Reading Notes (Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics pp.

15-25)

Part 1: The Search for Meaning: Initial Directions

Why should Bible readers be expected to study principles of interpretation?

In the case of ancient documents written in other languages, we need to make a

special effort to take into account their original setting through a method known as
grammatico-historical exegesis.

As a whole, the Bible is a fairly clear book to read. The divine character of
Scripture suggests that we need to adopt some special principles that would not
be relevant to the study of other writings.

Chapter 1: Who Needs Hermeneutics Anyway

Traditional meaning of the term “hermeneutics” – the discipline that deals with
principles of interpretation.

When writers use the word hermeneutics, most frequently what they have in mind
is biblical interpretation.

As a Roman Catholic scholar has expressed it: “If anyone is able to speak in an
absolutely unambiguous fashion and to make himself understood with irresistible
efficacy, such a one is God.

The Bible itself tells us that the essential prerequisite for understanding the things
of God is having the Spirit of God (1 Cor. 2:11) and that the Christian, having
received the anointing of the Spirit, does not even need a teacher (1 John 2:27).

We need hermeneutics, not precisely because the Bible is a divine book, but
because in addition to being divine, it is a human book.

The potential for misinterpretation is almost always there.

We have been taught hermeneutics all our lives. It may well be that the most
important things we learn are those that we learn unconsciously.

What matters is learning to “transpose” our customary interpretive routines to our

reading of the Bible.

Every time you receive an impression, your mind verifies whether it is a fact
already filed away; if not, it relates that new impression to previous ones so you
can make sense of it.
Your brain is like a grid that filters all new data. If a previously unnoticed fact does
not fit the grid, your brain has only two immediate choices: (1) force it into the
grid by distorting the evidence or (2) reject it altogether. The latter is the
unconscious equivalent of, “My mind is made up – don’t bother me with the facts.”
There is however, a third option: admit your ignorance and set the new fact aside
until your grid is able to filter it.

Our daily practice of interpretation requires a fairly complex (though usually

unconscious) process that focuses on language and history, using both terms in a
fairly broad sense.

With regard to both language and history, the interpretation of the Bible poses a
challenge for us. Accordingly, an accurate understanding of Scripture requires
what has come to be known as grammatico-historical exegesis.

The term exegesis implies that the explanation of the text has involved careful,
detailed analysis. Grammatico-historical indicates that this analysis must pay
attention both to the language in which the original text was written and to the
specific cultural context that gave rise to the text.

The attempt to bring our preconceptions into conformity with the biblical text has
created an exceedingly large and complex scholarly discipline.

When we read the Bible we come across a much larger number of details about
which we are ignorant than is the case when we interpret contemporary English
texts.

The problems of biblical interpretation are usually our problems, not the Bible’s!

Fundamentally, the Bible is quite a simple and clear book. We, howeve, are sinful
and ignorant. Whether because of our limitations or our laziness, we often fail to
bridge the distance that separates us from the biblical text, and that is what gets
us into trouble.

The meaning of a passage can be considered at various levels:

1. Linguistic level
2. Historical setting
3. Teaching (meaning) of the passage
4. Historicity of the narrative
5. Literary setting of the event
6. Broader canonical context
7. History of interpretation
8. Present significance of the passage
The broader canonical context is how does the passage relate to the whole canon
(the complete collection) of Scripture. To ask this question is to move toward the
concerns of systematic theology.

On the history of interpretation:

While it is very important to distinguish the meaning of the biblical text from the
opinions of subsequent readers, there is in fact a close connection, since today we
stand at the end of a long tradition. It is not really possible to jump over the last
twenty centuries as though they had not transpired. All of us quite frequently,
though unconsciously, assume that a specific interpretation is the meaning of the
text, when in fact we have simply assimilated (through sermons, conversations,
etc.) what the history of the church has preserved.

The extent to which the Bible affects our lives is at least a measure of how much
we have understood it.

It is a little misleading to focus so much on the problem passages that we forget

how clear most of Scripture is. (We need to keep reminding ourselves of the
essential clarity of the biblical message because a textbook on biblical
interpretation, by its very nature, focuses on the problems.)

Can anyone interpret the Bible in a completely dispassionate way? Since everyone
(even an atheist) has some kind of faith commitment, doesn’t that commitment
always intrude itself on the exegetical process?

If the Bible is indeed a divine and unique book, should we not expect to use
principles of interpretation that apply to it in a special way? By all means.

General hermeneutics are criteria that are relevant for the interpretation of
anything.

There is also such a thing as biblical hermeneutics:

1. Only the Spirit of God knows the things of God. Consequently, only someone
who has the Spirit can expect to acquire a truly satisfactory understanding of
Scripture

2. The essence of God’s revelation – the truth – is shared by all who believe. We
need no one to supplement, let alone contradict, the message of the gospel.

3. God’s message to us is consistent. To put it differently, we should interpret the

various parts of Scripture in a way that accords with its central teachings.
 • A Word of God corrupted by the ignorance and inconsistencies of
human beings would no longer be the Word of God. We may not pit
one part of Scripture against another, nor may we interpret a detail of
Scripture in a way that undermines its basic message.

4. A satisfactory interpretation of the Bible requires a submissive predisposition.

• The desire to keep God’s commandments, the determination to do God’s

will – this is the great prerequisite for true biblical understanding.
• E. D. Hirsch claimed it was impossible to validate meaning if it was not
connected with the author’s truth-assertions and distinguished from
significances of a text.

At present, there are, in general, four main models for understanding the Bible:

1. The proof-text method (often naïve)

2. The historical-critical method (has been judged sterile)

3. The reader-response method (often reactionary to the second)

4. The syntactical-theological method (holistic in involving both historical and

practical applications)

Amid all this dramatic change, we have come to realize that the word meaning is
currently used to include at least six separate senses:

1. The referent
2. The sense
3. The author’s intention
4. The significance that a passage has
5. Its value
6. Its entailment