The One Biblical Hermeneutic by Clay Nuttall, D.Min.

The following is a pre-publication “sneak peek” at the book, The Normal Hermeneutic: The One Biblical system.  The authors are Hani Hana, an Egyptian national, and Clay Nuttall, who prepares the Shepherd’s Staff.  Have fun.

 

PREFACE

 

We have discussed the need for a book on hermeneutics, a book that is foundational and that would be consistent with the normal use of language.   After observing students who finish degrees in theology and still hold to theological error, we sought to find out why.  The answer became very clear: their interpretation wasn’t the problem, varied as it might be.  The problem was that they had no authoritative system of interpretation.

 

After searching through the plethora of humanly generated systems, it was evident that a lot of systems will produce many conflicting interpretations. Did God intend for us to have such theological confusion?  Is the text of holy scripture so weak that it could not sustain the one interpretation that God had placed in a text?  Was there a single system that would, with major passages, always provide the same interpretation that everyone could arrive at?  The problem wasn’t that God has not given us the answer, but that man was always tempted to add to and subtract from the text.

 

The answer to the problem has been clearly established.  It was in the correct use of all language in the plain, clear statements of the text. Following this path, this book -The Normal Hermeneutic - only deals with that one system of language that all literature follows.  The Bible is literature, and it is the one book of interest for us in this discussion; but it is a book like no other.  God is the author of this text.  The Holy Spirit produced it, using human writers.  Every word and thought, hence the whole, is inspired, reliable, sufficient, and authoritative.  There is no higher authority.  Anything scripture speaks to is the final word on the subject.  Only one biblical hermeneutical system rises from the Bible text.  It is the normal, clear, plain, consistent, literal use of language.  The faithful, consistent use of the normal hermeneutic is a scientific process, and it is mathematical.  When this system is utilized, it will produce the same answer every time for everyone, unless it is corrupted by human insertion.

 

Every doctrinal error has its roots in an erroneous system of interpretation or some corruption of the one biblical system.  To practice the normal hermeneutic, one must pay attention to the rules that guard all literature. The focus in this work will be on the correct use of grammar, context, and the historical setting of the text.  These are rules that are used not only for this specific genre, but for all literature.  They are identified in this discussion, as is the proper use of application once the normal hermeneutic has produced that one interpretation of a text.

 

The nature of this material is foundational.  Philosophical discussions are identified only for the purpose of reference, and they have no real authority.  We are interested in the clear, plain statement of scripture.  This is the real authority.  Once a reader leaves the plain, clear text, the temptation to rewrite it is always present.

 

One has to ask why it is that various learned scholars go to the same text and come away with a dozen different interpretations.  It is particularly troubling because many of these commentators claim to use the same system of interpretation.  That simply isn’t possible.  Intellectuals argue that there is no such thing as exactitude in the matter of interpretation of the Bible text.  The Biblicist demands that the inspiration of scripture by careful oversight of the Holy Spirit is a verbal, plenary product.  The Bible is inerrant.  Everything placed in Holy Writ is pure and correct.  God cannot be accused of error in the writing of the text.  It is fair to ask if God gave us the tools and ability to get out of the text that very same truth that God placed there.  This, however, is the point of The Normal Hermeneutic.  God did make it possible for us to draw from the Bible the very truths He inserted therein.  It would be a scandalous thing for God to leave the Bible student without the ability to know exactly what God said and also to know that He meant what He said.

 

 

Shepherd’s Staff is prepared by Clay Nuttall, D. Min.

 

A communication service of Shepherd’s Basic Care, for those committed to the authority and sufficiency of the Bible.  Shepherd’s Basic Care is a ministry of information and encouragement to pastors, missionaries, and churches.  Write for information using the e-mail address shepherdstaff2@juno.com or Shepherd's Staff.

What is Truth? (Part 3)

This is the third article in a series on hermeneutics that demonstrates why the one biblical hermeneutic exposes errors of interpretation. I have been reading a number of wide-ranging articles particularly dealing with the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, the church, and church polity. Many of them illustrate how easy it is to insert personal presuppositions into a text. A partial hermeneutic is often responsible for this. Ignoring texts that clarify or failing to use grammar, context, or the historical setting of the text is a sure formula for theological disaster.

God, the author, in His wisdom gave the average believer a clear way to understand what He intended to convey in the text. The unlearned person, as well as the intellectual, has no trouble finding ways to corrupt the scripture. Sometimes this is done by adding to the text and other times by taking away from it. Every error you can think of has violated either some part of or the entire single biblical hermeneutic. Pride would make us think that our positions are pure and without flaw, but that is not true. Baptists are proud of their doctrinal distinctives, but few are able to give explanation for them without violating the text. Much of what we have adopted has come from culture or history and is only a reaction to the wrong interpretation others have used to build their error. That is not to say there is no truth in what they propose, but we tend to be selective in our use of scripture in order to build our own tower of Babel.

AN EXAMPLE
If I have any area of expertise at all, it is in the doctrine of the church and particularly church polity. Not a single one of us is infallible, and that is why we need to be willing to honestly challenge each other’s conclusions. I am amazed at how blatantly our own crowd will often make a “grammatical pretzel” out of the text, twisting it in an effort to insert a cultural polity into their position. God has given us clear tools to define congregational government, but those have to be ignored to arrive at a political structure. One reason this is done is in reaction to error. It is right to oppose the idea of the pastor’s acting as a despot or dictator, but the answer to this problem is to let the text speak. The interpreter does not have to destroy the office of the bishop/elder/pastor/shepherd to deal with that error. To relegate the office of pastor to one of a mere lackey who only serves as an example is desperately misguided. This is often done by tossing proof texts around and ignoring all the teaching on the subject. In the text, the whole of the teaching about this office gives a powerful picture of the function of a true under-shepherd.

Sometimes the office of pastor has been developed in response to cruel and despicable treatment of pastors by those who often are goats, and not sheep. Even this sinful practice does not give us leave to create an unbiblical style of pastoring. Both of these described errors rest on the ignoring of the context and the historical setting of the text. God gave us simple examples so we couldn’t possible miss what He wanted our polity to be. Can you imagine a shepherd who led only by his example? The answer is so elementary that even a child could tell you what sheep and shepherds do.

EXTREMES
We have already noted that a study of grammar, language, and words is the first task of the interpreter. Few believers are trained grammarians, but that does not mean we cannot know what the text says. The problem with language experts is that they too often tend not to observe their limitations. Let me say again that when we have done our best with the language, words, and meaning in the text, we are still left with a question; an accurate conclusion needs to be tested by a study of the full context and the historical setting of the text. This is where the average believer should begin to ask questions about an uneasy conclusion provided by the experts. The answer is not in just a part, but in the whole.

The sinful nature is prone to wander. When someone wants to be free to sin, he will even use selected scriptures to give credence to his unwarranted conclusions. This selectivity in choosing texts that agree with them is well illustrated in today’s rush for schools and others to approve the drinking of debilitating alcohol. Lust is a terrible thing, and it causes us to do what even common sense tells us is wrong. How could you possibly trust the conclusion of anyone who seriously believes in the Big Bang theory? I personally wonder how you can even trust the theology of anyone who says that the Bible does not condemn booze as a beverage.

In case you are wondering about these strong words, let me tell you that being this close to the Bema tends to discourage one from giving support to sinful practices. The crowd who reject plain words like “sodomy”, or “murder” for abortion, have tipped their hand. We are too close to the end to be nice to the devil and make sinners comfortable about the heinous moral error that God hates.

FINALLY
People who often say they believe in literal interpretation may not mean what you do when you use that term. Even Luther and Calvin claimed to use literal interpretation - and they did - but not when it came to eschatology (prophecy) and soteriology (the doctrine of salvation). Not all their teaching was bad, but that still is no excuse for giving them or anyone else a pass when it comes to the clear, normal, plain, consistent use of the Bible text. Go ahead - make my day!

Dr. Clay M. Nuttall

What is Truth, Part 2

What is Truth, Part 1

 

SHEPHERD’S STAFF – April, 2014

A communication service of Shepherd’s Basic Care, for those committed to the authority and sufficiency of the Bible. Shepherd’s Basic Care is a ministry of information and encouragement to pastors, missionaries, and churches. Write for information using the e-mail address, Shepherdstaff2@juno.com or visit The Shepherd Staff

 Shepherd’s Staff is prepared by Clay Nuttall, D. Min.

 

What is Truth? (continued from February, 2014)

The reader will want to go back over the previous article, since this issue builds on that premise.  There is only one biblical hermeneutic, and it produces a theology that is biblical.  That one system is simply the normal, plain, clear, consistent, literal use of language.  All other systems fall into one category and will allow the interpreter to insert into the text whatever he may choose.  The one biblical system is scientific, and it is mathematical.  If you use the system and its clearly defined rules, you will always come up with the same answer.

It is extremely frustrating to go to five different commentaries, written by experts, and find five different interpretations of a single passage.  These scholars are supposed to be the authority, but it seems they cannot find a common answer.  Since each text can have only one interpretation, one of those scholars may possibly be right, but…they could all be wrong, too.  It makes one wonder if any of them is right and how many other things they may be wrong about.  How can we ever be sure?

The answer is simple.  It isn’t that they have different interpretations, but rather that they use different systems of interpretation.  Since all those systems allow the reader to insert his own sincerely held views, the text becomes corrupted.  The one biblical system, however, will deliver a correct message if its rules are obeyed.

WHERE WE BEGIN

One of the major problems in this discipline is where to begin.  You have to begin and end with the Bible text.  If you begin with a denominational creed, or a theological confession, you will end up with error because you began with error.  If you begin with a covenant or reformed hermeneutic, it is impossible to end up with a theology that is biblical.  This may shock you, but there is no such thing as a dispensational hermeneutic, so you cannot begin there if you want to know what the text says for itself. It is true that the use of the one biblical system will lead to a dispensational theology, but that theology rises from the text and not from a preconceived hermeneutic.  For some, eschatology is not important; and they would say it doesn’t matter.  If you begin with the text, use the biblical system, and obey the rules, it does matter.  Foundational truth is not like a cafeteria or a dart board.  The biblical hermeneutic is clear and plain, until such time as it is corrupted by a humanly devised system.  It does matter that there is a Millennium, and it does matter where and when Christ is coming for His church.  These are clearly stated with the normal hermeneutic.

THE WORD “LITERAL”

This is demonstrated in the accidental, or deliberate, misuse of the word “literal.”  It is dishonest to say that those who hold a literal interpretation see everything as literal, meaning that even pictures are the real thing.  There are some fine works on this subject, and the serious reader should consider reading them.  The normal, plain, clear, consistent, literal use of language is just that.  It is the text that tells us the answer, not some twisted grammatical pretzel.  We take everything in the text as the normal, literal use of language unless the text clearly tells us it is some other form.  Literal interpretation simply means that we accept what the Bible states, including language forms.

An illustration of this is Revelation, chapter 20.  Five times at the beginning of this chapter you see the term “one thousand years.”  What is the normal, plain, clear, consistent, literal use of this term in language?  Even a first grader could answer that one!  So why would anyone choose to corrupt the answer, as some scholars have done?  The answer is that they use the wrong hermeneutical system - one that is humanly devised - and they begin with the wrong system.  These intellectuals say that when it comes to eschatology, you have to use an allegorical system.  Who gave them the authority to make such a conclusion?  Are they smarter than a first grader?  This reminds me of the Lucifer syndrome: “I will know as much as the most high God.”

STRONG WORDS

Someone will very likely write and tell me that I am not being very charitable in this discussion. There are lots of things we do not know and about which God has not given us an answer.  Those are the areas of charity.  When the normal, plain, clear, consistent use of language that God has chosen to use is being trampled underfoot, I am not obligated to be silent.

We don’t seem to have any trouble shining a light on other people’s foibles, but we are not keen on our own being looked at.  That is why we don’t use the same rule and rhetoric on our own crowd; but let me do that now.  We complain about the misuse of interpretation and systems on the part of those who “sovereignly” decided that eschatology is allegory, while at the same time we do the very same thing in our own circles when the subject is church polity.  We use literal interpretation until it comes to the doctrine of the church, and then we turn left.  Of course, we are more “respectable” than they are.  We “complicate to confuse” in order to get our own way when we really know that our practice in polity is nothing more than an adoption of cultural politics.

THANKFULLY CAUTIOUS

I am thankful for our forefathers in the faith.  They have been a wonderful blessing to us, but they are not God and they are not perfect.  Historical theology has great value, but those tenets are not the same as the Bible itself; and we should not be afraid to challenge things that jettison the plain teaching of scripture.  A strongly held view that is wrong is still wrong, no matter how many years it may have been taught.

Please continue to What is Truth, Part 3

SHEPHERD’S STAFF – March, 2014

A communication service of Shepherd’s Basic Care, for those committed to the authority and sufficiency of the Bible.  Shepherd’s Basic Care is a ministry of information and encouragement to pastors, missionaries, and churches.  Write for information using the e-mail address, Shepherdstaff2@juno.com or http://shepherdstaff.wordpress.com.

Shepherd’s Staff is prepared by Clay Nuttall, D. Min

What Is Truth? (Part 1)

Truth, for the true believer, is simply what God has to say about anything. It is interesting to note that in the Gospel of John this subject is dealt with often, and it is Pilate who asks the question in John 18:38. While it is correct that Jesus Himself is truth (John 14:6), John makes it clear that the Word of God is the truth (John 17:17) and that the Holy Spirit will lead the believer into all truth (John 16:13). Not only does this ministry of the Spirit as our guide and teacher lead us into truth, but that truth is used in our sanctification (John 17:17). The text also clearly states that the Holy Spirit will carry on that ministry of truth because He indwells the believer as He began to do at Pentecost (John 15:26; 16:7, 13).

In the church age, every believer has the advantage of access to the clear statements of the Bible text and the guidance of the indwelling Spirit. The Scripture, on which we depend for truth, was inspired in the original writings and is without error. Truth is stable and consistent within the text because its words and the whole were supervised by the pure oversight of the Holy Spirit.

SO, WHAT HAPPENED TO TRUTH?

Concepts are clarified as we stand back and look at the whole. For instance, there are only two religions in the world. One is Biblical Christianity, and the other is what I have come to call “Humianity.” All religions other than Biblical Christianity find part or all of their sources in flawed human thought. The names of those religions are irrelevant. Their beliefs are legion, but they all have the same source even if their degrees of error are wide as an ocean. Final truth is found in God’s Word. Even if those religions use some Bible and have some truth, that truth is negated by the infusion of human reason.

The same concept is true in the science of hermeneutics. There is only one biblical hermeneutic that God has given to the believer. Man has invented multitudes of hermeneutical systems, but once again they all fall into the same category. They are humanly devised so that there are only two hermeneutical systems: the one biblical system and the one whose source is man. There is a wide variety of systems outside the biblical one, but they are all one because they all use the same human source.

Truth is found in the clear statement of the text before man adds his convenient adjustments to the scripture. Theological error does not come from the Bible text; it comes from man’s attempt to force the Bible to agree with human thought. Truth is safe within the bonds of the biblical hermeneutic because this system is simply the normal, plain, consistent, literal use of language.

SO, WHAT IS THE PROBLEM?

There are many who confess that they practice this normal use of language. They even use it some of the time…but the minute man begins to play God and gets carried away with his own ideas, truth is lost. Failure to use the biblical system and the clear rules all the time creates the same human error.

I’m constantly reading from a number of sources and am amazed at how frequently writers ruin a perfectly good study of the text by finding ways to add their own thoughts to its content.

In the biblical hermeneutic, the very first step is exegesis. We are obligated to use the appropriate grammar, definition, syntax, etc. Now, this may sound simple - but it isn’t. It is far too easy to manipulate the text by forcing a meaning into it and then making that appear to be the only possible answer. This is a favorite trick used by grammarians. Remember, the Bible was not written for scholars. While we are grateful for the ministry of these godly men, God in His grace has given the rest of us believers a way to know when our theological leg has been pulled.

When the interpreter has finished with the issues of the language, all he has is a question; but he does not have an answer until he has completed the hermeneutical process. The next step for authentication is context. We all know that a text without a context is a pretext. Unfortunately, there are few who practice the rule, and this is the big bear trap. No interpretation that rests on one text can be trusted. If the teaching is central to the faith, it will be supported by both the micro and macro texts. Even here, though, it is possible to go astray; and this is another trick used by those who ignore the biblical hermeneutic. Contextual authority must be clearly identified by the text itself. That simply means that passages being considered must actually – and without question - apply to the subject under consideration.

The next step in the one biblical hermeneutic has to do with the historical setting of the content of the passage. This step enhances our understanding of the grammatical conclusion, but it does not create the doctrine. This is one of the reasons we don’t develop doctrine from the parables. On the other hand, this step is a bright light in exposing the insertion of theological systems into a text. The Holy Spirit was not acting in a foolish manner when He gave us historical settings that allow us to ask, “Does this illustration by God confirm the interpreter’s conclusion?”

FINALLY

This marvelous process of the one biblical hermeneutic is an affront to theological systems and constructs that make it possible for humans to press their ideas and conclusions on the text. Is it possible for anyone to ask, “What does the text say” and get the answer God put there? Yes, it is…if only we are sufficiently humble to admit we have been playing games with a holy book at the expense of truth. (To be continued)

Shepherd’s Staff is prepared by Clay Nuttall, D. Min

SHEPHERD’S STAFF - February, 2014

A communication service of Shepherd’s Basic Care, for those committed to the authority and sufficiency of the Bible. Shepherd’s Basic Care is a ministry of information and encouragement to pastors, missionaries, and churches. Write for information using the e-mail address, Shepherdstaff2@juno.com