Hermeneutics

Hermeneutics

Definition of hermeneutics• Comes from the word Hermes , the Greek god

who was a messenger for gods interpreting their communications to the recipients.

• Hermeneutics is the science and art of Biblical interpretation

• It is science because it has rules which can be classified in an orderly system.

• It is an are because communication is flexible• One must learn the rules and should have the

are to apply the rules

The need for Hermeneutics Obstacles in interpreting the ScriptureHistorical: There is a historical gap

Jonah’s antipathy for NinevitesJesus withdrew from the place after feeding five thousands.

Cultural: Culture of the ancient Hebrew and first century Mediterranean world and our contemporary situationLeaving father and mother , cleaving with the wife Prodigal son

The need for Hermeneutics Philosophical : There is a tremendous change in

philosophical understandingViews of life, of circumstances, of nature of universe

Linguistic: Three languages Hebrew, Aramaic and GreekEvery language has its expression Know in Hebrew and in EnglishEnglish has changed over centuries, Prodigal

Definition of hermeneuticsTwo subcategories of Hermeneutical theoriesGeneral: Rules governing interpretation of the

entire Bible. Example: Historical cultural context,

Isaiah 6:1Special: Rules applying to specific genres like

Psalms, parables , prophecies etcExample : the poor man a the door of

the rich man

Alternative views of inspiration

Three main views of inspiration1. Authors transcribed primitive Hebrew religious

conceptions about God and his working. It is like putting pieces together to give a comprehensive picture.

2. A position by neo-orthodox scholars. God revealed himself in mighty acts and not in words. The Bible becomes the word of God when individuals read it and words acquire personal, existential significance for them. A demythologizing process

Alternative views of inspiration

3. God worked through the personalities of the Biblical writers in such a way that without their personal style of expression of freedom, what they produced was literally “God-breathed”

Scripture is and always will remain truth, whether or not we read and appropriate it personally.

Relations of hermeneutics to other fields of biblical study

A. Canonicity : Canon has to do with a fixed group of books recognized to bear the impress of divine authority. Here, it means the Protestant canon comprising the sixty six books of the Bible which are accepted as authoritative for teaching and practice or a Christian and his faith community. The interpretation should stay within the canon of Scripture.Ecclesiastes 9:10 “Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might.”

Relations of hermeneutics to other fields of biblical study

B. Textual criticism (lower criticism) : Since the originals (autographs) are no longer in existence—as is the case with the Bible, textual criticism reconstructs from the copies of the originals with all their variants, and gives the public a text or reading that is allegedly the original, or nearly the original reading.

Relations of hermeneutics to other fields of Biblical study

C. Historical (higher) criticism: It studies the contemporaneous circumstances surrounding the composition of a particular book. This study concerns with questions of authorship and audience of a book, the date of its composition, the historical circumstances surrounding its composition, the authenticity of its contents, and its literary unity.

• Conservative Bible scholars and Christian believers reject the use of historical criticism in biblical interpretation because this method leads to the questioning of the belief that Scripture is God’s inspired Word for humanity

• The Seventh-day Adventist church counsels against the use of historical criticism in Bible study and interpretation


D. Exegesis vs eisegesis. • The first refers to a deriving of understanding

from the text; whereas the second refers to the supplying of meaning to the text. Eisegesis has to do with what the reader wants the text to mean, and not what the text itself means. Exegesis applies the principles of hermeneutics to understand the author’s intended meaning.


E.Biblical theology : the study of divine revelation as it was given through the OT and NT. The questions it asks:

• a. How did this specific revelation add to the knowledge that believers already possessed at that time?

• b. It attempts to show the development of theological knowledge during the OT and NT era.

• c. It organizes the data in a historical manner


F. Systematic theology:1.Organizes the biblical data in a logical rather

than a historical manner (biblical theology). 2. It attempts to place all the information on a

given topic together so that we can understand the totality of God’s revelation on that topic.

• 3. Both biblical and systematic theologies are needed to give us a greater understanding of scripture. One cannot do without the other


G.Practical theology: the final stage of the hermeneutical process. 1. It describes, analyzes and synthesizes contemporary situations and practices.2. Then it dialogues with the work of the above disciplines as those of social and natural sciences. Based on this dialogue it arrives at a response to the contemporary situation. 3. It then develops an effective strategy for Christian life and practice that speaks to the contemporary situation. It explores the significance of what the Bible says and applies that to specific contemporary contexts.

Controversial issues in contemporary hermeneutics

• A. Validity in interpretation1. What constitutes the valid meaning of a text?

Or, are there multiple valid meanings? This is the most basic question in hermeneutics.

Response: It gives rise to a multiplicity of meanings, none of which is more right than the others; and this defeats the very purpose of the writer himself—which is to convey a definite message of his conviction.

Controversial issues in contemporary hermeneutics

2. If there are more than one, are some more valid than others? In that case, what criteria can be used to distinguish the more valid from the less valid interpretations?

Response: In view of the Bible being God’s word, it would be obvious that God used the prophet/apostle to convey certain specific messages, instructions, commands, etc., and in no way would He expect the prophet/apostle to interpret, or change it the way he saw fit. (In fact inspiration itself has to do with safeguarding God’s message from corruption.)

Controversial issues in contemporary hermeneutics3. By the 1920s the meaning of a text is what is means to me, vs.

the prevailing belief that a text means what its author meant.4. Is it true that what the text says to the individual critic is more

important that deciphering the original meaning? Should this individual be the determiner of the meaning of the text rather than allowing its author to tell us its meaning—his meaning?

Response: If the interpreter/reader/hearer is given the right to determine the message, then the Bible is no longer God’s word, it is the word of whoever the reader/interpreter is. This being the case then we have no basis to conclude that the orthodox interpretation of a passage is more valid than a heretical one. Indeed, the distinction between orthodox and heretical interpretations is no longer meaningful.

Controversial issues in contemporary hermeneutics• 5. However, there is definitely the possibility of

one interpretation (the author’s intended meaning) and more than one possible application (significance), depending on the situation/context. E.g. Ephesians 4:26-27 “In your anger do not sin: Do not let the sun go down while you are still angry, 27and do not give the devil a foothold.”

• More than one possible application/significance is possible for this text because it depends on the situation—it could be while you are angry with your employer, or wife, or son, or father, etc.

Controversial issues in contemporary hermeneutics• Double authorship and sensus plenior ( a fuller sense of scripture)1. What meaning did the human author intend? 2. What meaning did the divine author intend? Did the intended meaning of the divine

author exceed that of the human author? • Response 1: could it be that at a certain point the understanding of the meaning between

God and the prophet/apostle coincide? But God’s understanding goes beyond that? Example: the analogical form of language is a case in point.

3. Were the authors aware of the full implications of what they wrote? Could there be the possibility of more significance to an OT passage than was consciously apparent to the original author? In favor of the sensus plenior position, Read 1 Pet 1:10-12.

• Response 2: Who will decide the sensus plenior, if there is one? And on what basis? The authors refer approvingly to God’s “later revelation.” . What do they mean? If the NT is the later revelation of the OT, then what is the later revelation of the NT?

• 1 Peter 1:10-12 “Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace that was to come to you, searched intently and with the greatest care, 11 trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing when he predicted the sufferings of the Messiah and the glories that would follow. 12 It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves but you, when they spoke of the things that have now been told you by those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven. Even angels long to look into these things.”

Controversial issues in contemporary hermeneutics• Literal, figurative, and symbolic interpretations of Scripture

1. Questions are raised about the degree of literalness of interpretation of Scripture. Conservative Christians are often accused of this as being “wooden-headed literalists.” .2. Is Jonah’s story in connection with the sea monster to be taken literally? What about Noah’s flood, or the fall?3. Liberal Christians: These must be taken symbolically, not literally. They are to be understood as metaphors, symbols, and allegories rather than historical events. 4. Conservatives recognize that Scripture uses all these senses

• Caution: Problems that arise when readers interpret statements in a mode other than the one intended by the author.” That is, we must take it literally if that’s what the author wants us to take; or symbolically if that’s what he intends, and so on. And we use context and syntax as safeguards and clues to whether the author is speaking symbolically or literally

The question of inerrancy

A. Full inerrancy: the original manuscripts (mss) of Scripture are without error in the things they asserted.B. Limited inerrancy: Affirms that Scripture is without error in matters of faith and practice but may include errors on matters such as history, geography, or science. (Ex: Lord’s prayer Mt6 & Lk 11. Where did Jesus actually teach the prayer.)Implications: 1. If it has errors on these areas, then it may be in error whenever it speaks about the nature of human beings, interpersonal and family relationships, sexual lifestyles, the will and emotions, and a host of other issues related to Christian living.


2. History bears out that the questioning of the validity of small details of Scripture eventually question larger doctrines as well. Acceptance of an errant Scripture in peripheral matters has soon been followed by the allegation that Scripture is errant in more central teachings as well.3. What do we do when there appears to be a discrepancy between two or more texts? Should we decide that one or both of them contains errors? 4. On the other hand, if we begin with the presupposition that Scripture does not contain errors, then we are motivated to seek an exegetically justifiable way of resolving any seeming discrepancy.


• Jesus and the Bible If Jesus Christ is, in fact, the Son of God then his attitude toward Scripture will provide the best answer to the question of inerrancy.1. In referring to the various OT personalities and institutions and events, Jesus uses them as straightforward records of fact. See examples—.10ff./302. Jesus used OT stories as the basis of his teaching such as Noah and the flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, Jonah....the very stories modern critics find unacceptable.3. Jesus consistently adduced the OT Scriptures as the authoritative court of appeal in his controversies with the Scribes and the Pharisees.4. Jesus did not make any distinction between revelatory and non-revelatory in Scripture. He accepts whatever is claimed in Scripture as revelatory and thus true. In other words, Jesus accepted the infallibility of Scripture. This acknowledgment is admitted even by radical scholars like Harnack, Bultmann, and H. J. Cadbury.5. The significance of this is that if we accept Christ’s claims, we have to likewise accept all that he taught and believed, including his belief about Scripture (OT)


Spiritual

Hermeneutics