This is a LONG post consisting of 12 short lessons in evaluating arguments, using examples drawn from Gary Ezzo and his teachings. These were originally posted on a Parent’s Place debate board by Metochoi a “pastor in Nowhere, Texas” who always signed his posts “I love moms and babies.” There were written help people evaluate Biblical merit of Ezzo’s arguments — and his critics’ arguments, as well.
===============================================
HERMENEUTICS #1 — INTRODUCTION
It has often been said that, for any particular passage of scripture, there is only ONE interpretation, but there are MANY applications. But
how do you set about to apply a scripture that you have misinterpreted in the first place? If the interpretation is wrong, then the odds are pretty high that just about ANY application will be erroneous, as well. This is why a proper hermeneutic is crucial in any discussion of doctrine, interpretation, application, etc.
“Hermeneutics” is a word used by theologians to refer to the science of biblical interpretation. It is a foundational building block of good theology [orthodoxy] and good practice [orthopraxis]. In fact, the major streams of theology within confessing Christianity differ largely because of the distinctive hermeneutical methods they use.
In Luke 24, on the road to Emmaus after his resurrection, Jesus “explained” to his walking companions the OT scriptures relating to his own life and ministry. That word translated “explained” is the Greek word “hermeneuo” — meaning “interpreted”. Jesus was “interpreting” the scriptures.
Although there are many seminary graduates who seem to ignore what they were taught in this area, the fact is that virtually all evangelical seminaries teach the same basic methods of biblical interpretation. There are several standard texts that are used in most of them. These principles have been developed throughout the history of the church by godly, learned men, and they have formed the foundation of what is considered sound doctrine since the days of the reformers.
The problem of our day is that so many Christians — including many who would consider themselves quite conservative — have been infected with the notion that just about any personal interpretation is as good as any other — that one opinion is as valid as another — and that one application is as solid as any other. The truth is that, while everyone has a right to his own opinion, NO ONE has the right to have his opinion accepted as valid, or even respected, without showing some evidence FOR that opinion. The same principle applies to scriptural interpretation.
So — how are we to go about testing competing interpretations? How are we to test Ezzo’s assertions about the biblical evidence concerning “spanking,” or “order,” or “first-time obedience”? How would you go about testing MINE — or any other Ezzo-critic’s? That is what the whole topic of hermeneutics is about.
IMO — any serious Christian should strongly consider taking a course in hermeneutics from a local Bible college or seminary — or even by mail order. It is too large a topic for this discussion list, but I will summarize a few of the more important principles that any of us should and could use in our Bible study, and when we hear anyone preaching anything from the Bible.
There are several “do’s” that are important to learn. By practicing these methods, the serious Bible student should be able to at least learn to discern the major errors and departures from sound doctrine. There are also several “don’ts” — things to avoid. And by learning about these wrong methods, and learning to notice when a teacher is practicing one of these wrong methods — one can protect himself from falling for serious error.
===============================================
HERMENEUTICS #2
The first principle of sound hermeneutics is to interpret the Bible LITERALLY. When I say “literally,” I am not talking about a rigid literalism that refuses to understand nuances of language. Literal interpretation means that we understand scripture in its NORMAL, NATURAL sense, which includes an understanding of figures of speech like parables, hyperbole, simile, metaphor, and symbolism.
How would you read a letter from a friend? You would assume a normal, natural meaning to the words, unless something in the letter alerted you to see it another way. Why do so many Christians refuse to treat the word of God with the same respect?
So many people think that the Bible is a mysterious, exotic, collection of magical sayings that need to be deciphered and read like tea leaves. But this first principle states that, since God inspired the Bible for the purpose of communicating with mankind, then God must have wanted us to understand it. The word of God is not a fetish, to be manipulated in order to get from it what WE want; rather, it is a record of propositional truth that God wants to impart to us. And the most obvious way to understand that truth is to begin by taking the words at “face value.”
The words of scripture should be interpreted in the same way words are understood in ordinary daily use. God has communicated his word to us through human language, and there is every reason to assume that his word is to be understood just as we would interpret the language of normal discourse. So the first thing the careful student of scripture should do is to look for the ordinary, literal meaning of the text, and NOT go fishing for some mystical, hidden, deeper, secret meaning that would not be apparent to others.
It is true that some of the apocalyptic passages, and some of the prophecies, contain obvious figures and symbols that must be studied carefully to see the literal truth they are conveying. That kind of symbolic language, however, is not the norm in scripture, and it is conspicuous where it is employed. And — even the figurative language is designed to represent something literal.
Those who abandon the literal principle of interpretation in favor of mystical or allegorical interpretation are really throwing away all hope of achieving any accuracy or coherence. Instead, we end up with a free-for-all, where only the imagination rules. When we deny the literal meaning — by finding instead some “mystical” meaning, or a “personal” meaning, or a “principle” that contradicts that literal meaning — we are not serving scripture by trying to understand it; instead, we are making it our slave by molding to to say what we want it to say.
This amounts to telling God what we think he SHOULD have said, rather than attempting to understand what God actually HAS said. This is known as EISEGESIS — reading INTO the scripture our own ideas — as opposed to EXEGESIS, which is deriving FROM the scriptures the meaning that the author intended to convey in the first place. It dishonors the word of God, and it dishonors the God who gave us his word. Again — think how YOU would feel if someone habitually did such a thing to YOUR words!
Interpret LITERALLY — that is the first principle of solid biblical hermeneutics. And that one principle will protect you from a host of erroneous teachings.
======================================
HERMENEUTICS #3
The second principle of sound interpretation is the HISTORICAL-CULTURAL principle. One of the crucial steps in understanding what a text means is to have some grasp of the cultural, geographical, historical, social, and political setting in which the passage was written. If one understands this context, the passage often will practically interpret itself.
We have to understand the historical and cultural setting if we are to understand the viewpoint of the writer. For example, to understand Paul’s letters to the Corinthians, we must first have a sense of the political, religious, and cultural issues that Paul was dealing with. What do we know about the city, and its times, and its people? What social pressures were involved? What was the culture really like? What was going on in the church?
To understand the historical-cultural setting, we can use Bible dictionaries, Bible handbooks, commentaries, history books, and books about Bible customs. There are many such books available, and many Bibles today include such material in introductions to books and among notations throughout the text. Just be careful not to rely on those books and notes that are written from an obviously biased perspective. There are many Bibles available today that contain notes and commentary from specific perspectives, and I have found that the notes are more designed to push that particular view than to really explain the plain meaning of the text.
The more general books and notes are the most valuable, as the facts in them are generally agreed upon among scholars. I have often had to correct the ideas that some of my church members have gotten from some of their annotated Bibles. For example, whatever position one takes on the issue of “self-esteem,” one thing is certain — the writers of the Bible were not aware of this modern psychological concept, and they did not write the scriptures with this concept in mind. But this has not kept some folks from publishing an entire Bible that twists scripture after scripture in an attempt to preach “self of steam” [as one of my students once put it] from the Bible. Understanding the historical-cultural setting will protect you from this kind of “reading-back-into-the-scriptures” all kinds of modern ideas that may or may not be valid.
#1 = Interpret LITERALLY.
#2 = Understand the HISTORICAL-CULTURAL background.
====================================================
HERMENEUTICS #4
#1 = Interpret LITERALLY.
#2 = Understand the HISTORICAL-CULTURAL background.
The THIRD principle of sound hermeneutics is the LINGUISTIC principle. This involves a good understanding of the grammar, syntax, vocabulary, etc. Often the syntactical structure of a passage is the key to its meaning. Sometimes, for example, the meaning of a sentence can hinge on something as simple as a preposition. It matters a great deal whether a passage says “because of,”"through,” “into,” “in,” “by,” or “with”.
In some cases, the original word can be translated by two or more English words. It is important to know whether the word appearing in an English translation is the most accurate one for the particular syntax and context. If a sentence refers to “this” or “it,” it is important to be able to identify what OTHER word “this” or “it” refers to; that is, we need to accurately identify the ANTECEDENT of the pronoun. Verb tenses and moods, noun cases, participles, etc. — all are important in “figuring out” the intended meaning.
Grammar may not be your favorite subject [I can't understand why not. It is mine!], but we need to be able to grasp the basics of grammar when interpreting the language of scripture. Without an understanding of grammar, we are at the mercy of Bible teachers who misuse, or are ignorant themselves of, grammar, and who end up with interpretations that do NOT fit the language at all.
Even if you do not understand Greek or Hebrew, an interlinear translation would be a valuable tool as you seek to understand the word of God. And pay special attention when a writer or teacher seems to ignore or violate basic rules of grammar in his argument. Learn to do “inductive” Bible study, analyzing the sentences, noticing the verbs, participles, modifiers, etc.
#1 = Interpret LITERALLY.
#2 = Understand the HISTORICAL-CULTURAL background.
#3 = Analyze the LINGUISTIC structure.
====================================================
HERMENEUTICS #5
#1 = Interpret LITERALLY.
#2 = Understand the HISTORICAL-CULTURAL background.
#3 = Analyze the GRAMMATICAL structure.
The FOURTH major principle of sound hermeneutics goes by several different names. The reformers coined two Latin phrases to describe this principle — “Scriptura scripturam interpretatur” [Scripture interprets scripture] and “Analogia Scriptura” [the analogy of scripture]. Some have called it the SYNTHESIS principle.
What does this mean? Even though the Bible was written over a period of 1500 years, by over 40 authors, it is still one unified revelation from God [taking into account the progressive nature of the revelation, of course]. This means that the Bible will NOT contradict itself. In practical terms, it means that if we derive an interpretation from a particular passage that is in conflict with another passage, then wecan be sure that one of the interpretations is wrong — in fact, maybe both are!
The scripture will not contradict itself — rather, it will interpret itself. For example, HEB. 11:6 states that without FAITH it is impossible to please God. Now — how do we know what that passage means by the word FAITH? Well — the Bible defines, describes, and illustrates FAITH again and again — and, in fact, that very verse explains what it means. FAITH is nothing more — and nothing less — than believing God — trusting what God has said.
Another implication of this principle is that we should derive our doctrine from the general tenor of the scripture, as put forth in the large number of passages that speak clearly about a topic, rather than turning to obscure or difficult passages for our understanding. We should be grateful that all the major doctrines are supported by a multitude of different passages. So the difficult or obscure passages should be interpreted in the light of the clear ones, and not vice versa.
For example, there are well over a hundred passages in the NT attesting to the fact that salvation is based on faith alone in Christ alone, with no other conditions whatsoever. So any passage that seems to be adding other conditions should be examined carefully, for the scripture will not contradict itself. It is a characteristic of cults and false teachers that they tend to derive doctrines from a small handful of obscure and difficult passages that they have interpreted apart from the analogy of scripture, and then they impose those questionable interpretations on the much larger number of much clearer passages, twisting the clear scriptures to make them appear to agree with the group’s peculiar interpretation.
For example — we have mentioned Bill Gothard in here occasionally. Gothard has committed this exact error with regard to the subject of circumcision. He has concluded, from his reading of certain OT passages written to OT Jews, that circumcision is a spiritual and moral duty for the NT Christian [something that every major theologian in the history of the church has been unanimous in denying!] — and then he imposes that view on the NT in DEFIANCE of the many NT passages that plainly teach the exact opposite.
If the Bible really is God’s revelation to us, then it must remain internally self-consistent. The synthesis principle puts scripture together with scripture to arrive at a clear, consistent meaning. Beware of any teacher who makes too much out of his own peculiar interpretation of a passage that ignores the analogy of scripture, or who does not show the whole spectrum of passages concerning a particular topic.
Ezzo uses a lot of scripture references in his teaching, but if you will follow up on his references, you will find that, shockingly often, the passages cited are not really speaking about the topic at hand, or they are not saying what he SAYS they are saying. That is a clear warning sign that he is imposing his own views ON the scriptures, rather than deriving his ideas FROM the scriptures. A discerning Christian who understands the importance of the analogy of scripture would recognize this fallacy.
The synthesis principle is crucial in detecting false teachings, and in learning to gain an understanding of the overall meaning and purpose of God’s revelation. I will say more about CONTEXT in a later post.
#1 = Interpret LITERALLY.
#2 = Understand the HISTORICAL-CULTURAL background.
#3 = Analyze the GRAMMATICAL structure.
#4 = Use SYNTHESIS [Compare scripture with scripture].
===================================================
HERMENEUTICS #6
#1 = Interpret LITERALLY.
#2 = Understand the HISTORICAL-CULTURAL background.
#3 = Analyze the GRAMMATICAL structure.
#4 = Use SYNTHESIS [Compare scripture with scripture].
The FIFTH major principle of sound biblical interpretation is the PRACTICAL principle. This is where application does come in. This is the final question to be asked — “So what?” or “What does all this have to do with me?” The problem in our day is that so many teachers AND students of the Bible want to jump directly to application, and bypass all the hard work involved in getting a proper interpretation first.
But application should be the LAST step, NOT the first! Otherwise, one has no basis for discerning whether a particular application is itself biblical and correct. I have seen this again and again — people want ME to tell them WHAT TO DO on the basis of a particular passage, without even bothering to understand what the passage is even saying. And besides that, I am not the one who needs to be doing all the application for them. That is the job of the Holy Spirit. My job is to teach them what it means.
Jeff Hathaway — a pastor and Ezzo supporter — used to come in here from time to time to argue with us about spanking. Jeff and I disagreed sharply about this subject of biblical application awhile back. Jeff stated:
< < I believe that it is incumbant upon Pastors when The
Bible does not give any specifics to 1. Glean the Biblical
principles on the given subject, and 2. To develop a good
comprehensive method for applying those principles. >>
My response was:
< < I disagree vehemently. I believe this is the exact
problem with the Ezzos and with many others. They have
derived erroneous principles, and even if the principles
are not erroneous, they then set about to misapply them. I
believe it is presumptious and arrogant for a pastor to
take such an extensive role in application. The pastor's
job is to teach the word as clearly and carefully as
possible, and while some application may be appropriate --
I believe it is much better to let the Holy Spirit do the
lion's share of the application in the hearts of the
listeners.
<< This whole 'comprehensive methods' approach goes to the
heart of my problem with Ezzo. It tends strongly toward
legalism and a formula-driven religion, rather than the
dynamic, relationship-orientation of grace. Well -- there
is MUCH more I would like to say about this -- but I don't
like long posts. >>
I usually refuse to even discuss application with anyone until I am assured that they understand the basic meaning of the text in the first place. The Holy Spirit may lead different Christians to apply passages in different ways. There are going to be many applications that are the same, of course, but not all. And it would be presumptious for me to attempt to force MY personal applications on others, unless I am convinced that this is an “across the board” application, so to speak.
All this being said, surely we can understand the logic that — if I have MISinterpreted a passage in the first place, the odds are going to be pretty high that whatever application I make will be erroneous, as well. Accurate interpretation MUST be the basis for any accurate application.
And here, once again, we face the problem of Ezzo’s faulty hermeneutic. He has twisted so many scriptures that his “applications” are consistently off-base. A faulty hermeneutic leads to faulty interpretations, which lead to false doctrines, which lead to erroneous applications, which lead to bondage, judgmentalism, elitism, extremism, and error after error after error. It all begins with hermeneutics.
#1 = Interpret LITERALLY.
#2 = Understand the HISTORICAL-CULTURAL background.
#3 = Analyze the GRAMMATICAL structure.
#4 = Use SYNTHESIS [Compare scripture with scripture].
#5 = THEN you can APPLY the passage!
============================================
HERMENEUTICS #7
#1 = Interpret LITERALLY.
#2 = Understand the HISTORICAL-CULTURAL background.
#3 = Analyze the GRAMMATICAL structure.
#4 = Use SYNTHESIS [Compare scripture with scripture].
#5 = APPLICATION comes last!
As valuable as these five principles are — they are useless without the illuminating ministry of the Holy Spirit:
1 COR. 2:12-16: “We have not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom, but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man’s judgment: ‘For who has known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him?’ [Is. 40:13]. But we have the mind of Christ.”
In this passage Paul describes the Holy Spirit’s ministry of ILLUMINATION. This is NOT revelation; that was given only to the chosen apostles and prophets that formed the foundation of the church. But illumination is a ministry to every true believer. It is not new scripture, nor is it a mystical power to perfectly understand everything in the written word. But it is a ministry of the Spirit that helps the diligent seeker of truth as he searches the scripture.
Anyone can hear the facts, study other people’s teaching, and gain something of an intellectual understanding about the meaning of Scripture. But apart from the Holy Spirit, the Bible will utterly fail to penetrate and transform the human heart. With the Spirit of God comes illumination — true understanding of what has been written. Every believer has the Holy Spirit, the One who inspired the writers of Scripture, and without His illuminating ministry to us, the truth of Scripture could not penetrate our hearts and minds.
The Holy Spirit indwells us, and helps us understand the written word. However — this is NOT to say that the illuminating ministry of the Holy Spirit REPLACES diligent study of the word. Rather — they work together. As we carefully and thoroughly explore the Scripture, the Holy Spirit uses whatever tools we acquire, whatever godly wisdom we expose ourselves to, as the means to illumine our hearts. Appealing to Scripture apart from complete dependence on the Holy Spirit is presumption; but, to expect the Holy Spirit to teach us APART from diligent study of the Scripture is fanaticism — it is dangerous — and it is not biblical.
#1 = Interpret LITERALLY.
#2 = Understand the HISTORICAL-CULTURAL background.
#3 = Analyze the GRAMMATICAL structure.
#4 = Use SYNTHESIS [Compare scripture with scripture].
#5 = APPLICATION come last!
#6 = At every step, rely on the ILLUMINATION of the Holy Spirit.
=================================================
HERMENEUTICS #8
There are more principles of interpretation that we could cover, but I can’t do this forever. At the end of this series of posts, I will give a list of good books that you can study for more, and more indepth, explanations. However — there is one more major positive point that needs to be stressed — and that is CONTEXT.
There is a saying in the world of real estate that goes something like this: The three most important things to consider are — first, LOCATION; second, LOCATION; and third, LOCATION. Bible study should have a similar saying: The three most important things to consider are CONTEXT, CONTEXT, and CONTEXT.
The fifth principle — SYNTHESIS — dealt with this issue somewhat. We should compare scripture with scripture in order not to make the mistake of interpreting one passage in contradiction to the plain meaning of another one. This is a very broad application of the principle of CONTEXT, but there is more to understand about this.
You can get all the other elements right in your study of a particular passage, but if you ignore or distort the context, you are likely to STILL misinterpret, and you are almost SURE to misapply, the passage. Understanding the context begins in the very sentence you are studying, and it works its way outward in ever-widening concentric circles.
What is the IMMEDIATE context? What is being discussed in the sentence before, and the sentence after, the one you are looking at? Are these sentences connected, or does the one you are studying stand alone apart from the others? What about the paragraph in which the sentence is found? What about the LARGER context — the chapter, the letter, the book? What about OTHER books?
Who is speaking, to whom is he speaking, and what is he speaking about? For example, there is a very great difference among the following contexts: Moses speaking to the Israelites at Mt. Sinai, Jesus speaking to the Pharisees in Jerusalem, Peter speaking to the Jerusalem council in ACTS 15, and Paul speaking at Mars Hill in Athens. Each of these situations provides CONTEXT for what is being said.
What is the subject under discussion? What else has this writer said about this subject? Who else has had something to say about it elsewhere in the Bible [Remember the analogy of scripture.]? What are the issues, the conflicts, the events that are related to the passage? Who are the people involved, and who else is referred to besides them? All of these questions help us focus on the CONTEXT of the passage under consideration, and this is perhaps the most crucial principle of all, as it ties together and makes sense of all the other principles we have discussed.
CONTEXT makes all the difference between a solid, wise application of a passage, and a twisting of the passage to make it seem to support something it really does not support. Remember my earlier example — the claim that the Bible teaches that there is no god. There are a couple of sentences that could be pulled out of their context to support this claim — sentences that say, “There is no god.” But a look at the context will reveal an entirely different meaning — “The FOOL has said in his heart, ‘There is no god.’”
Here is a good warning to remember when reading or listening to those attempting to use the scripture to support their claims:
A TEXT apart from its CONTEXT is usually used as a PRETEXT!
===========================================
HERMENEUTICS #9 — What NOT to do.
2 TIMOTHY 2:15: “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.”
This passage reminds us that “accurately handling” the word takes diligence and care. We must treat the word correctly if we are to get from it what God intended. Now that we have covered the major principles of sound interpretation, I am going to discuss several “don’t's” — errors to avoid as we study the scripture.
First — NEVER make your point at the price of the proper interpretation.
It is easy, and tempting, for a Bible teacher or pastor to sneak a foreign meaning into a text in order to get a desired response. Remembering that there is usually only one proper interpretation of a given passage, it should be a warning when a teacher rarely discusses that proper interpretation, but seems so eager to apply the passage in a way that does not really relate to that primary meaning.
Watch out for teachers who use scriptures out of their proper context, and change their meanings, in order to support their arguments. What they are doing is making their points at the price of the proper interpretation. I think Ezzo’s “use” of the passage about Jesus crying out on the cross to support letting babies cry is one of the most egregious examples of this!
Let me try another example: Many young people today are having their bodies “pierced” in a lot of places! And some of them are suffering some pretty unhealthy side-effects of this. In fact, some people are warning about the future consequences of some of these piercings. Now — let us say that I am against any and all body-piercing, including even pierced ears. Let us say that I am so adamantly against this that I want to preach against it from the pulpit. So I try tofind a scripture that I can use to support my position.
Remember — I have already decided what to preach. I have already reached my conclusion. Now all I need is to find a passage that can support me. I look for it, and cannot find one that speaks directly to the issue I want to preach about. Were I to treat the scriptures as so many are doing today, that would not stop me at all! All I have to do is find a passage — any passage — that I can twist to make it appear tosupport me, even though, in context, it says no such thing.
And sure enough — I find one: Phil. 3:2 [NIV] “Watch out for those dogs, those men who do evil, those mutilators of the flesh.” See how I can do it? I can preach that piercing of the ears is mutilation of the flesh, and then I can point to this passage for support. “See — even Paul warns against those who would mutilateyour flesh.” But — as a discerning, diligent, and careful student of the word of God, you should look up that verse, and seek to understand it in its original context.
Were you to do so, you would find that Paul is NOT talking about ear-piercing, or ANY kind of body-piercing, but about CIRCUMCISION. He is warning these Philippian Christians to beware of the Judaizer, those who were preaching Christian circumcision as a moral and religious duty.
Now — how should you react to ME were I to do this? Shouldn’t you at least be very wary of my teaching? Shouldn’t you at least be very cautious about accepting what I say without checking it out? And –as in the case of Ezzo — what if it were HABITUAL for me to do this? What should you do then? Well — the NT spells it out pretty clearly how we should respond to a teacher who does this. And I’ll just bet that most of you know what it says to do, even though many Christians refuse to do it.
Beware of any teacher of the word of God who has a habit of using scriptures out of context, changing their intended meaning, to make them appear to support his teachings. If he can’t find plain scriptures that plainly support what he is teaching, then maybe there aren’t any.
#1 = Don’t make your point at the price of the proper interpretation.
===============================================
HERMENEUTICS #10 — What NOT to do:
#1 = NEVER make your point at the price of the proper interpretation.
Second — NEVER rely on a superficial or shallow “examination” of a text.
Do NOT try to get by without real study. Accurate Bible study is hard work. It cannot be done by flipping through quickly and looking for messages wherever our eyes happen to settle [BTW -- that is actually an occultic technique]. Nor is understanding the Bible a matter of personal opinion apart from actual EVIDENCE ["Well, to ME this passage means..."].
Accurate interpretation requires diligence. As I have already said, sometimes the correct meaning of a text will be discovered by studying the cultural background — sometimes from the grammar, and sometimes from comparisons with other scriptures. We cannot expect to get by with the haphazard ad-libbing that passes for Bible teaching in much of the church today.
1 TIM. 5:17 says that “double honor” is to be given to those who labor in the word and in doctrine. God has given teachers as a gift to the church because correctly instructing people in the Scriptures requires people who are committed to persistent, conscientious labor in studying and learning. I am sure all of you know some who are actually proud of their lack of learning, and who are contemptuous of those who strive to better their knowledge and abilities in language, theology, and doctrine. They try to appear super-spiritual and superior to those who have worked long and hard in this area.
I have heard some claim that they can know the Bible just fine completely apart from any outside help. They don’t need to read any of “man’s wisdom”; they don’t need any study aids, or any language helps. They are spiritual enough to “get it” without all that help. And if you question their “take” on a passage, based on solid linguistic, or historical, or contextual grounds, they will denigrate you as “all puffed up with knowledge,” or some such insult.
To some folks this all sounds quite spiritual. But is it really the way of wisdom? Think back through the history of the church. The overwhelming majority of the mighty teachers and leaders in the church have been educated persons. And the overwhelming majority of the cults and aberrant groups have been characterized by their lack of scholarship and learning. This is not meant to denigrate those who are NOT educated; but it IS meant to rebuke the attitude that godly, learned people who have dedicated their lives to the study of the scripture are somehow less spiritual than those who just fly by the seat of their pants!
Do we really have the right to bypass all the godly learning of the church? Although the claim that one is able to bypass serious study and go right to the word sounds very spiritual to some, to me it is nothing more than egotism and stupidity. It is claiming a special ability that those of us who have dedicated our lives to learning just don’t have.
I confess that I am not specially gifted to be able to figure out everything in the Bible without help — without the untiring, godly, scholarship of great men and women of the past and of today. And I thank God for those who have become expert in history, or in linguistics, or in Greek, or in grammar [Hooray for Grammarians!! ] — and who have used those abilities to help us further our understanding of the Scripture.
This claim is also an indication that the one making it has confused INSPIRATION with ILLUMINATION. The Spirit’s illuminating ministry is NOT designed to reveal NEW truth concerning matters unknown — rather, it is designed to help us understand what is already revealed in the written word of God.
This second “don’t” of hermeneutics is designed to guard against the free-for-all that results from accepting any and every opinion without even the burden of evidence. It protects us from our own, and others’, biases, based on shallow study and shallow thinking. It is the difference between the whimsical and sometimes ridiculous interpretations of those who are merely reacting emotionally and subjectively to a passage, and the solid, grounded reasoning of those who have used the tools that godly men have learned and passed on to the rest of us to help us discover the intended meaning of the text.
We should be greatly disturbed by this shallow, superficial approach to Bible study and teaching. Too many preachers and teachers are standing before Christians and presuming to teach them the word of God with little or no preparation at all. Many of them seem to be inventing their doctrine as they go along!
Let me give you an example of this fallacy. I once heard of a man who claimed that he could preach a message from any verse in the Bible without having to study it, or even look at it. He was asked topreach from the following text: “These eight did Milcah bear.” [You can see from the written statement that Milcah is a person's name. But you must do as this man did, and simply HEAR the sentence, with no clue or help, as he claimed he could preach without that help.]
The man proceeded to preach a three-point sermonette based on what he heard. His three points were:
1) It takes courage to milk a bear. 2) It takes cooperation to milk a bear. 3) It takes caution to milk a bear.
He then tried to apply these “points” in some sort of spiritual way. Now — would you consider this to be a spiritual and godly way to preach? I would hope that everyone in here would reject such a notion. But, alas, there are many who do seem to believe in this kind of “preaching”.
If you will look up the verse that this sentence is found in — GENESIS 22:23 — you will discover that Milcah was the sister-in-law ofAbraham, and that this passage is simply saying that she had eight children! So — not only was this man making a fool out of himself in his arrogance, but more importantly, he was twisting the word of God in his attempt to look super-spiritual, and he was robbing those who were listening to him of the right to hear the truth from the word of God.
#1 = NEVER make your point at the price of the proper interpretation.
#2 = NEVER rely on superficial or shallow study.
============================================
HERMENEUTICS #11 — What NOT to do:
#1 = NEVER make your point at the price of the proper interpretation.
#2 = NEVER try to get by on superficial study.
Third — Avoid the tendency to “spiritualize” or “allegorize” a passage. Never do this — UNLESS the text itself calls for it.
This is the flip-side of the first principle of sound hermeneutics — interpret LITERALLY. Many people use the Scripture as we would a book of fables — not really focussing on the real facts and plain statements, but using it as a “morality tale” or an “allegory” to teach whatever points they have already determined to put across. Instead of seeking the meaning of the biblical material, they make it an allegory or a parable to support their pre-determined position — whether it actually has anything tosay about that or not.
There is, of course, a place for allegories, parables, and illustrations — but the careful student of the Bible does not FORCE the text into that pattern; rather, he lets the text determine how it is to be taken — literally or figuratively. And he does not create allegories by twisting the literal meaning to make it fit. Finally — he does not force an alternative meaning on a text to the detriment of the real meaning [See "Don't" #1].
Let me give you an example of a passage that clearly dictates an illustrative approach. In GALATIANS, Paul argues forcefully and repeatedly that the Christian is not subject to the law of Moses, and that those who are trying to get these Galatian Christians to submit to that law are “spying on their freedom,” “bewitching” them, causing them to “fall from grace,” “hindering” their obedience to the truth, and causing them to be in “slavery” after having been given their liberty by Christ. In chapter four, Paul uses an “allegory” or “illustration” from a well-known OT situation — the attempt by Abraham and Sarah to help God out by producing a son by means of Hagar, Sarah’s servant.
Beginning in GAL. 4:21: “Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says? For it is written that Abraham had two sons — the one by the slave woman [Hagar] and the other by the free woman [Sarah]. His son by the slave woman was born in the ordinary way [AHEM!]; but his son by the free woman was born as the result of promise. These things may be taken figuratively [KJV = "which things are an allegory"], for the women represent two covenants.
“The one covenant is from Mount Sinai [What covenant is that? The law of Moses, epitomized by the Ten Commandments -- see EXODUS 19-24.] and it bears children who are to be slaves [Here he clearly refers to being under the law of Sinai as being in slavery.]: This is Hagar. Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia [where that old law was ratified] and she corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem [the center of OT Judaism], because she is in slavery with her children [the Jews under that law].
“But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother [If Hagar represents the earthly Jerusalem, the law, and slavery -- then Sarah represents the heavenly Jerusalem, the gospel, and freedom. Notice the obvious contrast.]. For it is written: Be glad, O barren woman, who bears no children; break forth and cry aloud, you who have no labor pains; because more are the children of the desolate woman than of her who has a husband.
“Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise [unlike those under the law, who were children of slavery]. At that time the son born in the ordinary way [Ishmael] persecuted the son born by the power of the Spirit [Isaac]. It is the same now [Jews were persecuting Christians at the time].
“But what does the Scripture say? ‘Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman’s son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman’s son.’ Therefore, brothers, we are not children of the slavewoman, but of the free woman.”
Now — that was a long example — but it is a good example of the correct use of allegory and symbolism. Paul used a literal OT event to explain a NT truth. But that NT truth is a literal truth, explained in literal language. The symbols represent something real that God has revealed in many other passages, as well — not some fancied idea formed in the mind of a preacher.
#1 = NEVER make your point at the price of the proper interpretation.
#2 = NEVER rely on superficial or shallow study.
#3 = NEVER allegorize or spiritualize unless the text itself calls for it.
==============================================
HERMENEUTICS #12 — Resources for further study:
If anyone is interested in investigating this further, here are some good resources for studying hermeneutics and learning how to interpret the Bible accurately:
*How to Read the Bible for All It’s Worth* — by Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart. Zondervan, 1982.
*Living by the Book* — by Howard Hendricks and William Hendricks. Moody Press, 1991.
*Guide to Understanding Your Bible* — by Josh McDowell. Here’s Life Pub., 1982.
*Expository Hermeneutics: An Introduction* — by Elliot Johnson [the best of the more recent seminary textbooks]. Zondervan, 1990.
*Understanding and Applying the Bible* — by J. Robertson McQuilken. Moody Press, 1992.
*Handbook for Bible Study* — by Grant Osborne and Stephen Woodward. Baker Book House, 1979.
*Basic Bible Interpretation* — by Roy Zuck. Victor Books, 1991.
*Joy of Discovery in Bible Study* — by Oletta Wald. Augsburg Publishing House, 1975. [This was the book we studied in preaching class in seminary way back in the 70s. It is a good instructional manual in inductive study.]
*Protestant Biblical Interpretation* — by Bernard Ramm. Baker Book House, 1970. [This was the standard hermeneutics textbook back in my day.]
One final comment. In response to someone’s questions about interpretation, I suggested two things: first — call Talbot Seminary, from which Gary Ezzo was graduated, and ask about what it teaches; second — call Grace Community Church, where Ezzo served on staff for ten years, and ask about its approach. The senior pastor at Grace — back when Ezzo was there, and still today — is John MacArthur. Many of the comments I wrote in the previous posts are adaptations of the written statements of Dr. MacArthur himself.
Nothing I have said in all these posts is considered unusual, or out of the ordinary in the least. These are the standard tools of interpretation that are taught at the very seminary where Gary Ezzo received his degree, and that are advocated by his own former senior pastor. And Gary Ezzo’s blatant violations of these principles are among the problems that led Grace Church to: first, attempt to bring correction to Ezzo; second, because Ezzo refused correction, publicly disassociate itself with him and disavow his teachings.
===============================================
Related Links:
Summary of Theological / Biblical Concerns
Dr. Kent McClain’s Evaluation of GKGW
Pastor Bob Bixby’s Evaluation of GKGW – and Parents
Biblical and Practical Critique of Gary and Anne Marie Ezzo’s Preparation for Parenting: A Biblical Perspective
Statement from Tenth Presbyterian Church, Philadelphia
The Ethics of Ezzo
More than a Parenting Ministry (CRI)
Faulty Theology of the Ezzos
Review and Commentary on Biblical Aspects of Preparation for Parenting
Related at TulipGirl:
A Christian Worldview?
Jesus, Not A Parenting Method
Evaluating Ezzo’s Leadership
Biblical Relationships or Behaviourism?
___________
This post is part of the Ezzo Week 2010 series. As a reminder, we are looking closely at a set of ideas, or “philosophy” as Gary Ezzo terms it – but not being critical of parents who are raising their children with love and the resources which they have.
