Introduction to Cross-

Cultural Hermeneutics
and Contextualization

© Mark R. Kreitzer, DMiss, PhD © 2015

Kosin University, Busan
 Basic Bibliography on Contextualization

Bevans, Stephen B.. 1995. Models of Contextual Theology: The Struggle for Cultural
Relevance. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis.
Carson,D. A. Biblical Interpretation and the Church: The Problem of Contextualization.
Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock Publishers
Flemming, Dean.  2005.  Contextualization in the New Testament: Patterns for Theology and
Mission.  Downers Grove, IL: IVP  
Gilliland, Dean S. 1989.  The Word among Us: Contextualizing Theology for Mission Today. 
Dallas: Word
Hesselgrave, David and Edward Rommen.  1989.  Contextualization: Meanings, Methods,
and Models.  Foreword by George W. Peters.  Grand Rapids: Baker.  
Nicholls, Bruce J.  1979.  Contextualization: A Theology of Gospel and Culture.  Vancouver,
BC: Regent College Publishing. 
Van Rheenen, Gailyn. Contextualization and Syncretism: Navigating Cultural Currents.
Evangelical Missiological Society Series Number 13. Pasadena, CA: William Carey
Library.

Bibliography of Biblical Interpretation

About this bibliography:1 the books and articles I have listed here differ greatly in their
approaches to the subject of biblical interpretation. Students should be aware of the fact that
many things connected with interpretation depend upon theological presuppositions, and so it
usually happens that a work on interpretation is more or less biased theologically — or, more
often these days, biased against all theology. There is no such thing as theologically neutral
interpretation, either in practice or in theory. Nevertheless, as Ernest Kevan has said, “the
difference between the presuppositions of conservative theology and the presuppositions of
the other groups is that those of the former are provided by the Scripture itself, whereas those
of the other groups are not.”

See also the related bibliography of Translation Theory and Methods.

Allis, 0swald T. Prophecy and the Church. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1969. "The primary aim [of
the book] has been to show that Dispensationalism has its source in a faulty and
unscriptural literalism which, in the important field of prophecy, ignores the typical
and preparatory character of the Old Testament dispensation."

Angus, Joseph. The Bible Hand-Book.An Introduction to the Study of Sacred

Scripture.London, 1853.A conservative introduction containing much advice on
interpretation, by an English Baptist.

Archer,Gleason L. and G. C. Chirichigno, Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament:

A Complete Survey. Chicago: Moody Press, 1983. An excellent resource for detailed
study of how the New Testament writers cited and interpreted the Old Testament.

1
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.bible-
researcher.com/hermeneutics-bib.html, accessed August 21, 2010. Edited and added to by
Mark R. Kreitzer, 2010.
Augustine,Teaching Christianity[De Doctrina Christiana].Translated by Edmund Hill, inThe
Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century. Part I, Vol. 11, edited
by John E, Rotelle. Hyde Park, New York: New City Press, 1996.

Barker, Glenn W. William L. Lane, and J. Ramsey Michaels.1969. The New Testament
Speaks. New York: Harper & Row. A good college-level introduction to the New
Testament written by conservative scholars. The authors focus on providing students
with an adequate framework for the understanding of the New Testament books in
their historical context.

Barr, James. 1961. The Semantics of Biblical Language. London: Oxford University Press.
Barr critiques unsound linguistic principles of the neo-orthodox "Biblical theology"
school, which during the 1950's tried to reinterpret many biblical words according to
the supposed characteristics of "Semitic thinking."

Beale, C.K. and Donald A. Carson, eds. 2007. Commentary on the New Testament Use of
the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.

Berding, Kenneth, and  Jonathan Lunde, eds. Stanley N. Gundry, series ed., Walter C. Kaiser
Jr.,Darrell L. Bock, Peter E. Enns. 2008. Three Views on the New Testament Use of
the Old Testament (Counterpoints: Bible and Theology). Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

Berkhof, Louis. 1950.Principles of Biblical Interpretation. Grand Rapids: Baker. A reliable

and sober introduction, from a conservative Reformed perspective.

Blocher,Henri. 1987. The Analogy of Faith in the Study of Scripture, in The Challenge of
Evangelical Theology. Edinburgh: Rutherford House.Commends the "presupposition
of Scriptural coherence," according to which any given passage must be understood in
the light of the whole of Scripture.

Bray,Gerald. 1996. Biblical Interpretation Past and Present. Downers Grove, Illinois:

InterVarsity Press. 608 pages.A detailed survey of the history of biblical
interpretation, with some criticism, from an evangelical perspective.

Bruns,Gerald L. 1992. Hermeneutics Ancient and Modern. Yale Studies in Hermeneutics.

New Haven and London: Yale University Press.

Caird, George Bradford. 1980. The Language and Imagery of the Bible. Philadelphia:
Westminster. Reprinted Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997.Caird, a Professor of
Exegesis at Oxford Univerity, writes from a moderately liberal perspective, but much
of his book is nevertheless worthwhile. A readable and interesting study of the
interpretation of metaphorical language in the Bible.

Carson,Donald A. 1984. Exegetical Fallacies. Grand Rapids: Baker. Discusses many

grammatical, logical, and historical fallacies.

Carson,Donald A. and H.G.M. Williamson, eds. It Is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture.

Essays in Honour of Barnabas Lindars. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1988.
Carson, Donald A. and G. K. Beale.2007. Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old
Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.

Corley, Bruce Steve Lemke, and Grant Lovejoy, eds. 2002. Biblical Hermeneutics: A
Comprehensive Introduction to Interpreting Scripture. 2nd ed. Nashville: Broadman
and Holman. An intermediate level anthology including contributions from 27
conservative Baptist scholars. Extensive but unannotated bibliographies are provided
for most chapters.

Cotterell,Peter and Max Turner, Linguistics & Biblical Interpretation. London: SPCK, 1989.

Couch,Mal, ed. 2000. An Introduction to Classical Evangelical Hermeneutics: A Guide to

the History and Practice of Bible Interpretation. Grand Rapids: Kregel.371 pages.A
collection of essays, some previously published, all from a dispensationalist
perspective. Focuses on eschatology and the church's relation to Israel.

Danker, Frederick W. 1970. Multipurpose Tools for Bible Study. 3rd ed. Saint Louis:
Concordia. For seminary-level students.Includes some very helpful chapters on the
use of concordances, the marginal apparatus of the Nestle and Kittel editions,
grammars, lexicons, dictionaries, ancient and modern versions, commentaries, etc.

Davidson, R. M. 1981. Typological Structures in the Old and New Testaments. Berrien
Springs: Andrews University Press.

Dockery, David S. Kenneth A. Mathews, and Robert B. Sloan, eds. 1994.Foundations for
Biblical Interpretation: A Complete Library of Tools and Resources.Nashville:
Broadman and Holman,

Dyck, Elmer, ed. 1996. The Act of Bible Reading: A Multidisciplinary Approach to Biblical
Interpretation. Downers Grove, IL: IVP. Contributions by Gordon D. Fee, Craig M.
Gay, James Houston, and J. I. Packer.

Ellis, E. Earle. 1992. The Old Testament in Early Christianity: Canon and Interpretation in
the Light of Modern Research. Grand Rapids: Baker. A good evangelical survey of
the apostles' use of the Old Testament.

________. 1981. Paul's Use of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1957.
Reprinted.A detailed study of Paul's quotations and allusions to the Old Testament.
Ellis compares and contrasts Paul's method of interpretation with the
uninspired midrash of the Rabbis.

________. 1993. E. Earle Ellis. Prophecy and Hermeneutic in Early Christianity.2nd. ed.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Erickson, Millard J. 1993. Evangelical Interpretation: Perspectives on Hermeneutical

Issues.Grand Rapids: Baker.For advanced students, dealing with special issues and
problems. The most interesting and important chapter concerns the principle of
"authorial intent." Erickson doubts that this principle can always be upheld in
reference to the Old Testament, in light of the typological exegesis practiced in the
New Testament.
Fairbairn, Patrick. 1870/1989.The Typology of Scripture: Viewed in Connection with the
Whole Series of the Divine Dispensations. 5th ed. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1870. 2
vols. Reprinted Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications. . A major treatise on typological
interpretation. "It is high time that in the midst of controversies in which all kinds of
accusations are levelled against the use of the Old Testament by New Testament
authors the painstaking work of Patrick Fairbairn and his monumental scholarship be
once again taken into consideration" --R. Nicole, "Patrick Fairbairn and Biblical
Hermeneutics as Related to the Quotations of the Old Testament in the New,"
in Hermeneutics, Inerrancy, and the Bible, ed. Radmacher and Preus (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1984), p. 774.

________. 1858. Hermeneutical Manual: or, Introduction to the Exegetical Study of the
Scriptures of the New Testament. Edinburgh: T. & T Clark.

Farrar, Frederic W. 1886. History of Interpretation. London: Macmillan.

Fee, Gordon D. 2002. New Testament exegesis: a handbook for students and pastors. 3rded.
Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press. A guide for New Testament historical-
critical exegesis written for students who know Greek, but with much of the guide
accessible to students without knowledge of Greek. The guide describes steps of
exegesis with the goal of writing an exegesis paper and also gives a shorter series of
steps for sermon preparation. The use of resources for the study of the NT is included
in the description of the steps, with a final chapter giving a bibliography of resources
organized according to the exegetical step in which the resource would be used.
(Introduction)

Fee, Gordon D. and Douglas Stuart. 2003. How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth: A Guide
to Understanding the Bible.3rd ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. 288 pages.A popular
introduction to interpretation and application. Discusses pitfalls of interpretation, the
need for use of "dynamic equivalence" versions (such as the NIV), and the manner of
interpretation proper for various literary genres in the Bible. Some examples given of
application and misapplication are rather tendentious, reflecting the Arminian and
Pentecostal views of the authors.

Frye, Northrop. 1982. The Great Code: the Bible and Literature. New York and London:
Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. A influential literary analysis of the Bible which
emphasizes the importance of typology and typological thinking in its interpretation.

________. 1990. Words WithPower: Being a Second Study of “The Bible and Literature.”
New York: Harcourt, Brace and Jovanovitch, Written as a sequel to his earlier
book, The Great Code(1982).

Geisler, Norman L. 1983. Explaining Hermeneutics: A Commentary on the Chicago

Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics. Oakland, California: International Council on
Biblical Inerrancy.

Goldsworth, Graeme. 2007. Gospel-Centered Hermeneutics: Foundations and Principles of

Evangelical Biblical Interpretation. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic.
Gooder, Paula, ed. 2008. Searching for Meaning: An Introduction to Interpreting the New
Testament. Westminster John Knox. Amazon: “In this clear, comprehensive,
student-friendly textbook, biblical scholar and teacher Paula Gooder describes and
illustrates the range of approaches to interpreting the New Testament, as taught in
universities and seminaries throughout the English-speaking world. Top scholars give
a short definition of a particular criticism, and then Gooder gives a practical example
to demonstrate how that criticism can be applied to a biblical text. A very broad range
of methods is introduced, from traditional criticisms such as source criticism and
historical criticism to more modern methods such as feminist criticism and liberation
criticism. Readers will understand how different meanings and emphases can be
drawn from a text depending upon the method of interpretation chosen. They will also
be given the skills to start analyzing and examining texts for themselves in a
meaningful and insightful way. The list of world-class contributors includes Bruce
Chilton, James D. G. Dunn, Craig A. Evans, Elizabeth Struthers Malbon, Bruce J.
Malina, Daniel Patte, R. S. Sugirtharajah, and Ben Witherington III.”

Goppelt, Leonhard. 1982. Typos: the Typological Interpretation of the Old Testament in the
New.Translated by Donald H. Madvig.Foreword by E. Earle Ellis. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans. ISBN: 0802835627. Originally presented as the author's doctoral thesis,
“Typos, die typologischeDeutung des Alten Testaments imNeuen.”(Erlangen, 1939).

Grant, Robert M. 1948. The Bible in the Church: A Short History of Interpretation. New
York: MacMillan, 1948. Reprinted asA Short History of the Interpretation of the
Bible.London: Adam and Charles Black, 1963.

________. 1993. Heresy and Criticism: The Search for Authenticity in Early Christian
Literature.Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster/John Knox.

John H. Hayes and Carl R. Holladay. 1987. Biblical Exegesis: a Beginner's Handbook.
Atlanta: John Knox. An introduction to the different types of [liberal] historical-
critical methods used in the study of the Old and New Testaments.

Hirsch,E.D. Jr. 1967. Validity in Interpretation. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1967.
An introduction to general hermeneutics (principles that apply to the interpretation of
any work of literature) as distinguished from the “special” hermeneutics of Biblical
studies. Hirsch is a literary critic and his book does not focus on the Bible, but it is
often referred to in the literature of biblical hermeneutics. He emphasizes the principle
of authorial intent.

Jowett, Benjamin. 1860/2000.On the Interpretation of Scripture, in Essays and

Reviews.London, reprinted in Essays and Reviews: The 1860 Text and Its Reading,
edited by Victor Shea and William Whitla. Victorian Literature and Culture Series.
Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 2000. ISBN 0-8139-1869-3.A classic
statement of liberal hermeneutics.

Johnson, Elliott E. 1990. Expository Hermeneutics: An Introduction. Grand Rapids:

Zondervan, 1990. Johnson was for years a professor at Dallas Theological seminary,
and his introduction is intended for seminary students. The orientation is conservative
and dispensationalist.
Julian, Ron David Crabtree and Jack Crabtree,. 2001. The Language of God: A Common
Sense Approach to Understanding and Applying the Bible.Colorado Springs:
NavPress. 272 pages.A book for beginners, from an evangelical perspective.

Kaiser, Walter C. 1981. Toward an Exegetical Theology: Biblical Exegesis for Preaching
and Teaching. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981.

________. 1985. The Uses of the Old Testament in the New. Chicago: Moody. ISBN:
0802490859.

Kaiser Walter C. and Moisés Silva. 2007. An Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics. Rev.
ex. ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. 302 pages. ISBN: 0310530903. Intended as an
introductory textbook for evangelicals. The treatment is unsystematic and sometimes
more interesting than informative. The two authors openly disagree with one another
on some important points. Especially worthy of note is Silva's chapter 14: "The Case
for Calvinistic Hermeneutics." In opposition to the theologically "neutral" inductive
approach he contends that "proper exegesis should be informed by theological
reflection. To put it in the most shocking way possible: my theological system should
tell me how to exegete" (p. 261).

Keach,Benjamin and Thomas De Laune, Tropologia, or, A key to open Scripture metaphors.

The first book containing sacred philology, or the tropes in Scripture, reduc'd under
their proper heads, with a brief explication of each; partly translated, and partly
compil'd from the works of the learned. By T. D.The second and third books
containing a practical improvement (parallel-wise) of several of the most frequent
and useful metaphors, allegories, and express similitudes of the Old and New
Testament. By B. K. London: printed by John Richardson and John Darby for Enoch
Prosser, 1681. Reprinted London, 1855, and in 1972 as Preaching from the Types and
Metaphors of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Kregel). A massive treatise on rhetorical
figures, metaphors and typology of the Bible (over a thousand pages of compact
type).Keach (1640-1704) was a notable Baptist preacher in his day, and his analysis
of metaphors and types is not only informative but also warmly devotional.

Kevan, Ernest F. "The Principles of Interpretation," in Revelation and the Bible:

Contemporary Evangelical Thought, ed. by Carl F.H. Henry (Grand Rapids: Baker,
1958), pp. 283-98.

Klein, William W. Craig Blomberg, and Robert L. Hubbard. 2004. Introduction to Biblical
Interpretation, Revised ed.Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson. A comprehensive and
well-organized introduction, intended for evangelicals. . . . [Some problems]:
Redaction criticism is embraced (p. 330), liberation theology receives partial
approval, and several illustrations and examples of application reveal a sympathy with
liberal political causes.. . .

Larkin, William J., Jr. 2003. Culture and Biblical Hermeneutics: Interpreting and Applying
the Authoritative Word in a Relativistic Age. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock. Very
important book answering the skepticism of modern and postmodern philosophy.
Leigh, Ronald W. 1982. Direct Bible Discovery: A Practical Guidebook for Personal Bible
Study. Nashville: Broadman, 1982. 256 pages.A guide to "do-it-yourself" inductive
interpretation.

Long, V. Philips Tremper Longman III, Moises Silva, and Vern Sheridan
Poythress. Foundations of Contemporary Interpretation.Six volumes in one. Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1996. 668 pages. ISBN: 0310208289. An intermediate level
discussion of the impact that several fields (linguistics, literary studies, science, and
theology) have had upon contemporary hermeneutics.

Longman, TremperIII. Literary Approaches to Biblical Interpretation. Grand Rapids:

Zondervan, 1987. 164 pages. Surveys the literary nature of the Bible and introduces
the reader to the research that is being carried out on the Bible by literary scholars.
Emphasizes the need to make literary interpretation part of exegesis.

deMargerie, Bertrand. 1998.An Introduction to the History of Exegesis. 3 vols.

Massachusetts: St. Bede's,

McQuilkin, J. Robertson. 1992. Understanding and Applying the Bible. Revised ed.
Chicago: Moody. A simple and practical book for beginning Bible students.

McCartney,Dan and Charles Clayton. 1994. Let the Reader Understand: A Guide to
Interpreting and Applying the Bible. Grand Rapids: Baker. ISBN: 0801021278.
Second edition, 2002 (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed
Publishing Co.) ISBN: 0875525164. A clearly written and helpful introduction.

Mickelsen,A. Berkeley. 1963. Interpreting the Bible. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963. 425
pages.A comprehensive presentation of hermeneutics, widely used as a standard text
in conservative schools. After his retirement from Bethel Seminary, Mickelsen co-
authored with his wife Alvera an article which put forth an absurd feminist
interpretation of the word Kephale ("head") in Ephesians 5 ("The 'Head' of the
Epistles," Christianity Today February 20, 1981, pp 20-23), but there seems to be no
evidence of such a desire to distort the meaning of the Scriptures in his 1963 book.
Like Bernard Ramm (also at Bethel), he appears to have fallen into liberal views later.

Morgan,Robert and John Barton, Biblical Interpretation. Oxford: Oxford University Press,

1988. A liberal treatment.

Nicole, Roger "New Testament Use of the Old Testament," in Revelation and the Bible:
Contemporary Evangelical Thought, ed. by Carl F.H. Henry (Grand Rapids: Baker,
1958), pp. 135-51.

Osborne, Grant R. 2006. The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to

Biblical Interpretation. Revised and expanded ed.Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP. . 624
pages.A seminary-level treatment of hermeneutics, sermon preparation, and current
critical issues.Proceeds from questionable (sometimes modernistic) assumptions.

Packer, James I. 1985. "In Quest of Canonical Interpretation" in Robert K. Johnston,

ed., The Use of the Bible in Theology: Evangelical Options. Atlanta: John Knox Press,
1985.
________. 1983. "Infallible Scripture and the Role of Hermeneutics," in Scripture and
Truth, ed. by D.A. Carson and J.D. Woodbridge. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983.

Poythress, Vern. 1999. God-Centered Biblical Interpretation. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R.

Radmacher,Earl D. and Robert D. Preus, eds. Hermeneutics, Inerrancy and the Bible. Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1984. 921 pages. A collection of 48 papers presented at the 1982
International Council on Biblical Inerrancy conference in Chicago. Four appendices:
the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics, Norman Geisler's brief
"Commentary" on the statement, J. I. Packer's "Exposition of Biblical Hermeneutics,"
and Carl Henry's "The Bible and the Conscience of Our Age."

Ramm, Bernard Protestant Biblical Interpretation: A Textbook of Hermeneutics for

Conservative Protestants. Chicago: Moody Press, 1953. 2nd ed. 1957. 3rd ed. Grand
Rapids: Baker Book House, 1970. The first two editions served as the primary
textbook in many conservative seminaries during the 1950's and 60's. In the third
edition the words for Conservative Protestants were dropped from the title. Ramm
moved gradually away from conservative principles.

Sandy,D. Brent and Ronald L. Giese, Jr., Cracking Old Testament Codes: A Guide to
Interpreting the Literary Genres of the Old Testament. Nashville: Broadman and
Holman, 1995.

Schultz,Samuel J. and Morris A. Inch, eds., Interpreting the Word of God. Chicago: Moody

Press, 1976.

Silva, Moisés. 1983. Biblical Words and Their Meaning: An Introduction to Lexical
Semantics. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

________. 1990. God, Language, and Scripture: Reading the Bible in the light of general
linguistics. Foundations of Contemporary Interpretation 4. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

________. 1987. Has the Church Misread the Bible? The history of interpretation in the
light of current issues. Foundations of Contemporary Interpretation 1. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1987.

Sproul, R. C. 2009. Knowing Scripture. Revised ed. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity. 152
pages.An easy-to-read and practical guide for Bible interpretation, from a Reformed
perspective.

Sterrett, T. Norton How to Understand Your Bible. Rev. Ed. Downers Grove, Illinois:
InterVarsity, 1974. 179 pages.

Stibbs, Alan M. 1950. Understanding God's Word. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity. 64
pages. Although very short, this book has some valuable insights and principles for
interpreting the Bible.
Stuart, Douglas K. 2009. Old Testament Exegesis: a Primer for Students and Pastors. 4thed.
Philadelphia: Westminster. A step-by-step guide to OT exegesis with an emphasis on
the goal of preaching and teaching in the context of the church. Chapter one presents
the methods used in exegesis, chapter two applies the steps to biblical texts, chapter
three gives a short step-by-step guide for sermon preparation, and chapter four lists
and discusses resources, primarily works published in English. (Preface)

Tenney,Merrill C. The Bible: The Living Word of Revelation. Grand Rapids: Zondervan,

1968.

Merrill C. Tenney, Galatians: The Charter of Christian Liberty. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,

1950. "A classic example of the study of a Bible book from many different angles.
Each chapter explains and then applies a different method. (That is, each chapter
looks at a different aspect of the book of Galatians.) The nine aspects examined are
the synthetic (overview), critical (background), biographical, historical, theological,
rhetorical, topical, analytical, and devotional aspects. Each chapter adds significantly
both to one's understanding of the book of Galatians and to one's appreciation of the
value of that particular 'method' of Bible study." --Ronald W. Leigh

Terry, Milton S. 1883/1974. Biblical Hermeneutics: A Treatise on the Interpretation of the

Old and New Testaments. New York: Phillips & Hunt, 1883. second edition, 1890.
Reprinted Grand Rapids: Zondervan.782 pages.A valuable comprehensive treatment
by an American Methodist, typical of the careful and detailed scholarship of the
nineteenth century.Includes a history of biblical languages, doctrine of inspiration,
general and special hermeneutics, and a history of interpretation. Abundant examples
and illustrations are given throughout.Other editions now available.

________. 1898/2010.Biblical Apocalyptics: A Study of the Most Notable Revelations of God

and of Christ in the Canonical Scriptures. Whitefish, MT:Kessinger.

Thiselton, Anthony C. 1980. The Two Horizons: New Testament Hermeneutics and
Philosophical Description with Special Reference to Heidegger, Bultmann, Gadamer,
and Wittgenstein.New Testament Philosophical and Hermeneutical Description.Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans.

________. 2006. Thiselton on Hermeneutics: Collected Works with New Essays. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans.

_______. 2007a. New Horizons in Hermeneutics: The Theory and Practice of Transforming
Biblical Reading. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

________. 2007b. Hermeneutics of Doctrine. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

________. 2009.Hermeneutics: An Introduction. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Turner, Nigel. 1997. Christian Words. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1980. Reprinted 1997.532
pages. ISBN: 0567085643.

Vanhoozer, Kevin J. 1998. Is There Meaning in this Text? The Bible, The Reader and the
Morality of the Biblical Text. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
Virkler, Henry. 2007. Hermeneutics: Principles and Processes of Biblical Interpretation.
Grand Rapids: Baker. 256 pages.

Wall, Robert W. 2000. Reading the Bible from within Our Traditions: The “Rule of Faith”
in Theological Hermeneutics, in Joel B. Green and Max Turner, eds.,Between Two
Horizons: Spanning New Testament Studies and Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids,
Eerdmans.

Westfall, Merald. 2009. Whose Community? Which Interpretation?: Philosophical

Hermeneutics for the Church (The Church and Postmodern Culture. Grand Rapids:
Baker Academic.

Zuck, Roy B. 1991. Basic Bible Interpretation. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1991. A simple
and conservative introduction, by a Professor of Bible Exposition at Dallas
Theological Seminary.

Zuck, Roy B. ed. 1996.Rightly Divided: Readings in Biblical Hermeneutics. Grand Rapids:

Kregel.
 CLASSIC BIBLICALHERMENEUTICS
Scripture, Truth, and Hermeneutical Presuppositions
Introduction:The Need of Hermeneutics
How do we correctly translate and understand ancient biblical writings (the meaning
of hermeneutics) and then correctly and adequately apply those teachings into contemporary
ethno-cultures (contextualization)? That then is the essence of the need for hermeneutics in
biblical study. The philosophical system that has been termed modernity presupposes several
anti-Scriptural presuppositions. First, it assumes that there is indeed an external world but
also that there never was a Creator-God who orders that external world. Or at least some
bound by modernity would assume that we do not need to take a Creator, if He/She/It exists,
into account when exegeting nature (science/“physics”) or religious documents
(metaphysics/religion). Modernity in its consistent form (materialism or evolutionary
naturalism) and its inconsistent form (deism) believes that all things have happened within
deep time (15 billion years) by pure chance (or at least chance that once in a while is guided
by a divine hand [theistic evolution]). Therefore, chance and chaos being the foundation of
existence, modernity believes humans must impose meaning upon the seeming chaos hitting
his or her senses. However, illogically, modernity also believes that meaning must be
universal for all people because there is one external universe.
On the other hand, postmodernity also presupposes that no God exists and no ultimate
meaningexists that is common to all parts of the multiverse. Man creates meaning in his mind
hence there is no uni-verse but instead a multi-verse. Meaning for any document thus is
multiple based upon the various minds of people and the community in which a person lives.
Thus there is no Grand Narrative (universal story) that explains everything.A single
document cannot be understood by each interpretative community and individual in the same
way.
Notice how I have deliberately used the words “believe,” “presuppose,” and so forth.
Modernity and Postmodernity are faith orientations based on assumption not provable by
either deduction or induction. In other words, both are religious just like biblical Christianity
is. Hence, we have a struggle between two faith systems and two religions seeking to
interpret revelation that that God placed in Scripture and creation.
Worldview Spectrum
In response to these two hermeneutical theories, contemporary evangelical
philosophers teach that only two basic theories can exist (with variations within each type):

Idealism: internal world is real.

Only non-physical ideas exist and the external world is a creation of the ideas in a
person’s mind that is the external world is something similar to an illusion created by the
mind.

Realism: external world is real

Naïve Realism: Although the term naïve is somewhat pejorative, it aptly describes a
simple trust in the neutrality of scientific observation and a simple faith that all objects
observed (percepted) are self-interpreting. I could less pejoratively term this principle
evangelical empiricism. However, the Proverbs states that this type of simple faith is not
wise. The naïve person “believes everything” but the “prudent man considers his steps” (see
Prv 14:15).
Critical Realism: Somewhat syncretistic but stresses careful consideration of any
document with a humble mind. A critical realist believes in the existence of a real external
world that is orderly and knowable. The mind does not merely create the external world.
Trinitarian creationist realism: Stresses human dependency and humility, the lack
of comprehensiveness of any lingual-culture’s perspective and the need for a cross- and trans-
cultural perspective. It is founded upon an explicitly Christian, Trinitarian and creationist
redemptive-historical worldview as the interpretative framework and presupposition within
which to do sound interpretation of Scripture.
Modern Hermeneutical Theories in Essence
As I mentioned above, modernity-bound hermeneutical theories begin the analysis of
Scripture by presupposing firstthat there exists a real, external world objectively described by
neutral, empirical science. The second presupposition is that naturalistic science has
definitively proven that errors exist in biblical history and its foundational world and life
view. In other words, as Gordon Spykman writes: “Recent studies make clear that one’s
hermeneutic finds its place and plays its role within the larger scope of one’s worldview”
(Spykman 1997, 128). Third, they assume that all understanding and language of Scripture
are “beyond objectification and conceptualization,” that is they are non-propositional because
they dwell in an upper story of unknowable metaphysics (Krabbendam 1984b, 536).
Certainly this is illogically because they use propositions to describe religious phenomena
that they claim are beyond objectification.
These theories, thus, combine methodological naturalism with Greek dualism, which
divide the unifying and whole, “spiritual truth” from the divisive, erroneous “facts”
discovered through investigating the “phenomena” of the Bible and the historical processes of
the physical world. In essence, modern and post-modern hermeneutical theories postulates
that the universe is composed of two dialectically opposed principles (Ladd 1968;
Krabbendam 1984b; see Dooyeweerd 1953-1958, 1979; Wolters 2005). However, no
interpretation of the data of creation or of Scripture comes with a neutral and objective,
scientific observation. Everyone looks at all areas of human existence through a worldview
grid (see e.g., Naugle 2002). The only real objective grid through which any human can
correctly interpret the data of the universe and of Scripture is to look at life through God’s
transcendent eyes, so to speak. He alone is outside of the universe, existed and experienced
the creation and all of its wonders. Therefore he alone gives true interpretation. Humans
must then think God’s thoughts after him found in Scripture in order to have real wisdom,
understanding, and knowledge. This is inescapable (see Bahnsen 1989; Kreitzer 1997).
According to modern (and some postmodern) hermeneutical theories, however, the
text of Scripture cannot give an unchanging and truthful interpretation of the physical and
cultural contexts of this earth in which it was originally enclothed and which it now seeks to
address. The reason is simple. There is no God (or at least these theories operate with a
functional atheistic, naturalistic presupposition), and hence there can be no transcendent
perspective. Each culture group (in fact if the logic is pushed, each person) looks at the data
of nature and the Judeo-Christian Scripture with a totally unique perspective and hence can
see whatever he or she wishes from the data observed and mentally interpreted. Since, then,
both the original text and context are relative,2 and the modern texts and contexts are relative
2
The whole statement shows how again how human composed propositions sit in
judgment above biblical propositions. For a detailed philosophical discussion of this refer to
(Hannah 1981). Sources on new hermeneutic (Van Til 1976; Thiselton 1980; Krabbendam
1984b) and contextualization (Nichols 1979; Fleming 1980; Hesselgrave and Rommen 1989;
to each individual and group, the process of finding eternal verities for the modern society is
very complicated, actually, if the logic is pushed, impossible.
No longer can straight-forward didactic statements based on an unchanging moral
order based on God’s character and creation (e.g., the Decalogue, the role relationships in the
family, etc.) be discovered and equivalent dynamic and meaning be transferred into modern
socio-cultural context. Therefore, the only means by which to bring order and consensus
from the multitude of unique personal and group observations is to have some human
authority impose uniformity upon the present contexts. The result is a form of subjectivism
in which man as an individual or man-in-collective decides what is truth. In effect, a
magisterium needs to impose consensus as occurred in the post-Augustinian era and
continues in Roman Catholic dogma.
This process of imposition of truth by a magisterium—whether it is an elite group of
scholars, a synod, or a group of bishops in council—leads to subtle reinterpretation of basic
truth and of foundational creedal doctrines. The creation-evolution, women’s and gay
ordination debates of the last and present century are certainly examples. Ultimately, as the
process of imposition of human understanding upon Scripture proceeds over centuries, it
always leads to the denial of the Trinity and of the hypostatic union. The present debate in
Roman Catholic Church over whether to declare Mary the Co-Mediatrix and Co-Redemptrix
is a certain case in point. If unifying, human understanding of “truth” is more important and
“real” than the divisive historical or chronological facts of Scripture (or of creation for that
matter), then unity is assumed to be better than, more substantial and indeed more logical
than true diversity. With that presupposition, a God who eternally exists within the equal
ultimacy of unity and diversity, of the one and the many, is totally impossible and illogical as
both the Islamic Tawid and the Unitarian Jew and Christian agree.

Foundations of Classical Hermeneutics

Trinitarianism vs. monism

Primal Subject-Object distinction.

The most foundational presuppositions of a classic Reformational hermeneutic is the
axiom that the Creator exists and he ever-lives as a single-Beingwith tri-personal-diversityco-
inhabiting that single Being(Trinitarian perichorēsis). This implies that within the Creator a
phenomenon exists that philosophers terms asubject-object distinction. This means that the
Father as personal Subject knows the Son as personal Object and the Son knows the Father as
His personal Object of knowledge. This subject-object distinction applies to the Spirit as well
because the Father is not the Son who is not the Spirit, who is not the Father and so forth.

Secondary subject-object distinction.

Second, because the creature is not the Triune Creator, the subject-object distinction is
reflected within creation as created being related to the great personal Object of knowing and
creatures related to one another as distinct and unique creatures. Without this sharp subject-
object and Creator-creature distinction, mankind cannot be held accountable as the Scripture
holds them liable before God. God must be the sole object of praise or the One against whom
they rebel (Rom 1:18-25). If there is no Subject-Object distinction within the single Being of
the Creator-God and no Creator-creature distinction then each unique human (or angel) is
part of a single undivided divinity as pantheismteaches (philosophical monism) and
ultimately as postmodernity teaches if the logic of its position is pushed to its extreme..

Larkin 1992).
 Without this distinction, thus, all things are part of the All, which is divine, and
everything shares in the Being of divinity. There is no distinct Being to be praised because I
am part of this Being. Within the single Being of God there can be no mutual, giving
transactional love or mutual glorify such as between the Father and Son in John 17. This
implies that “the I” am praiseworthy of worship in myself as possessing the single Being of
the All. I am divine and according to this philosophy, a drop in a infinite ocean. If I could
only realize that “the I” doesn’t exist but is part of the All, then I would know the “meaning”
rather the “meaninglessness” that is the nothingness of my individual life.
The subject-object distinction as found within the Triune Godhead holds true in
Scripture reading and interpretation. The text and the reader are distinct and not merged into
an undivided whole as postmodernist-monist hermeneutical theories presuppose. Without a
subject-object distinction, I would be able to merge myself into a written biblical text and
find my own divine meaning in it instead of finding the Creator’s meaning outside of myself
and transcendent to myself.
Trinitarianism further implies also that since the Creator is three and one at the same
time and that the creation-Creator distinction exists, every person always knows that a
transcendent foundation for all knowledge exists, even if all actively suppresses that
knowledge or are not consciously aware of him (see Rom 1:18ff). This transcendent
foundation is also inescapable and irresistible. 3 All truth come out of God’s mind and are
upheld by God the Father’s mind, through the Word and by the Spirit, as I have demonstrated
elsewhere (see e.g., Kreitzer 2007). Therefore since truth flows out of the Creator’s mind,
humankind must think God’s thoughts after Him in order to think truthfully. That truth is
found primarily in Scripture and also in creation, as I have noted. Of course, no human
thought or comprehension is comprehensive as is God’s thought, but it can interface exactly
with some aspects of God’s truth. Otherwise humans could know nothing certainly.
Subject-object distinction.Within the Triune God, there are three subjects and three
objects of distinction yet one essence. How can this be? The three are totally interpenetrating
yet distinct. The best example from the creation is three dimensional space. Each dimension
is the whole of space yet 3D space cannot exist without each of the three dimensions. The
Father as subject therefore loves the Son as object. The Father and Son love the Spirit as
object of love and so on.
God cannot contradict himself
The Triune God,second, is the truth and the source of all created truth. Therefore, God
cannot contradict himself whenhe reveals his truth in Scripture. Scripture state explicitly that
it is impossible for God to lie. The Godhead does not deceive among the Persons nor does
God deceive created and dependent beings (angels and man). Satan is the liar and deceiver
but not God (Jn 8:44). God’s truth hence never contradicts itself by affirming proposition A
and denying proposition A at the same time. God’s truth will come sometimes simplified for
humans to understand but never accommodates to any actually mal-description of what
actually took place in the past or to a false description not corresponding to actual visible or
invisible realities. Therefore, logically the clear teaching of a particular passage or even of the
clear system of doctrine found in the Scripture will never contradict itself in less clear
passages. This gives definite guidelines for interpretation.
Second, as the amount of revelation grew throughout time (termed progressive
revelation), God never abolished the meaning of a specific Scripture as Allah does in Islamic
theology. Instead later revelation clarifies, changes the external form (e.g., animal sacrifices
3
A single demonstration is necessary: “No transcendent foundation for knowledge
exists” is self-contradictory and hence meaningless. Some transcendent foundation has to
exist for the assertion denying the proposition to be made in the first place.
to the one finished sacrifice of Christ; Passover to the Lord’s Supper, etc.), and/or shows the
inner meaning (e.g., the antitheses of the Sermon on the Mount). This implies, certainly, that
the Spirit of Christ must be interpreter and illuminator of his truth because he is original
mover of the prophets (1 Pt 1:11; 2Pe 1:21ff). He is the one who removes the fog of sin and
rebellion from the human interpreter’s mind (Lk 24:25,31, 44-45). This is not equal to
mystical interpretation or new revelation. However, it does mean that only with a firm trust
and dependence upon the Spirit can one have a clear mind and spirit to be able to understand
and apply the Scripture. In other words, without the illumination of the Spirit as one’s mind
applies sound hermeneutical and exegetical principles no one correctly interpret and apply the
meaning in the original context. Man’s fleshly mind actively seeks to suppress the truth
(Rom 1:18). The same applies to the correct and wise application of that meaning to
contemporary ethno-cultures and hence to the actual bridging process between the horizons
of the then and now.
God has indeed revealed himself in his Word and creation. He is not silent. The
problem of understanding (i.e., the hermeneutical problem) lies with mankind’s rebellion, not
in the mechanism of the mind or of the senses. Scripture truths found in words written upon
a paper book are perceived through the senses. Other clearly perceived and cross-checked
information in creation can also be known unmistakably and inescapably as mediated through
the sensory organs. Both leave mankind without any excuse (Ps 19, Rom 1:18-2:15; 3:9-20).
These passages teach clearly that there is no inevitable coloring of perceptions by the mind
and senses, which would destroy clear and sufficient testimony of the external world to the
truth of God.
Sola Scriptura
The second foundation of a classic hermeneutic is sola Scriptura4and the classic,
biblical hermeneutic that flow from it is the complete truthfulness of Scripture, normally
termed infallibility but now more accurately termed inerrancy. God’s word is true in all its
words and parts. Another term for this is verbal plenary inspiration. These two principles
flow out of the Reformation’s principle of sola Scriptura.

Clarity of Scripture
Article two of the Belgic Confession, explains the basic hermeneutical principle of
perspicuity or clarityimplicit in sola Scriptura and a sound hermeneutic:
We know Him by two means: First, by the creation, preservation, and
government of the universe; which is before our eyes as a most elegant book, wherein
all creatures, great and small, are as so many characters leading us to ‘see clearly the
invisible things of God,’ even ‘his everlasting power and divinity,’ as the apostle Paul
says (Rom. 1:20), All which things are sufficient to convince men and leave them
without excuse. Secondly, He makes Himself more clearly and fully known to us by
His holy and divine Word as far as it is necessary for us to know in this life, to His
glory and our salvation.
The creation and all that is in it are equivalent to “letters.” The creation thus is the
medium of an unmistakable message revealing God (Ps 19:1-4; Rom 10:17-18). The
Confession is stating that both God-created nature and the God-breathed Scripture are
necessary, authoritative, perspicuous, and sufficient for their specific purposes. Each can be
read objectively and directly (see e.g., Van Til 1967a, 1980; Notaro 1980).5 If we can know
him through both media, certainly we can know for certain something through creation,

4
I.e., Scripture alone is the final source of authority in our faith and every area of our
lives)
contrary to Christian, Platonic philosophers such as Gordon Clark (see e.g., Clark 1996).
This implies that some things can be clearly and specifically seen apart from the necessary
subjective coloring of the mind, which post-Kantianism assumes. God and hence true facts
can be known through the creation and his Word. God has given to man basic hermeneutical
principles such as the ontological and epistemological law of non-contradiction, that are
unmistakably and inescapably found in the Word itself but can also be clearly seen in, for
example, the created structure of language.6
Although man’s mind can clearly see God’s truth in the creation, he suppresses and
denies that truth, causing a self-caused intellectual darkness flowing from the rebellionof his
already foolish heart (see Rom 1:18ff; Eph 4:17-19). The regenerating and enlightening work
of the Holy Spirit, thus, is absolutely necessary to dispel this intellectual darkness so that man
can see clearly what is there in fact (Eph 4:20ff). This includes the necessary subjective
element of the Spirit’s internal witness to the truth of the Word (BC, art 5; WCF 1.5).
Sola Scriptura and the clarity of Scripture do not then imply that certain andaccurate
witnesses of truth exist in the universe only in Scripture, as Christian philosopher Gordon
Clark claims. Scripture certainly states that “out of the mouth of two or three witness, let
every fact/matter be established” (see e.g., Dt 17:6; 19:15; Mt 18:16; Jn 5:30-38; 2 Cor 13:1;
1 Tm 5:19; Heb 10:28). Facts can be established and known through careful eye-witness
justified research by those with a biblical worldview.

The first eyewitness to truth is God the Father himself as uncreated Being, revealed
through the Scripture and creation. Jesus says this very thing in John 5:32-40. Every human
being possesses a deep sense of divinity that God created in every human with the image of
God.

The second of these certain and accurate witnesses is the Holy Spirit of Christ and the
Father directly illuminating the human spirit/mind through revelation in creation and
Scripture. This is the direct Spirit to spirit encounter through revelation (see e.g., Jn 16:7-15;
Rom 8:16; et al).

The third witness is the created human being, that is human conscience and personal
intelligence which are part of the image of God in every human (Gen 1:26-28, Rom 1-2). I
hasten to add a note of caution here. Conscience can be seared and branded, intelligence can
be damaged yet all persons know that God exists and that every person ought to worship and
trust him alone (not idols—Rom 1:19ff).

Last is the objective witness of the Scripture itself to the human consciousness as it is
read and understood (see e.g., WCF 1:4-5).

5
Certainly, however, some passages are more obscure or difficult than others. Yet this
principle implies that after careful examination, even those passages’ secrets can unravel.
See Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Archer 1982) for attempted resolution of many
difficult passages.
6
E. g., the subject is distinct from the object in both being and knowledge. Anyone
denying this principle, uses the principle to deny the reality of the law of non-contradiction,
demonstrates that the law of non-contradiction is inescapable.
Clear witnesses to God’s truth in creation
These witnesses are inescapable and irresistible, demonstrating that all humans are
without excuse as Paul states (Rom 1:20, 3:19).
Inescapable: Everywhere in the creation God has shown Himself so that humanity
can never escape from His presence or from His truthful and powerful witness concerning
His own existence, Godhead and power (Rom 1:18-22; Ps 19:1-2; Acts 14:17; Ps 139:7-12)
Irresistible. The inescapable presence and witness of God cannot be resisted. The
atheist is actually a fool not because he is stupid but because he deliberately suppresses truth
and certainty that God exists, clearly seen in the creation, and arrogantly refuses to give the
Creator the glory and thanks due to Him as the giver of all good gifts (Jas 1:17).
Creation as well as Scripture, therefore, is perspicuous with respect to the knowledge
of the eternally wise Creator (Rom 1:18ff; WCF 1:7). 7 Hence humans possess noetic (i.e.,
mental) and ethical accountability (responsibility) to glorify and thank him in worship. By
noetic accountability, I mean the responsibility to interpret all of life in the creation as the
Creator has interpreted it—to think God’s thoughts after him (see Kreitzer 2007). Even at the
end of an inexorable resistance process, humankind still maintains enough of the image of
God and sense of morality and justice that they openly encourage their comrades to continue
defying the God they deny yet know exists and to whom they know they are responsible
(Rom 1:32). There exists no neutrality for any area of life.
All humans accountable to God.This truth of the clarity of creational (or natural)
revelation, and the fact that it is inescapable and irresistible means that ever person is liable
and without any excuse to not glorify and thank Him for His goodness and power (Rom 1:21)
No aspect of life is neutral.Everything then in the whole creation serves and glorifies
the Creator or deliberately and knowingly suppresses the knowledge of God in treasonable
rebellion against their rightful sovereign and Monarch.
Necessity of Scripture
Sola Scriptura presupposes that Scripture is necessary to develop a sound
epistemology, within which to correctly understand Scripture. Scripture is necessary (and
sufficient) within itself to teach principles with which to interpret Scripture. Within the web
or framework of already revealed, perspicuous truths of God’s Word, human’s can and must
discover new areas of truth to continue to close the gaps of missing knowledge. This
necessity flows from the original creation mandate of Genesis. As I have already discussed,
Scripture claims to be the true word of the truthful Creator-God in all it reports upon—even
reporting, for example, the misinformation accurately which Satan or Job’s friends try to
convey.
Truth in the Word, thus, corresponds to the actual state of affairs in the creation,
history, and within the mind and character of the Creator. It coheres to a web of interrelated
truths in the Scripture and creation that are being upheld by the mind of the Creator. Truth
certainly also must pragmatically work in practice. Therefore the three traditional tests of
truth—the coherence, correspondence and pragmatic—all apply to biblical truth.
Furthermore, the ontological and epistemological law of (non-)contradiction spring from the
Triune nature of the Creator (see e.g., Kreitzer 2007). God’s whole web of truth—in his
mind, his Scripture, and in his creation—is therefore never logically contradictory to itself or
any of its parts. Truth is an integrated whole. All true truth is thus God’s truth (see e.g., Ps
7
“Those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation,
are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the
learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient
understanding of them” ( WCF 1:7)
36:9): “In your light we see light.” There exists, thus, no dualism between true bits of
observed data and the truth system within which God is upholding them.

Framework of revealed truth New truth

discovered in this
framework

Fig. 1. Necessary framework to discover truth

In the same way, truth is both propositional and personal, upheld by the person and
mind of God and his eternal Word (see Jn 1:1-18). Truth is thus never a transcendent and
totally abstract form, divorced from relationship with God. Truth is always related to the
concreteness of relationships within the triune Creator, or between God and man however
extremely strained that relationship may be (Rom 1:18-:2:16). Second, truth within the
immanent framework or web of God’s creation is also never amere abstraction, divorced
from personal relationship with God, other humans and creatures. Followers of Messiah are
to hold forth or speak the truth withpersonal and engaging love.
Purity, truth and divinely given, relational love are thus intimately connected (Eph
4:15; 1 Pt 1:22; 1 Jn 3:18; 2Jn 1:1,3; 3Jn 1:1). Something spoken or written that may be
factually accurate but outside the bounds of love is actually a lie. Factuality, moral values
reflecting the relationship with the Creator, and pragmatic and working application are all an
inseparable whole, while yet maintaining the subject-object distinction. Christian Trinitarian
wholism is distinct from monistic holism.

Brutal accuracy without love is actually a lie

A consequence of this is that all truth, beginning within the triune Godhead of Father,
Word, and Spirit, is eternally personal and verbal because God never existed without His
Word-Wisdom and His Power-Spirit in perichoriatic inter-communication. Truth is both
abstractness and concreteness at the same time. Therefore, the Trinitarian presupposition, as
I will show more completely later, is inescapable and irresistible. Those who deny this
presupposition must use it in order to deny it.
Certainly, the verbal revelation in Scripture does not provide a copy of revelation
based on a mechanical dictation from a heavenly book such as what the Qu’ranic community
claims. Neither is Scripture a complete systematized textbook of science, let alone of any
theological topic. Yet it still gives humanity a personal and truthful framework of
presuppositions within which to interpret sense data coming from the created world. Because
of this the horizon of the reader does not merge with that of the author as modern and post-
modern hermeneutical theories seem to suggest. The subject-object distinction remains
because ultimate reality possesses a threefold subject-object distinction within himself, and
he upholds that same distinction within creation and Scripture understanding. All of these
conclusions flow deductively from the classic teaching of organic, verbal-plenary inspiration
(e.g., as taught by F. Turretin, A. Kuyper, H. Bavinck, C. Hodge, B. B. Warfield, C.A. Van
Til, John Murray, and etc.).
 Only Scripture Teachesthe Principles to Interpret Scripture
Sola Scriptura with its corollaries necessity and sufficiency,therefore, implies finding
in Scripture even the basic presuppositions8 necessary to interpret the Bible. Scripture is self-
interpreting. Only Scripture can correctly interpret Scripture. God wants His word to be
understandable and shows us how to understand Himself so that we can reenter fellowship
with Him.
There is no need to import necessary extra-biblical pre-understandings or cultural
reconstructions to grasp Scripture. Recent egregious examples of this are, for example, E.P.
Sanders and N.T. Wright’s attempts to reconstruct Second Temple Judaism as a religion of
grace and not as asemi-Pelagianreligion of works and belief. This leads to their attempt to
totally reconstruct the teaching of Paul to reflect their new perspectives.9 Therefore,
theytotally redefine the Pauline sense of “grace” using this externally derived standard not
found in Scripture itself. However, Paul very strongly tends to define grace as God’s
kindness given to men who are totally unable to desire or do what is right, but instead are
filled with rebellion and raging against the Lord (e.g., Rom 3:9-25; Eph 2:1-10). Grace is not
merely a Holy Spirit aided addition to human effort to complete righteousness and an external
grace given in the privileges and boundary markers of Judaism. Therefore, instead of
discovering an inerrant internal understanding of the heart attitude of Second Temple Judaism
in the teaching of Christ (e.g., Lk 15:25-32, 16:15, 18:9-14), Paul, and the Apostles, Sanders
and Wright use incomplete and fragmentary sources from the era of the Second Temple as
the main source of understanding what Judaism taught. This reconstruction and
reinterpretation of Paul, the new perspectives proponents erroneously claim, is actually
applying the doctrine of sola Scriptura.
However, there is thus no need for errant external sources to be able to reconstruct central
biblical doctrines. Second there is no “necessity for human interpreters to intervene between
Scripture and those to whom Scripture comes” (Van Til 1974; see Van Til 1967a, 1969; see
Frame 1995; and Nash 1982, 99-101 to correct aspects of Van Til). Rejecting this principle of
the sufficiency of Scripture means again a return to human, hence autonomous and rebellious
authority. The classic doctrines of sola Scriptura and infallibility reject any syncretism of
biblically derived hermeneutical beginning points with humanist philosophy or with synergistic
God-human centered religion (see 1 Cor 1-4, 15; Col 2). There is no need to redefine grace as
anything other than God’s total ability in the face of man’s total rebellion. There is no neutral
wisdom (see 1 Tm 4:1ff; 1 Jn 4:1ff; Rom 1:18ff).
Antithesis versus syncretism
The last principle necessary for sound sola Scriptura based hermeneutics is that of
antithesis versus syncretism. Solid interpretation leading to sound contextualization is
founded upon the principle of antithesis.

Antithesis = God’s wisdom is the opposite of humanist wisdom (spiritual warfare).

“opposite”

8
These are not proven with logical deduction or scientific induction. The test of
certainty is their inescapability and unmistakeability (see Rom 1:18-21). I.e., no thought, life
or existence is possible without them (Hanna 1981; Van Til 1967).
9
See Sanders , see N. T. Wright
Figure 2. Meaning of antithesis

Syncretism = The merging of differing religious and worldview beliefs and values into
one system (1 Tim 4:1ff)

“together” All roads lead to “god” and “truth,” and no one religion or worldview has
a right to claim exclusive truth (Evolutionary naturalism, New Age, Post-
modernism, Eastern religions = neo-paganism).
Figure 3.Meaning of syncretism.

The principle that God’s wisdom is founded upon the axiom that the fleshly mind is
hostile to God and refuses to submit to the instruction of God in every area of life (Rom 8:7).
God’s wisdom, then, is totally opposed to and the opposite of human wisdom. Several old
and new covenant passages teach this antithesis principle plainly. For example Paul cites Job
and the Psalms (Job 5:14; Ps 94:11) in the following:
Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you thinks that he is wise in this age,
let him become foolish that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is
foolishness before God. For it is written, ‘He is THE ONE WHO CATCHES THE
WISE IN THEIR CRAFTINESS’; and again, ‘THE LORD KNOWS THE
REASONINGS of the wise, THAT THEY ARE USELESS.’ So then let no one boast
in men” (1 Cor 3:18-20).
The Proverbs certainly emphasizes this principle as well: “Leave the presence of a fool, or
you will not discern [know] words of knowledge” (Prv 14:7) and “There is a way which
seems right to a man, But its end is the way of death”—repeated twice (Prv 14:7, 12; see
16:25). Lastly, Paul repeats an old covenant wisdom theme in Romans 12:16: “Do not be
haughty in mind, but associate with the lowly. Do not be wise in your own estimation” (Rom
12:16). This theme is found in Proverbs 3:8-9: “Do not be wise in your own eyes. Fear the
LORD and turn from evil. It will be healing to your body and refreshment to your bones.”
Certainly being wise in one’s own eyes is “boasting in man” (1Co 3:21a) and not putting
one’s trust in the LORD alone as the immediate context in Proverbs states: “Trust in the
LORD with all your heart, lean not on your own understanding, and he will make your paths
straight [i.e., righteous and successful].”
The treasures of wisdom and knowledge that are hidden in Christ (see e.g., Col 2:3-4)
are based upon a total and complete rejection of the foundational propositions of human
wisdom. All wisdom thus must be based upon Christ’s wisdom as recorded in Scripture,
including his interpretation of the OT. Wisdom therefore is premised upon what Christ the
eternal Word of God is in himself, upon what he has accomplished on earth, and what he is
now working in his present royal session at the Father’s right hand. “See to it that no one
takes you captive through love of wisdom [“philosophy”], which is empty deceit, according
to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principle [spirits] of the world, rather
than according to Christ” (Col 1:8, my translation based on NAU).
Therefore believers must totally reject the foundation principles of man-centered
humanism. For example, modern science is built on the non-provable presupposition that all
things must be explained by causes found within the material universe. Evangelical’s who
buy into this axiom become functional deists and accept the dualist idea that faith and science
are two non-overlapping magisterial that deal with two distinct spheres of knowledge and
hence do not intrude into the other sphere (NOMA). These foundation principles of
humanistic scientism includes the following presuppositions of evolutionary naturalism, the
philosophical premise of humanism.

Atheist Principle Trinitarian-Theist Principle

All science must begin with the
materialist presupposition that God or
spirit-realm are not involved.
(DEIST compromise for confessing
Christians)
Accidental Principle
Uniformitarian principle: Everything in
the past must be explained solely by
present processes and rates;
presupposes biblical account of
catastrophes is false.
Neutrality of wisdom principle:
Humans can approach any area of
problem solving without any
presuppositions
NOMA dualism between science
(knowledge) and wisdom (religion)
All science must begin with the
creational presupposition that the Word
of God upholds all things and hence the
spiritual realm is intimately involved in
everything that occurs in the universe.
Design Principle
Punctuated Catastrophism (see 2 Pet
3:1-7).
All wisdom is subject to the Word of
the Father who has revealed wisdom in
Scripture.
Trinitarian Wholism

Figure 4.Antithesis between atheism and trinitarianism.

Many thus today compromise sola Scriptura and a classic hermeneutic through the
adoption of hermeneutical theories that fundamentally deny the principles of antithesis(vs.
syncretism) and of the sufficiency of Scripture.

Caution: Common but not Neutral Ground.

A caution is necessary here. Biblical teaching on antithesis and syncretism does not
deny, as some allege, that there is common ground between the rebel and the regenerate saint
with the “mind of the Lord” (1 Cor 2:12-13,15-16). There is indeed common ground
between the two. It is on the basis of this commonality that the two humanities can address
and understand one another. This common ground, however, is in no way neutral. It belongs
totally to God and witnesses inescapably to his power, existence, and Godhead. Every atom
of the universe testified unmistakably and irresistibly of the one true creator-God whom all
humans must glorify and thank (Rom 1:18-22). Every bit of the physical and conceptual
world which the unbeliever uses is stolen from God in order to try to rebel against God. The
rebel, as C. A. Van Til was fond of teaching, has to sit on God’s lap in order to slap him in
the face. However, the moral rebel who claims to be an atheist states the opposite of what he
or she already knows: “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God’” (see Pss 14:1, 53:1).

No Neutral ground
God’s between God’s Wisdom Satan’s
Wisdom and human/Satan’s wisdom
lying wisdom
Figure 6. Common but not neutral ground10

Therefore, no thought, action, family, institution, or culture is neutral. Every thought

and action, every institution and family either serves God and his thoughts or it serves
someone or something else’s wisdom and ethics. Jesus and His apostle, Paul, explicitly teach
this: “He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me scatters”
(Mt 12:30) and“We are destroying speculationsand every lofty thing raised up against the
knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ.” (2
Cor10:5). No thought or action (law, ideology, or institution), therefore, is non-religious or
neutral. Even Atheism, Secular Humanism, and Scientific Naturalism are not neutral and are
definitely religious, because religion does not have to deal with the belief in spirits and
supernatural god’s but is the ultimate loyalty of the heart (see e.g., Ps 73:17-27; Php 3:18-19).
Luther states exactly this in his shorter catechism on the 1st Commandment:
A god means that from which we are to expect all good and to which we are to
take refuge in all distress, so that to have a God is nothing else than to trust and
believe Him from the [whole] heart; as I have often said that the confidence and faith
of the heart alone make both God and an idol. If your faith and trust be right, then is
your god also true; and, on the other hand, if your trust be false and wrong, then you
have not the true God; for these two belong together faith and God. That now, I say,
upon which you set your heart and put your trust is properly your god. (Luther n.d.)

Spirit Absolutely Necessary

Lastly, it is the consensus of Reformation biblical scholarship that the Spirit is
absolutely necessary in the hermeneutical process. The basic problem of understanding is not
the physical mechanism of man’s mind (or senses) inventing his or her own reality as post-
Kantian philosophy postulates (see Kreitzer 2007). The problem begins with the apostasy of
Adam and in the spiritual heart condition of man which suppress the clearly seen reality
upheld by the power of God (Rom 1:18ff). Jesus himself states that “if anyone is willing to
do [the Father’s] will, he shall know concerning [my] teaching, whether it is from God, or
whether I speak from my own self” (Jn 7:17, own translation). The foolish, rebel heart of
humankind actively suppresses truth, fogs the mind, rebels against the clear teaching, and
then claims new interpretations—just as Scripture states (Is 29:13; Jer 8:8, 23:26; Mt 15:9;
Rom 1:18; Col 2:18-22). 1 Corinthians 2:14 states: “But a natural man does not accept the
things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them,
because they are spiritually appraised.”
Only the Spirit of God is able to illuminate and enlighten the eyes and open the
spiritual ears (Ps 119:18; Acts 26:18; Eph 1:17-18; Col 1:9-10). 11He alone is the Spirit of
Wisdom and Revelation. He guided the prophets and lead the New Testament apostles and
prophets into all the truth. He cleanses the inner man through giving a faith-filled hearing of
Scripture (Rom 10:17; Gal 3:2,5), in order to clear away the fog of rebellion, so that which is
clear may be seen and applied (Jn 15:1-2; Eph 5:26; 1 Thes 2:13; 1 Pt 2:2; 1 Jn 2:14, et al). It
is no wonder that memorization, meditation, and prayer in the Spirit are so often mentioned
10
The dashed line means that Satan and human rebels must always steal God’s
wisdom in order to live and function in God’s world. However, they twist it and pervert it in
order to claim, contrary to our Lord, that humankind can have enlightened eyes, be wise, and
live without “every word coming from the mouth of Father-God.”
11
“The Spirit of wisdom and revelation” is clearly the Spirit of God not a human
attitude/spirit. God does not give an attitude of wisdom or an attitude of revelation. The
meaning of that second alternative makes no sense in the context.
in Scripture and are indeed absolutely necessary for a sound hermeneutic to be applied
accurately in practice (Prv 22:17-19; Jos 1:8; Pss 1:2, 27:4, 49:3, 63:6, 77:12, 119:15,23,27,
48,78,97,99,148; 143:5; 145:5).
Spirit Bound to Clear, Inerrant Biblical Words
A last implication of sola Scriptura and its classic hermeneutic, therefore, is that after
the end of the apostolic era of eyewitnesses to Christ and his resurrection, that is after the
close of the canon, God’s Spirit can and will only speak with clarity, necessity, sufficiency,
and infallible (inerrant) authority through the words of Scripture. “Today when you hear his
voice” (e.g., Ps 95:7; Heb 3:7, 13-19; see also Jn 10:3-4, 27) means the period from the
Resurrection to the end of the age when the inscripturated Word is proclaimed (see e.g., 2
Cor 6:1-2). The Word must be accompanied by open ears of faith (Rom 10:13-17; Mt
13:9,16; Lk 24:31,45; Jn 8:43,47). All other guidance of the Spirit—and he certainly does
teach, lead and guide (Pss 25:4-5; 86:11; Prv 3:5-6)—must be tested first against Scripture.
This is exactly the same principle that Paul enunciates concerning the time before the canon
was finished that all words of prophets must be examined by other inspired prophets and by
others knowledgeable in the already received Scripture (1 Cor 14:29; 1 Thes 5:19-21). These
have been written through the actively engaged organs of Spirit-led men (i.e., verbal-organic
inspiration: see 2 Tim 3:16-17; 2Pet 1:16-21). Calvin gives a brilliant explanation of the
latter passage:
Almost all give this meaning [interpretation: evpi,lusij], that we ought not to rush on
headlong and rashly when we read Scripture, confiding in our own understanding.
They think that a confirmation of this follows, because the Spirit, who spoke by the
prophets, is the only true interpreter of himself.                                                    
This explanation contains a true, godly, and useful doctrine,—that then only
are the prophecies read profitably, when we renounce the mind and feelings of the
flesh, and submit to the teaching of the Spirit, but that it is an impious profanation of
it, when we arrogantly rely on our own acumen, deeming that sufficient to enable us
to understand it, though the mysteries contain things hidden to our flesh, and sublime
treasures of life far surpassing our capacities. And this is what we have said, that the
light which shines in it, comes to the humble alone.                                             
But the Papists are doubly foolish, when they conclude from this passage, that
no interpretation of a private man ought to be deemed authoritative. For they pervert
what Peter says, that they may claim for their own councils the chief right of
interpreting Scripture. . . . Peter calls interpretation private . . . in order to prohibit
each one to interpret; but he shews that whatever men bring of their own is profane.
Were, then, the whole world unanimous, and were the minds of all men united
together, still what would proceed from them, would be private or their own; for the
word is here set in opposition to divine revelation; so that the faithful, inwardly
illuminated by the Holy Spirit, acknowledge nothing but what God says in his word.
(Calvin 1996b, 389-390)
Therefore, because the Spirit moved holy men and revealed the Word through the
exercise of his will alone, he alone then gives the ability to correctly interpret the Word of
God through ordinary means available to any person with the Holy Spirit. Even the person
not possessing the Spirit can understand the bare meaning of the words but will never act in
faith upon them except by the renewal of the Spirit’s presence, giving that person the “mind
of Christ” (2 Cor 2:16; Is 40:13) and all the treasures of wisdom and understanding in Christ
(Col 2:3). Certainly, of course, God also speaks in a non-salvific way through the creation to
every person—but even that message will not be applied correctly until the Spirit clears the
eyes and ears of the heart from rebellion. The unbeliever, paradoxically, both knows what
God is saying in creation and in Scripture but deceives himself or herself into believing that
he or she does not know (see Rom 1:18ff)! The heart of man is more deceitful than all else,
so that it flatters his own self concerning his own wisdom and knowledge, and thus causes
him to not discern, hate, and turn from his own folly (Ps 36:1-3; Jer 17:9).
The only inerrant source of Spirit-taught wisdom and information we can have then is
from the text of the infallible Scriptures spoken through Spirit-dependent, human persons.
The only source of real, faith-and-action-oriented understanding is through the Spirit teaching
Spirit-filled men and women. Notice how Paul speaks about the connection of the Spirit to
the word, which he speaks. This I take as a paradigm for all the prophets and apostles
speaking with the Spirit’s authority throughout Scripture. “Now we have received, not the
spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God,” Paul writes to the Corinthians. A key
purpose of the Spirit’s gift of Apostleship is so “that we might know the things freely given
to us by God, which things we also speak.” Paul, thus, claims direct inspiration from the
Spirit. Here, his statement becomes more difficult, but I believe that the marginal reading of
the NAU fits the context best. Paul speaks God’s words, in order that he would not teach
human wisdom: “not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit,
interpreting spiritual things to spiritual men” (1 Cor 2:12-13). Spiritual persons accept, trust,
and act upon the words of God through Paul, but not “soulish” people: “But a natural man
does not accept the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot
understand them, because they are spiritually appraised” (1 Cor 2:14). Only the person who
possesses God’s Spirit can understand with faith and action, correctly discern, and then
appraise the words of the Spirit in Scripture (1 Cor 2:15-16). Only from that standpoint can
we correctly see and observe the data of nature.
Preliminary Conclusion
Clearly, then, a sound and truthfulhermeneutic must be developed from Scripture
alone. As seen above, Scripture itself possesses sufficient and clear truth. The Bible itself is
the only necessity source for developing its own self-attesting hermeneutic. In other words,
clear Scripture must always stand prior to and interpret less clear Scripture. This is how the
Westminster divines explain this principle: “The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture
is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of
any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other
places that speak more clearly (WCF 1:9).12
Danger of anti-biblical presuppositions.Without a solely Scripture derived
hermeneutic, the door is flung open to alien principles outside of biblical revelation that is
outside of God’s mind. The goal of wisdom is to think God’s thoughts after him. “For the
LORD gives wisdom, from his mouth come knowledge and understanding” (Prv 2:6).
Hence, extra-biblical foundation axioms are derived from either the “teaching of demons”
(see 1 Tm 4:1-5; 2 Tm 2:26) or from the rebel genius of sinful humanity (see Rom 1:21-22; 1
Cor 2:14; Eph 4:17-21). To try to develop principles of hermeneutics outside of Scripture
actually was the original temptation of the Garden. Ever since the Fall, humankind has
sought enlightenment and wisdom that are not derived solely from God and his Word. In
other words, the only correction to the Fall is what Jesus said when he was fighting Satan: “It
is written, ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word which proceeds out of the
mouth of God’” (Mt 4:4; Dt 8:3).
Once, however, hermeneutical principles are discovered from Scripture alone, Spirit
and Scripture-enlightened reason finds them in God-created language as well. Scripture and
12
The Confession adds the following Scripture references: 2Pet. 1:20,21; Acts
15:15,16.
creation do not contradict themselves. Second, with an inerrant Scripture and a hermeneutic
derived from a sufficient, clear, and necessary Scripture, God’s authority can then be
discovered and applied to every sphere of human culture.
Following the interpretative example of Jesus and the true prophets and apostles of
Scripture, therefore, hermeneutical principles can be discovered from the explicit and clear
teaching of Scripture and also from logical deductions from those perspicuous teachings of
Scripture (see e.g., WCF 1.6).13 Jesus, for example, sees the clear teaching of the grammar
and context of the historical narratives of the proto-history of Genesis 1-11 as actual events
with doctrinal and moral lessons for the people of his and by inference our day. Our Lord’s
examplehelps us in to develop classic historical-grammatical exegetical principles. Paul and
the other NT writers use the clear teaching of the Lord as their express standard. Paul states
this explicitlyin an appositional phrase following “with sound words”: “If anyone advocates a
different doctrine, and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and
with the doctrine conforming to godliness, he is conceited and understands nothing” (1 Tim
6:3-5).
An example of Christ method is that he deduces the resurrection from a verb tense in
a true historical narrative about Moses and the burning bush in the Pentateuch, in debate with
the Sadducees who only held the Pentateuch to be authoritative (see Mt 22:32). Paul and the
NT prophets and apostles, following his Lord’s example, deduce many then-contemporary
(and surely present-contemporary) doctrines and moral lessons from the narratives of the Old
Testament (see e.g., Rom 4:23-24, 15:4; 1 Cor 10:10; 2Pe 3:4-12; Heb 3:7-4:12, etc.). Jesus
in Matthew 15 and Paul provide examples of interpreting case law of the Old Testament.
Paul deduces the universally valid equity of the law forbidding the muzzling of an ox while
threshing for new covenant believers (1 Cor 9:8-11). Those who proclaim the Gospel, he
taught, ought to be fed from the proceeds of the Gospel just like the ox ought not to be
muzzled while driving the threshing engine. There are many other multiply other examples
(see esp. Kaiser 1985, 1987; Klein, Blomberg, and Hubbard 1993).

Principles for Doing Hermeneutics

Scripture is self-attesting and is sufficient and necessary for a healthy lifestyle of
worship to God in all areas of life (see e.g., 1 Tm 4:6-9, 6:3-5; 2 Tm 4:3-4; Ti 1:9, 2:1). It
certainly follows that the universal principles of hermeneutics, that is the principles for its
own interpretation, must be derived out of Scripture alone.

Twin Goals
“The goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a
sincere faith”(1 Tim 1:5).

The first goal of interpretation as found within Scripture itself, then, is to find out
what the author’s intended meaning for a given biblical text was within the grammar, syntax,
vocabulary and culture of the time it was written. 14Paul unmistakably states, for example, that
this was his purpose in proclaiming the news about Messiah Jesus: “We have renounced the
things hidden because of shame, not walking in craftiness or adulterating the word of God,
13
“The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for His own glory,
man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and
necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to
be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.” (WCF 1:6).
14
Several ideas of the next section were stimulated by an internet article by
Kuvikowsky.
but by the manifestation of truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the
sight of God”(2 Cor 4:2).
This assumes that a biblical author speaks perspicuously and that the Holy Spirit who
speaks through the author desires that the meaning of the passage be understood—at least
eventually as in the case of the parables. This means that the common saying, “If the plain
sense makes good sense, seek no other sense,” has a great measure of truth for narrative and
didactive sections—though not for apocalyptic sections—of Scripture, as we shall see. A
reader ought not, then, seek to find a unique, individual meaning-for-myself, which neither
the author intended nor anyone else has found. This is exactly what our Lord implied in his
discussion and confrontation with the Sadducees in Mark 12:18-27 (// Mt 22:23-33): “Jesus
said to them, ‘Is this not the reason you are mistaken, that you do not understand the
Scriptures or the power of God?’” (Mk 12:24).
Our Lord also makes this principle very apparent in his rebuke of the Pharisees, who
twisted Scripture to escape the obvious implications of the command to honor one’s parents
(see e.g., Mt 15:1ff). Hence, meaning is clear in these words of Scripture, our Lord claimed.
The problem is not discovering the intended meaning, but our rejection and suppression of
that clear truth. The foolish heart of men is the problem (see Rom 1:18-22,25), hence
rebellion in the heart is what blinds one to the clear teaching of Scripture. The problem is
thus most often in man not in Scripture (though even Peter recognizes that some passages can
be less clear than others, 2 Pet 3:15-16).
In conclusion, Jesus implies that God’s intended meaning isoverall, clearly and
plainly seen in biblical texts (Paul adds also the creation “text” as well). However, man’s
fleshly heart, generally, makes it dark and hard to understand (see also 1 Cor 2:14; Rom 1:21-
22). Peter states this unequivocally in his second letter: “Our beloved brother Paul . . . wrote
to you . . . in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to
understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures”
(2Pe 3:15b-16). In communication theory, this means that a well-practiced hermeneutic
results in “the meaning received corresponds to the meaning sent” (Klein, Blomberg, and
Hubbard 1993, 117). However, this “sent” meaning of the original text is not always clear to
every reader, thus the hermeneutical task must not be taken frivolously. This is the reason I
qualified the preceding paragraph with the words “overall” and “generally.” Especially some
passages take careful and diligent work with great sensitivity to the teaching of the
enlightening of the Spirit, comparing Scripture with Scripture, in order to unwrap, interpret
correctly, and then apply correctly to life and culture.
Second, after one discovers the author’s intended meaning, the test of its truth is
whether the practice of that meaning leads to love in action, flowing out of a heart and
conscience cleansed by the finished work of Christ (“the blood”—see Heb 9-10) through
faith: “The goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a
sincere faith”(1 Tim 1:5; Gal 5:6). The regenerating and illuminating work of the Holy Spirit
of wisdom and revelation” (Eph 1:17) is hence indispensible:
A natural man [without the Spirit] does not accept the things of the Spirit of God; for
they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are
spiritually appraised. But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is
appraised by no man. For who has known the mind of the Lord, that he should instruct
Him? But we have the mind of Christ. (1 Cor 2:14-16)

Cultural and Personal Pre-Understanding

Certainly sola Scriptura and a sound hermeneuticalso accept the fact that a person,
from any culture, who reads Scripture, will interpret a passage through the eyes of their own
culturally biased personal and cultural presuppositions (pre-understandings). This is certainly
the case but not inescapable (see e.g., 1 Cor 2:6-16).
However, because of the Holy Spirit within believers progressively cleanses theimage
of God (imago Dei) restoring it to the knowledge of the truth (see e.g., Eph 4:23-24; Col
3:10), a reader is able to distance himself progressively from his own fleshly wisdom. The
goal is for the believer to be able to see all areas of life through the eyes of God and hence to
begin to “think his thoughts after him” (see Larkin 1992). Every reader at first tends to read
Scripture with a naïve confidence that their own surface understanding derived from his or
her own culture. The naïve person “believes everything” but the “prudent man considers his
steps” (see Prv 14:15). Thus the young or naïve believer thinks that his surface insight is
exactly the same as that of the Spirit of God and of the original author.
Therefore, many such interpreters try to impose their own skewed interpretation upon
other peoples and cultures. This is especially germane in cross-cultural communication
situations. Many cross-cultural communicators of the Gospel fail to understand that the
process of understanding Scripture is actually that of a spiral. Each person reads Scripture
through the eyes of their own culture, personal pre-understanding, experience, and
presuppositions. All people, thus, at the beginning are unconsciously incompetent to
understand and correctly apply Scripture. It takes time and maturity, as the author of
Hebrews states, to discern good and evil and to see and apply the deep teachings of the Word
(see e.g., Heb 5:10-14, 6:1ff). This is certainly the reason why each person must approach
Scripture totally dependent upon the Holy Spirit to teach and to guide into truth. In fact Paul
prays this explicitly in three of his key letters to Asian and Macedonian assemblies (Eph
1:15-18; Php 1:9-11; Col 1:9-11).

Genre and Meaning

Third, Scripture certainly recognizes that when God spoke to humanity through his
prophets and apostles, he used many available kinds or genres of literature (Heb 1:1-
2).15Reading Scripture demands proper hermeneutical principles because the Bible possesses
universal applicability and “eternal relevance,” yet also exists within a very parochial context
or “historical particularity” (Fee and Stuart 2003, 21). Every passage comes to us enclothed
in the context of each author’s unique language, history, and culture. There exists a definite
gap between our culture and that of the original culture(s). This gap, when a cross-cultural
situation is in process, becomes even greater as figure 6 describing Ethno-hermeneutics
illustrates.
To interpret correctly, therefore, the interpreter must learn both the universally valid,
foundational principles taught in Scripture, but also the specific guidelines for each form and
genre. These principles many have endeavored to uncover and discuss (see e.g., Fairbairn
1858/2001; Terry 1898/1988; Osborne 1991/2006; Klein, Blomberg, and Hubbard
1993/2004; Kaiser and Silva 1994/2007).

Both Deductive and Inductive Methods

Last, in order to develop a sound hermeneutical theory, we must use both the
deductive and the inductive methods. All the available Scriptural data ought to be brought to
bear on the subject. Once these have been organized, then careful logical deduction should
be made from clear passages in order to apply principles to new situations and contexts both
within and without Scripture. Furthermore, if deductions are legitimate a spiral from
15
E.g., historical narrative [e.g., Gen 1-11], genealogies, deuteronomic chronicles,
legal-covenantal material (e.g., Deuteronomy), poetry and songs, the wise man’s proverbs,
prophetic oracles, riddles, drama, biographical sketches [e.g., the Gospels], parables, letters,
sermons, apocalyptic [e.g., Daniel and Revelation], seers’ dreams and visions, and so forth).
abstracting-ordering system/theory back to concrete data, then back again to the system with
any modifications learned in the spiral must continually occur. Believers must be both
hearers and doers of the Father’s OT and NT instruction (Tôrâ) (see e.g., Mt 7:21-25; Lk
11:28, 12:47-48; Jn 13:17; Rom 2:13; Php 4:8-9; Jas 1:22-25, 4:17). Some have termed this a
hermeneutical spiral (see e.g., Padilla 1979, 83-108; Larkin 1992, 302; Klein, Blomberg and
Hubbard 1993, 114; Osborne 1991, 324), in contrast to a hermeneutical circle of the newer,
more post-modern hermeneutical theories.
Since all the words of Scripture are given through those moved by the Spirit (2Pet
1:21-22; 2 Tim 3:16), biblical reflection begins in submission to the Spirit in the total
teaching of the Word on a particular topic. Understanding of the Spirit’s teaching begins
with questions and careful listening to the wisdom of God in Scripture. Second, submission
and listening to God proceeds on to Spirit empowered practice. Practice provides new
questions about both meaning and application, which leads to further listening and research
(including scientific research). These new questions and research lead back to reflection
upon the same Scripture and perhaps new parallel passages subsequently discovered. Last,
this further reflection then leads one back to practice and research in a spiral over and over
again. “If it is true that Scripture illuminates life, it is also true that life illuminates Scripture”
(Padilla 1979, 99).
A Spirit-led Christian must practice both reflection and application in the disciplined
process of growth as he or she ever grows closer to complete understanding of truth. This
will never occur in this life or in eternity. The Triune God alone is God and his
comprehensive knowledge, wisdom and understanding cannot be completely shared unless he
becomes not-God, which is impossible.

Both reflection and application in constant spiral

Topic being examined Spiral around Subject

Biblical reflection Spirit empowered practice

on the text in the midst of my own
(theoria) culture and its
presuppositions (praxis)

* Theoria then praxis = western theology

* Praxis then theoria = liberation theology
* Biblical balance = both/and

Figure 5.Hermeneutical Spiral

Unity of Scripture,Focused on King Jesus

This presupposes that the Scripture as a whole is unified by a single divine author
with his singular, guiding and creating hand. Christ presupposed this in his post-resurrection
discussions with his disciples concerning himself in all the canon of the Jewish Scripture.
There was a single focus: “Beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to
them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures” (Lk 24:25-27; see 24:44-47). The
“scopus” of Scripture is the Person and work of the Lord Jesus. All things point to him,
speak of him and lead to him. He, however, leads to his Father, who receives all glory and
honor through the Son (see e.g., Eph 1:3-17). The Spirit, in turn, does not speak of himself
but he points to and witnesses of the eternal Word incarnate, Jesus (Jn 15:26). The Father
speaking through the Son, by the Spirit will never contradict himself in his own clear and
unified Scripture. Clear passages, then, must interpret, that is they must provide insight for
understanding, the unclear or less clear passages. “Nothing is learned from the more obscure
passages that is found most plainly taught elsewhere” (Turretin 1981, 187). The Bible itself,
therefore, is able to and must by itself be the sole inerrant interpreter of itself as the Father’s
Scripture. This means in practice that the Old Testament often interprets itself and the New
Testament interprets the Old. However, this is standard fare for Reformational handbooks of
hermeneutics.
All of this implies that meaning is singular and not “manifold” as the Westminster
divines stated (e.g., WCF 1:9). In other words, there are no deeper, esoteric layers of
meaning that only a group of initiates (scholars) can discern. Although the common saying
“When the plain sense of the scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense” is open to
abuse, there is certainly a great measure of truth in it. This applies certainly to the issue of
cosmogony (e.g., six day creation a few thousand years ago versus various other theories
presupposing a deeper hidden sense such as the Framework Hypothesis or Analogical Day
perspectives on creation). Jeremiah spoke about the “lying pen of the scribes” that is the
biblical exegetes of his day:

Even the stork in the sky knows her seasons; and the turtledove and the swift and the
thrush observe the time of their migration; but My people do not know the ordinance of
the LORD. How can you say, “We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us?” But
behold, the lying pen of the scribes has made it into a lie. The wise men are put to
shame. They are dismayed and caught; behold, they have rejected the word of the
LORD, and what kind of wisdom do they have?(Jer 8:7-9)
See: WCF 1:9 2 Pet. 1:20,21; Acts 15:15,16

Analogy of the Faith

The second foundational principle is that of the “analogy of faith.”In other words, the
whole of the Scripture must interpret any individual passage. (Scriptura ex Scriptura
explicandaest, (Scripture is explained by Scripture), Scriptura sui ipsiusinterpres [Scripture is
its own interpreter], or interpretatio ex Scriptura docendaest [Interpretation is taught by
Scripture]) (Be careful, however, because a crystal clear individual passage can challenge a
system that some believe has been developed out of the whole of the Scripture). 16This seeks
to demonstrate that one passage’s interpretation is consistent with the clearly taught system of
doctrine found throughout the rest of Scripture. In other words, the whole Bible is the
context for interpretation. Second, the “analogy of faith” principle teaches that the new
covenant Lord and his apostles and prophets give the authoritative interpretation of the old
covenant doctrine. In other words, the new interprets the old and not the other way around.
Isaiah is emphatic about this principle: “To the law and to the testimony! If they do
not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn” (Is 8:20). In stark contrast
to extra-divine revelation of mediums and diviners, Yahweh’s true prophets are always
consistent with themselves. Every true foretelling must occur (Dt 18:10-22; Jer 28:8-9) and
every prophetic word spoken to provide direction and instruction (i.e., Tôrâ), must be totally
consistent and compatible with previous (or subsequent) revelation (see e.g., Dt 13:1-5; see
16
For example, Mt 23:36 and 24:34 challenge many end-times theories. The clear
time passages of Revelation 1 and 22 challenge many futurist and idealist theories.
also Jer 23:14,16-22,25-32; 27:9-17). “The obscure texts must be interpreted in the light of
those which are plain and positive” (Terry 1898/1988, 579).
This foundational principle of hermeneutics has been termed either the “analogy of
Scripture”or “analogy of faith” (analogiafidei) the throughout church history.17 Though
disputed by some (see e.g., Terry 1898/1988, 579; Schreiner 1998), the phrase “analogy of
the Faith” found in Romans 12:6 is indeed what the phrase kata. th.navnalogi,anth/j
pi,stewj [kata tēnanalogiatēspisteōs] actually means. Some very significant scholars have
recently upheld this ancient interpretation (see e.g., Käsemann 1980; Blocher 1987; Kaiser
1991; Stott 1994; classically see Henry 1961; Hodge 1886). 18 What this phrase means, as I
noted above, is that clear passages on a subject (either chronologically previous or even
chronologically subsequent) serve as a canon or standard (see e.g., Dt 13:1-4; Is 8:19-22;
Rom 6:17; 2 Tm 1:13) for understanding a specific aspect of “the faith” (see e.g., Eph 4:4-6;
Jude 3; see also 2 Cor 13:5; Gal 1:23; 3:23; 6:10; Eph 4:13; Col. 1:23; 1 Tm 3:9, 4:1, 6; 5:8;
6:10, 21; 2 Tm 3:8; 4:7; Ti 1:1, 13; Jude 1:3). “The faith” in these passages seems to be both
objective, that is articles to confess and agree with, but also subjective trust of the inner being
in the person and the truth of the Triune God and his articles of truth. The “faith” within the
canon of the New Testament became a systemic three-article whole, providing three loci for a
topical or systematized, Trinitarian theology as we shall later see (Eph 4:4-6; see also 1 Cor
8:6; for a proto-Christological creed, see e.g., 1 Tm 3:9; 1 Pt 3:18, 21c-22). Second, as Terry
states: “No single statement or obscure passage of one book can be allowed to set aside a
doctrine which is clearly established by many passages” (Terry 1898/1988, 579).
17
Osborne suggests the traditional analogia scriptura is a better term than analogiafidei
(Osborne 1991, 274-275).
18
Note the following from Hodge and Matthew Henry:
“The word (avnalogi,a) rendered proportion, may mean proportion, or measure,
rule, standard. Classic usage is rather in favour of the former of these meanings. The latter,
however, is necessarily included in the former; and the word is defined by Hesychhius,
measure, canon, or rule. The choice between the two meanings of the word must depend on
the sense given to the word faith and on the context” (Hodge 1886, 390). Hodge opts for the
objective sense of the word faith as “the object of faith, or the truths to be believed, (see Gal.
i.23; iii.25; vi. 10; Eph. Iv.g; 1 Thess. Iii.5, &c.,) then according to theproportion signifies,
agreeably to the rule or standard; and the apostle’s direction to the prophets is, that in all their
communications they are to conform to the rule of faith, and not contracict those doctrines
which had been delivered by men whose inspiration had been established by indubitable
evidence” (Hodge 1886, 390).
“As to the matter of our prophesying, it must be according to the proportion of the
doctrine of faith, as it is revealed in the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament. By
this rule of faith the Bereans tried Paul's preaching, Acts xvii. 11. Compare Acts xxvi. 22;
Gal. i. 9. There are some staple-truths, as I may call them, some prima axiomata—-first
axioms, plainly and uniformly taught in the scripture, which are the touchstone of preaching,
by which (though we must not despise prophesying) we must prove all things, and then hold
fast that which is good,1 Thess. v. 20, 21. Truths that are more dark must be examined by
those that are more clear; and then entertained when they are found to agree and comport
with the analogy of faith; for it is certain one truth can never contradict another. See here
what ought to be the great care of preachers—to preach sound doctrine, according to the form
of wholesome words, Ti. ii. 8; 2 Tm. i. 13. It is not so necessary that the prophesying be
according to the proportion of art, the rules of logic and rhetoric; but it is necessary that it be
according to the proportion of faith: for it is the word of faith that we preach..” (Henry 1961,
1786: Note, however, Henry applies both the subjective and objective sense to the passage,
Rom 12:6).
 A good example of the Old Testament interpreting itself and even of one Old
Testament author interpreting himself is creation accounts. Insufficient weight is often given
to how Moses himself interprets the days of creation within the Pentateuch. The Decalogue,
ascribed by the very “hand” of God claims that “in six days the LORD made the heavens and
the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD
blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy”(Ex 20:11, see 24:16, 31:15-17, 34:21, 35:2; Lev
23:3; Dt 16:8). The very creational order serves as a model and design norm for God’s rest
and victory celebration. This design norm and celebration of victory seems to be evident also
in Joshua 6:3-4 where the march around Jericho for six days and the breaking down of the
wall on the seventh day seems to be alluding to the creation days and its victory celebration.
Clearly also the New Testament interprets Old. The apostles and prophets sent by
Jesus, unveiled that which was relatively hidden in the ancient Israelite writings (see e.g., Eph
3:4-6). The OT often provides the seed of teachings grown to maturity in the NT. For
example, the doctrine of the unified plurality of God can be seen in the creational words: “Let
Us. . .” (Gen 1:26, see 11:7; Is 6:8) in the light of the New Testament. When Isaiah saw
Yahweh in all his glory in the heavenly palace-temple and heard a message concerning Israel,
John the Apostle interprets this to be a vision of the King-Messiah Jesus and a word
concerning Israel’s response to his proclamation of the Kingdom (Is 6:3; Jn 12:38-41).
Another clear example is the interpretation of the Servant of Yahweh passage in Isaiah 53 by
the deacon Philip. He applied this without ambiguity to Jesus (Acts 8:30-35). There are
many other examples of this interpretative process.
Lastly, the authoritative teaching of Jesus as revealed in the Gospels and Jesus
speaking through his apostles and prophets (see Mt 23:34; Jn 16:13-15; Hab 1:1-2) clearly
interprets and applies the Old Testament to life and teaching of the new covenant believers.
Jesus himself claimed that his words were the standard by which to interpret truth and
wisdom, not the dictates of human scholars. Jesus claimed to speak the words of his Father
(Jn 8:38, 40). Anyone who is born from God, his Father, will understand Christ’s words,
which in turn are those of the Father. Therefore, he implies, if you scholarly critics genuinely
have God as your Father as you claim, then why do you not understand and act upon my
words. The problem is not that Jesus does not speak clearly in his interpretation of the OT
words, but that his critics were not able to hear, in the sense of understand, his word (see Jn
8:31-47). For example in Genesis, Jesus himself taught his disciples and critics that (1) the
creation of humans was at the beginning—of creation (Mt 19:4; Mk 13:19). He taught (2)
that creation formed two genders alone: male and female (Mt 19:4-5). He taught all of the
following as well. (3) The reality of the Fall and the personality of Satan (Jn 8:44). (4) Cain
and Abel’s murder (Mt 23:35). (5) Noahic Flood destroying the whole world (Lk 17:26-27).
(6) The existence of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Mt 8:11, 22:32; Jn 8:39, 56-58). (7) The
destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and rescue of Lot with his family (Mt 11:23-24; Lk
17:28-30). (8) The existence and the calls of the Patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and of
covenantal leaders Moses and David (Mt 22:32; Lk 20:37, 22:42-44; Jn 8:33-58).
As to the Pentateuch and Prophets, Jesus taught that (1) Moses is the author of
Pentateuch (Jn 5:46; Lk 16:29; Mt 22:24). He taught that (2) Daniel is a prophet. In other
words, Jesus taught that at a bare minimum Daniel wrote about future events, which Jesus
said would occur within the “generation” of those listening to him (Mt 24:15). (3) Jesus cites
Isaiah as a prophet (Jn 12:38-41) and, along with his apostles, names Isaiah as author of both
parts of the book named after him (e.g., Mt 13:14, 15:7; Lk 4:17; see Mt 3:3, 4:4, 8:17, 12:17,
13:14, 15:7). He cited the Old Testament narrative events, not as cleverly devised myths but
as true history and used their clear and authoritative teaching as the foundation for his
interpretation of his life and ministry (see e.g., Lk 24:25-27, 44-47) and the disciples future
ministry to all peoples and cultures of earth.19
The Apostles and New Testament prophets also believed the Old Testament teachings
without doubt and interpreted them in that light in their authoritative and necessary ministry
of the Gospel both to Jews and those from idolatrous ethnies: (1) Creation (Rom 1:20; 8:19-
22; Heb 11:3; 2Pe 3:4-5). (2) Fall through Serpent-Satan (Jn 8:44; 2 Cor 11:2-3; 1 Jn 3:7-12;
Rv 12:7-9). (3) Cain’s murder of Abel (Heb 11:4, 12:24; 1 Jn 3:12). (4) Flood of Noah was
worldwide (1 Pt 3:20-22; 2Pe 3:6-7; Heb 11:7) and analogous to the final worldwide
judgment by fire. (5) The historical calls of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph (Acts 7:1-18;
Heb 11:8-22). (6) Moses as the founder of Israel and giver of the Law (Acts 7:20-44; Heb
11:23-29). (6) Kings David and Solomon as historical figures (Acts 7:45-47). (7) The new
covenant prophesied by Jeremiah is fulfilled in Jesus (Heb 8:7-13).
All of these events mentioned by our Lord and his inspired spokesmen have been
denied by scholarship in the past and present, yet are essential to storying the Gospel and
redemptive history, and to the building of a biblical worldview, which transforms all of life.
The clear teaching of Scripture must interpret Scripture for this to occur. Scripture alone,
interpreting itself is the sole basis for a person to learn wisdom, instruction, and
understanding with which to transform all of life of every ethno-culture of the earth. “The
words of the LORD are pure words; As silver tried in a furnace on the earth, refined seven
times” (Ps 12:6).
Only Scripture interprets Scripture
As we have also discussed, the Reformers inferred from sola Scriptura that Scripture
interprets Scripture [Scriptura scripturaeinterpres]. Attempted reconstruction of cultural
context from our cultural and temporally distant perspective, heavily relying on extra-biblical
assumptions about the existence of document traditions, meanings of ancient customs,
chronologies and the forms of ancient culture is hazardous. This is the basic methodology of,
for example, the Higher Critical method, which has led to the New Perspective on Paul, and
controls much of counciliar and evangelical engagement with ancient earth ideologies.
Stackhouse is candid about the result: “so long sola Scriptura.” “In this regard,” he adds, “we
may well be at the end of the Protestant era” (Stackhouse 1988, 50).
Making higher critically derived definitions and cultural reconstruction normative
concerning bible-science issues, social and personal ethics in complex cross-cultural
situations, and a myriad of other issues—especially without considering confessionally sound
alternatives—is certainly over-confident. It destroys the principle of sola Scriptura (i.e.,
Tradition I). It either leads, ultimately, to attempts to place an ecclesiastical collegium or
magisterium (e.g., a Synod, a group of missionaries, a consensus of scholars or a national
ecclesial assembly) between the believer and God (Tradition II or III); or it leads to myriads
of anarchistic, “Spirit-led” interpretations as found in certain sects throughout history
(Tradition 0). In the light of the Belgic and Westminster Confessions’ clear teaching on
infallibility and the submission of all areas of faith and life to the teaching of Scripture as
informed by the analogiafidei or regulafidei, it is wrong to claim that these standards allow
for Higher Criticism, claims that Science has conclusively proved anything, and any other
view denying the full inerrancy of all the words of Scripture (contra e.g., Deist 1986, 1994).

19
See e.g., Moses at the burning bush (Mk 12:24-26); the manna in the wilderness (Jn
6:32); the tabernacle (Lk 6:3-4); the lifting up of the Serpent in the wilderness (Jn 3:14); the
Queen of Sheba visiting Solomon (Mt 12:42); the accounts of Solomon and David (Mt 6:29;
22:41-45); Elijah and the famine (Lk 4:24-26); Elisha and Naaman (Lk 4:27); and lastly
Jonah and the sea creature, which swallowed him (Mt 12:34-40)
 Hermeneutical principles are founded upon several underlying presuppositions also
derived by clear deduction and statement from Scripture. Since the Triune God is wisdom,
knowledge, and understanding in himself, he is logic in himself. That is, logic flows from his
being and wisdom. God, therefore, is the guarantor of the truth of the words revealed through
the style and genre of each author and book, and he is the guarantor of all sound deduction.
Surely this means that, for example, prose narrative history, genealogical and legal material,
Hebrew poetry and proverbial style, apocalyptic genre, and so forth must be taken into
account. However, doing so does not invalidate the eternal truth in the meaning of each
statement. Poetry, for example, does teach. Certainly it involves metaphor and emotion.
However, these have concrete reference to the real world of humanity in the creator’s
universe and of the Creator’s mind. They are not mere reference-less emoting about abstract
“truth” in an unknowable universe of form. This again is a form of Greek dualism.

Bona Consequentia (“Good and Necessary Consequences”)

A third principle mandated by sola Scriptura based hermeneutics is that a logical
deduction can be made from the clear teaching of Scripture (see e.g., Is 29:13; Mt 15:1-9; Col
2:22; 1 Cor 15:27). This clear deduction from perspicuous Scripture has more authority than
all the traditions of human teachers. The Westminster Confession of Faith states:
The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s
salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and
necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any
time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.
(WCF 1.6)
Jesus applies this principle in dialogue with Pharisees concerning tradition and the
direct command of God to “honor” one’s “father and mother” (Mt 15:1-9). He clenches his
argument with a clearly stated Isaianic teaching on the same subject (see Is 29:13). Our Lord
applies logic to his dialogue with Sadducees as well (Mt 22:23-33). Jesus states in effect,
“Have you not perceived clearly what God spoke through Moses?” Behind Mosaic
authorship and the Mosaic word were the very words of the Creator even in a logical
deduction (see Ex 3:6).
Paul applies this principle to his discussion of justification (Rom 4:1-8, see NKJV),
spiritual gifts (Eph 4:8), and the present reign of King Jesus (1 Cor 15:27). Justification in its
completeness includes both the non-imputation of sin to one’s debit account and the positive
imputation of Christ’s obedience to one’s credit. Paul, however, correctly deduces that if a
person has his sins totally remitted by the non-imputation of debit, then he must also have a
positive imputation of credit (a perfect righteousness) as well. Furthermore, although the
Psalm Paul quotes in Ephesians 4 originally states that men give gifts to God, Paul quotes it
as reading that God gives gifts to men. This is not contradictory. Paul reasons here as he
does in his first letter to the Corinthians. Who have ever given to God that God has not first
given to him (see 1 Cor 4:7)? Therefore, gifts God gives to people, lead to them giving back
to God praise, service, honor, and glory. Last, notice the “everything” of 1 Corinthians 15:27
(pa,nta, panta). Based upon the original context of Psalm 8:6, which Paul was quoting, and
the internal logic of the situation, Paul makes the correct logical deduction to restrict “all,
everything” to all things in the creation over which Adam was originally given dominion.
From the passive voice, Paul correctly deduces that God submitted all things to Adam and
hence is not governed by the word “all things” (see Reymond 1998, 686).20

20
Robert Reymond. 1998. A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith. 2d ed.
Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson.
 Certainly, however, a missiological interpreter must do careful exegesis and then
cautious application into present ethno-cultures of clear Scripture in context (see Kaiser xxxx
Exegetical theology). Much contemporary exegesis on the roles of men and women in
evangelical circles does not listen to Jeremiah’s warning against the “lying pen” of the scribes
which twist the Scriptures (see e.g., Jer 6:8-9, 8:8-9). No one has a right to put human
teachings—either human knowledge or human scientific teaching—prior to and above clear
divine teaching of Scripture (Mt 15:1-10; Col 2:18-23; 1 Tm 1:3-8).

Caution 1:Satan and false teachers will always use and twist Scripture.
A caution is certainly warranted here. Satan will always use and twist Scripture in order
to undermine Scripture, as he tried to do with Jesus in the wilderness and succeeded in doing
with Adam and Eve in the Garden. In this case, if he is listened to, he can both take truth out
of hearts as the Parable of the Sower teaches (Mt 13:19) and/or teach false doctrine (1 Tm
4:1-7). He always either outright denies biblical truth or attempts to merge biblical words
with anti-Christian meaning or content( = syncretism).
When one clearly understands the purpose of the contrasts between “you have heard
that it was said” (Mt 5:27, see 31, 33, 38, 43) and “but I say to you” (Mt 5:28, see 32, 34, 39,
44), it is clear that ourLord was not giving a new interpretation or contradicting the Old
Testament ethic. Instead, he was correcting a twisted biblical exegesis that allows them to
escape the straight-forward commands of God (see also Mt 15:1ff). Consequently, the issue
is not Old Testament versus the New Testament, or Moses versus Christ, but King Jesus as
the fulfiller and correct interpreter of the Pentateuch versus the scribes and Pharisees whse
lying pens twisted Scripture (Jer 8:8; see e.g., Ridderbos1982).21
Cornelius Van Til gives us the balance:
Reformed apologetics takes its view of God, of man, and of the world from the
Scriptures. Not as though it ignores the study of man and of the world, rather it
studies man and the world in the light of the Scriptures. God spoke to Adam with
respect to the trees of the garden. Adam was to subdue the earth. He was to interpret
himself and his world in the light of the pre-interpretation given him by God’s speech
to him about them. After the entrance of sin God’s speech to man became redemptive
and was eventually inscripturated. The Word of God was to be for man the light that,
in the last analysis, alone lights up all of reality. As the sun lights up the world and all
that is therein, so the Scriptures light up every fact in every dimension of human
interest. (Van Til 1987, 2)
Summary and Conclusion
In conclusion, no inductive scientific consensus such as that found in contemporary
Paleontology and Geology,nor any evolution-bound version of Higher Criticism that begin
with autonomous human observation and interpretion of a so-called 67th book of Scripture
(i.e., nature) can ever be faultless and truly progressive. If any science or scientific theology
is not based upon the framework of the interpretative words of the Spirit through Scripture it
cannot be valid nor true. No observation of the data of nature is neutral, as we have seen
previously. Nature can only be seen and interpreted faultlessly—with faith and action—
through the framework provided by and derived from the perspicuous Scripture. This
doctrine certainly means that the Spirit will not lead any individual or ecclesial collectivity to

21
Herman N Ridderbos. 1982. When the time had fully come: Studies in New
Testament theology. Jordan Station, Ontario, Canada: Paideia Press. See his explanation of
the Sermon on the Mount.
read Scripture through the eyes of human autonomy in any form. Autonomous humanity,
beginning with himself, their own supposedly neutral data observations and presuppositions
not founded upon Christ, can indeed prove nothing for certain (see e.g., Col 2:8-10). Again,
without the Spirit-provided eyeglasses of the absolutes of Scripture guiding and interpreting
the inductive observations of creation and subsequent theory formation, there can be no
scientific absolutes. The result is, as many postmodern philosophers of science are now
candidly admitting, only an ever-changing subjectivity. This, at least, post-modern scholars
claim accurately.
Exegesis and hermeneutics, then, is the uncovering of infallible, trans-culturally valid
truth, under guidance of the Spirit, within the cultural context in which a specific passage is
written. Once a truth has been discovered using the hermeneutical spiral, it must be further
nuanced, deepened, and applied using that same spiral: “Teach me Your way, O LORD; I
will walk in Your truth” (Ps 86:11). However, we will never know everything or for that
matter anything comprehensively as God does. Such knowledge is too “wonderful” for us as
the Psalmist states, “It is too high, I cannot attain to it” (Ps 139:6). Yet we can know some
things accurately and exactly as the Scripture also states, for example, concerning the
knowledge of the person of Christ and the facts concerning him (see e.g., Lk 1:1-4; Jn 20:31;
1 Cor 15:1-8). Truth is unchanging because it springs from within the very nature of the
unchanging God who cannot lie and never changes his purpose (see Heb 6:17-18).
Therefore, truth does not evolve through deeper reflection and application or through
dialectical thesis-antithesis interaction as Hegelian scholars postulate. This is not to say that
truth is impersonal, cold, and abstract as Greek dualism teaches but personal, and involving
both unity and diversity, abstraction and concreteness at the same time. Truth flows from the
very Being of the personal, triune God and is upheld in and by him throughout eternity. To
meet truth is to meet God in the person of Christ, the Logos (lo,goj) and Hokmah (hm’k.x’)
of God.
In exegetical work on an unclear passage, or in a scholar or Synod’s reconstruction of
linguistic, cultural and chronological details (e.g., of the ancient worldview concerning
cosmogenesis, the spirit world, polygamy, the woman’s role, or homosexuality in ancient
cultures, etc.) must never contradict the clear (perspicuous) information on these matters
gained by careful study of similar passages in similar contexts in throughout the whole of the
Scriptures. As already discussed, this is the doctrine of the analogy of Scripture or
analogiafidei (see also Sproul 1980).22

Application to ethno-hermeneutics
The diagram (below) on ethno-hermeneutics shows the connections between these
principles. God as a Triune Being reveals himself throughout human time in the person of
22
R.C. Sproul. 2005 Scripture Alone: The Evangelical Doctrine (Phillipsburg, NJ:
P&R). E.g., this also applies to definitions of Scripture derived concepts such as “human
dignity,” “justice,” “love” and “reconciliation.” Because there is no neutrality, there are only
two choices in understanding these concepts. (1) These must be filled with Biblical meaning
derived from historical-grammatical exegesis and deduction from that exegesis, or (2) they
will be re-defined according to meanings received from culture influenced by anti-Christian
ideologies.
“Love,” thus, can never contradict the Law because love is the summing up of the
specifics of the Law. “Justice” is also inextricably bound to the Mosaic Law. Prophetic social
justice cannot be interpreted without understanding the universally valid “equity” of that Law
(see Universal Equity Principle). “Reconciliation” can never remove God-created
ontological (e.g., God-creation) and social (e.g., male-female, parent-child) divisions found in
the Decalogue.
the Wisdom/Word of God (see e.g. Prv 8:12-31; Jn 1:1-3, 14-18). He is the Mediator of
revelation as well as of redemption. All Scripture and all creation reveal his mind and
wisdom in a non-contradictory whole. Every human ethno-culture has direct apprehension of
that wisdom in the creation through that which is seen and through the inbuilt sense of
divinity derived from the image of God in every human (Ps 19; Rom 1:18ff; etc.). At the
same time, the Wisdom of God (compare Lk 11:49 with Mt 23:34), that is Messiah Jesus, has
once and for all given verbal revelation available to every language and culture of the earth
within the languages and cultures of the Old and New Testament Scriptures.
Each human interpreter must understand first the divine culture in the Triune
community by the Spirit teaching through Scripture. Second, each interpreter must
understand the cultures of the Hebrews, Aramaic Hebrews, and Greek Messianic Hebrews—
through information found inerrantly in Scripture and errantly in extra-biblical documents
and artifacts in order to correctly understand and apply the teaching of Scripture in
contemporary contexts. This process becomes especially difficult in a missional context.
Often the missionaries believe that their cultural understanding of Scripture is virtually
inerrant and short-circuit the process of carefully learning the theo-culture, biblical cultures,
their own culture and the target cultures.

Ethno-Hermeneutics
Triune God
Word Incarnate

Creation Revelation

Scriptural
Revelation
Hebrew/Greek
Culture Context

Human Cultures of Human Cultures

Target Peoples of Biblical Interpreters
Short
Circuit
Individuals/Families
Targeted with Gospel

Figure7. Ethno-Hermeneutics

One of the major problems with apartheid theology and missiology was the
foundational lack of humility of many of the Afrikaner exegetes. As my previous work has
demonstrated (see Kreitzer 1997, 2003), they had several brilliant insights into biblical
theology and social theology. However, it was all too often syncretized with racist cultural
baggage, which caused them to short-circuit the hermeneutical process and led to the horrible
evil of the apartheid system, which they justified from Scripture. But syncretism is certainly
also true of certain aspects of German, British, American, and now Korean missionary
movements. It also holds true of must mainline ecclesial scholarship for the last 100 years.
We must learn from the past, have compassion on those trapped in blind syncretism, and yet
hate “even the garment polluted by the flesh” because God alone through Christ by the Spirit
is able to keep us also from stumbling (Jude 23-24).
 Foundations of Biblical Interpretation
I. The legitimacy of biblical interpretation
A. Two examples of interpretation within the Pentateuch, Writings, and Prophets
1. The creation in six days:
a. Genre is crucial: Poetry, Narrative Prose, or Special unique genre?

b. Clear cross-references
1) OT: Ex 20:11, 31:17
2) NT: Mt 19:4-8; esp. Mk 10:6; see also Jn 8:44; Rom 5:12-21; 1 Jn 3:8, et
al.

2. Psalm 1 and Jer 17

B. Christ’s own examples of interpretation

1. Mt 15:1-10
2. Mt 5:27-48
3. Mt 22:31-32
4.

II. Framework of truth provided by biblical worldview

A. Christ’s fundamental presupposition was the absolute truthfulness of Scripture.

B. Apostles
III. Necessary submission to the author of the Bible (Jn 7:17)

IV. Submission to the structured organization and various genres of the Bible

V. Christo-telic Interpretation of Scripture

A. Example: Christo-telic interpretation of the Psalms.
1. Christ in Psalm 22

2. Christ in Psalm 23

B. Christo-telic Interpretation of the Prophets

1. The Messiah is the goal of the law and the prophets (Mt 5:17-20; Lk 24:25-27, 44-
45; Rom 10:4 (“the Anointed King is the goal of the Old Testament,” my
translation).

2. All pictures and prophesies points to Him and are fulfilled – but not abolished – in
Him.

3. The picture form is changed and universalized but not de-particularized, de-
materialized, spiritualized, and allegorized whereby an alien philosophy is read
into the text.
 Specific Rules of Hermeneutics for Unique Genres23
I. Interpreting Prose and Historical Narrative
A. Goal: Discover the meaning of a passage in the original social and literary contextand
apply the same meaning to life in your own contemporary context.

B. Presuppositions:
1. Biblical writers wrote normally (with a few exceptions) to be understood, for faith
comes through listening to understandable meaning.
a. Most meaning understood subconsciously by original hearers
b. Hermeneutics takes subconscious and raises to the “level of conscious
analysis” (213)
1) Each author gives “meaning indicators” (213)
2) correct understanding of meaning must be CONSISTENT with these
indicators
2. Biblical writers wrote to make some effect upon readers
“An author encodes a message that includes some (propositional) content
presented via some medium (or genre) to achieve some effect in the readers.”
(214)
3. One Author behind all the human authors who is truthful, logical, and consistent:
“The correct meaning of every portion of Scripture will be consistent with the rest
of the teaching of the Bible on that subject” (226) [Analogy of Scripture].

C. Context: Five essential items for same meaning and effect upon readers as first author
intended (see 214)
1. Understand literary context in which a text is found
a. Context provides the author’s flow of thought: “Continuity of subject matter
that unifies the whole” (215)

b. Word meanings (#3) can only come from context (no Platonic form without
particular usage in the understanding of meaning).

c. Context provides correct relationships among thought units (216): “To qualify
as the text’s intended meaning, an interpretation must be compatible with the
total thought and the specific intention of the immediate context and the book
context” (217)

d. Three important principles of literary context in the case of PROSE

1) If the natural sense makes good sense, then seek no other special sense
(see 217)--see Mt 15:1-7
a) In narrative prose, if the plain or natural sense makes good sense, seek
no other sense.”
b) Does not apply to apocalyptic genre.

2) “A text without a context, may be a pretext” to read one’s own meaning

into a passage or to manipulate someone (eisegesis not exegesis)--see Lk

23
From textbook: Klein, Blomberg, and Hubbard. 2004
 4:10-11; example: “Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse” = give to the
local church only--Mal 3:10

3) “The smaller the passage being studied, the greater the chance of error”
(218)
a. Longer pericopes come with a literary context
b. Shorter passages are often torn from context
c. normally “the paragraph constitutes the basic unit of thought in
prose.... Only by concentrating on the theme of a paragraph and noting
how each sentence contributes to the development of that theme can
one determine the real meaning and significance of the individual
sentences. (219)

e. Circles of context: Both unity and diversity in Scripture (Trinitarian Principle)

1) Text understood within an immediate context

a) Focus on theme through outlining--see divisions of thought in author’s
flow of reflection
1. Find dominant subject in the section

2. Write a topic sentence

b) Focus on structure
1. How does the author organize his material within the type (genre)
of literature he is writing within (220)

2. Types of structuring devises:

a. Chronological order

b. Thematic continuity of order

 c. Logical order (see 221)
1. Watch conjunctions: “but,” “and,” “or,” “for,” etc.

2. Psychological jump in stream of consciousness (see e.g., 2

Cor 6:11-12, jump 6:14-7:1, back to subject 7:2)

2) Text understood in its own book context

1. Find theme and purpose

2. Outline book

3. Find parallel passages within the book (“Scripture interprets

Scripture”)
a. Must be careful that the passage is a true parallel

b. Only then let the clearest interpret the lesser clear passages

3) Text understood in context of books written by the same author: “The

same person talking about the same subject in a similar way means the
same thing” (226)

4) Textunderstood in same testament:

a. Have similar place in the redemptive-history.

b. Speak in a similar language (though remember most NT writers wrote

in Greek which was not their first language except possibly Luke)

5) Text understood in light of other testament

a. Caution: NT interprets the OT

b. NT concept can often be seen in seed form in the OT, but sometimes
NT read back into the OT.
1. Look at OT text as the OT audience would have seen it (228):
However, be careful here that we don’t assume an evolutionary
bias.

2. Note: meaning remains the same but priority of significance may

differ (e.g., spiritual warfare, raising and bearing “seed,” wrath and
grace).

2. Understand historical-cultural background context

a. Cognitive: Understand how meaning is consistent with historical and cultural
background
1) Take care:
 a) What we don’t know and don’t understand vastly outweighs what we
do.
b) Therefore, make modest and realistic claims or any of our historical-
culturall reconstructions—and the interpretations that depend on them”
(232)

2) Must determine two things (ILLUS: Rev 3:14-22)

a) How the cultural setting was like own culture

b) How the cultural setting was unlike own culture

b. Affective: Determine emotional impact on original hearers in the original

cultural context

Paul Hiebert adds: evaluative dimension

c. Contextualization: Express biblical truth/ideas in ways and forms that mirror

the original understanding and affect of the first hearers.
1) Danger of syncretism: Combining of contradictory concepts, forms and
practices into one system resulting in a mixture that is non-Christian

2) Care to put biblical concepts and emotions into forms that evoke the same
ideas and affects that the original did with the first hearers.

d. How to find historical and cultural context

1) First read the biblical book two or three times through notinggeneral
information indicating
a. Authorship claims, who may have been the amanuensis, or editor

b. Original recipients

c. Date of writing

2) Next note specific information bearing on the passage focused on

a) Worldview information
b) Social and economic structures for marriage, role of men and women,
trade, money, etc.
c) Political structures
d) Religious
e) Specific behavior patterns.

3. Understand word meaning in literary context

a. Find normal meaning of the words in that type of context and genre

b. Words ONLY carry meaning in a context,

1) Etymology may or may not help because meaning can drastically change
over time
 2) Word meanings come from usage but NOTHING necessarily intrinsic in a
sound itself (but note words sound like the meaning such as pneuma and
ruach)

c. Often word meanings overlap

1) Note semantic domain

2) Note contextual clues to

a) Denotation

b) Connotation

3) Determine the range of meaning

a) Use lexicons especially Louw and Nida

b) Select the meaning the best fits the context (often lexicons will put
words meanings into specific verses but this is not always agreed
upon)

4. Understand grammatical relationships in context

5. Understand literary genre in the cultural and biblical context

II. Biblical Poetry
A. Purpose: To paint a vivid word picture in the mind and emotions so that we can feel,
hear, see, and even almost touch what is being described

B. Methods:
1. Lines of “compact language” (Klein, et al 2004, 275)
2. “Higher degrees of metaphors and images—what we often call ‘poetic language’”
(Klein, et all 2004, 275)
3. Sound of metre and sometimes rhyme

C. Structures
1. Parallelism is the KEY
a. Definition: “Two or more successive poetic lines dynamically strengthen,
reinforce, and develop each other’s thought” (Klein, et al 2004, 284)
b. Definition: “The follow-up lines further define, specify, expand, intensify, or
contrast the first” (Klein, et al 2004, 284)
c. “Succeeding parallel lines do not simply restate the opening line; rather they
add to or expand its thought” (Klein, et al 2004, 285)
Hear the word of the LORD [from the prophets], You rulers of Sodom;
Give ear to the instruction of our God [from the priests], You people of
Gomorrah. (Is 1:10)
2. Basic kinds of parallelism
a. Traditional
1. Synonymous
2. Antithetical
3. Synthetic

b. Technical terms
1. Stich (pronounced “stick”):
a) Couplet or distich (lines A and B)
My voice rises to God, and I will cry aloud;
My voice rises to God, and He will hear me. (Ps 77:1)

b) Triplet or tristich (lines A, B, C)

2. Ellipsis or implicit information left out in succeeding lines by definitely

implied by the author. Note following tristich with information left out in
square brackets:
Then I will turn your festivals into mourning,
And [I will turn] all your songs into lamentation;

And I will bring sackcloth on everyone's loins and

[I will bring] baldness on every head.
 And I will make it like a time of mourning for an only son, and
[I will make] the end of it will be like a bitter day. (Amos 8:10)

c. More complete analysis of parallelism

A = B 1. Echo (Synonymous)
A ≠ B 2.Contrast (Antithetical)

A > B 3. Subordination
Means
Reason
Time

A < B 4. Continuation (Synthetic)

5. Comparison
6. Specification
Spatial
Explanation
Dramatic Effect
Purpose

7. Intensification

d. Chiasm (or staircase structures)

e. Figures of Speech (often used in Poetry but also in vivid prose)
1. Literal exegesis and figures of speech
a) Literal interpretation does not reject figures of speech, symbols,
allegories and types.
b) A figure of speech possesses anormal meaning within the context of
the language used – in this case the biblical languages
.
2. Most common figures of speech
a) Similes, Metaphors, Parable, Allegory, and Fable
1) Simile: Comparing two things using the words “like” or “as”:
2) Metaphor: “Representing one thing as being another (e.g., “I am
the bread of life”– Jn 6:35):
3) Parable: Extended narrative simile (e.g., “The Kingdom of God is
like a mustard seed” – Mt 13:31ff).
4) Allegory: Extended metaphorical narrative (Sarah and Hagar – Gal
4:21-31)
5) Fable: By using a fantastic story as a parable or allegory
representing a comparable truth (Jdg 9:7-15).

b) Personification: When a thing is spoken of as if it were a person, or

takes on the attributes of a person. (e.g., “Wisdom calls aloud in the
street, she raises her voice in the public squares” – Prv 1:20)

c) Hyperbole (exaggeration and overstatement): Magnifying a thing by

exaggeration in order toemphasize the point.

d) Synecdoche and Metonymy (figures of association and substitution)

1) Synecdoche: A part of a thing is put for the whole of it, or the
whole for a part (e.g., “heart” for the inner self that defines a
person; or “flesh and blood” for the total person).
2) Metonymy: Using one noun for a related noun that is closely
related or associated in space/place, time, or sequence with the
other (e.g.,“The kettle is boiling”).
a. The place for what is located there: Kingdom of heaven =
Kingdom of God.
b. Time for events done in time: “The Day of the Lord” =
judgment and blessing upon two groups of people.
c. Sequential substitutes an antecedent action, person, or object
for asubsequent action or object or visa versa (e.g., “Moses has
had those who preach him” – Acts 15:21)
3) Difference: Metonymy, the exchange is made between two related
nouns; while in synecdoche the exchange is made between two
associated ideas.
e) Hendiadys (one [hen] through [dia] two [dys]): By using two words in
exchangefor one word (“the expression of one idea through two
formally coordinate terms joined by ‘and,’ instead of a noun and an
adjective, or a verb and an adverb. One component specifies the other“
(Bullinger, pp. 657-672).

“I will greatly multiply your pain and your conception.” (Gen. 3:16)

f) Merism:Using two opposite statements to signify the whole; e.g., “day

and night”, “springtime and harvest,” “the heavens and earth”

g) Irony and Sarcasm (dissimulation): Using the opposite of something in

order to diminish it.
III. Apocalyptic-Prophetic
A. Highly symbolic, poetic-prophetic symbolism and thus comparing Scripture with
Scripture is absolutely necessary (also called intertextuality).

B. Literal Interpretation of Prophecy vs Platonic Dualist Interpretation

1. Definite necessity to reject Platonic-dualist “spiritualization” of OT prophetic
literature.
a. Platonic “spiritualizing” (P-S) error on the other side of the spectrum
In this, people teach that God moves from physical prophesies to heavenly,
non-physical, “spiritual” fulfillments. This is a Christianized form of the
philosophy of dualism, which manifested itself even in the Apostle’s day.
They clearly refute it (e.g., Jn 1:1-14; 1 Jn 1:1-4, 2:23, 4:1-8; 1 Tim 4:1-4; 1
Cor 15; etc.). In fact, the Christian movement’s first real doctrinal opponent
coming from the Greek speaking culture was Gnosticism – a Christo-pagan,
dualist cult. It had as its core teaching dualist the necessity to arrive at
“gnosis” (an intuitive, non-analytical knowledge), yet at the same time used
Christian words and ceremonies to show its supposedly Christian appearance.
Its first fundamental presupposition was that the world of appearance was a
chaotic diversity. In other words, the material world of diversity is actually
evil because matter and diversity are evil. Hence, a good man or woman must
seek to escape from the evil of materiality as much as possible (see e.g., 1 Tim
4:1-8). The future existence will be in heaven away from this evil world. This
is the philosophical basic for why people speak about people going to heaven
so that they can play harps while seated on clouds.
1) P-S = Heaven broke into the earth with the Christ-spirit, that spirit came to
destroy all evil of materiality.
2) P-S = Spiritual people, hence, need to eschew marriage and sex, physical
comforts and family – the foundations of monasticism and clerical
celibacy.
3) P-S = The Christ-spirit cannot and will not extend his redemption to the
physical and material both now and in the future consummation.
4) P-S = A physical resurrection from the dead, then, or a physical body for
the Christian people of the future heavenly existence is not necessary and
in fact would be evil if there ever were a resurrected physical body. (see 1
Cor 15 where Paul refutes this )

b. P-S = Because history as described in the Bible is part of this evil, material
world, historical events from the beginning to the future Consummation are
not really worrisome or something to be certain about.
1) It does not matter when or if God created the earth out of nothing a few
thousand years ago or
2) It does not matter that a real father of the human species named Adam ever
existed.
3) It doesn’t matter if Jesus Christ was one with the Father (Jn 10:311 Jn
2:22-27) while on earth.
 4) It doesn’t really matter if the biblical accounts of signs and wonders by the
prophets or the Apostles ever happened
5) It doesn’t matter if the physical prophesies of the peoples and nations
turning to King Jesus after His coming ever will occur.
c. P-S = Physical, historical things and prophesies set in physical forms are not
what the focus of the Bible is about.
1) Christianized Platonic eschatology is interested in the spiritual realities
behind the physical descriptions.
2) Prophetic literature such as John’s Revelation are de-contextualized and
made to speak not to a specific context but either far distant future or
merely heavenly realities.

d. P-S = Dualism, thus, [almost] makes the god of the Old Testament different
from the God of the NT
1) In fact several of the early Gnostic sub-groups actually taught this very
doctrine such as Marcion and his followers.
2) True religion, Christianized eschatology teaches, moves from a divided
physically expressed faith of the “former times(OT) to the pure, spiritual
faith of the “last times” (NT).
a) God rejects as divisive and carnal the OT prophesies about a changed
earth and changed culture.
b) Instead it seeks a snatching up to heaven so that believers will escape a
final tribulation.

e. P-S = Platonic-dualist eschatology teaches that the Christ-spirit could never

become incarnate in evil flesh matter in the evil of material history.
1) Docetism, one manifestation of this heresy, taught that the Christ-spirit is
part and parcel of the perfect, unchanging, atemporal, impassible Oneness
of the divinity.
a) The Christ-spirit could never be permanently joined to the man Jesus.
b) The Christ-spirit is simple, undivided Oneness is beyond matter,
beyond time, transcending space, emotion, and the diversity of this evil
material-age.
c) The Christ-spirit is truly one with this simple divinity, so he is beyond
contact, beyond personality, and absent from human interaction.
2) Marcionism, another form, rejects all forms of the OT law (and most likely
literal interpretation of prophecies).

f. P-S = Humanity, therefore, under the influence of this Christianity neo-

Platonic heresy needs other mediators
1) Such as the dead ancestors (i.e., the saints) o
2) A real, physical, ever-virginally pure Mother (Mary) that can somehow
approach the distant One.

g. P-S = Christian religion hence evolves even in the new covenant era into a
new religion more closely approximating
1) Buddhism,
2) Vedic Brahmanism, and
3) New Age spirituality
 h. Christian eschatological faith, however, is
1) a robust, earthy Spirit-empowered faith of the OT and King Jesus’
apostles.
2) Jesus is fully God and fully man in one person
3) Prophecy moves from physical and Spirit-endowed pictures to physical,
Spirited empowered fulfillment forms.

2. Reformational sensusliteralis (“literal sense) must take genre (i.e., style) into
account (i.e., poetry, prophetic hyperbole, apocalyptic, legal, etc.)
is so often misunderstood and confused when it comes to prophecy. A literal
interpretation does not mean a wooden literalness but actually means to interpret
according to the author’s intention and according to the genre of the passage that
the author intentionally used to convey his thought. For example, Isaiah speaking
about “Jerusalem” and/or “Zion” uses the name of the city or the mountain upon
which the city rests as a poetic figure of speech representing the people of God.
Note how Isaiah makes this clear in 65:19, for example: “I will rejoice over
Jerusalem and take delight in my people; the sound of weeping and of crying will
be heard in it no more” (see context, especially 17-19, 51:16, 52:19; also Ps
74:2)..

a. Therefore, “literal” vs. “figurative” is an erroneous distinction that many use

1) The literal sense is
a) author’s intended meaning (especially as we check the NT author’s
understanding of the passages)
b) “The sense intended by the prophet and by the Holy Spirit speaking in
him.”24 (Strimple 1999, 262 [amillennialist but accurate])

c) “The literal sense of the Scripture is simply the true sense” (Strimple
1999, 262)

2) Figurative-symbolic, that is apocalyptic-poetic style, when read in

a) a “literal sense” means
1. to reject modified and Christianized, Platonic P-S “spiritualization”
2. NOT to postulate that God moves from physical prophesies to
heavenly, non-physical, spiritual fulfillments.
b) “Literal” for this genre also means thatwooden literality and P-S
extremes are errors.
c) AGAIN clear prose passages in the books must interpret the less
clearer apocalyptic symbols:
1. EXAMPLE: Must use clear TIME passages to interpret less clear
symbolism passages as in Revelation 1:1, 3 (soon, time is near);
22:6, 7, 10, 12, 20.
b) Clear internal evidence of time of writing more important than
less clear external attestation (e.g., testimony of Irenaeus).

b. Intertextuality is absolutely important to find sensusliteralis:

1. Definition: Scripture cross referenced with other Scripture especially if a
24
“The Amillennial Response to Craig A. Blaising” in Three Views on the Millennium
and Beyond, ed., Darrell L. Bock, 256-276. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999.
 later passage:

2. KEYS to understand: NT (later) must interpret the OT (earlier)

a. OT prophesy is Gen 3:15 and Gen 12:3
b. NT prophecy correct understanding of the Olivet Discourse and the
Old Testament prophetic symbolism.

3. Necessity to understand OT prophetic symbolism is essential (Jesus spoke

as the LAST and FINAL HebrewOT prophet—see Dt 18:18-22; Jn 1:21-
25, 6:14, 7:40
a) Zion-New Jerusalem Theology: Zion-Jerusalem “the people of God”
(see Is 64)
1) City equals the “people of God”
a. Ps 87: Believing goyim also part of the citizenship in the City
b. Isa 52:9, 54:1, 65:17-19
c. Mt 5:14: “You are the light of the world. The City set on the
Hill.
d. Heb 11:19, 16, 12:22, 13:14; Gal 4:25-27;
e. Rev 3:12, 21:2, 10.

2) Related to the Commonwealth of Israel

a. Cf. Eph 2:12
b. With Eph 2:19-21

3) Related to the New Temple

a. Christ is the Temple (Jn 2:19-20)
b. We are the Temple (1 Cor 3:16-17, 6:19; 2 2 Cor 6:16; Eph
2:20-21; 1 Pet 2:4-5)

b) “Israel” has several meanings depending on context and in prophetic

books such as Isaiah 40-66 is often deliberately used metaphorically
(NOT “spiritually-Platonistically”)
c) “Elijah” and “David” are also used metaphorically (see e.g., “David”
in Jer 30:9; Eze 34:23-24, 37:24-25 = Messiah; “Elijah” in Mal 4:5 =
John the Baptist in Mt 11:14, 17:11)

4. Understanding number symbolism and de-creation symbolism is essential

5. OT Religion was “picture book” religion for the people of God in their
“minority” status so OT prophesies were “picture book” prophesies to be
fulfilled in a non-Platonic manner but fulfillment form in and through
Christ
a) Christian Platonism and Protestant Gnosticism
1) de-materialize all OT prophesies from ethnic Israel, the Land of
Israel, and ultimately the man and his “seed”
2) by making the “people,” “land promises,” and covenant family
promises fulfilled exclusively “in union with Christ”

b) Trinitarian faith,
1) does not “Platonize-spiritualize,” on the contrary,
 2) sees all promises “in union with Christ”
3) but ALSO as Christ works his promises in and through His people
here on earth as in Daniel 7.
4) His people will eventually include (Rom 11)
a. “all [ethnic] Israel” in the land of Israel AND
b. all the “fullness of the gentilic peoples” who will be grafted
into the Commonwealth of Israel (Eph 2:12, 19-21), as they
bow in faith to Israel’s Anointed King in their own lands
“The LORD will be awesome to them when he destroys all the
gods of the land. The nations on every shore will worship him,
every one in its own land” (Zep 2:11NIV ‘84)

C. SUMMARY: The Trinitarian faith rejects a dualist worldview preunderstanding:

1. Dualist Christianity syncretized with Platonic or neo-Platonic philosophy as, for
example, God moves from the OT to the NT
a. from carnal-flesh in the OT to spiritual-cognitive in the NT;
b. from physical land (OT) to heavenly home in union with Christ (NT);
c. from Hebrew families and people-group (OT) to group-less individuals
gathered into “church” in which gender, ethnic, or class distinction is erased
(using and misinterpreting Gal 3:28; see cross references 1 Cor 12:13; Col 3:9-
10).
1) Is actually semi-gnostic individualism so that church is stripped of ethno-
linguistic, class, and now more and more gender identity.
2) interprets “world” (kosmos) as the evil, physical earth and the physical
things belonging to the visible, tangible earth so that cannot be
transformed and redeemed – hence we must wait for heaven
3) OR interprets “world” (kosmos) as the collection of every individual or
human in general
4) INSTEAD of world = all the idolatrous peoples of the planet who need to
be transformed by redemption (Lk 12:30; Rom 11: 11-15 [gentiles =
world]; 1 Tim 3:16)
d. from material blessings on a physical people (OT) to purely spiritual blessings
on a spiritual people first INWARDLY on earth then in UPWARDLY in
heaven (NT)

e. Marcionism – a form of Gnostic dualism sees TWO gods

1) Jehovah of the OT is God of wrath, but
2) God of the NT is God of love and grace

f. Manichaean dualism
1) the physical world of materiality cannot be redeemed but
2) the physical world must be destroyed completely and
3) a totally new creation must be made to come into existence (de nova
creatio).

2. Reformational interpretation of apocalyptic literature accepts a Trinitarian

preunderstanding
a. Both unity and diversity, abstract and concrete, universal and particular,
material and non-material are originally good but can be twisted and broken
 by the Fall
1) Unity and diversity are created good and upheld by a Three-One God
through His providence (e.g., gender, ethnicity, language, even slave-free
if we see humanity as free in bond-service to God.
2) Rebellion perverts this principle but can never escape from it.
b. Redemption RESTORES a broken physical world step by step with the last
enemy being destroyed at the RESURRECTION (1 Cor 15:20-28).

3. Reformational Apocalyptic interpretation should also possess a covenantal (i.e.,

continuity) perspective:
a. One people of God throughout history from beginning (Gen 3:15, 21); 4:26to
end (Rev 22:17-19): Essential to correctly interpreting prophecy
b.. One God, one Redeemer, one way throughout history (Heb 11)
c. One way of salvation in the totality of Scripture: Through faith in the promise
of God

4. Reformational Apocalyptic interpretation should possesses a Promise –

Fulfillment movement from OT to NT
a. OT prophesies in picture book form
1) One People of God  One holy commonwealth/nation of the King but all
peoples (mono-ethnic to pan-ethnic)
2) Land of Canaan every land filled with God’s glory
3) City of Mt. Zion-Jerusalem is picture of whole earth as a City-Temple
4) Temple Christ’s body filling every nook and cranny of the earth
5) Sacrifices and rites Christ and His people who offer their praise, service,
and work to Him by the Spirit
6) Davidic dynasty (“house of David”) one final King, Prophet, Priest
(Y’shua-Jesus) who will be King over all the earth.

b. NT prophesies fulfilled in Christ (generally an amillennial theme – see 2 Cor

1:20), yet still concretely and physically in and through Christ in His
Universal Assembly and in His earth within all lands and peoples.
1) People of Judah and Israel, who are circumcised in flesh and heart now
expanded by adoption of the gentilic peoples as Gentiles who are still
physically uncircumcised but now circumcised in heart.
2) Land of Canaan expanded to include every land and people to the ends of
the earth
3) City of Zion-Jerusalem above as the invisible bride of the Anointed King
4) Temple of the Universal Community, local community, and individual
heart
5) Sacrifices are those empowered by the Spirit and His fulfillment truth (Jn
4:24): Praise, the gentilic peoples, martyrdom, etc. with circumcision
changed to baptism, and Passover changed to the Lord’s Supper
6) Davidic House completed in the Son of David, Jesus the Messiah
c. Therefore, NT apocalyptic interpretation of eschatology should differ from
and hyper-literalistic dispensational premillennialism (1000 year reign and
pre-Tribulational rapture before a seven year Tribulation)
1. Classic Amillennialismsyncretistic Platonic-Amillennialism
a) Non-ethnic Church replaces Israel but imperialistic language always
prevails (Latin, Greek, Russian, French, English, Amharic, etc.)
b) Land of Canaan is heaven so repentant Jews have no claim on all of the
land.
c) Jerusalem never comes from heaven to earth but is a symbol of heaven.
d) Temple is the Universal Church (same as covenant adoption)
e) Sacrifices are spiritual (sounds similar but essentially dualistic)
f) Davidic House fulfilled in Jesus Christ (same as covenant adoption)
but without earthly victorious dimension.

2. Premillennial Dispensationalism
a) Non-ethnic churchalongside of unbelieving ethnic Israel: Converted
Jews must become assimilated in gentile church
b) Land of Canaan belongs to present nation of Israel without repentance
c) Jerusalem above either floats above the earth as a space-station or
comes down to inhabit physical Jerusalem
d) Temple now the universal church but physical Temple will be rebuilt
on the Mount Zion (2 Thes 2:4).
e) Physical memorial, blood sacrifices will be restarted in rebuilt Temple.
f) Jesus will return to physically rule from Jerusalem in present Israel
with the Temple as His Palace for 1000 literal years sometime in the
near future. Jews will only then be converted and gentiles are second
rate citizens of the Kingdom.

3. Progressive Dispensationalism
a) Church not the commonwealth of Israel (Israel expanded) but totally
unique, unforeseen, and different from ethnic Israel as in Classic
Dispensational perspective YET in some sense share the Spirit’s
blessings promised to believing ethnic Israel.
b) 1000 years is literal and future so that Jesus reigns from literal
Jerusalem in physical Israel with real sacrifices in a newly rebuilt
Temple.
c) New Creation eschatology (but some amillennial and all post-
millennialists agree) in two stages: 1000 year reign then everlasting
state.
d) Temple will not necessarily rebuilt

4. Classic Premillennialism
1. Church replaces Israel as in Amillennialism instead of EXPANDS
Israel into an international Commonwealth under one King
2. 1000 is literal and Revelation is mostly future.
 D. Reformational Apocalyptic interpretation should possess a redemptive-historical
perspective of the 8 C’s, which are essential to correctly interpret prophecy
(Restorative Eschatology: Kreitzer).
1. In brief: Creation-Fall-Redemption-Consummation
2. Goal: Renewed-restored heaven and earth (New Creation Eschatology)
Redemptive Historical Movement in the Covenant of Grace
OC Children
Minor Status Pictures and One people Post-Fall to Cross
ceremonies
▼ ▼ ▼ ▼ ▼ ▼
NC Adult Son Major Status Fulfillment All peoples Cross to Consummation

NT Trinitarian, Covenant Adoption Eschatology

(Wholistic not Dualistic)
By faith through grace from first to last day
One People of God, God Redeemer, One Way
NOTE: continuity = 
Creation—Fall—Redemption—Growth—Consummation
│║===========================│
Minority Status  Majority Status
Some Pictorial prophesies Fulfillment in Christ, His universal assembly (UA) and in every land
Built in promises  Same promises but fulfilled in Christ without picture-book form
(e.g., Zion-Jerusalem  Zion above coming to earth in UA)
Family Covenant  Family Covenant (individual in their families)
Single ethnic group  All ethnic groups
Individuals adopted in  All peoples adopted in
Mono-ethnic  Multi-Ethnic (until pan-ethnic at the end)
One land  Every land of the earth
SUM: Continuity of eschatological vision between each covenant, yet discontinuity between
majority and minority status and the pictorial prophesies changed to NT forms (i.e., earthly Zion to
heavenly Zion, physical temple to physical fulfillment Temple in body of Christ, rivers of physical
water to rivers of the Spirit’s water (Eze 47:1-12  Jn 7:38-39), etc.
 The Spiritual Vision Model25
According to Craig Blaising, there have been two broad models of eternal life that
have held by Christians since the time of the early church. The first he calls, the “spiritual
vision model.”26 This model is influenced by Platonism.27. With this model, heaven is viewed
primarily as a spiritual entity. Heaven is the highest level of ontological reality—the realm of
spirit as opposed to base matter. “This is the destiny of the saved, who will exist in that
nonearthly, spiritual place as spiritual beings engaged eternally in spiritual activity.”28 The
spiritual vision model, Blaising argues, is a combination of biblical themes and cultural ideas
that were common to the classical philosophical tradition. The biblical themes the spiritual
vision model draws upon include:
1. the promise that  believers will see God.
2. the promise that believers will receive full knowledge.
3. the description of heaven as the dwelling place of God.
4. the description of heaven as the destiny of the believing dead prior to the resurrection.29
In addition to the biblical themes, the spiritual vision model also drew upon cultural (Greek)
ideas that were common to the classical philosophical tradition:
1. a basic contrast between spirit and matter.
2. an identification of spirit with mind or intellect.
3. a belief that eternal perfection entails the absence of change.30
According to Blaising, “Central to all three of these is the classical tradition’s notion
of an ontological hierarchy in which spirit is located at the top of a descending order of being.
Elemental matter occupies the lowest place.” 31Heaven is realm of spirit as opposed to matter.
Heaven is a nonearthly spiritual place for spiritual beings who are engaged only in spiritual
activity. This heaven is also free from all change. Eternal life, therefore, is viewed primarily
as “cognitive, meditative, or contemplative.”32 The spiritual vision model has led many
Christians to view eternal life “as the beatific vision of God—an unbroken, unchanging
contemplation of the infinite reality of God.”33
In his book, Models of the Kingdom, Howard A. Snyder points out that a purely
spiritual view of the kingdom, which he calls “the kingdom as inner spiritual experience
model,” “may be traced to the influence of Platonist and Neoplatonist ideas on Christian
thinking. . . .”34 According to Snyder this model “draws to some degree on Greek
25
Thursday, April 14, 2011http://mikevlach.blogspot.kr/2011/04/models-of-eschatology-part-1-
spiritual.html (10/2/2013)
26
Craig A. Blaising, “Premillennialism” in Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond, ed. Darrell L.
Bock (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999), 161.
27
Ibid., 162. Snyder calls this approach “the kingdom as inner spiritual experience model.” “As a
distinct model it may be traced to the influence of Platonist and Neoplatonist ideas on Christian thinking and
especially to Origen” Howard A. Snyder, Models of the Kingdom (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 1991), 42.
28
Blaising, “Premillennialism,” 161.
29
Ibid.
30
Ibid.
31
Ibid.
32
Blaising, “Premillennialism,” 162.
33
Ibid.
34
Snyder, Models of the Kingdom, 42.
philosophical roots.”35He also states that “One can sense the Platonism lying behind this
model.”36 Snyder says: “Historically this model has often been tainted with a sort of Platonic
disdain for things material, perhaps seeing the body or matter as evil or at least imperfect and
imperfectible. It is thus dualistic, viewing the ‘higher’ spiritual world as essentially separate
from the material world.”37
The spiritual vision model was inherently linked to allegorical and spiritual methods
of interpretation that were opposed to literal interpretation based on historical-grammatical
contexts. Blaising also notes that the spiritual vision model “was intimately connected with
practices of ‘spiritual interpretation’ that were openly acknowledged to be contrary to the
literal meaning of the words being interpreted.” 38 “The long term practice of reading
Scripture in this way so conditioned the Christian mind that by the late Middle Ages, the
spiritual vision model had become an accepted fact of the Christian worldview.”39

New Creation Eschatology40

In contrast to the spiritual vision model, the second model of eschatology . . . is the
“new creation model.” This model is contrary to Platonism and the spiritual vision model and
emphasizes the physical, social, political, and geographical aspects of eternal life. It
emphasizes a coming new earth, the renewal of life on this new earth, bodily resurrection,
and social and political interactions among the redeemed.41
As Craig Blaising states, “The new creation model expects that the ontological order
and scope of eternal life is essentially continuous with that of present earthly life except for
the absence of sin and death.”42
Thus, eternal life is embodied life on earth. This approach “does not reject physicality or
materiality, but affirms them as essential both to a holistic anthropology and to the biblical
idea of a redeemed creation.”43
This approach follows the language of passages like Isaiah 25, 65, 66; Revelation 21;
and Romans 8 which speak of a regenerated earth. A new creation model emphasizes the
future relevance of matters such as renewal of the world and universe, nations, kings,
economics, agriculture, and social-political issues. In sum, a new creation model operates on
the belief that life in the future kingdom ofGod is largely similar to God’s purposes for the
creation before the fall of Adam, which certainly involved more than just a spiritual element.
Thus, the final Heaven is not an ethereal spiritual presence in the sky. As Russell D. Moore
points out, “The point of the gospel is not that we would go to heaven when we die. Instead,
it is that heaven will come down, transforming and renewing the earth and the entire
universe.”44 Far from being only a spiritual entity, the eternal destiny of the redeemed
includes a holistic renewal of human existence and our environment:
The picture then is not of an eschatological flight from creation but the restoration and
35
Ibid., 52.
36
Ibid.
37
Ibid., 54.
38
Blaising, “Premillennialism,” 165.
39
Ibid.
40
http://theologicalstudies.org/blog/398-models-of-eschatology-part-2-the-new-creation-model (accessed
9/12/2013).
41
Craig A. Blaising, “Premillennialism” in Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond, ed. Darrell L.
Bock (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999), 162.
42
Ibid.
43
Ibid., 162.
44
Russell D. Moore, “Personal and Cosmic Eschatology,” in A Theology for the Church, ed. Daniel L.
Akin (Nashville: B&H, 2007), 912.
redemption of creation with all that entails: table fellowship, community, culture, economics,
agriculture and animal husbandry, art, architecture, worship—in short, life and that
abundantly.45
IV.Legal-Ethical Texts
A. Law within the Redemptive-Historical narrative context thus not abstract “law”
1. Four major collections of legal material
a. Covenant Code (Ex 20:22-23:33)
b. Deuteronomic Code (Dt5-26)
c. Holiness Code (Lev 12-26)
d. Priestly Code (Ex 25-31, 34:29; Lev 16, part of Numbers)

2. Reveals the everlasting character of the Triune God, so therefore they are in core
also everlasting, righteous, good, and true (Rom 7:12):
a. “Righteous are You, O LORD, And upright are Your judgments”. (Ps
119:137, see 123; seeEzr 9:15; Neh 9:8).
b. “Thus you are to be holy to Me, for I the LORD am holy; and I have set you
apart from the peoples to be Mine;” and “Be holy for I am holy” (Lev 20:26;
see 11:45, 19:2, 20:7, 1 Pet 1:15-16).
c. “Make them holy by Your truth, Your Word is truth” (Jn 17:17; see Ps 119:
d. “The sum of Your word is truth, And every one of Your righteous ordinances
is everlasting” (Ps 119:160).
d. Summary of the instruction of the Sermon on the Mount: “Therefore you are
to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect”(Mt 5:48).

B. Kinds of law: Casuistic and Apodictic

1. Casuistic Law (case law): Judicial laws enclothed in a cultural specific case but
encompassing a universal principle of justice, even-handedness, and love.
a. “If … then” and third person form
b. Often but not always associated with a civil penalty
1) Always a sin AND a civil crime, therefore often termed the Judicial Law.

2) Determines the Scriptures distinction between sin and civil crime.

Sin
Internal and external
Convicted by the Holy Spirit and
conscience
Punishable in divine court and
sometimes when external by civil,
familial, and ecclesial action.
Defined by God alone (Is 33:22; Jas
4:12)
Crime
Always external actions
Proven in judicial process with
witnesses and evidence.
Punishable by civil action
Defined by God alone not the State

45
Ibid., 859.
3) Key questions: Does God alone define legal penalties? Does humankind
have the freedom to modify the gravity of the penalties by downplaying
certain sin-crimes as no longer important?
a. Part of solution: Who alone is righteous and wise enough to determine
penalties (Dt 4:7-8)

b. Part of solution: Death penalties were always maximum allowed but

could be commuted in court in negotiation with victim EXCEPT
premeditated murder.

c. Part of solution: Penalties moderated by proportionality command

(“eye for an eye” – Ex 21:24; Lev 24:20; Dt 19:21).

d. Part of solution: Paul says that the Gospel establishes the law (Rom
3:31) and that the law is holy, just, and good (Rom 7:12).

e. Part of solution: Hebrews 2:2-3, using a logical argument of reasoning

from the lesser to the greater, and that God remains the same in OT
and NT, seems clearly tosay that the penalties of the OT were and
remain just:
For if the word spoken through angels proved unalterable, and every
transgression and disobedience received a just penalty, how will we
escape [just judgment] if we neglect so great a salvation?
f. SUMMARY: Recognize that this is a disputed teaching but worthy of
careful consideration
1) Is paying back the victim (restitution) more just than prison?
2) Is whipping a criminal wiser and more healing than prison time?
3) Is the death penalty ever just? If not, why did God mandate them?
4) Are speedy trials and penalties wisest and best (see–
“Because the sentence against an evil deed is not executed quickly,
therefore the hearts of the sons of men among them are given fully
to do evil”.(Eccl 8:11)
"May a slanderer not be established in the earth; May evil hunt the
violent man speedily. I know that the LORD will maintain the
cause of the afflicted And justice for the poor. Surely the righteous
will give thanks to Your name; The upright will dwell in Your
presence. (Ps 140:11-13)
 2. Apodictic (or “absolute”) law:46
a. Unconditional, mandatory prescriptions
1) without considering exceptions that the whole of Scripture when compared
may allow.
2) Personally addressed to the male head of household (“You shall not” or
“You shall”).
3) Primarily related to morality and ceremonial-cultic commands

b. Prescriptions include boundaries that are both positive (“responsibilities

required”) and negative (“sins forbidden”).

c. Implication (see Gal 5:1)

1) Freedom between the boundaries

2) Yet even here to be governed by the universally valid rules of the Word
and sound logic: For example (and I would add that this includes all areas
of life as well):
There are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and
government of the Assembly, which are all common to human actions and
societies, that are to be ordered by the light of created nature, and Christian
wisdom, according to the universally valid rules of the word, which are
always to be observed (1 Cor 11:13, 14, 14:26,40) (WCF 1:6; spelling and
grammar updated: MRK)

3. GOAL of the casuistic and apodictic laws is

a. Restoration of love, shalom (social harmonyand peace) within biblical justice.
But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience
and a sincere faith. 6 For some men, straying from these things, have turned
aside to fruitless discussion, 7 wanting to be teachers of the Law, even though
they do not understand either what they are saying or the matters about which
they make confident assertions. 8 But we know that the Law is good, if one
uses it lawfully. (1 Tim 1:5-8)
For the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness/justice,
peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. For he who in this way serves Christ is
acceptable to God and approved by men. So then we pursue the things which
make for peace and the building up of one another. (Rom 14:17-19; based on
the NAU)
b. Restitution: To make right that which was defrauded, to heal a breach of
relationship.

46
“Commands . . . that begin with do or do not, are what we call apodictic laws. They are direct
commands, generally applicable, telling the Israelites the sorts of things They are supposed to do to fulfill their
part of the covenant with God. It is fairly obvious that such laws are not exhaustive, however. (Fee and Stuart
1982, 140)
 c. Recognizes and wisely takes into account the destructiveness of human sin
and the brokenness that it can bring to relationships (e.g., with respect to
“hardness of heart” and “adultery” – Mt 19:8; Mk 10:5)

Westminster Larger Catechism 99 (spelling and vocabulary updated: MRK)

Question: What norms are to be observed for the right understanding of the
Ten Commandments?
Answer: For the right understanding of the Ten Commandments, these norms
are to be observed:
1. That the instruction [of God]is perfect, and mandates everyone to full
conformity in the whole man unto the righteousness thereof, and unto entire
obedience forever, so as to require the utmost perfection of every duty, and to
forbid the least degree of every sin.(1)
2. That it is spiritual [not merely external “letter”], and so reaches the
understanding, will, affections, and all other powers of the soul; as well as
words, works, and gestures.(2)
3. That one and the same thing, in various respects, is required or forbidden in
several commandments.(3)
4. That as, where a responsibility is commanded, the contrary sin is forbidden;(4)
and, where a sin is forbidden, the contrary responsibility is commanded;(5) so,
where a promise is annexed, the contrary threatening is included;(6) and where
a threatening is annexed, the contrary promise is included.(7)
5. That what God forbids, is at no time to be done;(8) what he commands, is
always our responsibility;(9) and yet every particular responsibility is not to be
done at all times.(10)
6. That under one sin or duty, all of the same kind are forbidden or commanded
together with all the causes, means, occasions and appearances thereof, and
provocations thereunto. (11)
7. That what is forbidden or commanded to ourselves, we are mandated,
according to our social situation [authority], to endeavour that it may be
avoided or performed by others, according to the responsibility of their social
situation.(12)
8. That in what is commanded to others, we are mandated, according to our
social situation and callings, to be helpful to them;(13) and to take heed of
partaking with others in what is forbidden them.(14)

(1) Ps. 19:7; James 2:10; Matt. 5:21,22

(2) Rom. 7:14; Deut. 6:5 compared with Matt. 22:37,38,39; Matt.
5:21,22,27,28,33,34,37,38,39,43,44 [see also Rom 7:6: MRK]
(3) Col. 3:5; Amos 8:5; Prov. 1:19; 1 Tim. 6:10
(4) Isa. 58:13; Deut. 6:13 compared with Matt. 4:9,10; Matt. 15:4,5,6
(5) Matt. 5:21-25; Eph. 4:28
(6) Exod. 20:12 compared with Prov. 30:17
(7) Jer. 18:7,8; Exod. 20:7; Ps. 15:1,4,5; Ps. 24:4,5
(8) Job 13:7,8; Rom. 3:8; Job 36:21; Heb. 11:25
(9) Deut. 4:8,9
(10) Matt. 12:7
(11) Matt. 5:21,22,27,28; Matt. 15:4-6; Heb. 10:24,25; 1 Thess. 5:22; Jude
23; Gal. 5:26; Col. 3:21
(12) Exod. 20:10; Lev. 19:17; Gen. 18:19; Josh. 24:15; Deut. 6:6,7
 (13) 2 Cor. 1:24
(14) 1 Tim. 5:22; Eph. 5:11

C. Guidelines for discerning trans-cultural normativeness of the casuistic law.

1. Guideline:Reaffirmation of the reformationalsola Scriptura – Scripture alone
gives us sufficient and necessary authority for morality:
The elements for a rigorous interpretation, application, and contextualization of
the Bible lie within the Bible itself using its teaching and examples as the basic
ingredients, it is possible to develop a system of concepts, thought-constructs, and
analytical principles recognized and practiced by biblical interpreters and
theologians, and also firmly grounded on scriptural content. (Larkin 1992 305).
2. Guideline:Approach the legal texts with a reverent and obedient attitude (Is 66:1-
2), guided and filled with the Holy Spirit.
a. He causes the spiritual eyes of man’s rebellious mind to be opened to the
reality of truth as it is in the Scripture (see Larkin 1992, 300ff).
b. HS will teach the reader/interpreter (Ps 25:4-5, 8-9, 12) the necessary basic
pre-understanding to discern the Prescriptive-Scriptural vs. Descriptive-
Biblical distinction:47

Prescriptive
Scriptural: Prescribed by the incarnate and
enscriptured Word (According to the
normative standards of Scripture – 2 Tim
3:16-17)
Principle: That which is cross-culturally
binding in Scripture, “of the whole counsel of
God.”
Descriptive
Biblical: Recorded or described as occurring
within the Bible
Precedence: All that is reported or described
in the Bible, that is merely found and
described in the Bible but not mandatory.

“Time and place specific” Universally valid in every culture and time
period.
“Culturally and contextually specific” “Neither culturally or contextually specific.”

c. HS will help discern : Biblical and own cultural WV presuppositions –

1) biblical worldview assumptions (preunderstandings) and
a) “Ideas, beliefs, and values taught by Scripture itself provide the content
for a preunderstanding suitable for interpreting and applying Scripture”
(Larkin 1992, 301).
b) Biblical preunderstanding must correct and challenge the worldview
assumptions of one’s own culture.

2) worldview assumptions (preunderstandings) of readers’sown culture

3. Guideline:Explicitly linear redemptive historical movement as revealed within

the pages of Scripture:
47
Based on Enoch Wan, Core Values of Mission Organization in the Cultural Context
of the 21st Century. GlobalMissiology.org January
2009.:http://www.enochwan.com/english/articles/pdf/Core%20Values%20Of%20Mission
%20Organization.pdf (accessed 3/14/15).
 a. Creation—Fall—Restorative Redemption—Consummation.
b. NOT Accidental formation by falling into diversity, then restoration by
gnostic realization of the Ultimate Reality of absolute unity with the End of
self-destruction.
c. Continuity of ethic from the Garden to the City:
1. Everything commanded remains authoritative except that which later
revelation MODIFIES: “All Scripture including both form and meaning, is
binding unless Scripture indicates otherwise” (Larkin 1992, 316).
Nonnormativeness refers only to [external] form, not to meaning. Where
direct application is not warranted by the text, one may look for a principle
and a contemporary form compatible with it. (Larkin (1992, 316).
Although the Bible has many general commands which may be directly
applied . . . there is still the need to identify those culturally specific
commands that should be applied only indirectly, that is, by reducing them
to a principle. We can identify them by looking for one or more of these
characteristics: limited recipient, limited cultural conditions for fulfillment,
limited cultural rational, or a limiting larger context. (Larkin 1992, 316)
2. The NT abolishes the outward form of commands but NOT the inner
meaning: Belgic Confession of Faith – Article 25: The Fulfillment of the
Law:48
“We believethat the ceremonies and symbols of the law have
endedwith the coming of Christ,and that all foreshadowings have come
to an end,so that the use of them ought to be abolishedamong
Christians.Yet the truth and substance of these thingsremain for us in
Jesus Christ,in whom they have been fulfilled.Nevertheless,we
continue to use the witnessesdrawn from the law and prophetsto
confirm us in the gospeland to regulate our lives with full integrityfor
the glory of God,
according to the will of God.”

2. Not like Islam which states that later revelation can contradict and abolish
previous revelation.49
a. Doctrine termed “’al-Nasikhwal-Mansoukh’ (the Abrogator and the
Abrogated). This simply means that in situations wherein verses
contradict one another, the early verses are overridden by the latter
verses.

b. Quranic support:
1) "None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten,
but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not
that Allah Hath power over all things?" Surah 2: 106

48
http://www.crcna.org/welcome/beliefs/confessions/belgic-confession (accessed 3/15/15).
49
See the following articles: 1)http://www.islamreview.com/articles/quransdoctrine.shtml (accessed
3/15/15). 2); http://answering-islam.org/Authors/Farooq_Ibrahim/abrogation.htm (accessed 3/15/15);
3)http://www.meforum.org/1754/peace-or-jihad-abrogation-in-islam (accessed 3/15/15); 4)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naskh_%28tafsir%29 (accessed 3/15/15).
 2) "When We substitute one revelation for another, and Allah knows
best what He reveals (in stages), they say, "Thou art but a forger":
but most of them understand not." Surah 16:101

4. Guideline:Explicitly Trinitarian: Everlasting “equal ultimacy of the One and the

Many” within the Godhead (see Rushdoony 1971, 8).
a. Anti-trinitarian(i.e., practical dualist) thought is at the source of pagan
religion.
1) Every culture has an anti-Trinitarian religious power center/core:
a) hostile and opposed to God (Rom 8:7).

b) from this center that a culture develops its ideas, beliefs, and values to
enable rebellious human beings to survive.

2) “For this reason . . . aspects of any cultural preunderstanding will clash

with the truths of Scripture and will need to be corrected by them” (Larkin
1992, 329).

b. Trinitarian worldview preunderstanding teaches that both-and:

1) The material as part of the divided data of this world is good
2) The undivided world of spirit and meaning (i.e. oneness) is good.
3) Both originally and will consummationally reflect the Triune glory of the
Creator.
4) Therefore,50
a) Created things of the divided, physical world such as sexuality are
good if used within the unifying bounds of God’s original design( =
design norms).
b) Created things of the divided, physical world such as Law and the
sword-force to enforce law and protect the innocent can be good in the
hands of just magistrates. (All the reformation creeds emphasize this
against the Platonic-dualist Anabaptist-Radical Reformation groups)

5) Therefore,
a) No bias in Christ’s overarching invisible kingdom perspectives
against:
1. Using Scriptural law and the material sword to enforce a biblical
legal or normative-order, protecting Christian families and the

50
Western culture, however, has been deeply infected with (neo)platonistic assumption about reality.
In other words, that which is non-physical, non-material (i.e. “spiritual”) is good, that which is material is
somehow less than good, even positively evil. Here, pre-millenialist, McClain, critiquing spiritual kingdom
schemes (e.g. negative forms of amillenialism) claims that a view of “a divine kingdom established on earth,
having political and physical aspects, seems to be sheer [] materialism” (McClain 1959, 519). McClain
correctly, although from a pre-millennial perspective which has other interpretative problems, says that the
kingdom of God is spiritual in a different biblical sense: “A spiritual kingdom, in Biblical parlance, can manifest
itself and produce tangible effects in a physical world; or to be more precise, in the world of sense experience”
(McClain 1959, 520).
 visible assemblies of God with the exercise the penalties of divine
law.
2. Both the Heidelberg Catechism and the Larger Catechism of the
Westminster Assembly saw much direct relevance in the judicial
laws and their penalties as long as the laws were directly related to
the enforcement of both tables of the Decalogue51
b) Classic reformationalcreedal heritage
1. Proclaims the ideal of cooperation (not union) of ecclesial, family,
and civil governmental spheres under the law of Yahweh-in-Christ
(new covenant Christocracy run by elected elder-representatives in
ecclesial and civil spheres).

2. Rejected priest/pastor run theocracy (see Bahnsen 1984, 427ff for

discussion of various meanings of theocracy).

3. Scriptural law-principles and even death penalties were not

automatically rejected as “primitive,” “carnal” and allegedly
“brutal” nature because they were revealed by the holy, good, and
just God of the Bible.
5. Guideline: Intended purpose of the casuistic law was usefulness that
iscomprehensive (every area of life), universal(all peoples), for all times now as
they are focused on and fulfilled in and through King Jesus, and a case study
book of contextualized ethics:
a. Mosaic and Prophetic wisdom was comprehensive concerning all of life but
allowed much freedom (2 Tim 3:16-17):
The law is comprehensive in its scope. A proper understanding of the law
leads one to see that all of life lies under the controlling will of God, whether
one is getting up in the morning, sitting down to eat, walking along the way or
going to sleep. Whether one is concerned with life in the state or in the cult, in
business or in the home, nothing lies outside of the purview of the law. . . .
Having said this, full weight must be given to the surprising lack of
casuistry. That is to say, there is no attempt to suggest laws for every
conceivable occasion. Basic principles are given and explained; application is
left to what Eichrodt calls a “healthy feeling for justice” (Eichrodt, I, 77).52.
b. Judicial law is universal and never intended to be –
Righteous are you, O LORD, and your laws are right.(Ps 119:137NIV):
1) A time and culture bound anachronism with no binding moral authority for
today. (“The sum of Your word is truth, And every one of Your
righteous ordinances is everlasting”[Ps 119:160]; 2 Tim 3:16-17)/

51
See Lee 1989, for an excellent discussion; Bahnsen 1984 for a theonomic perspective).Even
theonomic arch-critic M. Klein admits that Bahnsen’s theonomy is much closer to the viewpoint of the original
divines of the Westminster Assembly divines than what modern theologians want to admit (Klein 1978; see
Fowler n.d. and Pavlischek 1986 for opposing perspective).
52
Dryness 1979, 138 [William Dryness, Themes in Old Testament Theology]
 2) Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart substantiate byreferring to Leviticus
19:13-14. Speaking about apodictic law,53and ultimately contradicting their
stated non-continuity principles:54
The law is paradigmatic—it sets a standard by an example, rather than by
mentioning every possible circumstance. Again, consider verses [Lev.
19:]13b and 14. The point of these statements is to prohibit holding up
payment to day laborers, and abusing the handicapped. What if you
withheld payment to a laborer almost all night but then gave it to him just
before dawn: The scribes and Pharisees of Jesus’ day might have argued
that your actions were justified since the law plainly says “overnight.” But
narrow, selfish legalism of that sort is in fact a distortion of the law. The
statements of the law were intended as a reliable guide with general
applicability—not a technical description of all possible e conditions one
could imagine. Likewise, if you harmed a dumb person, or one crippled or
retarded, would you still have kept the command in verse [Lev. 19:]14?
Certainly not. The “deaf” and the “blind”are merely selected examples of
all persons whose physical weaknesses demand that they be respected
rather than despised. (Fee and Stuart 1982, 140)
3) Goldingay agrees, “The decalogue, for instance, is implicitly set forth in
Exodus as general principles which the subsequent laws embody
concretely in paradigmatic precepts” (Goldingay 1981, 53).
4) Calvin’s Commentary on Exodus to Deuteronomy is explicitly set out in
this manner. He sees the judicials as particular applications of the Ten
Commandments which summarize the moral law (see Westminster, Larger
Catechism, question 98).

5) Rushdoony’sInstitutes of Biblical Law are also arranged in this manner

(1973).

c. Mosaic and Prophetic wisdom was universally applicable with NT external

modifications (Dt 4:7-9; Mt 5:17-21): For example applied to “contractual
servitude”:55
First, Although we personally might not keep slaves, we can see that God’s
provision for slavery under the Old Covenant was hardly a brutal, harsh
regulation. We could scarcely justify the sort of slavery practiced in most of
the world’s history. . . .
Second, we learn that God love slaves. His love is seen in the
stringent safeguards built into the law. . . .
Third, we learn that slavery could be practiced in such a benign fashion
that slaves were actually better off in bondage than free.

53
54
Do not defraud your neighbor or rob him. Do not hold back the wages of a hired man overnight. Do
not curse the deaf or put a stumbling block in front of the blind, but fear your God. I am the LORD. (Lev 19:13-
14 NIV).
55
Fee and Stuart rightly see the universal applicability of the apodictic laws, laws which are not
repeated in the New Testament, contradicting their non-continuity assumptions. Even in their discussion of the
casuistic laws, supposedly not applicable directly for contemporary ethnoculture, using slavery as an example,
they see much helpful insight for contemporary culture
 Fourth, the slave owner did not really own the slave in a total sense. . .
(Fee and Stuart 1982, 142).
These principles are “valuable lessons for us” even though the law of
slavery is not “directly to us.” We learn about God, his demands of “fairness,”
the “His ideals for Israelite society” and the background for the meaning of
“redemption” (Fee and Stuart 1982, 142-43).56
d. Mosaic and Prophetic wisdom was and is a case study book of
contextualized ethics: How God wants all peoples to handle certain common
human situations (see Kraft 1979, 198-201; Larkin 1992, 284-285).
1. The case laws speak to the explicit “excluded middle” worldview needs
(i.e. concerning the occult, blessing, bearing of children, curses, etc.)
2. The case laws speak to the explicit folk social science lacks, such as
a) Some aspects of judicial law,
b) Sometimes but not always limits on the rule of kings and chiefs,
c) Guidelines for elder-judges in common everyday cases such as
seduction, rape, fights between men, etc. not dealt with by most
missionaries (see Hiebert 1985, 223).

d. SUMMARY: Mosaic and Prophetic wisdomnecessary for Christians in the

two-thirds (and western world)
1. to approach the whole of Scriptural wisdom themselves
2. not be limited to certain portions
3. Western worldview preunderstandingscause a fear of “OT theocracy”
(however that may be understood),
4. Leading western theologians to abandon a huge portion of biblical
wisdom.
5. Called “fourth-self” determining a truly indigenous church (see Hiebert
1985).
a) Helping believers of each culture to ask whatever questions they wish
of Scripture
1) Questions necessary to meet the real needs of their culture
2) Questions without Western missionaries controlling the process is
the essence of the need to develop truly enculturated ethno-
theology and ethics

b) Paul Hiebert(Hiebert 1985, 223):

1) Given our Western view of things, we do not take folk religions
seriously” (Hiebert 1985, 223)
2) Neither do we take folk social law seriously.

56
The obvious question, then, that comes immediately to mind is, Why can’t these laws be the source of
direct and specific direction for contemporary society’s treatment of prisoners, for example, which is the closest
analogy to slavery in our culture and many contemporary cultures? Why should they not have been the basis for
a biblical critique of slavery in the ante-bellum South in the U.S.A? The casuistic laws forbid the stealing of a
person to sell him into slavery (Ex 21:16 [KJV]; Dt 24:7; 1Ti 1:10). Was that not the basis of slavery of the
Africans kidnaped in their homeland and forced to serve in the Americas. Why should we a priori write off any
part of the judicial application of the moral law as “obviously not a command from God to us” (Fee and Stuart
1982, 143). If the laws tell us something of God’s justice, ideals, and background for New Covenant
redemption, why are they not directly applicable to us, stripped of non-universal, cultural forms?
 3) Consequently, we leave cultures we seek to disciple open to the
foolish errors of adopting
a. the tyranny of western humanistic law gained through Western
education or

b. The tyranny of unchanged indigenous legal customs

c. YET never show how to adopt a biblical alternative. . This is

the explicit reasoning of Paul in First Timothy 3:16-17.

d. Missionaries often have forbidden that which is good in two-

thirds world legal culture because we think it is barbaric (e.g.
labola or bride-price among Zulu’s) or prayer culture (e.g.,
Muslim prayer practices). However, many times these may be
closer to a biblical ideal than our very humanistic legal-cultural
tradition

External forms are

different but function
(use and impact in
another culture) and
core meaning must be
very similar for true
biblical
contextualization
Figure 2
Triad: Form, function and meaning

NOTES:
a. External form of command changes across cultural contexts

b. The meaning and function should be retained in a new context

c.

d.

==================================================================
4. SUMMARY of the casuistic and apodictic laws is

I contend that God intended both the apodictic and the casuistic law of the
Mosaic judicials to be a concrete, culturally specific application of the wise
morality of God, summarized by the Ten Commandments but not exhausted by
the Ten Words. Hence the moral tôrâin and through the concrete illustrations of
that instruction in the so-called judicial law (both apodictic and casuistic) affects
every area of life.
I reject the approach of assuming non-normativeness of the ancient forms
and that this also throws out the core meaning. Consequently, we should try to
 develop criteria for showing howthe core meaning can be normative (Larkin 1992,
314, 318):
It is clear that biblical law-instruction, applied concretely to life, was never
intended, it seems, to be a barbarous, unwieldy constraint on the contemporary
freedom of humankind. Its basic and principled sense of defining negative limits
on human behavior in every sphere of human interaction was intended to be the
“perfect law of liberty” (Jas 1:25) for all ages and times. Dryness concurs:
We saw above how often a negative law is given in preference to a
positive one. Thus the intent was to avoid errors so that there would be
freedom to pursue life in all its fullness. This is all summed up in the OT
expression of the “way.” Following the law was a way of going, a walking
in the way of righteousness (Ps. 1). Its goal was simply the natural walk
with God for which man was created (Is. 2:3).57(Dryness 1979, 138-39; see
similar emphasis in Rushdoony 1973, 101-106).
3. Hermeneutical tools for applying the casuistic and apodictic laws
a. All laws based on the character of the Triune Community:58.
b. Israel is a model or paradigm for the nations (Dt 4:7-8; Rom 2:17ff; 3:9-21).
c. The Spirit alone removes evaluative problems as we cry out to God for
wisdom (Jas 1:3-7; Prv 2:1-8).
1) We hate the law of God and are hostile to it (Rom 7-8).
2) Only the Spirit can remove that hostility (Larkin 1992, 289, 290)

d. Only four sources of human customs exist(adapted from Wan 1982):

1) Theo-culture asonly true and just source of moral norms
2) diablo-culture [or satano-culture]source of the perversion of moral norms
(2Cor 11:13-15; Jn 8:44; Eph 2:1-1; 1Tim 4:1ff; 1 Jn 4:1ff; et al).
3) ethno-culture [or homo-culture] is source of the customs of men (1 Co
1:18-3:20).
4) anthro-culture [that of the individual] Every individual has his own unique
anthroculture.

e. Ladder of abstraction (Kaiser 1987, 164-166 for a detailed discussion; see

Kraft 1979, 139-143 for a similar discussion):
1) Kreitzer summary:
a) Intra-Trinitarian community of love and justice
b) Capsulation of the law: Love God and neighbor.
c) Summary of the moral law: The Decalogue
d) Details of the moral-creation law-order in the eternally valid equity of
the casuistic and apodictic laws.
e) The specific cultural details of the casuistic law.

The Ten Commandments (Exod 20; Deut 5) express the

57
broad,will
“Many peoples overarching
come and say, ethical
‘Come,principles
let us go upwhose details the
to the mountain subsequent
of the LORD, to the house of
the God of Jacob. Helegal
will teach
codesusflesh
his ways,
out.soThus,
that we may walk
Bible in hismust
students paths.’interpret
The law [tôrâ]
them will
as go out from
Zion, the word of thefoundational
LORD from Jerusalem.” (Isa 2:3 NIV)
ethical principles to maintain relationship with a loving
58
I presupposes that since there is no platonic cultural forms abstracted from reality, and since there is
Lord and to cultivate a covenantal community not as a legal code.
an eternal truth based on God’s character, then interpersonal, interactional norms are not only part of creation
Theirnorms
givens, these interactional complex
are a contents aim
reflection of theto create
eternal a distinctive
nature of God as apeople of God,
interacting, unified
one whose community structure and ethics accurately mirror the
community of true diversity of three self-conscious, self-determining, intercommunicating personalities
nature
(Persons). In other words of norms
these its Lord. (Klein,
are based et al
on the 2004, 345)
Trinitarian nature of God
2) Larkin summary:
a) Find a similarity in situation/contexts
b) Find the nature and rationale of the directive
c) Find the external form of the directive by comparing with other
Scripture AND only then comparing to extra-biblical descriptions of
similar customs.
d) Use the analogy of faith, in other words clear scripture must interpret
the unclear, passage must be compared with other similar passages to
determine the teaching of Scripture.
e) Find the intent of the author. (Larkin 1992, 107).

3) Kaiser summary (Kaiser 1987, 166): Find middle axiom –

a) Examine the statement in light of comparable ones where the
principles may be more overt;
b) Ask what, if any, is the theology the “undergirds” or “informs” the
statement and thereby contributes to its abiding normativeness;
c) Check for any illumination that may come from parallel extra-biblical
materials; and
d) Look for principles behind the specificity of the text which function
somewhat like that which ethicists label “middle axioms,” i.e., a
principle somewhere between a general abstraction such as
“justice”and a specific, concrete policy. (Goldingay 1981, 54-55)
Figure 3
(Kaiser 1987, 166)

V. Proverbial Literature
A. Definition: “a concise, memorable statement of truth” . . . “ a simple declaration of
life as it is”(Klein, et al 2004, 387).
1. Description of life as it is under the wise providence of God’s Kingdom rule.
2. Sometimes adds prescription when a promise of blessing or warning of discipline
(curse) is attached. These universalize the blessings and curses of the Mosaic
tôranic wisdom (e.g., Ps 1).

B. Principles of interpretation
1. Normally, Proverbs teach long term results of divine covenantal faithfulness and
His loving providence with short term and abnormalexceptions.
a. We should modify Klein, et al: “Proverbs teach probable truth, not absolute
truth” (Klein, et al 2004, 389)

b. POINT: Everything else being equal, the Proverbial truth holds true.
1) Example: Diligence normally leads to greater prosperity than laziness
2) Example: Oppression can confiscate the hard work of a farmer (i.e., huge
landowners who had confiscated the forefather’s land, taxation for
purposes not mandated by God, etc): “A poor man's field may produce
abundant food, but injustice sweeps it away” (Prv 13:23).

2. ALWAYS compare with other Scripture and especially other modifying Proverbs.
a. Interpret Proverb with non-Western ideals of “prosperity” etc. but as enough
food, housing, and sleep to be in good health.
b. The fall and the curse should be taken into account in some cases but not all:
“Train a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not turn
from it” (Prv 22:6)
c. Sometimes Proverbs are gender specific: Spank a son (does this include a
girl?):
1) “He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is careful to
discipline him” (Prv 13:24).
2) “Folly is bound up in the heart of a male child but the rod of discipline will
drive it far from him” (Prv 22:15)
 3. Carefully analyze the literary aspects of the Proverb
a. Parallelism
b. metaphors,
c. word and sound plays
d. even narrative sections of some
e. Always compare the whole number of Proverbs on a single topic to gain
wisdom on that topic.

C. Different forms of Proverbs

1. Command proverbs (“instruction” proverbs) in imperative mood with a motive
clause (“Do” or “don’t do” an action “for” = motive clause (Prv 22:22-23)
a. Pay attention to the command or prohibition
b. Pay attention to the motivation (blessing or curse)

2. Narration proverbs (e.g., Prv 24:30-34) with a moral to the story, which express
the main point of the story.
VI. Job

VII. Ecclesiastes
 EXCURSUS
Does the Scripture allow for a Trajectory or Redemptive Movement Hermeneutic?

1. Definition of Redemptive Movement Hermeneutic (RMH)

a. Scriptural ethics are locked and bound to one time-bound culture. However, locked
within that time-bound teaching are hints that move the ethic forward to a more
egalitarian future application.
b. The alleged ethical movement from the OT (x) to the NT (y) demonstrates such a
movement occurred, which then must be continued to (z) because of implanted hints
within the text of the NT toward an egalitarian future.
c. Homosexuality, however, is excluded in Webb’s version (see below)59 but not in other
versions.60
d. Summary from Wikipedia:
1) Trajectory hermeneutics [RMH]. . . seeks to locate varying 'voices' in the text and
to view this voice as a progressive trajectory through history (or at least through
the Biblical witness); often a trajectory that progresses through to the present day.
2) The contemporary reader of Scripture is in some way envisaged by the Biblical
text as standing in continuity with a developing theme therein. The reader, then, is
left to discern this trajectory and appropriate it accordingly.61
59
Webb, William J. 2002. Slaves, Women and Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural
Analysis.Authentic Media.ISBN 1-84227-186-5.
60
“William J. Webb employed such a hermeneutic, in his Slaves, Women & Homosexuals. Webb
shows how the moral commands of the Old and New Testament were a significant improvement over the
surrounding cultural values and practices. Webb identified 18 different ways in how God dealt with his people
moving against the current of popular cultural values. While for Webb the use of this hermeneutic moves to
highlight the progressive liberation of women and slaves from oppressive male/bourgeois dominance, the
prohibition of homosexual acts consistently moves in a more conservative manner than that of the surrounding
Ancient Near East or Graeco-Roman societies. While Paul does not explicitly state that slavery should be
abolished, the trajectory seen in Scripture is a progressive liberation of slaves. When this is extended to modern
times, it implies that the Biblical witness supports the abolition of slavery. The progressive liberation of women
from oppressive patriarchalism, traced from Genesis and Exodus through to Paul's own acknowledgement of
women as 'co-workers' (Rom. 16:3), sets a precedent that when applied to modern times suggests that women
ought to have the same rights and roles afforded as men. Historically, the Biblical witness has become
progressively more stringent in its views of homosexual practice and the implications of this are not commented
upon by Webb.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_hermeneutics (accessed 8/20/13)
61
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_hermeneutics (accessed 8/20/13)
2. Critique of RMH
a. Denies the sola Scriptura principle and its corollary, the sufficiency of Scripture
b. Denies creation design-norms by replacing culture instead of revealed creation design
as the criterion for ethics
c. Denies classic grammatical historical hermeneutical principles that
1) Only Scripture can interpret Scripture, not culture or science or tradition
2) The clear passages must interpret the less clear.

d. No need to adopt Dispensationalism because solid exegesis shows a good balance on

slavery and male – female relationships.
1) Dispensationalism simply rejects all OT ethics as cancelled in the present
dispensation of grace
2) Scripture, however, teaches covenantal continuity of salvation by faith and a
single ethic throughout the Scripture although progressively explained more fully
as time progresses. Hence we must take a whole Bible approach but must not go
outside of Scripture for ethical norms.

e. See following articles and one volume of solid critique:

1) Wayne Grudem. 2004. Should We Move beyond the New Testament to a Better
Ethic? An Analysis of William J. Webb, Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals:
Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis.Journal of the Evangelical
Theological Society (ETS) 47: 299-346.62
2) Thomas R. Schreiner. 2002. William J. Webb's Slaves, Women, and
Homosexuals: A Review Article.Southern Baptist Journal of Theology (SBJT) 6:
46–64.
3) “A Redemptive-Movement Hermeneutic” and “Gender Equality and
Homosexuality” by William J. Webb (from Discovering Biblical Equality) in
JBMW Volume 10 No. 1.
4) Nelson D. Kloosterman. 2006. THE “REDEMPTIVE-MOVEMENT
HERMENEUTIC” AND THE SUFFICIENCY OF SCRIPTURE IN LIGHT OF
THE HISTORY OF DOGMA MJT 17: 191-209
http://www.midamerica.edu/resources/journal/17/kloosterman.pdf (accessed
8/20/13)
5) See my critique: Mark R. Kreitzer. 2008. Book Review, SLAVES, WOMEN,
AND HOMOSEXUALS by William Webb. Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2004.
Global Missiology 1/6: review and preview.
http://ojs.globalmissiology.org/index.php/english/article/view/32/90 (accessed
8/20/13).
6) Benjamin Reaoch. 2012. Women, Slaves, and the Gender Debate: A
Complementarian Response to the Redemptive-Movement Hermeneutic.
Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R.63
62
See also the following interview with Wayne Grudem about the slippery slope
evangelicals take to theological liberalism when they adopt this hermeneutical principle:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/adrianwarnock/2006/12/interview-wayne-grudem-part-four-
ethical-trajectories-feminism-and-homosexuality/ (accessed 8/20/2013).
63
Based on a dissertation from The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Thomas
Schreiner supervisor (<a
href="http://disexpress.umi.com/dxweb">http://disexpress.umi.com/dxweb</a> or
downloaded through ProQuest's Dissertation and Theses database if your institution
 PART II
General Steps for Interpretation
Grammatical-Historical or Historical-Grammatical Hermeneutics

I. Cry out to God for discernment, insight and wisdom to understand and to follow the
instruction of the passage by faith (Prv 2)
A. Wisdom comes through listening and asking questions (Chinese word for learning
combines two ideographs—learning and questioning) (Prv 18:2, 4, 20:5)
1. Western cultures ask only a limited number of questions

2. Your home culture will provide many new questions to ask about the text,
therefore listen to your own heart questions and your people’s questions.

B. Wisdom comes from the Spirit of wisdom and revelation (illumination)

1. The Spirit originally gave the prophets and apostles of the OT and NT revelation
because He is the Spirit of wisdom and revelation (Eph 1:17; Col 1:9-10; Ps 25:5;
Jn 16:13).

2. The Spirit now illumines ours inner being to understand and apply His wisdom
and revelation (Col 1:9).
subscribes to that service.
ABSTRACT:
“This dissertation examines the exegetical and hermeneutical questions related to the
issues of slavery and women in the New Testament. In response to a redemptive movement
hermeneutic (or trajectory hermeneutic), I seek to demonstrate that this approach is not a
viable solution to these complex questions and is not justified in its conclusions with regard
to the gender debate.
Chapter 2 begins with a summary of the history of research related to a redemptive
movement hermeneutic. Also included in this chapter is a brief discussion of
complementarian responses to this hermeneutic, and finally a section on the nineteenth
century slavery debate.
Then chapters 3 and 4 examine the specific passages that pertain to slaves (chap. 3)
and women (chap. 4). The detailed exegesis of these passages is a crucial component as this
study clarifies the similarities and differences between the two sets of passages by examining
the ground clauses and purpose clauses that are attached to the various instructions to slaves
and to women.
The other significant component of this study is hermeneutical. The exegesis is
crucial to clearly demonstrate the similarities and differences between the texts, but the
hermeneutical questions are the determining factor in this debate. Much of the hermeneutical
discussion will involve responses to William Webb, because his book and articles contain the
fullest expression of a redemptive movement hermeneutic. Other trajectory advocates enter
the discussion at various points, but the structure of chapters 6 and 7 are organized around
eight of Webb's hermeneutical criteria that he presents in Slaves, Women and Homosexuals .
The thesis of this dissertation is as follows: The significant differences between the
New Testament instructions to slaves and to women seriously undermine the conclusions
made by the redemptive movement hermeneutic. The fact that the New Testament "points
beyond" the institution of slavery does not indicate that it likewise points beyond God's
design for gender roles. http://digital.library.sbts.edu/handle/10392/2932?show=full
(accessed 8/20/13)
 3. The Spirit searches the mind of God and hence gives us the thoughts of God so
that we now have the mind of Christ and know the things freely given us by God
(1 Cor 2:11-16).

C. Remind yourself of the basic principles of interpretation discussed above

1. Clear passages interpret the unclear

2. Only Scripture can properly interpret Scripture

3. Logical deductions are important and can be made

4. Unity of Scriptural worldview must be presupposed with a common divinely

inspired truth behind every book, coming from the mind of God through the Spirit
in Christ.
a. Must seek to harmonize parallel passages because they supplement and don’t
contradict one another

b. Must assume an account is accurate and true unless a scribal error can be
demonstrated.

5. Analogy of faith informs exegesis

a. There is no “neutral” exegesis

b. System of doctrine found in Scripture helps interpret less clear passage

1. Dispensational
a) Claim: “If one applies a consistent grammatical historical hermenutic
to all of Scripture then they will be Dispensational and a Christian
Zionist.”64 
b) REALITY: Misses the fact that such a hermeneutic must take genre
into account and must let Scripture alone interpret Scripture

2. Covenant Theology
a) Platonic or Dualist bound covenant theology

b) Trinitarian, Redemptive Historical covenant theology

64
http://www.amazon.com/review/R198KYILGX4EQ9/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt#R198
KYILGX4EQ9, accessed 10/24/10.
 c. Hermeneutical spiral necessary

6. Antithesis versus Syncretism

a. God’s truth the opposite of human/demonic wisdom UNLESS pragmatically
humans adopt parts of the biblical worldview to succeed in God’s world
b. Syncretism is adopting human/demonic wisdom but using biblical words to
justify the departure from biblical worldview.

7. Discover Genre:
a. Defined as the term used in literary circles describing the type or kind of
literature being discussed.

b. Importance:
1) Aids proper understanding of a biblical passage
a) Example: Historical prose and poetry differ
b) Example: Wisdom and prophetic literature differ.

2) Author’s intention is crucial but genre is critical to intention:

a) Is the author telling a fictional story (e.g. Nathan’s parable to help
David repent) or a truthful historical account such as Jonah’s account
of his journey to Ninevah?

b) Example, Moses is writing historical narrative in the first eleven

chapters of Genesis and not poetry.

c. Types of Genre
1) Historical narrative/epic: 
a) In OT—Genesis and the first half ofExodus, much of
Numbers,Joshua,Judges,Ruth, 1 and 2Samuel, 1 and 2Kings, 1 and
2Chronicles,Ezra,Nehemiah,Esther, very possibly Jonah;
b) In NT—Acts, Gospels, some aspects of the epistles

2) Law: the last half of Exodus; also Leviticus, Deuteronomy, some of

Numbers

3) Wisdom Literature: Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, 

4) Psalms:Psalms, Lamentations
 5) Prophecy: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah,
Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi

6) Apocalyptic: Daniel, Revelation, part of Zechariah

7) Gospel biography:Matthew,Mark,Luke,John

8) Epistle (letter)
a) Circular to be read among city house communities:Romans, 1 and
2Corinthians,Galatians,Ephesians,Philippians,Colossians, 1 and
2Thessalonians, Hebrews, James, 1, 2 Peter, 1, 2, and 3John,Jude
b) Personal to be read by a person (e.g., Philemon, 1 and
2 Timothy, Titus)
7. Discover historical SitzimLeben (place and context in history of human life)
a. Authorship

b. Date of authorship determines historical context

1) Internal evidence first and of most importance
a) First within the book itself

b) Second within the canonical Scriptures

1. Scriptures near in date, then further away in date

2. New Testament authorities starting first with the Lord Himself

2) External evidence secondary and only confirms internal evidence

a) Example: Pentateuch
Seek internal evidence of Mosaic authorship

b) Example: Ecclesiastes
Seek explicit statements of authorship

c) Example: Daniel

c. Examples:
1) OT
a) Pentateuch

b) Daniel

2) NT
a) Revelation
 1. Late 60’s AD
a. Internal evidence of date
b. External attesting of date (Irenaeus)

2. Mid-nineties AD

b) Gospels (if late not eyewitness accounts)

II. Careful reading and re-reading of the text within its context in your heart language
A. Memorize and meditate on the passage (Ps 1:1-2)

B. Set out to discover the purpose, context and theme of the book as a whole

C. Make connections of key concepts in the text by underlining and using arrows in your
study Bible

D. Make connections with parallel passages in other books of Scripture

E. Outline passage

III. Begin exegesis of the original languages

A. Decide on textual variants
1. Eclectic texts (Nestle-Aland, 26th ed., BibliaHebraicaStuttgartensia) (Bruce
Metzger, Daniel Wallace)

2. Majority texts (based on the Byzantine text) (Maurice Robinson)

B. Translate Greek and Hebrew

1. Discover genre of the passage (legal, prophetic, wisdom, poetic-prophetic,
letter/epistle, biography, etc.)

2. Use good lexicons and grammars (BEST: computer based: Logos or

Hermeneutica-Bible Works)
a. Greek: Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich; Louw-Nida lexicons withBlass-Debrunner-
Funk grammar (or use your second year grammar)

b. Hebrew-Aramaic: Brown-Driver-Briggswith Gesenius-Kautsch-Cowley

grammar (or use your second year grammar)

3. Use good Bible encyclopedias

a. New Bible Dictionary (one volume)
 b. New International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (5 vols.)

4. Pick out several key words and discover use in Greek NT and LXX or in rest of
Hebrew-Aramaic Scripture.

==================================================================

Principles of Word Study65

Summary of Moisés Silva, Biblical Words and Their Meaning. Included are page
numbers from Don A. Carson’s book, Exegetical Fallacies.

1. World views. Take care not to “deduce philosophical or theological conclusions about a
Hebrew or Greek world view by appealing to features of Hebrew or Greek language,
whether vocabulary stock, morphology, or syntax.” Silva, pp. 18-21; Carson, pp. 44-45.
2. Words and concepts. Carefully distinguish questions about the meanings of words
(lexicography) from questions about the theological views or commitments of biblical
authors (beliefs, “concepts”, theology). When you want to know the meaning of a word,
use a standard Greek or Hebrew lexicon. When you want to know about beliefs or
concepts, use a Bible encyclopedia or a volume on biblical theology or systematic
theology. Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament and other so-called
“theological” dictionaries are methodologically confused, since they mix these two
questions. Silva, pp. 22-32.
3. Etymology. Ignore the meanings that words had at an earlier or later point in the history
of the language. The correct meaning for both speaker and hearer is one of the possible
meanings available at the time of utterance. The standard lexicons often provide some
etymological information at the beginning of their entry for a word, but the distinct senses
that they list are senses available during biblical times. Silva, pp. 35-51; Carson, pp. 26-
32.
4. Single sense. Each word has a single sense in any one context. Do not overload a word
with all the meanings or associations that it has in all its contexts (“illegitimate totality
transfer”, Silva, p. 25-26). Look at the list of meanings in the lexicon, and pick the one
meaning that best fits the context. Silva, pp. 148-56; Carson, pp. 62.
5. Context. When a word has several distinct senses, use the surrounding context to
determine which sense is used in your passage. On the average, narrower contexts (a
phrase, sentence, or paragraph) have more weighty influence than broad contexts (a
whole book, historical situation). But any one of these contexts may sometimes provide
the decisive guidance in choosing between two or more possible meanings. Silva, pp.
138-59; Carson, pp. 45-66.

65
http://www.frame-poythress.org/Poythress_courses/NT123/NT123.htm, accessed
August 21, 2010.
6. Redundancy. Joos’ Law: the best meaning is the least meaning. Select that sense which
adds the least new information to the context. Silva, pp. 153-54.
7. Single grammatical function. Grammatical constructions, like words, may have a number
of distinct possible functions. But in any one context they signal only one function out of
the total list. Avoid interpreting a text “both ways,” even when both ways are
theologically orthodox. Silva, pp. 150-51.
8. Grammatical vagueness. Grammatical functions of a tense or a case are quite vague.
Avoid overreading the significance of the genitive or dative case or of the aorist tense.
Carson, pp. 69-80.

==================================================================

5. Discover theological and practical issues involved in application/contextualization

a) Discover ancient cultural context
b) Discover contemporary cultural context
c) Discover what aspects are shared between the ancient and contemporary
contexts
1) Creational design and information: Common humanity or creational
perception (i.e., snow is always white and symbolizes clean free of soiling
in every culture though snow may not be something every culture
experiences!)

2) Common situation because of the creation norms as disturbed by the fall

Overlapping situation
that may be applied

Ancient Context Contemporary Context

6. Check good exegetical and practical commentaries66

7. Seek to discover the place of the passage in the covenantal, history of redemption
with its hour glass form.
a) How does this passage reveal the focal point of history in the Person and work
of King Jesus?

66
Try to wrestle with the text before reading exegetical commentaries unless you
encounter a major problem text. Let the Holy Spirit work in your spirit then go to what other
men of God have written on the subject.
 Figure 8. Focal point of history

See: Goldsworth, Graeme. 2007. Gospel-Centered Hermeneutics: Foundations

and Principles of Evangelical Biblical Interpretation.

b) How does this passage reveal the character, Person and work of Father and of
the Spirit?

8. Seek to discover from the context the original author’s intention then cross-
check with the NT citation (if any).
a) Accurate and cultural apropos interpretations unwrap God’s meaning
1) Must take into account the human author, his use of Hebrew, Aramaic, or
Greek
2) Must take into account the target audience to whom he is writing. For
example, the audience intended for the letter to the Ephesians differs from
that to the Colossians.

b) The authority of the passage is what is publically obtainable to the original

audience not some esoteric hidden or allegorical meaning.

c) Summary: The intended meaning of the original author comes to light when
the author’s intended audience understands and acts upon that message based
upon what the intended audience knows about the original author.

9. Remember that each passage has a single author’s intention but no one person or
culture can discover all that intention.
a) Multiple complementary perspectives on one passage that are NOT
contradictory can be valid because different QUESTIONS have been asked of
the text

b) Multiple contradictory perspectives on one passage are impossible because

God is the God of truth
1. Epistemological law of contradiction flows from God’s Being and nature
as truth (Rom 3:4; Heb 6:18)

2. Ontological law of contradiction flows from God’s Triune Being (Spirit is

not the Father, Son not the Spirit, and so forth)

10. In Scripture we see there are two authors

 a) A human author, e.g., David (“The Holy Spirit foretold through the mouth of
David”—Acts 1:18; see Acts

b) The Holy Spirit speaking through the human author as the “Spirit of Messiah”
or the “Spirit of God” the Father (see e.g., Acts 4:24-25 O Lord, it is You . . .
who by the Holy Spirit,through the mouth of our father David Your servant,
said” and 1 Pet 1:10-11 “The prophets . . . seeking to know what person or
time the Spirit of Christ within them was indicating as He predicted.”)

c) Sometimes the human author did not know or understand all the Spirit was
saying in them, which can only later be fully understood (Lk 24:27-32, 44-49).

==================================================================

An Exercise in Multiperspective Analysis67

A. Introduction (What is multiperspective analysis?)

Multiperspective analysis is a means for stimulating our awareness and appreciation

of connections that any given passage has with many others.

Every passage of the Bible is connected with many others, because God is the author
of all of them. But not all connections are equally important. Allusions and direct quotations
of other passages are of great importance. Connections between passages from the same
book, or passages from different books by the same human author, are usually more
important than connections to other books not by the same human author.

To find these connections, you should start by using the cross references in a good
cross reference Bible. Multiperspective analysis can best be applied after you have some
appreciation for the connections that you can uncover using cross references and
concordances. In multiperspective analysis, you try to look at a given passage from a large
number of different perspectives. When these perspectives are properly chosen, they can
enable you to uncover further large-scale, vague connections with many other passages
simultaneously. But because these connections are vaguer and more multifaceted, they can
easily be overlooked in an approach using cross references.

B. Types of perspectives
The following are some of the perspectives that can fruitfully be used in exploring what
connections a passage has with other passages.
1. Look at the passage from the perspective of each of the parties involved.
a. God. What is said about God? What is God doing?
b. Human beings. What are the human beings expected to do? What do they do in
fact? What is their attitude? Sometimes this can be subdivided into (1) rebels and
opponents of God, and (2) servants of God.
c. Mediators. What does the passage say about mediators between God and man?

67
http://www.frame-poythress.org/Poythress_courses/NT123/NT123.htm,, accessed August
21, 2010.
 2. Look at the passage from the perspective of different mediatorial roles.
a. Prophet Are there distinctively prophetic actions here?
b. King Are there distinctively kingly actions here?
c. Priest Are there distinctively priestly actions here?
d. Servants of Yahweh Are there agents of the Lord functioning as comprehensive
mediators?

3. Look for historical patterns.

a. Promise, development, fulfillment (cf. Luke 24:44)
1) What promises are given, what fulfillments of promises are accomplished?
2) What fulfillments do people continue to wait for?
b. What is happening concerning land and offspring (two central aspects of
promise)?
c. What is happening
1) concerning covenant [and/or] the sanctuary?
2) concerning sin, suffering, glory (cf. Luke 24:26)

d. Is there a pattern here of sin followed by suffering followed by glory?

3. Look at the passage from various ethical perspectives.

a. Normative. What does God command as a principle valid for all time?
b. Existential. What does the passage exemplify in the way of approved human
attitudes?
c. Situational. How does this particular situation color human responsibility?

4. Look for major themes of the book to be manifested in the passage. For example, if
the passage is from Isaiah look for a manifestation of major themes of the Book of
Isaiah:
 Idol polemic
 Creation and birth
 Proclamation of salvation to the nations
 The coming of righteousness
 The second exodus
 Joy

C. Fulfillment in Christ
For each one of the above perspectives, one can also ask how the material of the passage
is connected to the fulfillment of God's purposes in Christ. One may ask, (1) How is what
is happening in this passage similar to what Christ does? (2) How is it different from
what Christ does (e.g., how does the work of Christ exceed what happens in the OT)? (3)
How do the particular historical and literary contexts of the passage help to explain its
difference from what Christ does in the cross and resurrection? For example, under 1.a.
above, one asks what the passage says about God. One may then ask further, (1) “How is
what God does here similar to what Christ does when he comes?”; (2) “How is what God
does here different from what Christ does when he comes?”; (3) “How do differences in
history and in this book of the Bible help to explain the differences in God's actions?”
D. Illustration: Isaiah 51:21-23
As an illustration, let us apply some of these perspectives to the passage Isaiah 51:21-23.
We will try using the following perspectives: lb, 2a, 3d, 5a, 5d.

lb. What happens to the human beings in Isaiah 51:21-23? The people of Jerusalem have
already experienced affliction. Now they are to be relieved, so that they will not suffer
God’s wrath again. On the other hand, those who tormented Jerusalem will now
themselves receive the Lord’s cup of wrath.

2a. Are there distinctively prophetic actions here? The whole passage is a prophetic
announcement, with Isaiah serving as the messenger of the Lord in making the
announcement. Moreover, it might be that vs. 23d-e could be considered as a kind of
antiprophecy by opponents of God claiming for themselves semidivine rights.

3d. Is there a pattern of sin, suffering, and glory? The sin of Jerusalem forms the
background (not mentioned in this passage) for the affliction which she has suffered (21).
The coming glory of Jerusalem is here expressed mostly negatively, in the form of
removal of the affliction (22) and the punishment of the enemies of Jerusalem (23). Thus
there is here a definite pattern of sin, suffering, and glory.

5a. Is there an idol polemic here in 51:21-23 of the sort that we find many times in the
chapters 40-48? There is none directly. But in the larger context it appears that the
tormentors of Jerusalem are Babylonian idolaters. Hence, indirectly, their humiliation
implies the humiliation of their idols.

5d. Is there a discussion in this passage of the Isaianic theme of righteousness? This
righteousness is first the righteousness of the Lord (Isa 51:8), then of those who respond
to his salvation (52:1). The word righteousness does not appear in 51:21-23. Nor is the
concept easily visible. Hence we might judge that this perspective does not yield us any
information. or we might still say that the Lord's requital of Jerusalem’s enemies (v. 23)
is, in a general way, a manifestation of his righteousness.

In addition, let us explore to some extent how the material of Isaiah 51:21-23 may be
related to the work of Christ. Let us choose perspectives lb and 2a above. Under lb, we
may ask how the experience of the people in Isaiah 51:21-23 relates to the experience of
Christ. Christ, as a true man, as a representative man, experienced affliction on account
of the sins of others. As the true Israel of Isaiah 49:3 and 53, he experienced in an
intensified and final form the afflictions which Jerusalem experienced only in a typical
form. He drank the cup of the Father’s wrath (Mark 14:36), and was then vindicated.

2a. Christ as the final prophet (Heb 1:1-3) speaks the word of God to us in a manner
analogous to the prophets of the OT, but also in a manner superior to them. As Isaiah
announced the release of Jerusalem from the Lord’s wrath, so Christ announces to us
(Eph 2:17-18) who belong to the heavenly Jerusalem (Gal 4:26-27) our release from
condemnation (Rom 8:1).

Of course, this Christological exploration could be deepened and expanded by

reflecting more on the differences between the form and circumstances of Isaiah's
message and the form and circumstances of the message that comes to us at a later stage
in redemptive history.
E. Your practice
For your own practice, you should now try to examine the passage Isaiah 52:11-12
using the same procedure as was used above for Isaiah 51:21-23. Once more, try using
the perspectives lb, 2a, 3d, 5a, and 5d. For perspectives lb and 2a only, try to work out
some of the connections that Isaiah 52:11-12 has to the work of Christ.

================================================================

8. Try to discover the issues of culture difference involved in the passage and what is
unchanging versus that which is variable
a) Seek to discover how differences in redemptive-historical period and/or
cultural context will affect your present understanding and application

b) Two tests
1) One: The character of the Triune God

2) Two: The universal nature of the creation

c) Examples

C. Summarize the message in a single thesis statement

D. Preparation your presentation (“Teaching” and “Contextualization/Application”)

1. Think through your target hearing audience (age, culture, financial situation, etc.)

2. Triad of Form, Function, and Meaning: How does this apply to them in their context
so that they begin to think differently following God’s thoughts and act differently
following the character of Christ?
a. Remember the form (linguistic and cultural) of original passage
How did the passage apply to the target audience in their original context
b. Always keep in mind what impact (function) the message was intended to have in
the total social situation
c. Remember “meaning” possesses a different external form (linguistic or action) but
the same intention, similar function, and Meaning: knowledge change, new
connections of old knowledge, action (correspond, cohere, practical theories of
truth)
 3. In the application, give an assignment to bring back the following week (homework)

4. Ask the Lord for wisdom to choose a key and principle application to your target
audience.
a. Develop an outline of the text following the order of thought in the text itself and
not imposing your agenda to it (i.e., topical)

b. Develop short and concise illustrations for every point

c. Edit and prune

d. Let the outline sit and the Lord to develop new and fresh thoughts during the week
(or months before the message)

E. Teach/Preach with prayer, power and passion with love.

1. On civility, note well the analysis by James D. Hunter. 1993. Evangelicals: The
Coming Generation (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).68
Evangelicals generally and the coming generation [younger evangelicals]
particularly have adopted to various degrees an ethical code of political civility.
This compels them not only to be tolerant of others’ beliefs, opinions, and life-
styles, but more importantly to be tolerable to others. The critical dogma is not
to offend but to be genteel and civil in social relations. While their adoption of
this ethic expresses itself politically, it expresses itself as a religious style as
well…. In this latter sense, it entails a deemphasis on Evangelicalism’s more
offensive aspects, such as accusations of heresy, sin, immorality, and paganism,
and themes of judgment, divine wrath, damnation, and hell. Anything that hints
of moral or religious absolutism and intolerance is underplayed. Indeed there is
enormous social pressure to adapt to this code of civility. As one national
opinion survey showed, the predominant image of conservative Protestantism is
still negative. They are very often viewed as “overly strict on moral issues,”
“closed minded,” “intolerant of others’ religious views,” and “fanatical about
their own beliefs” and are believed to place “too harsh an emphasis on guilt, sin
or judgment” and to be “too rigid and simplistic.” This kind of characterization
cannot help but create tremendous social constraints to be less strict, less
fanatical, more open-minded, and so on. (Hunter 1993, 183-184).

68
Found at http://www.frame-poythress.org/Poythress_courses/NT123/NT123.htm, accessed
August 21, 2010.
 Early Protestantism cultivated a fanatical devotion and adherence to faith and an
incivility and intolerance toward any deviation, practical or theological.
“Knowing the truth” with calm and absolute certainty is in itself (according to
contemporary standards) a brazen act of anti-intellectuality, arrogance, incivility,
narrow-mindedness, and extremism. Yet these things were intrinsic to the life of
the believer. The historical irony is that those cultural expressions that were
symptomatic of early Protestantism’s moral energy and vitality are precisely
those cultural expressions which, on the present scene, are despised by non-
Evangelicals and are a source of embarrassment to Evangelicals themselves,
particularly the coming generation. (Hunter 1993, 212)

2. Notice that Christ and his Apostles and Prophets often spoke with the direct
accusative “you” (see e.g., Mt 24; Acts 7), whereas modern sensibilities deny that we
ought ever to use a direct confrontational approach.

=================================================================

Application Worksheet on Rev 13:1-1069

1. What are the chief features of the Beast?

What does it do?

[An easy starting question. Make lots of observations.]

2. What does the Beast remind you of?

[Not a typical question, since it moves people away from the passage into comparisons
with other passages (“correlation”). However, in interpreting Revelation the process of
correlation is necessary.] . . .

Satan. Beasts of Daniel 7.Daniel’s lions in Daniel 6.Animals in creation.

3. What does the Beast signify?

[Interpretation.]

4. What lessons can we learn from this passage about the ways of Satan?
About the ways of God?

[Interpretation.Principlizing.Chief themes.]

69
Found at http://www.frame-poythress.org/Poythress_courses/NT123/NT123.htm, accessed
August 21, 2010.
5. How does the Beast manifest himself then, now and in the future?

[Application.]

In Communist countries.In the USA and free world.

6. What are our responsibilities in the light of the Beast’s activity?

[Application.]

Reference List for Biblical Tora and Its Application

Abbott, Stephen Lee. 1990. A critical analysis of the meaning of the kingdom of God in the
theology of the Christian Reconstruction movement. Ph. D. dissertation,
Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.

Bahnsen, Greg L. 1979-1980. M. G. Kline on theonomic politics: An evaluation of his reply.

Journal of Christian Reconstruction, 6 (Winter), 195-221.

 ________ . 1984. Theonomy in Christian Ethics. 2nd ed. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian
and Reformed Publishing Co.

________. 1985. By this standard: The authority of God’s law today. Tyler, TX: Institute
for Christian Economics.

________ . 1986. Second Thought about Frame’s `Thoughts on Theonomy.’ Philadelphia:

Westminster Theological Seminary.

________. 1989. Theonomic major response. In God and Politics: Four Views on the
Reformation of Civil Government—Theonomy, Principles Pluralism, Christian
American, National Confessionalism, ed. Gary Scott Smith, 234-247. With a
Foreword by John W. White. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed
Publishing Co.

________. 1991. No other standard: Theonomy and its critics. Tyler, TX: Institute for
Christian Economics.

________. 1993. The Theonomic Reformed Approach to Law and Gospel. In The law, the
gospel, and the modern Christian: Five views, 93-143. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan
Publishing House.
Bahnsen, Greg; Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., Douglas J. Moo, Wayne G. Strickland, and Willem A.
Vangemeren. 1993. The law, the gospel, and the modern Christian: Five views.
Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House.

Barker, William S. and W. Robert Godfrey, eds. Theonomy: A reformed critique. Grand
Rapids, MI: Academie Books/Zondervan Publishing House.

Barron, Bruce. 1991. Heaven on earth? The social and political agendas of dominion
theology.Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

Boecker, Hans Jochen. 1980. Law and the administration of justice in the Old Testament
and ancient east.Trans. by Jeremy Moiser. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House.

Bogue, Carl. What does the Decalogue summarize? Covenanter Witness 103, 5 (May 1987):
4-6.
Bosch, David. 1992. Transforming mission. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books.

Brown, Colin, ed. 1971. Dictionary of New Testament Theology. Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan Publishing House. S.v. “ethnos,” by H. Bietenhard.

Caines, J. Render . 1987. Perfect freedom: The New Testament believer and the Old
Testament law. D. Min. proj. Covenant Theological Seminary, St. Louis, MO.

Calvin, John. 1683/ 1685, 1987.Sermons on Deuteronomy. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth

Trust.

Chamblin, Knox. 1988. The law of Moses and the law of Christ. In Continuity and
Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship between the Old and New
Testaments. Essays in honor of S. Lewis Johnson, Jr., ed. John S. Feinberg, 182-218,
357-373.

Cunninham, William. 1863/1991.Discussions on Church Principles: Popish, Erastian, and

Presbyterian. With a Preface by James Buchanan and James Bannerman. Edmonton,
AB: Still Waters Revival Books.

Davis, John J. 1984. Foundations of Evangelical Theology, 258. Grand Rapids: Baker Book
House. Quoted in William J. Larkin. 1992. Culture and Biblical Hermeneutics:
Interpreting and applying the authoritative word in a relativistic age.N.p.: Columbia
Bible College and Seminary Press. *

Dayton, Edward R. and David A. Fraser. 1980. Planning Strategies for World
Evangelization. William B. Eerdmans Pub. Co.

DeMar, Gary. 1988. The debate over Christian reconstruction. Fort Worth, TX: Dominion
Press. Atlanta, GA: American Vision Press.

 ________. 1991. Fear of flying: Clipping theonomy’s wings. In Theonomy: An informed

response. Ed. Gary North. Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics.
Dryness, William. 1979. Themes in Old Testament Theology. Downers Grove, IL:
Intervarsity Press.

Eichrodt, Walter. 1961, 1967.Theology of the Old Testament.2 vols. Philadelphia:

Westminster Press. Quoted in William Dryness. 1979. Themes in Old Testament
Theology. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press.

Falk, Ze’ev W. 1991. Religious law and ethics: Studies in biblical and rabbinical theonomy.
Jerusalem: Mesharim Publishers.

Fee, Gordon D. and Douglas Stuart. 1982. How to read the Bible for all its worth: A guide
to understanding the Bible. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House.

Feinberg, John S. and Paul D. Feinberg. 1993. Ethics for a brave new world. Wheaton, IL:
Crossway Books.

Fowler, Paul B. n.d. God’s law free from legalism: Critique of Theonomy in Christian
Ethics. Jackson, MS: Reformed Theological Seminary.

Fowler, Richard A. and H. Wayne House. 1983. The Christian confronts his culture.
Chicago: Moody Press.

Frame, John M. 1986. Thoughts on theonomy. Philadelphia: Westminster Theological

Seminary.

  . 1990. The one, the many, and theonomy. In Theonomy: A reformed critique, eds.
William S. Barker and W. Robert Godfrey, 89-102. Grand Rapids, MI: Academie
Books/Zondervan Publishing House.

Fuller, Daniel P. 1980. Gospel and law: Contrast or continuum? The hermeneutics of
dispensationalism and covenant theology. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Pub.
Co.

Gentry, Kenneth L., Jr. 1990.The greatness of the Great Commission. Tyler, TX: Institute for
Christian Economics.

________. 1991a. Civil Sanctions in the New Testament. In Theonomy: An informed

response, ed. Gary North, 135-163. Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics.

________. 1991b. Church Sanctions in the Epistle to the Hebrews. In Theonomy: An

informed response, ed. Gary North, 164-192. Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian
Economics.

________. 1993. God’s law in the modern world: The continuing relevance of Old
Testament law. Phillipsburg, N. J.: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co.

Gillespie, George. 1846/1991.The works of George Gillespie: One of the commissioners

from Scotland to the Westminster Assembly, 1644.With a memoir of his life and
writings by W. M. Hetherington, LL.D.Vol. 2. Edmonton, AB: Still Waters Revival
Books.
________. 1646/1985.Aaron’s Rod Blossoming: The divine ordinance of church government
vindicated; so as the present Erastian controversy concerning the distinction of civil
and ecclesiastical government, excommunication and suspension, is fully debated and
discussed, from the Holy Scripture, from the Jewish and Christian antiquities, from
the consent of later writers, from the true nature and rights of magistracy, and from
the groundlessness of the chief objections made against the presbyterial government,
in point of a domineering arbitrary unlimited power. With a Preface to the new
edition by David Lachman. Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle Publications.

Goldingay, John. 1981. Approaches to Old Testament interpretation. Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity Press.

*Greenberg, Moshe. 1960. Some postulates of biblical criminal law. In Yehezkel Kaufmann
jubilee volume, ed. M. Haran, 5-28. Jerusalem.

Greenway, Roger S. and Timothy M. Monsma. 1989. Cities: Missions’ new frontier. Grand
Rapids: Baker Book House.

Hall, Peter, ed. 1842/1992.The harmony of Protestant confessions: Exhibiting the faith of the
church of Christ, reformed after the pure and holy doctrine of the Gospel, revised and
considerably enlarged edition. Edmonton, AB: Still Waters Revival Books.

Hedlund, Roger E. 1985. The mission of the church in the world: A biblical theology. With
a foreword by Arthur F. Glasser. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.

Hiebert, Paul. 1985. Anthropological insights for missionaries. Grand Rapids: Baker Book
House.

Hirsh, E. D., Jr. 1967. Validity in Interpretation. New Haven, CN: Yale University Press,
249). Quoted in Larkin, William J., Jr.Culture and Biblical Hermeneutics:
Interpreting and applying the authoritative word in a relativistic age.Columbia Bible
College and Seminary Press.

Hodge, A. A. 1964. The confession of faith: A handbook of Christian doctrine expounding

the Westminster Confession. London: The Banner of Truth Trust.

Johnson, Allen. 1984. In Hermeneutics, inerrancy, and the bible. *

Johnson, Dennis E. 1990. The Epistle to the Hebrews and the mosaic penal sactions. In
Theonomy: A reformed critique, eds. William S. Barker and W. Robert Godfrey, 171-
192. Grand Rapids, MI: Academie Books/Zondervan Publishing House.

Johnson, Luke T. 1982. The use of Leviticus 19 in the letter of James. Journal of Biblical
Literature 101: 381-401. Quoted in Stephen C. Mott. 1984a. The Use of the Bible in
social ethics II. The use of the New Testament: Part I. Transformation 1 (April/June):
21-26. *

Jordan, James B. 1984. The law of the covenant. Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Ethics.
  . 1988. Reconsidering the Mosaic law: Some reflections -- 1988. 2nd ed. Tyler, TX:
Biblical Horizons.

Kaiser, Jr, Walter. 1975. The weightier and lighter matters of the law: Moses, Jesus and
Paul. In Current issues in biblical interpretation: Studies in honor of Merrill C.
Tenney presented by his former students, ed. Gerald F. Hawthorne, 176-92. Grand
Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Co.

________. 1983. Toward Old Testament ethics. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

  _. 1985. The uses of the Old Testament in the New. Chicago: Moody Press.

  _. 1987. Toward rediscovering the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

________. 1989. A Single Biblical Ethic in Business. In Biblical principles and business:
The foundations, ed. Richard C. Chewning, 76-88. Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress.

________. 1990. God’s promise plan and His gracious law. Journal of the Evangelical
Theological Society 33:3 (September): 289-302

________. 1993. The Law as God’s Guidance for the Promotion of Holiness. In The law,
the gospel, and the modern Christian: Five views. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan
Publishing House.

Kaufman, Stephen A. 1978-79. The Structure of the deuteronomic law. MAARAV1/2, ???.

Kickasola, Joseph M. 1989. The theonomic response to Christian America. In God and
Politicas: Four Views on the Reformation of Civil Government—Theonomy,
Principles Pluralism, Christin American, National Confessionalism, ed. Gary Scott
Smith, 150-157. With a Foreword by John W. White. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R.

Klein, Meredith G. 1978. Comments on the Old-New Error. Westminster Theological

Journal 41 (Fall), 172-189.

________. 1972. The structure of biblical authority. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Klein, William W., Craig L. Blomberg, Robert L. Hubbard, Jr. 1993. Introduction to biblical
interpretation.With Kermit A. Ecklebarger, consulting editor. Dallas: Word.

________. 2004. Introduction to biblical interpretation. 2d ed. Nashville, TN: Thomas

Nelson.

Kraft, Charles. 1979. Christianity in culture: A study in dynamic biblical theologizing in

cross-cultural perspective. With a Foreword by Bernard Ramm.Maryknoll, NY:
Orbis Books.

Kreitzer, Mark R. 2008. The Concept of Ethnicity in the Bible: A Theological Analysis.
Edwin Mellen.
Larkin, William J., Jr. 1992.Culture and Biblical Hermeneutics: Interpreting and applying
the authoritative word in a relativistic age.N.p.: Columbia Bible College and
Seminary Press.

Leathes, Stanley. 1891. The law in the prophets. London: Eyre and Spottiswoode.

*Lee, Francis Nigel. 1978. Are the Mosaic laws for today? : Calvinism and the Westminster
standards on the relationship between God’s moral law of nature for all men and
ancient Israel’s other laws.Tallahessee, FL: Jesus Lives Series.

________. n.d. The Ten Commandments today! London: The Lord’s Day Observance
Society (Originally publised in an extended form in Blue Banner, Faith and Life 29
(Jan./March 1974).

________. 1972. The Westminster Confesssion and modern society. Edinburgh: Scottish
Reformed Fellowship. *

Lightner, Robert P. 1986. Theological perspectives on Theonomy Part 2: Nondispensational

responses to Theonomy. Bibliotheca Sacra (April-June): 134-145.

Long, Gary D. 1981. Biblical law and ethics: Absolute and covenantal. An exegetical and
theological study of Matthew 5:17-20. Rochester, NY: Backus Book Publishers.

Longman, Tremper. 1990. God’s law and Mosaic punishments today. In Theonomy: A
reformed critique, eds. William S. Barker and W. Robert Godfrey, 41-54. Grand
Rapids, MI: Academie Books/Zondervan Publishing House.

Medeiros, Elias dos Santos. 1992. Missiology as an Academic Discipline in Theological

Education. D. Miss. dissertation. Reformed Theological Seminary.

Mott, Stephen Charles. 1984a. The Use of the Bible in social ethics II. The use of the New
Testament: Part I. Transformation 1 (April/June): 21-26.

Neilson, Lewis. 1979. God’s law in Christian ethics: A reply to Bahnsen and Rushdoony.
Cherry Hill, NJ: Mack Publishing Co.

Niebuhr, H. Richard. 1951. Christ and culture. New York: Harper and Brothers.

North, Gary. 1981. Unconditional surrender. Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics.

________. 1989. Political polytheism. Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics.

________. 1990a. Tools of dominion: The case laws of Exodus. Tyler, TX: Institute for
Christian Economics.

________. 1990b. Victim’s rights: The biblical view of civil justice. Tyler, TX: Institute for
Christian Economics.
________. 1991a. Hermeneutics and Leviticus 19:19 – Passing Dr. Poythress’ test. In
Theonomy: An informed response, ed. Gary North, 255-294. Tyler, TX: Institute for
Christian Economics.

North, Gary, ed. 1991. Theonomy: An informed response. Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian
Economics.

North, Gary and Gary DeMar. 1991. Christian reconstruction: What it is, what it isn’t.
Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics.

The Oxford English Dictionary, 1970 ed. Vol III D-E. Oxford: At the Clarendon Press. S.v.
“equity.”S.v.

Oss, Douglas A. 1989. The influence of hermeneutical frameworks in the theonomy debate.
Westminster Theology Journal 51 (1989): 227-58.

Patrick, Dale. 1985. Old Testament law. Atlanta: John Knox Press.

Paul, Shalom M. 1970.Studies in the book of the covenant in the light of cuneiform and
biblical law. Leiden: E. J. Brill.

Pavlischek, Keith J. 1986. In critique of theonomy: A reformational case for pluralism. M.

Th. thesis, Westminster Theological Seminary.

Phillips, Anthony. 1970. Ancient Israel’s Criminal Law: A new approach to the Decalogue.
New York: Schocken Books.

Plantinga, Cornelius. 1981. A place to stand: A study of ecumenical creeds and reformed
confessions. Grand Rapids: Christian Reformed Board of Publications. In Jack
Sawyer. 1986. Moses and the magistrate: Aspects fo Calvin’s political theory in
contemporary focus, 80. Th. M. thesis: Westminster Theological Seminary.

Rushdoony, Rousas John. 1971. The one and the many: Philosophy of order and ultimacy.
Fairfax, VA: Thoburn Press.

_________ 1973.  Institutes of Biblical law.A Chalcedon study.With three appendices by

Gary North. Nutley, NJ: Craig Press, 1973.

Ryrie, Charles. 1967. The end of the law. Bibliotheca Sacra 124 (1967): 239-242.

Sawyer, Jack, Jr. 1986. Moses and the magistrate: Aspects fo Calvin’s political theory in
contemporary focus. Th. M. thesis: Westminster Theological Seminary.

Stackhouse, Max. 1988. Apologia: contextualization, globalization and mission in

theological education. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Pub. Co.

Vangemeren, Willem A. 1993. The Law is the Perfection of Righteousness in Jesus Christ: A
Reformed Perspective. In The law, the gospel, and the modern Christian: Five views.
Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House.
Waldron, Samuel E. 1989. A modern exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith.
Evangelical Press.

Waltke, Bruce K. 1988. The Phenomenon of conditionality within the unconditional

covenants in Israel’s apostasy and restoration: Essays in honor of Roland K. Harrison,
ed. A. Gileadi. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House. Quoted in Walter Kaiser, Jr.God’s
promise plan and His gracious law.Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society
33:3 (September): 298.

Walton, John H. 1987. Deuteronomy: An exposition of the spirit of the law. Grace
Theological Journal, 8.2, 213-25.

________. 1989. Ancient Israelite literature in its cultural context: A survey of parallels
between biblical and ancient Near Eastern texts. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan
Publishing House.

Wenham, Gordon. 1978. Law and the legal system in the Old Testament. In Law, Morality
and the Bible: A symposium, eds. Bruce Kaye and Gordon Wenham. Preface by J. I.
Packer. Downers Grove, ILL: InterVarsity Press.

Westbrook, Raymond. 1988. Studies in Biblical and Cuneiform Law. Cahiers de La Revue
Biblique, 26. Paris: J. Gabaldaet cie. (BS 1199 .L3 W41 1988).

Westminster Confession of Faith.1647/1985. Glasgow: Free Presbyterian Publications.

Wright, Christoper J. H. 1983. An Eye for An Eye: The place of Old Testament ethics today.
Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

________. 1984a. The Use of the Bible in social ethics. Paradigms, types and
eschatology.Transformation 1 (January/March): 11-20

________. 1984b. The Use of the Bible in social ethics. The ethical relavance of Israel as a
Society.Transformation 1 (October/December): 11-21.

Wan, Enoch. 1982. The theological application of the contextual — interaction model of
culture. His Dominion 9 (October): 1ff.

Zimmerli, Waltherer. 1967. The law and the prophets: A study of the meaning of the Old
Testament. New York: Harper Torchbooks, The Cloister Library, Harper and Row,
Publishers.