Laws of Interpretation

Joseph Henry Thayer (1828-1901) taught at both Andover Theological Seminary (1864-1882) and Harvard Divinity School (1883-1901). Besides the Lexicon, he translated Winer's Grammar of New Testament Greek and Buttmann's Grammar of the Greek New Testament. He was a member of the translation committee for the American Standard Version New Testament and helped in the founding of the American School of Oriental Research.

AND YOU?

Uh, no thanks! All you've provided is man's personal opinion about an earthly kingdom. It's those kind of false doctrines that will burned up at the second and only coming of Christ!

"...for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you." Luke17:22

 

Yes, but when they did, it was stated that it was a parable, or as in the case of the quote from Paul you used, an allegory. That's different from alleogirizing a text that is not clearly allegory.

And if the Song of Solomon is an allegory, what is it an allegory of? The answer is that you will get dozens of different views on what it represents. The bottom line is we don't know because the text does not make it clear. We have to take it for what it is and try to understand it from our knowledge of some of the terms. We can guess as to what it might represent (God and Israel? Christ and the church? Love between man and woman? Solomon and wife? Collection of love songs/poems? etc, etc.) Therefore, no one should come along and say, "This is what Song of Solomon means and that's the final word on it."

That's what I'm talking about when I say don't spiritualize or allegorize a text. Another example is putting spiritual meanings into a narrative like when Jesus rebuked the sea and wind in the storm. People say it mean Jesus calms the storms of our life. But that is not what the text is talking about. It may be true that Jesus calms the storms in our lives, but you can't support it with that text.

 

It should be clear that the statement, "Don't allegorize the text," means you don't make an allegory out of something that isn't.

I was amazed at the responses to this saying that there are parables and allegory in the Bible. I never said there weren't.

However, as far as allegory goes, except for the one example where Paul says "this is an allegory," I think it's tricky ground.

 

The Old Testament should be interpreted in the light of the New and both should be viewed through the lens of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Marcia,

I believe I qualified that allegories and parables in their "proper use" are acceptable. My reason for posting that is because dispensationalist are falsely attributing Amillenialism to Origen rather than its roots being solidly rooted in scripture for 1,800 years. It is often errouneously claimed for attack purposes, that "Origen is the originator of the allegorical method of interpretation and therefore Amillenialism has Origen as its founder not scripture" and that is a false claim!" My post was intended to indicate historically that Philo (whose period was during the time of Christ) used the allegorical method of interpreting the OT and that both Christ and Paul used that method as well.

However, neither Philo nor Origen were the actual originators of the allegorical method of interpretation as it is also used in the OT. But again "allegory in its proper use is an acceptable method of interpretation - context and scriptural support are primary prerequisites."

[ March 14, 2005, 07:13 AM: Message edited by: covenant ]

 

AH, there it is, the third kingdom of God
that i was looking for in another topic.

If two descriptions are different, then
there might be a difference in what is
being talked about.

Use the who, what where, when, why questions.
Doing that i find five different 'tribulation's,
three are wretched conditions (measured in
tears) and two are time periods (measured in years).
-------------------------------------------

The Five Tribulations
of the Holy Bible
Contrasted and compared
by ed

The following terms are used in the Holy Bible to denote
tribulation: tribulation, distress, afliction, trouble

1. tribulation due to the human condition
WHO: all the sons and daughters of Adam & Eve
WHAT: heartaches, pains, troubles, distresses, disappointements,
affliction, trouble, ordeal, suffering, wretchedness,
misfortune, worry, care, hardship, agony,
anguish, torment, adversity,
travail of a woman giving birth, disease, cancer,
famine, plague, fatigue, depression, etc.
WHEN: From Adam's explusion from the Garden of Eden
to the day a new heaven & new earth is created by
God, AKA: time as opposed to eternity
WHERE: worldwide
WHY: God only knows why, it is just the way things are,
maybe it has to do with the fall of man in the Garden of Eden?

2. tribulation of Christian Martyrdom
WHO: those Christians chosen by the Holy Spirit for special honor
WHAT: persecution by non-Christians: Pagans, athiests, and
even people who call themselves "Christian" but aren't
WHEN: 33AD to the start of the millinnial kingdom of Jesus
WHERE: worldwide
WHY: many are called to follow Jesus;
few are chosen to the honor of the spiritual
gift of martyrdom

3. tribulation of the Jews scattered among the Gentiles
WHO: Yisrael dispersed among the goy
WHAT: persecution by non-Christians: Pagans, athiests, and
usually people who call themselves "Christian" but aren't
WHEN: during the time of the Gentiles
(from Mount Calvary to Mount Olivet)
WHERE: worldwide
WHY: punishment for rejecting Messiah Jesus

4. "The Tribulation period" of those ruled by the Antichrist
WHO: citizens of the world
WHAT: a fate worse than death (Rev 6:15-17, Rev 9:6)
WHEN: during the 70th week of Daniel (first half)
WHERE: worldwide
WHY: punishment for rejecting Lord Jesus

5. "The Great Tribulation period" of those ruled by the Antrichrist
WHO: people who take the mark of the beast
WHAT: the wrath of God
WHEN: during the 70th week of Daniel (last half)
WHERE: worldwide
WHY: punishment for rejecting Lord Jesus

Here are the names/descriptions of the Tribulation
Period found in the O.T.:

The tribulation in Deut 4:30
the day of Israel's calamity in Deut 32:35, Obadiah 1:12-14
the indignation in Isaiah 26:20, Daniel 11:36
the overflowing scourge in Isaiah 28:15,18
The Lord's strange work in Isaiah 28:21
The year of recompence in Isaiah 34:8
The day of vengeance in Isaiah 34:8, 35:4, 61:2
The time of Jacob's Trouble in Jeremiah 30:7
The day of darkness in Joel 2:2, Amos 5:18, 20; Zephaniah 1:15
See also Zephaniah 1:15-16.:

 

AREN'T YOU POSTING ON THE WRONG TOPIC???????????????

My use of Luke 17:22 was in response to Pastor Larry's interpretation of scripture which is what this topic is supposed to be about.

This topic is about the interpretation of scripture - not about the tribulation.



[ March 14, 2005, 08:12 AM: Message edited by: covenant ]

 

Ed,

Luke 17:21 is speak of present kingdom, not so called, "the thirdly kingdom", it is spiritual kingdom, not observe in physical.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

 

My post is about the
interpretation of scripture.
It gives an example of the technique i
mentioned. I did what you were doing.

 

No, but I can read, and so can you, and you can tell when Thayer moves from defining words to commentating on them. He is right about the definition of "ek." He is wrong about that definition applying in that verse, IMO.

Because I think he made it well known in other places, though I can't recall exactly which now. It has been a while.

I didn't need to "come up" with any Scripture. God gave it all, and I have listed more verses than you have dealt with. The earthly kingdom is clearly taught in Scripture, and I have shown that. You haven't bothered to address it.

When you quoted Thayer, you provided a man's personal opinion. Did that escape you? That is why these kind of charges are so foolish and ridiculous. Hello ... We are all men commenting on what Scriptures says, giving an opinion about interpretation. It is all de facto man's personal opinion. The fact is that I have given verses after verses that show the coming kingdom to be earthly, and have provided resources where you can study it if you are interested. If you are not truly interested, then why are talking? Do you just want to pick a fight?

This is an excellent verse, and I am glad you brought it up. (You should wish you hadn't because of what it actually says. This is a case where someone picked a proof text and believed what others say without actually reading it and studying it. Let's give the whole context.

Luke 17:20-21 20 Now having been questioned by the Pharisees as to when the kingdom of God was coming, He answered them and said, "The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed; 21 nor will they say, 'Look, here it is!' or, 'There it is!' For behold, the kingdom of God is in your midst."

To whom did Christ say that the kingdom was in their midst? The verse previous to the one you quoted tells us: The Pharisees, well known for their antagonism and rejection of Christ, and the ones who ultimately led to his crucifixion.

Now tell us, in what sense, was the kingdom spiritually within people who hated Christ and rejected him as king? The answer is obvious: In no sense whatsoever. So clearly, this verse is not teaching a spiritual kingdom within someone. It is teaching that what was going on (healing, blessing, etc) was what the kingdom would look like and it was all over on earth and they missed it. This verse you cited actually proves my point about an earthly kingdom.

 

Incorrect on several counts.

First, it implies that the OT has no meaning apart from the NT. We should all reject that. It clearly does have meaning and it doesn't take the NT to find it. The OT existed for 1500 years with meaning prior to the NT and the people of that time were held responsible for what it said. That is not to say that the NT doesn't clarify or help somethings. But Christ himself held Nicodemus responsible for the "stand alone" meaning of the OT. In John 5, he told the Pharisees that from the OT alone they should have known who he was. The truth is that we don't need the NT to interpret the OT.

Secondly, this is circular reasoning. He says we should interpret them both through the "lens of hte incarnation of Jesus Christ." But the truth is that we know of the incarnation only through the Scripture. So you are reasoning in a circle, a meaningless one, at that.

We still interpret Scripture just like we do any other form of communication, by what the author intended his original audience to understand. In other words, we interpret it grammatically and historically. Failure to put it in the historical context has lead to many interpretive errors (such as I showed above with Luke 17:21). Failure to know basic grammar has led to many interpretive errors (such as I showed with John 18:36).

 

Again several errors. First, amillennialism was founded about 300 years after the death of Christ. It was not the doctrine of the early church. They were predominantly premillennialists, based on the teaching of Scripture.

Second, Philo should not be used an example of Scripture interpretation, and Christ and Paul should not be put in his category. The "allegories" or Christ and Paul are not what it being done today. Paul clearly identified the only allegory he used. And the parables are not truly allegories. Every use of Scripture by Christ and Paul conforms to the principles I have put forth in this thread. No one has yet to offer any incontrovertible proof. All the efforst depend on bringing the presuppositions to the passage, rather than getting it from the passage. I admit that if I shared your presuppositions, I would agree with your interpretation. But I don't ... so I don't.

And lastly, "allegory in its proper use" is acceptable. But context and scriptural support are necessary. And that is why rejecting an earthly kingdom is an improper use of allegory. It does not have contextual support; all the context leads to an earthly kingdom. And it does not have scriptural support; the Scriptures teach an earthly kingdom.

Again, read McClain to help educate you on this matter.

 

Pastor Larry,

List verses to prove earthly kingdom please.

What!?

What is the purpose of prophecies and shadows of the OT?

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

 

Where, pray tell, do you see an "earthly kingdom" presented in this context? A LITTLE BIASED MAYBE?

You dismiss a Lexicon simply because you don't like its implications, claim that Thayer is presenting his own biased opinion, and then proceed yourself to read into scripture what is clearly not there by saying; "John 18:36 is not teaching a spiritual kingdom. There is too much evidence to the contrary, including the near context of why a king didn't have an army. It is because his kingdom was not to be set up at that time, adn would not be brought up in a worldly manner." Yet, you do not cite specifically where in 18:36 you find this in the context.

Joh 18:33 Then Pilate entered into the praetorium again and called Jesus and said to him, Are you the king of the Jews?
Joh 18:34 Jesus answered him, Do you say this thing of yourself, or did others say it to you about Me?
Joh 18:35 Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Your own nation and the chief priests have delivered you to me. What have you done?
Joh 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would fight so that I might not be delivered to the Jews. But now My kingdom is not from here.

Now, that you seem to know more that Thayer's Lexicon, do you also claim to be superior and know more than those scholarly commentatorS pre-Darby that spoke of a spiritual rather than an earthly kingdom for 1,800 years?

 

I have listed verses here ad nauseum. I am not going to repeat it all. Get McClain and start there, then start studying. You can simply read the prophets and realize that the kingdom was earthly. When it says that Jesus will sit on David's throne, where the world do you think that is? David never had a throne in heaven. That throne was on earth. When the NC prophesies the restoration of the nation of Israel and talks of "the city," "the Tower of Hananel" "Corner Gate."the hill Gareb," "Goah," "the brook Kidron," "the Horse Gate" where do you think those things are? They are on earth and you can go to every single one of them, and they are a part of the coming kingdom, at least if God was telling the truth. And I could list more verses than this forum would handle. We have been through this so many times already.

What!?

What is the purpose of prophecies and shadows of the OT? </font>[/QUOTE]They prophesied things to come. But they had meaning in themselves. They didn't depend on teh NT for meaning; the NT is the record of the fulfillment of some of them, and some of them are yet to be fulfilled. But you are confusing fulfillment with meaning. The OT has meaning all of itself. We don't need the NT to interpret it.

 

Can we start a new topic on how long it takes a theology thread to be hijacked and degenerate into yet another slanging match about millenialism ?

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Incorrect on several counts.

First, it implies that the OT has no meaning apart from the NT. We should all reject that. It clearly does have meaning and it doesn't take the NT to find it. The OT existed for 1500 years with meaning prior to the NT and the people of that time were held responsible for what it said. That is not to say that the NT doesn't clarify or help somethings. But Christ himself held Nicodemus responsible for the "stand alone" meaning of the OT. In John 5, he told the Pharisees that from the OT alone they should have known who he was. The truth is that we don't need the NT to interpret the OT.

Secondly, this is circular reasoning. He says we should interpret them both through the "lens of hte incarnation of Jesus Christ." But the truth is that we know of the incarnation only through the Scripture. So you are reasoning in a circle, a meaningless one, at that.

We still interpret Scripture just like we do any other form of communication, by what the author intended his original audience to understand. In other words, we interpret it grammatically and historically. Failure to put it in the historical context has lead to many interpretive errors (such as I showed above with Luke 17:21). Failure to know basic grammar has led to many interpretive errors (such as I showed with John 18:36). </font>[/QUOTE]Just to give one example, the Messianic prophecies of the OT were and are meaningless without the Person of Jesus Christ to fulfil them.

Jesus in John 3 takes Nicodemus beyond the Old Covenant and demands he is born again-from above; it is insufficient for his salvation to be, as the OT states, born a Jew in the flesh.

It is not circular reasoning to interpret through Jesus. We do know and know about Him outwith the Scriptures: through worship, prayer and His people - the Church. For instance, if I wanted to know about Tolkien, I could read Humphrey Carpenter's excellent biography of him. But I could also talk to his family and friends. In addition, in Jesus' case, I can talk to Him direct. Going back to John 3, "For God so loved the world that He sent" a person, not a book.

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Covenant posted this quotefrom Clarke, "and that it would not take place till the end of the world.”
__________________________________________________

There is the death knell for your escatology!

Even Clarke missed it.

It's a comin'! Jesus HIMSELF will stand on the mount Zion and establish His Kingdom, put down all nations, and rule with a Rod of iron for 1000 years!

Be ready fer it! You don't want to miss it!

In HIS service;
Jim

 

Pastor Larry,

List verses please

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!