Rules of Biblical Interpretation

HP: Why would you say that?

HP: The rules I posted are NOT original with me. I believe they were established by a man used mightily of the Lord 150 years or so ago. I took the liberty to slightly amend one of the rules them to include the ideas of “historical/ cultural.” Other than that I had no part in their development. I feel they are very well stated and carry with them all the basic tools of a fair and balanced approach needed to interpret the Scriptures fairly and accurately. Prayer is not mentioned, but that is a given.

 

HP: I am still waiting for a fair examination of these passages in light of an established set of rules of biblical interpretation. Take for instance the notions that are often floated. One is that there were women yelling across the isle in the assembly at their husbands asking them questions, and that these verses are location and time specific in that there were simply ‘some’ women in a particular place and at a particular time that were being drawn away by false teachings, and it was to these group alone in a specific time and place in which these prohibitions were directed. What about the notion “as saith the law’ in 1Cor. 14:34 all about?

Where is the supportive evidence for these ideas and how is any sound rule of biblical interpretation being used in the establishment of those ideas?

 

HP: I at least thought I was making an honest attempt at doing exactly that when I addressed the passage in light of the clear and substantiated position of the Jews which wrote the OT, in that they had no place in their theology for any such notion as original sin or constitutional depravity. I did my best to not simply state my opinions but to document works by one of the finest OT historians familiar with the culture and practices of the Jews in the day it was written, Alfred Edersheim, who testified clearly to the position I espoused.

I am certain I leave much room for improvement in anything I try to write or communicate. Hopefully I will improve at least somewhat over time.

 

HP: Funny you would think that way. That is simply not the case. I had established my position on this issue years before I ever heard of Alfred Edersheim. I bought his books as resources, having NO earthly idea as to how he felt on the issues. His books were not recommended to me, nor had I ever heard or read a single quote from the man before buying his books and started to read them. Needless to say, what I found was a man that seemed bent on establishing the truth of the matter, even when the truth held by the Jews ran counter to his own established views on the matter. It is a rare thing to see a man that would hold truth in such a high regard, that even when he had the opportunity to suppress the truth concerning the beliefs of the Jews or any other, (and it most likely would have been to the advancement of his own ideas), he did not even at the expense of providing fodder for a view counter to his own. I like that open honesty in a writer. That is indeed a rare commodity these days. I see his works as an invaluable resource into the life and times of not only Christ, but life and beliefs as they existed in the days of the Temple. I owe a great debt of gratitude towards many of those old wise and godly writers that have gave me insight I otherwise would not have been privy to. Just the same , I certainly do not hold their writings, or the writings of any other man or women, in the same light as I do Scripture.

 

HP: No, as a matter of fact it is not. In my case my studies began on the knee of a godly mother and in the home of my godly father who lived a life before me in such a way as to command my faith to accept what they taught me as truth. As I matured in the Lord, some issues have changed for me over the years. God does not reveal truth by Scripture alone. In dealing with some issues Scripture is NOT the best source of evidence to establish the truth. If one is seeking the beliefs of the culture of the Jews, certainly Scripture is a source, but many of their own writing in some cases shed light upon their culture and beliefs that cannot be gleaned from Scripture alone. Many ideas in matters of truth and justice are ingrained in our conscience by God from our youth up in a way that without which one could not approach any writings without some idea gained outside of Scripture as to their meanings. Ideas of right and wrong, although primitive at best, are engrained within our conscience long before the first page of Scripture could ever be understood.

It is not a matter of what necessarily needs to be examined first, but rather that we examine every source of truth available to us from whatever means God places at our disposal. I fully understand that when it comes to the writings of men, much caution is in order. Just the same, for one, such as we have witnessed at least one on this list, to insinuate or act as if though they have not been influenced by the dogmas established by other men, and that they have arrived at their opinions ‘sola scriptura,’ is about as believable as if they told me they dropped in from Mars on a spaceship. Whether or not one desires to face the facts or not, we all have been influenced by individuals and dogmas in so many ways apart from our own studies ‘sola scriptura’ that to believe otherwise might be viewed in comparison to an ostrich with their head stuck in the sand.

No man approaches Scripture from a vacuum of knowledge gained form multiple sources. The key is to be honest enough to examine what we believe honestly and openly in light of any source of God-instilled or God- provided knowledge in whatever order we are granted it. We need to have or develop the metal fortitude to allow our beliefs to be challenged openly to the end that we can not only establish the validity of our own beliefs, but to learn how to help others in areas they by themselves are in want to see.

God uses others in the development and dissemination of truth within the body of Christ. If we were to establish a rule of biblical interpretation that states we should always do our own studies first, that would certainly curtail the work of all religious education, would it not? Religious education would consist of four walls with desks with a Bible on each one, with a guard at the door insuring that no one influenced any other until they had done all the study possible on their own first.......which of course could never be changed for we all should be studying and learning our entire lifetime.

Any such rule as you suggest would seem to me as not only impractical but logically impossible to follow.

 

HP: I like Paul as well! I am a Paulinist. :smilewinkgrin:

 

HP: Before you can read the first word of Scripture, God has already began to enlighten you to truth in some measure, without which you could not grasp the concepts which Scripture portrays. Even the heathen have some knowledge of God, right and wrong, selfishness and benevolence.


What do you mean by ‘enough?’ Enough of, or for, what?
If you are saying that Scripture is all we need for truth, can you establish that by this text? You simply saying that it does in no wise provides any evidence to enlighten the listener. If a shoe cobbler tells us that he is the best cobbler in town, is his statement all the evidence one needs to believe him?

 

HP: This is not about ‘going anywhere, it is about where one has been in the post and the knowledge and light that one must of necessity bring to the advent of the hearing of the Gospel. The Scripture you bring to the table in no wise addresses the knowledge God grants to every man intuitively, that has nothing to do directly with the gospel message in the least, yet is necessary light for all to have antecedent to the gospel.

Truth should be consistent with truth. God does not reveal to us truth in Scripture that refutes intuitive truths, such as principles of justice, that are revealed to all moral agents intuitively by God. The point is that when we come to Scripture and our interpetation runs counter to the intuitve truths God grants to man, we can assure ourselves that we have misinterpreted Scripture. We have either erred as theologians or philosophers. To deny the validity of intuitive truths, such as truths concrning justice, is paramount to denying ones own personal physical existence. It obviously can be done but to the peril of truth.

You are toying with the truth of this passage, trying to make it say something it does not. There is a clear distinction between light of salvation and light to become ‘complete in Christ.’ There is necessary intuitive light granted to all moral agents subsequent to even hearing the first mention of the gospel, without which man could not understand the slight moral truth of the cure for our sinful intents and subsequent actions that salvation provides. Ro 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: 15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another

Of a truth, God has not limited the truth of Himself or the truths necessary for moral agency, to those who have heard the gospel or read Scripture.