Part 2
This is the only view that allows for differences of style and language. It is the only view that allows God to communicate with man in a logical, real manner.
THE IMPLICATION OF INSPIRATION
The Bible is the Word of God:
"And the Lord said unto Moses, Thus thou shalt say unto the children of Israel, Ye have seen that I have talked with you from heaven." Exodus 20:22
The words of God Himself. God has spoken to man.
The Bible is perfect, settled, and eternal: "The law of the Lord is perfect..." Psalm 19:7; "Forever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven." Psalm 119:89; "Thy word is true from the beginning; and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever." Psalm 119:160
The Bible is from God:
"Then the Lord put forth his hand, and touched my mouth. And the Lord said unto me, Behold, I have put my words in thy mouth." Jeremiah 1:9;
"The word that came to Jeremiah from the Lord, saying, Thus speaketh the Lord God of Israel, saying, Write thee all the words that I have spoken unto thee in a book." Jeremiah 30:1,2
The Bible is a message to man:
"But when I speak with thee, I will open thy mouth, and thou
shalt say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God" Ezekiel 327
The Bible is a unit:
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Matthew 5:17,18
The Bible will stand: "The scripture cannot be broken." John 10:35
The Bible is inspired: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God." 2 Timothy 3:16
The Bible is not from man:
"For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." 2 Peter 1:21
Miscellaneous texts that relate to the subject: 2 Samuel 23:1,2; I Kings 16:1; Jeremiah 13:1; Ezekiel 1:3; Ephesians 3:1-10 indicates Paul considered that he spoke from direct revelation; Hebrews 1:1,2; John 10:34-36; Matthew 1:22; 2:15,23; 4:4,7,10; 8:17;12:17.
SOME THAT HAVE HELD TO THE INSPIRATION OF SCRIPTURE
John R. Rice, Charles H. Spurgeon, B. H. Carroll (Who said, "Any talk about revelation without inspiration of the words is fool's talk,"), D. L. Moody, R. A. Torrey, Wesley, Finney, A.J. Gordon, Chapman, Billy Sunday, and many others.
Application of the doctrine of inspiration:
1. This is God's complete word and revelation. Nothing else will follow so we shouldn't look for it, nor desire it.
Even Though you may have seen the commercials on television that there is more information about the life of Jesus. It is called another testament of Jesus, and is available by calling an 800 number. Yes, it is the Mormon's.
They are not the only group that feel inspired revelation continues. Many Charismatics feel that the messages while speaking in tongues is revelation.
2. This is God's complete word and we have no need of psychology nor the other ologies of our day to be able to live and walk with our God.
3. The word is complete and trustworthy. When a seeming contradiction comes up in your study, you may have confidence that it isn't a mistake. You may have a confidence that you will find an answer to the problem if you are diligent and seek after an answer. Example: 2 Samuel 24:1 mentions that God moved David to number the people. This numbering resulted in the loss of life for many Israelites. The term "moved" can be translated tempted. With James 1:13 we might see a contradiction. "Let no man say when he is tempted I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." The answer: Read 1 Chronicles 21:1 and see that God allowed Satan to tempt David. Add to this the information from Job that God allows Satan to test man, and you have no hint of contradiction.
4. If this is the complete word then we can find many things that will help us with everyday life situations. If it were only concepts then why bother.
5. A proper view of inspiration will lead to a proper theology and doctrine.
Example: If you hold to Verbal, plenary inspiration you will hold to a literal six day creation. If you hold to some of the other theories you will hold to other ideas. (Six days, six ages, or just that God created.)
The Bible is the inspired Word of God, our trusted companion in life. (Yes, the double meaning was intended.)
CANONICITY
Canonicity is the aspect of Scripture that determines which books of the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, are actually the Word of God revealed to man through inspiration.
The importance of this study is in the fact that there are many other books that were written within the same time frame as the Bible. Some of these books have been set forth as equal to, if not part of Scripture. The believer needs to know why the Books we have in our Bible are there, and why other books written at the same time are not in the Bible.
DEFINITION
1. Pardington states, concerning the term canon, that it is a "rule of life or doctrine." (Pardington, Revelation George P. Ph.D.; "Outline Studies In Christian Doctrine"; Harrisburg, PA: Christian Publications, 1926, p 33)
2. Theissen states, "It means, in the first place, a reed or rod; then a measuring-rod; hence a rule or standard. In the second place it means an authoritative decision of a Church council; and in the third place, as applied to the Bible, it means those books which have been measured, found satisfactory, and approved as inspired of God." (Thiessen, Henry C.; "Lectures In Systematic Theology"; Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1949, p 102)
3. Bancroft mentions, "By the canonicity of the Scriptures is meant that, according to certain and fixed standards, the books included in them are regarded as parts of a complete and divine revelation, which is therefore authoritative and binding in relation to both faith and practice." (Taken from the book, Elemental Theology by Emery H. Bancroft. Copyright 1977 by Baptist Bible College. Used by permisssion of Zondervan Publishing House. p 20)
Bancroft lists a doctrinal statement which bears reading. "The books of the Old and New Testament as we have them today are shown to have been accepted very early by the church as comprising the complete revelation from God and as having been written by the human authors to whom they
are accredited." (Taken from the book, Elemental Theology by Emery H. Bancroft. Copyright 1977 by Baptist Bible College. Used by permisssion of Zondervan Publishing House. p 26)
Canon comes from the Greek term "kanon" which is a reed or measuring rod. This is Strong's number 2583, and it is used in Galatians 6:16, "And as many as walk according to this rule" The term probably came from the Hebrew term "kaneh" which means rod or measuring rod.
The term canon was used by Athanasius in reference to the Bible in A.D. 367 in a document called the Easter Letter, but the idea was around much earlier. The canon was set in A.D. 397 at the Council of Carthage.
The term canon does not mean that the authority or genuineness of the book came from some designation placed upon it by man or council, but that by the book's very nature, it was Recognized by the church as authoritative and genuine.
The books that are in the canon today are there because God inspired them, and from the day of their being set down, were The Word of God. God also guided the church in the recognition process so that the proper books were found to be authoritative. The councils and people only recognized the fact they were the Word of God on an official basis.
This is a summary of guidelines that were used in determining the canonicity of the books of the Bible.
OLD TESTAMENT GUIDELINES
1. The book must have been written, edited, or endorsed by a prophet.
2. The Old Testament books were endorsed by Christ and Paul. Christ, Luke 24:27,44; John 5:39. Paul, 2 Timothy 3:16.
3. The New Testament quotes all but seven of the Old Testament books. (Obadiah, Nahum, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Esther, Ezra, and Nehemiah. Some list only Esther, Ecclesiastes & Song of Solomon.)
The Apocrypha, those books included in the Roman Catholic Canon, were never quoted in the New Testament. The Apocrypha was accepted as part of the Catholic Canon at the Council of Trent in A.D. 1546.
Jewish tradition tells us that Ezra gathered the Old Testament canon together. The Old Testament canon was not settled until the Council of Jamnia in A.D. 90, and then there was discussion until A.D. 200. Most feel that Ezra's time was the actual beginning of the canon even though it wasn't set by a council until later.
The following reasons are presented."
(1) The testimony of Josephus that the canon was completed in the reign of Artaxerxes Longimanus in the life-time of Ezra;
(2) Ezra was especially concerned with the sacred books. He is called 'the scribe' (Nehemiah 8:1, 4, 9, 13; 12:26, 36), 'a ready scribe in the law of Moses' (Ezra 7:6), and 'a scribe of the words of the commandments of Jehovah, and of his statutes to Israel' (Ezra 7:11);
(3) the character of Ezra's time was such that the collection of the sacred books may appropriately have been made in it. After the Exile the people were founding anew the religious institutions of the nation. What could be more natural than to gather the volumes of the sacred library?" (Theissen, p 103)
The Dead Sea Scrolls are also important to show that the canon was pretty much set between the testaments. These scrolls have information from all the Old Testament canon except for Esther. Along with scrolls from the canon there are other scrolls as well. Some of these are commentaries. The commentaries are only on the books that are in the canon. This indicates that the people collecting these scrolls saw a difference between the canon books and other books. Through the Dead Sea Scrolls we have authentication of all Old Testament books except Chronicles, Esther and the Song of Solomon.
The Church fathers held to the canon which we have, with the exception of Augustine. Augustine accepted the Apocrypha, though some writers state that he did not fully accept the Apocryphal books as authoritative.
NEW TESTAMENT GUIDELINES
Different men through the ages have used different criteria for
determining canonicity. Luther held that if a book could teach Christ it was acceptable as scripture.
1. "...must have been written or endorsed by an Apostle, or received as divine authority in the Apostolic Age." (Pardington p 35)
Theissen expands on this and lists four criteria: a. "was the book written by an apostle" or "did the author of the book sustain such a relation to an apostle as to raise his book to the level of the apostolic books?" (Mark, Luke, Acts and Hebrews were decided with this section of the question.) b. "were the contents of a given book of such a spiritual character as to entitle it to this rank?" (This rule eliminated the Apocrypha and pseudepigrapha) c. "was the book universally received in the church?" (This test was the delay in accepting of the antilegomena books.) d. "did the book give evidence of being divinely inspired?" (Theissen, p 104)
The New Testament canon was drawn together by the church and ratified, or accepted as such, at the council of Laodicea in A.D. 363. The church worked many years prior to this to decide which books should be included in the canon.
"...the canon of the New Testament was formed gradually under the providence of God, the Holy Spirit in the churches, we believe, giving the needed discernment to accept the genuine and reject the spurious. The fact that certain books were for some time held in doubt, but later were accepted simply shows what care was exercised." (Pardington p 35)
Thiessen quotes Salmon's A Historical Introduction To The Study Of The Books Of The New Testament, "It is a remarkable fact that we have no early interference of Church authority in the making of a Canon; no Council discussed this subject; no formal decisions were made. The Canon seems to have shaped itself...Let us remember that this non-interference of authority is a valuable topic of evidence to the genuineness of our Gospels; for it thus appears that it was owing to no adventitious authority, but by their own weight, they crushed all rivals out of existence." (p 121 quoted in Theissen p 103)
We must remember that the books of scripture were read in the churches, 1 Thessalonians 5:27; the books of scripture were circulated among the churches, Colossians 4:16; the churches were warned of forgeries, 2
Thessalonians 2:2. This would indicate that the books involved were held as more important and valuable than other books of the period. They felt that these were the Word of God.
There were basically only seven books held in question. They were called "antilegomena," or that which is spoken against. Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, and Revelation
There are three manuscripts from the A.D. 170-350 era that need to be mentioned.
a. The Muratorian canon is a Latin manuscript which has our present canon with the omission of Hebrews, James, and 1 & 2 Peter. The manuscript is torn so these books may have been there at one time. This listing was discovered by Ludovico Antonio Muratori in 1740
b. The Old Syriac version Lacked only 2 Peter, 3 & 3 John Jude and Revelation. The rest are as they are today.
c. The old Latin version (A.D. 200) lacked II Peter, James, and Hebrews.
The important part of these texts is that the person assembling them did not add other books that were in existence. Even though they left out some books that were under discussion, they did limit themselves only to books in the present canon. This shows the books were recognized as Scripture.
THE APOCRYPHA
Apocrypha simply means something that is hidden or covered. These are Old Testament books that are accepted by the Roman Catholic Church, but rejected by Jewish and Protestant people. These are books that were written around 200 B.C. to A.D. 100.
A secondary usage of the term is the listings of books that are technically listed as Pseudepigrapha. (Kauffman, Donald T.; "The Dictionary Of Religious Terms"; Westwood, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1967)
The Dictionary of Religious Terms lists the following books as the Apocrypha: 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, Esther 10:4 -16:24,
Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, Daniel 3:24-90, 13-14, The Prayer of Manasses, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees.
The Catholic Bible lists the following books over and above the usual Canon: 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, Esther 10:4-16:24, The Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Baruch, The Letter of Jeremiah, The Prayer of Manasseh, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees. (Some list 1& 2 Esdras as four separate books, since these are four books combined into two.
The Additions to Daniel are also entitled and listed in some listings. Also listed at times are the Prayer Of Azariah and The Song Of The Three Young Men, Susanna, and Bel And The Dragon. These books are not found in the Hebrew Old Testament, however they are found in the Septuagint (LXX) and the Latin Vulgate.
The Roman Catholic Church accepts the Apocrypha as scripture while most of protestantism reject them. The Lutheran and Episcopalian churches do not view them as adequate for doctrine, but some do use them for illustrative purposes in the Christian life.
The non canon books have many problems within themselves which kept them from being considered part of the canon. They do have historical information which may be of value to the Bible scholar and to the Historian. Example: The book of Acts records the death of Herod in 12:23,
"And immediately an angel of the Lord smote him, because he gave
not God the glory; and he was eaten of worms, and died."
We don't know if the Maccabean account of a similar death is the same, however it sheds some light on what Acts might have been speaking of.
Barnes mentions, "A similar disease is recorded of Antiochus Epiphanes, in the Apocrypha, II Mac. 9:5, "But the Lord Almighty, the God of Israel, smote him with an invisible and incurable plague; for a pain in the bowels that was remediless came upon him, and sore torments of the inner parts (v 9), so that worms rose up out of the body of this wicked man," Probably this was the disease known as "morbus pedicularis." This has to do with being infested with lice. (Barnes, Albert, "Notes On The New Testament"; Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, p 196, commenting on Acts 12:23)
Josephus in Antiq.,b. 17:ch. 6:5 states that Herod the Great, grandfather of Herod Agrippa, died of the same disease. In one place it is described as a slow, smelly, and painful death. It affects the mental faculties before death comes. (Whiston, William, Translator, "Josephus — Complete Works"; Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1960, p 364-365)
REASONS FOR REJECTING THE APOCRYPHA
Adapted from "General Biblical Introduction" by Revelation H.S. Miller, for your interest and study. The author lists a total of twenty reasons.
1. It is understood by almost everyone that they never appeared in the Hebrew canon.
2. NeitherChrist, the apostles, nor any other writer, quoted the apocrypha in the New Testament, even though the books were in existence at the time of the New Testament's writing.
3. Josephus the Jewish historian rejected them.
4. Philo a Jewish philosopher of Alexandria wrote multitudes of information, and within that writing, quoted the Old Testament, yet never quoted, or even mentioned, the apocrypha.
5. The apocryphal books are listed in no catologue of Old Testament books within the first four centuries A.D.
6. Jerome rejected the apocrypha and stood solidly for the Hebrew canon. (Jerome lived ca. 347-419)
7. Inspiration is not claimed by any of the authors of the apocryphal books.
8. The books contain errors in the areas of geography and history. They contradict themselves, the Bible and history.
9. They teach and uphold beliefs that contradict the canonical books. Miller lists: "Lying is sanctioned, suicide and assassination are justified, salvation by works and by almsgiving, magical incantations, prayers of the dead for the dead, etc....."
10. There is a noticeable style and flow difference between these books and the books of the canon.
11. The books contain many absurdities.
12. When reading the Bible and then reading the apocryphal books there is a noticeable difference. The two do not belong together.
13. Most of the books were written much later than the Old Testament books were written. Some were probably written in the time of Christ.
14. The books were not held as canonical until the Roman Catholic Council of Trent in 1546 announced them a part of the canon and condemned anyone that disagreed.
15. The use of terms like "the Scriptures" in the New Testament would indicate that the writers and Christ were referring to a completed set of books, or Old Testament canon.
THE PSEUDEPIGRAPHA
This is a group of writings that have been set forth as Scripture as well. They differ from the Apochrapha in that they claim to be authoritative. "Writings wrongly attributed to worthies such as Enoch, Moses, Solomon, etc. They are both Jewish and Christian. Examples of Christian epigrapha are the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of Thomas, the Apocalypse of Peter, and the Ascension of Isaiah." (The Dictionary of Religious Terms.)
The Hebrew canon of the Old Testament breaks the books into three divisions, with the final division being broken into three subdivisions:
1. The Pentateuch: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy.
2. The Prophets: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Malachi (These men were in the office of prophet at the time they wrote.)
3. The Kethubhim: (Psalm to Chronicles in Hebrew Old Testament)
A. Poetry: Psalms, Proverbs, Job.
B. Megilloth: (A scroll of papyrus or animal skin.) Song of Solomon, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther.
C. Non-Poetical Historical: Daniel (Because he wasn't in the prophetic office.), Ezra, Nehemiah, Chronicles
Canonicity aids the believer in accepting the books of the Bible as the Word of God. These books are to be trusted and used in the believer's everyday life. The Bible can and should be the central guide in our lives via the application of It to our lives by the Holy Spirit.
AUTHORITY
I think that we all understand what authority is, so we won't dwell on definitions. We do need to understand, however, that all of mankind needs to have authority over them. Small children need to have the discipline of an authority, or they will mature not knowing, or obeying authority.
I went to a young friend's home years ago, and his little boy walked up and kicked me in the shin and asked if it hurt. I said that it most certainly did. I turned to talk to his father and the kid kicked me again. The father made no attempt to correct the boy. The boy recognized no authority at all. The third time he swung his foot my way I hooked his leg with my foot and dumped him on the floor. He got up and swung again and I dumped him a second time. He got up and walked away. He had not liked his confrontation with authority, but he learned from it. That child I'm confident grew up not recognizing his parent's authority, probably not the Lord's, or the Word's authority, and most likely no authority.
I have observed similar children that have parents that recognized the need for discipline and have begun to apply the principles. The children respond with in a day or two of any new authority structure that a parent puts in place. They not only recognize it, but they respond to it with obedience and quite often they become more affectionate and loving toward their parents and siblings.
There are two principles to "Authority" in relation to the revelation. Both are valid and necessary.
1. The Word is our authority over us in our lives.
2. It is authoritative because it is the inspired Word of God.
Someone has said that if there is anything small, shallow, or ugly about a person, giving him a little authority will bring it out. In contrast, as you allow authority to the Word, it will bring out everything deep, and beautiful in a person.
Definitions: The term translated authority in the scripture is Strong's word 1849 "exousia." It is very interesting that it is not only translated
"authority," but it is also translated "power." Since you cannot have authority without power, it is reasonable to assume that the two would be closely related.
Erickson mentions, "By the authority of the Bible we mean that the Bible, as the expression of God's will to us, possesses the right supremely to define what we are to believe and how we are to conduct ourselves." (Erickson, Millard J., "Christian Theology"; Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1985, p 241)
He also makes a stronger statement of interest, "By authority we mean the right to command belief and/or action." (p 242) The right to command belief. The right to command action. Do we really understand and accept this concept of authority where scripture is involved? In reality this is the authority that the Word should have over us.
The term "authority" comes from the word "author." Author comes from a Latin term "auctor" which means someone that causes to grow or someone that originates something. In our case God is the originator and author of the Word, and thus is our authority. Indeed, He is the author of mankind as a race. He declared that we should exist. He Does Have Authority Over Us As Believers, As Over All Of Mankind.
Recognition: Authority is being questioned as never before in our society. Women are questioning all authority over them, including God's authority over their bodies. Children are being encouraged to question their parents' authority by the government, social services, and the school system.
I have even seen a pastor or two simply undermine what parents were trying to do in their children's lives. The pastors meant well, but they can't stand in the pulpit and tell the congregation that the parent is wrong to do certain things. Yes, I figured you might want an example. The only illustration that came to mind was a church where many in the congregation were trying to keep the music in the home at a conservative level, and the pastor began making statements that the contemporary Christian songs were okay, and he even brought it into the sanctuary as special music at times. I may be staid, conservative, old fashioned and a stick in the mud, but a very upbeat version of Holy, Holy, Holy on a guitar at high volume is too much.
PRINCIPLES OF AUTHORITY
1. We all have authorities within our lives. As children we had parents and teachers, as well as others that took care of us from time to time. As adults we have authorities of some sort. Teachers, employers, superior officers, police officers, Presidents, Board of directors etc.
2. Those that own billions of dollars worth of properties, or businesses still have some sort of authority over them to some degree. I saw a documentary on Donald Trump, the multi-millionaire of great fame. He was asked many questions concerning his financial empire and it was very obvious that he had many authorities over him. The loan officers at banks were watching everything he did with great interest.
3. In the Biblical realm we must realize that the lost will not recognize the Word as an authority over their lives. Indeed, we need to take this into consideration when we become upset with how they live their lives. They are their own authority at that point in time. The Word has no authority to them. Most lost people are enjoying life as they see fit, and we have no basis to judge them on. They are doing what is right in their own eyes. We, knowing the Word can understand that. Yes, they are doing wrong, and yes, they will be held accountable for it, but they don't know that.
SOURCE OF AUTHORITY
There is a real question where the believer's authority is. Is the Church his authority, is the Bible his authority, or is the Lord his authority? Let us consider this for a moment.
1. The Church: The Church of Rome holds that they are the final authority in the lives of their followers. Some cults find a similar power within their authoritative structure. Several of the cults even claim, and use their authority over the marital rites of their followers. You cannot marry the person of your choice. You marry the one that the leader picks for you. Sun Moon married dozens of couples. I believe it was in a stadium in New York City. All couples were paired at Moon's choice.
Getting back to the church having authority over the people, it may be growing among those of a more conservative nature. I have heard comments in sermons and conversations from some in Baptist circles that
indicate that some are playing around with some fringe thoughts on this position. I heard in one sermon several years ago, by a leading Baptist seminary president that the church was the final authority in controversies of interpretation. If the "Church" is straight, this is great, but what if it goes sour? I might add that I don't think that this is the normal strain of thinking among Baptists of any generation.
The Word is our authority, and not the church, in the final analysis. Yes, the church is our general authority and it is there for regulation and control of the ministries of believers, however if a local church begins to go against the Word then there should be a parting of ways. In doctrinal disputes, we must recognize the believer's right to interpret and understand the revelation from the Lord. The church can and should guide, teach and help the believer to a proper understanding. The church is never the final authority, else all the reformers were in great error to confront, and separate from Holy Mother Roman Catholic Church.
Thomas Armitage, a Baptist, mentions, " . . . the book called the Bible is given by the inspiration of God, and is the only rule of the Christian faith and practice. The consequence is, that we have no creeds, nor catechisms . . . which bind us by their authority . . . Our churches hold that Jesus Christ is the only Law-giver, and the only King in Zion; that His law is laid down in the scriptures, and is perfect; and therefore, they refuse to follow all forms or tradition and ecclesiastical ordinations whatever, bowing only to the behests of inspired precept, and the recorded practices of the apostolic churches, as their record is found in the Scriptures. . . ." (Quoted by Louie D. Newton, "Why I Am A Baptist"; p 38) There are many other statements from history that declare the Bible has always been the final authority for Baptists.
One more quote for good measure. Pardington, "The divine authority of the Scriptures constitutes them the final court of appeal in all matters of Christian faith and practice." (Pardington, Revelation George P. Ph.D.; "Outline Studies In Christian Doctrine"; Harrisburg, PA: Christian Publications, 1926, p 40)
2. The Bible: The Scriptures are, and can be, the Only source of authority that the believer can have. The scriptures declare the God that gave them, and the God of final authority.
BASIS OF THE AUTHORITY OF THE WORD
The only basis there is, is centered in the fact that the Bible is the Inspired Word of God. He, being the final authority, the Creator, has made known His wishes and they are binding upon His creation. 2 Timothy 3:15-17,
"And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."
This is a very plain statement that the Word is to be an integrated part of our lives. Only an authority can reprove or correct.
If you don't believe me, then allow your children to run your house awhile, and then tell them to do something. If you have lost your authority you will have serious problems. Someone has said, "That there is still plenty of authority in the American home. The problem is that the children are exercising it."
2 Peter 1:19-21 mentions, "We have also a more sure word of prophecy, unto which ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts; Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not at any time by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit." Why take heed if there is no authority? There is no reason for us to heed. This text again declares that the prophecy was from God — an authoritative revelation of Himself.
A side thought to this is that the revelation is the only way that we can know God, or His authority. Thus, the revelation is the other side of His authority. The Word is His authority revealed to us.
Psalm 19:7-9 tells us,
"The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul; the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart; the commandment of the Lord is pure,
enlightening the eyes. The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring forever; the ordinances of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."
Again the terms of law, statutes, commandments and ordinances smack somewhat of authority. And They Are Perfect, Sure, Right, Pure, True And Righteous.
1 Peter 1:25 states,
"But the word of the Lord endureth forever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you."
The word is His authority over us and this text tells us that the Word is eternal. Thus we must surmise that His authority over us is eternal as well. Matthew 24:35, reiterates the same idea. "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." John 10:35, "the scripture cannot be broken," Not only is the Word and Its authority eternal, but it is also unbreakable. Nothing can come between the authority of God over us and our beings.
This is true not only of the saved but of the unsaved as well. The authority of God to the unsaved is not recognized at this point in time, but in eternity the Lord will impose his authority upon them in a mighty and terrifying way.
And one final passage. 1 Thessalonians 2:13,
"For this cause also thank we God without ceasing because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it, not as the word of men but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe."
This verse mentions that the word is not from men but from God.
CHRIST RECOGNIZED AND USED THE AUTHORITY OF THE SCRIPTURES
1. He used the Word against the Devil in the temptations. He knew that the Word was truth and that It was to be lived by. (Matthew 4:4,7,10)
2. He used the word in rebuking the people. (Matthew 21:42, " . . . Did ye never read in the scriptures. . . .") He knew the Word had authority.
3. He used the Word to vindicate his actions in cleansing the temple. (Mark 11:17, " . . . Is it not written, My house shall be called of all nations the house of prayer? But ye have made it a den of thieves.")
John Calvin had a very neat argument for the authority of the scriptures over the person. His main argument concerning this topic is that the inward witness of the Holy Spirit is the most powerful argument for the authority of the word. Spend some time considering his thoughts. "Calvin insisted that the testimony of the Holy Spirit is superior to reason. It is an inward work that captures the minds of those who hear or read Scripture, producing conviction or certainty that it is the Word of God with which they are dealing." (Erickson p 853)
APPLICATION OF THE DOCTRINE
1. We only need to teach the Word of God and allow it to speak to people. Their reaction, be it good, or bad is then a reaction to God, and not to us or our teaching.
2. In church matters, be they moral, organizational, or emotional we should endeavor to keep the Word as the standard, and not some philosophy of man.
3. If we as believers live according to the Word, and Its directions then we need not fear or worry about what others may say, be they lost or saved.
Martin Luther faced the Roman Emperor at the Diet of Worms. He told those present that he would not reject anything that he had written. He was given a day to think it over and asked the next day to recant his statements. He replied, That he would not recant unless he was confronted with Scripture and reason that would prove him wrong. He also rejected the authority of the church.
Might I suggest that Luther did not just sit down one evening and do a short Bible study and tell off the Roman Church? His break came after some very long hours of searching the Scriptures and seeking God.
If you decide to buck the church that you are a part of, you should be very sure that you are correct. Be sure you have studied many hours, talked with others for many hours, and prayed many hours before you decide
your interpretation is correct, and that which is normally taught by the fundamental churches is wrong.
There is something happening in fundamental churches today that is of interest. I was saved and discipled in fundamental churches. I was trained in fundamental schools, yet I see the same fundamental churches going away from the things they once held. It is not that they have discovered new truth in the Word to show their past positions in error, but rather they have decided to go another direction, whether it contradicts their past position or not. None of these churches bothers to explain their deviation, they just do their own thing and take their congregations along for the ride.
4. When you realize the Word has the answers to life's problems you can turn to it instead of all those self-help spiritual books that are on the market.
5. Authority is from the term author. We have established that the author of the Word is God Himself. He has revealed to us all that He wants us to know. He wants to be our authority. He wants to be the author of our lives. He wants to guide and mold our lives through His Word. We need to allow this so that He truly is the Author of our life.
6. Since we have seen that the term "exousia" is translated "power" as well as "authority," we might consider the two terms as they relate to our relationship to God. We realize we are under His authority, however we probably seldom think of His power. In life we seldom think of the power of the police officer unless we get sideways to him, and the law that he upholds. We then think of the power at length. The same is true of God. When we get side wise to His ways we will ultimately consider His power. This should be an incentive for us to remain under His authority and not to come under His power. When a person comes under His power there is often suffering, be it physical, mental, or emotional.
7. The Word is our message from God, Right? We are to obey everything that God tells us to do in the Word, Right? How about this one? "Greet one another with an holy kiss." Romans 16:16. Holy kiss is in Scripture, so why not? Culture? Yes. It would be offensive today — but are the love, compassion and concern behind the kiss to be missing as well? No. Yet It Is
So Very Missing In Some Of Our Churches Today. We really don't follow the authority that God has set before us in all areas.
8. There is an aspect of authority that we have not discussed which is of importance. Along with authority come the right and ability to enforce. We mentioned that the Word has authority to command belief and to command action. We should also remember that the Word is revealing the will of The Father who has the right, and certainly the ability, to enforce.
God does not normally force men to do things, yet there are times when He desires to do certain things within a person's life. At those times the Lord may, and at times does, bring to bear certain forces to move the person to action. Indeed, some believers testify of God using gentle forces to bring them to a belief in Christ. Others mention health and trial type forces to gain their attention.
It seems that we need to submit to God's authority over us that is exerted through the Word. God authored the Word, He authored mankind, and He desires to author our everyday life. May we be open to that creativity that only He can use in our lives.
ILLUMINATION
We need to make a distinction between the illumination of the mind to the Scriptures, and the illumination theory of inspiration. The illumination theory of inspiration states that "inspiration is merely an intensifying and elevation of the religious perceptions of the believer." (Thiessen, Henry C.; "Lectures In Systematic Theology"; Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1949, p 106) This is not the topic of consideration in this section.
We desire to study the illumination of the mind which occurs as we study the Word of God. This illumination is not something mystical that falls upon us when we enter the pulpit without studying for the sermon, but is the illumination that comes to us via the Holy Spirit as we study the Word.
There is also a type of illumination which people discuss that is related to salvation. It deals with the fact that all lost are in darkness, and the Lord illuminates them, or illuminates their minds so they can understand enough of the Scripture to understand the Gospel so they can be saved. (This is seen in Acts 26:17,18,
"Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee, To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them who are sanctified by faith that is in me."
Buswell in his theology discusses this some. He mentions that some theologians equate illumination with the effectual calling of the Holy Spirit of the lost unto salvation. (Buswell, "A Systematic Theology Of The Christian Religion"; p 165-166)
Chafer goes into great detail about the darkness that is present in different groups if you want to give additional study to this. The blindnesses that he mentions are: Israel's blindness, Gentile blindness, Satan's blindness, and Carnal blindness. This blindness/illumination relates to soteriology not bibliology so we will not be discussing this type of illumination either.
We are speaking in this study of the illumination of the mind by the Holy Spirit. This illumination is dependant on the person being saved and walking with the Lord.
Illumination is not inspiration. Inspiration is the method by which the Word of God was transmitted from God to human authors in the original manuscripts. This was the communication from God to mankind. Illumination on the other hand is the act by which God the Holy Spirit assists mankind to understand that which was transmitted by inspiration.
THE NEED FOR ILLUMINATION
The fact that mankind is fallen and unable to understand the things of the Lord is the only need. We simply cannot understand God's revelation with our foggy sin-stained minds. All aspects of man's character were affected by the fall and sin has limited our ability in all areas including our understanding.
The mind that has been cleared by the work of the Holy Spirit can understand as the Spirit allows. The regenerate mind can understand as far as the Holy Spirit is allowed to work. We need to realize that the Holy Spirit is limited in His work by the degree of sin in the life and the control that the life allows the Spirit to have.
DEFINITION
1. Pardington mentions, "Illumination may be defined as the divine quickening of the human mind in virtue of which it is enabled to understand truth already revealed." (Pardington, Revelation George P. Ph.D.; "Outline Studies In Christian Doctrine"; Harrisburg, PA: Christian Publications, 1926, p. 41, 42)
It does not reveal new truth, but makes the old truth understandable. Someone said, and I don't know the source of this, "What light is to the eye, illumination is to the mind." (Matthew 16:17 may relate,
"And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona; for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father, who is in heaven."
2. Ryrie tells us that "generally the concept of illumination relates to the ministry of the Holy Spirit helping the believer to understand the truth of the Bible." (Reprinted by permission: Ryrie, Charles C.; "Basic Theology"; Wheaton: Victor Books, 1986, p 116)
3. Erickson adds a thought that is probably assumed in many people's minds, but it is worth mentioning. When he is commenting on Calvin's concept of illumination, which he supports, he mentions that the thought of illumination, must have with it the idea of growth in the believer. We have already mentioned this fact; it bears repeating. There must be a continuing growth and walk in the life of the believer for illumination to occur. Erickson also adds a point that is important and that is the fact that illumination is not a one time, once for all occurrence. We are illuminated as needed. The Holy Spirit opens our minds to the possibility of understanding, as well as continues to illuminate our minds as we continue to study.
The term illumination does not appear in our New Testament. Illuminated appears in Hebrews 10:32. It is the Greek term "photizo" (Strong's 5461) which Strong defines as, "to shed rays, i.e. to shine . . . to brighten up . . . ." (Strong, James; "Strong's Exhaustive Concordance"; Waco, TX: Word Books, p 77 of His dictionary)
This term seems to relate to the salvation of the reader. Unger mentions of the term, "In the early Christian Church it was used to denote the baptized." (Taken from: "Unger's Bible Dictionary"; Unger, Merrill F.; Copyright 1957, Moody Bible Institute of Chicago; Moody Press. Used by permission. p 516)
The same term is used in Ephesians 1:17-18 and is translated "enlightened." The Ephesians text is of some interest and might need some of your concentration. Ephesians 1:17,18 states, "That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation [apokalipsis] in the knowledge of him, The eyes of your understanding being enlightened [photizo]; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints,"
This seems to indicate that there is a relationship between revelation and illumination. To some there seems to be a close relationship between revelation and enlightenment. This is based on the fact there seems to be a sense of meaning in revelation of the idea of revealing that which was not known.
In essence this is what we view as illumination. We do not know because we are not illuminated. When the Holy Spirit illuminates, then we know that which was not known.
God is in the business in this age of revealing Himself to us, but this is not new revelation. He is revealing Himself to us on a daily basis, but this information has been previously revealed not only in the original revelation of the Word, but quite possibly also to other believers in the past by illumination.
Specifically, revelation in Bibliology would be the revelation of the Word, while illumination is God allowing and helping us to understand that revelation.
Chafer felt that revelation was continuing in a sense. "In place of special revelation, however, a work of the Spirit has especially characterized the present age. As the Spirit of God illuminates or casts light upon the Scriptures, this is a legitimate form of present tense revelation from God in which the teachings of the Bible are made clear and applied to individual life and circumstances." (Taken from the book, Major Bible Themes by Lewis Sperry Chafer and John F. Walvoord. First edition copyright 1926, 1953 by Dallas Theological Seminary. Revised edition copyright 1974 by Dallas Theological Seminary. Used by permission of Zondervan Publishing House. p 33)
Remember that he is not speaking of new "direct" revelation of God to man. Even so, I believe that he is in danger of confusing the believer that reads his writings. Revelation is completed, not continuing in any way. Revelation is complete, while illumination continues in this age to assist the believer in understanding that revelation.
TYPES OF ILLUMINATION
1. Illumination To All Mankind: There is some illumination for all of mankind that is indicated in the following verse. John 1:9, in the context of Christ being the light John mentions, "That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world." There seems to be a sense in which that light affected all men.
What is meant in the John text? Some possibilities: a. The light that brings forth salvation of man as is possible with man's response to God. The problem with this is that every man does not respond, thus it is not really light to all mankind. b. This may relate to the idea that a person can be drawn to the Lord via the Holy Spirit. The problem with this is that the phrase "every man" is not acceptable when we know that all mankind is not drawn to the Lord. c. The revelation of Romans 1 might be involved. This would be the thought that every man has some light via nature and from within. It relates to the fact that all man is enlightened enough to respond to God if there is a desire to know God. This seems to fit the thought of the John passage best.
Some feel that 2 Timothy 1:10 is speaking of the same thing, however it would seem to me that the two verses are speaking of two different types of light. "But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Savior, Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel," There is a light that is brought to man through the appearing of the Lord, and the gospel is the carrier of that light. It would seem that this light of the Timothy text would be limited to those that have heard of Christ and His work.
2. Illumination To The Natural Man: This technically is the same as number one, in that all mankind is natural man. The difference that is being made is that all mankind has some illumination, while the elect have a further illumination while they are still in their lost state.
The natural man has no desire to know God, nor can he really understand God. 1 Corinthians 2:10-14, mentions that the natural man cannot understand things of God. 1 Corinthians 2:15,
"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness unto him, neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."
Yet, there seems to be an illumination of the Holy Spirit to draw the person to God. This is an understanding of the Gospel so they may accept it. (Hebrews 6:4)
3. Illumination To All Believers: 1 John 2:27 speaks of this type of illumination. "But the anointing which we have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you; but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him." Part of the Holy Spirit's ministry to the believer is to illuminate the believer's mind to the revealed Word.
4. Illumination To New Born Believers: The new believer automatically desires knowledge of the Word. This would indicate that even the newborns have illumination available to them. This is only logical, since they receive the Holy Spirit at salvation, and He would automatically begin His ministry to them. (1 Peter 2:2, "As newborn babes, desire the pure milk of the word, that ye may grow by it.")
Newborn believers don't always automatically continue to grow. The illumination in their lives is limited, if not eliminated until they begin to walk with God. (1 Corinthians 3:1-3)
5. Illumination To Growing Believers: They desire to know the word and God's information to them. Psalm 119:18, "Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of they law"; 1 Corinthians 2:10-14, mentions that the Spirit helps believers to know things; Ephesians 1:18; Ephesians 3:9.
6. Illumination To Stagnant Believers: Stagnant believers may have to be retaught the basics due to their inadequate memory. Hebrews 5:12, "For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again the first principles of the oracles of God, and are become such as have need of milk, and not of solid food." Even mature believers need to be reminded of the basics of the faith.
Over the years I have spent speaking in different churches, I have been continually reminded of this. I tend to speak topically, because I only have one or two sessions in a particular church. In these topical sermons, I have used the basics of the faith and constantly have people telling me after the sermons that they enjoyed being reminded of some of the things that they had forgotten.
The newborns that aren't growing, as well as the stagnant believer, are in the situation they are in because they are not allowing the Holy Spirit to minister to them in the area of illumination.
7. Illumination To Future Peoples: There seems to be a coming illumination which will arrive when the Lord returns. 1 Corinthians 4:5,
"Therefore, judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts; and then shall every man have praise of God."
Illumination is via the Holy Spirit. John hn16:13 (This was to the apostles, but I think that it shows the principle.) states, "Nevertheless, when he, the Spirit of truth, is come he will guide you into all truth; for he shall now speak of himself, but whatever he shall hear, that shall he speak; and he will show you things to come." Since the Holy Spirit is resident in all believers then the ministry of illumination is available to all believers.
The verse also tells us that the Holy Spirit is dealing with ALL truth. This would seem to cover all of the scriptures. John 16:13 indicates that this is all to the glory of Christ.
APPLICATION OF THE DOCTRINE
1. We have the promise of the Holy Spirit's help when we have problems understanding the scriptures. This does not exclude the study of, and the reading of the scriptures. It does not necessarily preclude the use of helps, commentaries and thoughts of other believers. All may add to the ultimate understanding that the believer may have.
2. It also indicates that the minister does not have a corner on the market of understanding of the scripture. It may be that he has done more
homework than others, however any minister should be open to the honest questions of his students. They may well have something new that the minister has not seen in the Scripture.
3. Since we know that the Lord inspired the Word, and that it is authentic, and that it is our authority, we now have a promise that we will have help in understanding what It has to say to us. We need not worry about not doing something that we are supposed to be doing. He will show us those things that He wants us to do, or not do.
4. There is a sense in which the writer or teacher of the past and present can share their illumination with others. As they diligently study and are helped by the Holy Spirit they can help others by their teaching and writing. This may be the one redeeming quality in the vast number of books that we have on the market. Those books dealing with the scriptures can have good information in them.
You need to be careful that the writers and teachers you read and listen to are in a proper relation to the Lord before you rely upon their illumination.
5. There is a stiff dose of knowledge in the previous item for those that would teach, preach, and write. They had better concentrate upon the relationship they have to the Holy Spirit so that they know that they are properly illuminated. Keep the sin out of the life. Keep the Spirit in control of the life.
6. Our being illuminated, can help us determine truth from falsehood. Many of the false teachings today come from men that are on a status trip, trying to find new ear tickling things in the Word. If we would concentrate on the Word and what It says to us, then falsehood could not creep in.
7. If He has helped you understand it — then obey it, and share it with others.
8. One final application that we need to consider. A number of years ago I struggled for a few weeks with the why of our needing to accept Christ. I knew it to be fact, but why did God want us to do it. I thought and studied for sometime and then had to lay the study aside due to my schedule. As I was thinking over these things, my mind just seemed to receive a flash from the Home Office on the why of it. I really believe that the Lord
wanted me to have that information, so gave it to me through my thought processes.
As we study, we may not immediately understand a passage. If this is the case, we need to go to the Lord in prayer and seek His help in knowing the meaning. He may lead us to other passages that relate, or He may use our thought process to share the meaning with us.
To conclude, we need to restate that God's revelation is complete. It was given to the writers of Scripture in its entirety. The Holy Spirit since has been in the ministry of illuminating the believer. The revelation was the giving forth of information that was not previously known. Illumination also is the showing of information that was not previously known. Even though both are involved in the same process, they are not the same. Revelation is complete in the Bible, while illumination is continuing via the Holy Spirit.
As we study His Word, might we willingly bow to that information which He shows to us. If we allow the Holy Spirit to illuminate, and allow the information to be integrated into our lives, we will become mature believers that are useful to our Father.
This is the result of all that God is doing in our everyday lives. As we allow Him to do these things, He gains glory. His glory should be the desire of the believer, and submitting to His illumination is an easy method of gaining and giving glory to Him that has done so much for us.
INTERPRETATION
The previous studies have related to God's part in Bibliology. Now we want to look at man's part in the process of understanding all that God has revealed. We need to look at interpretation.
Why is interpretation, or might I say proper interpretation, necessary? A brief look in a Christian bookstore, or in a Christian book catalog will show the need for some proper interpretation. I recently skimmed through a wholesale Christian booklist and found all sorts of doctrine. I found everything from Fundamental to Liberal, from Noncharismatic to Charismatic, and from Armenius to Calvin. Now, all of these different thoughts CANNOT be THE proper interpretation of that which God has revealed to us. If they are, then God would be the author of confusion. Since we know that God is not the author of confusion, then we must assume that some of these teachings are false. Any false teaching must come from improper interpretation, or misunderstanding of that which is studied.
Interpretation is often called hermeneutics. Just what is hermeneutics?
DEFINITION
Hermeneutics is the science of interpreting literature. In the theological realm it is the science of interpreting the Bible. This science contains rules and regulations by which the job of interpreting is properly completed.
Zondervan Pictoral Encyclopedia of the Bible mentions that "The correct reproduction of the thoughts of another (either a writer or speaker), usually from a different language, has been called interpretation. When applied to the Bible, interpretation has been called hermeneutics," (Tenney, Merrill C.; "The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia Of The Bible"; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975)
The term hermeneutics first appeared in a book written in the 17th century. The author's name was J. C. Dannhaur. It came from the Greek word "hermeneuein" which means to express or explain.
The Bible was written in different languages and different cultures. It is the interpreter's job to get as close to that historical context as possible, and try to find the thought patterns of the writer.
A missionary to Japan that I met in the Northwest was telling me of his work. He was involved with what they were calling contextualization of the Scripture. They were trying to teach the Bible in the context of the Japanese culture. Not trying to change the word, but to teach it in a way that the Japanese could understand it, and understand it properly.
He mentioned that he was having a real problem getting a passage into a format that he thought the students could understand. It was a difficult passage. He presented the idea to some of his students. They immediately understood the principles and ideas from the Bible without his explaining it. He discovered in speaking with the students that the writer of Scripture was using some Eastern thinking in his presentation, and that they understood it immediately — indeed, much easier than the missionary when he first studied the passage.
We need to get as near to the original author as possible to try to understand just what he was saying to the recipients of the book.
If you remember the term presuppositions, you will remember that we settled on one in particular. We decided that literal interpretation, or the plain, normal interpretation of a passage, was the method to use.
There are a couple of terms that we need to mention.
Hermeneutics: These are the rules and methods used to interpret the Scriptures.
Exegesis: Exegesis is using the principles of hermeneutics while seeking the meaning of the scriptures. "The science of interpretation called hermeneutics is the art of determining the true meaning of Scripture. Hermeneutics must be distinguished from exegesis, which is application of the laws or principles of interpretation." (Reprinted by permission: Chafer, Lewis Sperry; Walvoord, Editor; "Lewis Sperry Chafer Systematic Theology" Abridged Edition; Wheaton: Victor Books, 1988, Vol. 1, p 101)
Types Of Interpretation: The wisest words that I have run across in my studies of interpretation are those of Benjamin Jowett in Essays And
Reviews written in 1860. "Interpret the Bible like any other book." That simply means that we should read it, and understand it in plain terms.
Allegorical Interpretation: Normally this method takes texts that can't be understood as plain and literal, and makes the words only symbols of what was originally stated. The original meaning of the text may be eliminated altogether.
TWO PROBLEMS
1. To use this method leaves one with no authority. Every person trying to interpret the text will come away with his own interpretation, and there can be none that are proven correct.
2. To use this method leaves a person with fiction in the Word, for none of the words have meaning as they are read, or as they were recorded. In essence God could have set monkeys before typewriters and taken their writings and given them to man so that man could give them meaning.
Most people that are allegorists do not use a completely allegorical approach. They take things in their easy literal sense until it doesn't fit their thinking, or becomes too burdensome, and then they shift to the allegorical.
The system has been around for a long time. Origin has been credited with coming up with the system originally. The system grew out of his Jewish philosophy and some of the philosophical thinking of Plato.
Ramm mentions, "The curse of the allegorical method is that it obscures the true meaning of the Word of God and had it not kept the gospel truth central it would have become cultic and heretical." He continues, "The Bible treated allegorically becomes putty in the hand of the exegete." (Ramm, Bernard; "Protestant Biblical Interpretation"; Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1970, p 30)
Ramm tells of Clement of Alexandria, and his position. His position is of interest. (I have adapted this for our study.) Clement held that there were five possible meanings to any Scripture passage.
1. The historical account that the text mentions, was a real historical event and as such conveys information.
2. There may be a doctrinal idea in the text that may be moral, religious or theological in scope.
3. The prophetic side may well be present as well.
4. There can be a philosophical side to the text that might see some meaning in the people or happenings of the text.
5. There can be a mystical sense to a passage that is a deeper spiritual meaning that is drawn from the people and events.
I gather from this that Clement wanted the best of all interpretation. He wanted the literal historical, as well as that deeper mystical meaning of the allegorical interpretation.
Literal Interpretation: This system is at the other end of the spectrum. It has been charged that this system does not allow for figures of speech, but this is not the case. We will see it in detail later.
Semiallegorical Or Semiliteral Interpretation: This method would be a mixture of the previous two systems. Which you hold to, depends on which system you use the most.
Ryrie quotes Mounce, from his commentary on Revelation. He "exhibits a semiliteral exegesis. He states that Armageddon should be taken seriously but not literally. It 'portrays the eschatological defeat of Antichrist . . . but does not require that we accept in a literal fashion the specific imagery with which the event is described' (p. 349). Concerning the Millennium he favors the idea that 'John taught a literal millennium, but its essential meaning may be realized in something other than a temporal fulfilment' (p. 359). 'The millennium is not, for John, the Messianic Age foretold by the O.T.' "(p.359)" (Reprinted by permission: Ryrie, Charles C.; "BASIC THEOLOGY"; Wheaton: Victor Books, 1986, p 111) To me, of the two items, the millennium would be harder to take literally than Armageddon.
Oswald T. Allis (in Prophecy And The Church) suggests that the term "spiritual interpretation" is better than allegorical, and argues for a combination of the two.
Allis, in setting forth rules as to how you tell which method to use states:
1. "Whether you should interpret a passage figuratively or literally depends solely on which gives the true meaning." So how do we determine the true meaning if we don't know which will produce the true meaning?
2. "The only way prophecy can be understood literally is when its literal meaning is clear and obvious." Were the first coming prophecies clear and obvious? Some were — some weren't.
3. "The interpretation of any prophecy hinges on the fulfilment of it." (Reprinted by permission: Ryrie, Charles C.; "Basic Theology"; Wheaton: Victor Books, 1986, p 112 quoting Allis, Oswald T.; "Prophecy And The Church"; Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1945, pp 16-19) The prophecies concerning Christ's first coming were fulfilled literally so you interpret them literally. However, Allis states that the second coming passages need to be interpreted allegorically. Hummmm.
You interpret literally unless it is prophecy, or unless it bothers your theology. Some Method Of Interpretation. I Have To Wonder How These Men Would React To Their Children Interpreting What They Tell Them To Do, Allegorically If They Desired To — When It Didn't Fit What They Wanted To Do.
In the end Ryrie gives Allis credit for trying to systematize his method of interpretation, however mentions what we have seen before and that being, if you interpret allegorical you are more than likely going to be an Amillennialist and if you follow the literal method of interpretation you will become a premillennialist.
Theological Interpretation: That which interprets scripture in such a manner so as to produce an interpretation to fit your theology. Daniel Fuller in a dissertation presents such a system of interpretation. "In order to preserve the unity of the Bible, he says that we must use the principle of 'theological interpretation' which means interpretation that does not result in two purposes of God in the Scriptures (one for Israel and one for the church). The consistent use of literal interpretation leads to a distinction between Israel and the church, while theological interpretation
does not." (Reprinted by permission: Ryrie, Charles C.; "Basic Theology"; Wheaton: Victor Books, 1986, p 113)
No matter if the literal says one thing and I believe another. I just interpret the way that will bring out my belief. A very convenient system of interpretation.
Literal Interpretation: I would like to illustrate the need for literal interpretation. If I were going to cut down a tree and was afraid that the ant hill about six feet from the tree would be destroyed, I would try to communicate with the ants to tell them of the danger. Now, this is similar to God wanting to tell us of the danger of Hell. I begin to try to understand the ant language, and as I do, I begin to plan just how I am going to tell them of the danger of the tree. When I have finished learning the ant language I tell them that there is a large cloud coming over the horizon. This is how I tell them I am going to cut down a tree that may smash them all. You see the cloud coming over the horizon actually pictures the falling tree that is about to come.
At any rate the ants think through the message and decide that they have clouds coming over every day and it is no big deal so they continue on their way. I, in turn, get disgusted with them for not listening and cut down the tree.
Oversimplification? To a point, however the good Lord has decided that HE wants to communicate with us to tell us of Himself. Why, in the world, would He couch his information in language that has no meaning.
The Word already tells us that we can't understand the Word without the Holy Spirit's illumination. He doesn't really have to couch His message in words that we can't understand.
How would you like to have to interpret the syllabus for a class in college allegorically? Every one of you would decide what it meant to you, and the teacher would grade on the literal interpretation.
Confusion Plus is the result of allegorical interpretation. Literal interpretation is the only method that leads to a unified, systematic and logical conclusion.