Question 9: How Has the Bible Been Interpreted Throughout Church History?

In this chapter, Plummer gives a brief survey of nearly 2,000 years of interpretive history.  Understanding how Christians throughout history have interpreted the Scriptures is quite important as there is much to learn from their methods as well as their missteps.  This survey describes the methodology of five interpretive eras.

The Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament (A.D. 45-90).  The first place we see Christians interpreting the Scriptures is in the citations of Old Testament texts by New Testament authors.  The citations of such texts have a number of characteristics.

First, NT authors cite the OT Scriptures as reliable accounts of God's prior interventions and communications (e.g., Matt 12:40-41; Rom 4:1-25).  Second, the NT authors respected the contexts of the passages they cited - that is, they were not haphazard in their citations.  Third, the NT authors employed the OT in a typological and messianic way.  Plummer adds, "This means they saw God's prior revelation as anticipatory, reaching its climactic fulfillment in the coming of Messiah Jesus."  Finally, the NT authors did not use the OT in allegorical ways - that is, they did not assign meanings to details of the OT texts that the original authors would not have countenanced.

On typology, Plummer warns, "any typological use of the OT not explicitly sanctioned in the NT should be entertained with great caution."

The Rise of Allegorical Interpretation (A.D. 100-500).  Many of the early church fathers employed this method of interpretation by assigning symbolic significance to textual details.  I agree with Plummer when he says, "If allegory is not intended by the author...then a dangerous misrepresentation of the author's meaning can result [if allegory is used]."  Allegory is not a bad thing, Jesus and Paul used them. It is the illegitimate importation of it that is the problem.  This practice could very well have been adopted from the Greco-Roman world as it employed allegorical methodology in an effort to interpret difficult religious texts.

Allegory's tendency to distance the reader from the literal meaning of the text eventually gave rise to creeds and summaries, like the "rule of faith".  An objective, orthodox interpretation had to be put forward as protection against unorthodoxy and heresy.  Plummer states that it was this repetition of church tradition and the summarization of orthodox doctrine that functionally replaced the primacy of the Bible.

The Fourfold Meaning of Scripture (A.D. 500-1500).  During the medieval period we find the assertion that every biblical text has four levels of meaning: the literal, moral, spiritual (allegorical), and heavenly (eschatological or anagogical).  A good example of this can be found in the fourfold interpretation of Jerusalem: the literal plot of ground in Palestine; the moral nature the human soul; the spiritual Church; and the heavenly city, the New Jerusalem.

This practice became widespread and assumed.  Much of the biblical scholarship during this time was not really exegesis of the text; but the cataloging of church father's interpretations of various passages (for more on this era see my post Getting the Reformation Wrong (A Review)).  While the majority of the church's work was given to this sort of scholasticism, there were many who called for a return to the priority of the literal meaning of the text.

The Return to a More Faithful Interpretive Method (A.D. 1500-Present).  While I agree with the title of this section, I do think it tip-toes on the line of using euphemism (that this interpretive method is the "more faithful" one) to further a point that he does not explicitly address.  Anyway - back to the point.

The Reformation's cry was "back to the sources".  While the reformers sought to give primacy to the Scriptures, they also heavily scrutinized the fourfold method.  Calvin writes, "We ought to have a deeper reverence for Scripture than to reckon ourselves at liberty to disguise its natural meaning."  This interpretive method ultimately seeks to understand the Bible by gaining the sense of the author's actual words according to the norms of language and grammar.  Plummer continues, "For evangelicals, the conscious intent of the human author (whether the original author or a later biblical author in canonical reflection) is the touchstone of interpretation."

I would also add that the "analogy of faith" is the reformational interpretive standard - that Scripture interprets Scripture.

For more reading on this important subject Plummer (and I) recommend:
Biblical Interpretation Then and Now: Contemporary Hermeneutics in the Light of the Early Church
A Short History of the Interpretation of the Bible
A History of Biblical Interpretation: The Ancient World

Introduction to Biblical Interpretation

Putting Porn to Death (Part 2 of 3)

I believe C.S. Lewis wrote that the enemy will gladly take your cold to give you cancer.  In this post, part 2 of Putting Porn to Death, I talk about how many of us put the idol of porn down only to pick up another.

See the article here on HolyCulture.net

Reading C.S. Lewis with Joy and Caution

I, like many people, began my life of Christian reading with Lewis's Mere Christianity.  I remember how my mind was challenged, as I struggled through these deep, but understandable, ideas.  I began to see the world differently, and God more clearly.  I was encouraged with clear, reasonable arguments for my newly found faith.

Soon my shelf was full of Lewis as I spent every extra dime on The Problem of Pain, and Surprised by Joy, Reflections on the Psalms and others.  I loved Lewis and I still do.  I too was "surprised by joy" as I read this legendary communicator.

There was a time, however, when some things began to concern me.  After I became more reformed in my thinking, I remember reading arguments from Lewis as to why the doctrine of Total Depravity was wrong.  There came a point in time when the arguments from Scripture and other theologians pried my fingers away from ole Clive Staples Lewis.

But then I rested and started thumbing through his writings again.  I remember how he would often begin his books with some statement like, "I am not a theologian and don't pretend to be."  Though I would agree with his comment, there are ways in which he is not giving himself enough credit - but there are also ways in which he is spot on.

I won't go into the ways in which Lewis was off a little bit (even though I already mentioned how I disagree with his view on the depravity of man).  Kevin DeYoung has done that for us in a great post that I'd suggest you read if you are a fan of Lewis (or are becoming one!).

You can read his post here.

Daddy on the Trinity

I remember when Dr. Derek Thomas, while teaching us Systematic Theology, said something to the effect of, "If you want to know how well you know the doctrine of the Trinity, just wait until your child asks you to explain it."  I remember giving bit of a smirk as we moved on to the next point.  I must say I haven't thought much of Dr. Thomas's comment until today.

This morning, after our daily devotions in The Jesus Storybook Bible, Emma looks at me and says, "Daddy, I don't understand how Jesus is God and how God is God at the same time...can you explain it to me?"  As I looked her in the eyes, I tried to act cool.  I gave a nonchalant grin and a random correction to Jude (who was doing nothing wrong) while my mind raced for an answer.  Of all the questions that I have been asked this year, again, my little girl stumps me.

So, I went where every good PCA minster goes - YES!  Catechism to the rescue!!!  "Emma," I said.  "Yes Daddy?" she replied.  "Are there more Gods than one?" I asked.  She answered, "Uhh...no?"  I said, "That's right Emma.  There is only One God, in three persons!"  Done.  Question answered!  Yeah right.  Catechism not to the rescue.

Her look said it all.  She didn't say a word, but "Huh?" was written all over her face.  I couldn't just leave her there. While my breathing got a bit heavier, I thought, "Okay...keep cool...plan B."

I tried desperately to think of an analogy.  Ah HAH!  I had it!  I asked her, "Emma...How many shoes are in one pair of shoes?"  She said, "Two."  I said, "See?  You can have more than one shoe in one pair of shoes.  Do you get it?"  She nodded side to side.  CRAP!!!!  Ok...think Scott, think!

AH HAH!  How many people are mommy and daddy?  She showed two fingers.  Then I asked, "How many marriages is that?"  She showed two fingers.  DANGIT!!!!!

So, hanging my head a bit, I said, "Its complicated Emma. Just trust me that there is One God in three persons.  Here...eat your pancakes."

While I have to give DT props for teaching a very thorough, informative and God-honoring course, I must say, after going back over that day in my mind, I don't recall his instruction on how to actually explain the Trinity to our kids!  So, I'm passing this one off on my main man Derek Thomas.  If you read this big guy, I'm gonna need a little help.  In the mean time, I'll take a failing grade for the day for being a knucklehead.

The Pain of Predestination

I remember when I hated the doctrine of predestination.  I would go around saying, "Predestination?  I don't believe in that."  I could not bring myself to accept the fact that God decided, before the world and its inhabitants existed, the final destiny of individual sinners (definition loosely taken from Packer's Concise Theology)?  My intense hatred for this doctrine caused me to ignore its obvious usage throughout the New Testament as well as its clear meaning in those contexts.

I won't lie, predestination still doesn't sit well with me sometimes.   I read passages like Romans 9:22-23, "What if God, desiring to show His wrath and to make known His power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of His glory for vessels of mercy, which He has prepared beforehand for glory..." and I can't help but have mixed emotions - emotions of great sorrow mingled with those of sober joy.

Therefore, when people come and ask me about predestination, I have learned to approach the topic with great care and understanding.  I am approached often, and more times than not, the questions are negative in nature.  Like me, many have a hard time realizing that this doctrine is in their Bible.  They come asking how they are supposed to understand it and deal with it.  My answer is a simple one.  It takes all of about three minutes.

First, I explain to them what the doctrine actually means.  Then I ask them what their chief problem is with it.  Without fail, it is that God predestines people to hell - that He decided beforehand that wrath should be poured out on particular people.

I take this opportunity to read Acts 4:27-28, "...for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place."  These verses, along with others like Acts 2:23, tell us that God predestined the death of His Son by the hands of lawless men.  In short, at the Cross, God predestined the innocent Son to die for the sins of others.

At this time, I ask, as I have asked my self over a hundred times, "Have you ever struggled with the fact that God the Father predestined God the Son to take the wrath of hell for sinners?"  "Do you struggle more with the fact that guilty sinners were predestined to hell than you do with the truth that the innocent Son was predestined to take your hell?"

Finally, I propose that our primary struggle should be with the fact that God predestined the Cross.  And until we feel the weight of that truth, then we can hardly proceed to struggle rightly with the fact that God predestines the destinies of individual sinners.

Putting Porn to Death (Part 1 of 3)

Over the next three weeks, I will be writing a series of articles entitled Putting Porn to Death.  These articles will be posted on the site www.holyculture.net.  As many of you know, I have long advocated the rising wave of Christian Hip-Hop.  Artists like Lecrae, Trip Lee and Flame have made quite an impact on the industry - even at the secular level.

But there are other artists out there risking it all.  They are bringing a life-changing, gospel-centered message to a culture that desperately needs it.  You may think I'm talking about the "desperate" urban community only, but I'm not.  I'm talking about the white suburban communities as well.  It turns out that these men and women are changing everybody - preaching, as it were, the gospel through an avenue that many well-to-do-white-folk would call nothing less than foolish.

Take Mark Arthur's new album for example "The Obligation."  I was taken back by the honesty and transparency of struggle coupled with the relevance of the gospel.  Death happens and many never get over it.  The truth is, we don't have to.  Death make us uneasy here, while the body of Christ makes that uneasiness bearable and meaningful.

If you've never been to Holy Culture, I would highly recommend visiting the site and having a look around.  Read some of the articles.  Listen to some of the artists.  More than that though, enter a culture where Christ is obviously moving!


Sweet Symphony "Mark Arthur feat. Michelle Bonilla" from Rocksoul on Vimeo.

My Most Humbling Experience To Date As a Parent

The morning started off wonderfully.  I looked to my side at my beautiful wife - and she was just that - stunning.  Then, as always, the kids, one by one, bombarded us with their cheerful shouts and demands for juice, the potty, and a snack.  We played for a while.

Then we moved to the kitchen table for breakfast.  Everything was going really well there too.  It was a great morning.  Then it happened.  Out of nowhere, one little comment was thrown out.  It led to a deeper one, which led to a deeper one.  Before I knew it an argument began.  This one dug deep.  I stood up and I lost it.

When I acted up as a kid, I got a whoopen.

When I acted up in grade school, I got a "white slip."  Then when I got home, I got a whoopen (or the disciplinary equivalent).

When I acted up in college, I'm not really sure what I got.  But it was something.

When I acted up in the first years of marriage, I got the disciplinary equivalent of a whoopen!

Now, as a dad, when I act up, I get this:

In case you didn't get it, Emma wrote: "I love you dad.  You don't have to slam the refrigerator and drop your coffee mug and slam the door.  From Emma."

Simply put, I'm all jacked up.  I spent the next hour wrestling heavily with my sin.  Then we had a family meeting where I repented to everyone of my wicked pride.  As my wife and little girl forgave me, the heavens opened.  I haven't cried like that in a long time.

This was a difficult post to write.  But I think its important that you know who you are reading.  In all the books I have read, I have never read something that humbled me more than what my five-year-old wrote that day - the day that Christ brought this pastor to his knees with the clumsy words of a child.