Foundational Principles – Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth

* This essay contains my comments and explainations of the concepts provided by Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart in the book How to Read the Bible for All its Worth: Third Edition. 

Section 1: Concepts Provided by Fee and Stuart

Question #1: Exegesis
(a) Why should a reader begin with the “then and there” meaning of the Bible before looking at the “here and now” meaning? (b) What is the danger of considering one meaning without the other?

(a)   

The words, “then and there” refer to the concept of “exegesis”. While the words, “here and now” describe what is known as “hermeneutics”. Exegesis literally means “to draw out”. Hermeneutics, on the other hand, can be defined as “the science that teaches us the laws and methods for interpreting communication” (Gibbs, 2004, 19).

When interpreting the Bible the interpreter must seek to begin with drawing out the original meaning of any given text as his first priority. Only here can the author’s intended meaning be found. The original meaning will, obviously, always be the only meaning the author intended on communicating to his original readers. If the interpreter doesn’t begin with a correct understand of the author’s original intent in communicating what he wrote he is bound to be “off” in some way.

 

(b)   The danger in considering one of these methods without the other is that both are vital for right living. Hermeneutics help us apply Scripture to our lives in an accurate way. This application, however, will only be right if the interpretation (exegesis) is right. It is possible to understand the original meaning of many texts and still be disobedient to their commands. Likewise, our application of Scripture can be worthless, even harmful, if it is done incorrectly.

Question # 2: Translations
Explain the concepts of (a) literal, (b) free, and (c) dynamic equivalence translations. Include any advantages and disadvantages of each.

(a)    Literal translations of the Bible translate the original languages into the receptor language according to a theory known as formal equivalence.  This theory deals with the difficulties which arise in translating. When there are difficulties translating a phrase or idiom from the original language into its receptor then this theory suggests that the primary emphasis be upon keeping as near as possible, in grammar and wording, to the original language. The more a translation leans upon this formal equivalency theory the more “literal” it is considered (Fee/Stuart, 2003).

 

 

Advantages include vibrant and descriptive language which closely corresponds to the original. Disadvantages include wording that is sometimes outdated or difficult to understand and apply.

 

(b)  

 A free translation attempts to relate the ideas of the original author without emphasizing the exact wording used. Sometimes these translations are referred to as “Paraphrase Bibles”. These translations basically “[try] to eliminate as much of the historical distance as possible and still be faithful to the original text” (Fee/Stuart, 2003, 41).

Advantages of free translations are that they are easy to understand. They use modern language and expressions. Disadvantages include the inaccuracy of   wording, since the wording is at the expense of the expression.

 

(c)   

A Dynamic equivalent translation is basically a translation of the Bible which places its emphasis upon the functional equivalency theory of translating. Here translators would seek to express the Greek/Hebrew words in words that say the same thing in the receptor language as they do in the original. 

Advantages here include ease in reading and understanding what it written, as it is communicated in a modern way. Disadvantages includes of an emphasis upon the original language being translated because the emphasis is upon the idiom/expression.

Question # 3: Epistles
Briefly describe four problems in interpreting epistles: (a) extended application, (b) non-comparable particulars, (c) cultural relativity and (d) task theology.

(a)   

Extended application is a method of applying the content of Scripture to our own situation. When our current situation is comparable to the original biblical situation, then we can apply (within limits) the same solution which the writer gave to address that specific type of issue.

 

(b)  

Non-comparable particulars are issues and solutions in Scripture that were directly applicable to the original readers alone because there are no modern counterparts. All other people must apply these solutions indirectly since the situation is no longer relevant. “The question is, how do these answers to non-contemporary problems speak to twenty-first century Christians” (Fee/Stuart, 2003, 78)? Here we must apply the solutions to genuinely comparable situations, or extract the principle displayed for modern application.

 

(c)   

Cultural relativity “is the place where God’s eternal Word having been given in historical particularity comes most sharply into focus” (Fee/Stuart, 2003, 80). The epistles, being occasional documents, sometimes addressed specific situations no longer directly relevant to the Church today. For example; bringing Paul’s cloak from Carpus’s house in Troas has little relevance to us today except for applying the principle within. Cultural relativity recognizes the direct and indirect relevance of a passage for the modern reader.

 

(d)   The task of theology can be difficult and restraining at times. God has given us all we need in the Scripture, but not necessarily all we want. Sometimes interpreters attempt to deal with issues that go beyond the biblical text and the affirmation of relevant passages. Because of this, in many ways our theological understanding is limited. Beyond the affirmation of Scripture all else is merely speculation (Fee/Stuart, 2003).

Question # 5: Law of Moses
Describe at least three ways in which the law given by Moses is superior to other law codes that were in existence in Moses’ day.

(a)   

The Old Testament demonstrated its superiority over other law codes of that day by its universal prohibition of murder. The Law of Moses forbade murder of and from any sex, age, or social status. (Exodus 20:13). In doing so, universal justice is maintained. Other law codes would commonly issue punishment upon the uninvolved family members of a murderer for this crime. The Law of Moses directly enforces punishment upon the murderer despite their age, sex, or social status. Here, true justice was maintained.

(b)  

 A second way we see the superiority of the Law of Moses demonstrated is in its general treatment of slaves. The Law offered protection to slaves (Deut. 23:15-16). Also, the Law offered compensation for the injury of slaves (Exodus 21:27) (Fee/Stuart, 2003).

(c)     Lastly, this superiority is demonstrated in the Law’s overall commitment to retributive justice. Each person must be punished for their own sins. Deut 24:16 says, “parents shall not be put to death for their children, nor children be put to death for their parents; each of you will die for your own sin”.

Question # 6: Old Testament Laws
List and briefly explain six factors the interpreter should consider in deciding which Old Testament laws apply to believers.

1.     

The Old Testament law is a covenant. It is a “contract” which forms the basis of relationship between the two parties: God and Israel. “Sometimes the keeping of a promise depends upon the meeting of certain conditions by the party to whom the promise is made. On other occasions the promise is made unilaterally and unconditionally” (Cowan, 2003, 355). Seeing the Old Testament as a covenant helps us to understand it as a whole (Fee/Stuart, 2003).

 

2.     

Secondly, the Old Testament is not our Testament. “Testament” is another word for “Covenant”. The Sinaitic Covenant[1] is described in Hebrews as being, “[annulled] because of its weakness and unprofitableness” (Heb. 7:18). The Sinaitic Covenant has been officially cancelled and declared invalid by Christ through His priestly act of establishing a new and better covenant (Heb. 8:6). Through Christ’s ministry the Sinaitic covenant has been made obsolete and the Everlasting Covenant has been established.

 

3.     

There are two kinds of stipulations which have not been renewed in the new covenant: the civil laws and the ceremonial laws. The civil laws of the Old Testament cannot apply to New Covenant believers because these laws were not intended for anyone except national Israel. Likewise, believers are not intended to carry out the ceremonial laws of the old priesthood. That priesthood has been replaced by the Great High Priesthood of Jesus Christ in the order of Melchizedek (See Heb. 5:1-11; 7:11-19).

 

4.     

Furthermore, only part of the old covenant is renewed in the new. Though laws of civil and ceremonial matters are not applicable to New Covenant believers, laws concerning morality are. The laws which support morality and ethics can been seen as variations, or further descriptions, of the two great laws of the New Covenant: Loving God wholeheartedly, and loving people as yourself.

 

5.     

Also, the whole Old Testament law is still the Word of God for us even though it is not still the commandment of God to us. Just because part of the Old Testament (the Sinaitic Law) has been outdated (made obsolete) does not mean that it is not God’s word to us. It is. The Law of Moses is a vital part of the progression of the revelation of Scripture. With an understanding of this one cannot truly understand or appreciate what, as a Gentile, they have been grafted into.

 

6.     

Finally, only the things explicitly renewed from the Old Testament law can be considered part of the New Testament. This is important to understand. The parts of the Old Covenant which have been regenerated into the New Covenant must be followed by believers, because this God’s intention in renewing them.

 

Question # 7: The Prophets
Describe these three forms of prophetic oracles: (a) lawsuit, (b) woe, and (c) promise prophecies.

(a)     

Lawsuits or “covenant lawsuits” are allegorical literary forms in the Old Testament Prophets which depict a courtroom scene pronouncing a sentence (or judgment). In these scenes God is typically portrayed as a plaintiff, judge, prosecuting attorney, and a bailiff. Generally these scenes will include complete courtroom procedures: summoning, charges, evidence, and then a verdict. Generally these elements are present but not always (Fee/Stuart, 2003).

 

(b)  

“Woes” are another type of literary form common in the prophetic books.  These oracles concerned the imminent judgment which God was about to bring upon His people. “‘Woe’ was the word ancient Israelites cried out when facing disaster or death, or when they mourned at a funeral” (Fee/Stuart, 2003, 195). Typically woe oracles will contain three elements: an announcing of distress, the reason for that distress, and then the coming judgment (Fee/Stuart).

 

(c)   

Promise prophesies, or “salvation oracles”, were and additional literary form we find when studying the messages of the prophets. These literary forms can easily be identified by their consistency of content. Promise prophesies firstly, would make a reference to the future. Following was a message of the radical change needed by the Israelites which concluded with a description of the blessing the nation would receive for their repentance (Fee/Stuart, 2003).  

 

Question # 8: The Psalms
Describe at least five psalms and their characteristics.

1.     

Lamenting Psalms encompass about 60 psalms. It is a large percent of the psalms. Here, times of distress, sorrow, pain, and fear were expressed. Poetical language is generally used to convey the author’s deep emotions and feelings. These psalms are easy to identify with as the writer usually spoke of either personal struggles or corporate concerns.

2.     

Thanksgiving Psalms are basically opposite to lamenting psalms. These poems express the author’s heartfelt joy and gratitude towards God because of a received blessing or promise. There are about six-teen of these psalms all together. Ten express individual thanksgiving. Six express corporate gratitude (Fee/Stuart, 2003).

3.     

Hymns are psalms which specifically express praise to God. There are numerous reasons the writers praised God. The greatest reason is that God is God. The fact that God is who He is is a reason for celebration. God is merciful, full of compassion, loving, and happy. These are among the best reasons to praise Him!

4.     

Five psalms are focused on reviewing the redemptive history of Israel’s national identity (78; 105; 106; 135; 136). These are called “Salvation-History Psalms”. As the name suggests they communicate Israel’s redemptive story through their poetry.

5.     

Imprecatory Psalms express the author’s deep emotions over issues such as judgment, vengeance and vindication. Often the writer will use hyperbolic language or will deliberately overstate something offensive (usually through a figure of speech) in order to engage the reader or emphasize his point. The difficulty here is identifying when the poetic/figurative language is being used and when the literal description is to be applied.

An example is Psalm 137:8-9. The psalmist, expressing deep emotions in longing for Zion, speaks of the coming judgment of the Babylonian oppressors. Some see this “happy is the one who dashes your little ones on the rocks” as hyperbolic. Not that God is pleased to commit infanticide, but that just judgment will be issued to Babylon at the end of the age. Others argue for a “literal” reading. I believe the later is a distortion, though it is a “literal” reading.

Question # 10: Apocalyptic Literature
Describe at least five aspects or characteristics of apocalyptic literature.

1.     

The source of Biblical apocalyptic literature is the Old Testament prophetic literature. Virtually everything John sees and says has the Old Testament understanding as its backdrop. He spoke of undeniably of future apocalyptic events (especially chapters 6-22), yet he referenced or alluded to the Old Testament 250-300 times; virtually in every crucial situation. It’s almost as if the Lord combined all the Old Testament’s apocalyptic, developmental and typological prophesies into a condensed vision and blew John’s mind!

 

2.     

The book of Revelation is a literary work from the beginning, unlike most other prophetic books. John was told to write what he had seen; as opposed to many prophets who were told to speak what they had heard (Fee/Stuart, 2003). The Revelation did not begin as a spoken oracle but as written notes. Many challenge the authorship of this letter because of its unique manuscript style. It appeared that John was “note taking” as he saw this vision. Some cannot cope with this and therefore challenge its authenticity. 

 

3.     

Thirdly, the Bible’s apocalyptic content is presented in cryptic language more frequently than any other form of literature (e.g. visions, pseudonyms, allegories [extended symbolism], metonymies, symbols, et al.). This is a problem for many, and as rightly said by Fee/Stuart, “No one should approach the Revelation without a proper degree of humility” (Fee/Stuart, 2003, 250). Fortunately much of the figurative language is clearly or reasonably identified within the text itself; generally within the immediate context. Sometimes an understanding of the Old Testament backdrop is needed though for correct exegesis.   

 

4.     

Many of the images in the book of Revelation are presented in forms of fantasy rather than forms of reality. When we look at the symbolism used by Jesus and other “non-apocalyptic” authors we notice that, for the most part, realistic imagery was used: salt (Mt. 5:13), senseless doves (Hos. 7:11), half-baked cakes (Hos. 7:8) et al. (Fee/Stuart, 2003). These symbols were every-day objects. However, when we turn to Revelation we find a seven-headed beast with ten horns (Rev. 13:1), locusts with scorpions’ tails and human heads (9:10), a woman clothed with the sun (12:1), etc. “The fantasy might not appear in the items themselves but in their unearthly combination” (Fee/Stuart, 2003, 252).

An additional note here is necessary. Though the “unearthly” symbolism used in the apocalyptic literature is different from common symbolism, it is not more difficult to understand. We treat these symbols just as we would any other symbols. If we use the context to determine the point of comparison, and then look for the meaning in the context then we’ll stay on track, just like anywhere else.

 

5.      Finally, apocalyptic literature is generally formally stylized because it is literary. Though Revelation is the only apocalyptic book in the cannon, apocalyptic literature in general was written and not spoken. As we said before the prophets were told to speak what they heard, while John was told to write what he saw.

Section 2: Hermeneutical Principles in Interpreting Narrative 

(1)   Compare and contrast the hermeneutical principles of interpreting narrative and specifically the book of Acts by both Gordon Fee/Douglas Stuart and Wave Nunnally.

Gordon Fee and Wave Nunnally are both Evangelical Christians who differ in their perspectives on the church’s application of Luke’s writings in Acts. The disagreement between the two perspectives can be traced back to the intent or purpose of Acts (and historical narratives in general).

There are similarities which both men share. They agree that the goal of using hermeneutics is always to find the intended meaning of the author, and that the Bible should interpret itself. Also, that there are texts in the narratives which serve primarily as factual reports and are not meant to communicate common practice for the global church. However, it is the broader scope of the narrative that is in question. What should we assume is the general purpose of the narratives, especially Acts? Here we find the different perspectives take shape.

The main issue between these two perspectives is thus: Nunnally believes that the primary purpose of Acts is to be “an indispensible source of direction and inspiration toward a return toward the power and patters of the first-century church” (2007, 32). Fee, on the other hand, believes that though there may be descriptions of the primitive church, they do not necessarily speak as the norm for the church of all times, and so we must distinguish what is descriptive from what is prescriptive in the book.

In his essay “Hermeneutics and Interpreting Acts: A Pentecostal Perspective” Wave Nunnally mentions a handful of related theological issues which have sparked debate in the evangelical house around interpreting Acts. Among these issues, I believe the heartbeat of our topic is encapsulated in the final issue: can theology and practice come from a biblical narrative? If so, to what degree do we maintain that the precedent is the consistent norm?

Nunnally position is that Acts should directly inspire us towards a restoration of the original state of the church. He believes that “the author often intended his descriptions to be normative – to establish a standard that other churches in other places and at other times should emulate” (2007, 32, [emphasis mine]).

This is evidenced by the way Luke modeled his narrative; after the writers of the Old Testament. Their narratives were always meant to affect belief and practice. Paul mentions this in several places. In 1 Corinthians 10:6 for example, he says, “Now these things happened as examples for us, that we should not crave evil things, as they also craved”. This shows historical precedent directly affecting future practice. 1 Corinthians 10:11 and Romans 15:4 show this principle directly stated as well.

Fee’s position is that historical narratives are meant to primarily give an account of history; not to exemplify practices and doctrines. To quote him; “Unless Scripture explicitly tells us we must do something, what is only narrated or described does not function in a normative (i.e. obligatory) way – unless it can be demonstrated on other grounds that the author intended it to function in this way” (2003, 119).

Fee, on the other hand, believes that the teaching in Acts should be considered normative only when it is related to what the narrative was intended to teach. Just because Acts, or any narrative, simply records something doesn’t mean we should teach that that is the normal behavior. For example: community living or ritual snake handling. If these things were meant to be the norm for all Christians everywhere then other places in Scripture would teach this directly. Scripture, however, doesn’t. Therefore they should not become doctrines enforcing the behavior as the normative practice.

Though there is disagreement between these two perspectives the commonality is found in the exegesis. Both views agree that the author’s intended meaning is the correct meaning of the text. With this in place, any and every Christian through prayer and study can determine the primary purpose of communication in a given passage.

(2)   Discuss how these two approaches affect one’s viewpoint of the Pentecostal understanding of the doctrine of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Address specifically: (A) Spirit baptism as a subsequent experience to salvation and (B) speaking in tongues as the initial physical evidence of Spirit-baptism.

(A)  Spirit baptism as a subsequent experience to salvation

Firstly, concerning the issue of Spirit-baptism as a secondary experience Nunnally says, “when something is reported multiple times and in varied contexts, it is likely that something of eternal relevance is being communicated” (2007, 36). It is this principle which he uses to establish his view of normalcy.

Nunnally’s logic is: because we see various examples of believers speaking in tongues, tongues should be the normal experience for all. He reasons that because there are multiple accounts of a Spirit-baptism in Acts that this therefore is the precedent by which we must establish a norm for the entire church.

Here, is where I believe the teaching leads to error. What if believer does not have this charismatic experience after his conversion? Are we to tell him that he has been disobedient to the will or word of God? Wrongly establishing norms can lead to pastoral crisis.

Fee’s argument is way more clear and safe. Scripture simply isn’t clear on the matter to establish a normative doctrine. “There is no express teaching on such matters as the mode of baptism, the age of those who are to be baptized, [or] which charismatic phenomenon is to be in evidence when one receives the Spirit”.

And again he says that “Scripture simply does not expressly command that… all genuine conversions must be as dramatic as Paul’s, or that Christians are to be baptized in the Spirit evidenced by tongues as a second work of grace” (122). So if this experience happens in our churches, great; it’s biblical. If it does not happen I see no commands that are being broken.

(B)   Speaking in tongues as the initial physical evidence of Spirit-baptism.

Over the issue of tongues being official evidence of a Spirit-baptism Nunnally states that “when something is reported multiple times and in varied contexts, it is likely that something of eternal relevance is being communicated” (2007, 36). Also, because there are several examples of believers experiencing a Spirit baptism then this means that “Luke presents baptism in the Holy Spirit as a normative experience for all believers” (2007, 36).

So we see in Nunnally’s own words that his view of continual and universal normalcy is built upon the recorded events and not definite teaching. Its true that these experiences took place. Maybe they even should be the normal experience of believers today as well. The problem is that Scripture doesn’t say this. If Scripture doesn’t command it as a normal practice then neither should we tell people that it is one.

Again, here I go back to Fee’s logic. If Scripture commands it then let’s declare it. If it’s simply not clear because there is no express teaching on the matter then let’s not create new standards.

Section 3: Application: Contextualize and Apply to Your Life and Circumstances

Currently I’m involved in pioneering a prayer ministry which focuses on equipping young adults through biblical teaching. The application of this course then is obviously immense. What I’ve learnt, has already, and will continue to affect my teaching/preaching universally.

I have personally benefitted from this assignment and course in many ways. In two months of study I’m convinced that the concepts taught in this course are foundational for, honestly, all of Bible study. When I began this course I was a bit tentative. I approached the subject with some preconceived notions that hermeneutics were manipulative. However, the continual emphasis of context is what shattered my negative paradigm. Now, I don’t believe I could be any more convinced of the absolute necessity of understanding the author’s original intent in all of Bible interpretation. I know that I will carry and further develop these skills for the rest of my life.

 

 

 

 

 

Reference List

 

 

Fee, Gordon D., Stuart, Douglas, How to Read the Bible for All its Worth: Third Edition, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans

Gibbs, Carl, B., 2004, Principles of Biblical Interpretation: An Independent-Study Textbook, Global University

Holy Bible, 1973, Holy Bible: New International Version, International Bible Society

Holy Bible, 2006, Holy Bible: Today’s New International Version Study Bible, Zondervan

Holy Bible, 1994, Holy Bible: New King James Version, Thomas Nelson Publishers

Nunnally, Waverly E., 2007, Hermeneutics and Interpreting Acts: A Pentecostal Perspective, Spring eld, MO: Global University

 

---

[1] Sinaitic Covenant – This refers specifically tof the covenant given to Moses on Mount Sinai. This is distinguished from the Abrahamic Covenant which has not been annulled or made obsolete.