THE HISTORIC/GRAMMATICAL HERMENEUTIC
Martin Luther believed that “The entire Old Testament refers to Christ and agrees with Him.” Sidney Greidanus, in Preaching Christ from the Old Testament, wrote that in spite of his warnings against allegorical interpretation, Luther continued using this arbitrary method of interpretation. Ironically, while Luther left some limited room for allegorical interpretation, he apparently had no use of typological interpretation, for, as David Dockery puts it, typology with its foreshadowing “annulled the historical presence of Christ in the Old Testament.” The Antioch School “saw shadowy anticipation of what was to come. This meant nothing to Luther. To him, the Old Testament was not a figure of what would be, but a testimony to what always holds true between humankind and God” (Dockery, GTJ I4/2 (1983) 193.[19]
This view reflects Luther’s Christocentric hermeneutic of the Old Testament that excluded the need for typology, which would deny the presence of Christ in the Old Testament. How did Jesus interpret himself to the disciples “beginning with Moses and all the prophets” and the Psalms according to 24:44? We believe as previously stated, that He preached the prophecies from the Old Testament that were related to him and the types.
Therefore, it will be helpful to see how, according to the historical-grammatical-theocentric hermeneutic, the New Testament interprets Old Testament prophecies, especially in typology.
Four Ways the New Testament Interprets Old Testament Prophecies
Bible scholar Robert Thomas shows how the Bible's interpretation principle of a single meaning to each passage is very important in discussing the New Testament and interpreting the Old Testament. The Christocentric hermeneutic ignores this principle of interpretation. Robert Thomas mentions renowned Bible scholars Milton S. Terry and Bernard Ramm, who advocated the interpretation principle of the single meaning of Scripture. Thomas also listed more recent Bible scholars who do not hold to this important principle of interpretation[20] Grant Osborne's interpretation of "the great city" in Revelation 11:8 is an example that Thomas uses. "He assigns two and possibly three meanings to the expression. The city is Jerusalem, and it is Rome, and secondarily, it is all cities that oppose God."[21]
Robert Thomas gives history’s first example of the historical/grammatical interpretation and the first person who rejected the single meaning principle. God commanded Adam in Genesis 2:16b-17, saying, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it, you shall surely die.” Adam clearly understood what God said and meant and communicated that historical/grammatical interpretation to Eve. That certainly is the case because when the serpent tempted Eve, she repeated the single meaning of God’s statement to the serpent: “We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden: but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.’” Thomas comments on this dialogue:
Eve’s hermeneutics were in great shape, as was God’s communicative effectiveness. She worded her repetition of God’s command slightly different from God’s recorded message to Adam, but God probably repeated His original command to Adam in several different ways. Genesis has not preserved a record of every word he spoke to Adam. The serpent, however, abandoning the single meaning of Scripture, said to Eve, “You shall not surely die. For God knows that in the day you eat of it, your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” The serpent informed Eve that she had missed the deeper meaning or the sensus plenior of God’s Word. The predecessor of all who reject the single meaning of Scripture is quite infamous.[22]
Roy Zuck discusses the single meaning of a text and sensus plenior or fuller meaning of a text of Scripture. Zuck begins his discussion by asking, “Do the Scriptures have single meanings or multiple meanings?”[23] He follows this question with the four views.
The 1st view, Zuck states is held by Walter Kaiser. This view propounds “that each passage has a single meaning, and only one meaning.”[24] This is the correct view in the historical-grammatical hermeneutic.
The 2nd view has multiple meanings of the different readers. This is purely subjective and the allegorical method of interpretation. Isaiah gives a millennial promise in Isaiah 11:6: "The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb." The normal sense of language demands that this prophecy will literally happen when the curse is lifted in the millennium and wild animals are domesticated. Loraine Boettner, however, allegorically interprets the passage:
A fitting example of the wolf dwelling with the lamb is seen in the change that came over the vicious persecutor Saul of Tarsus, who was a wolf ravening and destroying, but who was so transformed by the Gospel of Christ that he became a lamb. After his conversion he lost his hatred for the Christians, and became instead their humble friend, confidant, defender” (Isa. 11:6).[25]
The 3rd view is called sensus plenior or fuller meaning. “The term was coined by a Roman Catholic writer, Andrea Fernandez, in 1925, and has been more fully developed by other Roman Catholic scholars in recent years, notably by Raymond E. Brown.”[26]
Sensus plenior means ‘fuller sense.’ The idea is that some scriptural passages may have a ‘fuller sense’ than intended or understood by the human author, a sense that was, however, intended by God but not clearly intended by the human author.”[27] Brown reveals the danger of this view when he says, “In the long history of exegesis … texts of Scripture have been interpreted in a way that goes beyond their literal sense.”[28]
The 4th view is the view Zuck prefers. This view says Scriptures have a single meaning, but some Scriptures have related sub meanings. One example is Psalm 78:2: “I will open my mouth in parables.” Zuck says, because Christ quoted this verse in Matthew 13:35 and applied it to Himself, then Psalm 78:2 has two referents.[29]
Robert Thomas takes Zuck to task on his view. “Roy Zuck supports the principle of single meaning, but he treads on dangerous ground when, following Elliot Johnson, he adds related implications or ‘related sub meanings.’ To speak of a single meaning on one hand and of related sub meanings on the other is contradictory. A passage either has one meaning or it has more than one.”[30] I appreciate Thomas holding to a strong and consistent single meaning principle.
The interpretation principle of “one interpretation, many applications” is an integral ingredient of classic hermeneutics. Unbiblical sensus plenior, which includes the Christocentric hermeneutic, contrasts this important principle of interpretation.
There is, however, a Biblical and unbiblical sensus plenior. We will begin with the unbiblical sensus plenior. In contrast to the principle of “one interpretation, many applications” is sensus plenior or fuller or multiple meanings of a Biblical text. Zuck correctly stated that the term sensus plenior was coined and used as a principle of interpretation by Roman Catholics who reject the literal interpretation of Scripture. Robert Thomas adds that sensus plenior “amounts to an allegorical rather than a literal method of interpretation.”[31] Bernard Ramm[32] and Milton S. Terry also reject sensus plenior. Terry writes that the Bible interpreter "must not import into the text of Scripture the ideas of later times, or build upon any words or passages a dogma which they do not legitimately teach."[33] The Christocentric hermeneutic violates this principle of reading Christ's complete New Testament revelation back into the Old Testament.
This issue of sensus plenior or fuller meaning or multiple interpretations of Scriptures has to do with the New Testament use of the Old Testament. The Roman Catholic and newer evangelicals employ the unbiblical sensus plenior.[34]
Robert Thomas, however, endorses an inspired sensus plenior application (ISPA). Again, this issue has to do with how the New Testament uses the Old Testament. About this controversial subject, Zuck writes: “The use of the Old Testament in the New Testament is one of the most difficult aspects of Bible interpretation.”[35] There are times when the New Testament gives an inspired sensus plenior or fuller meaning to Old Testament prophecies. When this happens, Thomas is quick to state that this is not reading the New Testament back into the Old Testament and giving another meaning or interpretation to the Old Testament text rather, “it is an application because it does not eradicate the literal meaning of the Old Testament passage but simply applies the Old Testament wording to a new setting.”[36]
The New Testament uses the Old Testament prophecies in one of four ways. Three of the four involve what Robert Thomas calls Inspired Sensus Plenary Application (ISPA) without violating the original and single interpretation of the Old Testament prophecies.
Direct Prophecy
The first way the New Testament uses Old Testament prophecies is what Dwight Pentecost calls direct prophecy[37] and Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum calls literal prophecy plus literal fulfillment.[38] An example is the prophecy in Micah 5: 1-2 that predicted that Jesus would be born in Bethlehem. Matthew 2:5-6 said it was fulfilled. There is no New Testament fuller or even Inspired Sensus Plenary Application meaning attached to this prophecy. This prophecy was directly fulfilled. The next three prophecies will involve what Robert Thomas accurately calls Inspired Sensus Plenary Application (ISPA).
Literal Fulfillment Plus Application
There is one point of comparison between Matthew 2:17-18 and the prophecy in Jeremiah 31:15: In both cases, Jewish women weep for their sons that they will never see again. Pentecost calls this a prophecy of double reference.[39] Fruchtenbaum identifies this fulfillment of Jeremiah 31:15 in Matthew 2:18 as literal fulfillment plus application.[40] The original meaning of the women weeping in Jeremiah 31:15 is unchanged and has only one meaning or interpretation. Matthew applies this historical incident. This is an example of ISPA. The meaning of Jeremiah 31:15 was not altered but was applied and expanded to Jesus’ life.
“The destruction of the people of Israel by the Assyrians and Chaldeans is a type of the massacre of the infants at Bethlehem, in so far as the sin which brought the children of Israel into exile laid a foundation for the fact that Herod the Idumean became king over the Jews, and wished to destroy the true King and Saviour of Israel that he might strengthen his own dominion”(Keil, 2:26.).
Prophetic Summary
Pentecost calls the prophecy in Matthew 2:23 a prophetic summary of Old Testament prophecies.[41] Fruchtenbaum simply calls this a “summation.” Matthew 2:23 even refers to the “prophets” in the plural… "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken through the prophets that he should be called a Nazarene.” There is no direct prophecy that predicted this incident. Here is Fruchtenbaum’s explanation: Nazarenes were a people despised and rejected, and the term was used to reproach and to shame (John 1:46). The prophets did teach that the Messiah would be a despised and rejected individual (e.g., Isa. 53:3) and that is summarized by the term Nazarene.[42]
Prophetic Type
I want to focus on the ISPA of Hosea 11:1 and Matthew 2:15. Pentecost calls this a "prophetic type"[43] and Fruchtenbaum calls it "literal plus typical."[44] Hosea 11:1 is the historical reference to God calling Israel “my son” out of Egypt and is not even a prophecy. And yet Matthew 2:15 says when the child Jesus was brought out of Egypt by His parents, Hosea 11:1 was “fulfilled.” Pentecost says, “Matthew saw Israel’s history as a type of God’s future dealing with His people.”[45]
Robert Thomas explains that “fulfilled” can also mean “complete.” In the Matthew 2:15 citation of Hosea 11:1, Matthew uses it to indicate the completion of a sensus plenior meaning he finds in Hosea 11:1. The Hosea passage is not a prophecy, and translating the word fulfill in this instance is misleading. Matthew’s meaning is that, in some sense, the transport of Jesus by His parents from Egypt completed the deliverance of Israel from Egypt that had begun during the time of Moses. In Mark 1:15 Jesus uses the same Greek verb to speak of the completion of a period prior to the drawing near of the kingdom of God. The English word fulfill would hardly communicate the correct idea in a case like that.[46]
Roman Catholics and newer evangelicals use sensus plenior to change the original Old Testament prophecies and thus violate the single-meaning principle of interpretation. Thomas’ ISPA is true to the classic principle in hermeneutics. The Christicentric Hermeneutic violates the single meaning of the Old Testament to force Christ to be found and preached from every passage.
Types Are Interpreted Like Prophecies
This author's view is that when Christ began with Moses and all the prophets and interpreted to them the things about himself in all Scriptures” (Luke 24:27), He used prophecies and types. We just discussed the proper use of the Old Testament prophecies; now let’s discuss the proper use of types. Remember that Martin Luther rejected types in the Old Testament because of his Christocentric hermeneutic that demanded the presence of Christ throughout the Old Testament. A Historical/Grammatical hermeneutic will correct this low view of types.
Types are “picture prophecies” because types are a kind of prophecy.
Types prefigure coming reality, while prophecies verbally describe the future.
Types are expressed in events, persons, and acts, while prophecies are expressed in words. Dr. Charles Stevens, the founder of our college, observed types: “In the Old, we have the portrait; in the New, we have the Person.” For example, the brazen serpent (Numbers 21:9) was a picture prophecy or type of Christ’s death (John 3:14). Isaiah 53 is a verbal prophecy of Christ’s death. Both are predictive. Prophecy is verbally predictive. Types are typically predictive. “Typology is but the handmaiden of theology,” according to Stevens. Typology is the Old Testament visual aid to the New Testament doctrines.”[47]
What is a Type?
Dwight Pentecost defines a type: “A type is an institution, historical event or person, ordained by God, which effectively prefigures some truth connected with Christianity.”[48] Bernard Ramm states his definition: "In the science of theology it properly signifies the preordained representative relation which certain persons, events, and institutions of the Old Testament bear to corresponding persons, events, and institutions in the New."[49]
Why Should We Study Types?
We should study types because God Himself used types (Hebrews 8:5; 9:8-9; 10:19-20). Revelation mentions "Lamb" 29 times. Christ used types (Luke 24:25-44; John 6:32-35). Christ expounding Himself from the Old Testament to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus used types. The Bible uses vocabulary that speaks of types in relationship to the Tabernacle: Hebrews 8:5 “example” (hupodeigma), “shadow” (skia), Hebrews 9:8-9 “figure” (parabole), and Hebrews 10:1 “image” (eikon). Also, in relationship to the Wilderness wanderings (1 Corinthians 10:6, 11 “examples” tupoi). Zuck makes an important point when he states that typos are not always technical words. Only 1 of the 15 times typos are used theologically (Hebrews 8:5). There is a Scriptural limitation on types in the Old Testament finding their antitype in the New Testament.
What Are The Different Views Concerning Types?
One view is there are no types in the Bible: This was Martin Luther’s view.
The opposite view is an excessive use of types: Every nut, bolt, socket, and board of the Tabernacle typifies Christ. Walter L. Wilson has 1163 types in the Old Testament in his Wilson’s Dictionary of Bible Types[50], starkly contrasting with Zuck, who sees only 17 types.
Allegorizers, like Oswald T. Allis accuse Dispensationalists of allegorizing in their typology and their accusation is correct in some cases:
While Dispensationalists are extreme literalists, they are very inconsistent ones. They are literalists in interpreting prophecy. But in the interpreting of history, they carry the principle of typical interpretation to an extreme which has rarely been exceeded even by the most ardent of allegorizers.”[51]
Is the allegorical and typological interpretation the same method or different methods? Amillennialists see little difference. The allegorical interpretation finds meanings in a text that is foreign, peculiar, or hidden. It is independent of the literal meaning of a text. The typological interpretation proceeds directly out of the literal explanation.
In addition to the liberal view and the excessive view, there is the moderate view. This would be the innate type view of Milton S. Terry. There are two kinds of types (innate and inferred) according to Milton S. Terry’s view.[52] An innate type is specifically designated in Scripture. An inferred type is strongly suggested. If the whole of the Tabernacle or Wilderness journey is typical then are the parts typical. Bernard Ramm wrote, “If the whole (e.g., the Tabernacle, the Wilderness journey) is typical, then the parts are typical. It is up to the exegetical ability of the interpreter to determine additional types in the parts of these wholes.”[53]
Herbert Marsh accurately states that types are types only if the New Testament designates: “Just so much of the Old Testament is to be accounted typical as the New Testament affirms to be so, and no more.”[54]
Dr. Jerry Hullinger also issues an appropriate warning on the abuse of types:
Moving from these clear examples, many people start to speculate and find types where there are no types. A classic illustration of this is the fanciful liberty some take with the tabernacle. Every hook, board, animal skin, and color becomes a type of Christ. In my opinion, that is the kind of thing condemned here---there is no indication in the tabernacle description nor is there any later revelation which says that is what is being indicated. Thus the invention of a type has no objective, textual basis and is merely spawned from the creative mind of the interpreter. This is why my definition of a type above includes the words “divinely ordained,” which means that there are probably fewer types than we may think. After all, Jesus never said in the Gospel of John, “I am the tent peg.”[55]
This is the preferable view to avoid the excesses of the Scofield example. This is also preferable to the Christocentric abuse of the Old Testament of trying to force Christ into every text, like extreme typologists who try to find Jesus in every part of the Tabernacle.
How Do We Interpret a Type?
Roy Zuck gives the following helpful tips on interpreting types.
1. There must be a resemblance between the type and the antitype. But there must be more than a resemblance.
2. There must be a historical reality (Hebrews 8:5; 9:23-24).
3. There must be a prefiguring. “Does this mean that people in the OT knew that various things were types?” The answer is no according to Hebrews 9:8. Illustrations look back: Elijah (James 5:17) Jonah (Mt. 12:40). Types look forward. Allegorical interpretation looks behind.
4. There must be a heightening of truth. “The antitypes were on a higher plane than the types.”
5. There must be divine design.
6. There must be a designation of a type in the New Testament. “Scripture must in some way indicate that an item is typical.”[56] Dr. Jerry Hullinger gives a few examples: The brazen serpent in Numbers 21 was a type because in the mind of God that was pointing forward to the death of Christ. The reason we know it was a type is because of Jesus’ words in John 3:14. Another example of a type was Melchizedek. He was a real, historical man and though he was not aware of it, his life and circumstances typified what would be true of Christ. We know this is the case because of the comparison between Melchizedek and Christ in Hebrews 7.[57]
Walter C. Kaiser, gives the foreward to one of the Christological classics by E. W. Hengsterberg. About this classic Christology of the Old Testament: and a Commentary on the Messianic Predictions, Kaiser wrote, “Christ is identified as the center of the Old Testament revelation.” Does this classic, praised by theologian Walter Kaiser, employ the Christocentric hermeneutic of finding Christ in every passage in the Old Testament? No! For example, in Genesis, Hengsterberg discusses four passages that contain Christological prophecies: The Protevangelium in Genesis 3:14-15; 9:26-27; 12:3; and 49:10. For “Messianic Predictions in the Remaining Books of the Pentateuch, Hengsterberg exposits Numbers 24:17 and Deuteronomy 18:15-18. From the Psalms, Hengsterberg declares as Messianic Psalms 2, 16, 22, 40, 45, 72, and 110. My point, without listing the other Christological passages in the balance of the Old Testament, is that while the goal of Hengsterberg was to teach Christology from the Old Testament, he did not find Christ in every passage. He did not employ the Christocentric hermeneutic, nor should we when studying or preaching the Old Testament.[58]
Steven D. Mathewson, in his very practical book on interpreting and preaching Old Testament narratives, The Art of Preaching Old Testament Narrative, shared his view on the Christological hermeneutic debate: “My preaching occurs in the context of Christ-centered worship services. I don’t feel pressured to show how every OT story I preach points forward to Jesus. Often, such an approach does not pay sufficient attention to a story’s specific message nor to the legitimate ethical demands that flow from it.” Steven Mathewson responded to Sidney Greidanus. “I’ve wrestled with this issue quite a bit recently as I’ve worked through Preaching Christ from the Old Testament by Sidney Greidanus. In his book, Greidanus compares the Christocentric approach of Martin Luther with the theocentric approach of John Calvin. While the view of Greidanus falls somewhere between the two, my view is closer to Calvin’s. Based on Calvin’s understanding of the Triune God, his God-centered sermons were implicitly Christ-centered. But because of (1) his insistence on unfolding the mind of the author in a passage of Scripture and (2) his focus on the sovereignty and glory of God as his interpretive center, Calvin did not see the need to make every Old Testament sermon explicitly Christ-centered. He preached what was in the passage.[59]
That is the challenge with which I want to end this hermeneutical debate between the Christocentric hermeneutic and the Historical/grammatical hermeneutic. Preach only what is in the passage. If Christ is there, preach Him. If He is not there, don’t manipulate Him into the text. Preach what is in the passage.
Walter Kaiser issued a simple but striking statement in his commencement address at Dallas Theological Seminary in April 2000. “When a man preaches, he should never remove his finger from the Scriptures, Kaiser affirmed. If he is gesturing with his right hand, he should keep his left hand’s finger on the text. If he reverses hands for gesturing, then he should also reverse hands for holding his spot in the text. He should always be pointing to the Scriptures.”[60]
If Christ is in the Scripture where your finger is pointing, then preach Christ. If Christ is not in the Scripture where your finger is pointing, then preach what is in passage.
[19] Greidanus, Sidney. Preaching Christ from the Old Testament, (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1999), 0, 126.
[20] Thomas, Robert L. Evangelical Hermeneutics: The New Versus the Old, (Grand Rapids, (MI: Kregel, 2002), 141-154.
[21] Ibid., 146.
[22] Ibid., 156.
[23] Zuck, Roy. Basic Bible Interpretation. (Wheaton, IL: Victor, 1991), 273.
[24] Ibid., 273.
[25] Boettner, Loraine. Postmillennialism in Robert G. Clouse (Ed.), The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1977), 90.
[26] Zuck, 273.
[27] Ibid., 273.
[28] Brown, Raymond E. Hermeneutics in The Jerome Bible Commentary, 2 vols., (Englewood cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1968), 2:616.
[29] Zuck, 274.
[30] Thomas, 157. What is the solution to Psalm 78:2 according to Thomas? Instead of saying the psalm has two referents, which in essence assigns two meanings to it, to say that the psalm’s lone referent is Asaph, thereby limiting the psalm to one meaning is preferable…. It is proper to say that it refers to Asaph and that Matthew 13:35 refers to Jesus. By itself, Psalm 78:2 cannot carry the weight of the latter referent.”
[31] Ibid., 361.
[32] Ramm, Bernard. Protestant Biblical Interpretation. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1970), 40-42.
[33] Terry, Melton S. Biblical Hermeneutics. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1890), 583
[34] F. F. Bruce makes a distinction between the primary and plenary sense of interpretation: Since the Bible is the church's book, a further context within which any part of it may be read is supplied by the whole of Christian history...The primary sense is what the author intended to convey, established by the grammatico-historical method; but the plenary sense, provided it does not violate the primary sense, enriches the appreciation of the Bible both in the life of the church as a whole and in the personal experience of Christian men and women (F. F. Bruce. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2001, 567).
The primary interpretation of a passage is not influenced by the whole of church history to arrive at a plenary sense.
[35] Zuck, Roy. Basic Bible Interpretation. (Wheaton, IL: Victor, 1991), 250.
[36] Thomas, 242. Arnold Fruchtenbaum concurs: “A new application to an Old Testament text without denying that what the original said literally did or will happen” (Fruchtenbaum, Arnold. Israel and The Church in Wesley R. Willis & John R. Master (Eds.), Issues in Dispensationalism. (pp. 46-47). Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1994, 843.
[37] Pentecost, Dwight. The Words and Works of Jesus Christ. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1981), 68.
[38] Fruchtenbaum, Arnold. Israelology: The Missing Link in Systematic Theology. (Tustin, CA: Areil, 1994), 843.
[39] Pentecost, 71.
[40] Fruchtenbaum, 844.
[41] Pentecost, Dwight. The Words and Works of Jesus Christ. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1981), 73.
[42] Fruchtenbaum, 845.
[43] Pentecost, 70.
[44] Fruchtenbaum, 845.
[45] Pentecost, 70.
[46] Thomas, Robert L. Evangelical Hermeneutics: The New Versus the Old, 263.
[47] Stevens, Charles, H. The Wilderness Journey. Chicago, (IL: Moody Press, 1971), 12.
[48] Pentecost, Dwight. Things To Come, (Grand Rapids, MI. Zondervan, 1958), 51.
[49] Ramm, Bernard. Protestant Biblical Interpretation, 1970, 227.
[50] Wilson, Walter, L. Wilson’s Dictionary of Bible Types. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1957).
[51] Allis, Oswald T. Prophecy and the Church. (Eugene, OR: P & R Publishing, 1969), 21. C. I. Scofield in The Scofield Study Bible provides an example about Exodus 15:25 where God tells Moses to cast a tree in the bitter waters of Marah which then became sweet: "The 'tree' is the cross (Gal. 3:13), which became sweet to Christ as the expression of the Father's will (John 18:11)" (Scofield, C. I. Scofield Reference Bible. New York, NY. Oxford University Press, 1945, 89).
[52] Terry, Melton S. Biblical Hermeneutics. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1890), 255-256.
[53] Ramm, Bernard. Protestant Biblical Interpretation. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1970), 228.
[54] Marsh, Herbert. Lectures on the Criticism and Interpretation of the Bible. (London, ENG: J.G. & Rivington, 1838), 373.
[55] Hullinger, Jerry M. From Ezra to Gnostic Devotions: The Importance of Interpretive Method, 129.
[56] Zuck, Roy. (1991). Basic Bible Interpretation. (Wheaton, IL: Victor, 1991), 172-176.
[57] Hullinger, 129.
[58] E. W. Hengstenberg. Christology of the Old Testament and a Commentary on the Messianic Predictions. (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1970), 12-92.
[59] Steven D. Mathewson. The Art of Preaching Old Testament Narrative (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002), 175.
[60] Steven J. Lawson, The Pattern of Biblical Preaching: An Expository Study of Ezra 7:10 and Nehemiah 8:1-18, Bibliotheca Sacra 158 October-December 200: 451.
Bibliography
Augustine. The City of God, xv.xxvi, n.d. Accessed on March 15, 2018. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120115.htm)
Boettner, Loraine. (1977). Postmillennialism in Robert G. Clouse (Ed.), The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1977.
Brown, Raymond E. Hermeneutics in The Jerome Bible Commentary, 2 vols., Englewood cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1968.
Bruce, F. F. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2001.
Chapell, Bryan. Christ-Centered Preaching: Redeeming the Expository Sermon. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1994.
Clowney, Edmund P. Preaching and Biblical Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1961.
Diguid, Iain. (MSJ 26/1 (Spring 2015) 3–17. Interpreting and Applying Old Testament Historical Narrative: A Survey of the Evangelical Landscape.
Dockery, David. GTJ I4/2, 1983.
Essex, Keith. MSJ 26/1 (Spring 2015) 3–17. Interpreting and Applying Old Testament Historical Narrative: Survey of the Evangelical Landscape.
Fruchtenbaum, Arnold. Israelology: The Missing Link in Systematic Theology. Tustin, CA: Areil, 1994.
Fruchtenbaum, Arnold. Israel and The Church in Wesley R. Willis & John R. Master (Eds.), Issues in Dispensationalism. Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1994.
Goldsworthy, Graeme. Preaching the Whole Bible as Christian Scripture: The Application of Biblical Theology to Expository Preaching. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.
Greidanus, Sidney. Preaching Christ from the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1999.
Greidaus, Sidney. Sola Scriptura: Problems and Principles in Preaching Historical Texts. Toronto: Wedge, 1970.
Hengstenberg, E. W. Christology of the Old Testament and a Commentary on the Messianic Predictions. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1970.
Hullinger, Jerry. From Ezra to Gnostic Devotions: The Importance of Interpretive Method, 2016.
Keller, Timothy. Preaching: Communicating Faith in an Age of Skepticism. Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition, 2015.
Kuruvilla, Abraham. Privilege the Text!: A Theological Hermeneutic for Preaching. Moody Publishers. Kindle Edition, 2013.
Steven J. Lawson, The Pattern of Biblical Preaching: An Expository Study of Ezra 7:10 and Nehemiah 8:1-18, Bibliotheca Sacra 158 October-December.
Martyr, Justin. “Dialogue of Justin with Trypho, a Jew.” In The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. Vol. 1. The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885.
Mathewson, Steven D. The Art of Preaching Old Testament Narrative. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002.
Melton S, Terry. Biblical Hermeneutics. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1890.
Mohler, Albert. He Is Not Silent: Preaching in a Postmodern World. Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2008.
Pentecost, Dwight. The Words and Works of Jesus Christ. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1981.
_______________. Things To Come. Grand Rapids, MI. Zondervan, 1958.
Ramm, Bernard. Protestant Biblical Interpretation. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1970.
Spurgeon, Charles. Christ is Precious to Believers. Accessed March 12, 2018. https://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0242.htm
Stevens, Charles. H. The Wilderness Journey. Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1971.
Thomas, Robert L. Evangelical Hermeneutics: The New Versus the Old, Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 2002.
Zuck, Roy. Basic Bible Interpretation. Wheaton, IL: Victor, 1991.