This is the reality of Bible study; the deeper you go, the greater the rewards. Yes, you will be blessed at the surface level, but why stay there when you can dig deeper and find ever greater treasures? The purpose of this book is to give you the necessary tools for digging deeper into the Word and to teach you how to use them. The goal is the ultimate treasure of divine truth!

Hermeneutics is derived from the Greek word meaning “to interpret.” Traditionally it has meant “that science which delineates principles or methods for interpreting an individual author’s meaning.” However, this is being challenged, and the tendency in many circles today is to restrict the term to an elucidation of a text’s present meaning rather than of its original intent.

I would oppose even the practice today of using “exegesis” for the study of the text’s meaning and “hermeneutics” for its significance in the present. Rather, hermeneutics is the overall term while exegesis and “contextualization” (the crosscultural communication of a text’s significance for today) are the two aspects of that larger task.

Three perspectives are critical to a proper understanding of the interpretive task.

• First, hermeneutics is a science, since it provides a logical, orderly classification of the laws of interpretation.

• Second, hermeneutics is an art, for it is an acquired skill demanding both imagination and an ability to apply the “laws” to selected passages or books.

• Third and most important, hermeneutics when utilized to interpret Scripture is a spiritual act, depending on the leading of the Holy Spirit.

The hermeneutical enterprise also has three levels.

When we try only one and ignore the others, we end up with a false message. Those who take only a third-person approach are seminary profs with their heads in the clouds, speaking to no one but their own kind. Those who take only a first-person approach are subjective and living in a monastery, with God’s Word relative only for themselves. Those who take only a second-person approach are also subjective but use the Bible as a club, always challenging everyone but themselves. We must study Scripture with all three in the order presented, always seeking the passage’s meaning then applying it first to ourselves and then sharing it with others.

Scholars since the New Hermeneutic have been fond of describing a “hermeneutical circle” within which our interpretation of the text leads to its interpreting us. However, such a closed circle is dangerous because the priority of the text is lost in the shared gestalt of the “language event”. A spiral is a better metaphor because it is not a closed circle but rather an open-ended movement from the horizon of the text to the horizon of the reader. The sacred author’s intended meaning is the critical starting point but not an end in itself. The task of hermeneutics must begin with exegesis but is not complete until one notes the contextualization of that meaning for today.

Hermeneutics is important because it enables one to move from text to context, to allow the God-inspired meaning of the Word to speak today with as fresh and dynamic a relevance as it had in its original setting. Moreover, preachers or teachers must proclaim the Word of God rather than their own subjective religious opinions. Only a carefully defined hermeneutic can keep one wedded to the text.

The basic evangelical fallacy of our generation is “proof-texting,” that process whereby a person “proves” a doctrine or practice merely by alluding to a text without considering its original inspired meaning.

The Bible was not revealed via “the tongues of angels.” Though inspired of God, it was written in human language and within human cultures. By the very nature of language the Bible’s univocal truths are couched in analogical language, that is, the absolute truths of Scripture were encased in the human languages and cultures of the ancient Hebrews and Greeks, and we must understand those cultures in order to interpret the biblical texts properly. Therefore Scripture does not automatically cross cultural barriers to impart its meaning.

HERMENEUTICS AND INTENDED MEANING#

The goal of evangelical hermeneutics is quite simple—to discover the intention of the Author/author (author = inspired human author; Author = God who inspires the text).

The problem is that while the original authors had a definite meaning in mind when they wrote, that is now lost to us because they are no longer present to clarify and explain what they wrote. The modern reader cannot study the text from the ancient perspective but constantly reads into that passage modern perspectives.

INTERPRETATION AND THE PROBLEM OF DISTANCE#

It is difficult to understand conversation, let alone written texts. Paul Ricoeur talks about the distanciation gap between the people of the Bible and us. How do we bridge that gap to find out what Zechariah or Luke was trying to say? Many find that an insurmountable obstacle to interpretation.

William Klein, Craig Blomberg and Robert Hubbard (1993:12-16) discuss four areas of distance

1. Time (both in the recording of the stories [the Gospel writers had to use many sources, Luke 1:1-4] and the words and expressions used)

2. Culture (customs and practices mystifying to us)

3. Geography (nations and cities about which we have little or no knowledge)

4. Language (the Hebrew language changed over the Old Testament period and both Ezra and Daniel used Aramaic in portions of their books; the Greek in the New Testament, resulting in different translations for passages)

Yet these are not insurmountable obstacles; the problem is we cannot discover the answers inductively but have to use the best sources we can to explain these factors.

The question is about priorities: what is important enough for our time and money?

THE INSPIRATION AND AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE#

The Bible has an inherent sense of authority, seen in the constant use of “Yahweh says” in the Old Testament and the aura of divinely bestowed apostolic authority in the New Testament.

The chart below has important implications for hermeneutics, for it means that there is an authority gap the further we remove ourselves from the intended meaning of the Word.

The level of authority moves down as we go from text to reading to application; therefore, we must move upward as we make certain that our contextualization approximates as closely as possible our interpretation, and that this in turn coheres to the original/intended meaning of the text/author.

The only means for true authority in preaching and daily Christian living is to utilize hermeneutics to wed our application as closely as possible to our interpretation and to make certain that our interpretation coheres with the thrust of the text.

MEANING IS GENRE-DEPENDENT#

The genre or type of literature in which a passage is found provides the “rules of the language game” (Wittgenstein), that is, the hermeneutical principles by which one understands it. Yet this also occasions great debate, for there is significant overlap.

• Large portions of the prophetic books contain poetry and other portions contain apocalyptic.

• There is epistolary material in apocalyptic (such as Rev 2—3) and apocalyptic material in the Gospels (e.g., the Olivet Discourse, Mk 13 and parallels) and Epistles (such as 2 Thess 2).

For this reason some doubt the validity of genre as an interpretive device, arguing that the intermixture of genres makes it impossible to identify genres with sufficient clarity to make them useful as hermeneutical tools. However, the very fact that we can identify apocalyptic or poetic portions within other genres demonstrates the viability of the approach.

The presence of genre is an important point in the debate as to whether one can recover the author’s intended meaning (Hirsch calls this “intrinsic genre”). All writers couch their messages in a certain genre in order to give the reader sufficient rules by which to decode that message. These hints guide the reader (or hearer) and provide clues for interpretation.

THE SIMPLICITY AND CLARITY OF SCRIPTURE#

Since the late patristic period with its regula fidei (“rule of faith”), the church has wrestled with the “perspicuity (Webster: “plainness” or “clarity”) of Scripture,” that is, whether or not it is actually open or plain to one’s understanding. People can hardly be blamed if, after noting the numerous possible interpretations of virtually every biblical statement, they cease to affirm the principle that the Bible is easy to understand! However, this is to confuse hermeneutical principles with the gospel message itself. It is the task of bridging the cultural gap from the original situation to our day that is complex, not the resultant meaning.

Luther (in The Bondage of the Will) proclaimed the basic clarity of Scripture in two areas: external clarity, which he called the grammatical aspect, attained by applying the laws of grammar (hermeneutical principles) to the text; and internal clarity, which he called the spiritual aspect, attained when the Holy Spirit illumines the reader in the act of interpretation. It is clear that Luther meant the final product (the gospel message) rather than the process (recovering the meaning of individual texts) when he spoke of clarity.

The principle of perspicuity was extended to the hermeneutical process as well, leading to misunderstanding in popular interpretation of Scripture and a very difficult situation today. The need for hermeneutical principles to bridge the cultural gap was ignored, and individualistic interpretations abounded. For some reason, no one seemed to notice that this led to multiple meanings, even to heresy at times. Hermeneutics as a discipline demands a complex interpretive process in order to uncover the original clarity of Scripture.

Yet this in itself causes confusion, and the average person is again justified in asking whether biblical understanding is increasingly being reserved for the academic elite. It is not.

• First, there are many levels of understanding: devotional, basic Bible study, sermonic, term paper or dissertation. Each level has its own validity and its own process.

• Furthermore, those who wish to learn the hermeneutical principles that pertain to these various levels may do so. They are not restricted to any “elite” but are available to all who have the interest and energy to learn them.

Basic hermeneutics can and should be taught at the level of the local church.

THE UNITY AND DIVERSITY OF SCRIPTURE#

A failure to grasp the balance between these two interdependent aspects has caused both evangelicals (stressing the unity) and nonevangelicals (stressing the diversity) to misread the Scriptures.

Diversity is demanded by the analogical cast of biblical language. Since few books in Scripture were addressed to similar situations, there is great variety in wording and emphasis. Moreover, the doctrine of inspiration itself demands that we recognize the personalities of the sacred authors behind their works. Each writer expressed himself in different ways, with different emphases and quite different figures of speech.

• John used “new birth” language to express the concept of regeneration, while Paul used the image of adoption.

• Paul stressed the faith that alone could lead to regeneration, while James emphasized the works that alone could point to a valid faith.

These are not contradictory but diverse emphases of individual writers.

The issue is whether the differences are irreconcilable or whether a deeper unity underlies the diverse expressions of the various traditions in Israel and the early church. Yet we dare not overstate the unity of Scripture, so as to remove James’s or Paul’s individual emphases. Such can lead to a misuse of parallels, so that one author (say, Paul) is interpreted on the basis of another (James), resulting in an erroneous interpretation.

Nevertheless, behind the different expressions is a critical unity.

The concept of diversity is the backbone of biblical theology, which I believe is the necessary link between exegesis and systematic theology (centering on the unity). While it is true that the finite human can never produce a final “system” of biblical truth, it is not true that one can never “systematize” biblical truth. The key is to allow the system to emerge from the text via biblical theology, to seek biblical categories that summarize the unity behind the diverse expressions of Scripture.

THE ANALOGY OF SCRIPTURE#

In contrast to the regula fidei (“rule of faith”) of the Roman Catholic Church, Luther propounded the analogia fidei (“analogy of faith”).

Luther opposed the centrality of ecclesial tradition and believed that Scripture alone should determine dogma. On the basis of the unity and clarity of Scripture, he proposed that the basic doctrines must cohere with and cannot contradict the holistic teaching of Scripture. However, for Luther the system still had a certain predominance.

Calvin took the final step, suggesting the principle of analogia scriptura (“analogy of Scripture”) as an alternative.

“No single statement or obscure passage of one book can be allowed to set aside a doctrine which is clearly established by many passages” - Milton Terry

I would strengthen this by adding that doctrines should not be built on a single passage but rather should summarize all that Scripture says on that topic. If there are no clarifying passages (e.g., on baptism for the dead in 1 Cor 15:29 or a compartmentalized Hades in Lk 16:22-26), we must be careful about seeing a statement of dogma.

Moreover, all such doctrinal statements (for instance, on the lordship of Christ or on eternal security) should be made on the basis of all the texts that speak to the issue rather than on the basis of proof-texts or “favorite” passages. Such an approach results in a “canon within a canon,” a phenomenon in which certain passages are subjectively favored over others because they fit a system that is imposed on Scripture rather than drawn from it. This is a dangerous situation, for it assumes that one’s preconceived ideas are more important than is the text. Also, it misinterprets Scripture.

Few biblical statements are theoretical - that is, holistic - descriptions of dogma. Rather, a biblical author’s statements apply a larger doctrine to a particular issue in a specific church setting and stress whatever aspect of the larger teaching applies to that situation.

Analogia scriptura is the method by which we do this.

THE PLACE OF THE READER IN INTERPRETATION#

Hermeneutics, until very recently, has never considered sufficiently the power of the reader in coming to understanding. It has too often been assumed that to read is to understand, especially after Scottish “common sense” reading gave the impression that we all have the capacity to interpret automatically what we read. However, that is not true.

Every person brings to the task a set of “preunderstandings,” that is, beliefs and ideas inherited from one’s background and paradigm community. We rarely read the Bible to discover truth; more often, we wish to harmonize it with our belief system and see its meaning in light of our preconceived theological system.

Our preunderstanding is our friend, not our enemy. It provides a set of understandings by which we can make sense of what we read. In this sense we are all “reader response” interpreters. The problem is that our preunderstanding too easily becomes prejudice, a set of a prioris that place a grid over Scripture and make it conform to these preconceived conceptions. So we need to “bracket” these ideas to a degree and allow the text to deepen or at times challenge and even change those already established ideas.

As readers, we want to place ourselves in front of the text (and allow it to address us) rather than behind it (and force it to go where we want).

The reader’s background and ideas are important in the study of biblical truth; however, this must be used to study meaning rather than to create meaning that is not there.

EXPOSITORY PREACHING#

The actual purpose of Scripture is not explanation but exposition, not description but proclamation. God’s Word speaks to every generation, and the relationship between meaning and significance summarizes the hermeneutical task. It is not enough to recreate the original intended meaning of a passage. We must elucidate its significance for our day.

Exposition means a Bible-based message, usually a series taking the congregation through a book like Isaiah or Romans. A topical message can be expository provided it asks, What does the Bible say about this issue? and then takes the congregation through what God’s Word says on that issue.

Walter Liefeld says that an expository message has hermeneutical integrity (faithfully reproduces the text), cohesion (a sense of the whole), movement and direction (noting the purpose or goal of a passage) and application (noting the contemporary relevance of the passage). Without each of these qualities, a sermon is not truly expository. Some have a false concept of exposition as a mere explanation of the meaning of a passage.

Unfortunately, although the people go away impressed by the learning demonstrated, their lives often remain untouched, and they are convinced they can never study the Bible for themselves but just have to go back every Sunday to hear the “expert.”

The preacher must ask how the biblical writer would have applied the theological truths of the passage if he were addressing them to the modern congregation.

“the communication of a biblical concept, derived from and transmitted through a historical, grammatical, literary study of a passage in its context, which the Holy Spirit first applies to the personality of the preacher, then through him to his hearers” - Haddon Robinson defines expository preaching

CONCLUSION#

The process of interpretation consists of ten stages.

Exegetical research can be subdivided into inductive study (in which we interact with the text directly to form our own conclusions) and deductive study (in which we interact with other scholars’ conclusions and rework our findings).

The Inductive Study#

The inductive study of the Bible takes place primarily in the charting of the book and paragraphs in order to determine the structural development of the writer’s message at both the macro (book) and micro (paragraph) levels.

The result is a preliminary idea regarding the meaning and thought development of the text. This is important so that we interact with exegetical tools (commentaries and so forth) critically rather than uncritically, merely parroting the views of others (an all too common problem in term papers).

The Deductive Study#

Deductive study utilizes stages 3-6 together as separate but interdependent aspects of exegetical research. Here all the tools—grammars, lexicons, dictionaries, word studies, atlases, background studies, periodical articles, commentaries—are consulted in order to deepen our knowledge base regarding the passage and to unlock the in-depth message under the surface of the text.

One major purpose of deductive study is to take us away from the contemporary meaning of the word symbols in the text, which, because of our preunderstanding and personal experiences, we cannot help but read back into the text. We could not do this without exegetical tools, for without help we know too little about that ancient period. Therefore we must use the inductive and deductive sides together to understand the “meaning” of the text.

The Contextual or Theological Reasearch#

Finally, the contextual or theological research completes the task of interpretation, moving us from the textual meaning (what the Bible meant) to the contextual meaning (what the Bible means for us today).

The “hermeneutical spiral” takes place not only at the level of original intended meaning, as our understanding spirals upward (via the interaction of inductive and deductive research) to the intended meaning of the passage, but also at the level of contextualization, as our application spirals upward (via the movement from biblical to systematic to homiletical theology) to a proper understanding of the significance of the passage for Christian life today.

• Biblical theology collates the partial theologies of individual passages and books into an archetypal “theology” of Israel and the early church (thus integrating the Testaments).

• Historical theology studies the way the church throughout history has contextualized biblical theology to meet the challenges and needs of the church at various stages of its historical development.

• Systematic theology recontextualizes biblical theology to address current problems and to summarize theological truth for the current generation.

• Homiletical theology (so called to stress that the sermon preparation is part of the hermeneutical task) applies the results of each of these steps to the practical needs of Christians today.

The ten stages of interpretation is adapted from Eugene Nida and Charles Taber’s study of the process of translation (1974). The theory is based on the belief that the crosscultural communication of ideas is never a straight-line continuum, for no two languages or cultures are linked that closely. A “literal” or unitary approach always leads to miscommunication. Instead, each communication unit must be broken up into “kernel ideas” or basic statements and then reformulated along the lines of the corresponding idioms and thought patterns of the receptor culture. This is necessary not only at the basic level of translation but also at the broader level of interpretation as a whole. It is the exegetical aspect (grammar, semantics, syntax) that uncovers the kernel ideas, and the process of contextualization that reformulates them so that they speak with the same voice to our culture today.