The “principle of expositional constancy” is an interesting one. However, if you want to use it, I suggest a thorough search of scripture. It’s relatively easy to do with Bible search programs. If you claim a symbol always means something then you need to be prepared to deal with counterexamples lest you end up with counterexamples which show your theory to be faulty.
Expositional constancy tends to be more of a kabbalistic method. Find the secret meaning in a word and then apply it everywhere you see the word.
Scripture interpreting Scripture is a good principle if applied properly. It requires a fairly deep reading to get to that point. Otherwise it’s just stringing passages together and it’s really easy to go wrong that way.
Another great technique is to read the OT passage that is cited in the NT and then try to understand the OT context as a way of understanding the NT passage. That’s true expositional constancy.
BTW, a number of the top google web hits for the phrase “expositional constancy” bring up Chuck Missler and CS which immediately makes me suspect of the term itself as well as the application. Fig Trees become Israel, etc.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
So this rule works for the "birds" in Matthew 13:4 as a persistent symbol of evil?
"A number of the top google web hits for the phrase “expositional constancy” bring up Chuck Missler and CS which immediately makes me suspect of the term itself..."
I have encountered this myself. I hear it oft repeated that this is a principle of interpretation, but in all my studies (which are vast and graduate-level), I have never heard this term outside of CC. I am a CC boy thru and thru, but prefer to regurgitate information that I KNOW is accurate. I've found nothing in academia that speaks of this principle... still looking, though. Which is how I found your page. :) Glad to encounter someone else w/ the same hesitancy.
Post a Comment