The Wiki entry for hermeneutics:
Hermeneutics is broadly used in contemporary philosophy to denote the study of theories and methods of the interpretation of all texts and systems of meaning. The concept of "text" is here extended beyond written documents to any number of objects subject to interpretation, such as experiences. A hermeneutic is also defined as a specific system or method for interpretation, or a specific theory of interpretation. However, the contemporary philosopher Hans-Georg Gadamer has said that hermeneutics is an approach rather than a method and, further, that the Hermeneutic circle is the central problem of interpretation.In his book, Hermeneutics, writer Henry A. Virkler provides this basic history and definition:Essentially, hermeneutics involves cultivating the ability to understand things from somebody else's point of view, and to appreciate the cultural and social forces that may have influenced their outlook. Hermeneutics is the process of applying this understanding to interpreting the meaning of written texts and symbolic artifacts (such as art or sculpture or architecture), which may be either historic or contemporary.
> The word hermeneutics is said to have had its origin in the name Hermes, the Greek god who served as messenger for the gods, transmitting and interpreting their communications to their fortunate, or often unfortunate, recipients.Theological hermeneutics as traditional Christian Biblical exegesis is a form of theological hermeneutics, especially within the mainstream, self-declared 'orthodox' Protestant tradition, considers Christian Biblical hermeneutics in the tradition of explication of the text, or exegesis, to deal with various principles that can be applied to the study of Scripture. If it is axiomatic that the canon of Scripture must be an organic whole, rather than an accumulation of disparate individual texts written and edited in the course of history, then any interpretation that contradicts any other part of scripture is not considered to be sound. Thus Biblical hermeneutics differs from hermeneutics as generally understood. Within such traditional Protestant theology, there are a variety of interpretive formulae. I'm not going to mention them but I adhere to their application.In its technical meaning, hermeneutics is often defined as the science and art of biblical interpretation. Hermeneutics is considered a science because it has rules and these rules can be classified into an orderly system. It is considered an art because communication is flexible, and therefore a mechanical and rigid application of rules will sometimes distort the true meaning of a communication.1 To be a good interpreter one must learn the rules of hermeneutics as well as the art of applying those rules.
Hermeneutical theory is sometimes divided into two sub-categories--general and special hermeneutics. General hermeneutics is the study of those rules that govern interpretation of the entire biblical text. It includes topics of historical-cultural, contextual, lexical-syntactical, and theological analyses. Special hermeneutics is the study of those rules that apply to specific genres, such as parables, allegories, types, and prophecy."2
Rev 3:9 is part that of a larger passage. The context of the larger passage can be established in Rev 1:20. John is being charged to address seven contemporary churches of his time; specifically John addresses the church at Philadelphia in Rev 3:7. That should illuminate the object of the verse, i.e., "thy feet". To whom does "thy feet" belong and what does "worship" entail?
One of the first tenets of hermeneutics is what does the passage (or verse) actually say? If the translation that one is interpreting is not quite clear, further investigation is required. There are several methods that can be utilized, i.e.,
In Rev 3:9, I give (didô), incorporates late omega form for didômi, but the mi form in Rev 17:13 (didoasin). These Jewish converts are a gift from Christ. For this use of didômi see Act 2:27; 10:40; 14:3. There is ellipse of tinas before ek as in Rev 2:10 (ex humôn) and see Rev 2:9 for "the synagogue of Satan."
Of them which say (tôn legontôn) rendered from ablative plural in apposition with sunagôgês. On the construction of heautous Ioudaious einai see on Rev 2:9 (Ioudaious einai heautous, i.e., the order of words being immaterial).
But do lie (alla pseudontai). Present middle indicative of pseudomai, explanatory positive, addition here to kai ouk eisin of Rev 2:9, in contrast also with ho alêthinos of verse Rev 3:7 and in Johannine style (Jno 8:44; I Jno 1:10; 2:4).
I will make them (poiêsô autous). Future active indicative of poieô, resuming the prophecy after the parenthesis (tôn--pseudontai, which say--but do lie).
To come and worship (hina hêxousin kai proskunêsousin). "That they come and worship" (final clause, like facio ut in Latin, with hina and the future active of hêkô and proskuneô). The English rendered here is from the NT Greek language which is based on Isa 45:14; 60:14 (Hebrew). The Jews expected homage (not worship in the strict sense) from the Gentiles, but it will come to the Christians at last (I Cor 14:24). Later Ignatius (Philad. 6) warns this church against Judaizing Christians, perhaps one result of an influx of Jews.
And to know (kai gnôsin). Continuation of the purpose clause with hina, but with the second aorist active subjunctive rather than the less usual future indicative. See both constructions also with hina in Rev 22:14. Probably a reminiscence of Isa 43:4 in egô êgapêsa se ("I loved thee"), first aorist active indicative.
The salient word appears to be "worship" (Strong's #4352). Strong's Concordances shows:
proskunew proskuneo, i.e., pros-koo-neh'-o is from 4314 and a probable derivative of 2965 (meaning to kiss, like a dog licking his master's hand); to fawn or crouch to, i.e. (literally or figuratively) prostrate oneself in homage (do reverence to, adore):--worship.
The promise to Philadelphia is much larger than that earlier to Smyrna (cf Rev 2:9). The promise to Smyrna was that "the synagogue of Satan" should not prevail against the faithful in her: to Philadelphia, however, that she should even win over some of "the synagogue of Satan" to fall on their faces and confess God is in her of a truth. Translate, "(some) of the synagogue." For until Christ shall come, and all Israel then be saved, there is but "a remnant" being gathered out of the Jews "according to the election of grace." This is an instance of how Christ set before her an "open door," some of her greatest adversaries, the Jews, being brought to the obedience of the faith. Their worshipping before her feet expresses the convert's willingness to take the very lowest place in the Church, doing servile honor to those whom once they persecuted, rather than dwell with the ungodly (cf. the Philippian jailer before Paul). And just who was Paul anyways? It would behoove one to read up on what Paul said about himself and how he conducted himself prior to his conversion.
Adam Clarke says of Rev 3:9 that "I will so dispose of matters in the course of my providence, that the Jews shall be obliged to seek unto the Christians for toleration, support, and protection, which they shall be obliged to sue for in the most humble and abject manner."
He goes on further to state:
To know that I have loved thee. That the love which was formerly fixed on the Jews is now removed, and transferred to the Gentiles.
Your useage of Rev 3:9 as some sort of proof text is not just flawed; it is outright doctinally incorrect. God is NOT allowing "worship" of beings (or organizations), because He rejected them; He's compelling them to worship Him in the very organazations they despised, detested, destroyed. All of Scripture MUST remain uncontradicted on any small matter (lest ALL all of it come under suspicion concerning the least). =====================================
Notes:
1. Bernard Ramm. Protestant Biblical Interpretation, 3rd rev. ed., Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI, p. 1
2. Henry A. Virkler. Hermeneutics. Baker Books, pg. 15, 16.
Thanks for an interesting discourse.
My bias remains to take Scripture at face value.
There are deep things to dig out of Scripture . . . I don’t think the deep digging requires a lot more than Holy Spirit’s instruction though scholarly helps and refs can be of some aid.
The righteous gold in Scripture is usually quite accessible to the simplest child of good heart.
I get wary of too much lofty intellectual scholarship as foisted on the laity as necessary for “FULL AND ACCURATE” Scriptural comprehension.
The RELIGIOUS RULERS in Jerusalem 2000 years ago had the best of all that plus Scripture memorized. Didn’t help them know the truth a bit.
Your elaborate explanation for your perspective is worth pondering.
Thanks.
To respond I must first explain my personal epistemology – or how I know what I know and how certain I am that I know it.
The differences between personal epistemologies accounts for much of the irreconcilable differences between people. And I suspect you and I have very different epistemologies.
The following is a list of the types of knowledge I receive by priority to me:
2. Theological knowledge, indirect revelation: I believe in a revelation experienced by another; which is to say that Scripture is authenticated and enlivened in me by the indwelling Spirit.
3. Logical conclusion: I can prove the Pythagorean theorem is valid and true.
4. Evidence/Historical fact, uninterpreted: I have verifiable evidence Reagan was once President.
5. Sensory perception of something external to me: I see my dog is lying at my feet.
6. Personal memory: I recall I had breakfast this morning.
7. Prediction from scientific theory: I calculate there will be a partial solar eclipse this week.
8. Trust in a Mentor: I trust this particular person to always tell me the truth, therefore I know …
9. Internal emotional state: I feel I’m happy, or I have empathy, compassion or sympathy for you.
10. Evidence/Historical fact, interpreted: I conclude from the fossil evidence in the geologic record that …
11. Determined facts: I accept something as fact because of a consensus determination by others, positive (affirmation) or negative (veto); i.e., I trust that these fact finders collectively know what they are talking about.
12. Imaginings: I imagine how things ought to have been in the Schiavo case.
And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. – John 6:65
Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.
But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ. - I Corinthians 2:10-16
But if God says it, it is. It is certain because He says it. (Levels 1 and 2)
I eschew all of the doctrines and traditions of men across the board. And the Spiritual leaning that have concerning the passages in Revelation 3 and 22 is exactly as I have testified.
Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, [and] the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts [is] his name: If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the LORD, [then] the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever. Thus saith the LORD; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the LORD. - Jeremiah 31:33-37
The Song of Moses and the Song of the Lamb are both sung:
God keeps every promise. Every one.
To God be the glory!