A KJV question

Chris,

With all due respect, if you believe that CT holds that words have a single meaning dependent on authorial intent then you don't understand CT. CT openly admits that it necessitates a "sensus plenior," a deeper meaning or double fulfillment of certain texts. It is called spiritual meaning, the deeper meaning, etc. Furthermore they admit that the author did not always intend this deeper meaning and was not conscious of it. This is not really disputed in CT. In fact, you are the only one who professes to be a CT that ever even questioned this point.

You also misunderstand both what I said and what DT says. I was not referring to the use of the same word in another context. I was referring to the use of a word in a given context. Normal interpretation says that words have only one meaning in a given context. It does not deny that a word might have a different meaning in a different context.

For further info, read Milton Terry, Grant Osborne, WAlter Kaiser, E. D. Hirsch (for the secular philosophical defense of single meaning), etc. No dispensationalist believes what you just said.

Speaking of straw men, wooden is a perjorative term that has no bearing in the discussion. DT does not believe in a wooden use of language. DT believes in a normal use, that the language of Scripture should be interpreted just like any other language. If I say I am so hungry I could eat a horse, no one actually believes I am going to eat a horse; they understand the figurative use. However, if I say that I am so hungry that I am going to have to go to Burger King to get something to eat, no one thinks that I am going to go buy a house. That is the principle of language or the laws of language, the univocal nature of language. We use it every day.

[ June 28, 2001: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:


The fact that you understood what I just said. Your ability to disagree requires that you understand what you are disagreeing with. If there was more than one meaning, you would not know what you disagreed with.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

HUH? How is my ability to understand your unqualified allegation proof of the same?

 

Kiffin wrote: "It should be noted that King James himself certaintly was a ungodly king over England and many historians state he was a homosexual."
In the book: "KING JAMES:UNJUSTLY ACCUSED" the author shows by using quotes and sources from King James himself that he was certainly not a homosexual. I fail to see why King James should be a part of this since he had nothing to do with the translation except for authorizing it.

 

&gt;&gt;The fact that you understood what I just said. Your ability to disagree requires that you understand what you are disagreeing with. If there was more than one meaning, you would not know what you disagreed with&gt;&gt;

Dear Pastor Larry,

I thoroughly enjoy your posts and would give you 5 stars (if I could).
But your statement above is the finest example of Orwellian doublespeak I have ever seen.

HankD

 

My point on meaning is that Tom disagreed with what I said. Yet how could he disagree if I had more than one meaning. Perhaps there could have been a deeper meaning that he did not know about and actually agreed with. The fact that he understood what I said and meant means that communication works because he assumed I only had one meaning and he assumed that he could understand that one meaning from the words I chose to convey it. It is a simple principle that is used everyday by anyone who communicates verbally.

Consider this from something I have written in the past:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
The philosophical difficulty of this position is easily demonstrable. In order to communicate their objection to the single intent model, the opponents have chosen a particular set of signs that communicate their singular intent to refute the single intent construct. In so doing, they are expecting that the reader/interpreter of their objections will understand the words in the sense in which the authors have intended them. Should their theory of sensus plenior be true, it is indeed possible that while these opponents might believe they are communicating a well-reasoned and incontrovertible presentation of their objections, a reader might see a deeper meaning. The interpreter might then say to the author, “It seems that you are defending a single intent model for hermeneutics. Is that what you are trying to do?” The author responds with amazement that the plain meaning of the words on the page can be so misunderstood. “Of course not,” he replies. “Can you not understand the plain meaning of the words that are formulated to communicate my intention to you?” The interpreter might then reply, “Well yes, I can read your words, but I see in them a deeper meaning.” The author is caught in his own system. If he says there is no deeper meaning which he has the right to do as the author, he has lost the battle. If he says that there might be a deeper meaning as yet uncomprehended even by himself, it is possible that the deeper meaning is indeed the single intent model of communication. In short, the author has lost the battle either way for he depends on the single intent theory to communicate his objection to the single intent theory. It is philosophically untenable. Kaiser puts it well:

"Had we not used just such a hermeneutic [the single intent model], we would never have heard the complaint against our own position with any degree of accuracy. It never ceases to amaze me how those interpreters who wish to fight the theory that meaning is singlefold and always a return to the author’s own meaning demand that all who read their own paper and books do so with the understanding that their meaning is singlefold and must be understood literally. But though we have granted this privilege to them, they then wish us to resume interpreting all other texts as they advocate—with this new polyvalence theory of meaning" (Kaiser, Toward an Exegetical Theology, p. 113).

Even [E.D.] Hirsch, for all his defense of the single intent model [cf. Validity in Interpretation] retracted his earlier position. While the details of his retraction are not significant, his own retraction assumed that his initial writing had a singular intent that needed to be corrected. For Hirsch it was not even to simply say that his initial words had deeper meaning. Such meaning had to be given in a new presentation in order to dissociate himself with his former intent. Thus, even in retraction or modification of his single intent model, Hirsch presupposed the single intent model by publishing a modification (it assumed that his initial writing communicated a meaning he no longer wished to espouse) and it depended on a single intent model to communicate his new position. So in reality, his initial theory stood the test; he was right the first time.
Thus, the validity of the arguments of the opponents of single intent depend on the very foundation they are trying to discredit.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

While this might be a bit hard to follow in its limited context, I have purposely limited this 40 page paper to a couple of paragraphs to illustrate the inherent belief that everyone has in single meaning. It is impossible to communicate without it. Tom depended on single meaning of his words to communicate his disagreement with me. Hank depended on the single meaning of his words to communicate his disagreement with me. Had there been more than one meaning, I could have understood that Hank and Tom really meant to congratulate me on a well-reasoned post; or that they meant to invite me over to their house for a cookout. If those words can have more than one meaning in that context, then rational communication becomes virtually impossible.

 

Dear Pastor Larry,

You wrote...

&gt;&gt;Hank depended on the single meaning of his words to communicate his disagreement with me&gt;&gt;

Yes, I knew what I meant but wasn't clear as to what you were saying. It seemed to me you were doubting some one's sincerity as to their questioning of an inquiry this individual had made and making a pedantic statement to bewilder him.

I was confused but sincere and viewed you response as double-talk.
Perhaps my IQ is somewhat lacking for this discussion. I read your longer post and I think the light is dawning.

Let me ask this to see if I am at least on my way to understanding this "single intent"
maxim and disengenuousness (if that is a word).

When the Devil said to Jesus in the temptation "if thou be the Son of God..." he fully understood that He was indeed the Son of God, but he "pretended" or wanted to give the impression that he wasn't sure of the "single intent" of what he had heard about Jesus being the Son of God.
He also used this method of deception when he said to Eve
"Yea, hath God said, thou shalt not eat...?" knowing full well that that is what He had indeed "intended" to say.
Eve should have answered with "Yes, thats what He said and you know exactly that's what He said by the way you asked the question".

According to what I am understanding you to say in your longer post I can ask the question because of my ability to give examples of what you are saying.

However are the examples correct?
If not, then I am still confused (but sincere).

BTW, you may come over for a cookout anytime.



HankD

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
Chris,

With all due respect, if you believe that CT holds that words have a single meaning dependent on authorial intent then you don't understand CT. CT openly admits that it necessitates a "sensus plenior," a deeper meaning or double fulfillment of certain texts. It is called spiritual meaning, the deeper meaning, etc. Furthermore they admit that the author did not always intend this deeper meaning and was not conscious of it. This is not really disputed in CT. In fact, you are the only one who professes to be a CT that ever even questioned this point.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, fact is Larry, I am not CT (they are my intials, but I'm much more NT).

But I do hold to a deeper meaning or double fulfillment of certain texts; don't you?

 

Hank,

Sorry to have confused you. I will try to clarify without being too long. If this doesn't clarify I will try again.

I wasn't being trite with my response to Tom. I was simply demonstrating how basic this idea of single intent is. While your examples may be true, (I haven't thought about it), I don't think it really captures the intent. Maybe this will clarify: There are those who come to a text of Scripture and say "Isaiah meant X but there is a deeper spiritual meaning that Isaiah neither knew nor intended." I assert that once you enter that realm of deeper, unintended meaning, you have jeopardized the ability to communicate. For instance, the restoration to the land in Jeremiah meant the physical land because that is what Jeremiah intended and what his readers would have understood. However, many claim a deeper, spiritual meaning that supercedes the textual meaning. The land is really some ideal place of spiritual relationship with God for all eternity. I suggest that there is nothing in the text that asserts that; it is purely imposed on the text by outside forces. A simple axiom is that a text only has one meaning and it cannot mean what it never meant. That is what single intent is. It is the way you treat the language of your wife, your employer, your friends, etc. When your wife says, "I love you," you take it at face value without looking for a deeper meaning (not to be confused with implications--the application of the single meaning to any given situation). The single intent meaning located and determined by the text goes all the way back to the garden of Eden. When God said you shall not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, they did not go around looking for a deeper meaning. They took it at face value as God intended them too. No CT disagrees with that. The problem is when we come to prophetical passages that don't fit their system. They must find a deeper meaning, becuase the normal one that jumps out from the text is incompatible with their system.

By the way, I found the discussion of the New covenant interesting (whether in this thread or another I can't remember). Someone quoted Jeremiah 31:31-34 with great authority on the regenerative nature of the NC. I was disappointed, but admittedly not surprised, to see that passage ripped from its context. Vv. 35-38 make some very forceful statements about the ramifications of the NC that no CT wants to accept. I have never had anyone explain what those verses mean and what the impact is. They are an example of the type of verses that seem to render CT without any basis in Scripture. I hope some CT will comment on Jer 31:35-38 in its context of the NC.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Well, fact is Larry, I am not CT (they are my intials, but I'm much more NT).

But I do hold to a deeper meaning or double fulfillment of certain texts; don't you? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope ... There are stage fulfillments (Zech 13), or typological fulfillments (This is like that ...). But there are not multiple fulfillments.

 

Dear Pastor Larry,

OK I think I see what you are saying. However, If Scripture can not have a deeper spiritual meaning than the "surface" intended meaning of the human author, what about the following Scripture concerning the literal historical children of Sarah and Hagar as being an allegory of a spiritual truth.

Galatians 4:24ff
24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

BTW I'm not CT or strictly Dispensational.

As for the New Covenant and Jer 31:31ff, either Israel-Judah must be restored and partnered with the "gentile nation" or the "gentile nation" has displaced Israel-Judah. And yes, CT would have to allegorize all the promises to Israel-Judah as being fulfilled in said gentile nation.

With God all things are possible, so I guess we'll have to wait and see.
Personally, I lean towards restoration of the nation of Israel-Judah.

HankD

 

In Gal 4:24 you quoted the important words that answer your question. Paul says it was an allegory. He took a historical situation and used it as an illustration for his point. He is not saying the original occurrence was an allegory or for the purpose of an allegory. He said his illustrative usage of it was for an allegory. It would be similar to any preacher today taking a contemporary occurrence and illustrating a Scriptural truth with it. Well, similar except Paul was inspired; we are not.

As for Jer 31, I am not sure why you say Israel must be partnered with a Gentile nation. I see no evidence in Scripture that God's promises are fulfilled to a Gentile/Israelite partnership. Israel and Judah are the focus of the promises and it involves restoration to a place of preeminence. For instance Isaiah 61 (among other passages) says that Israel will be served by other nations. Clearly, since the time of Isaiah (8th century BC), Israel has never been able to be described by those words. It is not enough to say that it will be fulfilled in the church for the following reasons (of which there are many but I will list only a few).

1) The church is not the nation of Israel.
2) The church has not been in the position of honor described there.
3) The church is made up of people from all nations (Gal 3), the very people that are supposed to honor Israel. They are honored because of their calling as a nation and because of their returning to God.
4) The church has never been rejected by God as Israel was (v. 10). Therefore, the church cannot fit the qualifications.

 

Dear Pastor Larry,

You responded…

&gt;&gt;In Gal 4:24 you quoted the important words that answer your question. Paul says it was an allegory. He took a historical situation and used it as an illustration for his point. He is not saying the original occurrence was an allegory or for the purpose of an allegory&gt;&gt;

OK we are on the same page.

&gt;&gt;As for Jer 31, I am not sure why you say Israel must be partnered with a Gentile nation. I see no evidence in Scripture that God's promises are fulfilled to a Gentile/Israelite partnership&gt;&gt;

To fulfill both the promise to Abraham (in your seed shall all nations be blessed) and the New Covenant promise to saved Israel. Perhaps "partner" is the wrong terminology.


Ephesians 2:12ff
12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
17 And came and preached peace to you which were afar off (gentiles), and to them that were nigh (Israel).

&gt;&gt;1) The church is not the nation of Israel.
Agreed.

&gt;&gt;2) The church has not been in the position of honor described there.
OK but I don't see that as a prerequisite.

&gt;&gt;3) The church is made up of people from all nations (Gal 3), the very people that are supposed to honor Israel. They are honored because of their calling as a nation and because of their returning to God.&gt;&gt;

If you mean saved Israel then I agree (For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel).

However, as a nation they failed God repeatedly.

Matthew 21:42ff
Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

Acts 13:46ff
46 Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.
47 For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth.

If Israel is restored as a nation it will be by the grace of God and/or His promise. And in fact they are in the land (unbelieving) as we speak as you know.

Romans 11:24 For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree?

&gt;&gt;4) The church has never been rejected by God as Israel was (v. 10). Therefore, the church cannot fit the qualifications. &gt;&gt;

True, but it is presented in Scripture as a possibility.


Romans 11:21-22
For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.
22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.

Revelation 2:5
5 Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.

Revelation 3:16
So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

I'm wondering if the confusion is related to the fact that there is a saved Israel and a flesh nation of Israel.

Saved Israel and the Church (wheat not tares)
according to Ephesians 2:16 are or will be one body, no?

HankD

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>To fulfill both the promise to Abraham (in your seed shall all nations be blessed) and the New Covenant promise to saved Israel. Perhaps "partner" is the wrong terminology.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes all the nations are blessed in the seed of Abraham but that is only 1 of the 3 provisions. The other two relate directly to the genetic seed of Abraham through Sarah and Isaac. The Eph 2 passage you quote does put saved Israelites and Gentile in the same body but it is the church that Paul is talking about, not the nation. I think that is the mistake people make. When you fail to make that fundamental distinction that Scripture makes, things get confused.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
&gt;&gt;2) The church has not been in the position of honor described there.
OK but I don't see that as a prerequisite.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is a prerequisite for those who say that we are currently in the millennium (Post mill) or that there is no millennium (amill). If there is no millennium then this passage means absolutely nothing. It becomes a promise with no fulfillment. The church cannot fulfill the promise because all nations are not honoring the church. In fact, all nations despise the church.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If you mean saved Israel then I agree (For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel).[/quote

Saved Israel is the only Israel that will exist at the time of the restoration. They did fail God repeatedly and for that God cast them off but not forever (cf Isa 60:10 and Jer 31:36-37). I think the great failure of replacement theology is in dealing with these types of promises. The church just doesn't fit the description.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
Romans 3:11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. (John 8:32 KJV)

Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, (Luke 24:45 KJV)

Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. (2 Tim 2:15 KJV)

 

And your point is? The verses make it clear that it is the Lord who sets us free and opens the eyes, and that as Christians make a serious effort to be what God wants us to be we will have no reason to be ashamed.

Was that your point? If so, I agree. Thank you for your support.

 

Pastor Larry,
With all due respect, you stil have not provided one shred of documented evidence that states that Covenant Theology discards the hermeneutic of authorial intent. This was the point of my original post replying to your assertion. The fact that I responded to your post in your mind somehow validates your point. Since we are writing in one specific genre of communication, you have proven very little. But I'm still waiting for documented proof.

[ July 01, 2001: Message edited by: TomVols ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TomVols:
Pastor Larry,
With all due respect, you stil have not provided one shred of documented evidence that states that Covenant Theology discards the hermeneutic of authorial intent. This was the point of my original post replying to your assertion. The fact that I responded to your post in your mind somehow validates your point. Since we are writing in one specific genre of communication, you have proven very little. But I'm still waiting for documented proof.

[ July 01, 2001: Message edited by: TomVols ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Time to move this thread to another board?