What is Interpretation?

[Afterthought]

What is an interpretation of the Bible? Is it merely an hypothesis that best explains the "facts" of the text, a "working model" for which no evidence has yet appeared to displace it, an inference to the best explanation of the text, a theory made under the constraints of the text? If so, how can we ever be certain of what the Bible says? If interpretation is not this, then what is it?

I ask, not only for reasons of figuring out how can we know with "certainty" (if we can), but also because I often hear that extra-Biblical considerations can be used when interpreting the Scriptures. Indeed, I hear that extra-Biblical considerations can occasion a reviewing of the text, although it cannot be the ground for a new interpretation. These things should inform but not control the interpretation of the text. They should act ministerially rather than magisterially. The difficulty I have is understanding precisely what it means for outside information to control the interpretation of the text. Understanding what interpretation is might alleviate this difficulty e.g., if interpretation of a text is the best explanation under the constraints of the text, then one might say that outside information "controls" the interpretation when it is used to constrain the interpretation (i.e., rule out other possible interpretations).

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Phew, at least you asked a simple question!

This is a pretty complicated question. Hermeneutics is, itself, the science of interpretation. There are good and bad hermeneutical approaches. There is the Roman Catholic methodology that sets the Magisterium as the infallible authority of truth (based on their alleged "...the Church has always taught this...") and that will then control how one interprets certain texts. They'll go to the announcement of the Birth of Jesus and interpret Mary being full of grace as her sinlessness not as a necessity of the text but as something that has been doctrinally determined outside the text and they hear from the text only that which they expected to hear. This is why, incidentally, that the Roman Catholic Church doesn't produce infallible commentaries. One might expect such a thing from an infallible teaching source. This would, of course, self-limit what is otherwise a pretty sweet deal where doctrines can be defined and then retroactively read back not only into the text of Scripture but also into Church history so that the Church has always believed that Mary was sinless (even though it clearly did not).

I use the RCC as an example of how interpretation can function not because they are unique in doctrine informing interpretation but a particular egregious example of idolatrous doctrine making it nigh impossible for a faithful RCC adherent to ever properly interpret the text if he has the Bible in one hand and the Catechism of the Catholic Church in the other.

So how does interpretation function properly? Well, as a Reformed Christian I would say that there are a couple of over-riding principles. One is the grammatico-historical method for interpreting and the other is the analogy of Scripture. The first states that when we read Scripture we apply the rules of grammar and context and history to understand the meaning of words and understand them as we would other forms of literature. The second principle is that the Scriptures have not only human authors (who must be understood in their historical-grammatical context) but there is also the "God-breathed" character of Scripture that causes the entire Scriptures to cohere and so we have confidence that we can ascertain a coherent whole with which we can check the individual parts. Put another way - Scripture interprets Scripture. When we read Paul teach about Justification in one part of Scripture it informs our entire understanding of the doctrine so that we don't pit Paul against James (simply concluding each has a divergent theology) but each each informs the other so that we can arrive at a coherent harmony of the doctrine examining the language and context of how both treat the topic.

As we are reading the Scriptures and interpreting we begin with the words themselves and what their meaning is, their syntax, how they form sentences and thoughts and paragraphs and ideas. We then work outward to the context of the book to the context of the Scriptures and we can get a sense of what the verse means in its context but we also check it against the whole. In other words, it is inescapable that we would use theology to check what the exegesis of a particular passage is or we are left with no coherence. We remember that God is One when we're reading about Jesus and the Father and the Spirit are God but we also remember that God is Three (in some sense) when we read that God is One. Exegesis of words and sentences and paragraphs and books builds up to a coherent theology (systematics) and the systematics are used to "error-check" the theology that arises out of individual sections. It is all, however, a theology of interpretation that is grounded in the Scriptures.

I would be remiss if I did not conclude with that which is of first importance and that is illumination itself. The Spirit is not dispensible in this but essential in our proper apprehension of the Word of God. If we have no eyes to see or ears to see then our Church will be like the Scribes, the Pharisees, and the Saduccees of Christ's day - always hearing but never perceiving. We need to pray for the Spirit's help as we have confidence that the Lord will preserve His Church. The line from A Mighty Fortress is "...the Spirit and the gifts are ours..." - without this assurance then we will be the blind leading the blind.

 

[Afterthought]

I save all my simple questions for the Puritanboard!

Thanks for the reply. Based on the wonderfully detailed description of the interpretive process you have given, it would seem to me "interpretation," while resembling a "working hypothesis" at a superficial level, differs from it at a number of points? Namely, there is the spiral nature of understanding the Scriptures as text moves to systematics and vice-versa. Perhaps a spiral is inevitable of any closed system of facts and is necessary in order to grow in understanding of a closed system. There is also the Spirit's illumination and providing of assurance. Since certainty is a subjective matter, individuals and the church can be confident they can arrive at interpretations that are indeed correct. It also seems the text itself is not acting as a constraint in the same manner that occurs with "interpretations" of the natural world (?). The spiral, the Spirit, and perhaps constraints working differently all seem to distinguish interpretation of the Scriptures from "interpretations" of nature.

I was thinking of Ken Ham's response to the final question of that debate and wondering how I might respond. I would probably say, "Sound exegesis of the Scriptures" would change my mind. I also have noticed Giradeau's separation between the Scriptures and the Church's interpretation of them during the Woodrow incident, saying that although the Church may be wrong, the Church's interpretation is the Scriptures to the Church. This is similar in our days when people separate interpretation of Scripture (fallible constructions of men) and the Scriptures themselves (infallible Word of God) in order to provide grounds for re-interpreting the Scriptures when they conflict with the "certainties" of modern day science. However, these sorts of admissions, even the relatively modest one I made at the beginning of the paragraph (which seems to me everyone would admit), seem to say our interpretations are not certain but an ongoing process? "Certainly," our interpretations and our systematic theology are fallible?

Given this understanding of Scriptural interpretation, I suppose extra-Biblical considerations would of necessity have some role in understanding the words and historical context. I guess we could understand extra-Biblical considerations as controlling the text of Scripture when it enters into the "coherence" check. That is, when it is allowed to interpret Scripture as the Scriptures interpret Scripture. Or perhaps more clearly, when an interpretation is "error-checked" by not just systematics but also extra-Biblical considerations. However, this understanding may still run into a problem: If the Scriptures are said to teach something plainly against the senses or reason, we would have to reject it on extra-Biblical grounds, as well as Biblical grounds (whether it be transubstantiation or someone claiming the Bible teaches we have three arms). Perhaps we could make this the only exception?

I guess extra-Biblical considerations would also be considered to control the text of Scripture when they insert facts that are not in the text, although this may be harder to distinguish from simply using these considerations in determining historical context (e.g., when Paul tells the women to not wear gold or costly array, I have heard some say the context is Roman women overly-dressing in order to please the gods and so this is not an absolute prohibition but a prohibition against over doing it in apparel.)?

 

[py3ak]

I would say that an interpretation is generally an expanded restatement of a proposition that pins down its purport by means of definitions, making explicit what was implicit, explicating the enfolded, and identifying referents.

When done properly, it's a discovery rather than an invention. It need not be tentative if suitable material is available.

The question of how the interpretation of a text relates to the world outside the text, depends on a more fundamental question: how does the text itself relate to the outside world. If it is subordinate, then of course outside knowledge dictates the interpretation of the text. If it is co-ordinate they mutually inform. If the text is supreme, then the outside world is wrong to disagree. However, in the last case, if the text claims to be in harmony with the outside world, a process of adjustment of one to the other is not necessarily a failure.

 

[Peairtach]

An overarching aspect of Reformed and truly evangelical interpretation is belief in the God of Scripture who has made Himself known. To say that sound conclusions from Scripture, and its interpretation in which we can have confidence, are impossible, or that the reading and interpretation of Scripture leaves us in a world of subjectivity, is unbelief in the God of Scripture who has spoken - through His Son.

We would basically be saying that God -if He exists at all - has spoken unintelligible gobbledegook to no purpose in the pages of Scripture, which is rank unbelief in God as revealed (the Word) and in God.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

 

[JimmyH]

Another thread in which I'm arguably 'in over my head', but I'm thinking this from Reverend D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones is applicable, and he is equal to the task.

"Great Doctrines Of The Bible; God The Father, God The Son", page 37 ;

"The first thing we must do, in view of all that we have seen together, is agree to grasp the Bible as our full and final authority in all matters of revelation. Having seen that we cannot get anywhere without the Bible, then the obvious thing to do is to say, 'Very well, I accept the Bible. I don't know anything apart from it. I have no knowledge of God apart from what the Bible tells me. I may theorize, and other people may do the same thing, but I really do not know anything apart from what I find in this book.' So the first decision we must make is that we are going to be, as John Wesley put it, men and women 'of one book'. Here is my only source, my only authority.

But I want to underline this and even emphasise it still further. I must submit myself entirely to the Bible, and that will mean certain things. First, I start by telling myself that when I come to read the Bible and its doctrines, I am entering into a realm that is beyond the reach of my understanding. By definition, I shall be dealing with things that are beyond my power to grasp. The very idea of revelation , in and of itself, I suggest to you, must carry that implication. We are going to try and know God and study the doctrines concerning Him, and it must be the case that these truths are beyond our understanding. If I could understand God, I would be equal with Him. If my mind were able to apprehend and to span the truth about God then it would mean that my mind is equal to the mind of God, and that, of course, is altogether wrong.

For instance, in our next lecture we hope to be dealing with the doctrine of the Trinity. Now there by definition is a doctrine that no one can possibly understand, but let us agree to say that before we come to the doctrine. Let nobody think, however, that this means committing intellectual suicide when we take up the Bible. It simply means that we recognize that there is a limit to reason. We agree with the great French mathematician and philosopher, Pascal, that the supreme achievement of reason is to teach that there is an end and limit to reason. Our reason takes us so far and then we enter into the realm of revelation, where God is graciously pleased to manifest Himself to us.

But now I am anxious to emphasise the second point. It means that we must accept truths where we cannot understand them and fully explain them. Not only must we agree that we cannot, of necessity, understand everything, but also, when we come up against particular doctrines and truths, we must accept them if they are in he Bible, irrespective of the fact that we can or cannot understand them. Now I rather like to think of faith in that way. I am not sure but that the best definition of faith we can ever arrive at is this: faith means that men and women decide quite deliberately to be content only with what they have in the Bible, and that they stop asking questions."

Obviously MLJ did not mean that we do not attempt to the best of our ability to understand what we can, and no one loved exegesis and exegetes more than MLJ.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Given this understanding of Scriptural interpretation, I suppose extra-Biblical considerations would of necessity have some role in understanding the words and historical context. I guess we could understand extra-Biblical considerations as controlling the text of Scripture when it enters into the "coherence" check. That is, when it is allowed to interpret Scripture as the Scriptures interpret Scripture. Or perhaps more clearly, when an interpretation is "error-checked" by not just systematics but also extra-Biblical considerations. However, this understanding may still run into a problem: If the Scriptures are said to teach something plainly against the senses or reason, we would have to reject it on extra-Biblical grounds, as well as Biblical grounds (whether it be transubstantiation or someone claiming the Bible teaches we have three arms). Perhaps we could make this the only exception?

I guess extra-Biblical considerations would also be considered to control the text of Scripture when they insert facts that are not in the text, although this may be harder to distinguish from simply using these considerations in determining historical context (e.g., when Paul tells the women to not wear gold or costly array, I have heard some say the context is Roman women overly-dressing in order to please the gods and so this is not an absolute prohibition but a prohibition against over doing it in apparel.)?

I think I detect you using the idea of "extra-Biblical" as something that is outside Revelation. Perhaps not but I think something that Richard noted is important. Our God is a revealing God and the Reformed conviction on knowledge is that all human knowledge is a creaturely-limited theology that is revealed by God. Thus what we know about the world (natural revelation) is not outside of God's revelation but, because the world is created by Him, everything stands in relation to Him and reveals something to creatures.

We can look at the whole of natural and special revelation and put them together into a perfect theology that is accomodated to the creature. This the Reformed called ectypal theology. It is all of that revelation (both general and special) that has been revealed but that does not mean that we have a perfect apprehension of it. Even if we might have an aptitude for certain subjects, sin would still cloud our ability to apprehend the truth perfectly.

Thus, to speak of language and syntax and even what the cultural surroundings at the time that the Scriptures were written may be outside of special revelation but that does not put them outside of natural revelation. There is a proper use of these tools of learning and there is a wrong use of them. There are right ways and wrong ways to interpret a Greek word or sentence because it's not as if knowledge of such things operates outside of a Creator Who is the fountainhead of all human knowledge and understanding.

We ought to be praying then not only that we would put together special revelation properly but also that we would understand natural revelation properly. Toward that end, I believe that an unbeliever can have some knowledge of natural revelation because they are created in the image of God but it will never be ultimately fruitful because he will never see that knowledge in light of the Creator or give due consideration to Him. In one sense, we need to be born again not to grasp certain laws of physics but to consider those laws of physics as somehow isolated facts but as things that were created by God. I believe that makes a difference in how we would use extra-Biblical knowledge to control the exegesis of a text. If an author is making a clear argument about something in the Scriptures about the nature of man then that controls our underlying understanding of man and should then inform our study of the world around us.

 

[Afterthought]

When done properly, it's a discovery rather than an invention. It need not be tentative if suitable material is available.

This is useful. Since not all Scripture has the same clarity, my question was too general. Instead, there will be interpretations that are tentative and interpretations that are not. I like the idea of interpretation being a discovery, but how does this discovery differ from discoveries in the outside world, especially discoveries that have a bearing on the text and so might affect the interpretation?

The question of how the interpretation of a text relates to the world outside the text, depends on a more fundamental question: how does the text itself relate to the outside world. If it is subordinate, then of course outside knowledge dictates the interpretation of the text. If it is co-ordinate they mutually inform. If the text is supreme, then the outside world is wrong to disagree. However, in the last case, if the text claims to be in harmony with the outside world, a process of adjustment of one to the other is not necessarily a failure.

Do you have an example in mind in which the text claims to be in harmony? The best I can think of would be the resurrection (since it is said to have been witnessed by many, and the tomb was empty), and the accounts of Luke/Acts.

So the text is supreme, so the outside world is wrong to disagree. But is it ever the text that actually disagrees with the outside world, or is it actually interpretations of the text and interpretations of the outside world that may disagree? This is one way people use to say that the outside world should affect the text more than seems comfortable, but it is difficult to reply to such usage if one does not know when exactly the outside world is controlling the interpretation, or process of discovery. Perhaps I'm making things more difficult than need be: If the text is supreme, that means interpretations of the text must be of the text, without disagreements from the outside world influencing the interpretation? This seems to be more in line with the nature of interpretation as discovery of the text, although it might be objected that to understand the text, we need the disagreement from the outside world to show us things we had not discovered...or to show that what we thought we discovered we really did not discover.

An overarching aspect of Reformed and truly evangelical interpretation is belief in the God of Scripture who has made Himself known. To say that sound conclusions from Scripture, and its interpretation in which we can have confidence, are impossible, or that the reading and interpretation of Scripture leaves us in a world of subjectivity, is unbelief in the God of Scripture who has spoken - through His Son.

This is helpful. Although wouldn't some use the same argument of general revelation, which is a tentative discovery? What's the difference between them?

I think I detect you using the idea of "extra-Biblical" as something that is outside Revelation. Perhaps not but I think something that Richard noted is important. Our God is a revealing God and the Reformed conviction on knowledge is that all human knowledge is a creaturely-limited theology that is revealed by God. Thus what we know about the world (natural revelation) is not outside of God's revelation but, because the world is created by Him, everything stands in relation to Him and reveals something to creatures.

I think I follow to a certain degree: the interpretation of special revelation would affect the way one relates to and interprets the outside world. This makes sense. But while I didn't directly intend to use "extra-Biblical" as something outside of revelation, I may have indirectly done so. Since although the outside world reveals God (all facts are revelational), yet God does not reveal the outside world to us (God reveals Himself in nature)? Instead, we take charge of it; observe; hypothesize; and in some cases discover by our senses or reason. This makes most knowledge of the outside world tentative. Of course, since the facts of the outside world cannot be ultimately epistemically justified without a God that reveals, and since that revelation will affect how we approach the facts, I can see that the facts require revelation to ground them, even though the facts themselves are not what is revealed to us in special or natural revelation. Such is my understanding of what natural revelation reveals and doesn't reveal to us.

But even if (and I might have misunderstood where you were going) in natural revelation, God reveals both Himself and the outside world, then both special revelation and knowledge from the outside world seems to be of one epistemic authority. While we are working to understand natural revelation, our interpretations of special revelation must then remain tentative, since our understanding of natural revelation is tentative? And our interpretations of natural revelation could indeed control our interpretations of Scripture by limiting the possible interpretations, since any interpretation of natural revelation tentatively assumes we have constructed the revelation properly? There would then be a continuous spiral of understanding: as our knowledge of natural revelation increases, so does our knowledge of special revelation, which in turn affects the knowledge we have of natural revelation?

We ought to be praying then not only that we would put together special revelation properly but also that we would understand natural revelation properly. Toward that end, I believe that an unbeliever can have some knowledge of natural revelation because they are created in the image of God but it will never be ultimately fruitful because he will never see that knowledge in light of the Creator or give due consideration to Him. In one sense, we need to be born again not to grasp certain laws of physics but to consider those laws of physics as somehow isolated facts but as things that were created by God. I believe that makes a difference in how we would use extra-Biblical knowledge to control the exegesis of a text. If an author is making a clear argument about something in the Scriptures about the nature of man then that controls our underlying understanding of man and should then inform our study of the world around us.

This brings up an interesting point. (I suddenly remember though that words/cultural context/linguistics are in part directly informed by special revelation, so they can't be classified as general revelation alone.) Does the Holy Spirit guide the believer to understand the outside world (as I'm sure you're aware, this is what some have argued in order to justify saying that our knowledge of the outside world as shown that our interpretation of Scripture is incorrect on matters such as evolution or the days of Creation)? As a physicist-in-training, this is an interesting puzzle (as it would be for others who study the extra-Biblical world). On the one hand, I don't see anything in Scripture that would suggest the Holy Spirit illumines the natural world, so that the believer is guided to the truth of the facts (just like special revelation is illuminated by the Spirit). This would superficially suggest such prayers have no promise to ground them and so ought not to be made. On the other hand, it would seem wrong to not sanctify our daily labors by prayer or to pretend that we can figure things out about the outside world all on our own, which would seem to suggest the legitimacy of such prayers. There is probably a distinction to be made between these sorts of prayers that I haven't figured out yet.

Perhaps it is simply the difference between general and special providence? Or maybe I still have a leftover naive realism when it comes to science (i.e., that science works to discover ultimate/absolute reality concerning the natural facts of Creation)? I recall Turretin speaking of a "natural enlightenment;" I'm not sure what that means/entails, but it may provide the distinction?

 

[py3ak]

When done properly, it's a discovery rather than an invention. It need not be tentative if suitable material is available.

This is useful. Since not all Scripture has the same clarity, my question was too general. Instead, there will be interpretations that are tentative and interpretations that are not. I like the idea of interpretation being a discovery, but how does this discovery differ from discoveries in the outside world, especially discoveries that have a bearing on the text and so might affect the interpretation?

One important difference is that ultimately a text is a closed and stable world of discourse of manageable proportions. It will never contain more than it does now. Another is that it is verbal and propositional - it is meant to communicate coherent, rational content in a logical form. You can't say that about quarks or the hippocampus. I realize you might consider the physical universe a closed and stable system, but it doesn't seem like we're really very near identifying the boundaries.

The question of how the interpretation of a text relates to the world outside the text, depends on a more fundamental question: how does the text itself relate to the outside world. If it is subordinate, then of course outside knowledge dictates the interpretation of the text. If it is co-ordinate they mutually inform. If the text is supreme, then the outside world is wrong to disagree. However, in the last case, if the text claims to be in harmony with the outside world, a process of adjustment of one to the other is not necessarily a failure.

Do you have an example in mind in which the text claims to be in harmony? The best I can think of would be the resurrection (since it is said to have been witnessed by many, and the tomb was empty), and the accounts of Luke/Acts.

I would like to make my original statement more precise. First, not all texts relate in the same way to the outside world; for some, it's largely irrelevant except as providing material for ideas which can be transmuted at the will of the author. Second, in no case does the outside world dictate the interpretation of the text. The question relates more to the evaluation of the text as corresponding to or contradicting the outside world. But though you might reject the authority claims of a patently false text, it shouldn't be reinterpreted to match the outside world. E.g., the fact that there wasn't a 221B Baker Street shouldn't lead you to conclude that Watson was concealing his true address because of the danger of assassination.

The Biblical text is covered with historical claims. When Genesis refers to Chedorlaomer, it's historical accident that we don't at the present time have alternate sources to learn about him, whereas we do about Pontius Pilate. The Bible is certainly the record of the kingdom of God -- salvation history; but it is the record of that heavenly kingdom impinging on daily life, and so it records an apparent trifle like Xerxes' insomnia. It is set in the real world, in common history, and appeals to public monuments, known facts, official records.

So the text is supreme, so the outside world is wrong to disagree. But is it ever the text that actually disagrees with the outside world, or is it actually interpretations of the text and interpretations of the outside world that may disagree? This is one way people use to say that the outside world should affect the text more than seems comfortable, but it is difficult to reply to such usage if one does not know when exactly the outside world is controlling the interpretation, or process of discovery. Perhaps I'm making things more difficult than need be: If the text is supreme, that means interpretations of the text must be of the text, without disagreements from the outside world influencing the interpretation? This seems to be more in line with the nature of interpretation as discovery of the text, although it might be objected that to understand the text, we need the disagreement from the outside world to show us things we had not discovered...or to show that what we thought we discovered we really did not discover.

This is the difficult part (not like the rest is easy). I wonder if it might be a question of agenda. If one were confident that the goal was really to properly interpret the text, the world, and the relation between them, a discussion of differing takes might be quite profitable. But it seems that often people have an agenda for distorting or discrediting the text, or for imposing pernicious nonsense on the world; and that makes disagreements that are putatively about interpretation but are really about something else. I think you have to start with the text, because I'm not sure that all parts of the world are hermeneuticable. But that text is addressed to rational entities of a particular sort living in a particular context and is set inside the real world; so you can't pretend to interpret the text in total isolation from the world - that wouldn't be true to the text itself. I think you have to approach the text with a sort of critical naiveté in order to let it speak on its own terms.

 

[Afterthought]

Thanks, Ruben! I don't know if I can keep up with the thread much longer (edit: Actually, this will have to be my last post of questions.), especially since it is difficult for all participants to get back into the thread after a lengthy pause, but I think I've gotten closer to understanding this matter. So that's some progress.

Another is that it is verbal and propositional - it is meant to communicate coherent, rational content in a logical form. You can't say that about quarks or the hippocampus.

A good point. I had a professor who once said, "We can't just go up to an electron and ask it, 'What is your wavefunction?'" Although these are good points of difference, I'm not sure why it seems, on a surface level, that discoveries in both realms seem to be the same thing (hypotheses under constraints); I think Poythress also advocated the same thing in Redeeming Science, but I'm not all that excited about the work anyway. Perhaps it is a matter of cultural conditioning due to the debates concerning this topic.

Second, in no case does the outside world dictate the interpretation of the text. The question relates more to the evaluation of the text as corresponding to or contradicting the outside world.

This might be the case for an ordinary text. But what about the Bible, since it is an infallible text? In such cases where (our interpretation of) the text claims correspondence, but we do not see that correspondence (so far as our interpretation of the outside world goes), would there be some dictation of the text's interpretation or the outside world's interpretation?

This is the difficult part (not like the rest is easy). I wonder if it might be a question of agenda. If one were confident that the goal was really to properly interpret the text, the world, and the relation between them, a discussion of differing takes might be quite profitable. But it seems that often people have an agenda for distorting or discrediting the text, or for imposing pernicious nonsense on the world; and that makes disagreements that are putatively about interpretation but are really about something else. I think you have to start with the text, because I'm not sure that all parts of the world are hermeneuticable. But that text is addressed to rational entities of a particular sort living in a particular context and is set inside the real world; so you can't pretend to interpret the text in total isolation from the world - that wouldn't be true to the text itself. I think you have to approach the text with a sort of critical naiveté in order to let it speak on its own terms.

Well, "agenda" might be part of it. I'm not sure it is the whole of the matter, but I would have to consider that some more. This is the real difficult part though, and the part I've been most unsure of (if it even has a clear answer). It does make sense to approach the text first though; that is a good point.