Please Help Us Keep These Thousands of Blog Posts Growing and Free for All
Without getting too far afield, Old Hermeneutics (grammatical-historical-interpretation) gave way to the New Hermeneutics of the 19th – 20th centuries (grammatical-critical-historical interpretation). The former preserved objectivity in interpretation, the latter subjectivity. The former preserved the integrity and trustworthiness of the Bible writers and the text; the latter made both the Bible writer and the text untrustworthy. In other words, New Hermeneutics, with its pseudo-scholarship has done nothing more than weaken and demoralize people’s assurance in the Bible being the inspired and fully inerrant Word of God. There are several positions as to the meaning of a text.
- Principle of Single Meaning: The text has but one single meaning, which is what the author meant by the words that he used, as should have been understood by his intended readers. (Stein 1994, 39)
- Reader Response: The meaning of a text is what it means to the reader. Therefore, one reader can have a completely different meaning than another, even contradictory, yet both are correct, as it is the reader who determines the meaning. (Klein, Blomberg and Hubbard 2004, 72-5)
- Sensus Plenior (“Fuller Sense”): The one meaning intended by the author, has a fuller or deeper meaning(s) that the author was not aware of, but was intended by God. (Kaiser and Silva 1994, 2007, 336)
- Implications or Submeanings: Some suggest submeanings, which is in essence a second meaning. Implications have a role to play, but is being misappropriated if used as or referred to as a submeaning.
- Principle of Single Meaning: This is the only option because any other removes the authority of the Word of God. More than one meaning means that it can have any meaning, resulting in no real meaning at all.
- Reader Response: Those believing in the “reader “response” will say that all are correct. Under this position, the text allows each reader the right to derive his or her own meaning from the text. This is where you hear “I think this means,” “I believe this means,” “this means to me,” and “I feel this means to me.” Again, the problem with this is that the text loses its authority; God and His author lose their authority over the intended meaning of the text. When God inspired the writer, to express His will and purposes, there was the intention of one meaning, what the author under inspiration meant by the words he used. If anyone can come along and give it whatever meaning pleases them, then God’s authority over the meaning is lost, and there is no real meaning at all.
- Sensus Plenior (“Fuller Sense”): If this is being used as a secondary meaning, or a submeaning, it is being misused. However, if it is being used a Robert L. Thomas uses it, “Inspired Sensus Plenior Application” (ISPA, p. 241); then, it does not stand as a second meaning, but a new meaning. In other words, Psalm 78:2, “I will open my mouth in a parable” has one meaning and is a reference to Asaph. Matthew 13:35 is a new meaning, where Matthew refers to Jesus. Psalm 78:2 does not refer to Jesus. Let us look at another example.
Hosea 11:1 Updated American Standard Version (UASV)
11 When Israel was a boy, I loved him,
and out of Egypt I called my son.
Matthew 2:15 Updated American Standard Version (UASV)
15 and was there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet, “Out of Egypt I called my son.”
 Or complete (πληρόω plēroō)
 A quotation from Hosea 11:1
Some argue that we need to see Matthew’s meaning in Hosea. In other words, Hosea meant to convey the meaning that Matthew expressed. This Just is not the case. Was Hosea meaning his words to be prophetic, or were they a reference to a historical event, to make a point to his current readers? His audience would have understood what Hosea meant, by their use of historical-grammatical interpretation. “When Israel was but a boy” is a reference to the nation’s early beginnings, when they were young, while they were in Egypt. “I” is Jehovah God speaking through the prophet Hosea, their loving father, who ‘out of Egypt called his son.’ Therefore, It is difficult to see Matthew’s use of Hosea’s words as a fulfillment because, Hosea’s words were not prophetic.
On many occasions, a New Testament writer would quote or cite an Old Testament Scripture. Many times the New Testament writer would be using the Old Testament text contextually, according to the setting, and intent of the Old Testament writer (observing the grammatical-historical sense). However, at times the New Testament writer would add to or apply the text differently than what was meant by the Old Testament writer (not observing the grammatical-historical sense). This is either a new or a progressive revelation by God, where he has inspired the New Testament writer to go beyond the intended meaning of the Old Testament writer, and carry out Inspired Sensus Plenior Application (ISPA). In this latter case, the New Testament writer is using the Old Testament text to convey another meaning to another circumstance. This does not violate the principle that all texts have just one single meaning. The Old Testament text has one meaning, and the New Testament writer’s adoption and adaptation of that text is not a second meaning, but another meaning.
Now, (1) was Matthew intending to interpret the message of Hosea because it was supposedly prophetic, or (2) was he using Hosea’s meaning of a historical reference, and giving it an Inspired Sensus Plenior Application meaning, by way of inspiration of Holy Spirit? It was the latter, number (2). Hosea’s meaning was a historical reference to the Israelite nation when they were in Egypt. Matthew’s meaning is to take Hosea’s words, and add new additional meaning to them, not suggesting at all that Hosea meant his new meaning.
Dr. John H. Walton’s approach in dealing with this sort of circumstance is that we need to grasp the difference between (1) message and (2) fulfillment. The message of Hosea was not prophetic, and was understood by his audience. “Fulfillment is not the message, but is the working out of God’s plan in history. There are no hermeneutical principles within the grammatical-historical model that enable one to identify a fulfillment by reading and analyzing the prophecy.” In other words, we need not concern ourselves with trying to shove a square peg into a round hole. We do not have to fit Matthew’s meaning into Hosea, as though Hosea’s meaning was prophetic, and this justifies Matthew’s conclusions. We are not causing any ripple in Scripture, because these two have different meanings from each other. Walton is in harmony with Dr. Robert L. Thomas, with the exception of his seeing Matthew’s use of Hosea’s words as a fulfillment, while Thomas sees them as a completion, “some sense the transport of Jesus by His parents from Egypt completed the deliverance of Israel from Egypt that had begun during the time of Moses.”
Without an intended prophecy, how can there be a fulfillment. We should see Matthew’s use of Hosea’s words as completing whatever historical reference Hosea was referring too. What we do know is that if Matthew assigns a different meaning to Hosea’s words, it is his meaning and it is subjective. Which if you recall, we are perfectly fine with, because he has the authority to offer subjective meaning; he was an inspired Bible writer, who had been moved along by Holy Spirit. Matthew was not interpreting the message Hosea penned, he was giving us an Inspired Sensus Plenior Application, a completion to Hosea’s words.
Therefore, we need to look at the Greek word behind fulfillment (pleroo). Pleroo has a range of meaning, and the context will give us which sense was meant. It can mean, “to fulfill, to complete, carry out to the full, accomplish, and perfect.” What is the sense that we find at Matthew 2:15 and other places that New Testament writers use it, when they are referring to an Old Testament Passage? Bible scholar Dr. Robert L. Thomas has this to say on the subject, “Most (if not all) English translations frequently render the Greek verb pleroo by the English word fulfill. In some instances, this is unfortunate because the two words do not cover the same semantic domain. In English, fulfill, when used in connection with Old Testament citations, carries the connotation of a historical occurrence of something promised or predicted. The Greek pleroo, however, covers more linguistic territory than that.” New Testament Scholar Douglas J. Moo adds,
Pleroo cannot be confined to so narrow a focus [as referring to fulfillment of an Old Testament prophecy]…. What needs to be emphasized, then, is that the use of pleroo in an introductory formula need not mean that the author regards the Old Testament text he quotes as a direct prophecy; and accusations that a New Testament author misuses the Old Testament by using pleroo to introduce nonprophetic texts are unfounded.’
We can see that the context of Matthew 2:15 leads us to the rendering “This was to complete what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, ‘Out of Egypt I called my son.’” In other words, “In the Matthew 2:15 citation of Hosea 11:1 Matthew uses [pleroo] to indicate the completion of a sensus plenior meaning he finds in Hosea 11:1.” As we have already said, the single meaning of Hosea 11:1 is not prophetic, but rather a historical reference to the time of Moses, when God called the Israelite nation out of Egypt. Therefore, to use the English rendering fulfill is “misleading.” “Matthew’s meaning is that in some sense the transport of Jesus by His parents from Egypt completed the deliverance of Israel from Egypt that had begun during the time of Moses.”
- Implications or Submeanings: There are implications (not second meanings), the pattern meaning that is applied to all times, including today. For example, when Paul commanded the Ephesian congregation ‘not to be getting drunk with wine’ (Eph. 5:18), an implication of that command would be whiskey, which was not around for hundreds of years after Paul. However, it fits the pattern of meaning.
Interpretation and Application
Interpretation is the reader’s expression of the correct understanding of the writer’s intended meaning. However, Brian A. Shealy is correct, in that many scholars today hold that “knowing how a text is applied today is integral to understanding that text.” (p. 174) In other words they are confusing, or blurring the lines between interpretation and application.
Klein et al. contend that interpretation has to involve what the text might mean today as a prerequisite to understanding what the text originally meant. Osborne too defends an overlap of application and interpretation.” Kaiser and Silva also believe that interpretation must decide the current relevancy, application, and contemporary significance of a text. (Thomas 2002, 174)
Hermeneutics is a set of rules and principles for carrying out an exegetical analysis of a text, i.e., implementing those rules and principles, to arrive at the correct meaning. Therefore, application is the balanced, practical carrying out of that meaning in one’s personal life, by way of implications, i.e., same pattern of meaning, as it fits the modern day circumstances. (p. 166)
In the end, to attempt a fusion, or a mixture of interpretation and application, will only contaminate the original meaning. Why? Because implications of a meaning can be varied, as long as the pattern is maintained, but cannot be taken back to the original meaning, without carrying out eisegesis as opposed to exegesis. The original meaning is based on that set of circumstances and events, that historical setting and context. The process of coming to the correct application is just the opposite. First, one is to ascertain the original meaning through an exegetical analysis of the passage, arriving at what the author meant by the words that he used, as should have been understood by his intended readers. Second, he then takes that meaning, and finds the same pattern in his life today, if it is to be applied at all, as it may just be “subject matter.” (Stein 1994, 47)
SCROLL THROUGH DIFFERENT CATEGORIES BELOW
BIBLE TRANSLATION AND TEXTUAL CRITICISM
BIBLICAL STUDIES / INTERPRETATION
CHRISTIAN APOLOGETIC EVANGELISM
CHURCH ISSUES, GROWTH, AND HISTORY
 By “historical” is a reference to the setting in which the Bible books were written, and the circumstances involved in the writing. By “grammatical” we mean determining the meaning of the Bible by studying the words and sentences of Scripture in their normal, plain sense. Roy B. Zuck.
 Higher Criticism or Historical Criticism Methodology with its sub-criticisms: Source Criticism, Tradition Criticism, Form Criticism, Redaction Criticism, and so on, has undermined God’s Word.
 Subjective means that something is based on somebody’s opinions or feelings rather than on facts or evidence. Objective means that something is free of any bias or prejudice caused by personal feelings, based on facts rather than thoughts or opinions.
 Page(s): 11, Inspired Subjectivity and Hermeneutical Objectivity by John H. Walton Master’s Seminary Journal March 01, 2002.pdf
 Robert L. Thomas. Evangelical Hermeneutics: The New Versus the Old (p. 263). Kindle Edition.
 W. E. Vine, Merrill F. Unger and William White, Jr., vol. 2, Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, 8 (Nashville, TN: T. Nelson, 1996).
 Robert L. Thomas. Evangelical Hermeneutics: The New Versus the Old (p. 262). Kindle Edition.
 Moo, Doulas J., “Problems of Sensus Plenior,” 191
 Thomas. Evangelical Hermeneutics: The New Versus the Old (p. 263).
 IBID., p. 263
 Klein et al., Biblical Interpretation, 83.
 Osborne, Hermeneutical Spiral, 355.
 Kaiser and Silva, Biblical Hermeneutics, 10.
 Eisegesis is reading our (interpretation) modern day mindset back 2,000 – 3,500 years ago, into the Hebrew or Greek text.
 Exegesis is taking the meaning out of or from the text, by going back in time, to that culture and that language, to ascertain what the original author meant by his words.