Cedar Park Church Of Christ


 

Special Studies


STUDY MATERIAL ON "INSTITUTIONAL" ISSUES

By Jim R. Everett


HERMENEUTICS

(LEARNING HOW TO ESTABLISH BIBLE AUTHORITY)

  1. We must first begin with a proper concept of authority -- Mt. 28:18; Acts 3:22-25. When Jesus is referred to as "head over all things to His church," what does being "head" mean?

  2. The second thing we must accept and understand is that the word of God, specifically the N.T., is the only authoritative guide in matters of our faith and practice. That necessitates that we have the same respect for it as we do for its author. Can we have the proper respect for God, if we do not have a proper respect for His word? How is that respect undermined by some people? For instance, when someone says, "We don't have to have authority for everything we practice," what does that mean?

    1. What do Gal. 1:6-8 and 2 Jno. 9-11 teach?

    2. What does 2 Tim. 3:16-17 teach?

    3. What does Jude 3 teach?

  3. WHILE BELIEVING IN THE AUTHORITY OF GOD AND THE AUTHORITATIVENESS OF SCRIPTURE, MY FAITH IN GOD NECESSITATES TWO THINGS:

    1. God revealed Himself in language to man.

    2. The language He used must have some common rules of interpretation so that all men can understand it alike -- indeed, if we understand it all, we will understand it alike.

  4. HERMENEUTICS:

    NOTE: Word "heremeneutics" originated from "hermes" the Greek name for the pagan god Mercury, who was regarded as the messenger of the gods. So that "hermeneutics" is really a derivative of his name. It means to explain or to interpret.

    1. Note Jno. 1:38; 9:7; cf. Heb. 7:2

    2. A strengthened form of the word "diermeneuo" is found in Lk. 24:27, where Christ explained to the two men the scriptures.

    3. It is also used in 1 Cor. 14:5, 13, 27, as it pertains to the gift of interpretation which was to accompany the speaking in tongues, that is, languages unknown to those present.

    4. Another form is "methermeneuo" which basically means to translate from one language to another, to interpet -- Mt. 1:23; Mk. 15:22; Acts 13:8; Mk. 15:34. (Vine, pp. 606-608)

QUESTIONS

  1. Define "hermeneutics".

  2. Where in the Bible is the word "hermeneutics" found?

  3. Where can you find in your Bible the list of rules for interpreting the Bible?

  4. Upon what basis can you say that there must be rules of interpreting the Bible? Upon what basis can such rules be established? Are such rules subjective and individual? Who establishes the rules for interpreting the Bible?

    1. Do people have to understand rules of language interpretation before they can communicate? Do we not apply such rules without making a concerted effort to study the rules?

    2. Do people have to study rules of language interpretation before they will understand the Bible? Can we not we apply common sense to interpreting the Bible's language, just like we do every day conversation?

    3. Though language demands interpretation, that does not free man to place a subjective meaning on language -- the necessity of interpreting structured words does not free him from common rules of understanding language. Especially as it applies to God's revealed language communication, the truth revealed remains the same, regardless of how man may twist and misapply it. God's revelation is independent from man -- truth does not change because man sincerely believes an error.

  5. RULES OF INTERPRETATION ARE REALLY COMMON TO ALL LANGUAGE COMMUNICATION. Written communication such as the Bible must follow some orderly structure by which the reader can draw some conclusions from what is stated by the writer. It is axiomatic that ALL rules must apply at ALL times or there are no rules at all.

RULE NUMBER ONE:

THE RULE OF HARMONY:

  1. The most basic of all rules in the interpretation of language by an inductive method is that of analogy or harmony.

STATE THE RULE AS YOU UNDERSTAND IT --

HOW DO OUR COURTS PRACTICE THIS RULE IN EXAMINING CHARGES MADE AGAINST AN INDIVIDUAL?


HOW DID JESUS USE THIS RULE IN RESPONSE TO SATAN IN MATT. 4:1-7?

RULE NUMBER TWO:

THE LAW OF UNIVERSAL APPLICATION

  1. This rule recognizes the Gospel as a body of truth applicable to all men everywhere for all time. That being true, we do not have the right to require something that cannot be accomplished universally.

UPON WHAT BASIS WOULD YOU SAY THAT ACTS 2:38, WHICH WAS ADDRESSED TO A PARTICULAR AUDIENCE COMPOSED OF JEWS, WOULD APPLY TO US TODAY?

RULE NUMBER THREE:

THE LAW OF UNIFORMITY

  1. When the Bible gives us a choice between several things, none of the several choices may be required.

DISCIPLES MET IN SEVERAL DIFFERENT LOCATIONS -- SCHOOL HOUSES, SYNAGOGUES, UPPER ROOMS PERHAPS RENTED OR LOANED OR MAYBE EVEN BELONGING TO AN INDIVIDUAL CHRISTIAN. WHAT WOULD YOU LEARN FROM THOSE CHOICES?

RULE NUMBER FOUR:

THE LAW OF MATERIALITY

  1. This rule determines if an action described is simply incidental to the carrying out of a requirement or if it is essential.

EUTYCUS FELL FROM THE UPPER STORY WHERE THE DISCIPLES HAD MET TO BREAK BREAD. IS THE UPPER ROOM MATERIAL TO THE OBSERVANCE OF THE LORD'S SUPPER?



RULE NUMBER FIVE:

WE MUST UNDERSTAND WHICH COVENANT APPLIES TO US:

  1. U.S. laws and Britain's laws are very similar in many respects, for the simple reason that they have a common source. Do you obey civil laws because they are found in British law books or because they are found in U.S. law books

  2. To what covenant do you go to find what God wants you to do? -- the Old Law which was God's covenant with Israel, or the new covenant (New Testament)? What confusion exists when people do not appeal to the covenant of which they are a part to determine religious faith and action?

RULE NUMBER SIX:

GOD NEVER BOUND CULTURAL, SOCIAL CUSTOMS

  1. How do you think the Bible would have have been different if God had written it in our time and culture?

  2. EXAMPLES OF CULTURAL, SOCIAL CUSTOMS OF BIBLE TIMES:

    1. Men's clothing: Deut. 22:5, prohibits a woman wearing a man's clothing but the clothing the men of that time word was a long flowing robe, much more like what women of today would wear. In that law was God binding men to wear long robes?

    2. In Mt. 5:40-41, Jesus commanded, "...And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain." How does that command apply to us today? Do you understand what was involved in "going the second mile"?

    3. In a parable recorded in Lk. 14:7-11, Jesus commanded that they should seat themselves in the place of least honor. That is a command. How do we obey that command?

    4. Jesus issued a command to His disciples in Jno. 13:14: "If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet." Why don't you wash feet, since that is a command?

    5. Scripture commands a greeting with a holy kiss (Rom. 16:16a; 1 Pet. 5:14a). Some folks employ that command for their own personal, fleshly enjoyment. Why don't you greet your brethren with a kiss?

RULE NUMBER SEVEN:

SILENCE DOES NOT GIVE CONSENT

  1. Many people operate, in their spiritual understanding, on the premise that since "God didn't say not to; it is all right to do it." We do not operate on that basis in our normal communication with each other. Give an illustration in your language communication which illustrates that silence does not give consent.
    1. We sometimes refer to "the law of exclusion". What does that mean? How did the Hebrew writer use the silence of the scripture as it pertained to Jesus priesthood -- Heb. 7:14?

HOW WE LEARN WHAT GOD WANTS FROM MAN BY APPLYING RULES OF LANGUAGE

  1. It is generally conceded that we need Bible approval for what we practice religiously. That concern directs us to the question of "How do we establish what is right for us in religious practice?" In documents which are authoritative, conclusions are drawn about what is authorized by the writer by direct statements, examples (models), and necessary implications (conclusions -- not just what a reader might want to infer from the language, but what is necessarily implied by language structure). These are just common sense rules of understanding any kind of authoritative language.

  2. A scripture which appropriately illustrates this hermeneutic of precepts, examples and necessary implications is found in Acts 15:5-21. See if you can discern those rules of interpretation by listing each from this context.

PRECEPT --


EXAMPLE --


NECESSARY IMPLICATION --

ANALYZING PRECEPTS, EXAMPLES AND NECESSARY IMPLICATIONS.

  1. PRECEPTS MAY TAKE THREE FORMS:

    1. COMMANDS -- Do all commands in the Bible apply to us? How do we know which commands apply and which do not?

      1. For instance does the command in Acts 1:8, apply to us? Why or why not?

      2. Upon what basis are commands accepted as being applicable to us? Or, upon what basis are some commands rejected as applying to us?

      3. Remember that all N.T. books were written either to individuals or churches in the first century, not directly to us. Therefore, how do you know that the command to be baptized applies to you, since all we have in the N.T. scriptures are examples of others being commanded to be baptized?

    2. PROHIBITIONS -- 1 Jno. 2:15-17. Prohibitions are negative commands. In this instance it is assumed that man's nature has always been the same and that all men are tempted in the same three ways.

    3. DECLARATIONS OF FACT -- Gal. 5:16-21. In this context, there is no statement such as "Don't do these things," however, it is understood by the statements that the works of the flesh are prohibited and wrong.

  2. EXAMPLES (MODELS) -- obviously not all examples in the N.T. are to be emulated. How do you tell the difference?

    1. There are bad examples -- Acts 5:1-5; Gal. 2:12.

    2. Understand also that it is not necessary to have an example of something in order for it to be authorized -- there are no examples of preaching by newspaper, radio, TV, etc.

    3. Dungan says, "Religious truth may be gathered from approved precedent. We learn from the authorized conduct of the children of God. If we can first be assured that what is done is approved, we can know certainly what we are at liberty to do under similar circumstances. Indeed, if the conduct has been directed by men under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, we learn what we ought to do," (p. 95).

    4. Using the Lord's Supper we can apply the rules we have learned to determine when an example is binding.

      1. The partaking of the Lord's Supper in the upper room may meet the laws of universal application (there are upper rooms universally). The only example we have is of disciples taking of the Lord's Supper in the upper room; hence, it would meet the law of uniformity. However, the binding of the upper room brings us in conflict with the law of harmony, for Jesus taught that the place is not significant (Jno. 4:20-24). Neither does the upper room pass the law of materiality -- the upper room was mentioned in reference to the fall of Eutycus and had no significance as far as the partaking of the Lord's Supper was concerned.

      2. When should disciples partake of the Lord's Supper? Is there one day and one day only that is authorized? There is obviously a "first day of the week" universally; hence, there is the compliance with the law of universal application. Acts 20:7, is the only place in scripture that associates an exact day with the eating of the Lord's Supper. Hence, this example meets the law of harmony. That the first day of the week was greatly significant cannot be denied -- Jesus arose from the dead on the first day of the week. The immediate context of Acts 20:1-16, indicates that Paul was in a hurry to get to Jerusalem, but he tarried seven days (v. 6) departing the day following the first day of the week (v. 7). Hence, in applying the law of materiality in conjunction with the others, we would conclude that the first day of the week is the only authorized day for us to partake of the Lord's Supper.

  3. WE ALSO LEARN WHAT GOD EXPECTS OF US BY NECESSARY IMPLICATIONS:

    1. An "inference" or "implication" is not a guess, speculation, or supposition. A necessary implication is one that is logically unavoidable.

    2. Dungan says, "Inference may be used legitimately in the ascertainment of facts, and also in th conclusions reached from them," (p. 91)

      1. Note Gen. 12:10-20, Abraham went down into Egypt but there is no mention of Lot going; however, in Gen. 13:1, it says that Abraham left Egypt and took Lot with him. What is necessarily implied?

      2. Jesus responded to the Sadducees proposed dilemma about the resurrection by saying that God is the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob and that God is the God of the living and not the dead. What is necessarily implied from that?

      3. In Mt. 26:17-29, Jesus instituted the Lord's Supper and used "bread" as a representation of His body? What kind of bread was it? What is necessarily implied?

THOUGHT QUESTION:

DO NOT ALL THREE OF THESE WAYS OF ESTABLISHING BIBLE AUTHORITY REQUIRE THAT MAN APPLY HUMAN REASONING?


["Institutional" Issues Outline] [Introduction] [Lesson 1] [Lesson 2] [Lesson 3] [Lesson 4] [Lesson 5] [Lesson 6]

Click here to send an e-mail to Jim R. Everett: corresp@cedarparkchurchofchrist.org


 

Created on 01-Apr-99

Page last updated