The Hermeneutical Argument
Part 1 of exploring the argument often asserted
Since becoming Catholic, I can recall many times as a Protestant I appealed to ‘proper hermeneutics’ as a way of counter measuring an interpretation that was foreign to me (and usually disagreed with on the face of it). However, after being confronted with undeniable truths, I had to face a reworking of my theology, my practice, and my way of exploring Scripture (becoming catholic has flipped my life upside down).
I’ve started to have discussions with Protestants and sure enough, I see my old tactic coming to the forefront more often than not. That is the “you must abide by proper hermeneutics!” whenever I assert something like Mary being the New Ark (disregarding the fact of the early churches belief on this).
Therefore, I thought it would be prudent to explore the wide variety of hermeneutical practices, hereby known as HERM, and how even in HERM you have personal bias, non-linear systems, and different methodologies leading to different interpretations.
How Misinterpreting a Poem Can Teach Us About Understanding the Bible
Imagine this: you write a heartfelt poem for your best friend. It’s full of inside jokes, metaphors, and references to experiences only the two of you share. Now, imagine that poem is intercepted by people in a foreign country who don’t speak your language but are determined to figure out what it means. Without knowing your language, culture, or context, their interpretation would likely be way off.
This example, inspired by Virkler’s “Hermeneutics”, is a perfect way to understand the challenges of interpreting the Bible—or any ancient text. Here’s why:
1. Language and Culture Matter
Just like the poem’s inside jokes and metaphors make sense to your friend but not to strangers, the Bible was written in languages (Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic) and cultures very different from our own. Without understanding that context, we risk completely missing the point.
2. Context is Key
Your poem was meant for your friend, with shared experiences in mind. In the same way, each part of the Bible was written with a specific audience in mind—like ancient Israelites or first-century Christians. To truly grasp its meaning, we need to know the circumstances it was addressing.
3. Avoiding Assumptions
The foreign interpreters might try to impose their own cultural ideas onto your poem, twisting its meaning into something you never intended. This is what happens when we read the Bible without considering its original context. We bring in modern assumptions that distort its message.
A Modern Example
Let’s say your poem includes the line: “Our friendship is like a rollercoaster ride.” To someone unfamiliar with rollercoasters, this could sound scary or dangerous. But your friend knows you’re referring to the ups and downs of life that you’ve shared together. Without the right cultural knowledge, the real meaning is lost.
The Lesson
When interpreting the Bible, we need to approach it with the same care. Understanding its original languages, cultural background, and historical context is essential for uncovering its true meaning. Otherwise, we might end up reading into it ideas that were never there—just like our hypothetical foreign interpreters did with your poem.
By taking the time to understand the context, we honor the original message and deepen our appreciation for what the Bible truly says. In the study of Scripture, the task of the exegete is to determine as closely as possible what god meant in a particular passage, rather than “what it means to me today”
Important to note is that to say a text has one valid interpretation (the authors intended meaning) is not to say this writing has only one possible application (significance to the reader) but we do not derive dogmatic doctrine off of the application.
One Interpretation, Many Applications: A Biblical Example
When interpreting Scripture, it’s crucial to distinguish between interpretation (the author’s intended meaning) and application (how the text is relevant to our lives). A single passage can have only one correct interpretation, but its application may vary depending on the reader’s situation. Importantly, we don’t base doctrine on personal applications; they must align with the intended meaning of the text.
Take, for example, Ephesians 4:26-27:
“Be angry and do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger, and give no opportunity to the devil.”
The Interpretation
Paul is addressing the Christians in Ephesus, urging them to handle anger in a godly way. His primary point is that anger in itself isn’t inherently sinful, but unresolved anger can lead to sin and give the devil a foothold in their lives. This was likely intended to promote harmony in the church and personal holiness.
The Applications
1. For Married Couples: A couple might apply this verse by committing to resolve conflicts before bedtime to avoid harboring resentment.
2. For Workplace Issues: Someone struggling with anger toward a colleague could apply this verse by addressing the issue constructively instead of letting bitterness grow.
3. For Personal Growth: An individual might use this verse as a reminder to pray and process emotions before reacting in anger.
Why This Distinction Matters
The interpretation of this verse doesn’t change—it’s about managing anger in a way that avoids sin and protects spiritual health. However, the application depends on the reader’s context. A married couple, an employee, and a single person all apply this teaching differently, but their personal applications cannot alter the original meaning.
Another controversy within the HERM that flows from this is that of double authorship.
In biblical hermeneutics, the concepts of double authorship and sensus plenior delve into the intricate relationship between human and divine intentions in Scripture.
Double Authorship posits that every biblical text has two authors: the human writer and God. This raises pivotal questions:
Human Author’s Intent: What was the original message or purpose the human author aimed to convey to their immediate audience? Divine Author’s Intent: Did God embed a deeper or additional meaning beyond the human author’s awareness?
This leads us to sensus plenior, a Latin term meaning “fuller sense.” It suggests that certain Scripture passages hold a deeper meaning intended by God, which may not have been fully grasped by the human author. Theologian Raymond E. Brown defines sensus plenior as “that additional, deeper meaning, intended by God but not clearly intended by the human author, which is seen to exist in the words of a biblical text… when they are studied in the light of further revelation or development in the understanding of revelation.”
Donald A. Hagner further elaborates: “To be aware of sensus plenior is to realize that there is the possibility of more significance to an Old Testament passage than was consciously apparent to the human author.”
Debate Surrounding Sensus Plenior
The concept of sensus plenior is a subject of ongoing debate among scholars:
Supporters argue that it acknowledges the depth of divine inspiration, allowing for a richer understanding of Scripture as God’s plan unfolds through history. Critics contend that it introduces subjective interpretations, potentially detaching the text from its original context and the human author’s intent. They caution against readings that the original audience would not have recognized.
As noted in a critical analysis, “one of the most heated debates in hermeneutics has been the issue of whether Scripture has a fuller sense than that intended by the human author.” Thread to be aware of: debate of interpretative practices…
This walkthrough isn’t exhaustive of this position, but rather I’m trying to showcase that even within HERM there is little consensus on basic principles outside the Catholic and Historical analysis (if a full breakdown of this matter is requested, I’m sure I could write on it).
Evangelical Debate of Full or Partial Inerrancy
In what I think is the gravest deviation from the already existing historical consensus of the Fathers, the evangelical scholars debate over full or limited/partial inerrancy. Full affirms that the original manuscripts of Scripture (which we do not have) are without error in the things they assert. Limited affirms that Scripture is without error in matters of faith and practice but may include errors on matters such as history, geography, or science.
Now, the historical view held by the fathers, is that Scripture is theologically inerrant. The other matters are not in view most of the time, but if you read the FULL affirm position above again, you’ll notice that it is irrelevant — because we don’t have the original manuscripts.
In speaking about the Old Testament, Clement writes: “You have searched the Scriptures, which are true, which were given by the Holy Spirit; you know that nothing unrighteous or counterfeit is written in them.”
(1 Clement 45:2–3)
Athanasius, the defender of Nicene orthodoxy, affirmed the perfection of Scripture:
“These books [of Scripture] are fountains of salvation, that they who thirst may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these alone the doctrine of godliness is proclaimed. Let no man add to these, neither let him take out from these.”
(Festal Letter 39)
We could once again dive deep into the concepts and defend or explore varying facts, but the purpose of this article and the coming ones, are to show the debates that surround HERM and how even within the evangelical scholarship, the very way they interpret scripture is up for personal interpretation and methodology. The lack of a ruling authority (that of the collective bishops of history) results in a wild west contest to see who can abide to the perfect formula of HERM to produce a coherent biblical theology (that already exists in the Fathers).
Part 2 coming soon…