Journal of the Adventist Theological Society. 4/2 (1993):95·114.

Article copyright © 1993 by Richard M. Davidson.

INTERPRETING SCRIPTURE:
AN HERMENEUTICAL
"DECALOGUE"
By Richard M. Davidson
Seventh, day Adventist Theological Seminary
Andrews University

Introduction
In the early 20th century the eminent Neo-Orthodox
theologian, Karl Barth, emphasized how "every theology stands or
falls as a hermeneutic and every hermeneutic stands or falls as a
theology." 1 Midway through this century RudolfBultmann and his
followers also emphasized the role of hermeneutics as a concern of
crucial theological significance. In the last two decades prominent
Evangelical theologians have expressed their judgment· that the
"key intellectual issue" in theology is the "persistent problem of
authority" which concerns "especially the problem of her-
meneutics.,,2
Within Seventh-day Adventist discussions of theological
method during this latter period, attention has increasingly focused
upon the question of hermeneutics, that is, the theory and practice
of biblical interpretation. 3 For me personally, the discussion on this
topic at the 1974 Seventh-day Adventist Bible Conferences changed
my whole perspective on Scripture and theology.4 Recent develop-
ments in theological thought in the church have pointed up how a
given hermeneutic directly and dramatically affects the end-
product of the theological enterprise.
With what hermeneutic shall we conduct our theological in-
vestigations? A bewildering array of past and current hermeneuti-
cal theories confronts us. These range from the allegorical

95
96 Journal of the Adventist Theological Society

hermeneutic of the Alexandrian school and the medieval Catholic

Church to the literal-historical and typological hermeneutic of the
Antiochene school and the Protestant Reformers; from the an-
tisupernatural, rationalist (historical-critical) hermeneutic of the
Enlightenment to Schleiermacher's hermeneutic of subjective un-
derstanding; from the neo-orthodoxy of Barth and Brunner to the
existentialist models of Heidegger and Bultmann; from the
metacritical hermeneutical theories of Gadamer and Pannenberg
to the hermeneutic of suspicion and retrieval of Paul Ricoeur; from
the hermeneutics of socio-critical theory (including liberation and
feminist hermeneutics) to the new literary-critical hermeneutical
approaches (rhetorical criticism, New Criticism, structuralism,
semiotics, narrative theory!ietc.); from reader-response criticism to
radical deconstructionism.
In the face of this plethora of suggested hermeneutical
methods, how shall we proceed? It appears evident that without
specific divine revelation on the subject of hermeneutics, we will
never be able to find our way through the maze of human theories.
On the other hand, if we believe in the full authority of Scripture,
should we not also expect to find in Scripture the divine guidelines
on how to interpret Scripture? Just as we go to Scripture to find
the doctrines of God, of man, of the Sabbath, of the sanctuary, etc.,
so it is appropriate, yes, essential, that we should go to Scripture to
discover the doctrine of Scripture, and in particular, to learn the
Scriptural teaching on hermeneutics as a basis for constructing a
theology that is faithful to Scripture. A theology that is to be fully
biblical depends upon a totally biblical hermeneutic.
Of course, we come to Scripture acknowledging our own
biases, our own pre-understandings; but we come willing, and claim
the divine promise that the Spirit will bring our presuppositions
ever more in harmony with the biblical presuppositions (see John
16: 13; 14: 16, 17, 26, etc.). In the following sections of our study we
will summarize the main contours of the Scriptural presupposi-
tions and principles of hermeneutics as they emerge from a study
of the biblical passages that speak to this topic.

An Hermeneutical "Decalogue"
A discussion of the hermeneutical process, as it emerges from
 Davidson: Interpreting Scripture 97

Scripture's own testimony, may be outlined in rough comparison

with the biblical Decalogue of Exodus 20. Just as the first "table"
of four commandments deals with the divine-human (vertical)
relationship, so there are four general principles arising out of the
divine-human nature of Scripture which constitute foundational
presuppositions undergirding the entire hermeneutical endeavor.
Similarly, just as the second table of six commandments in the
Decalogue encompasses human (horizontal) interpersonal
relationships, so the specific hermeneutical guidelines for the inter-
preter may be organized under six basic headings. (Unlike the
Decalogue of Exodus 20, this outline is not infallible!-but repre-
sents one way of organizing and synthesizing the fundamental
principles of biblical hermeneutics.)

General Principles (The First "Table")

I. The Bible and the Bible Only (sola Scriptura). A
fundamental hermeneutical principle is that of sola Scriptura. This
principle constituted the battle cry of the Reformation. Against the
church traditions and speculative philosophies of medieval
Catholicism, the Reformers rallied under the banner of sola Scrip-
tura-the Bible and the Bible only as the final authority for truth.
This principle was not invented by the Reformers; it is rooted
firmly in Scripture. The classical text which expresses this fun-
damental biblical premise is Isaiah 8:20: "To the law and to the
testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because
there is no light in them" (NKJY, and hereafter, unless otherwise
noted).
Two corollaries are implicit in this principle: the primacy and
sufficiency of Scripture. The New Testament affirms the first corol-
lary by insisting that Scripture is the supreme and final authority,
to be accepted over tradition (Matt 15:3, 6), human philosophy (Col
2:8), human reason, experience, knowledge, or science (1 Tim 6:20;
cf. Gen 3:1-6; Prov 14:12). The sufficiency of Scripture is likewise
affirmed by the biblical self-testimony: Scripture provides the
framework, the divine perspective, the foundational principles, for
every branch of knowledge and experience, and all additional
knowledge and experience, or revelation, must build upon and
remain faithful to, the all-sufficient foundation of Scripture (2 Tim
98 Journal of the Adventist Theological Society

3:15-17; Ps 119:105; Prov 30: 5, 6; John 17:17; 2 Thess 3:14; Heb

4:12).
The appropriate human response to Scripture is not a critique
of its contents, but a total surrender to its ultimate authority. Isaiah
records God's perspective: "This is the man to whom I will look, he
that is humble and contrite in spirit, and trembles at my word" (Isa
66:2, RSV, emphasis supplied).
II. The Totality of Scripture (tota Scriptural. A second
biblical principle of hermeneutics must be coupled with the first. It
is not enough to affirm the primacy and SUfficiency of Scripture; we
must also accept the totality of Scripture. Reformers, such as Martin
Luther, and later interpreters who have failed to accept fully this
latter principle have been led to reject or devalue certain portions
or even whole books of Scripture. This has resulted in a "canon
within a canon.,,6
The self-testimony of Scripture is clear: "All scripture is in-
spired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction,
and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be
complete, equipped for every good work" (2 Tim 3:16, 17, RSV). The
term Scripture includes both the Old Testament and New Testa-
ment Scriptures (see 1 Tim 5:18; Deut 25:4; Luke 10:7; 2 Pet
3:14-16). All Scripture is of divine origin.
Peter concurs with and expands upon Paul's statement: '~nd
we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will
do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place,
until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.
Above all, you must understand that no pre>phecy of Scripture came
about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had
its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were
carried along by the Spirit" (2 Pet 1:19-21, NlV). Here Peter under-
scores the trustworthiness of Scripture, because it does not
originate in the prophet nor does the prophet intrude his own
interpretation.
A corollary of tota Scriptura follows: the Bible does not just
contain the Word of God, but equals the Word of God (see 2 Chr
36:15-16; Matt 4:4; Rom 3:2; 1 Cor 2:13; 1 Thess 2:13; Heb 1:5-13;
etc.). Even though the prophet is the human instrumentality used
by God to deliver the divine message, with his own unique per-
 Davidson: Interpreting Scripture 99

sonality, individuality, style, and perspective, yet in the divine

thought inspiration the Holy Spirit so "carries along" the biblical
writers that what they present is the utterly reliable Word of God,
the prophetic word made more certain.
A second corollary of the tota Scriptura principle is also im-
plicit: just as Jesus, the incarnate Word of God, was fully God and
fully man (John 1:1-3, 14), so the written Word of God is an
inseparable union of the human and the divine. 7 As Jesus'
humanity was sinless, so the Scriptures, though written by men,
are fully trustworthy.
m. The Analogy (or Harmony) of Scripture (analogia
Scripturae). Since all Scripture is inspired by the same Spirit, and
all of it is the Word of God, there is a fundamental unity and
harmony among its parts (see, for example, Matt 5:17; John 5:39;
Rom 3:10-18). This principle has three main aspects:
1. Scripture is its own expositor (Scriptura sui ipsius interpres).
Because there is an underlying unity among the various parts of
Scripture, one portion interprets another, becoming the key for
understanding related passages. Jesus demonstrated this principle
on the way to Emmaus when, "beginning with Moses and all the
prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things
concerning himself" (Luke 24:27, RSV). Later that Resurrection
night, He pointed out "that everything written about me in the law
of Moses and the prophets and the psalms must be fulfilled. Then
he opened their minds to understand the scriptures" (Luke 24:44-
45, RSV). Here Jesus gives a practical example of how all that
Scripture says about a given topic (in this case the Messiah's work)
should be brought to bear upon the interpretation of the subject.
Other Scriptural passages clearly support this principle (see 1 Cor
2:13; Heb 1:5-13; 2:6-8, 12,13; Isa 28:10,13).
2. The consistency of Scripture. Jesus succinctly stated this
aspect of the analogy of Scripture: "The Scripture cannot be
broken" (John 10:35). Since Scripture has a single divine Author,
the various parts of Scripture are consistent with each other. Thus
Scripture cannot be set against Scripture. While the different
human biblical writers may provide different emphases upon the
same event or topic, this will be without contradiction or
misinterpretation. For example, each of the four writers of the
 100 Journal of the Adventist Theological Society

Gospels recorded what impressed him most under the inspiration

of the Spirit, and each facet of the whole is needed in obtaining the
full and balanced picture.S
3. The clarity of Scripture. A third aspect of the analogy of
Scripture is that the meaning of Scripture is clear and straightfor-
ward, able to be grasped by the diligent student (see Luke 1 :3-4;
John 20:30-31; Acts 17:11; Rom 10:17; Rev 1:3). The Bible is to be
taken in its plain, literal sense unless a clear and obvious figure is
intended (see Jesus' own distinction between figurative and literal
language in John 16:25, 29). There is a single truth-intention for
each passage, not a subjective multiplicity of meaning (see Acts
3:17-18,22-24; Dan 7:16-27; 8:15-26; Matt 13:18-23, 36-43; etc.).
More difficult or obscure biblical passages are to be interpreted
by the clearer passages. So in 1 Pet 1:10-12 the apostle indicates
that the OT prophets may not have always clearly understood all
the Messianic aspects of their prophecies. He implies that addition-
. al clearer revelation became a key to understanding the less clear
passage or vision. The Bible presents an increasing spiral of under-
standing as later passages illuminate earlier, and earlier illuminate
later. 9
Iv. Spiritual Discernment <spiritalis spiritaliter ex-
aminatur). A fourth general principle of biblical hermeneutics is
set forth by Paul: "For what person knows a man's thoughts except
the spirit of the man which is in him? So also no one comprehends
the thoughts of God e~cept the Spirit of God .... The unspiritual
man does not receive the gifts of the Spirit of God, for they are folly
to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are
spiritually discerned" (1 Cor 2:11,14, RSV).
Spiritual things are spiritually discerned. Since the Bible is not
the product of man's mind but of the mind of God revealed through
the Spirit (see 1 Cor 2:12-13), it is not possible to separate "what it
meant" to the human author-to be studied without the aid of the
Holy Spirit, from "what it means"-to be applied by the help of the
Spirit. The Bible cannot be studied as any other book, coming
merely "from below" with sharpened tools of exegesis and honed
principles of interpretation. At every stage of the interpretive
process the Book, inspired by the Spirit, can only be correctly
interpreted "from above," by the Spirit's illumination of the mind
 Davidson: Interpreting Scripture 101

of the sincere seeker after God whose life has been spiritually
transformed through that same Spirit (see John 7:17; Ps 119:33;
Prov 2:3-7; 2 Chr 20:20; John 5:46-47).

Specific Guidelines (The Second "Table")

The specific guidelines for interpreting biblical passages arise
from and build upon the general principles we have observed in
Scripture thus far. These guidelines encompass essentially the
grammatical-historical method. We may argue that they are simply
dictated by common sense, and most evangelical writers merely list
the various interpretive steps. But in actuality, all these guidelines
explicitly or implicitly arise from Scripture itself.
We may interject here that many modern scholars do not
consider the Bible writers' own hermeneutical practice a very
helpful place to go for guidance in developing a sound hermeneutic.
It is claimed that the NT writers often follow the first-century
prevailing Jewish methods of exegesis that are often not faithful to
the original meaning of the OT text. But the recently published
dissertation by David 1. Brewer (which may be destined to rock the
presuppositions of current critical scholarship regarding first-cen-
tury Jewish exegetical methods) demonstrates that "the predeces-
sors of the rabbis before 70 CE did not interpret Scripture out of
context, did not look for any meaning in Scripture other than the
plain sense, and did not change the text to fit their interpretation,
though the later rabbis did all these things."lO '
Brewer's work calls for a fresh examination of NT exegetical
methods in light of these conclusions. This "fresh examination" of
the NT has already begun in recent decades. A number of studies
of various NT passages have concluded that NT writers were
careful to represent faithfully the original plain meaning of the OT
texts for the NT readers. ll
This is not to say that every time a Scripture is referred to in
passing, that the NT authors are providing a full-fledged exegesis.
Just as we might say: We escaped "by the skin of our teeth" without
exegeting Job 19:20, so the biblical writers are steeped in OT
language and imagery, and may use Scriptural language without
intending to exegete the passage alluded to. We refer rather to those
102 Journal of the Adventist Theological Society

NT instances where the biblical writer is clearly expounding the

meaning of OT passages.
Let us now consider the basic interpretative guidelines emerg-
ing from the Bible writers' own hermeneutic.
V. Text and Translation. Since the focus of the hermeneuti-
cal enterprise is upon the written Word, it is of great importance
that the original text of the Bible be preserved as far as possible.
The Bible itself underscores the vital necessity of preserving the
words of sacred Scripture (see Deut 4:2; 12:32; Prov 30:5, 6; Rev
22:18-19; cf. Deut 31:9-13, 26). The principles of textual study must
be carefully controlled from within Scripture. 12
The Scriptures also give numerous examples of the need for a
faithful translation of the words of Scripture into the target lan-
guage (Neh 8:8; Matt 1:23; Mark 5:41; 15:22, 34; John 1:42; 9:7;
Acts 9:36; 13:8; Heb 7:2; etc.). The translation of Scripture should
remain as faithful as possible to both the form and content of the
original. 13
VI. Historical Context/Questions of Introduction. The
Old Testament is largely a history book. The accounts of Creation,
Fall, Flood, Patriarchs, emergence of Israel, Exodus, Conquest of
Canaan, Judges, Kings, and Prophets of the United and divided
Monarchy, Exile, Return, rebuilding of the Temple-all the per-
sons, events and institutions of the Old Testament are presented
as straightforward history. The OT prophets, Jesus, and the NT
writers continually refer back to the earlier OT accounts, using
these as historically reliable descriptions of God's real space-time
interrelationships with His people. The historical context ofbiblical
narratives is accepted at face value as true, and no attempt is made
to reconstruct history in a different way than presented in the
biblical record.
The NT writers and other early Christians, in their interpreta-
tion of the OT, show a remarkably clear acquaintance with the
general flow and specific details of OT history (see, for example,
Stephen's speech in Acts 7; Paul's discussion of the Exodus in 1
Corinthians 10). The typological arguments of the NT writers
assume the historical veracity of the persons, events, and institu-
tions that were types; in fact, the whole force of their typological
 Davidson: Interpreting Scripture 103

argument depends upon the historicity of these historical

realities. 14
In the inner-Scriptural hermeneutic of biblical writers men-
tion is often made of various questions of introduction, and these
questions sometimes become crucial to the Bible author's argu-
ment. In each case, the plain declaration of the text is accepted as
accurately portraying the authorship, chronology, and life setting
for the text. For example, the Davidic authorship of Psalm 110 (as
stated in the superscription of the psalm) is crucial to Jesus' final
clinching, unanswerable argument concerning His Messiahship
(Matt 22:41-46). Again, Davidic authorship of Psalms 16 and 110 is
also crucial to Peter in his Pentecost sermon to convince the Jews
of the predicted resurrection of the Messiah (Acts 2:25-35).
The life setting (Sitz im Leben) of Abraham's justification by
faith in the Genesis account is very significant in Paul's argument
to the Romans. He shows that Abraham was justified before he was
circumcised (Rom 4:1-12). For Paul there is no need to reconstruct
a hypothetical life setting to explain this account. The apostle-and
all the other biblical writers-consistently accept the life setting
that is set forth in the biblical text.
Thus by precept and example Scripture underscores the im-
portance of interpreting the biblical material in its literal, historical
sense, including details of chronology, geography, and miraculous
divine interventions in history. For the illumination of the histori-
cal background of a given passage, it is helpful to consult ap-
propriate Bible dictionaries, atlases, commentaries, surveys of
biblical history and archaeology, etc.
VII. Literary Context and Analysis. For the biblical
writers the literary context of the Scriptures was no less important
than the historical context. Scripture is not only a history book, but
a literary work of art. Recent study is giving increasing attention
to the literary characteristics and conventions of Scripture. 15
Scripture itself gives us countless explicit and implicit in-
dicators of the presence of its literary qualities and the importance
of recognizing these as part of the hermeneutical undertaking.
One of the first tasks in interpreting a given passage in its
immediate literary context is to determine the limits of the passage,
in terms of paragraphs, units, or stanzas. The paragraph and
 104 Journal of the Adventist Theological Society

chapter divisions of our modern versions of the Bible have been

added much later than biblical times. But the Bible writers often
provide indicators of passage limits and in their spirit-guided inter-
pretation of antecedent Scripture show awareness of these discreet
units of Scripture.
The book of Genesis, for example, is divided neatly into ten
sections, each identified by the phrase "the generations [toledOth]
of .... " In the Psalms, along with the superscriptions introducing
individual psalms, a number contain (a) stanzas that naturally
divide the sections of the psalm (see, for example, Ps 42:5, 11; 43:5),
or (b) the word "selah" (71 times in the Psalms: see, for example,
Ps 46:3, 7, 11), or (c) an acrostic (see Psalm 119, with each succeed-
ing block of eight verses starting with the next letter of the Hebrew
alphabet).
The Bible writers repeatedly identify their written materials
. in terms of specific genres or literary types. A few samples include:
. "'history" or "account" (Hebrew, toledoth, Gen 2:4, plus 12 more
times throughout Genesis), legal material (Exod 21:1; Deut 4:44,
45; and throughout the Pentateuch), covenant making and renewal
(for example, the whole book of Deuteronomy; see Deut 29:1, 14,
15), riddles (Judg 14:10-18), court chronicles (for example, 1 Kgs
9:1), psalms (with various subdivisions of types of psalms, indicated
in the superscriptions) or songs (Cant 1:1), proverbs (Prov 1:1; 10:1;
25:1), prophetic oracles or "burdens" (Hebrew, massa', Nah 1:1;
Hab 1:1; Mal 1:1), visions (Dan 8:1-2; Obad 1), covenant lawsuit
(Hebrew, rib, Isa 3:13; Hos 4:1; Mic 6:1), lamentation (Hebrew,
qtnah, Ezek 27:32; Amos 5:1; Lamentations), gospels (Mark 1:1),
parables (Mark 4:2), "figures" (Greek,paroimia; John 10:6; 16:25),
epistles or letters (Rom 16:22; 1 Cor 5:9; 2 Pet 3:1, 16), and
apocalyptic prophecy (Greek, apokalypsis, Rev 1:1).
Each of these genres has special characteristics that emerge
from a careful study, and these characteristics are often significant
in interpreting the message. Literary form and interpretation of
content go hand in hand.
In a more general depiction of literary genre, the Biblical
materials separate themselves into poetry and prose. The poetic
sections of Scripture (some 40% of the OT) are characterized par-
ticularly by various kinds of parallelism ("thought rhyme") and to
 Davidson: Interpreting Scripture 105

a lesser degree by meter and stanzas (or strophes). The prose may
be of various kinds, such as narrative, legal and cultic material.
The literary structure, both on the macro-structural and
micro-structural levels, is a crucial part of the analysis of a passage,
often providing a key to the flow of thought or central theological
themes. Bible writers have structured their material by such
devices as matching parallelism (see the book of Jonah 16), reverse
parallelism (or chiasm, for example, the books of Leviticus 17 and
Revelation 18), inclusio or "envelope construction" (see Ps 8:1-9;
103:1, 22), acrostic (Psalms 9, 10, 25, 34, 37, 111i 112, 119, 145),
qinah (3+2 meter, as in the book of Lamentations 9), and relation-
ships with suzerainty treaty components (as in the book of
Deuteronomy20) .
Many other literary techniques and conventions, and stylistic
elements are utilized by the biblical writers. We find the employ-
ment of irony, metonymy, simile, metaphor, synecdoche,
onomatopoeia, assonance, paronomasia (pun/play on words), etc.
All these literary features are important for the biblical writer as
they contribute to the framing and forming of the message. They
also assist the interpreter as he/she seeks to understand the mean-
ing of a given passage.
VIII. Grammatical/Syntactical/Semantic Analysis.
Scripture, and in particular the NT interpretation of the OT,
provides evidence for engaging in the analysis of the grammatical
forms and syntactical relationships, with attention to the meaning
of words in context, in order to arrive at the plain, straightforward,
sense of the passage being interpreted.
A classic example of grammatical sensitivity on the part of the
NT writers is Paul's interpretation of the word "seed" in Galatians
3. Citing Genesis 12:7, 22:17-18 and 24:7, Paul recognizes that the
singular form of "seed" narrows in meaning to single "Seed"-the
Messiah-(Gal 3:16). A few verses later (Gal 3:29) he correctly
points to the collective plural aspect of this same term in its wider
context.21
A vivid example of the apostle's syntactical sensitivity is in the
citation of Psalm 45:6-7 in Hebrews 1:8-9: "Your throne, 0 God, is
forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your
Kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness;
 106 Journal of the Adventist Theological Society

Therefore God, your God, has anointed You With the oil of gladness
more than Your companions." The syntax of the Hebrew original
points to One who is God, who is also anointed by God, thus
implying the relationship between the Father and the Son in the
Godhead.
Numerous examples in NT writings reveal care in repre-
senting faithfully the meaning of crucial words in the original OT
passage. See, for example, the use of "the just shall live by faith"
(Rom 1:17 citing Hab 2:422); the selection of the LXXparthenos
("virgin") to best represent the Hebrew 'almlih ofIsaiah 7:14 ('~
virgin shall conceive ... ," Matt 1:22-25, RSV23); and Christ's use
of the word "gods" in John 10:34, citing Psalm 82:6.24
Numerous other examples may be cited, where the NT quota-
tion of an OT passage involves the NT writer's recognition of the
wider context of the OT citation. This larger OT context is frequent-
ly the key to understanding the interpretation drawn by the NT
, writer. For example, C. H. Dodd has shown how Peter alludes to the
larger context of J oel2 in his Pentecost sermon, and how Matthew's
interpretation of Hose a 11:1 in Matthew 2:15 is not taking the OT
passage out of context, but rather is seeing it in the larger context
of the eschatologicallMessianic New Exodus motif in Hosea and
other eighth-century prophets.25
The grammatical-syntactical and semantic-contextual
analysis often becomes more involved for us today than for those
whose native tongue was the living biblical Hebrew/Aramaic or
koine Greek languages. It is wise now to make judicious use of
appropriate grammars, lexicons, concordances, theological
wordbooks, and commentaries.
IX. Theological Context/Analysis. The biblical writers pro-
vide abundant evidence for the need to ascertain the theological
message of a passage as part of the hermeneutical enterprise.
For examples, Jesus lays bare the far-reaching theological
implications of the Decalogue in His Sermon on the Mount (Matt
5:17-28). The Jerusalem Council sets forth the theological import
of Amos 9:11-12-that Gentiles need not become Jews in order to
become Christians (Acts 15:13-21). Paul captures the theological
essence of sin in various OT passages (Rom 3:8-20) and of
righteousness by faith in his exposition of Genesis 15:6 and Psalm
 Davidson: Interpreting Scripture 107

32:1-2 (Romans 4). Peter's sermon at Pentecost (Acts 2) delineates

the theology of inaugurated eschatology found in Joel 2, and his
first epistle explores the theological dimensions of the Messiah's
atoning work as set forth in Isaiah 53 (1 Pet 2:21-25).
The theological messages of the NT writers presuppose, build
upon, and stand in continuity with, the major OT theological
themes such as God, Man, Creation, Fall, Sin, Covenant, Sabbath,
Law, Promise, Remnant, Salvation, Sanctuary, and Eschatology.
The NT writers also place their theological analyses of specific
passages within the larger context of the multiplex" grand central
theme" of Scripture as set forth in the opening and closing pages
of the Bible (Genesis 1-3; Revelation 20_2226): creation and the
original, divine design for this world, the character of God, the rise
of the cosmic, moral conflict (Great Controversy), the plan of
redemption-restoration centering in Christ and His atoning work,
and the eschatological judgment and end of sin at the climax of
history.
The theological thought-patterns of NT writers, though ex-
pressed in Greek, stay within the trajectory of biblical Hebrew
thought, and do not imbibe alien thought-forms of the prevailing
culture such as Gnosticism and Platonic dualism. 27
In their exploration of the "deeper" theological meaning of
Scripture-for example, the typological fulfillment of OT persons,
events, and institutions-the NT writers do not read back into the
OT what is not already there. Rather they remain faithful to the
OT Scriptures, which have already indicated which persons, events,
and institutions God has divinely designed to serve as prefigura-
tions of Jesus Christ and the Gospel realities brought about by
Him. 28 The NT writers simply announce the antitypical fulfillment
of what had already been verbally indicated by the OT prophets.
The NT writers do not give an exhaustive list ofOT types, but
show the hermeneutical procedure, controlled by the OT indicators,
for identifying biblical types. Furthermore, NT writers provide a
theological (salvation-historical) substructure for interpreting the
eschatological fulfillment ofOT types. Based upon a clear theologi-
cal understanding of the theocratic kingdom of Israel and the
kingdom prophecies within the context of covenant blessings and
curses, the NT reveals a three-stage fulfillment of the OT types and
108 Journal of the Adventist Theological Society

kingdom prophecies: (1) in Christ, (2) in the church, and (3) in the
apocalyptic concluding events of salvation history. Each stage has
a different modality of fulfillment based upon the nature of
Christ's presence and reign.29 Thus the NT writers have worked
out a sound hermeneutic for interpreting the types and kingdom
prophecies of the OT, built upon solid controls arising from the OT
Scriptures.
X. Practical Application. For the NT writers, the contem-
porary application arose naturally out of their theological inter-
pretation of OT passages. We have just noted how the application
of the types and kingdom-prophecies of the OT emerged from
understanding the three-stage fulfillment within salvation history.
All the promises of God have their yes and amen in Christ (2 Cor
1:20). Likewise all the OT types find their basic fulfillment in Him;
and if we are spiritually part of the body of Christ, we share in the
fulfillment of those prophetic and typological promises and yet
await their final, glorious, literal, end-time apocalyptic fulfillment.
These basic hermeneutical principles dealing with the fulfillment
of Israel-centered prophecies in the NT provide a Christocentric
approach which safeguards against dispensationalism and
literalism.
The biblical writers insist that the message of Scripture is not
culture-bound, applicable only for a certain people and a certain
time, but is permanent and universal. Peter, citing Isaiah 40:6-8,
forcefully states, "having been born again, not of corruptible seed
but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides
forever, because 'All flesh is as grass, And all the glory of man as
the flower of the grass. The grass withers, And its flower falls away,
But the word of the Lord endures forever.' Now this is the word
which by the gospel was preached to you" (1 Pet 1:23-25).
Most of the ethical instruction in the NT gospels and epistles
may be seen as the practical application of OT passages: for ex-
ample, Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, (Matt 5:17-32) applying the
principles of the Decalogue; James' ~plication of the principles of
Leviticus 19 throughout his epistle; and Peter's ethical instruc-
tion building on "Be holy, for I am holy" (1 Pet 1:16, citing Lev 11:44,
45; 19:2; 20:7).
Of course, it is true that certain parts of the OT, in particular
 Davidson: Interpreting Scripture 109

the ceremonial/sanctuary ritual laws and oflsrael's civil/theocratic

laws, are no longer binding upon Christians. As I have shown
elsewhere,31 the NT writers do not arbitrarily (by a casebook
approach to Scripture) decide what laws are still relevant, but they
consistently recognize the criteria within the OT itself indicating
which laws are universally binding.
The general principle, then, articulated and illustrated by the
NT writers in their practical application of Scripture, is to assume
the transcultural and transtemporal relevancy of biblical instruc-
tion unless Scripture itself gives us criteria limiting this relevancy.
As William Larkin states: '~l Scripture, including both form and
meaning, is binding unless Scripture itself indicates otherwise.,,32
The final goal of interpreting Scripture is to make practical
application of each passage to the individual life. Christ and the NT
apostles repeatedly drove home the message of the gospel contained
in the Scriptures in order to bring the hearers or readers to salva-
tion and an ever closer, personal relationship with God.
At the Exodus God articulated a principle: Each succeeding
generation of Israel should consider that he/she personally came
out of Egypt (Exod 12:26-27; 13:8-9), and this principle of per-
sonalization was repeated many times, both to OT Israel (Deut
5:2-4; 6:20-21; Josh 24:6-8) and to spiritual Israel (Gal 3:29; Rev
15:1-2; 2 Cor 5:14-15, 21; Rom 6:3-6; Eph 1:20; 2:6; Reb 4:3, 16;
6:19; 7:9, 10; 10:19-20; 12:22-24). The Scripture should ultimately
be read, and accepted as if I were the participant in the mighty
saving acts of God-"I was there!"-as if God's messages were
personally addressed to me (cf. Gal 2:20). They are God's living and
active Word to my soul.

Biblical Hermeneutics: Past and Present

The hermeneutical approach we have seen emerge from Scrip-
ture, was continued in the early church, largely in the school of
Antioch. Typical Antiochene interpreters were concerned to uphold
the plain, literal-historical sense of Scripture. Their hermeneutic
was founded upon the same basic presuppositions as we have set
forth from Scripture, and their exegesis followed essentially the
same specific guidelines as those we have found utilized b~ the
biblical writers in their hermeneutic of antecedent Scripture. 3
110 Joumal of the Adventist Theological Society
Unfortunately, this hermeneutic was overshadowed by, and
finally, officially eliminated in favor of, the allegorical approach
popularized by the Alexandrian school. For a thousand years the
Alexandrian Quadriga (the "four-horse chariot" of the allegorical
method) held sway in the Roman Catholic Church, although there
was always a minority that, often despite persecution, accepted the
full and supreme authority of the Scriptures in its plain and literal
sense.
The Reformation interpreters broke with the allegorical inter-
pretation of Scripture, and returned to the biblical hermeneutic of
historical-literary-grammatical-theological analysis that became
known as the grammatical-historical method. This method has had
able proponents since Reformation times, although in the wake of
the Enlightenment, the historical-critical method, with human
reason or human experience as the final authority instead of Scrip-
ture, has often overshadowed and even eclipsed the biblical her-
meneutic of the Reformation in many circles of Scripture study.
The Millerite movement had its inception in the preaching of
William Miller, and Miller developed a simple set of 13 rules for
interpreting the Bible.34 These hermeneutical rules simply repre-
sent the historical-grammatical approach to interpretation as set
forth in Scripture and practiced by the Reformers, and give special
attention to the interpretation of prophecy. All early Adventist
pioneers used these principles. In 1884 Ellen White could write:
"Those who are engaged in proclaiming the third angel's message
are searching the Scriptures upon the same plan that Father Miller
adopted.,,35 After quoting the first four of these rules, that sum-
marize basic hermeneutical principles, she adds: "in our study of
the Bible we shall all do well to heed the principles set forth."
The Adventist Theological Society unashamedly affirms the
hermeneutic of the biblical writers, and their successors over many
centuries -the grammatical-historical approach toward Scripture,
and rejects the allegorical method of Alexandria and medieval
Catholicism and the historical-critical method of the rationalistic
Enlightenment and its successors.
In so doing, we also maintain the Reformers' (and Millerites')
historicist hermeneutic of apocalyptic prophecy, which has been
eclipsed in virtually all of Christendom today except the Seventh-
 Davidson: Interpreting Scripture 111

day Adventist Church. Seventh-day Adventists are the hermeneuti-

cal heirs of the Bible writers, the Reformers, and those who followed
them.
The historic Seventh-day Adventist hermeneutic, reaffirmed
by ATS,36 is not mere traditionalism, an outmoded approach to
Scripture held by Christian interpreters from a by-gone age. Nor is
it a "hybrid" hermeneutic seeking to combine some of the old
"proof-text" methodology-37 with more scientific tools of biblical
research.
As we have documented here in this study, the grammatical-
historical, or historical-biblical approach to Scripture, is none other
than the approach based on the biblical writers themselves. It is the
hermeneutic of Scripture according to the Scriptures.

Conclusion
Our study calls for a radical decision on the part of those who
are willing to hear. It calls for nothing less than a conversion
experience-;-I call it a third conversion experience. The first con-
version experience is conversion to Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior;
the second conversion experience is the conversion to the teachings
of the Bible as given by the Holy Spirit (for many believers the
second conversion unfortunately comes before the first); the third
conversion experience is conversion to the hermeneutic of Scrip-
ture. Are we willing not only to accept Jesus, not only to accept the
teachings of Scripture, but also to accept the way of interpretation
of the inspired biblical writers-their divinely guided hermeneuti-
cal presuppositions, principles and procedures? Only this third
conversion will allow us to function with a radically ("back to the
roots") biblical hermeneutic. And only such an hermeneutic will
provide a solid foundation for a theology- that is utterly faithful to
God's Word.

Endnotes
1 J. I. Packer, "Infallible Scripture and the Role of Hermeneutics," in Scripture and
Truth, ed. D. A. Carson and John D. Woodbridge (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House,
1992), p. 325, provides this sununary statement of Barlh's position.
2 Carl F. H. Henry, "American Evangelicals in a Turning Time," The Christian
Century 97/35 (5 November 1980): 1062, cited in Packer, p. 325.
3 See Gerhard F. Hasel, Biblical Interpretation Today (Washington, DC: Biblical
Research Institute, 1985); Gordon M. Hyde, ed., A Symposium on Biblical HemtenelLtics
112 Journal of the Adventist Theological Society

(Washington, DC: Biblical Research Committee, General Conference of Seventh-day Adven-

tists, 1974).
4 Richard M. Davidson, "The Authority of Scripture: A Personal Pilgrimage," JATS
1/1 (1990): 39-56.
5 See Anthony C. Thiselton, New Horizons in Hermeneutics: The Theory and Practice
of Transforming Biblical Rooding (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992)
for an overview of these hermeneutical approaches.
6 See, for examples, recent discussions of the atonement that have emphasized only
one aspect of Christ's work and have thereby truncated the gospel, or discussions of God's
character which have emphasized only the mercy of God without His justice, thereby
vitiating His holiness.
7 See Ellen G. White, Great Controversy, p. vii, and idem, Selected Messages, Book 3,
pp.68-70.
8 Cf. White, Great Controversy, p. 8, and idem, Selected Messages, Book I, pp. 21, 22.
9 See, e.g., Walter C. Kaiser, Toward an Old Testament Theology (Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan, 1978), pp. 134-140; Jon Paulien, Decoding Revelation's Trumpets: Literary
Allusions and the Interpretation of Revelation 8:7-12, Andrews University Seminary Doc-
toral Dissertation Series, vol. 11 (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1987), pp.
155-306.
10 David I. Brewer, Techniques and Assumptions in Jewish Exegesis Before 70PE
(Tiibingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1992), p. 1.
11 See Gleason L. Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan Publishing House, 1982); George B. Caird, "The Exegetical Method of the Epistle
to the Hebrews," Canadian Journal of Theology 5 (1959): 49-51; Richard M. Davidson,
"Typology in the Book of Hebrews," chapter 7 in Issues in the Book of Hebrews, Daniel and
Revelation Committee Series, vol. 4, ed. Frank B. Holbrook (Silver Spring, MD: Biblical
Research Institute, 1989), pp. 121-186; idem, "Sanctuary Typology," in Symposium on
Revelation-Book I, Daniel and Revelation Committee Series, vol. 6, ed. Frank B. Holbrook
(Silver Spring, MD: Biblical Research Institute, 1992), pp. 99-130; idem, "RevelationlIn-
spiration in the Old Testament: A Critique of Alden Thompson's 'Incarnational' Model," in
Issues in Revelation and Inspiration, Adventist Theological Society Occasional Papers, vol.
I, ed. Frank Holbrook and Leo Van Dolson (Berrien Springs, MI: Adventist Theological
Society Publications, 1992), pp. 105-135; Charles H. Dodd, A£cording to the Scriptures; The
Sub-structure ofNew Testament Theology (London: Collins, 1952), pp. 59, 60; R. T. France,
Jesus and the Old Testament; His Application of Old Testament Passages to Himself and
His Mission (Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1971), pp. 38-80; Walter C. Kaiser,
The Uses of the Old Testament in the New (Chicago: Moody Press, 1985); Lester J. Kuyper,
The Scripture Unbroken (Grand Rapids, MI: W. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1978);
Douglas J. Moo, The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives (Sheffield, England:
Almond Press, 1983); R. M. Moody, "The Habakkuk Quotation in Rom 1: 17, " ExpT 92 (1981):
205-208; etc.
12 For a summary of the basic principles of textual analysis, see, e.g., Bruce K. Waltke,
"The Textual Criticism of the Old Testament," in The Expositor's Bible Commentary, vol.
I, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1979), pp.
211-228; Gordon D. Fee, "The Textual Criticism of the New Testament," in The Expositor's
Bible Commentary, vol. 1, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing
House, 1979), pp. 419-433; C. F. Sitterly andJ. H. Greenlee, "Text and MSS of the OT," in
The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (Grand Rapids, MI: W. B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 1988), 4:798-822.
13 For a discussion of the basic principles in translation method, see Eugene A. Nida,
Toward a Science of Translating, with Special Reference to Principles and Procedures
Involved in Bible Translating (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1964); John Beekman and John Callow,
Translating the Word of God, With Scripture and Topical Indexes (Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan Publishing House, 1974); Sakae Kubo and Walter F. Specht, So Many Versions?
Twentieth Century English Versions of the Bible, rev. and enl. ed. (Grand Rapids, MI:
 Davidson: Interpreting Scripture 113

Zondervan Publishing House, 1983); and Jack P. Lewis, The English Bible from KJV to NIV:
A History and Evaluation, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1991).
14 Richard M. Davidson, Typology in Scripture: A Study of Hermeneutical Typos
Structures, Andrews University Seminary Doctoral Dissertation Series, vol. 2 (Berrien
Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1981).
15 Unfortunately, however, this frequently comes at the cost of ignoring the historical
nature ofthe material; Scripture is often treated in the same way as a modern work of fiction,
with its own fictive story world. See, e.g., Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (New
York: Basic Books, 1981); idem, The Art of Biblical Poetry (New York: Basic Books, 1985);
Thiselton, New Horizons in Hermeneutics, pp. 471-514; Meir Weiss, The Bible from Within:
The Method of Total Interpretation (Jerusalem: Magness Press, 1984).
16 Gerhard F. Hasel, Jonah, Messenger of the Eleventh Hour (Mountain View, CA:
Pacific Press, 1976), p. 101.
17 William Shea, "Literary Form and Theological Function in Leviticus," chapter 5
in 70 Weeks, Leviticus, Nature ofProphecy, Daniel and Revelation Committee Series, vol. 3,
ed. Frank B. Holbrook (Washington, DC: Biblical Research Institute, 1986), p. 149.
18 Kenneth A. Strand, "The Eight Basic Visions," chapter 2 in Symposium on
Revelation-Book I, Daniel and Revelation Committee Series, vol. 6, ed. Frank B. Holbrook
(Silver Spring, MD: Biblical Research Institute, 1992), pp. 36, 37.
19 William H. Shea, "The qtnah Structure of the Book of Lamentations, " Biblica 60/1
(1979): 103-107.
20 Meredith G. Kline, Treaty of the Great King: The Covenant Structure of
Deuteronomy (Grand Rapids, MI: W. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1963).
21 Note in particular the usage of zero' in Gen 22: 17, where the fIrSt occurrence of the
word in the verse clearly has a plural idea in the context of "the stars of the heaven" and
"the sand which is on the seashore," whereas the second occurrence of zera' in VS. 17b
narrows to a singular "Seed" in the context of "his [singular] enelnies." This usage parallels
Gen 3: 15, where in a sinlilar way the word zera' moves from collective/plural to singular in
meaning. See O. Palmer Robertson, Christ of the Covenants (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book
House, ]980), pp. 93-103.
22 See Moody, pp. 205-208.
23 See Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, pp. 266-268.
24 See ibid, pp. 373, 374.
25 Dodd, According to the Scriptures, pp. 59, 60; cf. Kaiser, The Uses of the Old
Testament in the New, pp. 43-53.
26 Cf. Ellen G. White, Education, pp. 125, 190.
27 For analysis of Hebrew thought, see, e.g., Claude Tresmontant, A Study of Hebrew
Thought, trans. Michael F. Gibson (New York, NY: Desclee Company, 1960); Jacques B.
Doukhan, Hebrew for Theologians, A Textbook for the Study ofBiblical Hebrew in Relation
to Hebrew Thinking (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1993), pp. 191-218; and
ThorleifBoman, Hebrew Thought Compared with Greek, trans. Jules L. Moreau (New York:
W. W. Norton, 1970; Philadelphia, PA: Westlninster Press; 1960) (whose basic thesis has
not been overturned despite criticisms of some lines of argumentation by James Barr, A
Semantics of Biblical Language [London: Oxford University Press, 1961]). See also G. E.
Ladd, whose Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: W. B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company, 1974) has shown the consistent biblical salvation-historical, inaugurated-consum-
mated eschatological pattern throughout the NT. This is also true with regard to the book
of Hebrews, despite numerous claims for Platonic dualism in the book. See Ronald
Williamson's decisive refutation of these claims in Philo and the Epistle to the Hebrews
(Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1970).
28 See Davidson, "Sanctuary Typology," pp. 106, 128.
29 See ibid, pp. 106-108, 129, 130, and Hans K. LaRondelle, The Israel of God in
Prophecy: Principles of Prophetic Interpretation, Andrews University Monographs, Studies
in Religion, vol. 13 (Berrien Springs: Andrews University Press, 1983).
30 See Kaiser, The Uses of the Old Testament in the New, pp. 221-224.
31 Davidson, "RevelationlInspiration in the Old Testament," pp. 119-125.
114 Joumal of the Adventist Theological Society
32 See William J. Larkin, Culture and Biblical Henneneutics: Interpreting and
Applying the Authoritative Word in aRelativisticAge (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House,
1988), p. 316, who lists variOIl8 possible criteria for nonnormativeness within Scripture:
"limited recipient, limited cultural conditions for fulfillment, limited cultural rationale, or a
limiting larger context." Even these cases, Larkin argues, involve only the form, and not
the meaning of Scripture, and call for the reduction of the cultural-specific form to a
principle, and the substitution of a contemporary form compatible with it. See Larkin, pp.
316-318, for illustrations drawn from the way the NT writers used the OT.
33 See David Dockery, Biblical Interpretation Then. and Now: Contemporary Her-
meneutics in the Light of the Early Church (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1992),
pp. 103-128.
34 See the reprint of these in P. Gerard Damsteegt, Foundations of the Seventh-day
Adventist Message and Mission (Grand Rapids: W. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company,
1977), pp. 299, 300.
35 RH 11/25/1884.
36 See George W. Reid, "Another Look at Adventist Hermeneutics," JATS 2/1 (1991):
69-76, for analysis of the traditional SDA hermeneutic as essentially the same as upheld by
ATS, in opposition to the new historical-critical paradigm shift in the Seventh-day Adventist
Church starting in the 1950's.
31 What some describe in a distorted way as "proof-text" method is simply the
principle of "the Bible as its own e¥positor" discussed as ilIA above and utilized by Jesns
and all the NT writers. There is, oCcourse, an illegitimate "proof-text" approach which takes
biblical passages in isolation without regard for their original context, and makes them
"prove" what in fact they do not teach. This illegitimate usage of biblical te¥ts has been a
pit into which proponents of the historical-critical method have fallen no less often than
those following the historical-grammatical approach.