Hermeneutics,
approaches to Biblical Interpretation by
Jack
Kettler
Definition of Hermeneutics:
Biblical hermeneutics
The art and science
of interpreting the Bible. *
Hermeneutics is the
science of interpretation. Theologically and
biblically speaking, it is the
means by which a person examines the Bible
to determine what it means. There
are different kinds of hermeneutical
approaches. The Roman Catholic Church
maintains a hermeneutical approach that puts
the Roman Catholic Church above
the Scriptures. The Protestants put the
Scriptures above the church. **
In short, hermeneutics
is the division of knowledge that is
concerned with the interpretation of the
Bible.
The Scripture that is most
mentioned
when approaching the subject is:
“Study to shew
thyself approved unto God, a workman that
needeth not to be ashamed, rightly
dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy
2:15)
Pulpit Commentary deals with
this text
from Timothy in a forthright way:
Verse 15. - Give
diligence to present for study to show,
A.V.; handling aright for rightly
dividing, A.V. Give diligence. The A.V.
“study,” if we give it its proper
force, as in the Latin studeo,
studium,
studiosus, expresses the sense
of σπούδασον exactly. Zeal,
earnest desire, effort, and haste, are all
implied in it (comp. 2 Timothy 4:9, 21;
Titus 3:12; 2 Peter 1:10, 15; 2 Peter
3:14). To present thyself (παραστῆσαι,
to present); as in Luke 2:22; Acts 1:3; Acts
9:41. In 1 Corinthians 8:8 it has
the sense of “to commend,” nearly the same
as δόκιμον παραστῆσαι. The
rendering, to show thyself, of the A.V. is
a very good one, and is preserved in the
R.V. of Acts 1:3. Approved (δόκιμον;
Romans 16:10; 1 Corinthians
11:19, etc.); one that has been tried and
tested and found to be sterling;
properly of metals. This, with the two
following qualifications, “a workman
that needeth not to be ashamed,” and "one
that rightly handles the Word of
truth," is the character which Timothy is
exhorted to appear in before
God. The dative τῷ Θεῷ
is governed by
παραστῆσαι,
not by δόκιμον.
A workman (ἐργάτην). How natural is such
a figure in the mouth of Paul, who
wrought at his trade with Aquila and
Priscilla (Acts 18:3), and was working
night and day at Thessalonica, that he might
earn his own living! That needeth
not to be ashamed (ἀνεπαισχυντον);
not
found anywhere else, either in the New
Testament or in the LXX. Or in
classical Greek. Bengel hits the right force
of the word when he renders it “non
pudefactum,” only that by the common
use of the passive participial form (compare
ἀνεξιχνίαστοςἀνεξερεύνητος
ἀναρίβμητος, etc.), it means further
“that cannot be put to shame.” The
workman whose work is skimped is put to
shame when, upon its being tested, it
is found to be bad, dishonest work; the
workman whose work, like himself, is δόκιμος,
honest, conscientious, good
work, and moreover sound and skilful work,
never has been, and never can be,
put to shame. St. Paul shows how to secure
its being good work, viz. by its
being done for the eye of God. Handling
aright the Word of truth (ὀρθοτομοῦντα
τὸν λόγον τῆς ἀληθείας).
The verb ὀρθοτομεῖν
occurs only here
in the New Testament. In the LXX, in
Proverbs 3:6, it stands for "he shall
direct [or 'make straight'] thy paths;" and
so in Proverbs 11:5. The idea
is the same as that in Hebrews 12:13, “Make
straight paths for your feet (τροχιὰς
ὀρθὰς ποιήσατε).” But this does
not at all suit the context. We must look,
therefore, at the etymology of the
word. Ὀρθοτόμεω
must mean "to
cut straight," and, as the apostle is
speaking of a good workman, he must
be thinking of some work in which the
workman's skill consists in cutting
straight: why not his own trade, in which it
was all-important to cut the
pieces straight that were afterwards to be
joined to each other (see ὀρθότομος
and ὀρθοτομία)? Hence, by an easy
metaphor, “divide rightly,” or “handle
rightly, the Word of truth,” preserving the
true measure of the different
portions of Divine truth. (1)
Does everyone interpret the
Bible the
same way?
Without going into
detail, there are differing schools of
interpretive methodology. Some of them are,
the allegorical method, the literalistic
method, the naturalistic method,
Neo-Orthodox
interpretations, the redemptive-historical
hermeneutic and the grammatico-historical
method. This last listed methodology is the
principal interpretive method of
conservative Protestants.
What is the
Grammatico-Historical-Hermeneutical
Method?
This method of
interpretation focuses attention not only on
literary forms but upon
grammatical constructions and historical
contexts out of which the Scriptures
were written. It is solidly in the ‘literal
schools’ of interpretation, and is
the hermeneutical methodology embraced by
virtually all evangelical Protestant
exegetes and scholars.
Exegesis, the
interpretive Norm:
Exegesis (from the
Greek ἐξήγησις
from ἐξηγεῖσθαι'
to lead out') is a critical
explanation or interpretation of a text,
especially a religious text.
Traditionally the term was used primarily
for exegesis of the Bible; however,
in contemporary usage, it has broadened to
mean a critical explanation of any
text, and the term “Biblical exegesis”
is used for greater specificity. The goal of
Biblical exegesis is to explore the
meaning of the text which then leads to
discovering its significance or relevance.
Exegesis includes a
wide range of critical disciplines: textual
criticism is the investigation into
the history and origins of the text, but
exegesis may include the study of the
historical and cultural backgrounds for the
author, the text, and the original
audience. Other analysis includes
classification of the type of literary
genres
present in the text, and an analysis of
grammatical and syntactical features in
the text itself.
Eisegesis, the
Interpretive Danger:
Eisegesis (from Greek
εἰς
“into” and ending from exegesis
from ἐξηγεῖσθαι
“to lead out”) is the
process of misinterpreting a text in such a
way that it introduces one's own
ideas, reading into the text. This is best
understood when contrasted with exegesis.
While exegesis draws out the
meaning of the text, eisegesis occurs when a
reader reads his/her
interpretation into the text. As a result, exegesis
tends to be objective when employed
effectively while eisegesis is regarded as
highly subjective. An individual who
practices eisegesis
is known as an eisegete,
as someone who practices exegesis
is known as an exegete.
Next we will consider
an entry from a theological dictionary to
get an even better understanding of
our topic at hand.
HERMENEUTICS
Greek hermeneuo,
“to explain, interpret”; the
science of Bible interpretation. Paul stated
the aim of all true hermeneutics
in 2 Tim. 2:15 as “rightly dividing the word
of truth.” That means correctly or
accurately teaching the word of truth. The
apostle boasted that he did not
corrupt, or adulterate, the Scriptures (2
Cor. 2:17). A proper hermeneutical
approach will enable us to say the same.
Presuppositions
Bible interpretation
proceeds upon certain presuppositions that
yield certain clear principles by
which we must explain the word of God.
The Inspiration of Scripture. Behind the human
writers of the Bible books is the true
author of each, God Himself (2 Tim.
3:15, 16; 1 Pet. 1:16–21).
The Uniqueness of Scripture. As the word of God,
the Bible stands entirely apart from all
other literature, sacred or secular.
For this reason we cannot approach it in the
same way we would approach any
other book. It is its own interpreter. The
principles by which we seek to learn
its meaning are those the Bible itself
demands or proposes.
The Unity of Scripture. Though composed of
66 parts, the Bible is one book with one
divine author. It does not contradict
itself. Where we imagine it does, we simply
display our lack of understanding
of its meaning. Thus we must never interpret
any text of Scripture in such a
way as to make it contradict another.
The unity of
Scripture has other implications. The most
obvious feature of the Bible is its
division into two Testaments. Any system of
interpretation must come to grips
with their differences, similarities, and
relationship. These matters raise
some far-reaching questions, the answers to
which will have a strong bearing on
our hermeneutics.
The key to answering
those questions must be that all Scripture
is God's special redemptive
revelation, with the person and work of
Christ as its focal point. The
progressive nature of this revelation must
never be forgotten. Thus, while each
Testament throws light on the other, the
movement is always irreversibly from
the Old to the New. “He taketh away the
first, that he may establish the second”
(Heb. 10:9). The importance of this one-way
movement should be clear. There can
be no going back to OT shadows that have
found their substance in Christ. Those
premillennialists who insist that there will
be a return to animal sacrifices
in the millennium, a view based largely on
their interpretation of Ezek. 40–48,
fail to hold on to this fundamental
principle. A return to animal sacrifices
clearly controverts the central message of
the book of Hebrews. Any
interpretation of an OT prophecy that
produces such a conclusion is wrong and
must be abandoned. There can be no return to
Jewish sacrifices. The religion of
the millennium cannot regress from
Christianity to OT Judaism.
Not only must the
progressive nature of revelation never be
forgotten, it must never be abused.
That is, it must not become an excuse to
deny the plain meaning of OT prophecy,
or to replace what the Bible states in the
most literal fashion with idealist
or spiritualized interpretations. Those who
make over to the church all the
blessings predicted for Israel while
retaining all the curses for the nation
(and sometimes both are in the same verse)
are abusing the principle of
progressive revelation. Those who refuse to
see any reference to literal Israel
and her future in places such as Zech. 12–14
do the same. This is all the more
unreasonable when the language of the
prophet plainly aims at describing
literal Israel: "Jerusalem shall be
inhabited again in her own place, even
in Jerusalem" (Zech. 12:6).
Principles of
Interpretation
The Protestant
Reformation called the church back to the
Bible and demanded that it pay
attention to the plain sense of Scripture.
For centuries the fourfold sense of
Scripture had all but closed up the meaning
and message of the Bible (see
Allegory). The Reformers reinstated the
literal, or clearly intended, meaning
of Scripture as the only legitimate
interpretation. This approach depends
heavily on a grammatical study of the text
and has the invaluable advantage of
heeding what is actually written—a procedure
which modern schools of
hermeneutics have all but given up.
Context. The context of a
passage is both immediate and remote. That
is, it is in the surrounding verses
and chapters of the text being studied, but
it is also in related passages in
other books, especially by the same writer.
The proper understanding of a text
is always obtained by seeing it in its
context.
Scope. The scope of a
passage sets the boundaries of what the
writer intends to say or teach in it.
This will often be the key to understanding
a difficult expression or text.
Taking note of the writer's aim in writing
the passage, and setting the text
under consideration in its proper place in
accomplishing that aim, will help
the interpreter grasp its meaning.
Language. Morphology (the form
of words), lexicology (the meaning of
words), and syntax (the relationship of
words in a sentence or clause) are vital to
the understanding of any text. The
rules of grammar and the Scripture's usage
of language are indispensable to the
interpretation of the word.
Figures of Speech. Figures of speech
are too often neglected in Bible study.
Failure to identify them and give them
their natural force often leads to error. E.
W. Bullinger's great work on the
subject should be on every Bible
interpreter's bookshelf. It should be noted
that figurative language often occurs in
passages that demand a literal
interpretation. If I say, “Jim ran off like
a frightened deer,” I mean that he
literally ran off. The presence of the
figure simile does not alter the literalness
of his running off.
Typology. The Bible identifies
certain things, people, and events as
typical. That is, beyond their place in
OT history they foreshadow the realities of
the gospel. The ceremonial rites
and laws of Israel portrayed the gospel and
have been fulfilled by it. They
have therefore a unique place in Bible
interpretation, but they must never be
used to establish a doctrine that cannot be
established by the plain statements
of Scripture.
Symbolism. Symbols, especially
in prophetic passages, must be interpreted
as the Bible itself indicates (e.g.,
Jer. 1:11–16; 24:1–10; Ezek. 37). And it
should be noted that the
interpretation of a symbol is literal, not
symbolic. For example, when Rev.
17:9 tells us that the seven heads of the
beast are seven mountains, the
mountains are actual mountains, not a
further symbol whose meaning we are left
to discover (yet even the acute prophetic
scholar B. W. Newton fails to observe
this in his treatment of the passage).
Poetry. Poetry has its own
peculiarities. Insisting on treating poetry
as plain prose will not lead to the
Scripture's meaning but will obscure it.
Learning the features of Hebrew poetry
will open the word of God in a wonderful way
to the careful student.
Historical Interpretation. Scripture is
historically and culturally mediated. That
is, God dipped His pen in actual
history to give us the Bible. He did not
drop it complete out of heaven. The
historical background of the writer and
those whom he addresses will be of real
help in establishing his meaning. Here the
study of introduction* is important.
However, we must not
carry this emphasis on historical setting
too far. The Bible is historically
and culturally mediated but it is not
historically and culturally conditioned,
as most modern interpreters insist. By
conditioned they mean that it is locked
in its own time and place in history, that
it is a product of its time, and
that its meaning for us depends on our
ability to translate its ancient forms
(and myths) into a modern equivalent. This
has been the general procedure of
modern hermeneutical methods.
Rationalist critics
employed a grammatical-historical method
allied to literary criticism. Their
evolutionary view of the history of the
religion of the Bible governed their
approach.
Liberal critics,
following Friedrich Schleiermacher and his
consciousness theology,* adopted
romanticist hermeneutics to discover, not
what the written words of the Bible
actually mean, but what they mean for me. In
other words, the reader's response
took the place of the writer's intent.
Martin Heidegger's
early writings led to a school of
interpretation that tried to get inside the
mind of the writer to discover what he
meant. Heidegger's later writings
produced what is called The New
Hermeneutic.* This does not try to get
inside
the writer's mind but inside his world. The
idea is that it is only by
understanding the world projected by a Bible
book that we can understand it.
This is the adaptation of Form Criticism* to
hermeneutics.
All these methods do two
things. First, they fasten on to something
that is in itself a legitimate
idea—historical background, the writer's
purpose, the need to apply the message
personally—and blow it out of all proportion
so as to pervert it. Second, they
fail to come to grips with what is actually
written.
Dealing with what is
actually written is the great task of all
true interpretation. That is how the
Lord Jesus Christ and His apostles dealt
with the Scriptures. Any hermeneutical
approach that fails here cannot do justice
to Scripture. (2)
In closing:
How do we approach the
biblical
literature? And are there interpretive
difficulties?
For example, there
are differing views regarding the
interpretation of the book of Revelation.
Four common views are the historicist (a
method of interpretation which
associates biblical prophecies with actual
historical events), preterist (past
fulfillment), futurist (future fulfillment),
and the idealist (called the
spiritual, allegorical, or non-literal
approach) views. The book of Revelation
belongs to a class of literature called
“apocalyptic.” The Bible uses many
literary forms. For instance, the Bible uses
genera's such as; law, historical
narrative, wisdom, poetical, gospel,
didactic letters, or epistles, predictive,
and apocalyptic literature.
What portions of Scripture
would be
best for binding doctrinal teaching?
For purposes of this
study and using the book or Revelation an
example it should be noted that we
are dealing with a special genera of
biblical literature, namely,
“apocalyptic,” and there are a least four
major schools of interpretation that
involve rather substantial differences, it
is probably best not to use these
passages from Revelation to build an iron
clad case of binding moral doctrine.
Instead, we should look to the didactic
portions of Scripture. What we know
with certainty from the book or Revelation
is that Christ is coming again
physically at the end of history and the
wicked will be judged eternally, and
the righteous will inherit eternal life in
the presence of the Lamb who is
seated at the right hand of the Father.
Confessional Documents as
Reformed
Hermeneutic:
1. Confessions
delimit church power.
In an age when words,
especially words that make truth claims, are
always suspected of being part of
some manipulative power game, it is perhaps
counterintuitive to think of
confessions as delimiting the power of the
church. Yet a moment of reflection
makes it clear that this is exactly what
they do. An elder in the church has
authority only relative to those matters
that the confession defines. Thus, if
someone in church declares the Trinity to be
nonsense or commits adultery, the
elders have both a right and a duty to
intervene. Both issues are covered in
the Westminster Standards. But if someone
wishes to turn up at church wearing a
bright yellow suit or decides to become a
vegetarian, the elders have no right
to intervene. They might have personal
reservations about the person’s sense of
appropriate dress or wonder how anyone could
live without the occasional
burger, but it is not the church’s business
to address either matter. Indeed,
this is what stops churches from becoming
cults: clear and open statements
about where church authority begins and
ends, connected to transparent
processes of exercising that authority. (3)
As a primary interpretive
rule, Scripture
is the best interpreter of Scripture!
“Study to shew
thyself approved unto God, a workman that
needeth not to be ashamed, rightly
dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy
2:15)
Notes:
1.H.
D. M.Spence
and Joseph S. Exell, The
Pulpit
Commentary, Proverbs, Vol. 9, (Grand
Rapids, Michigan, Eerdmans Publishing
Company reprint 1978), pp. 498-499.
2.Alan Cairns, the Dictionary
of Theological Terms,
(Greenville, SC: Ambassador Emerald
International 2002), pp. 207–210.
3.Carl Trueman, Why
Christians Need Confessions,
(Orthodox Presbyterian Church, New
Horizons),
http://www.opc.org/nh.html?article_id=771
“To God, only wise, be glory through Jesus
Christ forever. Amen.” (Romans
16:27) and “heirs according to the promise.”
(Galatians 3:28, 29)
Mr. Kettler has
previously published articles in the Chalcedon
Report and Contra
Mundum. He and his wife Marea attend
the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr.
Kettler is the author of the book defending
the Reformed Faith against attacks,
titled: The Religion That Started in
a Hat. Available at:
www.TheReligionThatStartedInAHat.com
For more study:
*
For
a great source of theological definitions go
to Rebecca writes at Rebecca
Writes:
http://www.rebecca-writes.com/theological-terms-in-ao/