Martin Heidegger was a Nazi who is loved by the Western Left as well as Russian ideologues. He was not born in a vacuum but had several influences. Heidegger’s philosophy cannot be understood holistically without understanding him on the backdrop of Nietzsche’s existentialism[1] among other issues, but to understand where Heidegger’s ideas are being repurposed in the most dangerous ways today—specifically in the Russian genocide against Ukrainians in the Russian struggle against the West—it is helpful to understand Heidegger’s role as a fascist philosopher among the 20th century Marxist discussion.
hermeneutics
A bit about intertextuality (Matt. 2:15)
Intertextuality is key to ensuring that the Bible student is doing nothing “to” or “with” the text, but rather deriving that which is already “within” the text. The proper method for interpreting the Scriptures is the grammatical-historical method, which analyzes the text for grammatical and structural implications as well as its historical context. The result is that any given text only has one singular meaning, but could have multiple implications. This is not only how we should read the text; it is also how the biblical authors read the biblical texts that came before them. Some who reject grammatical-historicism would propose that the NT authors were repurposing the OT texts noncontextually for their own purposes, so that texts have more meanings than can be extracted contextually.
Michael Vlach advocates the consistent grammatical-historical approach to intertextuality. He has calculated 355 to 360 OT references in the NT, most which are clearly contextual uses of the OT with only about 14 hard cases.[1] Theologians who disagree and say that the NT authors were flexible with their application of OT texts typically defend their views from the hard cases, but a better approach is to use the easy to understand the hard.
An example of a hard text could be Matthew’s quotation of Hosea 11:1 (Matt. 2:15). The fluctuating assumption is that Hosea 11:1 does not reference the coming Messiah, and so Matthew is changing Hosea to fit his narrative. A conservative view could be that God revealed a hidden meaning of Hosea to Matthew, while a liberal view could be that Matthew was wrong about Hosea. Either way, Matthew would be doing something “to” the text. However, if the reader allows the OT to have its own say, then perhaps Hosea was also doing intertextuality. Balaam spoke centuries before Hosea, and in his oracles, he recognized that God brought Israel out of Egypt in the past (Num. 23:22) and that in the future, a king of Israel would come out of Egypt (Num. 24:7, 8). Even Balaam’s mention of a future king was intertextual to Jacob’s blessing of Judah (Gen. 49:10). Moreover, Jacob’s blessing is the beginning of a Lion of Judah motif (Gen. 49:9) that Balaam picks up on (Num. 23:24; 24:9) as does Hosea (Hos. 11:1). The lion motif through these texts serves as an ancient hashtag that weaves the thoughts together.
When the Holy Spirit moved men to write the text of the Bible, He did so in a way that gives the modern reader an example of how to study. It is not for the reader to do anything “to” the text, but rather to follow in the footsteps of Matthew, Hosea, and Moses by analyzing that which is already “within” the text.
[1] Michael Vlach, The Old in the New: Understanding How the New Testament Authors Quoted the Old Testament (The Woodlands, TX: Kress Biblical Resources, 2021), vi, 61–63.
Ezra 10:6 in light of Nehemiah, Josephus, Elephantine, and 1 Esdras
The Book of Ezra records Israel’s return to the land after the Babylonian exile. The first half deals with Zerubbabel’s return and its ramifications (Ezra 1–6) and the second half deals with Ezra’s return and its ramifications (Ezra 7–10). Chapter 7 has a decree by Artaxerxes that gives Ezra permission to return, chapter 8 records the return. Then in chapter 9, Ezra learns that Israel had been intermarrying with pagans and prays and chapter 10 shows how Ezra dealt with this sin. The Book of Nehemiah would have originally been part of the same volume, so chapter 10 would actually be part of a 23-chapter book, though the versification was not added until much later.[Read More]
New Book! Moving Forward
We’ve got a new book coming out! Its title is Moving Forward: Essays on Soteriology, Missiology, and Eschatology.
Moving Forward is a compilation of three essays that I have written for other projects. I brought them into one volume which we will be distributing soon. Here is the preface of the book:[Read More]
How James quoted Amos
At the Jerusalem Council (Acts 19:6–21), James quotes Amos in a way that some have interpreted in a way that sees him spiritualizing promises that God made to Israel and applying them to the church. I do not think that this is what he was doing, though. James was using the plain grammatical-historical method of interpretation, which includes Amos’s original context as well as James’ context in Acts.
[Read More]
Dispensationalism: What It Is And Why It Matters
Dispensationalism is the school of thought that results from a plain grammatical-historical reading of Scriptures. Ryrie’s threefold sine qua non of dispensationalism includes grammatical-historical hermeneutics, doxological centrality of Scripture, and the distinction between Israel and the church,[1] but these latter two points are merely the result of the first. The doctrine that dispensationalism is most famous for is the pre-tribulational rapture, but this too is just the result of the consistent literal reading of Scripture. Even critics of dispensationalism recognize that grammatical-historicism results in dispensationalist conclusions. Since the legitimacy of dispensationalism stands or falls on the legitimacy of grammatical-historical hermeneutics, a discussion of dispensationalism’s strengths should focus on its hermeneutics.[Read More]
You must be logged in to post a comment.