Taxonomy of Interpretive Means
To begin with, I believe a definition of a few terms is in order. While the concepts found in the definitions of the following terms may find varying but parallel nomenclature in other contexts, I am confident that these categories will serve their purpose in this document.
Prayer—it is the bible’s own teaching that encourages us to communicate in that mystical way with our Heavenly Father as our merciful Savior did Himself, so to ask for wisdom on all issues, including prayer for the right interpretation of the Words of Life, given for life eternal. Neither this, nor any of the other individual means listed, nor in concert all with one another, guarantees a correct understanding of the Words God has specially revealed, but one can be assured that if we make no use of any of these means, then the conclusions drawn will very likely be wrong.
Hermeneutical Principle—a clearly objective or neutral device used to govern an interpretation, such as the analogy of faith or a portion of the hierarchy of textual context. The application of a hermeneutical principle does not ensure an accurate interpretation; the “principle” is simply distinguished from the “presupposition” by the fact that its existence isn’t dependant on any antecedent interpretation. See it stated as an analogy, Hermeneutical Principle > Hermeneutical Presupposition: Primary Color > Secondary Color.
Hermeneutical Presupposition—an idea, concept, or teaching that directly affects the way one interprets and understands any portion of scripture. It is normally a presumed understanding or derived interpretation (arrived at either through the explicit statements found in exegesis or through the implicit statements found in a systematic study) of a collection of passages, and is used as a sort of filter (which often exists in the back of the interpreter’s mind) for the purpose of understanding more difficult passages; it is often assumed by the interpreter to be the application of the analogy of faith.
Historical Theology—this is the body of orthodox Christian interpretation of scripture. We find these interpretations in several subcategories:
· Exegetical Interpretations—this represents the body of “exegetical theology” passed down to us from our fathers and grandfathers in the faith. It includes the exegesis of commentaries, historic creeds, and confessions. This class of interpretations contains those which have at their heart, the unfettered desire to simply take the passage at “face value”. But, like one’s systematic interpretation, one’s exegetical interpretation is also subject to faulty human reason and understanding, thus it too must also be submitted to the scrutiny of a co-equal branch of the means of interpretation.
· Biblical Interpretations—this represents the body of “biblical theology” as passed down to us by our faithful forefathers. It includes the historical witness of the linear expression of the bible’s account of Christian doctrines as they are developed in the, more or less, chronological unfolding of redemptive history through the progress of special revelation.
· Systematic Interpretations—this represents the body of “systematic theology” as passed down by our spiritual forefathers in the form of catechisms, the volumes of systematic or topical scriptural addresses that have been published and preserved for our benefit, and other less systematically intentional documents such as the recorded debates that churchmen have had with individual heretics (such as Pelagius) or heretical groups (such as the Arians). Some of the teachings contained in the historic creeds and confessions may also be categorized as systematic. Interpretations derived from one’s systematic theology aren’t necessarily (but may be) explicitly stated in any one passage, but are inferred in a collection of passages.
None of which fall under the same authoritative umbrella of scripture itself, however, it is the interpretation of the Words of scripture that bind us with authority, and not the ink and paper themselves that hold us captive to the Law and Gospel that they contain so, to whatever degree our interpretations of the Words err, so do they proportionately fail to lead us in doctrine and practice.
Consequent/Resulting Interpretations – Ones that appear to be clearly stated in one or more passages. These can often be the ones employed as “proof texts”. This is why it is so very important to use exegetical interpretations and systematic interpretations in conjunction with one another so they can perform as a structure of checks and balances. This scheme should function by having one’s systematic understanding of scripture keep him from interpreting a passage in isolation from the rest of scriptural witness on a doctrine or topic contained in a passage, and one’s exegesis should keep him from allowing his systematic understanding from unduly coloring a passage that actually repudiates that systematic understanding. One should also note here the important roles that both, historical and biblical theology play in this process—helping to promote the proper interpretation of a passage by keeping checks and balances on one’s exegesis and systematic theology as well.
Interpretive Methodology – the way by which one comes to understand the meaning of a portion of scripture, which process includes but is not limited to the application of ones hermeneutical presuppositions. In addition to defining this term, I have also included an illustrative prescription for implementing this methodology, for which I must credit friends who share my love for Bible study who have, along the way, been instrumental in helping me to think the content and order of this process through.
· Repetitive meditation on the words of the passage.
· Consider the historical context in which the passage was written and in which it was first read.
· Consider the “theological” context – its place in the “meta-narrative” of scripture; these first two would be the application of “contextual hierarchy” defined below.
· Consider the literary genre.
· Consider the historical interpretations that have been made.
· As a function of the consideration of historical interpretations, consider the passage in terms of a systematic assessment of all scripture which is apparently relevant to the passage’s interpretation, its placement in the line of biblical theology, and the exegetical work of trusted commentaries.
· Consider the grammatical construction and vocabulary of the original language.
The ideal application of this process or method of interpretation is incredibly time consuming and, in reality, is not likely to be practiced on a weekly basis (in the case of a teaching elder, pastor or Sunday School teacher) so, because I have bothered to take the time to lay out such a process in its detail, it is also this author’s responsibility to provide some sort of prioritization of these means so as to compress the time that must be involved to arrive at the most correct interpretations humanly possible. So the list that follows is one such suggested abbreviation of these means, and is not intended to prescribe a certain order or priority, but simply to point out those means that are, in my opinion, essential to the accurate interpretation of scripture, and the end of which is the love and enjoyment of God forever:
The Absolute Essentials
· Prayer—certainly no Christian can survive without prayer, whether they are using it to ask for wisdom in their interpretation of God’s Word or not. Not intended to be used alone, this is necessarily a part of the list of essential means to understanding scripture.
· Repetitive Meditation—no serious interpretation of a passage can be made without some degree of reflection.
As far as I can see it, these two things are the only means that I would consider fundamentally and absolutely necessary to come to any conclusions about a passage; certainly, one must have read and re-read the passage in order to make any comment at all, and, strictly as a matter of piety, we cannot exclude prayer from this process. Surely, the more time spent practicing all the interpretive methods I have listed above, the more thoughtful the interpretation is likely to be. I would submit here that, though the study of original biblical language was far more prevalent amongst a much greater percentage of laymen in the past, this discipline in the last 150-200 years has sadly become the sole jurisdiction of “theologians” and the publication of much of their consequent work on particular passages (coupled with the general dulling of the intellect of American Protestants and Evangelicals, brought on by the industrial revolution) has made many of us, would-be-interpreters of scripture, reliant upon the work of perhaps, more diligent men who have trodden this ground before us.
In the next list, I have included the two from the list above, with the addition of some others, which together they approach the idealistic process I described first, but certainly remain a realistic list of resources for the average layman to employ.
Second Tier Essentials
· Prayer
· Repetitive Meditation
· Historical and Theological Contexts
· Literary Genre
· Historical Theology—one should take into account the systematic, biblical and exegetical work that has been made by those they trust to provide them with accurate information.
There are three basic assumptions shared by the two major hermeneutical schools of thought, Theism – a Creator-god is the best explanation for our reality, Immanence – He necessarily has communicated with His creatures, and Primo Regnum (an assumption of which the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is a part) – the Words that the Creator-god has communicated to His creatures are their primary authority and the apprehension thereof is their primary way of understanding the dimensions of reality to which they specifically speak. These are starting points that shape all legitimate types of Christian interpretations of reality. The assumption of Deism and the fact that God has clearly spoken in time, leads to Christian theism after being confronted by the truths revealed in God’s Word. God has also spoken in nature, though not specifically about the means of reconciliation, and through which He is revealed to His creatures sufficiently enough that they are accountable to the knowledge of His existence by the testimony of nature alone, thus persons never having been exposed to the special revelation of God found in the canon of holy scriptures are still culpable for their unbelief and under the just penalty of His wrath because of Adam’s representative sin.
No comments:
Post a Comment