Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
Biblical Blueprints exists to fight the bad presuppositions that "set themselves up against the knowledge of God" (2 Cor. 10:5), the glasses that keep ordinary Christians and theologians alike from seeing how "the key of knowledge," the whole Bible — and every word of it — applies to the whole person and all of life. Biblical Blueprints wants to equip ordinary men and women to use the key of knowledge themselves — to equip a generation of radical Reformers who don't just consume theology-already-done-for-you, but rather continue to mine and apply Scripture's axioms for all of life.
Phil Kayser here. I love feedback and even objections. They help to sharpen me and even sometimes change me. And the objection that we dealt with last week isn't the last objection that relates to hermeneutics, which is the subject we have been dealing with. There are three objections that I received to something I wrote in the Divine Right of Resistance book. Let me read from the booklet first so that you can understand what the objection is. On pages 11-13 I gave four examples of situations where it is lawful to resist an ungodly state mandate. The first two were obvious. When we are commanded to stop doing what God commands us to do, we can disobey the civil authority. Second, when we are commanded to do what God prohibits. The third reason I gave was when innocent life is at stake - and I used the examples of the Hebrew midwives, of Rahab, of David, of Jehosheba's rescue of the infant, Joash, from the murderous intentions of Queen Athaliah. I think that is pretty straightforward. The fourth reason I gave was when the means of protecting and sustaining life is at stake we can disobey the state. And among other examples, I gave the example of the righteous 144,000 in the book of Revelation who refused to receive the mark of the beast and yet illegally continued to buy and sell food. God did not expect them to obey the command that they couldn't buy or sell without the mark of the beast and instead to starve to death. The state has no right to make such a demand. And those 144,000 are explicitly said to be righteous in their doings. But then came the example from which the objection was pulled: The right of self-defense. Obviously David illegally carried Goliath's sword when he fled from Saul. But I will read in full the paragraph that the objection is connected to. In that book I had said,
> The right of self-defense is essential to life. When that right
is removed by authorities, citizens must resist. Jesus Himself commanded civil disobedience to weapons-control mandates when he commanded His disciples, “He who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one” (Luke 22:36). It was illegal for private citizens to possess swords in Israel, so He was urging the purchase and carrying of illegal concealed military weapons. Two of Jesus’ disciples—Peter and another (perhaps Simon the Zealot—cf. Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13)—were already conceal-carrying short swords. When they whipped their swords out, Jesus said they were enough.
And that's the end of the quote from *my* book. Here is the first objection to what I just read:
> Objection: In Luke 22, you can't conclude from the Scriptures alone that it was illegal to use the sword, therefore you can't say Jesus commanded civil disobedience. And besides, even if Jesus did command the disciples to disobey, that doesn't mean we can now.
This objection is making two wrong assumptions. The first wrong assumption is that Sola Scriptura prohibits us from going beyond the Bible to define anything. Sola Scriptura does not keep us from looking at background information. Not at all. In fact, Biblical prophets referred to extra biblical books several times if the reader wanted more information, and refers to maps of geographical regions, etc. What Sola Scriptura means is that the Bible is sufficient to thoroughly equip us for every good work and it provides us all the foundations we need for a comprehensive worldview. So yes, if Luke 22 was the only passage in the entire Bible that we could appeal to for self-defense then we would be on shaky ground. In the last podcast I pointed out that the Old Testament is sufficient for ethics. In fact, the *Pentateuch* is sufficient for ethics. The right to bear arms and the right to defend yourself is richly embedded in the law of God and is richly illustrated throughout the Old Testament. So we don't need this passage to prove that doctrine. We'll return to that in a bit.
But the Bible itself mandates that we understand the culture of any given period so as to illustrate what the Bible has already defined. So this might be a good time for me to introduce two more principles of hermeneutics that we derive from the Bible itself. I think these two will help to understand why it is legitimate to go to maps, and dictionaries, and other extra biblical information to illustrate Scriptural doctrine.
# The rule of original usage
We've already given six rules of interpretation illustrated by Jesus and the prophets. The seventh rule of interpretation illustrated in the Bible is the rule of original usage. We don't impose our usage of language upon the text, but discover how the original audience used that language. And keep in mind that in hermeneutics we are simply imitating how Christ, the apostles, and other prophets interpreted earlier Scriptures. How did *they* do it? We are going to be imitating *them.* We are learning the rules of hermeneutics from *them.*
So, as one example, Ezra, as the final editor of the Old Testament, added interpretive notes to the Pentateuch so that his readers could understand the original history and original usage of language. After all, Ezra's audience lived 1000 years after Moses wrote the Pentateuch.
In Genesis 14:2-5, this inspired editor, Ezra, gives two parenthetical statements to define what name places used to refer to. The text says, "...and the king of Bela (that is, Zoar)." In verse 3 it says, "All these joined together in the Valley of Siddim (that is, the Salt Sea)." So this was going beyond the text of the Pentateuch to explain a geographical site that readers in Ezra's day might not have understood. So he is defining words.
In Geneis 14:7, Ezra gives a parenthetical interpretation of what Mishpat used to mean. He says it used to refer to Kadesh.
And you will see other edits in the Pentateuch where the inspired interpreter goes outside of the Pentateuch to define words.
Ezra also added edits to the *historical* books because they were already *ancient* history by his day.
1 Samuel 9:9 says, "(Formerly in Israel, when a man went to inquire of God, he spoke thus: “Come, let us go to the seer”; for he who is now called a prophet was formerly called a seer.)" It is a parenthetical explanation by a later inspired prophet on what the word "seer" meant.
Judges 19:10 explains to the readers that the original name for Jerusalem was Jebus.
2 Samuel 5:7 defines Zion as being the old city of David.
Every one of these examples is later inspired prophets explaining or interpreting earlier prophets by giving a definition of terms that was not accessible to the reader of that time. When we go to dictionaries, maps, and archaeological finds, we are not determining Biblical doctrine. We are illustrating Biblical doctrine that is already clearly established elsewhere. So this is the rule of original use of a word.
# Rule of historical background
The eighth rule of interpretation is the rule of historical background. It's very similar. Because the Bible was written over a 1550 year period of history, it is helpful for the interpreter to be aware of the life and society that existed at the time the passage was written. This is not essential to establish any doctrine or point of ethics, but it is certainly helpful for illustrating it. And the Bible itself models this rule of interpretation for us.
1 Kings 11:41 ends the account of Solomon because that is all that is needed for the canon to be complete. But for those who were curious, it says, "Now the rest of the acts of Solomon, all that he did, and his wisdom, are they not written in the book of the acts of Solomon?" It's giving permission for readers to go elsewhere for additional information that may be helpful. If it was essential, it would be in the canon already, but he refers to facts outside the Bible as something that is useful. And I have several other references to books external to the canon that the writer referred people to if they wanted to know more.[^1]
But later prophets also gave other kinds of background information for people to be able to understand the text. In Genesis 32:32, the inspired prophet, Ezra, inserted a parenthetical statment into the text of Moses of why it was that Israelites of Ezra's day still didn't eat a certain muscle in the socket of the hip. It attributes the habit to the fact that God shrunk that muscle in Jacob's hip so that he limped. It says, "Therefore to this day the children of Israel do not eat the muscle that shrank, which is on the hip socket, because He touched the socket of Jacob’s hip in the muscle that shrank." It illustrates the rule of historical background. Was that explanation needed for any doctrine or ethics to be practiced? No. But it certainly helped to explain it.
In Deuteronomy 3:13-14 we have Ezra's inspired giving of background to help to understand a narrative passage. It says,
> 13 The rest of Gilead, and all Bashan, the kingdom of Og, I gave to half the tribe of Manasseh. (All the region of Argob, with all Bashan, was called the land of the giants. 14 Jair the son of Manasseh took all the region of Argob, as far as the border of the Geshurites and the Maachathites, and called Bashan after his own name, Havoth Jair, to this day.)
Joshua 7:26 gives the explanation for why a valley in Ezra's day is called "the Valley of Achor to this day."
Joshua 14:15 explains what the name of a city used to be. It says, "And the name of Hebron formerly was Kirjath Arba (Arba was the greatest man among the Anakim)."
1 Kings 11:19 explains a historical figure of Queen Tahpenes as being the sister of Pharaoh that Hadad married.
1 Chronicles 5:23 gives three historical changes to the name of a mountain - he says it was changed from Bashan to Baal Hamon to Senir, to Mount Hermon. Without understanding this historical background, there might be confusion in interpreting the passage. It's not necessary to the very observant reader, but it is helpful for making things simple and easy to understand.
And there are many other examples of of inspired hermeneutics going beyond the Bible in order to give historical information. They never violated the principle laid down in Deuteronomy that no law could be added to the Pentateuch. Scripture is 100% sufficient for doctrine, ethics, and for every foundational axiom that will enable us to do dominion. But the Bible doesn't do the work of dominion for us. We have to go out and do that.
So with these two Biblical principles of hermeneutics laid out, let me read the first half of the objection again and deal with it.
> Objection: In Luke 22, you can't conclude from the Scriptures alone that it was illegal to use the sword, therefore you can't say Jesus commanded civil disobedience.
Here's my response. The ownership of illegal weapons was already attested in the Old Testament. The slave nation Israel obtained weapons that had previously not been allowed to them. The book of Judges richly illustrates that tyrants disarmed a citizenry and godly people still obtained weapons. David is portrayed as a righteous person who carried a weapon illegally. So when Christ and the disciples did so, they were simply doing what the law called for. And Jesus as our Savior was a law keeper, not a pacifist. So we go to secular history to illustrate, but not to establish this practice. And history is crystal clear that Rome disarmed the citizenry in Israel completely. I have several academic histories of the period that document this quite well, so that the only way that the Jews were able to revolt was by capturing Roman weapons. The two swords owned by these disciples were illegal. But because the Old Testament law allowed for that, neither Christ nor they were in sin. That's the point. But to return to the second part of that objection:
> ...And besides, even if Jesus did command the disciples to disobey, that doesn't mean we can now.
And my response is to ask, "Why?" If Christ's command is rooted in God's law, and is illustrated in the history books and in the prophets, and if Jesus commanded this to be their behavior now that He was leaving them, it seems that it does apply to us. It seems that He is just continuing the pattern of the Old Testament that He upheld. In Matthew 5 Jesus said,
> Matt. 5:17 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. 19 Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
The second objection I received is:
> Objection: In Luke 22, Jesus also tells the disciples "it is enough" and to put the sword away, so thereby forbidding the use of lethal force.
Again, what Jesus was doing was upholding the Old Testament law that allowed self-defense against common criminals but forbad the use of the sword against the government. To use the sword against the civil magistrate would be revolution and would contradict the law. The only time citizens could raise the sword against another government is when a civil magistrte who has the sword authorizes such war. What Jesus is doing is upholding the law, not overturning it.
The last part of the objection is:
> Narrative is too confusing to accurately learn from. It's safer to stick with clear passages.
> If God didn't explicitly approve or condemn an action in a narrative passage, how can we know what God actually thinks about that? How can we avoid importing our cultural norms into the text and read into the text things that aren't there?
Good point. We should never import our own ideas into narrative passages. Narrative passages should always be interpreted in light of the law of God, not vice versa. Narrative passages illustrate both sin and righteousness, and the law alone can determine which is which. But this in no way overturns our interpretation of Luke 22. Instead, it heightens it. Jesus illustrates how godly people have always reacted to tyrants in the Old Testament. He honored civil magistrates where they could be honored and He disobeyed them where the law insisted that He disobey them. I hope this explanation helps.
[^1]: See for example, the books written by prophets and that contained
"prophecies" and "visions" in 2 Chron. 9:29. Other prophetic books include the Book of The Wars of Jehovah (Numb. 21:14),
the Book of Jashar (Josh. 10:13; 2 Sam. 1:18), another Book of Samuel
on the Kingdom (1 Sam. 10:25), the Book of the Chronicles of David
(1 Chron. 27:24), the Book of the Acts of Solomon (1 Kings 11:41),
Solomon’s three thousand proverbs and 1005 songs (1 Kings 4:32), the
book of Solomon’s Natural History (1 Kings 4:32-33), the Book of Shemaiah the Prophet (2 Chron. 12:15), the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite (2 Chron. 9:29), the Visions of Iddo the seer (2 Chron. 9:29; 12:15), “the annals of the prophet Iddo”
(2 Chron. 13:22), a full history of king Uzziah written by Isaiah
(2 Chron. 26:22), the Book of Jehu the Son of Hanani (2 Chron. 20:34),
and an extrabiblical (but reliable) history of the Kings (1 Kings
14:19,25; Chron. 20:34; 33:18).