Power In His Presence

TITLE OF THE BOOK- ON THE INTERPRETATION AND USE OF THE BIBLE-With Reflection on Experience

ABOUT THE AUTHOR- RONALD S. WALLACE

The Reverend Ronald Wallace (1911-2006) was a Professor of Biblical Theology at Columbia Theological Seminary. In 1940 Ronald Wallace became a Minister in the Pollock Church, and also in the Church of Glasgow.  He moved on in life by joining the Church of Scotland’s Huts and Canteens in 1951 as a Minister, the name is St Kentigern’s Church in Lanark. In 1958, he again became a Minister in a profound growing evangelistic Church called Lothian Road Church, in Edinburgh. In 1964, he was promoted into a new arena of ministry as a Professor of a Biblical Theology at Columbia Theological Seminary, in Decatur, Georgia. He became a Professor again in 1977 in the East School of Theology in Beirut.

His secondary education took place at the Royal High School. At sixteen he matriculated at the University of Edinburgh and studied a degree in civil engineering. He proceeded to the Faculty of Arts. Studies at in Divinity followed; he was a pupil of H.R. Macintosh and William Manson. While Minister of St Kentigern’s in Lanark he gained his PhD on Calvin’s Doctrine of the Word and Sacraments.

In July 1937 he married Mary Moulin Torrance, the sister of Thomas Torrance. They had a son, David, and two daughters: Elizabeth and Heather. Wallace’s nephews include theologians Iain Torrance and Alan Torrance; moreover, his son-in-law George Newlands is a leading academic theologian.

TABLE CONTENTS:

Forward ix

1.   AN INTRODUCTION TO THE BIBLE 1

11. DEVELOPING PRESUPPOSITIONS

       A Gradual Progress 5

       Inspiration 6

       Revelation 9

       A salvation History 13

111. FACING THE BIBLE AS A WHOLE (1)

           The Unity of the Old and New Testaments

         The preparation for the New Testament in the Old 17

         The New as Present in the Old 19

         The Miracle of Progress 22

         The Cost of Progress 25

         The Old and the New— The Need of Each for the Other 26

         The Unchanging Value of the Old Testament Text 29

1V. FACING THE BIBLE AS A WHOLE (11)

          The Story-Prelude to the Bible

       Prelude and Pre-history 33

       Wisdom in Story 36

       The Movement into Salvation History 40

V.  THE APPROACH TO INTERPRETATION

       Two Avenues 43

       A Continuing Footnote 45

 V1. THE INTERPRETAION OF THE TEXT

           (i) Within the Worshipping and Gathered Church

      A Shared Responsibility under Christ 47

      The Implications of the Preaching Ministry 49

      Enlightenment, Pastoral Concern and Care 52

      Pastoral Intercourse and Interpretation 55

      The Ministry and Voice of the Laity 57

      The Reading of the Word of God 61

V11. THE INTERPRETATION OF THE TEXT

           (ii) The Use of Human Skills and Resources

          Criticism 64

          The Grammatico-Historical Approach to the Text 65

          The Theological Approach 70

          The Enlistment of Imagination and Insight 72

V111. THE APPLICATION OF THE WORD OF GOD

          Finding the Way 75

          The Constraint of the Truth 77

          Law and Grace in the Ten Commandments 78

          Jesus, the Cross and His Teaching 81

          The Pervasive Background of Wisdom and Story 85

    1X. OPENNESS AND SURRENDER

            Receptivity 88

            The Surrender of ‘Every Thought’ 90

            The Surrender of the Will 91

      X. CENTRAL ISSUES IN INTERPRETAION

             Typology 93

      X1.  CENTRAL ISSUES IN INTERPRETATION

               Allegory

                Towards a Definition 100

                The Openness of the Bible to Allegory 101

                Dangers and Safeguards 104

       X11.  THE STRUCTURE OF THE BIBILCAL WITNESS

                 Need for Openness to Story and Doctrine 108

                 The Decisive Place of Story in the Service of the Word of God 108

                 The Decisive Place of Doctrine in the Service of the Word of God 111

                 The Need of Each for the Other – Some Practical Issues 113

       X111.  THE INTERGRITY OF THE BIBLICAL WITNESS

                   The Centrality and Reliability of History within the Biblical Narrative 119

                   Facing the Miraculous Element in the Biblical Narrative 121

                   Points of Tension and Growing Assurance 126

                   Appendix—Towards the Awareness and Recovery of Miracle Today 132

                    WHAT THE BOOK IS ALL ABOUT           

Wallace Ronald expresses his experience in the Bible that he found the new world to which he must now give all his mind, will and emotions to and he was convinced that it pointed meaningfully to the new direction which his life must take, and offered what was most worth seeking. He continues that, he didn’t have any difficulty grasping the unity of the Bible. As he glanced through the bible, text after text brought before him new aspects of God’s will and work for the world and him, he had continually been given new insights which have apparently led to a gradually deepening and fuller appreciation of God and how He is seeking to give us through the Bible.

Wallace again alludes that the history of Israel as the Old Testament presents can certainly be read as if it were simply the history of one particular nation among many others, mostly larger and more important than itself, such as Greece or Egypt or Rome, all caught up and bound up similarly within the one great movement of universal history

Within the history of the Church, and in the experience of individual Christians today, the slow and unspectacular influence of God’s grace can be punctuated by moments of great certainty and clarity which is sometimes called “revival or renewal”.

God now and then in His word exercised His influence in more spectacular ways. There were important turning points in public affairs when dramatic decisions seemed to be taken by the nation as a whole. We can think of the covenant made at Sinai between God and the people led by Moses (Ex. 24). Wallace throws light on the very fact that God is concerned to speak to us through the Bible not only about the truth in which we are to believe but also about the way we have to take in obedience to His will. As God utters His word, He seeks not only to reveal Himself to the world, but also to reconcile, to renew and control it.

As the Holy Spirit leads and guides us as the Church, He impacts and creates in us the term Wallace refers to as “the disposition of the mind”. The Holy Spirit seeks to teach us the OPENNESS AND SURRENDER. We have to be open to hear what God is saying to us. Ronald S. Wallace concludes his book on the premise that, it will be very conducive and expedient for the Church to continually keep in mind the promise held out to it in the New Testament as the body of Christ, and the warning included in the promise.

COMPARE AND CONTRAST THE HERMENEUTICS OF ALEXANDRIA AND ANTIOCH

The early church was characterized by two streams of Hermeneutical schools, one from Alexan­dria and one from Antioch.

Christians at Alexandria followed Hellenistic Jews in adopting Greek ideas. Gnostic influences, which dis­counted the material world as inher­ently evil, led to a spirituality which moved God away from his historical acts. The historical events were seen as just allegorical stories and that inevitably led to the gospel being eclipsed as an historical event. An “Allegory” is a symbolic representation.  Alexandrian school of interpretation elevates the literal words of Scripture and assumed that they were symbolic and of deeper spiritual truths. Their philosophical and historical traditions which were declared by Thucydides and Herodotus were always at odds with their religious traditions which were stated by Homer and Hesiod.  They relieved the tension by allegorizing the religious.

 One of the prominent students of this Hermeneutical school was Clement of Alexandria (c.150 A.D.) who claimed that there were five possible meanings.  The Historical meaning which concerned the actual event; The Doctrinal meaning which included moral and theological teachings; The Prophetic meaning which was  concerned with predictions and types; the Philosophical meaning which sees meaning in objects and historical persons; and the Mystical meaning which involved deeper moral, spiritual or religious truth found via symbols.  Origen was a student of Clement who sought to escape the crudities of lay people by taking everything symbolically.  He tried to make scripture acceptable to philosophers.  Origen’s approach was threefold in that the Literal meaning was the Body of Scripture, the Moral sense was the Soul of Scripture, and the Allegorical sense was the Spirit of Scripture. He believed that true exegesis was Spiritual (allegorical) exegesis. The Syrian School of Antioch on the other hand avoided letterism and allegories.  Lucian and Dorotheus were founders, around 325 A.D.  Arius and Eusebius studied at this school.  Diodorus, who was the first presbyter of Antioch until 378 AD, then the Bishop of Tarsus, also was part of the school at Antioch.  There exist many extant writings from the students of this ancient school.Theodore of Mopsuestia was a student of Diodorus who was intellectual and dogmatic.  He denied the inspiration of some books of the Bible, but he also denied Allegory. He glanced at and revered the essence of being circumspective with the scientific study of language (Linguistics). He resorted to studying the milieu and the circumstances enveloping passages in lieu of isolating verses in a passage.  John Chrysostom who was also called “the golden-mouthed” was a talented exegete and communicator who recognized inspiration and totality of the Canon.This School debated Origen’s Allegorical school.

The Syrian School–

·        Accepted a plain-literal and a figurative-literal sense of Scripture.

·        Measured passages of scripture as literal and not “letterists.”

·        Avoided the authoritarian exegesis of the Roman Catholics.

·        Insisted on historicity of Old Testament events.

·        Related the Old Testament and New Testament typologically, not allegorically.

·        Recognized Progressive Revelation.

·        Held that the bond between the Old Testament and New Testament is prophecy.

They emphasized the historical meaning of the Bible and so preserved the gospel as an historical event in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. Out of this grew the historical method of typology which saw the Old Testament events as foreshadowing the gospel without dissolving the Old Testament’s nat­ural, historical meaning. The Anti­och strand’s weakness was its ten­dency towards the subtle heresy of Nestorius, which split Jesus’ divine nature from his human nature and declared him to be not only of two natures, but also to be two persons.

WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS IN KNOWING THE HISTORY OF THE TRANSLATION OF THE ENGLISH BIBLE?

The history of the translation of the English bible is fixated with diversities of assistance to Christianity. Knowing this history helps to understand the transformations, pressures, torments and persecutions the versions of the bible especially the English bible had gone through before reaching our door steps with ease and comfort. Also, it keeps us as Christians abreast with the pains our predecessors in the faith went through before translating the bible into English for us.

Knowing the history of the English Bible is tantamount to knowing the history of the movement of the Bible from its possession and use by clergy alone to the hands of the laity. The beneficiaries of English translation is all and sundry who professes allegiance to Christ our Master. Eons of time ago, the bible was in seclusion and read in isolation, possessed by the powers of the time, viz the Bishops and the hegemony that were clad with the dibs and the delegated authority to peruse and assimilate it. For seven or eight centuries, it was the Latin Vulgate that held sway as the common version nearest to the tongue of the people. Latin had become the accepted tongue of the Roman Catholic Church, and there was little general acquaintance with the Bible except among the educated. During that time, there was little room for a further translation. While the illiterate majority of the people had little desire for access to the Bible, the educated minority would have been averse to so great and revolutionary a change.

These centuries added to the conviction of many that the Bible ought not to become too common, that it should not be read by everybody, that it required a certain amount of learning to make it safe reading. They came to feel that it is as important to have an authoritative interpretation of the Bible as to have the Bible itself.

The translation of the English bible had been very advantageous in the sphere of giving every believer the leeway and the latitude to understand and to comprehend the totality of what had hitherto transpired with regards to the history of Christianity. Even though Christianity reached England in the 3rd century, the Bible remained in Latin re Jerome’s Vulgate and almost exclusively in the hands of the clergy for a thousand years. The Roman Catholics were very much familiar and acquainted with the Latin language so they built entrenched positions and monuments around the Latin and they were intentionally fixated with the idea of NOT translating the Latin into a different language.

Knowing these histories enlightens us to know the difficulties embodied in the translation of one language to another with regards to the bible. The dozen or so modern English versions in common use today should be greatly studied for their differences. Because of the knowledge of the history of translating the English bible, the reader should and must know how and why versions differ. It was the work of the English reformer John Wycliffe, whose goal was to give the Bible to the people.

Tyndale was fluent in eight languages and is considered by many to be the primary architect of the modern English language. After Wycliffe’s efforts, Tyndale took the bait to further the propagation of the gospel via translation. Already hunted because of the rumor spread abroad that such a project (translation of the bible into English) was underway, inquisitors and bounty hunters were on Tyndale’s trail to abort the effort. God foiled their plans, and in 1525/6 Tyndale printed the first English New Testament. The Bishop of London sought to confiscate and burn them, but copies continued to be smuggled into England.

This history instills the greater understanding of the power of God in buffering His word from being vanquished into the dusk. The more the King and Bishop resisted its distribution, the more fascinated the public at large became. Bishop Tunstal declared that Tyndale’s translation contained thousands of errors as they torched hundreds of New Testaments confiscated by the clergy. One risked death by burning if caught in mere possession of the forbidden books. Through the new allegiance to Humanism and relevance, modern publishers and the public have been allowed to forget grammar, history, and the men who laid down their lives in the foundation of the Bible in English. We have not been told that the Manuscripts used in the modern versions are other than that used by the great scholars who laid down their lives for Truth. These modern versions are without the test of persecution and blood.

Like the Pharisees of old, the clergy realized that having God’s Word available to the people in the language of common English, would mean disaster to the church. No longer could they control access to the scriptures. If people were able to read the Bible in their own tongue, the church’s income and power would crumble. They could not continue the selling of indulgences (the forgiveness of sins) or bartering the release of loved ones from “Purgatory”.  People would begin to challenge the church’s authority if the practices of the church were exposed to the light of Scripture. The contradictions between God’s Word and what the priests taught would open the “eyes of the blind” and the truth would set them free. Salvation by grace alone — through faith (not by works) would be revealed. The need for “priest craft” would give way to the priesthood of all believers. The veneration of canonized Saints and of the Virgin would be called into question. The availability of the scriptures in English was the greatest threat imaginable to the corrupted Romish church. The Church of Rome would never give up without a fight.

TITLE OF THE BOOK-

 OLD and NEW in INTERPRETAION – A STUDY OF THE  TWO TESTAMENTS 

ABOUT THE AUTHOR-

 The Reverend Professor James Barr who was a Fellow of the British Academy (FBA), was born on March 20^th, 1924 in Glasgow, Scotland. He then became a Scottish Old Testament scholar on October 14, 2006 in Claremont, California. He held professorships at Manchester and Vanderbilt University in the United States of America. He was Oriel Professor of the Interpretation of Scripture at Oxford from 1976 to 1978 and Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford from 1978 to 1989.Arguably his most influential work was The Semantics of Biblical Language (1961), in which he criticized the tendency of many scholars to rely on linguistically flawed arguments, such as arguments from etymology or based upon misconceptions about the relation between Hebrew thought and language. Much of the critique was built upon the work of French linguist Ferdinand de Saussure. In turn, Barr’s student Moisés Silva built on Barr’s work in Biblical Words and Their Meaning (1983).He was also an outspoken critic of conservative evangelicalism, which he attacked in his 1977 book Fundamentalism. In particular he criticized evangelical scholars such as Bernard Ramm and J.I. Packer for the doctrine of scriptural inerrancy, the teaching that the Bible is without error. However, he also had high praise for evangelicals whom he thought deserved to be treated as serious scholars, such as F. F. Bruce and Donald Guthrie. Barr’s other works about fundamentalism include The Scope and Authority of the Bible (1980) and Escaping Fundamentalism (1984).  

TABLE CONTENTS–

Foreword by the President, Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary 9- 

Preface 11- 

1. The Multiplex Nature of the Old Testament Tradition 15-

2. Athens or Jerusalem?—The Question of Distinctiveness 34-

3. The Concepts of History and Revelation 65-

4. Typology and Allegory 103-

5. Old and New Testaments in the Work of Salvation 149-

6. Conclusions 171-    

Appendix: A note on the Fundamentalism 207-    

Bibliography 208-    

Index 213-   

WHAT THE BOOK IS ALL ABOUT–

Reverend James Barr states in this book that the Old Testament is not only multiplex in character but it is also multiplex in the form which  it now presents; it is also historically multiplex, in that a number of very different processes have gone into its formation. The multiplicity doesn’t mean that historically the processes cannot be unraveled, provided that we have the data to work from.  Professor Barr alludes here on the premise that one of the chief relations in which the growth of tradition leads to decisions which are fateful for the achievement of salvation is the relation between Jew and Gentile. We do not need to spend much time in describing the Greek-Hebrew thought contrast as it operates in the minds of, for example, theological students at the present time. The heavily philosophical character of the Greek-Hebrew contrast has, however, another and a more serious defect. By being characterized through comparison with Greek thought in a philosophical framework of this kind, Hebrew thought itself is assimilated to a philosophical type.  It has been repeatedly urged upon us that the emphasis upon history as the medium of revelation par excellence is a central contribution of the Old Testament to theology. James Barr here expresses that it is a real difficulty in many views centered in a revelation history that, in spite of a primary assertion of God’s actions in history, they come to have their actual centre in a historical emphasis, or a historical way of thinking, or a historical form of self-understanding or perception of life, rather than in an actual history. In modern theology, whether reason is accepted as an additional source of Theological knowledge or not, the use of the idea of revelation works against two particular problems. These are firstly, the position where it is denied that God exists, or that any true or meaningful knowledge of Him exists; secondly, the position where such knowledge as he has given of himself has to be carefully demarcated against the methods and contents of man’s sciences as they work apart from this revelation.  One of the most commonest tendencies in modern theology is the tendency to suppose that the quality of biblical interpretation can be controlled through a study of presuppositions. This tendency is by no means confined to purist trains of thought; it is evident in externalist approaches also. Nevertheless it is particularly evident in purist thought, where it seems sufficient to identify “alien” or “foreign” presuppositions in order to discredit an exegetical suggestion.

SINCE THE CANON IS COMPOSED ONLY OF INSPIRED WRITINGS, ARE ALL THE BOOKS OF EQUAL VALUE? WHAT WAS LUTHER’S VIEW?

A. ALL THE BOOKS OF THE CANON ARE OF EQUAL VALUE

The whole books in the bible are all birthed by the Holy Spirit of God and it is profitable for perusals and studying. The inequality some people and theologians annexes to the bible doesn’t dilute its inerrancy. Though some scholars are still bickering and arguing on some books of the bible viz, Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, and revelation and others as lacking the taste of inspiration, but needless to say, those books passed the test of being part and participle of the canon. Irrespective of how a book of the bible is viewed, it emanated from the “Breath of God”. Every book in the bible is of equal magnitude and significance; though some cultural principles are obsolete and inapplicable now. 

Biblical inspiration may be defined as God’s superintending of the human authors so that, using their own individual personalities (and even their writing styles), they composed and recorded without error His revelation to man in the words of the original autographs. Inspiration means that “the Holy Spirit of God superintended the human writers in the production of Scripture so that what they wrote was precisely what God wanted written.”

God the Holy Spirit so supernaturally directed the human writers of  scripture, that without waiving their human intelligence, individuality, literary style, personal feelings or any other human factor, His own complete and coherent message to man was recorded in perfect accuracy in the original languages of scripture, the very words bearing the authority of divine authorship.

2 Pet. 1:21, “For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy spirit.”

2 Tim .3:16a, “All scripture is God-breathed, and is profitable”. The Holy Spirit communicated to the human author God’s complete and coherent message to that generation and all future generations of history. The human writer wrote down in his own language and within the framework of his own personality, the divine message to man. God used the writers’ vocabulary, intelligence, personality, feeling and
individuality. Inspiration guarantees that the whole books in the Bible are all accurate and of the same value.

B. LUTHER’S VIEW CONCERNING THE CANON

Luther allows the canon to stand as it was established by the ancient church. But he makes distinctions within the canon. It is these “distinctions” that are often seen as removal(many theologians and biblical scholars have the belief that Luther removed totally some books from the canon). From a research i made, Luther explained that he understood the Biblical books in an order based on how clearly “Christ the gospel of free grace and justification through faith alone” was enunciated. He considered this to be the apostolic standard by which all was evaluated.

Paul Althaus a scholar of Luther explains,

“It was particularly within the canon that Luther practiced theological criticism of its individual parts. The standard of this criticism is the same as his principle of interpretation, that is, Christ: the gospel of free grace and justification through faith alone. This is what Luther means when he says that the standard is “that which is apostolic.” Luther’s concept of apostolicity is based not only on a historical factor, that is, that Christ himself called and sent out a group of witnesses. Rather, it is determined by the content of a book. An apostle shows that he is an apostle by clearly and purely preaching Christ as Savior. “Now it is the office of a true apostle to preach of the suffering, resurrection, and office of Christ.” This shows that an apostle is inspired by the Holy Spirit; and this gives him his authority and infallibility. Since apostolic authority manifests itself in the gospel of the apostles, the church recognizes the authority of the Scripture as being based not on the person of the apostles but on the word of God or the gospel which bears witness to itself. The apostolic character of a New Testament author manifests itself in the content of his writing and in the clarity of his witness to Christ.”

Certain books that did not express this were critically questioned by Luther: particularly James, Jude, Hebrews, and Revelation.

In terms of order, Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation come last in Luther’s New Testament because of his negative estimate of their apostolicity. In a catalogue of “The Books of the New Testament” which followed immediately upon his Preface to the New Testament… Luther regularly listed these four—without numbers—at the bottom of a list in which he named the other twenty-three books, in the order in which they still appear in English Bibles, and numbered them consecutively from 1–23… a procedure identical to that with which he also listed the books of the Apocrypha.

WHAT HISTORICAL CIRCUMSTANCES CONTRIBUTED TO THE ORIGIN OF THE GOSPELS AND THE PAULINE EPISTLES?

The origin of the Gospels and the Epistles of Paul are marked by diversities of events which led to the origin of the Gospels and the Epistles of Paul. In AD 70, the insurgence and the revolt in opposition to the Roman rule by the Jews led to the Romans maltreatment and persecution of the Jews and hence, the death of many Christians. This persecution patently became a catalyst for the recording of the life and ministry of Jesus.  

Soon after Jesus’ death and resurrection, the Disciples and others began to witness of the resurrection. Early in the book of Acts, we read of the Apostles preaching to large crowds about Jesus (Acts 2:14-26), and that message was carried throughout the Roman world (Acts 1:8, 8:4, 11:19-20, etc.). So the second stage of Gospel formation was a Gospel tradition that grew out of the testimony and preaching of the followers of Jesus, as well as the practices of the church such as Eucharist and worship that grew out of that preaching. This tradition may have been oral, or written, or a combination of both. In any case, this tradition was the main vehicle for the Gospel message in the 30 or so years after the death of Jesus but before the actual writing of the Gospels.The public assertion and declaration of the gospel was before time what the apostles highlighted. Though the early apostles were not ready to consign the teachings and miracles of Jesus into writing based on their expectation of the return of Christ ASAP and also on the premise of having a preference of speaking personally in lieu of putting them into writing. As time elapsed and the demise of the apostles approached, the rest had the conviction to engrave the life and teachings of Christ down. The gospels as well as the Epistles were written by men who were willing to, and in many cases did, give their lives for what they believed.  This indicates that they likely believed that what they wrote was the truth irrespective of the circulations of falsities fabricated by the Romans about the myths surrounding Jesus and the Apostles. Paul is bereft with the firsthand information about Christ because he was not with Jesus during His earthly ministry. Paul was a man deeply inclined to the Spirit and a very ardent Jewish scholar. He was an austere Pharisee and he was a fanatic of Jews segregating themselves from the Gentiles. When he encountered Christ his mental picture of aversion to the Gentiles was thwarted for the better of being an apostle to these selfsame enemies of him. In Arabia, Paul basked in the process of transformation via his knowledge about God and became the interpreter of the gospel of Christ to the Gentiles.The question of the historical circumstances contributing to the origin of the gospels includes yet another literary problem, concerning the gospels especially. Are these writings independent of one another? If one of the Evangelists did utilize the work of his predecessors how are we to suppose it happened? Was it Matthew who used Mark or vice versa? After thirty years of constant study, the question has been answered only by conjectures. Amongst
these must be included the documentary theory itself, even in the form in which it is now commonly admitted, that of the “two sources”. The starting-point of this theory, namely the priority of Mark and the use made of him by Matthew and Luke, although it has become a dogma in criticism for many, cannot be said to be more than a hypothesis. However disconcerting this may be, it is none the less true. The place is Rome, the situation the persecutions of Nero. Paul and Peter are in prison, soon to die at the command of Nero himself. Mark is there with them. Peter is anxious to tell the story of Christ before he dies, and he does so, dictating to Mark. It is not clear whether Mark actually composed this gospel before or after Peter’s death. It is not important. This was a really hard time for believers in Jesus Christ, and especially so in Rome. His record is in reality the Gospel according to Simon Peter. He was early associated with Peter; later with Paul. Mark wrote this record at the instigation of Peter and on the earnest petition of the church at Rome. Knowing how consistently the Master refused to write out his teachings when on earth and in the flesh, Mark, like the apostles and other leading disciples, was hesitant to put them in writing. But Peter felt the church at Rome required the assistance of such a written narrative, and Mark consented to undertake its preparation. He made many notes before Peter died in A.D. 67, and in accordance with the outline approved by Peter and for the church at Rome, he began his writing soon after Peter’s death. The Gospel was completed near the end of A.D. 68. Mark wrote entirely from his own memory and Peter’s memory.He did not formulate his many notes into the Gospel until after Paul’s death. Luke wrote in the year 82 in Achaia. He planned three books dealing with the history of Christ and Christianity but died in A.D. 90 just before he finished the second of these works, the “Acts of the Apostles.” As material for the compilation of his Gospel, Luke first depended upon the story of Jesus’ life as Paul had related it to him. Luke’s Gospel is, therefore, in some ways the Gospel according to Paul. But Luke had other sources of information. He not only interviewed scores of eyewitnesses to the numerous episodes of Jesus’ life which he records, but he also had with him a copy of Mark’s Gospel. 

There are scriptures that apparently oppose women’s preaching, thus creating some argument and sentiment against women’s laboring in that capacity. Because of such sentiment they are not only hindered in a measure from doing good they could do, but also their work is made doubly hard.

The following scriptures are the ones that give the above-mentioned impression: 1 Tim. 2:12-13, “But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed then Eve.” 1 Cor. 14:33-36, “For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home; for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.”

In the light of these statements some people honestly and sincerely believe that it is against the teaching of the Bible for women to preach. This is much harder to meet than insincere persecution. But, let us follow the scriptures on this subject through the Old and New Testaments.

2 Kings 22: 13, 14 tell that King Josiah sent Hilkiah the priest saying, “Go ye, enquire of the Lord for me, and for the people” concerning the words of a book they had found. So Hilkiah went until Huldah, the prophetess, the wife of Shallum, and they communed with her, and she said unto them, “Thus saith the Lord God of Israel.” We see here that although Hulda was a man’s wife, she was a prophetess of the Lord and God spoke through her to his people.

Also see Judges 4th chapter. Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, judged Israel at the time spoken of in this chapter. “And she dwelt under the palm-tree of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in Mount Ephraim: and the children of Israel came up to her for judgment. And she sent and called Barak the son of Abinoam out of Kedesh-naphtali and said unto him, Hath not the Lord God of Israel commanded saying Go and draw toward Mount Tabor, and take with thee ten thousand men of the children of Naphtali and of the children of Zebulun? And I will draw unto thee to the river Kishon Sisera, the captain of Jabin’s army, with his chariots and his multitude; and I will deliver him into thine hand. And Barak said unto her, If thou wilt go with me, then I will go: but if thou wilt not go with me, the I will not go. And she said, I will surely go with thee: notwithstanding the journey that thou takest shall not be for thine honor; for the Lord shall sell Sisera into the hand of a woman. And Deborah arose, and went with Barak to Kedesh.” By reading on we find that the Lord discomfited Sisera, and he was defeated, and that he fled and was killed by a woman. So God not only spoke through this woman to his people, but he through her led this great army to success.

Another example of woman’s leadership is that of Miriam, Moses’ maiden sister, who was a prophetess, and who took part in leading the children of Israel out of Egypt. Aaron recognized Miriam’s part in the great undertaking and said, “Hath the Lord indeed spoken only by Moses? hath he not spoken also by us?” (see Exod. 15:20 and Num. 12:2). Note also at Christ’s birth that a man and a woman both blessed him. Simeon came by the Spirit into the temple and took Christ in his arms and blessed him. Also Anna a prophetess coming in the same instant gave thanks to the Lord and spake of him to all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem (see Luke 2: 27, 28, 38).

A woman received the first message from Christ after his resurrection and delivered it. Mary lingered at the tomb. Christ spoke to her and said, ‘Go tell my brethren’ (John 20-17).

Some may say that God spoke through women under the old dispensation, but that he does not under the new, that we have ministers in place of prophets now. Is it not true that a prophet and a minister are practically the same? The prophets of old looked forward to Christ and foretold future events mainly, while the ministers of today look back to a crucified Christ and expound his written Word—in both cases instruments used by God in speaking to his people.

In regard to the new dispensation ministry we shall notice it first in prophecy. We shall call your attention to Joel 2: 28-33. “And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and y our daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions. And also upon the servants and upon the handmaidens in those days will I pour out my spirit.”

Let us turn to Acts 2: 12-22: “But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice and said unto them, Ye men of Judea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and harken to my words; For these are not drunken as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day, But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions and your old men shall dream dreams: And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy,” etc.

Peter made quotation of Joel’s prophesy, and said it was fulfilled on that day. We see here that God poured out his Spirit on men and women alike that both should prophesy in the new dispensation.

Acts 21: 8-9 speaks of Philip the evangelist, who had four daughters, virgins, who prophesied. In Phil. 4:3, Paul said, And I entreat thee also, true yokefellow help those women which labored with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other fellow laborers whose names are in the book of life.” So Paul had both men and women in his company.

In 1 Cor. 11:4, 5 we read, “Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoreth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoreth her head,” etc. This implies however, that both men and women prophesied in Paul’s time.

1 Cor. 14:3, “He that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort.” We see here that “prophesy” covers the ground of preaching to an audience. Gal. 3: 27-29, “For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, . . . there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” 1 Cor. 12: 13 reads, “For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body,” etc. Verse 18, says “now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.” So we see that if women are baptized into the body, they are part of the body and have their God given functions to perform. Verses 8-12: “For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; to another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; to another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another diverse kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues: but all these worketh that one and selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.”

The Bible does not teach a set of gifts for women differing from those for men.

“But,” you will ask, “what does Paul mean by those scriptures which say that women shall not preach?”

The Scriptures nowhere state that women should not preach. But Paul told the women at that particular time to keep silent. 1 Cor. 14:33 reads, “God is not the author of confusion, but of peace.” These women must have been out of God’s order and making confusion. So Paul commanded them to keep silent that the confusion might be stopped. The men also were making some confusion, and Paul told them to keep silent in the church when there was no one to interpret (see 1 Cor. 14:28).

In 1 Tim. 2:12, Paul says, “I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, . . . for Adam was first formed, then Eve.” To my mind he was here reproving those women who were usurping authority or ruling over their husbands and others, which is not consistent with the Spirit of Christ.

WHY IS THE HISTORY OF THE CANONIZATION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT FILLED WITH UNCERTAINTIES?

The Old Testament canon was established based on the authority of the Church in matters of faith and practice because it contains divine revelation. The authority is actually God who has authoritatively spoken and directed the Church to recognize those sacred writings. The question of uncertainties re the history of the canonization of the Old Testament cannot be sidelined; these uncertainties arose at the point of determining what type of recognition constitutes canonization. Great scholars have invariably disputed on the question of the inspired books which should be acknowledged as sacred literature with divine authority.

The first five books of the Bible, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy were established as Scripture probably long before any other book and were at one time the canon. As time went by, more books gained recognition until the collection contained nearly all the books of the Protestant canon. Yet there is a vast difference between saying these books belonged to the Bible and that no other book could.

These uncertainties have cropped up based on the diversities of books which was in circulation in addition to the books which was recognized by the Church as inspired. This happened in relation to the Inter-Testamental periods where the pseudepigraphal books were in circulation. The next major piece of evidence to be noted is the Council of Jamnia, which seems to have taken place around 90 AD. This council established and closed the canon authoritatively for nearly all Jews. It has been their canon ever since. Yet it should be noted that the council did not speak for all Jews, there were Jews living in Ethiopia who either did not hear of it or did not accept the decision of Jamnia. To this day they use a different canon than their Palestinian brethren.

The use of the Old Testament Scriptures by the church of Christ has been the subject of some debate from the early church fathers up to the present day. The debate is primarily concerned with the question of what writings are truly in the canon of the Old Testament Scriptures. The word “canon” is from a Greek word that means a “rule” or “standard”; in the second century Christian church it came to be understood as “revealed truth.” Yet for some Christians the “revealed truth” represented more than for others. Augustine is a fine example of this, as he “. . . regarded the church to be the custodian of Scripture and thus may easily have concluded that on matters of the extent of the canon the church had the authority to decide. . .

Augustine seemed to consider church reception to be sufficient warrant for canonical authority; this he gave as the reason for accepting the Maccabean books as canonical.” Initially, it was not as if the canon itself was debated as much as it was looked at differently. Some held that the canon was extensive enough to encompass all the books read in the church for edification, which would include the Apocrypha and sometimes the Pseudipigrapha (anonymous apocalyptic false writings). Others held that the canon was simply that of the Jewish Bible, representing also the Protestant Bibles of today. It was not until the age of the Reformation that the debate began to rage. In 1546 when the Council of Trent made a formal statement that all not accepting the selected Apocryphal writings should be damned, the Protestants retorted with an equally resolute voice.

The question of canonicity is completely valid. If there are disputes about what is Scripture, the validity of faith itself is greatly at stake. For as Beckwith another great bible scholar puts it so well, “. . . with no canon there is no Bible.”

This ambiguity persisted until the time of the Reformation at which time Trent was called upon to make a pronouncement with regard to their status. Trent did not attempt a careful examination of history or archeology, but based it first on the fact that the books were read alongside other sacred books in worship and had been since the beginning, and second the pronouncements of previous councils. In other words, it trusted that the Holy Spirit would be most efficacious in working through the universal practice of reading the books in the Churches, or in authoritative pronouncements accepted by many Churches rather than the individual opinions of Jerome, those following him, or the beliefs of the Hebrews.

BASIC BIBLE INTERPRETATION
A Practical Guide to Discovering Biblical Truth
AUTHOR: ROY. B ZUCK
Roy B. Zuck is Senior Professor Emeritus of Bible Exposition Department at Dallas Theological Seminary, where he taught for twenty-three years, including seven years as Vice President for Academic Affairs. He is editor of ‘Bibliotheca Sacra’ and coeditor of the widely acclaimed two-volume ‘Bible Knowledge Commentary.’ He has written or edited more than seventy books on Christian education and biblical and theological topics. He earned degrees from Biola University (A.B) ANS Dallas Theological Seminary (Th.M. and Th.D). His books include ‘Teaching as Paul Taught’, ‘Spirit-Filled Teaching,’ and ‘Basic Bible Interpretation’. ‘Sitting with Job’ is a companion volume to ‘reflecting with Solomon: Selected Studies on the Book of Ecclesiastes.

CONTENTS:
Forward 7
1. The What and Why of Bible Interpretation 9
2. Bible Interpretation- Then and Now 27
3. Whose View is Valid? 59
4. Bridging the Cultural Gap 76
5. Bridging the Grammatical Gap 98
6. Bridging the Literal Gap 123
7. Figures of Speech 143
8. Testing the Types and Sensing the Symbols 169
9. Probing the Parables and Analyzing the Allegories 194
10. Interpreting Prophesy 227
11. The use of the Old Testament in the New Testament 250
12. Applying God’s word today 279
Notes 293
Answers to Exercises 302
Person Index 305
Scripture Index 307
Subject Index 319

WHAT THIS BOOK IS ALL ABOUT:
1. The What and Why of Scripture
Roy B. Zuck expatiates in his book about the premise that Bible Interpretation is very pertinent so as to understand and teach the Bible properly. Secondly, he alludes unto very fact that Interpretation is very crucial because it serves as a step beyond just observing the bible. Bible interpretation becomes very essential in our application of the bible. He throws the challenge for all bible students to embark on the quest for the truth revealed in scripture. The basic reason the bible is very difficult to comprehend is that it’s an ancient writings dated as early as 1400 B.C. He defines Hermeneutics as a science and an art. As a science, it enunciates principles, investigates the laws of thought and language and classifies its facts and results and as an art it teaches what application these principles should have and establish their soundness by showing their practical value in the elucidation of the more difficult scriptures.
2. Bible Interpretation—Then and Now
He emphasizes on the need for bible students to understand how individuals and groups have interpreted the bible in the past which will inevitably serve as a sign to us in giving us warnings, directions and information. Example is after the exile, Ezra through the power of the Spirit interpreted the law into Aramaic for the understanding of the Jews. Hillel and Shammah, the Jews allegorizations and how the Church fathers explained and interpreted the bible must certainly be our crave so as to interpret it in our context.
3. Whose View is Valid?
Roy B. Zuck explicates here that we must consider and understand the bible as a supernatural work of God but still a BOOK. The writers of the bible divided the bible into chapters and verses so as to communicate very well with its readers. Zuck then alludes here that, each biblical writing was recorded in a written language in a succinct way which proves that the bible was not written in an unintelligible code to be deciphered and decoded by some magical formula. Again, each writing was done by someone to some specific audience or hearers in a specific geographical area. The cultural environment from which each writer wrote influenced the bible. Each writing was understood in the light of its context. The bible is a divine book and it is seen in its Revelation and Inspiration. Its inerrancy, authority, unity, and mysteries attest and affirm its divinity.
4. Bridging the Cultural Gap
The problem with many students of the Bible is to isolate a word or sentence or paragraph and take it to mean what they want it to mean. Disregarding the context of scripture is one of the greatest problems of bible interpretation. There are diversities of gaps which exists between our culture in the Now and Then. The political, religious, economical, legal, agricultural, architectural, clothing, domestic, geographical, military and social culture in the then times affected the interpretations of certain passages in the bible.
5. Bridging the Grammatical Gap
Zuck here stresses that words, phrases and sentences in the Middle Ages had in a great deal taken on multiple meanings, hence the sense of its objectivity being loosed. The nature of Inspiration, the goal of exegesis which is “allowing the author to say what he want to instead of attributing to him what we think he ought to say” and the problem of communication buttresses the need for a grammatical interpretation. The meaning of words is determined by examining the etymology (root meaning) of words, discovering the usage of the words and considering the context from which those words were spoken.
6. Bridging the Literary Gap
The bible is made up of unity (coordination), variety and utility (function) of designs. Purpose, unique character and understanding of the bible is disclosed when we are intimated with the patterns, styles and forms of various units in the books of the bible. It’s very important for us to know the bible’s style of language, art of writing, literary luster, and structural analysis.

7. Figures of Speech
Zuck states that the bible embodies thousands of figures of speech. The laws of grammar describe how words normally function. Figures of speech add color or clarity, attract attention, aid in retention, abbreviate an idea, and encourage reflection. He expounds on figures of speech like simile, metaphor, Hypocatastasis, metonymy, synecdoche, merism etc… He in turn dilated upon the importance of interpreting figures of speech which is to determine if a figure of speech is involved in a passage, to discover the image and the nonimage in the figure of speech and stating the point of comparison.
8. Testing the Types and Sensing the Symbols
The Old Testament is full of types that are later specified in some way in the New Testament. The two Testaments are related by types and antitypes, shadows and fulfillments. According to Zuck, type is a resemblance, historical reality, prefiguring, heightening, and divine design.
9. Probing the Parables and Analyzing the Allegories
Parables, allegories and fables in the bible require special attention in bible study. Jesus spoke in parables to reveal truths to His disciples and conceal truth from His
Unbelieving audience. Parables were an effective for of communication because as stories, they immediately sparked interest in the hearers and they encourage people to think. Allegories on the other hand are narratives or word pictures which may or may not be true-to-life. Zuck differentiates parables from allegories; he states that a parable usually has one major point of comparison, whereas allegory has several points of comparison. A parable records incident that is true-to-life, whereas an allegory may be either true to life or fictitious.
10. Interpreting Prophecy
Prophecy is the act of God declaring the future. He is the voice of certainty about the future. He planned the future and invariably, He knows everything about the future. According Zuck, Prophecy needs to be studied because Prophecy comforts, calms, converts, cleanses, compels and clarifies.
11. The Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament
Roy B. Zuck states that the use of the Old Testament in the New Testament is one of the difficult aspects of bible interpretation. The purposes of the Old Testament quotations in the New Testament are to point up the accomplishments or realization of an Old Testament Prediction, to confirm that a New Testament incident is in agreement with an Old Testament principle, to explain a point given in the Old Testament, to illustrate a New Testament truth, to apply the Old Testament to a New Testament incident or truth, and to summarize an Old Testament concept.
12. Applying God’s Word Today
Zuck admonishes all and sundry to have a responsive heart, and a willingness to appropriate the truths of the scripture into our day to day experiences. He continued that, we must build application on interpretation, determine what was expected of the original audience, and base applications on elements present-day readers share with the original audience.

Welcome to WordPress.com. This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!