CHAPTERONE

The Need for

Hermeneutics

unddstandiry Scriptuc is an arduousandoften puzzling t3sk Consider

thc difrcult tensionsw€ 6c€ in this task:

Biblc is divin . wt it has comc ro s itr hunan form. Th. commands of

. fu d€ absolute, yct th. historic.l contcxt of th. mitings appcs to
. rclativiz cenain elcmcnr3.
divinc mcssagcmun bc cld, )!t naJly pa66ag.sse.m ambiguous.
dc d.podcnr only on th€ Spirit for instructioo, yet schola hip tu surely

S.riptur.s k€m to prcsuppos€a litcral md hktorical reding, y€t we arc

' aLroconffontcd by the ffgur:tivc and nonhistodcal (c.g., parabl4).
intcrpretation requircs thc inr.rprcto's pmonal iecdom, yct smc dc
r' glcc ofcxtcnml, corporatc authodry.ppcs imperrtivc.
Ttc objecriviiy ofthc bibLioi mesg. is Gscnrirl, yer our prc5uppciboN s€cm
to iDjcct a dcgrec ofsubjEtivity into thc int€rprctivc procsL

doubt every student ofthe Bible could add his or her own list of trouble-
ad perplexiry icsu€r.How ca.ow€ be successfi.in our attemptsto und€Istard
correcdy) We need e well-thought-out approachto interyrethg the
thar is where hermeneuticscom€sin.
is r big word-what you might ca[ a ffty-dolhr x'ord. It is a
telm Bibl€ schola$ us€ to reftr to the task ofexplainiag the meadtrg of

s&2" Ih! tbe Cbscb Linad tbe BtM(OdndRaeids Zltr(]edz\ r 7),y4a.

 In trodr.tios roB'bli.at In t?ryrctatiob The Need for Hermcneutics
$e Scriprues Bur wh.t is drc m€lnjng or rhis bir of scholar\ jargon? Cod \ Word it is be
rexr.onre\ ealsrhrr the vcrb htfn.n.u?irj mea^s-lo exphin, inierprei or
A Cr(ek Thouqh fie cennre\. if Peoplehr!' correcdyunderstood
ro ran\ j"',",.i-,ie l'r'...pt.t.d proPerprinciplerrnd metlods of interprera tion
late," while the noun ,rzmrn.;a mea|ls.tnterpreration" or -*iiJ*.a domrin-
r.r!.
"tr"nda;on_,, Usins the t"' '".t pnnciple'becomermoreobviousin rn un-farniliar
u! rhr Iesusexptainedlo rhe rwo discjprcson ,n. Frn;;, or;hiBt'ty icchrucal leglldocum€nr' lerm5'(\pres\ion!'
Irk..r:r.'
ro-aownat rtcmreon a'tr,"physic'
tnc scnpruressjd abour hjm tlk 24:271.rad usesrhe noun ir I Cor " we immedirtelvpercer\er
;;;;'*p" -..";s. and perhrpr Lncomprehensiblr'
rr:rU to reter to rhe gift ot inkrpr.tatioi of tonlre\. tn (ssence,
rhen. fie m€ssrgcHow rre we rc make\€nseofanriquark\'
nerm€neuucsrnvotresIn'crpreringor crptaining. In fietdsLikebibt;calsrudie. i"IJio, r'.rp i' a..ipt'.'i^g
or ,r,. weakandfopi, pnnciPle. or n'uuino\? who can tell us how 'o distin$i\h r
rrerrtur€. rr rcteA ro r}|e rask of exptrining rhe meMing ofr piece of writinq urll not do simplvto m*e up our o$n mcan-
ncrmeneubcsdcscnbes(hc principlespeoptcu\e to mdenrljrd whar somet}inq itrot ro,pn't'"- ^ ,orprr 1rlna? lt
ll*. i'.*ry . * ;1one who might be readilvrt haad we ntd 'ne helpof r
me.ns, to €omprehendwhat i message-wdnen, oral, or visuat_n endeavorine chs\ mght help in thc first \iruadon'
ti "..
H.i"lr.a al..i."-y. oi ralirg a phlio
con'ultng a t.*yer $ould bc helPtulin rhc second'
"'- e
vlb
At tim.s Jvcn ttre rnost straighdorwnrd communication is not so straightfor-
his daughter, "You will be
ward. For e*ample, to unde.standi fnhcr's statementto
Why Ilermeneutics? won't you)" wil require decoding various cues be
home by midni;ht, Probablv
-em;g' ol inditidual words fo derflmite uhether tlti' is o
vond rhe
Bur qha' doe. hermeneuricshJre io do witl rcadjng and ud(rsGndjng ";npli .r I commud $rI requre .r ' areitl sivsis ol $c enLire
rhe ioq"irv, - ^"^p.i"".
B'blc)Hrtcnl Cod\ peoplertuoughr}lerrultennj"
,*a ,"a.^,."a ,,r,1S".i"- ;.i"r;1". n"" much mure comPbcatrdfii' LAk it $hen onc qeck\r' d€coddm
of
"i'a to rlF \econd
tllrcs wrrhoui re(our\e ro hermrneub,\) Acru.Jly,rhr answer
aucs ancienttext *itten by peoplc in centunespast lust thinl ofthe great distaDces
tion is technicaly, no. For 6ough we might not alwaysUeco"scior,s ofit, wttiro"t tim€ and cultu-rebetween us and them
an orgamz€d appmrch or m€ansto understanding, we would not be able ro Ifthe goal is correctunderctandhgofcommunication'we needPrecePts an'1
com precepts and
prehend anFhing. metnods thit are appropriate to the task. Hermen€utics providcs the
Thinl ofnormal everydaylife. We engagein conversationsor rcad a n€wspa mcthods for rcquiriig an understanding ofthe Scriptures To avoid intelpretarion
ptr. and wc unconsciouJly inr.rprer md undersrmdchemeaning(we heu or re:d. thrt is arbitrary, erro-neous,or ihat simPly suits personal whim' the reader needs
wn€n $e watchr ieteusionprogram.lisren(o r lecrure.or readaI arrjcle
aboura rul€l or principies for guidancc. A deliberat€ attempt to interpret on the basisof
lamrrar\ubtecrIn our os,n,c'jrurelnd lMguage.wc inrerpretinrujriv€\ and s
r,i sensibleand agreed upon prbciples becones the best guaranteethat an nt€rPrcti
our consciously rhinlangof usingmerhods.Thoug *e are,ot aw_e of,r, are tion will be accurate.When we consciouslvset out to discover and emplov such
cmprol1ngmetnodrol interpretation$ar enableus ro undc.stMd Jccurat€t). "e principles, we investigateherm€ncutics.Thus, th€ basicgoal ofthis book will be to
fhi.
cxplainswhy nornal communicarion "works.', Ifrhe.e were system,unae.stand- establish,cxplain, and demonstrateprec€ptsand methods ro guidc rhosewho wanr
ing would occur only randon y or occariomlly, ifar all. "o to understandScripture corr€ctly.
Bur n readin8rhe BibteLl.ethjr?Canwe unde^bnd lhe Bibte.orrcc,lym.rch
by reading itf Some Chdstiarrsare convinced that we can. One seminarypmfesoi
:ells I'o: -i :ry1c student once interrupted a seminaron principles for u'nientand. Hermeneutics Defned
ing th€ Bible. Feartul that he might haveoffended th€ sddent;rhe t€acheraskedif
anltnng was wrong. TheArt and Scienceof Interpretation
Sobbing,the studentrespond€d,"I .m cryingbecause I feelso sorryfor you.,,
..-_-
'Why do you fc€l sorry for me)" The prof€ssorwasperplexed. "Because,,,said the Interpretationis ncitherm art nor a scicnce;it is both a scienc€and an ait'
student, "ir is so hard for you to undenr.nd rhe Bible. ijust read it and iod shows We use rules, pnnciples, methods, and tactics;we ent€r the wodds ofthe historian'
sociologisr,psychologist,and linguist-to name a few. Yet, human commun'catlon
_ While this approachto bibticirl interpretation may reflecra commendrble conn cannotbe reducedsolelyto quantifiableandpreciscrules.No mechanical s)stemof
dcncein Cod. ir ftveJ! a sirnpli\rjc,fld poroEirllydangcrola) udeBunding of $c tules will evcr help one und€rstand corccdy aI the implications or nuancesm th€
,x^umrnrtion ofLhe Holy Spinr d1d rhe chriry ofscriprue. As wr wilt see,rhe rote three words "I love you" asspoken by a teenagegirl to her bo!'friend, a hust'}ardto
ol Lhcspnr in mdersrandingCod's Word is urdrspensable. Th. spi,it.ondn... his wife of twenty-five ye&s, i mother to her child, or a tecnaBeboy to his mint-
God's peoplc ofthe uuth of rhe biblical messageand convicrsand enibtes them to condidon'54 Chew This is wherethe "art" ofinterpr€tationente6 io Adults mav
Ive consistendywith thar truth. But rhe Spirit,s help docs not replace the n€ed to ddr* dlev understmd the words 'cool" or "radical" (or arv populd teen ageword)'
mterpret biblical passagesaccording to thc principlcs of languagccommunicarion. but without krowing tne codesofyouth culture, thev mav be wide of the mirk
 Innodxrion t0 Bib1cat Intclpfrt,tiot The Nccd for Hermeneutics

In lighr of rhis, how much morc must modern bibticatinrcrpret€rsseckr() the Interpreter
bridgethe vasrlinguisric,historical,social,and culruralgapsthat cxistbetween The Rob of
the
anci€ntand modernworlds so that they may understandwhat rexB mean.we as in t}lc hermrneuticdl P'o(e\il wc mu\t
Whar role does l}le interPKrcr Plry
sumeurat pcoptecommunicatein ordcr ro be undcrstood,and rhis includcsthc
autholsof rhe s(npturrs.Hcrmrneuticrprovrdes
rrnderstJnd whJ an rulhor or sp€aker
,r suaregyrharwilt enrbtcuq ro
inlcndedro commDi(atc.
Ofcoursc, this presumcsthat thereis onty onc possiblemcaningofa rexr or
jr#r.,ilS,Hir"t
mfi.*1g+*r$* * *.prehensible but rarherinionscquenurl: morcimrortant
1T-iiZa".a. the phri'c wiu.br
utt€rance,anil rharou goal is ro undersrandrh€ aurhor,sinrentioni; wriring that winrrv'ki slope\'ln 'ontrJ5t'
llL"r"irilu"", p*ta 'now on $ho h* no id'r $hJl
tcxt. But ir is not rhat simptc.perhaps,givena spccificrext,we must askwheticr it "-"',i" il...p,.r'.*'ut' ro r tribcsm$ from K,]rmartan
'esrdcntofChi(Jso wi.ll
hr\' Jno$cr
hasonly one correcrmcaningor whethcr ir |nay accommodatcscvcrulor evcn
an iiii'ir. tr.ri r.* "r'", 'olor ir i! Thcnth(
inlinite numbcr ofpossiblc meii'ings (perhapsat diffcrenrl€v€ls).On onc side
the spectrum,som€saythar rhe or y correctmeaningofa text is rharsinAlemclr
of
I i'J]::.'l:*.-:il1?":
*ih*'**:ll ;:*'l'":]il.::l
'ng the original aurhor int€ndedit to have.,On thc other sidc srandtf,ose$,ho
Iji]" -i."""a
'J.'
*'.;*orldon
';:
rhc ba(isofwhli rhc) rcJdv knn$ ur havccxpe
irgue that meaninAis a funcrionofrsdcrs, not aurhors,and rhar anyreaCsmcrn
jng dcp€ndsupon the readers'perception
rioN. lerhrpsmcrinB rrside\mdcpcnddnrty
ofit_r Bctwccnthe two srandorhcr op :,::li:fi
F{{if:Pi.1',il.i1
wjll
r*ili::,]il';:T:1,?
u\ ro interptei JsP'\'ble'
it r\ lc'urarelv
in ,bc rexrsrhcm\clvrs, suide
Ilj.i'J".iI.*at,".r,,hrr
whrr therulhor mr r or ofwh trtcrrcrdersnndcntandliom rhcm.Therc
regrrdlc\\,,i
arc crucialbccauseour d€finirionofrhc raskofhcrmeneuticswill dependon our
rssrrc, *."'";-u'.q1*53i;i:*tl,il::tT
ili'J....Ji",*.''," lola to!
brinc to the task ofintcrPretaBon
answcrto whcr€ meaningrcsides-in a rcxr, in the mind ofthc rcadei,or in sorne -;fiTjl'tT"t;..-..€utics
combinationof thc two)a mustsiv€attentionto thcancienttextandthecon
je-il:*'"ffi
*'rm'j:H:*:H'"?T:IliJfi'ffi
:,'"T;i xl*"
.The narneoften asqrarcd wjth il" i","ro*"rn *.uum: everlonehJspreruPPo'idun\rnd Pteundcrlrrndngs
Til:::"il:::
$e sresson meanina.s I tun.lion ofrurllrial inte.rnD is u
r) Hirsch.He ani.ulalesa.d dcfcn.lsfiis vjcw in vLtiA4 in hta,pret41ian """ "
siry Pes, 1967)xnd ze .-rirr oJ!'leerelatio" (cloie4a: rnivcr;iry oi chicaso 1976)
rx)n.nt in the iield of biblicats(udi.s q.asK srend.hl.-rmpti.ron\ of Fomr criri.isn and T(dlim
\Ne* r trvcn: ytrlc r iliveF
An eany 0n,
c;ji*: :J'i'*'jli,llt#.il:;:::l:i'ff"il11i,i
.T*:"l,lTi
Cn(icism for Biblnal tnrerpftbtj.n." lBLT-7 ltt)58): lra'
1Akey,i8ur rEorg llle sevcralwe
could menrjoni! s E r\s\\, sella,NotrlCanila.tsn\tl
i ill.r,',.***-+
3$'m]"j';:':"'IjilT:,""1r'f r wrrn on'v
kclcy Unive'sityof Cdifomia prcss,t972). ihe subiect."Yet no oDe \hould.'pProJ(h b'blical intcrPrrratFn
tner u"
'Iwo
A,ints r.qune chriltlat)n hee Fir{, nr d,islolumc we ire usingrhc tem heimcndrtr) Drcundersundins. Thos( who rerd thc Biblc on\ from fie pcnpcctrvc"t
nr $hdi miehrlE cllted iLsrmdirn)mlsenk a sysr..m,ricstu.ty pincipbs ;d duhods
oi i;;;p,. i""a"r. p.'*ni.i..u.srrnces. who forBerthrr thc P^(ige s$ onBrnrrrvr^ffre
hrn)n seminalriinteB tite srhtei.nmchei D,lrhcy rreide8ger"fFuchs.FLhns. crdjner Lhcmcs'gt
rnd n(rf,u. to somc;odvelsr. cur shorr the rnrerpKtiv€P('cds\' Thcv under'rand
n!, hemereuis D a more phin)sophiel an* k, ideniifi,hos. s.nethins in rlt pN pc PcrD'c
t{'ay or b€comcexisrenrially srsnifi...t in the modernwortd Tn( r.rh ,.eq, hcnle;eutic' dcs.ril)6
can rturn. strictlyin teimsof rhc evcnt5Eoingon in thci' ('wn Ine' rn't ignotc,!hc
|ns prognn ro move h€mencu cs lron mere rutesfor undcNr<tin8 rells !) mo,e tuFrcr(hjn* of the tcxt and irt orignrl re.ipicnrs Thi\ r$uh' rD\cflou\ msundcr\tJn'irn8.nK
tna
undehrrndinsofunde^Endinri lrs practirioneNwould saylhey hrlc shihcdncnneneuti.s
our otrtr€
thar reoortedbv r Cin'ris lounselo' A womrn erplairrtrlto hcr thrrJPhr
$
rorlh or melelv .xplainre, r, pr)viding an jn-d<prhunde^ending of hum,n
cxbr.ncc n, turhonr God haa rota ner to d,vo(c her hulb]nd and rnarrt an:'i.:r 'niJ'.illll: ioJ.r].':
' n , +
rh<,ni-.iF! olrlr hcmunculr. ,equr,\ r lrpr,Jk dr\J.n,,1rhJ, h'*,<!, nd on ,,.r, w"s romanticrly involved). sh. citcd Paul'rcommma tn
n.n'\,mc'.nhqFFn<np.qr h-p,-*nrpJinrh,.rrfrchrtJ,rlotr\c.c.,,.rrd,h.\.
'rhisetron, thc ncl} man,'as the ke) 'o htr "drvin.- euidanceAi hulnorot l *l:,sou:':
1re ne lhri..rc. N4 ttstamdt Hern ntutics an.t t,hil*ophical tx{rrp,.n eth spo,idl - wa
ReJue4@ to Het le$(a Bahndnn, c4.1dh4 and Wiugosr.r, (txete, p,iernostr crand shewasabsolutell<eriuu' Alfiough modcrr)ffrnslrLion5clrnry tnrt I rur "'
Rrpnt5 this-w-oma
1r1,) Anofier helplul su,de t E v M.Knishr, rcz,r4 ,n 166 (,hrrdelphir: Fo(rrs:. L"il""*l ," *place th€ir;tu1 Lfcstvlc with a chrisri'n onc'
:::ilT^s,
l97tl).Saond, ierdcrs sil e)meriD.sen.lunrd rhc sinAularren "lrmeneuri. "i.yl)io y, tiis rde. ""u.,i"g
prcoccul;g4*iO her ruriral problcms,rcad hcr own mcaninsinto the Prssase.
k) , srEciticand self.a.kqo*ledscdizndFrjnr or tnme or,cterence rhat a, inremri;r
doD$ ro
n(rn'prrkF.{rkm^e..ur'ttvrtr.ropr}h,mf,r.racj.,,Jhhrddeot,,{),p,,,..,n,i,,,,..

" ''.,-
'
r n J r d e r i r i r r J p p n . r . h t h u r . r r e m r n hh' r m c n c , r s . a . t r . , w d \ i r c / J r n a| c { r h J r( , n
toms ro the pemednared confi.es of a fehinisr kleokrgy suh\titurc "blr.k," ,M.djst,. "tibendon,,
'Feudi,n" ror d)e word -fensisa or 51"::
BJil:::-r$::ii1ffi 1",
ffi :['j:'T:,T?;J:i
J"]fr
""*'","
rnd you can *c how adoptirs I tFme of Efcrcn e wil pFd;re, 4,td Fatb. ed. s b"+n Lrona"n Hoddrr rnd \rouJrnbn len l r lao 06
mjnc a .edjna or hemenelri. of rhe rexr
fr r s"*l; U"a,,t D".-tu 'Cnntl Rap''ls ''nJcPrn lod'i l la
 8 litrot&.edon to Blblie,t lrrclqr.rati,n Th€ Need for Hermcneutics 9

Is an accurareana\sis of the Bible, then, simply a maaer of applying with most like\ inrend€d'nd dre
. _
a-bsolutehonesty.nd accuracycertain precisctechdques! Thhgs arc not so simple ..,, irsclfcrn we recon\Lructthe mdmng th( aut})or
*.ipt.""rn"sr likelv unde^rood Anv apPraisal of "meanins"' 'nen'
When we try to understand eachother's communicaton, scicnttfc precision seims [i".]!,r'. (oaltion ofiext' author'arld 'udiencc
$b comPlcx
to elucteour grasp. In fict, even the so-calledobjective or hard scienceresearch€rs I,,i ti.. ilt" conria.,"tion
recogrize the influcnc€ ofvalues. D. Tracy obscrves,
TheTert
Iorne. daimsfcr a val& ftec t clnology od a hbtory free scicncehavccol- m€c\ag' 'ne au
lapsed.The hc.mencuticalchMcrd ofsciencch6 now becnstrcnslvaJFrned. How can the uiieran(eor texr rbelfhelP in discoreringthe
- th€ hr.rers undrrstoodl Clearlv one basic
Lvenin 'ocnce.$e m6r intcrprcrin orderio udcBrud.r rh^r htcnded to c,,n!c) or $e m€ssage
r-hatare ued w' mu't adopran
ili.r i" ," a.t.'*i". *€ meming\ of Lheterm'
$e mering of $ord\ that considers preciselv Lher rel:
No one €omesto rhe tark ofunderstanding asan obiectiv€ obsener. AI inr€r ,o0..".f' ," -a.^.*ainB
preten bring rheir own presuppositionsand agendas,and thesealfect rhe wavstlev .ii.,irr. a."",".;'.. ."*or rhvc. andconrexruai m€anin8( Briefl)' r'l'/"nalmcrn-
undenrand asw€ll asthe conclusionsthey draw, In addition, the writer or speakei i* 'p..'l* what some $o'd' or rerm' -referIo " In othcr $ord\' Pdrrof the
-uee' r<a largclerli pl'nr groving outridr $ar bcd\ aPPIe\
shom lne inierprcrcrwishesro undcrstandaho opcrarerwirh a serofpresuppo!- mianingof d'e ""ra
aspects
tions. We humansmediate aI our understanding tlrcugh a grid ofpers;nal hiory in the fatl. Denotativ€ and connotative meaningssPeal of complementdy
meaning A biologist could pro-
and bias.Our pdor experiencesand knowledge ,-our total background----.hapcwha; ofa worat mern;ng Words mav denote a speciEc
we p€reive and how we undenrand. So how can we study Scripture re*s objec vidc a specific,scientific definition oftre€ that would rcprese.t irs tbnotntttt mean'
tively and accurately?The answeris: by using aJI€srablishedhermencuticalaDDroach inq. But in a specific instance the word "tree" might take on sPecial d€finitive
tn.r sdl providesrlllddds ro guide us in navigatjngrnroughrhc rariable.nd rub_ iu ,oi"otrtio , aswhen P€terobs€rvesthat Jesusdied on a trec (t ?et
"g" ",
2:24). I; that instancethe term comesto have a unique siglincance for Cbristbns'
jective human factors.
Connotations. then. are a word's emotional overtones-the Positive or negative
The Meaning of the Message associationsit conjures uP beyond what the word suicdv denotes Th€ "hanging
trce" used for executing cnminals also convelt connotative mea ng ln theseuses,
tree merns more than the biologist\ explanation, iust asthat scientific exPlanation
Any r}?€ ofonl or wift€n cornmunicationinvotvesttuEccxpressions ofmeanhg: goes beyond the pictue or view of a tree in thc vard Pctert use also illustrates
(r ) wnat th€ speakeror wiiter meant by what he or she said; (J) what the recipient
contaa*al neaniig, for when we read his words we quicklv conclude that he does
actualf/ und€nrood by the statemcnt;and in someab6tmcrsense,(3) what meaningis
not refer to a literal tree at all. ln the cont€xt, uee
actualy encodedin thc text or uft€mncci6€|fr0 Ofcoune when we seekto undentand
Of couse words do not occur i,r isolation in a tcxt. All languagesPres€nt
th€ m€rning ofa biblical text, all we hav€ is rhc texr itse[ The aurhor's intended
their words in a system of grammatical and literary structures sentences,p"ra
rneaning cannor be tuly uncover€dsincehe or she is no longer availableto explain
graphs,poems, discourses,3nd cven ldger units We must mderstand how the bib
what was 'm€ant." The ofiginal r€cipientsrcmain equaly inaccessible,so we car:not [cal language\tuncrionif we are to undersrand$h]r the wirer\ mednrio sr] A
askthem to rell or how rhcy undentood th€ message.Only by meansofthe wrjnen larger dimension iovolved in undeNtanding an utteranceis the spccificliterary genre
or wdting style the author employed to conveyhis or her messagcWe intcrPret thc
'D 'rt^cy, Plumlit, dnrl Ambiguu!. words in a poem differently from those in a leaer when we know w€ de looking at
Hemendti.s, RetiArof, rope (san Fmncisco Harper,
r$7), 33. a poem rarher than i lefter. or vice versa.W€ expect ambiguity or figrtres ofspeech
/Tho* who believe rhat wom€n on to conve) a mearungin po€!r) fi '\ dilT.rdnrfiom $d more conLtcre\en\e of
be or&hed hinidm bave no diin uftv deredine rhose
b.bl r es/8p. rhdr emphr\a Lhem.dt rcle somen pLyed in blbhmt h no-y v. uoie words in a historical nafiative.
rrele'o' rne rBdr'otut LndpFundnS of Lhemte ot woncn in rhe ! t-!rh rh/r pF, tudesorditu.,on "ro
In frct. much reccnt.rully hastocu'td rrponrhr literarydimen'rontof Lhe
Po,ni io drose pase8es th€y b€li$e teach the subordinarion of women p€sDpp6jtio.s and asendas Bible.bo*' ofindividudi pJsrgc\ and ofwhol€ booL. snd an) rcrponsiblepr.ce
.learly innuene whar eviden€ inrerprcteF v,lue mo€ hilhly. ^ clNic dmmentarion of tnjs phe-
nohenon d.un ir w surdey, sLtEt, Sabbath, wa/, dsd woM (scottdate, pA: ne€ld pes. 19Bt) clureto inreD.er S.riDtue must addressthis dimcnsion. \ryhcnn'e receivca letter in
l0l.olowing a mo€ senantielly b,*d the rnail, we expect it to follow a fairly standrd format. For the most part, the
nodel, c B cai.d hvesriaares dF phenomdon of
meanng in sme detair in 7re lznAuge ana twgery aJ tbe BrrA (phitadelphiai w€sllnitutei t93o), biblical writers also usedand adaDtedliterarv forms and conventionsthit wcr€ stu'
esp€.ially pp. 32 {r. Under ,oeanha he ,s*s Ere.enriat mearina, s(lE, value, entailme . and d{rd at th€ time thev wrote. Thus. in order to understandthc books ofthe Bible as
'n rnlion TnF ovdap M r oJr rhR arFsories (leJ' rhe m€nme tr..drd in
n lhe Fx iFf prcb literary documents and to appreciateth€ various dimensior$ both cognitive and
',o+., qrh rereFnulm€nins. thoJsh Lharm erlaus -ha a rd -me,n" "
"bly Flr'p\ n6r "o*ay aerthetic---ofwhat God hasgiveo us in the Scriptues, we needto employ the insiShts
For v.ruabre disusioE of rh€ *mntic €larios F J Ltt@, sef,4rtt s,2 yot'. (c&tjidee. cat
bri4e uni.,6ity pres,, r97, or s.ulkqnn, hircipLs {s@rrrr, 2n t ed. (ordod. Blackw€-t, t9r7) and methods of literary criticism. The use ofliterary critical (or historicar) methods
l0 Introdx.tion to Biblical Itt rprcta.i|n The N€cd for Hcrmeneutics

to understand the biblical *..itings n€ed not diminish our conviction that they ire ;d. nor rhemerning$r wouldddrcrmine bascd"n ('ur po'ition('frdvincedtu\'
the divinc Word ofcod. Th€ir uniquenessas Scripture pcrrains ro rhcir conrenr as Tlli'L*r"orn.*'. t-tt'ourly. rr harer,cessto Ihc tull crnonof scnPruewc
',11fi.*,t'i tuned our' \o to 'pe* Ho$e!tr' rn 'cclungto unJ(r
God's revelation and to rhc processGod cmployed to conveyhis truth. Parr of that *t','t.
proces!includcdth€ specificandvaryingliteraryfearurcs. ".rv
' rext w( crnnorimpo* 'nsishrthrr i\ br.ed'n hcr
fili ,i. ..-i"g "t eiv€n
What do€sit mean to study the Bible Fom a litcrary stmdpoint) L. Rykcn -L;^n ALkast w( mtr\r.dmrl mar Dc rrumanauthorcouidnot h lve intrndcJ
providcssomehclp. Speakingof the litenry dimensionsofrhe NT, hc arguesthal wc know i'nl! Fom sub*qucnlelelari"n Funncr' arm("r
I tl"r r'.rrn.",g. *t '
we must bc "alive to the imagcsand experi€ntialconcretcncssofthe New Tcstrmenf' "-i.--]ir""-" .r u'r, ,'v t'rvc pa\cd 'rn' c t}le lar NT book war wrincn Asain' w(
(ed thc OT, we would hastcnto add) whil€ rcsisting"thc impuiseto rcduceliterari, llj'"1.-i,""*. . t''t'ti.rl ruihor rnf'rmrtion rhrr wc po\\c\shccrus{ofour dc'u
textsto abstractpropositionsor to move beyondth€ tcxt to the history behindit." ".l'."tas' lf$e RrJ inru $' hihl'cil ('\15 nformJrr.n the autrr'r
i'i"i.i.i*.*
'-^1,',r
Fut}l€r, "this meansa willingnessio acceptthe text on its own rermsandto con- dbrort thrir mtrnrg For examplewhcn r hrblicalsn'cr
"., ""t".".
'.i..r. "" cir$- I l.r 40:22'. he m.rvscu emplorI flat cmh.mt'dcl
.entrate on rcliving drc cxp€riencesthat arc presented."r'To tale a [re|ary approach #i,
to the Biblc meansentcring,li\ing, and understeding irs world bcforc we movc "irri. "rtri
t;"a'r hc,:venhthrone.the crrth krokr like r flrr' round di'L r
ffii". r+o.
beyondit to abstractmcaning.Ir also mcansrhar we srudythe texts in tcrms of iil; ht."..n
", ." tu\ tcrD)''cquir$ thar wc rcsisrLhct(rnPlauonrt' rmp\c our \ien
th€ir genrc, that is, in k€epingwith their own conventionsand intentions. lr r€quires ii.. or"Ul upon rhe rcrr' I h"r i' u c mrr\tnor isumr Lhrtlhc s ord ' i'ilc
that we apprcciate the artistry and b€aury of r€xts, rhat we savor rhc numc€s of "-ra'i* lclered rnc crrrh wr' c"mpl(rclv round Bc(rFc we kn"$
iloii?' ,r'n ,r'.
-"tllic-i."t
language,and that we apply appropriatc techniquesfor untangling rhc mcaning in "",t',"
.ft rt".u." have to makc a specialctTort ro udershnd rhe impact
(he ext€nsivcpoctic s€ctions-Ryken summarizeshis principlc in the formula "meming "f ""
lia ." rheir oriShJ reciPients who lackedthat knorvledge
O" *.1i..'
-'-
through form." This simplyissertsthar "we cannorderivethe meaningofthe Ne*' "..a. ,- '*"nl levelsbctausethc Biblc containsnot onlv the wordsof
**t"
iir"
pcoplc
Testamcnt(or drc OT) without first examinin8its form."r, Part of thc meaning thc final authorsor cdirorsof cach book but also thc words of hisrcrical
recorded in the Biblc deriv€sfrom the fo.ms th€ authors cmploy€d in thcir writing. Jose storie"thcv rcport We may bc intensclvinttrcstedin whai thc historical
ofrhc acrualli'ordshc
We nsk misringmuch ofsigniGcanceifwe aftcmpt merelyto formulareabstracrproposi l"*" *ia "" 'p*#.,i*"sions, burwe don't havetranscripts $n'
tions liom the textswe analyze.How much ofthe artisticrlcgmce ofpassages such 'r
sDokc{Drobrbivin Arrmai{) wc ha\( only th€ l-\'rn8'br''' CosPcl")riFnail\
asPsa23 or I Cor l3 wc will m'ssifwe cxrracronlv thcoloeicalstatemcnts. ininGreet<-dn,,-t.n.laredrnt,,modcrDlangrrlgc'TorchrtvcthcrrPurp'*c
for writing, they selcctcdand recastlc$rs'x'ords ind actionsin thcir urnque\aiys'
TheAuthoratd theAudie ce Wcdo noi meanthar thc Evmgelistsdistort€dor misconsrrued wharlcsussdd' nor
assomeBibl€ scholarsaver,that thc Flvrngelists actuallyattributcdlvordsto Jesus
Although we cannor ask the authors direcdy for a clue to tie mcaning thc\ thathc ncversaid.Ou r point is simplvthat s'e must rakcthe Biblc asit is lve mrrsr
intended to conve\',e examination oftheir rcspectivecontcxts (general li!'ing con rcsistr€ading"in" our prililegcd infomnrion
ditions and specificlifc circumstances),whcn known, can provide helptul informa Jcsus'parible ofthe Good $ aritanillustratcsour t€ndencvto readi larcr
tion in the interpretive pK,cess. Knowing all the condirions that surround thc undcrstanding into our itrterpretati()n ofbiblical rcxts lvhen we call thc S'maritin
recipientsof the original messag€provides turther insight into how thev mosr liket-v "good,' we biuay how far removedwe ue liom scnsingthe impact thc parableha'l
on thc lewishl€galcxptn *'ho fint heardthismcmonbleston (Lk 10:25) w€ mlsl
understood t}te messag€,asdoes the relationship betwecn the author and rccipients
at the timc of siting.'3
rcmcmberthat the lcws desDis€d thc Snmaritans ls half breeds Ho\\' shock€dthc
lawvcrwould be whcn Iesusmadc a hated Samaritanrhe hero of his stor\ 'rs
Ofcounc, if we arc seekingthe mcaning intended by the author to the ongi
shockedaslews oft(xtry woDld be ifoDc ofthcir srorv-tcllcrsPori aycd.n tuab terror"
nal recipients, that m€aning must be the meaning rhcy could understa'rd at that
in asmore heroic thin lerding lewish figurcsl Accuratclvundershndmg thc Biblc rc
guics that we take into rccount any prcconceptionswc cany thxt could distort thc
rlL R\iken. tvor6 of Lifc: A t itnry Lt/oarcian to tbe iitu 7i'sraudr (cnnd Rapids B*er' ttit's mearinc. Our soal rcmaiDsrc hcarthe mcssrS€ofthe Biblc as thc on8inrl
t947).22,24 ludicnccswould havchcad it or asthc fint readerslvould hive und.rstoodii
DRykcn, Vords oJLiJe,24
riFor cxample,the situationof some NI ctisles is simplernran. say, rhat oi Of poPheu. . We mrrstavoidthc tendencyto regud our own cxpericnccN drc standardfor
on.les. h rlc iomer we may i! $le kr soLle su.h infom:*)n b 3id our undcrstandinsof lhe un€rpretingwhit wc secand read.All of s sccm rc suffer liom thc sanc maladv:to
wnnen ten. In lhe llter we m.y have litle or nothing to help us undcBBnd dte tehiionship b€Neen ucw our own expcrienccs ofthc u'orld asnormrtivc,valid,and truc Naturauy'$'c
a propher and rhe origiml .udid.e who hdrd hi5 dcsge. f,ikewi*, we roy tE able o di{over
litne t .ntrlrin,r ,bou rhe Elaronship tEe@n tlre ruthot or editor of rhc fi@l f6m of a b@k of Oe
'au.Iotumielv, red lcncr"edift,ns oI rl\c cospelsmrv,live Lhe(miskkcn)nnpressionurii *e
Bbl€ and rhe eaderwhdner rn OT pmpbd_y or o.e of tle Gcpels The poinls illushB dr -
lrBe, p'vblem rrh wtu.h sr mu{ deJl ^ drerpFt€h
 12 Inrod*etion to B;blicf,l lrncty.ta,ri\rl The Ne€d for Hdmeneuncs

arc.inclinedto rtad thc Bible drough the l€ns ofthis tendency.For exampte,though thar erists b€tween th€ ancient texts and our mod€m world. The writings
todal v.€ r€adily sc€ slavery as an abhon€nt evil, it is amazing how many leading nts rccorded itr the Bibl€ sPanmany centudcs, but about 1900 yea$ have
Christians defendedthis inhuman instihnion prior to the U.S. Civil Wai. Usins th; its last words were wrifter simply Put, the world ha.schanged in
book ofPhilemon. Hopkins dcfended slavery in rhe ninetcenth cennlry saying: weys over the course ofthc Bible's comPosition and since its comple-
er. most ofus lack e$ential infomation about the rtorld asit wasvhen
Hc [Paul] fnds a tugitiveslav€,dd convcrtshim ro the Csspcl.md thcn scnds a.as writtcn. We may be at a loss to understand what a text means be_
hirn bacr againro his old hom. wirh r lener of kind Gomcndadon. Whv voh'cs $rbiects bcyond our time sPan Even a cursory glaocc at Hosea
do$ St. taui acrihusf Whydcs b. nol co@kl rh. fugirivr ro drin hisrighr ro to many rcferenc€sthat rernain incomPrehensibl€to most modcrn read-
ft€edom,dd dcf.nd dtat light . . . ? (v. 'ashamcd of its
of Beth Aven (v. 5 ); Assyria (v. 6); EPhraim 6);
Thc answcris veryplain.St. Paulu6 iorpired,dd kncwthc wilt ofthc Iord 'the high Places" (v 8); 'Did frot war overtale the evil
idols" (v. 6);
J6us Chrisr,md ws orly intent on ob.ying it. ADdwho @ we, thar in ou 'as Shatmandevastat€dBeth Arbcl on the day of batde"
cibeah?" (v. 9);
nodern wisdompreumc to r€t a6idcrh. word ofcod . . . f,5
What rvas a calf-idoll Where was B€th Aven, or Asslria' or Ephraim lo-
Basedon his own worldvi€w and experiences,Hopkins betievedslaverywasa €om- dn do w€ determine the mealring behind historical featuresthat arc so far
in timel
mendable and biblically sanctionedinstitution.
)thcr dmc spanthat mu3t be consideredin interPreting th€ Bibl€ involves
Like Hopkins, we may unconsciouslyassumethat our own experiencesparaf
__ _ tlnr €xisted-morc o! lessin various places-between tlrc timc drc Bible
lcl those ofthc ancients-that life and lands€apeare thc samenow as then. In one
and thc tim€ wh€n those eventswcr€ actually written down in the
senseno one can avoid this oudook. But wh€n we simply a ow our unchalenged
now poss€ss.Sincethe chrotrology in Genelis goes aI the way to the d€ath
fcelings and observationsro diston or derermirc what tlrc Bibl€ means.our exo;ri-
niarch Joseph,earlier sectionslike Gencsis 12-25 probably were wdften
rnceshavebecomethe restofsurh tor al hast thc m€rslre forwhar I rext canmean)
" their main charact€r,Abralnm, dicd. We may datc the ministry of the
We must adopt an approachto interpretarionthat con&ontsthis danger,for Scriprue
Amo6 to the mid-eighth century r.c., but it is very likely that his words
alone constitutesthe standardoftruth, and we must judge our r"aluesand expcriences
into th€ biblical book known by his mm€ by somcone€lseat a later
on rhe basisofib prec€prs,no( viceversr. tr follo\rs.rhen.that anyvalid ipproach
to interpretation murt concern itself with two crucial dimensions: (I) aa anahtical Jeslls' ministry probably spannedthe years^ D. 27-30, our Gospels
wriften until at least severald€cad€slater.
metlodology for decipheringwhar rhc iexr is abour,and 12) I merru ofarsessing
the 9p beween the ancient and modern worlds involvesdecisivcshifts, so
and accounting for our prcsent situation as we engagein the interpretive process. (or centuries)between the eventsthemselvesard their r€cording in the
W€ must account for boti th€ ancient and modern dimcnsions.Wc require histori- tcxt6 may entail charg€s in social, cultural, political, and religiour Perspec'
cal and grammaricalmethods to give us an understarding of the contours of rhe changesmay have alfccted how botn lews and ChristiansPreserved3nd
ancient world ofthe text. At the samerim€, we must som€howdelin€aterlrc impact their rcligious hefitagc. Certeinly, both the Jewbh and CMstian beli€v€rs
fiat inrerpKtrrsrhemsflvesproducein rhe pro€essofinreryrerarion. about prescrving and transmitung infomation acctrately The reports
i€nt DeoDlcdabilities to memorize and tansmit Eadltional materialsfaith
wtll-documented.tT Neverth€less, the authors' uniqu€ Perspectivcs
Sone Challenges of Bible Interpretation what th€y felt wes importart, \rdat deservedemphasis,or what
tte omift€d. In this Drocessthe wfit€rs would consider theL rcadersand the
Distance of Time tley hopcd to produce in them.
some of dre biblical authon werc eycwitnessesand wrcte stricdy
We could use one word to summadz€ some of th€ gear€st challenges(and thcir own exDericnces.Othcrs incomorated additional sourcesinto thcir own
fru$ntions) the Bible int€rDreterwlJlkfe-dittane.. C-.,nrjderfirrt ofal the distance Sti[ othcrs had litdc or no pcrsona.lcontact at all wi$ thc p€ople and

bJ. H. IJopki6, A s.liptural, Eccl6tastt dl, ha Htslotldl wtu olslz@C,llon tbe Dajs oJhe pbbt5 ability to nedorire the T@h=*lnetim$ ircluding both the onl and the witten
PEt,izftb Abdhdm, t tbe Nt4etdtb cntu,! (r q -{qk: w. r. P@ley & co., 1364), 16, d quoEd in one of the most srtiking dmpl* T*o cla$ic tudis shN dE! onl tdditions ould re-
swiney, slarclj, Sabbdtb, va. aiA woM,37. con ta : H. Rie*nfeld, 7be @el rraditiofl drd lts BzgtnntnAs A $ua! in tbe IJntE oI
'dv€ in $e v6t fac ihe d,nger of @ding rhe Bible rboush ou. qpeience of p@sp€dq. Obndon: M@bny, 195Di and B. ce'J].^t&ve, Mddt .4.1 Maneriibt: otul dn l
and
technoloay. Is not dE "hal.h ad wealrh e6pel'+natJe$s wnts.ll his chndm to be helrhy and ln Rabuttcbazkf, ana E4d! cb/{ita"ttt0rnd: Gle$p,1961) s@3lsoc L
welrhy< prde mpl€ of rhb bt s?HN tuly so€lred Thir<tworld ChrbdaB woutd @ume rhe Ekto/icdl Rellahlttj o.ftbe @t (Dome6 Gove, Inbva6ity, 19aD, 25 31, for Fcd
Bible t ught thit AE th€E no Bpdty and faithtul belidm in dF porerty-srdcto @d of rhe mdd? $udi6 and theli onclusid'
 t4 Introducti,Tt t0 Biblifil InteryletotioD The Need for Hermeneurics l5

c\'€ntsaboutFhich thcy *'rotc.'3 Oncewe recogniz€ihat manyofihe biblicai{,rit. Wesrhdividualismro perv}desour t}in-kingl}lrr
-d lt rl.r" For example.in tnc
ers cmploy€dor cditcd prccxistingmatcrials(md somctimes,scveralrcnditions Y'-ll .r'..r'*.t' *. *counter inrerPretauons that focuson 'idividuis and never
alongsidccacbothcr), wc must cvaluar€rhc rolesand motivesofthcsc edito6. So. *t'.,ner the terr mav acturllv havemorc corporateinrenrion'ro
l,*";'tl",,.r.i"e
for examplc,if wc arc alvarcthar Marrhev hopedto p€rsuadelews in his k,cilc nor 3^.?"i""... *ti'."a.'. concludrr}rrt 'n I cor 3 l o- 17 I'aul'sreferen'eto Cod'!
to r€p€atthe m;stakcoflcsus' lcwishcoDremporaries, rheve\plor€how chris'
\l'e havea bett€rund€rstand. Ll,iil i"J."* ;,"t".,i"n\ ro indjviduJ chrisuans H(ncc
ing ofhis consranruseofOT quorcsand 3llusions-His m€ssage to rhat particutt p'"p.' q"alities rn thtir Prrsonal live' Thev 'cad individuJismriio
audicncesboutsrJcsusis rhc Mcssiah,and you musr ackno$'ledge frrJ.- u"tra that Prul is referrinsto Lhecor
hirn. Thc books .1."' r€Grences in rnr tontcrr
ii.irs,ae. a..pi,. \Pirir dwclls lndividu'i chris
of the Bible arc lircrarypicccs,not transcriptsor mcrcly scissoriand,pastccollc( L'i.. siav ch'i" rs a tcmple in which God s
tions put togcthcrnaivcly,haphazardly, or evenchronologicailv- "r a locJl or world-widc level -no' manvindividu'i ones
frr*'i".- J* "-pt.-"n
i,iic metaphor.raul cooPcrrre< in buildingr}c church| 3:l0 r' A5'n rh inrranc€'
Cultura.l Distance .Jn'A 'ir". n^ i"ra"€rtcndv produced an intrrpr(truon thar i\ nor inh'renr in
thc t€xt at all.
Another chillcngc ofdistanc€ rhar must be consideredis the ,rlr'l4ldistrncc
tiat scparatcsus fionr thc world of rhc biblical texrs: a world rhar was basicxlh Distance
r 8 r . r i J n . m r d c u p ! , 1h ' r l " q n ( t r r n d r c n x l ' f t r m r n : m J c h i n c r r f i J l s + p r i n r i r n c
G€ogmPhical
by ourstandardsi md mcthods oftrav€l tharwcre slow md D.earving.On thc pag(s
Another chalengeto correct Bibl€ intcrpretationis Bm'nqhicLl disr^nce'
of th€ Bible wc cncountcr cusroms, b€liet!, and pncrices that makc litde scnsc (, Bible.Ee
|ls. W1ly would proplc in thc ancicnt world anoinr pnesB and kings, and ]lso sick
Unlcs we havehad thi oPportunityto visit thc plsccsmcntion€din the
hct an clementthat woula aid our undersranding ofccrtain events Ofcourse' even
pcople, with oil) What is rhc sandalcustom fbr rhe rcdemption md transfcr ofp(4r- hav€)' few of them
ifwc could visit aI the accessible sites(and many Chnsrians
€rry m€ntroned in Rurh 4:6 81 What was the poinr ofthe levitical punw lawsor thc
lct in thc look (andnone the culture)thcv hadin biblicaltimcs ln otherwords'we
manv othcr sccnriDglvpoinrlcss rcquiremenrs?For example, lf,\' 19:19 sccms &)
havc dimcdty picturins why the NT speaksof pcople going "uP" to IeTj'lem
rul€ out most ofthc Sarmrnrs we {'ear todav: qDo oorwcar clorhing wo\cn ol r\ro
fiorn Cac$reaaActs2r:r2) or "down" Fon lcrusrlemrc Icricho (Lk 10:30) un
kinds of matcrid." Wbit abour thore polvester md vool blcnds) And Nhv a.c ilr
lcsswc know the ditrerencesin elevation- PerhaPslesstrivial' though in manv partl
ofthc world we dig gnvcs 'down" inro the carrh' in Palestinegravesw€re otten
r i r t r t b r b i d J c nr n L l ! I o 2 8 )
In addition, our undcrstanding of ancicnt customs mighr bc so col(trcd t y
dug into lirnestone outcropPings (or eristing caveswcr€ uscd and wcrc seateds'ith
\r'hat *e think rhcy mean that wc miss rheir significance. For examplc. what docs . stonc).And the phraie,'he wasgatheredto his peoplc/fathen" (Gcn 49:29.,33;
"head cove.ing" mcan in I Q'r I l:4 l6f Arc we to unde.sramd rhisin rerms of 2 rS.22:20), mat haveoriglnatedliom thc practiccofcoilcctins thc bonesofthc
a hat) It is possiblc that aftcr rcading son)e rranslations we may insrincrjvcly as dccca.sed after the flesh had dccomposedand puttin8 thcm in a location with those
sum€ thrt Paul rcfcrs to vcils. so wc envision thc veil thar Middle Easrcrr Muslinl
rvomen wear today. Yct hats or veils may not be in vicw at all. Wc may rcrd k)
rcsearch turthcr to propcrly undcrsrand the suL,jccrind its significancc. t.ikc*ise, Dletance of Language
a western conccrn for clcanlincssmisht nor hclp (it rnight ev€n hnrd€r) ou. undcr
stindin[iofthc Pharisccs'practice ofccrcmonial washing (Mk 7r3 5). Wc must trc
The raskofb'blicalintrrpreuuoni' turrhcrchrllcngcd with 'he dinrrLenfr
catltbus iD dctcrmining tbc significanceofthc ctrsromsand conccpts ofthc bibli-
laryuagegry beween the biblicalworld and our own. Thc writers of the Biblc
.il world that:rrc forcigi to us. We cannot simpl_vpick up thc Biblc and rerd it likc \rrct€ in the languag€s
oftheir day-Hebr€w, tuarniic, and Greck-languagesthit
arc inaccess'blrro molr peopleroda! Evcn rholc who \pcal modern Hebreu 'r
Wc must not lcr thc grid of our culnLral values and prioritics i|rdv(rtcntly Grcckhav6an ncompleri knowledgcof$e anci(nrlangurs.\. we r. aho rilstr! elv
aflect oru interyretation and causcus to cstablisha meming that may not be in thc

r5lukc.dnri6 t|i5 h{.xrr8ory n hn nkxll.lon 'eFor

t. rlrc third Cospel (Lk I1.1) Ther. lit a handy intodudion to rhe ohual vrlucs ofrhe lr's i. lhc hncr deedcs ofthe centi
i.ioms Throphrlusrhtrrh. .itulirlly invcsriSrtcdcyc^1hingfom thc btaimina ln our esrnnri,'n 'rh c.ntury, *e R. B€ltah, et al.. Habi[ oftbe H&n\New't<trk IlllTnr& R(,s,1935)
ihe qc sc.rionsin ]\Lrs(16 r(} lrr .:0:tl5; lr l 13: 2i 1 28,16)indlclre tharruke panicipar.d*irh - \or tunnei insishr o. corlFdte clem€nls in rhc Bilte sec e a I Bc$ o'" a&?] tr c'lis'-o
Paul jn sone of rhe incdcnN !.(o rd rhere If q e rdopr rhe .o,mronly ac.eprcdexpljuion of rhd u.ndon sPcK, la<sr, B
I Mr.inr. the Nm t5bdotn rlJt{n ntr luhn Knu\ lodll e'p 'l
oriain of rhe aosp.ls (. nusr .on.lN[ rhar qhen sndng dcn Cospclsbo$ Luke and M.dh.s k StGdd, Maa ,n .onnumi (trinJon FDsodh, laiar. \q. R, rnlun. , .,tlNdtr P6,,ialh tn
employed rvenl eur.es s{r R It Sr.in, Tbe s}rbpti. Proun: An lrtftrt!.rior (C.rnd Rf,dds, ;'kl"n, rsel r phrlr.relpF, i"**, ro"" '. ,na u \ uc,n. 7rl ^ia ( r'M, Pn PtP A ' 4bd@
B:ker, r9a7) ror a san( .ppd'el of rrnsisuc. vE,dF.k ro,lcBnd rqo'
Rapds. zunddrn,
 lhtrodyttion to Eibli.al I|r.tpr$ohon Thc Necd for Hcrmcncutics t7

unfamiiiar virh drc litcrary convcDtions of the ancient authors. Wc dcpcnd upon schol. cmPloycnticaj mcthodsin whrt mov
Horvcvcr.th€ facrtial somc
train€d bibLicalscholes ro translatc thc biblical languagesand their litcrary dcvices pcrccivc x aerEuctiv($ay( shouldnor drivc us to adoPteru(mc birset
into our native tongl)cs, but thcir work is oc€esseilv jnrerpr€tive. Note, for c\. Clristi:rs
rnc culPrit(iftherc isonc) rsno( histoncJor rationalmeth
.mplc, the differ€nce in transl3rionsof I (lor 7:l in a vanetv ofversions. Thc ..'r\
."Jnrt s,rcttm.*oa"
it is ttc pt6*Wontin' of thosc who usc rhern. Be[even. we asert.
rendersthe final clausc,'It is good lbr a man not b ma.rv" Compdc this Mrh thr
frlntlcr,
irsighs.that rccuntc and Prccis<criocalmethodsbrirg for
ffi not igore thc
KJvlLs\', "It is good (or wcll) fo. a man not to touch a rrcman"i Phillips, "It is .r .o.ttn.a to drc rruth Birscsrhat distort meming h're no plrcc in
itfist"ns "t
good principle for a man to havc no phvsicalcontrct with women"i and Nr]8,"it is a sornc icholarshavcbiasc\that do not allo$ lor sup€marural
good thing fbr a man to hxvc nothinli to do with women." Finally, in r lbornorc
i' work.Admincdly.
Jurrcnccs. They adopt coffxtmcnts io rationalirmand narurJisml}lrt mrle no
the Nrv suggestswhat is pfobibly thc mosr likcly meaning: "It is good for a m.lr r God who intcE.ts illth his crcarronandwith hispeople But behev
rllo*anccfor
not to have sexurl r€hrions with ! wonran." Sincc these versions divergc so mark
crsfacca danger ofgoing to rlreopposirc cxt-rcmc and rctusingto rcloowledgeanv
edly, how are we ro undersra'rd what Paul rcally memt) The distancesberwccn dre
.chola.rly achievements we should wclcomc vrlid historicaland r.rionai me'nod'
virious biblical worlds and our own rcqunc objcctive hisrorical study if .wc irc ro reducc the chance\ for unwrrnnied bta\cs BeUrver!cs bene6l fiom
wh.n rhcy
undentmd those worlds and wh pcoplc vrotc in rhc Bible. rhc r(Jults of schol}rs'work. bur tlcir frith doe5 not drPend upon $rr work:'z
As thoughdrf Christian interPr€terswe want ro aPProachexegesisdifierently
thrn do scholarswhose allegianc€srcsidc only within the realm of the academic.
Eternal Relevance--The Divine Factor Thc:cad€mic study ofreligion hasirs own agenda:to employ historical and literar-v
criricalmcthods appropriat€ to thc study ofancient tcxts in order to understandth€
hough thr Bible originarcs rh.ough human ag€nrs,in the mosr hunan .i! biblical tcxt. Coupled with tllar comcs thc assumptjon(for many) that, aPa.t &om
cumstancesoflifc, ir is firs( aod fo.cmosr cod's \\'ord to his p€opl€; ir hls ar ..ercr dk rduc bclieving Ctuistians assigrtto th€m, biblical texts must be treated the srme
nal r€l€\'ance."trrWhil€ *c hayc dcrnonstmted rhe humann€ssofrhe Bible and hr!c rs .try ancicnt tcxts. This may wcl lead thc s.holar ro call into question the histori
emphasized that il must bc rrcrrcd in nrany lays like orlcr books, this does nor cd r€liability of biblicat statementr conc.rning OT fi81lr€sand €ventsor Iesusand
diminish in any vav its qualio as I divinc book. We assertrhat cri!..I mcrhods (t NT cvcnts. Many ofthc cofferns ofconf€sring Christians who read and studv the
interpretation alone will ncvcr do complctc jrsrice to Sc.iprure. Thc Biblc is nor .l Biblc simply do not fit that acad€mic?gcnda.This docs not m€.n that secularschol
divine book in rhe scnscth.ir cod dictlrcd a scnesofproposirions out ofhcalcn litr .rs $,ork morc objectively than Christians who ar. hopelesslybiised ln thcir inter
people simplv to receivc inta.r and obc),. Histoncally. Chrisrians afnrm thrt (inl
prct rion; it simply m€ansthe former do rhcir work on diflcrent terms-
inspired htrrnan authors ro composc rh€ Scriprrres as a mems to convev his truth. Wh€n the methods of scholarsin the acrdcmy uncover what is true, believcrs
.lt comhiftcd to welcome and incorporatc thcse findings into their own int€rpre-
albcit drough the mrrrix ofbunran circumst:nces and €vents and rhrough divrrs.
trtions.'3 Their other conjectur€sand conclusionswe deem unacceptable,for inter
kinds ofliterature. Hisrorical ind rarioDai mcrlods of interpretation h:vc l propef
prct tion must go beyond simply accounting for hisrorical and literary dim€nsions
placc in nfolding this humlr dinrcnsn r; howcvcr, they cD take us onlv so lir ifl
ofthc t€xq it murt seekrhe m€aning of thc rext and whar cod saysthrough it to his
thc interpretiv€ proccss.
No doubt the mere nrc'rti(nr ofhistorical ind rational methods ofinrerprcii
Pcopl€.Though 1veneverwiI condonebelievingwhar is unffuc, we retuseto ic
ccpt that ratiomlistic scholarshiDalonc can d€rermine truth in the Bible.
tion raisesquesti(rrs in ihc minds of maDy sincere Christiins. They may licl with
some justilication thrr thc scholnrsrnd their histoncal-critical m€rhods havc drrr.
geit damage ro r high vicw ofthc Biblc and ro the faith ofcoundcss people. fhey rcf mu6e, if in j6 pu6un of truth scholan wde to pove Ch'isirniry lalse,then the frirh
woud be at sake. ror e&mple, if in some Palesrinixn bmb arh&.lo8hls $ere to dirover shar
mi! vi€w scholarship as a subdc rbreat or even as a hosrile cncmy. Ar brst, dre\ 6tld t€ con.lusively shown ro be
perceivethe work ofsuch highcr critics rs largcly irrclcvanr to thc fairh ofbclievcr\ Jeslr lrhes then rhe chrisrian taith would be poi.tless (rs pall
'!&ie in I cor 15,17
19). F3ftn ir' ; lie is nor fiilh bur increduliN lnd stuoidiN.
md rhe mission ofthc (lhurch in rh€ $orld. No doubr man_vacadcmicscontribure 'Adminedlv,r
I'er qJ6con rnes \os oo we Jcrem'ne sh4 h rue, .urc\ , - h,t.\ , ,a
-* n s ! a
to this perception, for thcv do rbcir work with no senseof responsibilirv to thc o n t n b u $ b N u € m 6 r n . r F \ u l b r F r t u " , t r , , . d c ,| \ h r n J , , e f l { h , . ' , - , . . f / ' d 1
Dqiodsdspl.y 'erulb "
faithtul qho bclicvc th3t rhc B;blc is God's Word. Some e\rn makc it thcir missur L h r h o n c n d r d r h , , u a h ! t u: ht ^ t / r.tnostcd8" r.€n ^".o r'd, ,,
they.F he Bd ms' Fmin r*rF oi 'h.nnurn., ur r',,.uprDiron., d,qled n , '( ,u t)
to dispel religious mlths and ro sho* that thc Biblc is m€r€lv a human book ih'r iT'
e!'r) t! qnq sords, "e
when sme shol.6 ey rhzrrhe mid.les x6bued b Etiiahin r Kgs 17 18.d
rccords the religious bclicti and ispiniions of a disparate dray ofancicnr lc$ish
Tlh-y,r"-t"-..".uu1"n"".,,,*r,.ni"-cnr..\onltuderhrrJe.u\,oJrdnr,-.hr\-
{rd
$d Christian DcoDlcs. the *qd. dur M"nhe* ,hbui6 ro hh .ip, ls l+-ro. Fr.u* $py Fnm ttLe, hJrcl rr'er
<otk'nB and
rhu, ,oulJ ody hrv€ b€(n 1{rurrred rn \uhwqurnr J- rJc. Ltren , r' pF..poo.'
zrc D Fee an<l D lnt.fl lk,rb Rtltl th. Rihl./;r,4, /rs $'orb (cEnd Rrpids e.nuin. rr","ry on in.lude m'ncle\ cenurnc prcpheq or tutu'e e\enh rn u n ain ro
]!
qna!
with Buonalbuc .onrnm."a n'n.ra unna ue accorded rhe 'utur or he drib
 18 Introdttcrion to Biblieal b t trctation The Need for Hermeneutics t9

The Goal of Ilemeneutics Conclusion

We would be misguidcd ifwe limited hermeneuticsto the Actors ard issues is essentialfor a valid interpr€tation of the Bible. Instead of
.
that concrm our understandingofthe ancjentiexl foa cxceprpcrhapsin the retigton
thet wc wil simply allow God to sp€akto us ftom his word, we
oepanmentsln some,ctrdemicinstirurions,peopledo nor usualy s€ckio under.stand
rnf tirbrf asa meremtetteftualexercise. rlnt to insure w€ hear God's voice rather than our cultu€'s voic€ or our
Ccruir y. moarp€oplewijj agreethar rhe w€ need to interpr€t thc Scripturesin a systematicand careful ftshion.
biblicJ ,urhon neverinrendcdthcn writings ro bc oq..s ii"rray. Nor?" r,i"ti"a
who a5prero undersand rhe crusesor rh€ resulBofrhe ancienrf\njc Warsaitempt to pncticc proper hermeneutics.Why)
rpply what dreydiscoverlo their p€Aonal lives.,. H"**..,
ro : To dicat God\ mcxagc.Ifwe are to understand God's truth for ounelves
Chri.d- beli"".6 a;;; or preachit to othen), we must discoverpreoselywhat God int€nded
me srote prfclsetybecause they believeir doeshavr somerhingro saym their lives
Indeed, w€ intend to a€u€ that one cannot thorougl y hudcate. A careftl slstcm of hermeneuticsprovides the meansfor the in-
tt SiUt"t rn; to arrive at the text's int€ntion, to urderstand what God intended to com-
sagesimply rhrough the exerciseofhistorical anJgtammatical""aerJt""amcthods" that dis- Some conscriative Chdstians abusedre Bible by their "proof-texting."
closc the-original meaning ofa texr. Wc insist that the goal ofhermeneutics
includ€ detecting how thc Scriptures can impact readen todap This
must drc Biblc like a telephone book oftexts to be cit€d by chapter .nd verscto
means tfrai ir vie Doint. This can lead to many distonions that could be avoided
tlue interpretarion ofthe Bible can nev€r be m€rety an exercisain ancient
historv. the use ofhermeneutics. Hermeneutics srGguards drc scriptures agaidst
We can't really understandwhat a tcxt meant without **ing
pact on our lives. Indeed, to tuuly understand what a text-meant by pcople who, dclibcrately or not, diston thc Bible fof thcir own €nds.
""-ethi"g;a;i;-
to its oriehal provides the conceptual fiamework for interpreting conectly
reopienrs.requiresthat we apprehendsomething ofthat original impact
ourseives. ofaccurat€ €xcg€sis.lsExegesisputs into practice one's theory of inter_
rhe sametime, ifwe adrrurd,ar "apptying. the Bibte is a;rimary
_ ,Ar
peopreread or srudy it. then we mulii answera crucial quesdon:
rcason Thus good hermeneudcswill generategood exegeticalmethods.
pra,io apply-rndho.ltdo wc apptyirt In how do we know To atoid. ot dip.l ,niteonec|tiorrt M nroxeoat ptrs|.ctit.t antl conchtiiont
orherwor&, ifchristirs bclievethfl rhe .Birlr. A generalpractic€ ofgood hemeneutics theoreticaly would reduce
nrDre $ \,od s worct ro aI pfopte (our disrussion of rhis pKsupposition
wil be amory Christians,though givcn human finitude and sinfrrlnessin addition
prescntedl er). rhenro sayio oursctves or rhoscwe teach,"The ilibte says. . . ..
carriesthe implication that this is what cod says.And if tie Ajrnighty rying temperamcntsand cultural relues of people, it would be unrealistic
c'od of th€ all division could be eliminated. Ideally, coffect int€rpretation would un-
universesaidit, w€ musr believeit and do it or r€jcct his will to our'o*n
oeril. This crroneous teachings that people use to support aberrant b€havior. One
ls no inconsequentialmetter. It bccomesabsolutely..iti""l to
*"ft too oftcn in our newspapersofsincer€ and wcll-mea.ningFrcnts who with
\t'e posribly canwhat cod mcansby wfiat he saysin the Bibte. ""aer"t"oj"" ""
Wc must undentand intcrvenrion for th€ir children bccausewith the best ofmotiv€s th€v
co:rccuy so we can rcr corrccdy. Thcre is no b€ne6r ro tollowirg_ _.€v(n
wilh 8l.eal thcy should trust cod for healing. Though we do not d€ny God's ability to
and eamcsl $ncerity----amistal.enpoint ofview
nor hb invitation to Drav for what we need- we believe that a correct
Bsauseproper hermcneutics-hetps us undersund cod.s wiU it is cruciatro hirh_
- , ofthe relevant biblical texts mandatesprayer for healing m€dical
siljLr'-Ied io convhc€ lesusro misapptyScripruresin one ofthe "rd
Itcmptrdo$
"!pl*b":t (Lk God can us€ a variety ofmeans to effect healing.
4i9-12). euoringtom psa9l: tf_12, he urged
Iesusro appryrnc 3. m b. abh to afiry the Bible\ rflesag. to ot'r li'r'. cod has chosen to reveal
5{flptues lterally and throw hirnselfdowr tom the Ternplemounr
with thc.rssunnce through thc medium ofwriften languagc,and this mesage is both univocal
thar God\ Word promis€ddivine prorecrion.ln respon$,
lesusaccusrdSaranotbad . As Cam€[ puts it, "t€rms may be used in one of three wa]6: with
nermcneubcs.tesusshowcd thar Sarandid not und(nrand rhe
Iirll conrext ofcod.s mcaning (univocaly), with differcnt meanings (equivocaly), and with a
promi$ but n ededio understandnsa9l in liaht
ofthc princjDleofno( Dunhc fu mcaning-pardy the same,pardy different (analogically)."6 In odcr
to the test(sr( Deur 6: 16). Neither extnordinary fritn nor greai
sincrrity wiX nelessar- in placesthe Bible speak to us univocally. That is, though its m$sage was
uy-sav€a pclson who iump6&om a rdt building to a trrgic dcrth. p$jrn
9l promised to ancients,many featuresremain the sam€-human cxistenc€,the realities
\'o! s,protccion when unexpecredor accid€niaj harm rllreatened
cvcn then
not rrprrr: ). not in lhe insunceofsef-inficled fooushnrrr.Sirceland
Saun miscon_ 'Frc6 the Gek word
6rued the inrenrionof tsa 9t, thc ,pplcarion ofa b"d i"t"rpr.rrri;;;J;-;;. ar'g@mr, deg6is mm ro lad our" the mqnjng of a d or p@ge
.gee wfth G. R. osbom€ (?re lk@tial spitullDcffiB C@E Ltervsity, 1911) who
dcadly_resulrs. rhur. sincc we dcsife ro obey his wir. w€ (th€ (]rNdMl
l::,T':_'jljl',l:-a*
nccd to undcrstard how to intcrpret rhe Scriptue", *hi.h,*""1hi" is rhe ovenl lem, while exegdb and @.tsaliz,tio.' omu-
.";;r. of a t€n! siglmhG 60r today) m rhe do dF.s of that laeer task' (O.
"hi. 'E
J. Cd@:l\, A, Itutuaucfid ro CbrLtn^, Apoloeettcs(Ga d ltapjds: terdms, 194a), r44.
mvinde'tstudv
th' E d6ofp*ras nnr.".vsaeqrsadapprv rledrlg is single, having o.ly one *ffi. ve lem by an"logy whd we make lnfmcd
*o,, iff,jiif;1xill*I$t3 k l@n or knw in one sph€re and apply tr b nother sphft,
20 Inttodaction to Biblical l"terpftta.iatl

of angeLs,demons, God, and Jcsus as God's Son, to name a few Ar Paul Dofts
concerning truti in the Scripturcs, certain factud aftumations about past evc.ts
alwaysrcmain true ( I Cor I5 r3-5). These stat€mentsare univocal, having thc same
ncaning for Paul as for us, though we may apply that singlc mcanhg in a variet] of

Ar rhe samc timc thc Bible convcys truth to us analogicallv in its ciidactic sec-
tioDs) poctry, apoca\?ses, and Da.rativesthough thcy were trttercd or sritten to CHAPTERTWO
p€opl€ long ago. Wc learn by analogv when rve cliscoverthat ruth in the Biblc
rpplics to Lift and situations in th€ mode.n lvorld lesus told his followers, "YoLrrrc
rhc light of the world" (Mt 5:14). Since people in Bible times and people today
both hrvc an understarding of how a light tunctions to give light to everyonc in
rhc housc (whcth€r by means of candles,lanps, torchcs, or electric or battery oper-
ated lights), rve understud the malogy. we lcun that )esuswarts his followers 16
"brighten up" their world, which lesus elaboratesto mean, among .rthcr things,
The History of
d o n r g g o o d d e e d s( 5 : r 6 ) .
Today we can onll, read about God's a.tions aod thosc ofhis people in thc Interpretation
past, btrt becausethere exist parallelsand commonalirics between thc worlds ofrhc
ancientsand ours, we can comprehend the analogicsrnd lcarn tiom thcm. Our rask
is morc difficult in phccs whcrc an author or spcak€rdoes not clearlv spcll out the
lcssonto bc icarncd orthe Daturc ofth€ analog]'.For exemple,*hat preciselvshoLr)d
\l'c lcffo from the story of loscph's lifc and his exploits in Egpd Or fiom rhc
inspiring narrativesabout David's liiendship with lonathml What ue the points of A
analogr between Israel'scircumstancesmd oursI What does God expect us to kaJn fL *U t..orn. belie\eonemu'r inr(rp'crBrblcpas\rge'in $cir
"oon context-a
original historical "pparcn(,we
view that descendsForn a long line of intellectual
Iiom psalmswitten by an ancient king to expresshis F$trations or joys in lilil The
bisic goal ofthis book is to h€lp reiders discover God's mcssagcto Christians today arcestors, both jewishandChristian,who havesoughtto intcrpretrheBiblep.operly.
ftom the teachinss and stories "back then."r'
A briefsurvey ofthe history ofBiblc int€rpfetition is bencficial in severalways.r-int,
it introduces key issuesthit ar€ peninent to Biblc inrerpretation, which, in tum,
prcparesthe student to understand the approachto theseissuesthat wc present.
Sccond, it sensitiz€sreadcn to dre opportunitics and pitfalls involved in uy
urg to contextualizc Bible reachingsin rh€ prcsent. A critic.l assessment of the ma
lor utterpretive methods pracricedthroughour history challengesreaden to dcvclop
a peNonalapproachto Bible interpretarionthat maximizesthe opportuniticsand
tuftnizes the pitfalls. Finally, a knowledge of rh€ history of interpreration culti
vrtesm anirudeofhuniliq rowdd t}lc inr.rpreliv( procrs. Ccflainly we wrnt ro
avo'dthe meriod' ftar H*roryh*ludgcd a' mi,Lrkcn,,rrrulrt.Ar $c \,tmerimc.
rhc history iiiultmreshow complcxrhe prores s Jnd hon Inrppropn e F rro
Eancein rhe oursuirofir.l

Jewish Interpretation

. The Bibl€\ first ioterprererswere rhosc who first possessed

-aDcient its wririrgs
Israelires
who srudiei rnd editedu hrr larerbccamerh€ H.br.$ scriph'r$.
'Indeed, P2ul inf(rms his ltnm. rca.lers, for eve'yding thar s?s wrnten in the pas( $as
rlrrl^af<$cx,.fu,,r,ur,,Lnr)t,r,\tr,rtoLt-ehFroryornrerprr'ionov\cr-'arhF
wrinen to teach us so th,t thrcuAh endud..e znd the encoumaement or tne S.nPnits we miAht
*oV
"- or,:rrer o. n"ton,',on, pnrurJy ro pok..rnr ,nreT,"crn,n
hav. hope (Rom 15,,t)