Author's intent hermeneutic

[Sagart]

You say hermeneutics has absolutely nothing to do with theology. But is the study of the methodological principles of interpretation (as of the Bible) Then are you saying it is the study different methods?

Like without parables Christ spoke not And how that is used in theology .

Hermeneutics is the study of the methodological principles of interpretation of literature, especially the Bible. Theology is the study of God and His interactions with his creation—especially man.

During the early days of my first pastorate, a friend gave me a first edition copy of the classic work, Biblical Hermeneutics: A Treatise on the Interpretation of the Old and New Testaments by Milton S. Terry D.D., LL.D., S.T.D. published in 1890. This 511 page treatise includes a fifteen and one half page bibliography of works on hermeneutics that were published from 1590 up to 1890. Since 1890, numerous additional books on hermeneutics have been published, and I have some of them here in my study.

It is important to note in this thread that hermeneutics is NOT the study of the rules of interpretation of literature, but the principles of interpretation of literature. Rules imply a rule maker, and a rule maker raises the questions, “Who is this rule maker, and who gave this rule maker the authority to make the rules, and are these rules still in force today?” Principles, on the other hand, make no such troublesome implications.

 

[garee]

But He DID speak without using parables. Hermeneutics would involve determining when He is using a parable and when He is not. If you erroneously assume that He is always speaking in parables, you cannot interpret Scripture correctly.

I am not assuming. Its what he said .

Not sometimes he spoke in parables .

Its the kind of language he spoke not without .

 

[garee]

Hermeneutics is the study of the methodological principles of interpretation of literature, especially the Bible. Theology is the study of God and His interactions with his creation—especially man.

During the early days of my first pastorate, a friend gave me a first edition copy of the classic work, Biblical Hermeneutics: A Treatise on the Interpretation of the Old and New Testaments by Milton S. Terry D.D., LL.D., S.T.D. published in 1890. This 511 page treatise includes a fifteen and one half page bibliography of works on hermeneutics that were published from 1590 up to 1890. Since 1890, numerous additional books on hermeneutics have been published, and I have some of them here in my study.

It is important to note in this thread that hermeneutics is NOT the study of the rules of interpretation of literature, but the principles of interpretation of literature. Rules imply a rule maker, and a rule maker raises the questions, “Who is this rule maker, and who gave this rule maker the authority to make the rules, and are these rules still in force today?” Principles, on the other hand, make no such troublesome implications.

That was helpful .Thanks .

How would that apply to say the golden measure or rule spoken of? Would gold as metaphor in that parable have a understanding outside of what the eyes see?.

Would be different than the measure of men in so much that one would seem to represent the temporal what the eye literally sees and the other the measure of faith (golden) the unseen . And thereof the spiritual understanding not seen must be compared to other places where gold is used?

Would the verse below considered a parable where the spiritual meaning must be sought out?

Revelation 21:15 And he that talked with me had a golden reed to measure the city, and the gates thereof, and the wall thereof

 

[garee]

Anyway the question of the hermeneutical interpretation being that one may use what Gideon did with the fleeces as a normal method of how to get direction from God based on this passage. Is that sound hermeneutics? Is that the correct way to interpret the reason that this story has been given to us? Or is the authorial intent (in this case the Holy Spirit) that we learn something other than that from this passage?
If one were to say that this is for us to follow and do the same when we need to know if God wants us to do something then wouldn't we want to stick to the pattern as exact as possible. For example the coat in the yard overnight idea. Or maybe how about asking God to not let it snow on one side of our windshield. It seems to me that if we are going to use it as an example we would need to make the fleece as challenging as Gideon did. If we just say God show me your will if the answer is yes have a bird sing in the back yard in the morning when I go out for coffee, and this happens most mornings anyway, are we following this example we are claiming we got from the bible? I think not.

Great parable. (Don't test God) God has given signs to those who rebel and do not trust prophecy. Gideon was not acting in faith and knew so his own self temping God. he did not believe after the first sign God gave it over to that which should not of been needed and gave him another .

He was not promoting as signs and wonders gospels .The hope of many today for chase after what they call sign gift. (Asking God to prove himself like Gideon ) .Wondering is not exercising faith . Marvel not, is.

Judges 6:38-40 King James Version (KJV) And it was so: for he rose up early on the morrow, and thrust the fleece together, and wringed the dew out of the fleece, a bowl full of water. And Gideon said unto God, Let not thine anger be hot against me, and I will speak but this once: let me prove, I pray thee, but this once with the fleece; let it now be dry only upon the fleece, and upon all the ground let there be dew. And God did so that night: for it was dry upon the fleece only, and there was dew on all the ground.

Today we have the perfect word and nothing can be added to it. Its an evil generation that seek after a sign .In that way no more signs are given .

Today if the fleece is not dry, more time on the timer is needed on the fleece dryer . If it was dry and came out wet check for a roof leak . Or bring them in from the clothes line before it rains.

 

[CS1]

Hermeneutics is the study of the methodological principles of interpretation of literature, especially the Bible. Theology is the study of God and His interactions with his creation—especially man.

During the early days of my first pastorate, a friend gave me a first edition copy of the classic work, Biblical Hermeneutics: A Treatise on the Interpretation of the Old and New Testaments by Milton S. Terry D.D., LL.D., S.T.D. published in 1890. This 511 page treatise includes a fifteen and one half page bibliography of works on hermeneutics that were published from 1590 up to 1890. Since 1890, numerous additional books on hermeneutics have been published, and I have some of them here in my study.

It is important to note in this thread that hermeneutics is NOT the study of the rules of interpretation of literature, but the principles of interpretation of literature. Rules imply a rule maker, and a rule maker raises the questions, “Who is this rule maker, and who gave this rule maker the authority to make the rules, and are these rules still in force today?” Principles, on the other hand, make no such troublesome implications.

Hermeneutics is the Art & Science Of Biblical interpretation.

 

[Scribe]

Hermeneutics is the Art & Science Of Biblical interpretation.

Science, because there are principles and rules to follow, and Art because there is an art to applying the interpretation to your life

 

[acts5_29]

Anyway the question of the hermeneutical interpretation being that one may use what Gideon did with the fleeces as a normal method of how to get direction from God based on this passage. Is that sound hermeneutics? Is that the correct way to interpret the reason that this story has been given to us? Or is the authorial intent (in this case the Holy Spirit) that we learn something other than that from this passage?
If one were to say that this is for us to follow and do the same when we need to know if God wants us to do something then wouldn't we want to stick to the pattern as exact as possible. For example the coat in the yard overnight idea. Or maybe how about asking God to not let it snow on one side of our windshield. It seems to me that if we are going to use it as an example we would need to make the fleece as challenging as Gideon did. If we just say God show me your will if the answer is yes have a bird sing in the back yard in the morning when I go out for coffee, and this happens most mornings anyway, are we following this example we are claiming we got from the bible? I think not.

We are practicing eisegesis by reading into the text that God disapproved of Gideon laying out the fleece. That meaning simply is not there. Which is exactly what the hermeneutic says NOT to do. In fact, the text says the exact opposite: Judges 6:39 says that Gideon told God, "do not be angry with me." In other words, "patience". Verse 40 goes on to say that God was patient.

Nowhere in the text does it say that "Then God's anger burned against Gideon." Which is exactly what Exodus 4 says about Moses, in exactly the same situation. Except even then, God's anger was not about Moses wanting sign after sign: it was when Moses told God, "Okay, I get it. I don't care; I just don't want to do it." Gideon did the exact opposite, and in fact had been quite obedient several times before he had even asked for the fleece. Hermeneutical practice says we are to see if our interpretation is corroborated by other Scripture. Interestingly, God DID strike Moses' hand with leprosy, but it was not out of anger, nor was there anything wrong with it.

Further Scriptural corroboration can be found in I John 4, I Thessalonians 5:21, and Luke 14:31-33. Jesus said that the king with 10,000 men will seriously reconsider opposing the king with 20,000 men, and that that is understandable. And Gideon's odds were far more lopsided than 2:1. It is in-line with Luke 14:31 for Gideon to go back to God and say, "Are you SURE this is what you're telling me? Because if it's not, I will get my head handed to me on a platter."

The exegesis is clear: the question was never about, "How many signs do you need?" The question really is, "Does it matter? At the end of the day, if God tells you, will you do it?"

 

[acts5_29]

Hermeneutics is the study of the methodological principles of interpretation of literature, especially the Bible. Theology is the study of God and His interactions with his creation—especially man.

During the early days of my first pastorate, a friend gave me a first edition copy of the classic work, Biblical Hermeneutics: A Treatise on the Interpretation of the Old and New Testaments by Milton S. Terry D.D., LL.D., S.T.D. published in 1890. This 511 page treatise includes a fifteen and one half page bibliography of works on hermeneutics that were published from 1590 up to 1890. Since 1890, numerous additional books on hermeneutics have been published, and I have some of them here in my study.

It is important to note in this thread that hermeneutics is NOT the study of the rules of interpretation of literature, but the principles of interpretation of literature. Rules imply a rule maker, and a rule maker raises the questions, “Who is this rule maker, and who gave this rule maker the authority to make the rules, and are these rules still in force today?” Principles, on the other hand, make no such troublesome implications.

Hermeneutics is the Art & Science Of Biblical interpretation.

Okay...so going back to Jewish hermeneutics.... The Jews have the "oral law," which is basically the product of all this interpretation. So they take all this interpretive oral law and write that down...that becomes the Mishnah. They add and add to it until eventually that becomes Talmud, which is three times the size. But oh, they're not done yet--now they've got Halacha, which is basically the rabbinical oral law built on interpreting Talmud.

Even secular law: why do we need all these high-paid lawyers who need to go through a grueling post-grad curriculum in order to get a J.D.? Two words: Case Law. Court rulings end up becoming law. Pretty soon, the American Constitution has been pretty much thrown out. Free speech? Yeah...unless you scream fire in a crowded theater, make terroristic threats, porn to minors..... Second Amendment? Sure, except no automatic weapons, bump stocks, explosives, Teflon bullets, crowded events..... 4th Amendment? Sure, unless it goes against the Patriot Act, or if it's banning abortion. Right to Assemble? Hah! There is none. 10th Amendment? No...the very existence of a Federal Department of Education is perfectly legal.

Sagart mentioned there are implications of the word "principles," vs. "rules". Here we have all this Jewish interpretation resulting in this riciculous Pharasaic explosion of all these rules.

How do we define the difference? Judaism went wrong by going down that road. So how do we not?

 

[Scribe]

We are practicing eisegesis by reading into the text that God disapproved of Gideon laying out the fleece. That meaning simply is not there. Which is exactly what the hermeneutic says NOT to do. In fact, the text says the exact opposite: Judges 6:39 says that Gideon told God, "do not be angry with me." In other words, "patience". Verse 40 goes on to say that God was patient.

Nowhere in the text does it say that "Then God's anger burned against Gideon." Which is exactly what Exodus 4 says about Moses, in exactly the same situation. Except even then, God's anger was not about Moses wanting sign after sign: it was when Moses told God, "Okay, I get it. I don't care; I just don't want to do it." Gideon did the exact opposite, and in fact had been quite obedient several times before he had even asked for the fleece. Hermeneutical practice says we are to see if our interpretation is corroborated by other Scripture. Interestingly, God DID strike Moses' hand with leprosy, but it was not out of anger, nor was there anything wrong with it.

Further Scriptural corroboration can be found in I John 4, I Thessalonians 5:21, and Luke 14:31-33. Jesus said that the king with 10,000 men will seriously reconsider opposing the king with 20,000 men, and that that is understandable. And Gideon's odds were far more lopsided than 2:1. It is in-line with Luke 14:31 for Gideon to go back to God and say, "Are you SURE this is what you're telling me? Because if it's not, I will get my head handed to me on a platter."

The exegesis is clear: the question was never about, "How many signs do you need?" The question really is, "Does it matter? At the end of the day, if God tells you, will you do it?"

So should we put goat skins in the grass and ask for them to stay dry over night and that the grass be wet? If so, why doesn't anyone do it?

 

[Dino246]

I am not assuming. Its what he said .

Not sometimes he spoke in parables .

Its the kind of language he spoke not without .

You read an "always" where it doesn't exist. A read of the gospels will demonstrate that Jesus simply does not always speak in parables. You have taken His statement out of context and completely misunderstood it. You have also been told this several times, and have stubbornly clung to your error.

 

[Scribe]

So should we put goat skins in the grass and ask for them to stay dry over night and that the grass be wet? If so, why doesn't anyone do it?

I think the author Gordon Fees point is that if we were to take this passage and say that this is how you get direction from God we would be assuming too much about the context, this is most likely not the authorial intent. It is a record of what Gideon did, not an instruction for us to follow, not a stamp of approval from God. You do not see any indication that God was not pleased in the text, and you do not see any indication that he was pleased. The new testament reveals a pattern of prayer and hearing from the Holy Spirit through the gifts of the Spirit and this should be our pattern not goat skins in the dew.

 

[garee]

You read an "always" where it doesn't exist. A read of the gospels will demonstrate that Jesus simply does not always speak in parables. You have taken His statement out of context and completely misunderstood it. You have also been told this several times, and have stubbornly clung to your error.

In the last day The father spoke directly through Jesus a living parable. every movement every word was tested to see if it came from the father. Not once did Jesus do the will of the flesh and its sinful desires. like us the father worked in him to both will and do the good pleasure of God. Not seen

God is not a man

 

[Dino246]

In the last day The father spoke directly through Jesus a living parable. every movement every word was tested to see if it came from the father. Not once did Jesus do the will of the flesh and its sinful desires. like us the father worked in him to both will and do the good pleasure of God. Not seen

None of this is relevant to my comment.

God is not a man

Jesus IS God. Deal with it.

 

[Prycejosh1987]

I believe that the holy spirit gives us insight into scripture and at the same time we should evaluate what the author of the book is saying. This mainly goes for the new testament and not the old testament which is more straightforward.