of it or not, and secondly,  we are trying to align with the correct hermeneutics that inspired the text in the first place. We’re trying to view it as God intended.

Literal-grammatical-historical

We will be following a literal hermeneutic or a literal-grammatical-historical hermeneutic. I prefer the longer label, literal-grammatical-historical which is more self-explanatory.

When it comes to hermeneutics, it’s as if with contemporary academia there is an obsession with finding new incites hidden in scripture which can be skillfully leveraged by over-symbolizing and spiritualizing every detail. I guess endless nuance provides endless writing opportunities. Accusation naturally follows, directed at those who take a more literal approach to reading the Bible. Except God is not the author of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33 KJV) endlessly hiding his true meaning of words. No. I appreciate the words of the late bible teacher David Pawson who aptly puts it this way:

No-one I know takes the whole Bible literally. Passages that clearly indicate that they are meant metaphorically are taken that way. Others that contain symbols are understood accordingly. In the book of Revelation the dragon represents the devil and the scarlet woman a city. But behind every symbol and metaphor lie realities. The underlying principle behind taking scripture literally unless it is clearly indicated otherwise is the simple confidence that God means what he says and says what he means. He is not trying to be obscure or mysterious. The inspired writings were not intended for scholars or theologians but for ordinary people in everyday language… for the most part all that is needed is an open mind and the Holy Spirit.[8]

Illumination of the Holy Spirit

I love that. And we can’t swing over that last point to quickly ether. The Holy Spirit illuminates the pages of scripture, unblinding us from His message (1 Cor. 2:11-16; Eph. 1:15-18). We can have all the tools and the correct principles, taking the bible at face value, but if we don’t have the Holy Spirit to quicken our understanding, to bring the page to life, we read it like any other book and our interpretation will be as dead as the tree it’s made from.

You can have a PhD in theology but if you do not know him, your interpretation will be wrong. I really appreciate the hard work of good scholarship, but we must be aware that some scholars don’t believe, and there are different hermeneutics being employed within believers – so scholarship is not scholarship.

Authorial Intent by Grammatical-Historical context

The literal or plain meaning corresponds to the intention of the authors. The pursuit of authorial intent sets apart those who hold a high view of scripture. We believe in dual authorship – the Holy Spirit empowered men to write in their own style the very Word of God. These men’s styles followed the ordinary language against the backdrop of history. In discovering the dual-authors intent – the Holy Spirit’s intent, inspiring the human authors intent – we should study in a way that considers plain meaning conveyed by its grammatical construction and historical context. Hence the term literal-grammatical-historical.

Historical Context – culture, politics, religion/philosophy, events, geography – we can build a picture of the author’s world, to help relate to him and his audience. This picture can indicate how phrases, idioms, words are used.

Redemptive historical context – Or what Beale calls a “redemptive-historical rationale” working in the background. We consider how the passage sits within the redemptive framework of history? Where is the author sat within the story? Which is why we’re doing series, in part. By building the big-picture-gospel, your future study will allow you to place a passage within that redemptive framework, working in the back of your mind. A redemptive-historical framework interpreting scripture. When you have that mind map, not only can you go directly to scripture that relates to the passage in question, but you’ll be aware that other redemptive elements factor into the interpretation. How is God uniquely using this author at that time to speak to both the immediate and set up future revelation.. where is the story heading?

Literary context – How does the text fit within the flow of the book. A verse within the passage, passage within the book, book within the cannon of scripture. Most questions can be answered by reading the wider context. Remember that chapters and verse numbers can be helpful, but they weren’t in the original text.

You may have heard the phrase ‘scripture interprets scripture’. We can interpret a text by comparing it with other parts other scripture to discover its meaning. We view a passage in light of all of scripture. We can interpret the implicit by the explicit.

And we will come onto how biblical authors utilise other texts within all of scripture – this is intertextual literary context – it means a greater context from which we may recognise a pattern of logic which shapes are rational.

So, context is king.

Word Study – Words studies help us discover how specific words in the original language are used throughout the bible and other literature of the same era. Like the English language, words can mean different things in a variety of contexts.

We could examine words like, seed, vine, eagle, or synonyms and phrases that resonate – how are they developing concepts, metaphors.

One caution – do not get carried away with the root meaning of a word – the etymology. Words are better understood by usage within the historical context. D.A. Carson’s, Exegetical Fallacies is superb, if bordering on technical. The more I study the more careful I am with word studies, because I see people fly to the moon with some bogus meaning of a word.

So, the human authors are no longer here but the same Holy Spirit that caused them to write can teach us what his intentions were. Which is why prayer before and throughout is essential.

Our culture is incredibly self-centred, and so we often think, “How is this speaking about me”, “what is it telling me about getting a Job promotion”, “If I randomly open it like bible bingo it may give me the name of my future wife”. Rather than the authors intent being the starting point, too frequently we are seeing sermons or “talks” that make application the starting point and find scripture to support what they intend to say. Of course, application should be a target of exposition, but it  should be fired from the authors intent, not our own.

While the human authors were influenced by their time and culture which would be reflected in their uses of idioms and style, their wisdom was not restricted to their locale. They could push through cultural barriers and speak universal truths, writing down precisely the ideas of the Holy Spirit.

Meaning and Significance

Even when a letter is written from one author to an individual (Like Paul to Timothy for example), that author fully intends ideas that implicate both the immediate and future circumstances - universal principles.

The authors understood the distinction between meaning and significance. The meaning is the ideas communicated to the immediate – Paul to Timothy. Significance is the implications, ramifications, inferences, repercussions derived from the authors meaning.

I very much appreciate Abner Chou’s work on The Hermeneutics of the Biblical Writers. He summarises meaning and significance in one phrase: “ideas (meaning) have consequences (significance)” (p32). What does the text say, and how do we apply it today. The “author’s intent controls both meaning and significance. We shouldn’t just apply scripture however we feel on a rainy Tuesday morning.

When a NT author quotes an OT author, his interpretation may or may not demonstrate the primary meaning and will likely include universal significance, drawing out an array of application, or perhaps focusing on one aspect. The Biblical authors respected the previous authors intent, historical background, literary context, gramma and words, and inter-connectedness of scripture. They do not reinterpret the OT authors intent, and nullify say a prophetic fulfilment simply because a NT author brought out an initial idea and specific significance. The OT tees up the NT each relating to its historical reality. Remember it’s the same Holy Spirit Working through both. The Holy Spirit wouldn’t have an intention through one man, only to dismiss himself with a different intention through another. God is logical. If we can understand the authors logic in the use of scriptural quotations, we can develop our own hermeneutical logic.

Intertextuality

There is a profound interconnectedness of scripture (and it never fails to blow me away). What we call intertextuality.

OT authors commonly alluded, use quotes, concepts, motifs... even provide introductory formulae before an allusion, but it’s more common for NT authors. Less explicit in the Old. 1 in 10 verses in the NT are either quotations or allusions of the OT.

When I do a verse by verse study of a NT passage I’m sometimes amazed at how many quotations and allusions there are to OT passages. The author is connecting dots that speak of the same truths. So, they think in terms of the connectedness of scripture, and so should we. Intertextuality, means that context is on a much wider scale than we first imagine. No text is an Island. And we’ll come back to methodology momentarily.

It’s not just a case of cross-referencing. There is more to it than that – there is a logic.

Following in their foot steps, we should try read scripture as the biblical writers did – with an intertextual mindset, they searched prior revelation to discover original meaning and implications that would relate to their historic reality, upon which they could develop theological argument.

The authors rationale provides clues. When we examine the immediate context, we ask, what is it alluding to? Is he alluding to a combination of different quotations/allusions – how do they relate? What web-patten of texts is being drawn? Far from subjective, the logic is displayed through this kind of careful study. Indeed, first century Jewish literature demonstrates this kind of methodology.

The intertextuality of scriputre expresses the faithfulness of God to keep his promises – It should encourage us trust his plan is in action, will not waver, and will be fulfilled.

Authorial Logic

How do we know how to apply our hermeneutic to the pages of scripture? How do we know what the authorial intent is? How should we interpret the Old testament… Is the story of David and Goliath about us today overcoming and slaying our own personal giants? Or is it about who the true king of Israel is? How is it that New testament authors quote the Old Testament authors and bring out insights that are not apparent from that authors intent? Do the New Testament authors have a different hermeneutic? What about our hermeneutic then? Surely our interpretational methods should reflect the apostolic interpretation.

There are many tools and concepts we could consider: Literally theory; Echoes – the intertextuality of themes – such as exile, exodus - when a NT author points to an OT echo, it lends us a view into larger themes that run throughout. The Septuagint -the Greek translation of the Old Testament used in Jesus’ day – how did they interpret to translate from the Hebrew; the church fathers hermeneutic – we can examine their writing; We should consider second temple Jewish literature to understand the worldview of NT authors; biblical and systematic theologies; charts and timelines can be helpful… and we can get ourselves quite confused, so it’s helpful to go back to basics and ask the questions Beale puts forth: “What was the author thinking? How did he reach his conclusion?”[8]. What logic did they employ? Chou calls this ‘authorial logic’ – not just what are they saying, but how did they arrive at their assertions.

Continuity of hermeneutic

As well as the apostolic hermeneutic, it the prophets had their own hermeneutic. The prophets expounded upon earlier scripture.

Something needs to be said about the understanding of the biblical authors.

I totally reject the message of those who downplay the understanding or expertise of biblical writers. Just because we do not understand why Matthew quotes Zechariah but says it was Jeremiah who prophesied about Judas (Matt 27:9), or why Jesus quotes Exodus 3:6 to support the resurrection (Luke 20:34-38)… doesn’t mean we know better. It’s that we don’t understand masterful hermeneutics.

Sometimes we think of the OT Prophets as people who were downloaded words from heaven without them understanding a thing. Turning to passages such as 2 Peter 1 that says, “no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” (2 Peter 1:20-21)

The prophets will have meditated on scripture as commanded by earlier revelation. They were master exegetes and theologians, thinkers; they were true scholars. Not like today as such.. they were rough manly men... Herdsmen and shepherds but passionate in God’s word. Chou drills home that it’s - Not that they write better than they know, but that they write better than we give them credit for.

It’s not true they were completely oblivious to messianic themes – Moses, David, others.. they spoke of someone greater to come. They weren’t completely aware of each theme but understood more than we often given them credit for. So not quite true when we say OT concealed, new testament revealed.

Immersed in the scriptures, the prophets upheld the meaning and develop the theological significance under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

I can’t underline enough, they didn't change the original meaning... But taught and received as it was originally intended.  So important to understand. Even Moses within the Torah – does not contradict himself and reinterpret himself – from beginning to end his intention is consistent. Moses paints a picture, others then maintain and build off it, retaining the same meaning. Each author does not change the meaning of prior revelation. In fact, every old testament book connects with prior revelation. They do not change the meaning of creation, of the Covenants, the law with its consequences, they develop themes and motifs with precision of language.

They engage in both biblical theology and systematic theology.

There is what is called Directionality – intentionally teeing up future revelation in a consistently specific direction. They are not pulling out subjective significance or shooting off different ideas in different directions – they are heading in the same direction – each prophet setting up the next prophets – all pointing from creation to new creation. A redemptive historical logic. Meaning NT authors are not required to force significance on previous revelation – it was set up for implications upon further revelation. It’s not so much the precise detail but the direction they understood.

Later authors could then define the significance, they are not discovering hiding meaning.

A matrix of texts are logically interconnected forming themes throughout the OT. In turn these themes and concepts inform the apostles hermeneutic. In fact Abner Chou suggests “the apostles follow the prophetic hermeneutic and logic. The continuity between prophetic and apostolic hermeneutic provides the modus operandi of the apostolic rationale” (p21). If true, which I believe it is, then according to his thesis, there is a continuity of the prophetic, apostolic, and today’s Christian hermeneutic. Our hermeneutic should reflect the apostolic which reflects the prophetic. That should encourage us – because we don’t have to develop some random hermeneutic and hope it’s correct. We can strive, admitted as no small task, to understand their logic which becomes ours.

Under direction from the Holy Spirit the prophets were master exegetes of the earlier texts, heading towards the further revelation of the New Testament scripture. The apostles did not reimagine or reinterpret but developed upon the revelations of the prophets, using the same authorial logic. As well as instruction and laying out the implications for the first advent of Messiah. Their hermeneutic should be ours. Their intertextual logic should be ours.

So, we could say that we hold a literal-grammatical-historical hermeneutic, but also a prophetic-apostolic intertextual logic.

Still with me?

Please don’t worry if you’re not quite following or getting lost in the terminology. As my father would say, you may not remember what you had for breakfast two weeks ago, but it did you some good.

Intertextual Methodology

Theory

So, what method can we use to establish the intertextual logic? Why is the author pointing us to other parts of scripture? When studying a passage, we have to collect all the dots, and draw them correctly.

For this, I’m leaning on Richard Hays who wrote ‘Echoes of Scripture in the Gospels’.

Firstly, we have to prove the “linguistic distinctiveness” of a phrase. If an allusion is genuine, we should be able to demonstrate the trigger is intentional. How loud and clear is the echo? A author may quote directly with an introduction, or embed an allusion without citation. Is it repeated? When someone keeps repeating a phrase they are trying to drill home a point. So we collect all the allusions, all the dots.

Secondly, once we have collected all the dots, we must connect them correctly. We have to consider all the possibilities of why and how the author is connecting these dots, considering both meaning and significance. We should consider what Hays’ calls “historical plausibility” - how would the recipients have understood it? Is the allusion chronologically “availability.” When Paul writes “the last trumpet” in 1 Corinthians 15, he could not have been referring to the seventh trumpet of Revelation because it hadn’t been written yet. Therefore, knowing the order in which books were written matters. And we have to consider the “historic interpretation” - how do your conclusions match up to the historic interpretation. If you are the only person to make a certain connection, it’s probably not the Holy Spirit teaching you. When people start promoting a new doctrine that hasn’t been around for 2000 years, you can bet their hermeneutical logic is wrong. We can ask: How is the author building upon the logic of prior authors? How is he using it to develop his theological argument? How does it help set up the next authors?

Thirdly, if an alluded text also alludes to another text, again, what are those possibilities within the network. Do other authors of scripture use/allude to that specific text in a similar fashion? For example Hosea 11.1 uses Exodus 4.22. But Psalm 80 antecedent to Hosea also used Exodus 4:22 in a similar fashion. So, when you are building the web of texts ask - Why is he using this network of texts to support his argument?

By building this network of texts we are closer to discovering the authors intent.

You can see the time and dedication required for good bible teachers who carefully expound the word of God.

As a caution, not all text is alluding to another. Authors intent is what we are following – not trying to find things that aren’t there.  We have to remember – we do not have new revelation like the authors did. The Holy Spirit helps us read but not reveal more in that sense. The gift of prophecy today is different – it is to be tested and consistent with scripture. We are to seek what the authors have already revealed, their implications, their connections, their development of theological ramifications. Before putting pen to paper they carefully and with precision read previous revelation, following the authors intent and rationale. We should do the same – not finding hidden meaning, connecting the dots that are there, not ones that aren’t there, we can’t add anything new.

Example of Jesus

Examples are helpful and Chou offers a wonderful example looking at the use of an Old Testament text by Jesus.

In Luke 20 Jesus is questioned by the Sadducees about the resurrection. They don’t believe in the resurrection, so they quote Moses and try to trick him. Jesus then quotes Moses, using Exodus 3:6 to support the resurrection at the end of the age. He says this: “But that the dead are raised, even Moses showed, in the passage about the bush, where he calls the Lord the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob. Now he is not God of the dead, but of the living, for all live to him.” (Luke 20:37-38)

Would you have quoted Exodus 3:6 to support the resurrection? Why did he go to that passage when Moses doesn’t appear to be talking about the resurrection? This is when we consider meaning and significance. Jesus didn’t say that Moses meant the resurrection when he said, “the Lord the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.” He said “Moses showed” the dead would be are raised in that passage. He’s not saying the resurrection was the primary meaning or if it was meant at all. He is saying that Moses only has the authority to say, “the Lord the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob” because He is the God “of the living”. Jesus is speaking of the significance not meaning.

If you have collected only one other dot to this Luke 20 passage, i.e. Exodus 3:6 you may say, the verse is only about God defining his identity – the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob. And if so, you will have connected the dots incorrectly. Scholars have made this mistake. Which is why presuppositions matter.

We have to consider that the phrases that include the three names Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are used on multiple occasions, first being mentioned in Genesis. For example Genesis 50:24 says, “the land that he swore to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob.” It’s referring to the covenant God made with them. Indeed, the language “the God of” is covenantal language. He is not just the God of three related men. He’s the God who made the covenant with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. A God who according to Genesis keeps he covenant promises (Gen. 24:12, 48; 26:24; 28:13;). The land, the descendants, the blessing to others, was promised not just to Abraham’s descendants, but to Abraham and Isaac and Jacob personally. Throughout Genesis (and we don’t have time to go through all the passages) Moses speaks of the death of the patriarchs, not in a way that they can now never receive the promises, but in a way that one day they will receive them. Hebrews 11 attests to that. So, Genesis provides the context that sets up Ex. 3:6. In fact the chapter before says, “God heard their groaning and he remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac and with Jacob” (Ex. 2:24).

Phrases that contain these three men mean they would personally partake in the promises. Jesus refers to their death: “he is not God of the dead, but of the living”. He’s saying Abraham, Isaac and Jacob died but are alive in Spirit and await the fulfilment of the covenantal promises. This is exactly what Moses was implying. And how could it be possible to attain these future promises? – by resurrection of their bodies on a future day. Without the resurrection, God cannot fulfil his covenant to these men. Jesus followed the logic of Moses. The Holy Spirit’s intended significance through Moses was also delivered through Jesus. Thus, the Hermeneutic of the OT continues into the New.

Luke continues, even, “some of the scribes answered, “Teacher, you have spoken well.”” (Luke 20:39). Because they knew his logic was on-point.

We can’t just pick out any verse and apply to our lives however we choose. The authors intent controls both meaning and significance.

So, in conclusion we have baseline presuppositions (that sets us apart from unbelievers): the inspiration of scripture, biblical inerrancy, sola scriptura: the bible is our supreme authority – which are all about how God has spoken and is speaking to us through his Word – but also the illumination of the Holy Spirit – God helps us understand what he speaks.

Further considerations include: context is king - Historical context, redemptive historical context, literary context, word study, all the tools we mentioned. More conscious presuppositions: the centrality of authorial intent, distinction between meaning and significance, and intertextual reality and logic.

A Note about Application

When it comes to application - Living out the ramifications of God’s Word - we should remind ourselves that meaning leads to significance. Our application should not point in any direction, but in the direction the author intended.

The authors intended meaning was informed by prior revelation (not what comes after), so we shouldn’t read into meaning that isn’t there, but when it comes to theological application, we should consider the grand picture. Culture and redemptive history are factored in – we can build a picture of universal truths applied to different cultures. Observing these pattern can help – be aware- it’s not progressing like the progressives want you to believe – like trajectory hermeneutics which I’ll mention in a moment.

On occasion authors specify applications within a specific context. What tends to happen is that they express a local, cultural application of universal truth.. What tends to happen is that they express a local, cultural application of universal truth. So how do we know when it’s cultural or not. Carson provides some examples: The use head coverings in 1 Cor. 11. It’s not about a theology of head coverings – they were, and still are in some cultures an expression of a theology of headship – Paul’s message was about making sure we can distinguish between the men and women for orderly worship. Washing feet, wasn’t about feet, it was about humility. Sackcloth and Ashes is regarding a theology of repentance and transformation of posture.[10] It’s about following their logic not precise stipulation. Paul when speaking about Marriage and Worship, will declare a universal truth, and demonstrate his theology is grounded in Creation ordinances alluding to Genesis, and then speak about cultural application.

You may come across Trajectory hermeneutics sometimes referred to as redemptive-movement hermeneutics (RMH) – they are staking in the wrong ground. They take topics such as love, equality, and so forth and suggest the NT authors are advancing a trajectory, as if God has been redemptively slow moulding topics and slowly shifting the world to a better standard, and following this bogus trajectory we are now advancing it even further. It’s an Evolutionary worldview – man was primitive in theology, we’re more sophisticated and equal and loving and soon we’ll reach perfection – it’s pride, it’s nonsense. Our hermeneutic should be the apostolic, which continued the prophetic. When you follow how, say Paul stakes dots from the creation account to his own setting – there are straight lines of universal truth. Trajectory hermeneutics stake the foundational dots incorrectly, fails to properly follow the themes through redemptive history, and then misinterprets how the NT author has staked his position. Once they have formulated a mythical exponential graph of seemingly relative truth, they then place themselves high up the ladder of anything goes. Trajectory hermeneutics seems to find a trajectory in Scripture that ends in approval of their own behaviour and pet doctrines.

Which brings me onto posture.

Posture

When it comes to biblical interpretation, the one thing that matters above all, is posture. We are specifically warned about arrogant theology (Rom. 11:18-21) and failing to recognise the authors plain words (see 1 Cor. 14:38).

Take prophecy. A proud man says, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.” (2 Peter 3:4). “God must have changed his plan because he hasn’t fulfilled it before my lifetime.”  If he hasn’t yet fulfilled a prophecy, it’s because he hasn’t yet fulfilled it. It’s not all about you, hear and now.

When I stand before God, I’d rather be accused of believing too much. He’s not going to say, “Why did you think I meant what I said?” Or “Why did you believe the plain reading of the passage?”

Jesus said, “turn and become like children” (Matt. 18:3). Children are more innocent, less cynical, like blank canvases willing to learn, and take things at face value. And they smile a heck of lot more than we do. We should come to the Word of God like a child.

As an immature believer, when I started to read the bible, I was intrigued in the apocalyptic climax of history. Foolishly lacking the thirst for righteousness (Matt 5:6) ironically, I was desperately thirsty for truth. I asked something of God, that I now think was the one of the most powerful prayers of my life: “God, no matter what the truth is, no matter how hard it is to except, no matter how it could impact my life, I want to know what the truth is. Help me to discover the truth as I read the Bible.”

I honestly believe that has impacted my approach to interpretation more than anything. Because the posture in which you pick up the living word of God, determines how malleable you are for the Holy Spirit to work in you.

We must be willing to obey - much false interpretation and doctrine is because we don't want to obey what it says.

Understanding the bible takes effort, requires time, Help from the Holy Spirit, will only happen when we are willing to obey, and we can always learn more from the living word. We have to read it and reread it.

In Closing

We’ve briefly looked at worldviews and Hermeneutics.

Although if you are new to this stuff, no doubt you’ll feel there is a lot to take in. That’s the beauty of video – someone mentioned they appreciated the first video and will watch it again. You can also download the audio from the website at MyKing.com.

So, we want to recalibrate our worldview to align with the biblical worldview.

With the decline of Christianity in west, and the possibility of the return of the King within the next few decades, urgency is at hand more than ever to revisit the big picture gospel so that we can understand what God is about to do, why, and how we can prepare for his dramatic finale.

Next time we’ll get into the story of the bible.

God bless, see you next time.

[1] Philip E. Johnson, Berkeley, California, January 2004, printed in the Foreword of Total Truth by Nancy Pearcey, Crossway Books, p. 11.

[2] Newbigin, The Gospel in a Pluralist Society, 1989, p. 9-10.

[3] https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevin-wax/3-ways-the-blind-men-and-the-elephant-story-backfires/

[4] Aaron Brake, The Six Blind Men and the Elephant: A Case for Religious Pluralism?, http://pleaseconvinceme.com/2013/the-six-blind-men-and-the-elephant-a-case-for-religious-pluralism/

[5] Philip E. Johnson, Berkeley, California, January 2004, printed in the Foreword of Total Truth by Nancy Pearcey, Crossway Books, p. 13.

[6] Andrew Wilson, Unbreakable: What the Son of God Said About the Word of God, 2014, 10 Publishing, p. 18.

[7] Wayne Grudem, 1999, Bible Doctrine: Essential Teachings of the Christian faith, p. 33.

[8] David Pawson, Defending Christian Zionism, p. 86.

[9] Beale Cited by Abener Chou, 2018, The Hermeneutics of the Bibilical Writers, Learning To Interpret Scripture From The Prophets And Apostles, Kregel Publications, p. 19

[10] D. A. Carson, 1996, Exegetical Fallacies, Second Edition, Baker Academic, p. 224