Bibliology - Part 4
Bibliology - Part 4
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Having defined what Biblical revelation is (extent and content), and how it has been transmitted to us (inspiration), the next logical question is how do we determine it’s meaning (interpretation). That brings us to the next point of my doctrinal statement:
I believe the Bible can be clearly understood using the Historical-Grammatical Hermeneutic.
This statement deals with the “how” of Biblical Interpretation - the science and art of Hermeneutics (from the Greek work hermeneuo - to interpret). It is a science because very specific principles can be brought to bear in order to determine the meaning of Scripture, and it is an art because these rules, as valuable as they are, cannot be rigidly applied. (For a full treatment of Biblical Interpretation refer to the study “How to Study the Bible” under the Theological Studies tab above since a full examination of this subject is far beyond the scope of our treatment here).
The Historical-Grammatical, or Literal, Hermeneutic refers to the discipline of understanding the Bible in terms of its historical and grammatical setting using a literal approach to the text. That is, an understanding of the background of any passage is key in understanding its meaning (author, audience, time, geography, history, and culture), as well as an understanding of language (figures of speech, syntax, vocabulary, and etymology). In other words, one needs to interpret the Bible using the clear meaning of the words in the text along with an understanding of its historical setting, or sitz im lieben.
This approach is in distinction to the Allegorical, or Spiritual, approach, where Biblical interpretation enters the realm of a free-for-all. Meaning is what is ascribed to the text, not what is derived from it. Proponents of this method can literally make the Bible mean anything they want it to mean, since history and language are irrelevant. The existence of a real Adam and Eve is not important, only the spiritual meaning of the story. When their interpretations are challenged their response is that what they think the text means is as valid as anyone else’s interpretation, and even then, how can anyone be certain that they alone can know what a text means? To do so is the height of arrogance.
A word needs to be made here about authorial intent. The Historical-Grammatical approach emphasizes what the author meant by what is said. It other words, it is an approach that seeks to find out what each of the Bible writers meant in each of the texts they wrote. That is the meaning of the text. The Allegorical approach is the opposite. The meaning of the text is not what the author meant, but what I think the text means. In other words, the determination of what a passage says lies in my interpretation, and not in the author’s intent. I reject the Allegorical approach on this ground since in many ways it denies the need to determine authorial intent.
A final note about the Historical-Grammatical, or literal, approach is that it does not mean we rigidly interpret the Bible literally. We understand that in any written work there are figures of speech, such as simile, metaphor, personification, exaggeration, sarcasm, and anthropocentrism. In the Old Testament it speaks of Israel being protected under God’s wings but we don’t take that to mean God is a big bird, but rather it is a figure of speech depicting God’s care of Israel to be like that of a hen caring for her chicks by protecting them under her wings. We should read the Bible like our newspapers, using the normal, literal meaning of the words without reading some higher level meaning into them.
I believe that only when we interpret the Bible using a literal, historical approach will be be able to accurately understand its meaning and be able to correctly apply it to our lives.
