Fall 2008 Online Certificate Students:
View all sessions below. Then log all your comments, questions, discussion question answers, criticisms, or thoughts below.
NOTE: This is not the place for general discussion and questions. Go to the foyer for general discussion and refer to the FAQ on the right for question. Time spent in the comments section will apply toward your one hour of community time per week. To download audio sessions, visit the course homepage on the TTP site. The next session will be posted each Wed.
_____________________________
Why are there so many different interpretations of Scripture? How did the apostles interpret Scripture? Are they to be our model? What about the early Church? Should we look for a hidden meaning in Scripture? During this session, the student should come to a basic understanding of what is involved in the hermeneutical processes, by looking at biblical hermeneutics as practiced through the centuries. The primary goal of this session is to introduce the students to the most common mistakes that people make in their hermeneutic—devaluing the human element of Scripture. The concept of biblical docetism will be further explained and illustrated. By the time this lesson is complete, the student should be convinced that a proper understanding of the authorial intent with regards to the Scriptures is just as basic as a proper belief in the inspiration of the Scriptures. The history of interpretation will be briefly covered in order to learn from both the successes and failures of the past so that we might approach interpretation with more integrity and a healthy fear. In the end students should understand that true application cannot be taken from the Scriptures unless we use a historical-grammatical hermeneutic.
How have people historically interpreted Scripture? [11:09m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download How did the Rabbis interpret the Old Testament Church in Christ's day? [23:15m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download How did the Apostles interpret the Old Testament? [21:03m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download How did the early Church interpret Scripture? [11:09m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download
Powered by FireStats
October 21st, 2008 at 6:57 pm
1. I feel that I have a pretty good handle on correct interpretation. I should not take Scripture out of context. I should know something of the intent of the author, the purpose of the author, and the culture of the author. I should consider what the commentaries have to say since they’ve studied more in-depth than I.
2. I think it is good to know how others before interpreted the Scripture; especially Christ–He is our example and we should always desire to follow Him.
3. I’m a little confused about what this question is asking. I think it’s talking about the problems and merits of the possiblity that the writers of the Scripture were not inspired when they interpreted the Scripture. Is that it?? I think a main problem would be that they could have been incorrect in their interpretation. I don’t really like the whole “hidden” meanings thing, so that doesn’t seem to be good, but I don’t think that had much to do with the writers. A merit is that God is in control. His Word will not be and wasn’t ever harmed or changed because man misinterpreted something.
4. I believe that the Holy Spirit used prophesies from the OT to show the writers the truth and then they wrote about it. I think that the hermeneutics the apostles used was valid. Christ proved He was the Messiah, so that meant prophesies being fulfilled. As well as that–Christ’s prophesies came true within His 3 year ministry.
5. They have something they wish to justify. We want to make Scripture fit our pre-supposed mold. This isn’t right, but I believe that we still do it. It bothers me that the hidden meanings would “not otherwise be found.” That phrase really bothers me. We should not go looking for things that aren’t there. It’s like we are adding to the Scriptures.
6. The primary goal of the Hellenistic Jews and using the allegorical method of interpretation was to find the underlying hidden meaning of the text that would otherwise not be found. The dangers that I see are: 1) This could lead to incorrect and false teachings. 2) This causes people not to focus on the truth God is speaking in the clear, obvious meanings. 3) God is NOT a god of secrets and hiding. Since “hidden” meanings are not in line with His character, then they are dangerous. 4) The apostles and Christ did not use allegorical interpretation. 5) The heretical Gnostics used allegorical methods. 6) The allegorical method of interpretation was rejected by the early church.
7. I don’t like hidden meanings. But then I noticed that it said Song of Solomon was allegorically referring to Christ and the Church. I realized that I’ve allowed allegory in my belief system. This is making me question of Song of Solomon is really about and if maybe I’m not as opposed to allegorical methods as I thought.
November 12th, 2008 at 3:30 am
Marsha Johnson
B&H, Fall 2008
Session 9
1)What was my hermeneutic before this class? Previous to this class for personal Bible study, I would usually pray for the guidance of the Holy Spirit, then read the passage and then maybe check out a commentary or maybe even look up the historical context of the passage. I was relying on the Holy Spirit to guide me but honestly, I didn’t give him much time to lead me, I wouldn’t meditate on a passage and I wouldn’t trust my own capabilities to interpret the Scriptures.
2)How important is the knowledge of history to hermeneutics? Now I understand better the importance of historical setting when interpreting Scriptures. If I don’t dig into the information available to me in order to interpret a passage, I am only at best half knowing what God wants to communicate to me and at worst, completely misleading myself as to the theological purpose of the passage. I am really only forming an opinion that could very well be wrong. This is a problem if I am interested in witnessing to others. It is also a problem if I base my life and actions on my misinformation.
3)Problems & merits of thinking Scriptures are inspired but the author may not be. This does not seem logical. How can you believe that God inspired the Scriptures and not believe that the author was inspired by God also? If you are speaking of the issue of man having an effect on the passage, then I misunderstood the question I will answer as if the second meaning is correct. The Bible is not a scientific thesis or study. It is our heavenly father who out of love desired to create and communicate with us caused it to be. To do this he used men who will write from their cultural context, with their emotions and yes even their predigests. I believe it is such an effective communication because there is the human element in it. I also believe God does work with us and with the authors of Scriptures to make his desire known and to make his desire to come about. I do believe Scriptures are 100% God and 100% man. Because man is involved there are issues that cause us problems. For example Paul’s stand on women, or David’s sin. Again I believe it is more effective this way.
4)Matthew’s use of a typological hermeneutic re Christological fulfillment, valid? Yes it is very possible that we do not have all the information that Matthew had when he wrote his book. I is also very possible that Matthew was acting as a prophet in these cases. I don’t see that what was written is harmful to the Gospel. However it is not a hermeneutic we can use today because we (assumed) are not prophets. It is possible that this is “agraph”, mentioned and explained in Wagner’s “The Journey from Text to translation?
5)Why common in early Church to give a second meaning of Scriptures going beyond the literal? Because Jesus often spoke of another meaning that was commonly accepted when he quoted Old Testament Scriptures, it is only natural that the Church would model their interpretations after him. The problem with this is that neither we nor the Church are God. This method of interpretation caused many heresies and harm over the years. We are fortunate to have so much Theological history and study to assist us today. If only we will heed these.
6)The dangers of the allegorical method. The dangers of the allegorical method is that people can and do make Scripture mean anything they want it to say. The danger increases if this is the only method used.
7)How most challenged my thinking? This lesson has challenged me to redefine my methods of interpreting Scriptures. I often used the allegorical and typological methods of interpretation. I did not see the danger or harm. Today I am much more comfortable using a historical/grammatical literal method. Again I am challenged to change my methods and correct or confirm my theology. Thank you CMP for making this information available and doable for the “common man.”