A. Words
1. Rules
[1] Unless something in the context dictates otherwise, a word is assigned the meaning that is consistent with its Biblical usage elsewhere in that type of context, its usage in parallel passages, its usage in the LXX, its secular usage, its root meaning, etc.
[2] A greater burden of proof is required to justify a rare meaning than common meaning. This holds true if we restrict ourselves to a particular kind of context.
[3] A word otherwise fixed in meaning shapes the context of and hence the meaning of a word otherwise variable in meaning.
[4] If a word is found to be quite variable in meaning in previously considered contexts, then its meaning in future considered contexts is decided on a "context-by-context" basis. The burden of proof rests upon the shoulders of each proposed meaning.
2. Examples
a. "I read the book". Because the word "read" is variable in meaning (present or past tense), this sentence can be understood as "present action", I "reed" the book; or it can be viewed as "past action": I "red" the book. Interestingly, there is insufficient information presented in the context to determine the proper meaning of the word "read". However, if we add a more strict meaning word to the sentence and hence define a context, then we are in a position to rigorously define the meaning of the word "read".
"I read the book yesterday". By adding the more strict meaning word "yesterday", the context of the sentence is rigorously locked into past action. Thus, we assign the "past tense" to the word "read" and therefore pronounce it "red". "I 'red' the book yesterday".
(b) The Days of Genesis One (See Section V.A., to come)
B. Phrases and Grammatical Constructions:
1. Rules:
[1] Unless something in the context dictates otherwise, a phrase or grammatical construction is assigned the interpretation that is consistent with its Biblical usage elsewhere in that type of context, its usage in parallel passages, its usage in the LXX, its secular usage, its root meaning, etc.
[2] A greater burden of proof is required to justify a rare interpretation than common interpretation. This holds true if we restrict ourselves to a particular kind of context.
[3] A phrase or grammatical construction otherwise fixed in interpretation shapes the context of and hence the interpretation of a phrase or grammatical construction otherwise variable in interpretation.
[4] If a phrase or grammatical construction is found to be quite variable in interpretation in previously considered contexts, then its interpretation in future considered contexts is decided on a "context-by-context" basis. The burden of proof rests upon the shoulders of each proposed interpretation.
2. Examples:
(a) Purpose Clauses
Purpose clauses are formed to show the intent in the main verb of a sentence. Example are "He got into my car, so that he could come to the conference." The reason is stated as to why he got into his car. "For God so loved the world (kosmos=order) that He gave His only begotten Son, in order that each-believing-upon-Him-one should not perish, but have everlasting life." God's purpose for sending Christ was to save the elect. Interestingly, the purpose clause construction here in Jn 3:16 clearly shows a "particular redemptive" view, clearly universalism is not at all in view! 4(b) Causal Clauses
Causal clauses are often formed to show "cause and effect". An example is: "For God is my witness" (Rom 1:9). In verse 8 Paul expressed his profound interest in the Roman church and his appreciation of it, and here (vs.9) he adds an evidence in proof of his claim. 5.
C. Figures of Speech
1. Rules
..some form which a word or sentence takes, different from its ordinary and natural form. This is always for the purpose of giving additional force, more life, intensified feeling, and greater emphasis. Whereas today "figurative language" is ignorantly spoken of as though it made less of the meaning, and deprived the words of their power and force.6.[1] Unless something in the context dictates otherwise, a figure of speech is assigned the interpretation that is consistent with its Biblical usage elsewhere in that type of context, its usage in parallel passages, its usage in the LXX, its secular usage, its root meaning, etc.
[2] A greater burden of proof is required to justify a rare interpretation than common interpretation. This holds true if we restrict ourselves to a particular kind of context.
[3] A figure of speech otherwise fixed in interpretation shapes the context of and hence the interpretation of a figure of speech otherwise variable in interpretation.
[4] If a figure of speech is found to be quite variable in interpretation in previously considered contexts, then its interpretation in future considered contexts is decided on a "context-by-context" basis. The burden of proof rests upon the shoulders of each proposed interpretation.
2. Examples
a. The Figures of Comparison
There are three basic Figures of Comparison, two of which we are probably all familiar:a.1 Simile - A declaration that one thing resembles another - that one thing is "similar" to another. Examples might be "your hair is like yellow hay", "the team played like a bunch of old ladies", "this new position is like a breath of fresh air".
a.2 Metaphor - A declaration that one thing is another or represents another. A comparison by representation. Examples might be "you are a turkey", "this is my grandmother" (while referring to her picture), "that car is a real beast".
a.3 Hypocatastasis - A declaration that implies resemblance or representation. A comparison by implication. "Dogs have compassed me".
A comparison of these figures and how they are to be used can be quite illuminating and exciting as in the case of the following example:
Suppose that you are trying to tell a "nice young lady" that she needs to modify her eating habits. To do this you have to decide how severe she needs to be told. This will determine which Figure of Comparison you may wish to use. If you simply wish to make a "quite point" with her, you may choose to use the Simile: "Sally, you eat like a pig, you ought to consider learning some manners." The Simile tells her the truth of the matter, but preserves her emotions by not bringing her "emotionally" strong into the Figure itself. Indeed, the Simile is very close to the "reality" of the situation, her eating habits. Now, you may wish to make your case with a "stronger bite" (no pun intended). In this case, you may wish to use the Metaphor, "Sally, you are a pig - You should change your eating habits! The Metaphor has a stronger edge to it than the Simile because by bringing Sally more emotionally into the Figure its usage is somewhat more offensive (in reality she is NOT a pig). Now, if you believe that Sally won't get the point unless you "hit her over the head" you may in this case wish to use the Hypocatastasis. In this case, you get right up into Sally's face and say, "PIG!!!". The Hypocatastasis brings Sally right into the emotion of the whole affair, because you have addressed her "as if she were a pig". This is the strongest Figure of Comparison. The following table illustrates each of these figures as to their relationship to both the reality of the situation and the level of emotion by which the subject is brought into the figure.
Figures of Comparisons Figure of Speech Level of reality Level of emotion Simile High Low Metaphor Medium Medium Hypocatastasis Low High b. The Figure of Polyptoton
Formed by repeating the same word with different inflections. Examples are: "Which alters when its alteration finds, or bends with the remover to remove" 8; "In addition to appalling the appalling Helms..." 9; "...in dying thou shalt surely die..." (Gen 2:16-Heb). This Figure is used to strengthen the author's idea.
D. Laws of Precedence
[1] Older revelation must be interpreted and understood by the above rules BEFORE newer revelation is interpreted and understood by the above rules.
[2] If, after this is done, it is decided that both older and newer revelations address the same subject, the interpretation of the newer is tailored, if need be, by the interpretation of the older, never the reverse.
2. Examples
a. The Heads of Daniel's Beasts and the Beast of Revelation
Daniel 7:1-7 describe Daniel's vision consisting of 4 great beasts. Upon determining the number of heads among these four beasts it is found that there are total of 7 heads. This fact provides the foundation by which we are to understand and interpret newer revelation if dealing with the same item. The newer revelation is in fact found in the book of Revelation 13:1-10. The Beast which rises out of the sea, having 7 heads...
Thus, without getting into the details 10 (we have many outlines that cover this great subject) understanding Daniel in its own right within the consistent application of the Normative Hermeneutic provides the framework for understanding the Apocalypse in its own right by consistently applying the Normative Hermeneutic.
b. As it was in the Days of Noah, so shall it be in the days of the coming of the Son of Man.
This idea as presented in Mat 24:37 and Luke 17:26. The Doctrine of Creation and in particular here the Flood provides the foundation for having a proper understanding Biblical Eschatology (prophecy). Thus, we must understand and interpret the Creation/Flood before we can properly understand the details of prophetic issues.
c. Corollary Point: The Virgin Birth in Isa 7:14 11
As shown in [SER], the Hebrew word almh means technical virgin and that the related word btvlh has two historic meanings: (1) An early meaning was typically "technical virgin", (2) The latter meaning of btvlh was broadened to include one who was not a technical virgin but one who was simply separated in some fashion (i.e, unto one man, from something, etc.). Isaiah is a later book, but uses the word almh in the culture of latter btvlh. This clearly shows that technical virgin is meant by Isaiah. Thus, having the cognate word broaden over time cements the intent of Isaiah for technical virginity of the mother of Messiah.
E. The Doctrinal Framework
The consistent application of the Normative Hermeneutic will generate the doctrinal framework that is contained in Scripture. The following figure illustrates Scripture's Doctrinal Framework:
Figure 1. A Section of Scripture's Doctrinal Framework (NH = Normative hermeneutic)
1. This framework will satisfy the following criteria:
a. Simplicity: The correct doctrinal framework is that framework which is the simplest framework when dealing with all Biblical data, especially the "difficult" data. It is never simplistic.
b. Clarity: The correct doctrinal framework is that framework which gives the utmost clarity when dealing with ALL Biblical data.
c. Knowability: The correct doctrinal framework is that framework which does not raise questions which cannot eventually be answered in conformity with the Normative Hermeneutic. Only answerable questions are a natural product of the correct doctrinal framework.
d. Elegance: The correct doctrinal framework is that framework which produces the most elegance and beauty when dealing with all Biblical data.
e. Efficiency: The correct doctrinal framework is that framework which is the most efficient in when dealing with all Biblical data.
2. Corollary Criteria:
1. No Contradictions: The correct doctrinal framework is that framework which does not contain or lead to any contradictions when dealing with all Biblical data.
2. No Tautologies: The correct doctrinal framework is that framework which does not contain or lead to "circular" arguments when dealing with all Biblical data.