Hermeneutics is derived from the Greek word ἑρμηνεύω (hermēneuō), and in the KJV is translated as interpreted or interpretation. In its most basic form, it refers to the study of the principles of interpretation of the Bible. There are no set hermeneutical rules that everyone uses with identical wording, although many versions of hermeneutical principles are similar, often emphasizing the same main truths. An example of a historical set of hermeneutical rules is listed at the end of this article in an appendix.
Although the rules of hermeneutics are not drawn word-for-word from the Scriptures, they are based upon general Bible principles as well as common sense and are overwhelmingly upheld by believers. Ruckman himself does not deny that hermeneutical rules are supposed to be followed, and on rare occasions pays lip service to the laws of hermeneutics when it is convenient. We shall demonstrate, however, that he is far from consistent in observing hermeneutical guidelines when attempting to teach odd doctrines that he is known for.
Ruckman seems to be obsessed with a desire to present a novel and unique theological system of interpretation that can be linked to him. Numerous statements of his have led us to that conclusion. When he studies the Bible, he does not hesitate to “think outside the box” (which is not entirely wrong). He is constantly attempting to come up with something new, as long as there is at least an isolated (and often vague) passage he can point to in order to attempt to justify his unusual view. He uses a combination of conjecture, superstition, vivid imagination, deviation from hermeneutical principles, isolated passages out of context, and a drive to be known as the “discoverer” of a new “truth.” He wants to claim to understand difficult passages that stump other Bible teachers. In his desire to stand out with new interpretations, Ruckman often with questionable interpretations turns mere possibility into probability, and via theological slight-of-hand turns probability into certainty, where other equally viable interpretations exist.
Ruckman often includes Bible references along with his theological declarations. Sometimes he even insists that his readers read the references. However, references are useless if they do not say what Ruckman says they do, or if they are taken out of context. His references are also useless if his interpretations violate the plain teaching of other passages that shed light on his references. Or utilizing obscure verses in isolated passages where conservative scholars have historically struggled to understand or form a consensus in its interpretation.
It is not unusual for him not to exegete the verse in the reference and demonstrate methodically how he came to his unusual conclusion. Sometimes a look at one of his references does not even draw a clue, at other times there is only a vague hint in an obscure verse that is his whole basis for a major view that he teaches dogmatically. Apparently, readers are supposed to trust that it means what Ruckman says it means even if they can’t see it themselves. Often a reference will only remotely agree with Ruckman in a round-about way if one will allow their imagination to stretch to extremes.
His teachings are often his personal interpretations presented as if they were the irrefutable conclusions that supposedly have the full backing of the Scriptures. He will occasionally say something along the lines of “don’t take my word for it, look up the verses.” That may come across as if his teaching was Bible based and some will no doubt assume he’s got to be right if he lists a verse reference or two after making a statement and even inviting others to “check him out.” The reason many have rejected Ruckmanism after being exposed to it, however, is that they did indeed look up the listed verses regardless of whether Ruckman encouraged them to or not. For example, see our article “Astonishing things Ruckman claims to know that no one else can find in the Bible” in which the wording of the texts are provided for various verses Ruckman uses when he makes questionable claims such as him knowing the day Christ was born, certain physical characteristics of the Antichrist, where Eden was located, the original language spoken before Babel, the language that will be spoken in heaven, the main ingredient in Esau’s pottage, etc. Since the passages he provided did not say what he said they did, there should have no qualms in affirming outright that Ruckman is a false teacher. There is also no reason in such cases for elaborating on which hermeneutical rules were violated or how, why or to what extent when simply reading the verses he supplied demonstrate no biblical basis for his assertions.
In our years dealing with Ruckman promoters, it is quite common for them to insist that it is the duty of his detractors to prove him wrong in any area of disagreement. It is not uncommon for them to practically insist that a verse be presented that states the exact opposite of a Ruckman teaching in order to justify opposing him. However, the burden of proof is borne by the one who presents a theory. If a Christian believes Ruckman has not proven his case, but that his theory has been presented as fact in a clever enough way that could deceive the simple (Rom. 16:18), a Christian has the right to point out that the threshold of evidence has not been reached to declare a speculative teaching to be an established Biblical fact. If accepted rules of hermeneutics have been breached in the process of proposing a theory, that can also be pointed out. If the Bible plainly teaches the exact opposite of a given theory, of course the Christian should demonstrate it from Scripture. But often Ruckman is guilt of teaching as fact what is mere speculation, such as teaching that Ham had a homosexual encounter with his father Noah in Gen. 9:22, to provide a real example. Ruckman doesn’t teach that as a speculative theory, but rather he says that “There is no doubt about the meaning of verse 22 in the English text. Ham’s boys have a sex problem… [here he brings up Gen. 19 and Rom. 1] There is not the slightest doubt, whatsoever, about the meaning of Genesis 9:22.” (Genesis commentary, 1980 printing) A Christian is not required to present a verse that says in effect, “Ham did not…” to prove Ruckman wrong. Ruckman is the one responsible for proving his speculative, imagination-gone-wild theory regarding Gen. 9:22 is in reality beyond doubt as he claims. He finds a mystery word or phrase in an obscure verse and lets his imagination run wild without revealing that was all his basis for his belief. When a Christian realizes that Ruckman has not proven his case time after time, he can dismiss Ruckman’s claims outright, determine he is not a trustworthy teacher, and move on.
Ruckman on a rare occasion will bring up a hermeneutical rule as if he respects and follows them. The following is a case in point:
A good rule in theology is never build your doctrine on a verse about which there is some serious question or doubt. (Ruckman, Peter. The Book of Luke. Pensacola, FL: BB Bookstore, 2013, p. 139)
Ruckman’s own teaching when applied to himself rules out his own heresies! Ruckman sometimes pulls out accepted hermeneutical principles to use against cults and others he disagrees with, but refuses to apply those same principles to his own teachings. And he has plenty of followers who are willing to look the other way or quickly seek to change the subject when confronted. Ruckman’s cross-references are only as good as their accuracy. In fact, on some occasions, it looked almost as if he had pulled random verses out of a hat just so a long list of references could look authoritative! The following example is drawn from his reference Bible. Each verse is checked out and it is demonstrated that there was no sound Biblical basis whatsoever for his position in spite of the list of references provided:
During the Tribulation, the Jews in Jerusalem will be sacrificed on an altar and eaten (Psa. 16:4; Mic. 3:3; Zech. 13:8; Rev. 6:9-11), and they will be a tenth of the population of Israel… (Ruckman Reference Bible. 1st edition, p. 922)
Every verse he provided to back up his statement is listed below in order:
Ps. 16:4 Their sorrows shall be multiplied that hasten after another god: their drink offerings of blood will I not offer, nor take up their names into my lips.
This passage is not specific enough to support what Ruckman is saying. To use it as specifically as Ruckman does in the prophetic sense, it does not stand up to scrutiny as a proof text because it does not answer the following type of questions: When will this take place? Is it animal blood or human blood of Jews? Could it be a case of drinking blood of dead enemies only as a ritual in celebration?
Mic. 3:3 Who also eat the flesh of my people, and flay their skin from off them; and they break their bones, and chop them in pieces, as for the pot, and as flesh within the caldron.
This is given in the present tense starting with verse one. Some prophetic passages may not always be written in the future tense, but there must be sufficient details or context to determine a passage is prophetic. The context starting in verse one demonstrates that everything through at least verse three is directed at the “heads of Jacob, and ye princes of the house of Israel.” Ruckman even has the subtitle for the chapter as “God’s judgments against Israel’s leaders.” No one else is mentioned, so the “who” of verse three are not the foreign enemies of Israel committing this cannibalism, if it is meant to be taken literally as such.
Zech. 13:8 And it shall come to pass, that in all the land, saith the LORD, two parts therein shall be cut off and die; but the third shall be left therein.
Where is cannibalism in this verse? It’s not there.
Last passage. So far he has struck out every time.
Rev. 6:9-11 And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:
And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?
And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.
Case closed. Not a single passage Ruckman provided backed him up with the specifics he came up with. We see this often when we look up a long string of references Ruckman lists after teaching something questionable. This example is proof that Ruckman can’t be trusted outside of basic Christian teachings (some of which he denies or obfuscates anyway). Therefore, no Christian should read after Ruckman.
Here is another instance when Ruckman invokes a hermeneutical rule: … “never base a Bible doctrine on an obscure verse or a verse about which there is little agreement as to meaning.” (Bible Believers’ Bulletin. Feb. 1992, p. 2) On the same page he calls this hermeneutical rule “so primary and so standard”, yet he often abandons it in teaching his strange doctrines. We will provide another example where we believe he ignores his own rules.
Ruckman often utilizes Ecc. 8:4 in his writings to bestow an extra measure of authority on the KJV. This verse reads, Where the word of a king is, there is power: and who may say unto him, What doest thou?
However, such a practice does not line up with accepted rules of hermeneutics. Notice this example where he invokes a portion of said verse:
With absolute TIME determined by England (Greenwich), with absolute LOCATION determined by England (longitude), and absolute TEMPERATURE (British thermal unit) rooted and grounded in England, a Bible suddenly pops up in the same place—in the universal language of the twentieth century. … It was translated under a “king,” and “where the word of a king is, there is power.” (Ruckman, Peter. The Book of Ecclesiastes. Pensacola, FL: BB Bookstore, 2001 reprint, p. 192)
The way Ruckman uses Ecc. 8:4 is totally devoid of its context. The context throughout the chapter is the authority and power of a king because of his position and the authority he represents. It is not even remotely about the authority of a Bible translation associated with a king. Although King James approved the plans for the translation and provided the finances for the project, he was not among the translators. Although it is right and proper to associate his name with the translation, it is not the word of King James, and its power does not derive from him. How Ruckman —who had a doctorate and knew better— used and abused this verse could be used as an example in hermeneutics courses on how NOT to interpret the Bible!
Our opinions regarding what the Bible leaves unclear must be in subjection to what is clear in the Scriptures. Otherwise, we can wander from one absurdity to another. We would have more “biblical” authority to say that the Bible teaches that Joseph is coming back to earth someday riding on a unicorn, and he is going to use the horns of his unicorn to poke and prod and push people together to the ends of the earth based on the wording of Deu. 33:16-17 than for Ruckman to say that Satan fathered Cain (an example of one of his odd teachings). What was just stated about Joseph and unicorns is laughable, but if Ruckman would have taught it there no doubt would be loyal Ruckmanites backing him up with a straight face and accusing others of going too far in exposing him. If wisdom and balance and careful exegesis are not a characteristic of someone’s teaching, it doesn’t matter how many degrees they have, or how high an IQ they are purported to have, or how many books they’ve read or written, or how many souls they’ve won, or how many times they’ve read the Bible, or how much of it has been memorized. Although God can use these things, they are not a substitute for wisdom, balance, and careful hermeneutical practices.
Example of general rules of biblical hermeneutics
- The literal or obvious meaning of Scripture is generally the true meaning.
- Figurative language must be carefully distinguished from its opposite, and interpreted according to its nature.
- Deductions, or inferences are not to be drawn from any text or passage, until its meaning has been ascertained.
- No interpretation of any passage is to be entertained, which goes contrary to the Analogy of the Faith.
- No interpretation is correct which is contrary to the known nature of things.
- When any doctrine elsewhere clearly taught, is omitted in any passage, that passage is to be interpreted in harmony with the doctrine omitted.
- No passage is to be interpreted separately from the context, nor in such a way as to contradict the context.
- No interpretation is correct, if it run opposite to the general design of the writer.
- Of one or more possible senses, which a text may reasonably bear, that is to be preferred which best agrees with the design of the writer and the general harmony of the faith.
- No interpretation is correct, which violates the grammar, or the idioms of the language in which the Scriptures were at first written.
- Comparisons drawn from the social or material world, for the purpose of illustration, are not to be interpreted, as applying in every particular to the subject which they are intended to explain; nor is any doctrine to be founded on such comparisons.
- No interpretation is correct when it bases any doctrine on a mere phrase.
- When any doctrine is stated, or event described in different passages, the briefer statement is always to be interpreted consistently with the more extended.
- No interpretation is to be entertained as sound, which violates the explicit definitions of Scripture. (Dobie, David. A Key to the Bible. New York: C. Scribner, 1856)