Rapture Hermeneutics No. 1

We began our look at the hermeneutics of The Rapture Question this week by reading Duffield’s and Van Cleave’s discussion in the Foursquare textbook, Foundations of Pentecostal Theology. Our first observations:

Tangential Matters Often Obscure The Question
The Rapture Question is simply: Will the Rapture occur before, after or during the Great Tribulation? However, before the Foundations text treats this question under the subtitle, “Various Rapture Theories,” p. 529, it has already asserted that (1) The Rapture is an “any-moment occurrence,” p. 527, (2) the Rapture of the Church is the “blessed hope” of Tit 2.13, p. 528, and (3) the “falling away” of 2Th 2.3 is probably the “departure” of the saints in the Rapture, p. 529. The authors presumably intend to provide an objective presentation on The Rapture Question, but the above three assertions will have already begun to bias their readers toward the Pre-Trib perspective. We could wish that an unbiased author, of whichever perspective, would just take us straight to The Rapture Question, but normally we will have to wade through peripheral issues to get to that core question. Each of Duffield’s and Van Cleave’s three propositions above are important exegetical questions in their own right, and sooner or later we will have to return to them and examine their validity.

Subjective and Tentative Language Betrays The Lack of an Explicit Text
We noted Duffield’s and Van Cleave’s use of language like:

"If the Bible is to be taken in a natural sense, it seems that ..."
"There is a probable additional reference ..."
"The Greek word translated 'falling away' may also have the meaning ..."

Appealing to a subjective idea of what the “natural” reading of a text “seems” to say, and to "probable" or possible references and meanings, is not the authoritative teaching style to which we aspire. In fact, such appeals betray the elephant-in-the-living-room problem of the Pre-Tribulation Rapture teaching: it has no explicit text for its starting point. Our Hermeneutics Principle #14 tells us that the lack of an explicit foundational text indicates the proposition’s relative unimportance in the minds of the biblical writers. The Rapture was important (1Th 4.13-17) and The Great Tribulation was important (Mat 24.21), but the idea that The Rapture occurs before The Great Tribulation was either not important to the apostles, or it was contrary to their belief; either alternative explains their lack of explicit teaching on it.

The Attempt To Reinterpret Apostasia To Mean Rapture
In an attempt to rectify the lack of an explicit Pre-Trib text, some Pre-Trib teachers have proposed that the Greek word apostasia in 2Th 2.3 refers to the Rapture. Here's what the re-translated verse would look like:

Don't let anyone deceive you in any way, for that Day [of the Lord] will not come until the Rapture occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction.

This re-translation makes The Rapture occur before the Day of the Lord and before -- or at least concurrent with -- the appearance of the Antichrist, and therefore, before the Tribulation.

However, is such a re-translation justified? No current English version of the Bible translates apostasia as anything but a "religious rebellion" or "spiritual falling away," and with good reason: we define biblical words by their usage. The NT uses apostasia here in 2Th 2.3 and in Act 21.21. In the Acts passage, apostasia clearly means a rebellion against the teachings of Moses. Two examples of a word's usage is not a lot to go on, but let's remember that the apostles learned their Greek vocabulary from the Septuagint. The LXX uses apostasia in Jos 22.22, 2Ch 29.19, 1Ma 2.15 and Jer 2.19. This OT usage consistently carries the meaning of a religious rebellion or spiritual falling away. The apostles would never have chosen the word apostasia to refer to The Rapture of the saints!

Nevertheless, regarding 2Th 2.3, Duffield and Van Cleave write on p. 528, 529:

There is a probably additional reference to the Rapture in the same passage ... The Greek word translated "falling away" may also have the meaning "departure" (see 2 Cor. 12:8, "depart").

The appeal to 2Co 12.8 is amazing because it does not use our word apostasia but a cognate word, aphistamai. To thus shift a translation on the basis of a cognate word would be like saying that the word rebellion can mean "celebration" because the word revel can be interpreted that way! The words rebellion and revel are cognate words, but we would never use rebellion to mean “celebration”; the connotations of rebellion are contrary to such usage, just as the connotations of apostasia are contrary to the idea of The Rapture.

The attempt to redefine a word on the basis of a cognate word’s meaning is an interesting variation of The Root Fallacy discussed in ch. 1 of D. A. Carson’s Exegetical Fallacies (Baker, 1984). Carson puts the problem to rest by stating the rule: “The meaning of a word cannot be reliably determined by etymology” (p. 31). In this case, the meaning of apostasia cannot be determined by its etymological relationship to aphistamai, but must be determined by its usage in the apostolic literature.

posted by Roderick of TMin @ 2:44 PM 0 comments

Tithing Hermeneutics No. 3

The lack of explicit NT teaching on tithing presses us to look for other principles of giving that Jesus and the apostles put a greater emphasis on. To the question, "What did Jesus teach explicitly?" we can answer with passages like Luke 6.38, and the agrapha of Acts 20.35:

Give, and it will be given to you ... with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

It is more blessed to give than to receive.

With such explicit teaching we can begin to formulate the NT Principle of Generosity. Then we must answer the question "To whom should we give generously?"

To that question we can answer from explicit texts:

(1) To Jesus (Mat 25.40)
(2) To the poor (Gal 2.10)
(3) To those who minister to us (1Co 9.7-14)

Finally, the practical question, "How much should we give?"

Kaj answered this question in his mini-sermon on "Giving Ourselves to the King." The Lord will tell us how much to give once we give Him what He demands, namely all that we have (Luk 14.33)! Once we put ourselves and all our possessions under Christ's Lordship as the Corinthians did (2Co 8.5), He will tell us how much to distribute to whom, and it will probably be much more than 10%.

posted by Roderick of TMin @ 6:13 PM 0 comments

Tithing Hermeneutics No. 2

In our second stab at the question of whether the Bible encourages Christians to tithe, we drilled a little deeper in our 14th principle from Polishing Our Hermeneutical Glasses:

HP #14: Build doctrine by Beginning With An Explicit Text

We clarified that the lack of an explicit text, for example, the lack of a text that explicitly tells us that Jesus will return for the Church before the tribulation, does not ipso facto disprove the proposition. To think that way would be to commit the logical fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam (see previous post, Logical Fallacies). What the lack of an explicit text does tell us is that the proposition is not emphasized, and therefore probably not of great importance to the particular writer or writers in view.

This is why we do not base our perspective on tithing solely on the OT. The lack of explicit teaching on tithing in the NT is an important omission. It does not rescind the practice of tithing; it only tells us that there were matters of greater importance that Jesus and the apostles intended us to focus upon.

But let's consider what an explicit text can and can't do for us. Mat 1.3 tells us explicitly that "Hezron was the father of Ram." Does the explicit nature of this statement mean that it is a truth we should major upon in our preaching and teaching? Should we include it in our church's doctrinal statement? No. We must take two more steps to establish true biblical emphasis. First, we must try to understand a statement's purpose. The genealogical data of Mat 1.3 is clearly provided for verification of Christ's Davidic heritage to a Judaic audience; it is not in itself a strategic proposition for the wider church. Once we have an (a) explicit statement in scripture that appears to have (b) wide application, then we must take the second step of (c) checking for corroboration by other explicit or implicit passages, historical examples, typology, etc. It's the truths with wide and enduring application that the Bible repeats to the saints in both OT and NT, emphasizing them in multiple ways -- including explicit statements -- that are the truths we should normally major on in our public speaking.

posted by Roderick of TMin @ 4:22 PM 0 comments

Anchor Points/Amplification Ratio

In our homiletics discussion this week, we began defining a principle we feel may be important for communicating to a contemporary American audience. I'm calling it the Anchor Points to Amplification Ratio, or AP/AM Ratio for short. The idea is simply this:

In any given sermon or teaching presentation, the audience can only absorb so many important points per session. Therefore, a limited number of important ideas must be anchored securely in the minds of the audience by an appropriate amount of amplification (i.e., explanation and illustration) of those ideas.

If in a presentation there are too many important propositions presented relative to the amount of time spent amplifying them, the audience becomes bewildered by the number of things to think about and the propositions fail to anchor in their minds. Too many anchor points relative to the amount of amplification results in a broad but shallow presentation. On the other hand, if only one or two main ideas are presented and then too much time is spent amplifying those ideas, the audience will become fidgety, waiting for you to "get on with it!" Too much amplification relative to the number of significant anchor points results in a deep but boring presentation.

Where's the perfect balance? It depends upon the particular audience and setting, but I would guess that for today's American audience we should present no more than 1 major point for every 20 minutes of amplification. We can present many other points and ideas in that 20 minutes of course, but they should be well organized under the heading of the main anchor point and effectively amplify it so that it solidly hooks into our audience's mind. Do comment!

posted by Roderick of TMin @ 3:37 PM 0 comments

Tithing Hermeneutics No. 1

Matt and Kaj did some heavy lifting in our Friday morning Biblical Gym last week. The subject was the science of Hermeneutics, i.e., the science of interpreting Scripture, and the question for discussion was:

Does the Bible encourage Christians to tithe?

The point of our hermeneutics discussions are not to prove or disprove a practice or belief. Rather, what we want to do is develop our biblical thinking to the point where whatever we say to our congregations and students can be said with utter conviction and complete biblical authority. The times are too strategic for us as leaders to share weak opinions and vague perspectives that our people can’t sink their Christian teeth into. We want to fulfill 1Pe 4.11: “If anyone speaks, he should do it as one speaking the very words of God.” To me that means preaching and teaching with conviction, clarity, passion and authority. And for me, that’s what hermeneutics is about.

So, in the process of analyzing our biblical convictions, a question like...

1a. Does the Bible encourage Christians to tithe?

... will raise other questions that sooner or later must be settled. Here are the related questions we surfaced in first Hermeneutics of Tithing discussion:

1b. Does the Bible encourage or require tithing?
1c. On what basis do we define the tithe as only 10%?
1d. If we tithe should we do so only with monetary income or with all our increase (e.g., apples from our trees)?

2a. Are Christians obligated to keep OT laws?
2b. Are Christians obligated to abide by OT principles?
2c. Was Abram’s tithe to Melchizedek intended as an example to follow (i.e., a principle) or was it just a unique incident?

3. Does the Bible (or NT) teach a greater principle [of giving] than tithing?

4. If we tithe, to whom should the tithe go in view of the fact that there is no more Levitical priesthood?

In arriving at these questions we applied 3 hermeneutical principles; in our Polishing Our Hermeneutical Glasses text, these principles are numbers 10, 11 and 14:

10. Build doctrine in the light of Progressive Revelation.
11. Interpret Scripture in its linguistic, thematic and cultural Context.
14. Build doctrine by Beginning With An Explicit Text.

We quickly discovered that the explicit commands to tithe (Hermeneutical Principle #14) are all in the OT, and given in the context (HP #11) of the Levitical priesthood and the agrarian Temple culture. We discovered that there were 3 distinct tithes mandated by the law: 1 to the Levites (Num 18.24-26), 1 to be consumed with family and friends at religious festivals (Deu 14.22,23) and 1 to be given to the poor (Deu 14.28,29). The 3 tithes together amounted to roughly 24% of a person’s increase.

Matt, Kaj and I also discovered that the context (HP #11) of Mat 23.23 was not instruction on tithing, but rather a rebuke to the Pharisees for their lack of justice, mercy and faith. This passage contains no explicit (HP #14) indication that non-Jews should take the laws of tithing upon themselves. In fact, Matt told us at the outset that there is no explicit scripture (HP #14) teaching Christians to tithe.

Kaj, however, underscored the biblical principle of Progressive Revelation (HP #10) for us by insisting that we must take the whole Bible into account and not base our teaching on the NT alone. Kaj is absolutely right: we must neither teach a NT passage without reference to the OT foundation, nor teach an OT passage without reference to the NT fulfillment!

As we began to look for bedrock on the tithing question, we did find an explicit text (HP #14) teaching us to give: Luke 6.38. The implicit teaching of this verse is that we should give generously. Kaj appropriately cautioned us regarding the abuse of this text by Prosperity teachers.

We were just about to nail the tithing question to the wall when Roderick looked at his watch and realized he had to leave for an appointment.

posted by Roderick of TMin @ 3:20 PM 0 comments

Logical Fallacies

Learning to recognize logical fallacies is a key to good hermeneutics and exegesis.

During our tithing discussion we surfaced a logical fallacy that has plagued the church: the argument from silence (a kind of argument from ignorance: argumentum ad ignorantiam). The specific example mentioned was the argument that musical instruments should not be used in church worship, since instruments are not mentioned in connection with worship in the NT (although see Rev 5.8). To argue thus from silence would rid our church services of hymn books, all electronics, even church buildings. Nothing can be proven from silence alone.

On the subject of tithing, therefore, while the NT offers no explicit instruction to tithe, and while I contend that to overemphasize tithing is to obscure more important NT principles, to ban tithing on the basis of the NT’s silence would be fallacious and heretical! Our approach to the issue of tithing in our teaching and preaching must be similar to Christ’s in Mat 23.23: we must urge people to fulfill the greater priorities of faith without discrediting a healthy discipline of tithing.

posted by Roderick of TMin @ 4:30 PM 0 comments