Hermeneutics Discussion

[JasonG.]

I suppose that this is as good a time as any, given the true issue at Knox Theological Seminary, to address the grand issue of hermeneutics[1] – that is, the theory and methodology of interpretation, especially of Scriptural text. The standard for the Reformed faith on the interpretation of Scripture, and on not just a biblical understanding of hermeneutics but all doctrine, is the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF). As such, this is what the WCF, chapter 1, paragraph 9 (WCF 1.9) states concerning Biblical interpretation:

“The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.”

Further, the beginning of WCF 1.6 states:

“The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture.”

I suppose this is simple enough. First, Scripture interprets Scripture. So, secondly, one portion of Scripture cannot be interpreted to mean something contradictory to another part of Scripture. The Scripture is thus a unitary whole yet comprised of a multitude of words, sentences, paragraphs, thoughts, and themes – yet all combining to serve the greater meta-narrative of God à unity in diversity. Essentially, Scripture is to be interpreted according to the rules of standard interpretation (syntax, grammar, word usage, etc.) applied to any text, sacred or not.

An author of any book almost always has a broader narrative and purpose that the entire parts of the book are working toward. This is beautifully seen in classic books like Plato’s Republic – where the dialogue between Socrates and his interlocutors progresses through numerous images and stories, all working toward the broader purpose of defining justice and the good city. In Scripture, this broader purpose, or meta-narrative, is designed by the Triune God and communicated in the text through the individual authors via God the Holy Spirit. As such, this begs certain questions:

1. Do the individual authors have the any knowledge of the portion their writing plays in the broader meta-narrative? If so, how extensive of knowledge/understanding do they have?
   
   
   [*]How do we interpret Old Testament and New Testament texts in light of this broader meta-narrative? This has a particular impact on typology. Example: the author of Hebrews cites the Old Testament sacrificial system as a type or a shadow pointing ahead to the reality of Christ’s substitutionary sacrifice in which the type has its fulfillment (Heb. 9).
   
   
   [*]What is the proper interpretation of typology? Do we follow Marsh’s Dictum which declares that we can only call that a type in the Old Testament which is explicit detailed as one in the New Testament? The problem with this view is that the Apostles did not appear to operate by it. For instance, Matthew, in 2:15 of his Gospel quotes Hosea 11:1 as referring to Christ: “Out of Egypt I have called my son.” Yet, the original context of Hosea 11 does not lend itself readily, by either Marsh’s Dictum or other “ordinary” modern Evangelical hermeneutical principles to such an interpretation. Do we follow contemporary, rational constraints? Or do we follow Apostolic example though it requires enormous discernment and study to ascertain?
   

[1] From Online Etymology Dictionary: “"interpretive," 1678, from Gk. hermeneutikos "interpreting," from hermeneutes "interpreter," from hermeneuein "to interpret," considered ultimately a derivative of Hermes, as the tutelary divinity of speech, writing, and eloquence.”

 

[weinhold]

I suppose that this is as good a time as any, given the true issue at Knox Theological Seminary, to address the grand issue of hermeneutics[1] – that is, the theory and methodology of interpretation, especially of Scriptural text. The standard for the Reformed faith on the interpretation of Scripture, and on not just a biblical understanding of hermeneutics but all doctrine, is the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF). As such, this is what the WCF, chapter 1, paragraph 9 (WCF 1.9) states concerning Biblical interpretation:

“The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.”

Further, the beginning of WCF 1.6 states:

“The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture.”

I suppose this is simple enough. First, Scripture interprets Scripture. So, secondly, one portion of Scripture cannot be interpreted to mean something contradictory to another part of Scripture. The Scripture is thus a unitary whole yet comprised of a multitude of words, sentences, paragraphs, thoughts, and themes – yet all combining to serve the greater meta-narrative of God à unity in diversity. Essentially, Scripture is to be interpreted according to the rules of standard interpretation (syntax, grammar, word usage, etc.) applied to any text, sacred or not.

An author of any book almost always has a broader narrative and purpose that the entire parts of the book are working toward. This is beautifully seen in classic books like Plato’s Republic – where the dialogue between Socrates and his interlocutors progresses through numerous images and stories, all working toward the broader purpose of defining justice and the good city. In Scripture, this broader purpose, or meta-narrative, is designed by the Triune God and communicated in the text through the individual authors via God the Holy Spirit. As such, this begs certain questions:

1. Do the individual authors have the any knowledge of the portion their writing plays in the broader meta-narrative? If so, how extensive of knowledge/understanding do they have?
   
   
   [*]How do we interpret Old Testament and New Testament texts in light of this broader meta-narrative? This has a particular impact on typology. Example: the author of Hebrews cites the Old Testament sacrificial system as a type or a shadow pointing ahead to the reality of Christ’s substitutionary sacrifice in which the type has its fulfillment (Heb. 9).
   
   
   [*]What is the proper interpretation of typology? Do we follow Marsh’s Dictum which declares that we can only call that a type in the Old Testament which is explicit detailed as one in the New Testament? The problem with this view is that the Apostles did not appear to operate by it. For instance, Matthew, in 2:15 of his Gospel quotes Hosea 11:1 as referring to Christ: “Out of Egypt I have called my son.” Yet, the original context of Hosea 11 does not lend itself readily, by either Marsh’s Dictum or other “ordinary” modern Evangelical hermeneutical principles to such an interpretation. Do we follow contemporary, rational constraints? Or do we follow Apostolic example though it requires enormous discernment and study to ascertain?
   

[1] From Online Etymology Dictionary: “"interpretive," 1678, from Gk. hermeneutikos "interpreting," from hermeneutes "interpreter," from hermeneuein "to interpret," considered ultimately a derivative of Hermes, as the tutelary divinity of speech, writing, and eloquence.”

Great post, Jason. I really appreciate your desire to investigate these issues of interpretation; it is indeed a relevant subject, and not merely within reformed circles. So in the spirit of investigating these things thoroughly, I hope you won't mind if I ask for clarification about a few of your statements:

1) "Scripture interprets Scripture" has become cliche. Though you did a good job of explaining what it means, a problem remains for us: How does Scripture interpret Scripture? Scriptural interpretation of itself is intended to solve problems with seeming contradictions, such as OT God/NT God; Law/Gospel; Faith/Works; Mosaic view of women/Pauline view of women; monotheism/trinitarianism; etc. But how does Scripture interpret itself?--this is the sharp edge that dissects our interpretive traditions.

So my question to you is: How do readers decide how Scripture interprets itself? I do not ask because I think I already have the answer, and it is not some sort of guile-laden trick question. It's simply a difficult one for which I do not have a solid answer.

***

Essentially, Scripture is to be interpreted according to the rules of standard interpretation (syntax, grammar, word usage, etc.) applied to any text, sacred or not.

2) By no means are there universally agreed upon methods for interpreting any text. Though I don't disagree with the criteria you list above, you should know that opinions conflict regarding textual interpretation: New Criticism, Structuralism, Post-Structuralism, Deconstruction, New Historicism, and other literary theories all offer competing explanations. So to say that Scripture should be interpreted according to interpretive standards assumes a fiction: that such standards are agreed upon and fixed.

If you would like to interrogate these debates, a process I myself have just begun, I suggest Jonathan Culler's Introduction.

***

3) I would also be interested to hear what you think about the issues of chronological development, cultural context, linguistic context, and the role of the Church in interpretation.