In Depth Bible Studies

Hermeneutics Study

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/

subjective

ADJECTIVE:

1a. Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world: a subjective decision.

1b. Particular to a given person; personal: subjective experience.

objective

ADJECTIVE:

1. Of or having to do with a material object.

2. Having actual existence or reality.

3a. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic.

3b. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.

I. What is Hermeneutics?

a. Definition: hermeneutics

i. SYLLABICATION: her·me·neu·tics

ii. NOUN: (used with a sing. or pl. verb) The theory and methodology of interpretation, especially of scriptural text.

iii. Yahoo! Reference: American Heritage Dictionary

1. http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/

II. Types of Hermeneutic Systems

a. Title: Hermeneutical Systems

i. By Dennis McCallum and Gary DeLashmutt

ii. (http://www.xenos.org/essays/hermsys.htm)

b. The Allegorical Method

i. History - This method was used by many 2nd & 3rd century church fathers. It was established as the preferred method of interpretation by Augustine and was dominant in Catholicism throughout the Middle Ages. It is also used by amillenialists in interpreting unfulfilled prophecy.

ii. Definition - The literal meaning of the text is either, not the true meaning, or only one of many meanings. The elements of each passage have a corresponding spiritual reality which is the "real" or ultimate meaning of the passage.

iii. Problems - Since there is no objective standard to which the interpreter must bow, the final authority ceases to be the scripture and becomes the interpreter. Whose allegorical symbols are right? This question leads to the establishment of a church hierarchical authority which effectively replaces Scripture as the true locus of authority.

c. The Literalistic Method

i. [NOTE: Not to be confused with the Grammatical-Historical Method, which is sometimes referred to as the “literal” or “normal” method of interpretation.]

ii. History - This method was used by the Jews after the Babylonian Exile. It is also used by extreme fundamentalists and many cults (Children of God, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, etc.).

iii. Definition - Every word is taken absolutely literally including figures of speech and symbolism. Historical background is considered unnecessary and ignored. Any deviation from this rule is regarded as sacrilegious.

iv. Problems –

1. Subscribers always use it selectively

2. It makes scripture unintelligible, contradictory, and unlivable (i.e., Lk. 14:26).

d. The Naturalistic Method

i. History - This system arose during the Enlightenment (18th century). It is used by old-line liberal theology as their basic hermeneutic.

ii. Definition - The naturalistic world-view (i.e. the universe is a closed system of cause and effect) is the standard by which scripture must be interpreted. Scripture becomes intelligible only as ancient man's attempt to explain nature. It also assumes that religion has evolved through several stages which can be used to date the material in the Bible.

1. Miracles are rejected as primitive explanations or myths.

2. The goal is to rediscover the "true record" (i.e., the "historical" Jesus, or the "strata" in the Pentateuch) within the legendary accounts of the Bible.

iii. Problems –

1. It makes an unproved world-view the final authority.

2. The attempt to separate the historical from the "legendary" has been proven to be impossible.

e. IV. Neo-Orthodox Interpretation

i. History - Neo Orthodox theology arose after World War I which shattered the optimism of liberal theologians. Its founders, Friedrich Schleiermacher and Karl Barth, began a movement which dominates both Catholic and Protestant theology today.

ii. Definition - Neo-orthodoxy takes an approach to theology that places the religious experience of the interpreter in the center. The Bible is important for stimulating such an experience. When it does so, it "becomes the word of God" for that reader, at that time. Neo- orthodox theologians are generally willing to accept the conclusions of the naturalistic theologians regarding errors in the Bible, but feel that these do not affect the reader's ability to encounter God through it.

1. Through seeing the wonder and rapture of the disciples as they behold the "miracles" of Christ, we can enter into the same sense of rapture. Thus, as we see the amazement of the disciples when they behold the resurrected Christ, we too are amazed to find that He has risen in our hearts. Of course, whether Christ actually did rise from the dead is not important. Thus the Neo-orthodox theologian can declare, "He is risen!"

2. Neo orthodox theologians routinely refer to miraculous events as though they were history, when they actually believe that the experience of the authors rather than the events themselves that are historical.

iii. Problems –

1. The separation of "truth" or "encounter with Jesus" from the factual content of scripture lowers the Bible to the same level as any other book about religion.

2. Unless Christ was physically raised from the dead, our experience of his "resurrection" is superfluous (I Cor. 15:12-19).

3. The criticisms of the naturalistic school also apply.

f. Devotional Interpretation

i. History - This method grew out of the post-Reformation as a reaction against sterile creedalism. This is the system unconsciously used by most Christians today.

ii. Definition - The devotional method focuses almost exclusively on what is personally applicable and edifying. It tends to ignore context, historical background, and other important interpretive principles.

iii. Problems –

1. Extremists use Col. 3:15 to support being led by the Holy Spirit on the basis of feelings.

2. Devotional interpretation can easily lead to uncontrolled allegorizing and inaccurate interpretation through eisogesis.

3. While the goals of this approach to Scripture are commendable, a critical analysis of the text has to precede the devotional question.

g. Ideological Interpretation

i. History - The "New Criticism" advanced in the 1940's began to focus on text and reader rather than on the author. The author has no more authority over the meaning of the text than anyone else because: 1) He didn't realize his own bias at the time he wrote, and 2) We have no way to read his mind and thus know his intentions.

ii. Definition - Ideological interpreters approach the Bible looking for material relevant to their ideology. They usually are open about the fact that they have an agenda, and usually claim they are correcting oversights from earlier years by focusing on their area of interest. Most ideological readers also entertain a reader-centered hermeneutic. They are skeptical about ever knowing what the author intended to say, and focus instead on how the text affects the modern reader.

iii. Examples –

1. Feminist Theology - seeks to study women in the Bible, and to demonstrate that the more enlightened speakers in Scripture were anti-patriarchy. In general, their studies are intended to explode the myth of patriarchy and to uncover cruelty to women. Some advance gender-neutral language in translation, including God as "she," sometimes based on lady wisdom Prov. 1:20ff.

2. Marxist or Liberation Theology - seeks to show that the true intent of God in the Bible is to teach that poor and oppressed classes should be liberated from their oppression by the love of God. Tends to interpret redemptive language in terms of economics and political power. They see class struggle in much of the conflict in the Bible.

3. Deconstruction - Postmodern readers see the Bible, not as teaching liberation, but as a tool used for exploitation. The Bible is propaganda intended to show why patriarchy is appropriate. The authors of Scripture sought to legitimize the status quo of society by teaching people to obey their authorities. They also sought to justify aggrandizement of the state of Israel and the subjugation of neighboring peoples.

iv. Problems –

1. Most systems seek to decrease reader bias through the application of rules. These rules introduce objectivity to the interpretive process, according to traditional methods. Ideological and reader-centered methods hold that objectivity is never possible, because the text was never objective in the first place. The first act of interpretation was the author's decision about what to include and what to exclude in his text.

2. Also, the uncertainty of language means modern readers might as well supply their own interpretation, because we will never know what the "true" interpretation should be. To hold to such a thing as a "true" or "real" interpretation is naive, because such faith fails to take into account the arbitrary nature of language and the social forces which distort people's (both readers and author's) view of the world.

3. Consequently, reader-centered theories are openly biased, but they hold that in this they are no different than other approaches except that they are more honest and less naive.

4. The reader is not under the authority of Scripture. Scripture is pressed into the ideological mold of the reader, leaving the reader in authority.

5. NOTE: This marks the end of the excerpt from Hermeneutical Systems by Dennis McCallum and Gary DeLashmutt at http://www.xenos.org/essays/hermsys.htm

h. Cultural Relativism

i. NOTE: This hermeneutic system is not listed by Dennis McCallum and Gary Delashmutt

1. Nevertheless, since it is becoming increasingly more popular in modern times, it deserves some brief comments

ii. History – Emerges in the wake of changing cultural norms and the increasing popular acceptance of cultural relativism in the modern era.

iii. Definition – Passages such as 2 Timothy 4:13, Romans 16:16, and 1 Corinthians 5:1-5 provide the introductory model. Based upon the assertion that parts of the New Testament (as well as the Old Testament) were EITHER given in deference to or according to the particular customs of the historic culture of the time in which a book was written OR intended to govern a unique situation in a local church community. Consequently, such portions of scripture are viewed as not intended to apply to other cultures, which have different customs. And similarly, instructions that are viewed as responses to unique situations in one local church are viewed as not intended to apply to the Church in general.

iv. Problem –

1. This hermeneutic takes passages that are rare and somewhat unique (such as 2 Timothy 4:13, Romans 16:16, and 1 Corinthians 5:1-5) and uses them as a model for interpreting large amounts of scripture with a focus on those instructions that don’t accord with modern culture and values. This is a quintessential case of the exception becoming the rule.

2. This hermeneutic inescapably creates “a canon within a canon,” in which only parts of the New Testament are essential and binding while other parts, even significant amounts, are not authoritative or binding. Thus, this hermeneutic simply gives readers a means to whittle down how much of the New Testament is really God’s instructions for the universal Church of all ages.

3. It is not possible to establish a clear standard for determining what was and what was not intended to be binding on the Church of all ages. The standard is functionally driven and set arbitrarily according to modern moral perceptions. And therefore, this justification can be used broadly without a rigid limit. The reader is no longer under the authority of Scripture. Scripture is categorized as binding or not binding depending upon the cultural perceptions of the individual reader, making the reader the authority and not the Scripture.

4. The fundamental distinction at the core of this hermeneutic is a novel contrivance of modernity. Since the original recipients were living in the particular culture and the situations that these instructions were intended to govern, from their vantage point as the original audience all portions of the Scripture would have been understood as binding. Therefore, early Christians, particularly those who originally received the books of the New Testament would not have been able to make this distinction between parts that were unique and cultural and therefore not binding and parts that were universally binding.

5. This hermeneutic is designed entirely for its practical benefits to modern culture. The chief purpose and effect of this hermeneutic is to make some items that were expressly forbidden in Biblical times acceptable to modern practitioners while conversely making it inappropriate, “legalistic,” or “judgmental” for anyone in modern times to enforce portions of the New Testament that are deemed “cultural” or “uniquely situational” by modern audiences.

6. Often, the passages to which this hermeneutic is applied contradict the application of this hermeneutic outright. Passages such as 1 Timothy 2:11-15, 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, and Ephesians 5:22-24 are attributed to giving deference to current Greek cultural norms despite the fact that Paul explicitly appeals to Old Testament Scripture or essential Christian truths rather than surrounding culture.

III. History of the Grammatical Historical Method

b. After the close of the New Testament, church writers of the earliest period (often called the "Apostolic Fathers" - approximately 70 A.D. to 202 A.D.) followed the interpretive methods of Jesus Christ and his apostles

c. In his articulation of interpretive principles, Augustine included grammatical-historical rules right alongside his allegorical interpretive principles - although in practice Augustine leaned heavily toward allegorizing, discarding grammatical-historical principles (Hermeneutics, Henry A. Virkler, copyright 1981 by Baker Books, p. 60-61)

d. Championed during the Reformation as Reformers began to abandon the allegorical methods of the Roman Catholic Church

e. http://capo.org/premise/95/oct/p950906.html

f. “Luther published hermeneutical principles in 1521 and 1528 with his German translations of the Bible. These two lists can be summarized as follows.”

i. on the necessity for grammatical knowledge;

ii. on the importance of taking into consideration the times, circumstances and conditions;

iii. on the observance of the context;

iv. on the need of faith and spiritual illumination;

v. on keeping what he called the "proportion of faith" for maintaining the perspicuity of Scripture (often called the analogy of faith principle);

vi. on the reference of all Scripture to Christ

g. Footnotes:

i. F. W. Farrar, History of Interpretation (London: Macmillan, 1986), 232.

IV. How does the grammatical historical method work?

a. Grammatical – we begin by taking what we can determine as the normal, everyday meaning of the words, phrases, and sentences to the extent possible.

i. Grammar and vocabulary, including from original languages, is critically considered

ii. Verb tense and which “person” is speaking

iii. Word meaning

iv. word usage (the way that word is used throughout a book or testament, etc.)

v. Figures of speech, such as metaphors, similes, etc. are taken as such, including symbolic visions, etc.

1. Matthew 26:27-29, 1Corinthians 11:25

2. Matthew 16:6-12

vi. Plain statements (non-figurative) are taken non-figuratively

1. Mark 14:72

vii. Allegorical interpretation should be limited to only those passages where allegory was the clear and expressed intent of the speaker.

1. often people associated with “types and shadows”

2. Examples

a. Correct: Galatians 4:21-31; I Corinthians 10:1-4

b. Incorrect: Story of Samson, Story of David and Goliath

b. Historical –

i. Historic circumstances surrounding a statement or passage are critically considered

1. considerations

a. The Bible was written to common people, and is understandable to anyone. However, it was written thousands of years ago to a different culture. Therefore, as modern readers, we have to try to recover a general sense of the meaning of words, phrases and concepts in the ancient cultures.

b. In order to properly interpret a passage, we are not interested at first in the question, "What does it mean to me?" but rather, "what did it mean to those whom it was originally written?"

c. scripture cannot be properly interpreted apart from examining it in light of its ties to the actual historic circumstances surrounding and proceeding it

2. consider the author/speaker

a. what was his intent?

b. What was his personal circumstances?

c. What was his historic circumstances?

d. When in God’s plan (which covenant) was the statement made during?

i. Joshua 1:3

3. consider the original audience

a. what prior revelation had they received?

b. What were their personal circumstances?

i. 1 Corinthians 14

c. What were their historic circumstances?

d. When in God’s plan (which covenant) was the statement made?

e. Is there any statement specifically telling us how they interpreted the teaching? (this is more rare)

i. Matthew 21:45

f. understand the way the original audience would have interpreted similar passages

i. Deuteronomy 18:14-18, Acts 3:22, Acts 7:37

g. compare to Apostolic Christian authors of the first and second century

i. this is only helpful and in no way binding

ii. after a generation or two removed from the in history this becomes irrelevant because of the distance from the apostles and original audience

4. Use Bible dictionaries or other sources to discover customs, money, geography, timeframe, etc.

ii. Progressive Revelation

1. “Law of First Reference”

a. theory that the first time a concept is mentioned in scripture, it is defined for us in that passage

i. Genesis 1:1, 8, 14-19

b. this serves as the precedent/definition of that term from that point forward (when it is used as a technical term or phrase)

i. some terms are defined and used to refer to more than one concept

1. Genesis 7:23

2. Genesis 21:17, 22:11, 28:12, Colossians 1:16

2. Progressive nature of divine revelation of scripture is critically considered

a. scripture cannot be properly understood apart from examining it in light of the prior revelation available to and the original audience and how that original audience would have understood the statements

b. While God's purpose for man has never changed, His strategy in accomplishing that purpose has changed. He has dealt with man under different "covenants," or programs. Therefore, it is important to ask "Under which program was this written?"

c. Primary application of the passage will be to the people operating under that program, but not necessarily to others.

d. Special Circumstances: the ministry of Christ before the cross

i. prior to the New Covenant (Last Supper/Pentecost)

ii. his teaching was given to be the basis for the people under the coming New Covenant

iii. Example: Matthew 23:2-3

3. Considerations

a. It should not be assumed that original audiences of earlier passages understood information that is not revealed until later passages

i. information that is not revealed until later passages cannot be used to interpret earlier passages where/when that revelation was not previously disclosed

ii. when determining how an original audience would have interpreted a statement or teaching we cannot factor into their understanding information that they did not yet at that time possess (even though that information might be revealed in later passages)

iii. Mt 24:31, 1Co 15:52, Revelation 8:2

b. however, when compiling a start to finish composite the information in all passages (early and later) should be combined into a uniform whole

c. Logic

i. *Objectivity

1. if subjective considerations will dictate our interpretation we might as well abandon a scripture altogether

ii. Law of Non-Contradiction

1. Your interpretation must make rational sense. If interpretation is permitted to contradict, there in no reason for hermeneutics since we may make a passage say whatever we want.

a. Proverbs 26:4-5

iii. Context

1. let scripture interpret scripture

2. Moving from inside outward

a. Surrounding verses, chapter, book, testament, entire Bible

i. particularly passages on the same or similar topic

ii. particularly passages by the same author

iii. keeping in mind progressive nature and order of divine revelation

iv. Harmony

1. Because of the progressive nature of divine revelation, connection to prior revelation must be considered