Posted on 04/15/2002 12:34:20 AM PDT by lockeliberty
Any comments?
thanks
It is obvious that no one reads anything without "interpreting" it. We bring our own values, views and experience to bear on all we read and discuss. I think this is more so with scripture or other writings about things which are difficult, sometimes impossible, to describe completely in words.
Parables. Parables are stories with a punch-line. Parables are not so much illustrative, but rather, provocative. They are designed to draw people in and hit them with something unexpected, in the same way a joke does. Most parables have only one message or central idea, and even if multiple messages are present, one of them will be the chief idea. Note also that they are not perfect analogies! Parables are also found in parts of the Gospels.
Apocalypse. This includes the book of Revelation, and also large parts of Ezekiel and Daniel. Revelation is a vision of warning and encouragement to the early church as it was going through immense persecution.
I believe the above 3 give some idea of this man's biases entering this so-called "neutral" review of biblical interpretation. His comments on prophecy, parables, and apocalypse are hotly debated and he states them as if they are fact. From these comments he's made, it's obvious to me that I'm dealing with someone who has a moderately liberal interpretive bias.
Prophecy - he says the "vast majority of Bible prophecy speaks to the present." He means the prophetic literature speaks to the "present day of the writer." In other words, he's saying it applies to a time millenia AGO. He says this is true of the "vast majority" of the prophetic writings. The debate is that that is simply not the case. Others believe the vast majority of the preserved writings dealt with a time other than that of the author. A huge portion of the prophetic literature dealt with the coming of the Messiah which occurred hundreds of years AFTER the time of the prophet author. A huge portion of it deals with a time that CANNOT be easily cubby-holed into the time of the author prophet....in fact one can make a case for curiosity of the original readers about the intended time being a primary reason why they preserved the prophetic literature in the first place.
Parables - Most parables have only one message or central idea, and even if multiple messages are present, one of them will be the chief idea. This is such a common, monotonous refrain of the moderately liberal interpretive advocates that I cannot believe they don't mention that others simply don't see it that way. Only one meaning is a gross assumption that ALSO means by these folks that one can make only ONE allegorical cross-application. The story of the treasure hidden has only one application -- the treasure equals the kingdom of heaven. One cannot speculate on who the man represents.
But look at the parable of the sower who went out to sow. Jesus says that virtually everything in that parable has an allegorical application. The seed equals the word of God. The seed that fell on the good soil equals and abundant harvest. Jesus uses this parable as an example of how we will interpret any parable. 13Then Jesus said to them, "Don't you understand this parable? How then will you understand any parable? 14The farmer sows the word. 15Some people are like seed along the path, where the word is sown. As soon as they hear it, Satan comes and takes away the word that was sown in them.
Apocalypse (especially Revelation) -- Revelation is a vision of warning and encouragement to the early church
This is such a gross misrepresentation of the current debate over Revelation that it's almost laughable. The moderate liberal will always try to relegate the Revelation to that early Church era. They don't want to see a future application aspect to it. This man has just told you that proper interpretation of Revelation REQUIRES YOU to strip it of any notions YOU might have about its being a futuristic book. Despite what you might read in that sounds futuristic, looks futuristic, compares with other passages as futuristic, this man tells you that you are mistaken.
We call that assuming the result before the debate.
Show of hands: How many of you think Revelation is a book with many futuristic elements in it? Good....I thought so. Many of you.
How many of you think Revelation is a book that MIGHT contain many futuristic elements in it? Just as I though....most of the rest of you.
This guy just told you all that you're dead wrong.
Unbiased biblical interpretative method........bah, humbug! book.
Most of Revelation is written to the persecuted church. I know that view isn't popular, but popularity doesn't really mean much.
However, major portions of Revelation do look forward (from its writing) and major portions of the old testament prophets do look forward. Enough to establish supernatural foreknowledge of a wide range of things.
The prophet Daniel outlines history for the next 500 years after his writing with stunning detail. The materialists who reject the supernatural can only get around Daniel's predictions by making him a near-contemporary of Christ or ignoring him altogether. Of course, then you run into more problems, such as Alexander's identification with one horn, where he would be depicted with the two horns of Amen-Ra after visiting Egypt if Daniel had written at a later date.
I don't mind debating the above with someone who at least recognizes there is a debate going on. The man who wrote this basic article assumes the above conclusion without even mentioning the debate...and it is a hot debate. Preterism, in particular, has reemphasized the intensity of the debate.
You are honest. He is dishonest.
You also recognize a futuristic element in Revelation. It's hard to read about the judgements and new Jerusalem without at least conceding these are futuristic, but some won't even allow that.
There is much more that is futuristic. I would, however, be one who would listen to a historic interpretation of the opening letters to the 7 churches segment. I don't find any alignment with historic "periods" of the church to be at all compelling, and instead, it's the penultimate in high speculation.
I certainly agree. This is a well-done and even-handed article. I have underlined that portion of the quotation which is so amply demonstrated by the posters here at FR.
The author has included, in the original, an interesting schematic diagram just below the title "The Interpretive Process" (which didn't come through in the FR posting above) in which he shows his understanding of the cyclicality of the interpretive process in which the data received from the reading is 'recycled' into the readers 'presuppositions' and 'preunderstandings'.
This is, of course, true and, indeed, the aim of Bible study -- to bring the meaning of the Scriptures back into our lives. However, this is the part of the process where the 'presuppositions' can become like weeds which consume immediately upon return any response from the teaching of the Bible, thereby growing, in turn, ever stronger and more voracious at the expense of any further study. Eventually, they are so pervasive and so hardy that they entirely 'choke out' any feedback from the study. So, the students conclude that their presupposition is now complete and they have no further need to focus on the 'raw material' since they now have the more sophisticated product.
As I suggested in another post last night, the ultimate risk is that demonstrated by so many here: that this 'short-circuiting' of the study process causes the 'study' process to become a desire to study one's own presuppositions and use the Bible as simply a source of (supposedly) disconnected 'proof-texts' which can be used independent of each other and their context to 'support' the presuppositions. As this process procedes over time, the subject abandons any pretense of 'Bible study' and engages every more intensely in 'presupposition study'.
What are the 'warning signs' of this conversion from 'Bible Study' to 'presupposition study'? I think several that we often see here present themselves.
Changing the Focus
We see the focus becomes, not a passage of Scripture, but some convenient topical summary of the presupposition. For example, we see here at FR repeatedly that the 'discussion' is begun with the posting of some convenient summary of the presupposition -- the suggested outcome, if you will, of the Bible study. Then the poster says something like "let the fun begin."
Unfortunately, this process is almost doomed from the start. The entire focus is on the presupposition -- whatever its content -- and not on the underlying evidence.
The Expectation of Presuppositional Testing
After this process is reepeated a few times from various points of view, the resident posters are 'trained' in all the wrong ways to respond, much like dogs who are repeatedly treated to a single large piece of meat at feeding time become 'trained' to fight over it. There is the expectation that the post will treated to the hypercritical presuppositional -- not Biblical -- testing. Indeed the nature of the presuppositional postings almost precludes Biblical testing for the reasons set out below.
Misuse of Evidence and Evidentiary Techniques
Indeed this misplaced focus and concommitant expectation of further misplace focus begins to corrupt the entire use of Biblical evidence. Instead of the dispassionate review of the Biblical record, we see the accumulation and citation of long lists of 'proof-texts'. Almost always these are limited to mere verses or even parts of verses (selected because they contain some 'key' word or phrase) lest the context of a larger passage undermine the 'utility' of the verse for it support of the presupposition. Since these 'proof-texts' are gathered hither and yon for this limited purpose, they make no sense other than as part of a list.
Gradually, over perhaps years, people who once may have studied the Bible turn it into a 'book of lists' organized by a concordance or a search engine. It no longer has anything to 'teach', merely a function to 'support' pre-existing 'pre-understandings' and presuppositions.
This loss is egregious. Now the entire process is out of control, spinning ever more toward embittered reinforcement of these pre-existing presuppositions. Lists are no longer even devised; they are adopted from prior defenders. These lists of much-abused Scripture verses are lobbed back and forth in what now passes for a Bible-based discussion. Needless to say, it casts little credit on the Scriptures or upon the Lord of the Scriptures.
What Can Be Done?
I believe the 'cure' for this biblically destructive disease is equal parts of intellectual humility and revised technique. The humility comes with the recognition that, had the Lord felt that systematic presentation of presuppositions a more accurate way of ordering Truth, He could readily have done so. He did not. Therefore, there must be something superior -- not almost as good or subject to improvement, but superior -- in the presentation of Truth in the Scriptures over the organization of presuppositions.
The changes in technique ought to include: (1) a collective refusal to perpetuate the focus on presuppositional, topical summaries of Scripture, (2) a collective insistence that citation of single verses, partial sentences or even, amazingly, half verses ought to be not only ignored but condemned as abuse, and (3) a new insistence that only a focus on the Scriptures themselves and not on anyone else's 'results' has value for us. This latter point is probably not true but useful nonetheless. For example, we know that others' experiences or insights are often valuable, but we have now seen firsthand how destructive a continued focus on such is to our appreciation of the greatest intellectual gift which has been given to mankind -- the very Word of God.
[2] Parables - Most parables have only one message or central idea, and even if multiple messages are present, one of them will be the chief idea. This is such a common, monotonous refrain of the moderately liberal interpretive advocates that I cannot believe they don't mention that others simply don't see it that way. Only one meaning is a gross assumption that ALSO means by these folks that one can make only ONE allegorical cross-application. The story of the treasure hidden has only one application -- the treasure equals the kingdom of heaven. One cannot speculate on who the man represents. But look at the parable of the sower who went out to sow. Jesus says that virtually everything in that parable has an allegorical application. The seed equals the word of God. The seed that fell on the good soil equals and abundant harvest. Jesus uses this parable as an example of how we will interpret any parable. 13Then Jesus said to them, "Don't you understand this parable? How then will you understand any parable? 14The farmer sows the word. 15Some people are like seed along the path, where the word is sown. As soon as they hear it, Satan comes and takes away the word that was sown in them.
[3] Apocalypse (especially Revelation) -- Revelation is a vision of warning and encouragement to the early church This is such a gross misrepresentation of the current debate over Revelation that it's almost laughable. The moderate liberal will always try to relegate the Revelation to that early Church era. They don't want to see a future application aspect to it. This man has just told you that proper interpretation of Revelation REQUIRES YOU to strip it of any notions YOU might have about its being a futuristic book. Despite what you might read in that sounds futuristic, looks futuristic, compares with other passages as futuristic, this man tells you that you are mistaken.
_____________________________
I don't know anything about this fellow's presuppositions, but I think what he wrote is basically sound. I think you may be being a little tough on the guy for not saying more.
[1]Prohpecies. I think I understand your point, but it seems to me that even you would agree that, as far as he goes, he is correct. Certainly, the vast majority of prophecies did have a near-term application.
But of course, you argue, "Others believe the vast majority of the preserved writings dealt with a time other than that of the author." But, I think, most would say that there is a second, futuristic, application, not that there was no near-term (to the writer) application. Is that not true?
[2]I am not sure I understand your point here. You say Jesus gives us an example of interpretation and He does. But it is quite a specific interpretation and He clearly implies that He had a single meaning in mind and His listeners were dense not to appreciate that meaning He wasn't arguing that there were several meanings available and they were dense for only seeing one.
So, I think I need to hear more as to why he is so wrong here. He appears to allow for secondary applications and meanings as the context might indicate. What is wrong with that? On what basis should anyone assume multiple available interpretations?
[3] Revelation. Again, what he says seems unremarkable. I wouldn't think anyone -- even a thoroughgoing dispensationalist -- would dispute the truth of what he said. They might say it was also much more, but it was at the very least a warning and encouragement to the early church. Is that not true?
Perhaps you are much more sensitive to liberal phrasing than I am, but I didn't find that much to quarrel with in what he said
By the way, wouldn't you agree that where secondary meanings and/or fulfillments are to be found, there should be some direct clue in the text that tells us? We shouldn't be simply assuming such, should we?
2. Parables. Some see a gold-mine of symbolism and meanings in each parable. This man says there's just one. Having taken a "liberal" class on the parables, I know that this "one meaning" mantra has a vise-grip on their minds. They don't see a gold-mine; they see a single nugget. The example of the parable of the sower shows that each act and actor in the story had a relevant parallel. The sower represented someone, the seed represented something, the paths represented something, the birds represented something else, etc. Now go to the parable of the treasure hidden in the field. Who is the man? (What does that mean?) What does he find. (What does that mean?) What does he do? (What does that mean?) What is the result. (What does that mean?) If Jesus' interpretive method in the parable of the sower is instructive -- that each item had a representation and a meaningful application -- then one would think he could apply that same method to the parable of the treasure. According to this methodology, you are wrong if you do. AND THEY ENFORCE IT.
Revelation. I'm not convinced that Revelation was written to encourage the early church. It says about itself 1The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, 2who testifies to everything he saw--that is, the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ. 3Blessed is the one who reads the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear it and take to heart what is written in it, because the time is near
For those who wish to discuss the points "soon take place" and "time is near," I call them to the section of this book about the various judgements and the new jerusalem. In light of those, what must this book mean by "near" and "soon" other than "from God's perspective."
Fortunately for me, as a Catholic, if I have any doubt as to what a passage means, I can rely on the Sacred Tradition to steer me down the right path. The early church fathers, particularly in the second and third centuries, are a wealth of information to turn to on Scripture. And the Catechism of the Catholic Church has a scriptural basis for all tenets of the Faith. I have not read the entire document -- it's huge -- but I have read large chunks at a time and have never been disappointed in its clarity and scriptural support.
God bless.
When you read the approaches he recommends for the various types of books, they also seem pretty sound. He certainly doesn't seem to denigrate the authority of Scripture at all.
Now you didn't answer my question, "wouldn't you agree that where secondary meanings and/or fulfillments are to be found, there should be some direct clue in the text that tells us? We shouldn't be simply assuming such, should we?" But it seems to me that his suggested questions probe for information that would encourage the careful student to determine that from the text and its surrounding context (which he emphaiszes).
Now, I realize that this doesn't mean that he would arrive at the same view of Daniel or Revelation as you would, but it seems to me that our 'rules' of interpretation should not guarantee a particular presupposed outsome. I assume you agree?
Since I like this well enough to build on it for future use, what additional questions do you think the careful student should be encouraged to answer with regard to a passage? [You can restrict to your categoriew of prophecy, parables and Revelation or not as you wish.]
Gophack, I was raised in the Reformed tradition of John Calvin. I think John Calvin was a sincere and devout Christian. However, I would not consider his writings sacred. I think we need to consider what we call divine and sacred in both an implicit and explicit sense. The creation was established by the Word of God and if we take that into serious contemplation we should be very careful about what we consider divine or sacred, or what is the Word of God. I have no doubt that you can gain additional understanding through the writings of the early Church fathers yet you should not rely on them exclusively.
The grace of the Lord be with you.
Perhaps I wasn't clear in my post. I in no way rely on the writings of the early Church fathers exclusively; in fact, Scripture is the foundation for the Catholic faith. However, the writings of the early fathers help greatly in understanding the context of the Scriptures, particularly the historical context and the comparisons between OT and NT. Also, the writings should the implementation of the Word of God and the early evangelization of Christians.
God bless.
1. Not in the case of parables. I think it's perfectly rational for the reader to use the methodology Jesus proposed with the parable of the sower and use it with the other parables. My point is that this would be a VALID way to handle parables.
2. The context of prophecy is important to establish the meaning. The context would be the secondary clues you're looking for.
3. The inductive bible study method and the questions used has never been the point here. The point has been the insistence on the author's part in establishing the conclusions of the debate in the areas of prophecy, parables, and apocalypse without mentioning that there is another side in the debate that is equally valid.
Peter: Lord you know that your my friend.
Jesus: Peter do you love me unconditionally?
Peter: Lord you know that your my friend.
Jesus: Peter do you love me unconditionally?
Peter: Lord you know all things, you know I love you unconditionally.
Poet, you know better than most how important it is to use the right words within a context to derive meaning. It's funny that you brought up that particular exchange between Peter and Jesus, my pastor spoke about this exchange a few weeks back.
Nice tending.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.