 |

Home
Church Community
Statement of
Beliefs
Contact Us Search Our Site
Bible
Study Resource
|
 |
 |

Foundations
for Christianity:
202
Foundations of Our Theology
and Hermeneutics
Intro:
Exegesis and Hermeneutics
NOTE: This article addresses the fundamental necessities
of Biblical interpretation. As such, this article is addressed
to those who look to the Bible as their Truth source, namely
Christians.
Inherent to Communication
"Communicate - 1a. To convey information about;
make known; impart: communicated his views to our office.
b. To reveal clearly; manifest: Her disapproval communicated
itself in her frown." - The American Heritage Dictionary
of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.
"Communication - 1. The act of communicating; transmission.
2a. The exchange of thoughts, messages, or information,
as by speech, signals, writing, or behavior. b. Interpersonal
rapport. 3. communications (used with a sing. or
pl. verb) a. The art and technique of using words effectively
to impart information or ideas." - The American Heritage
Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.
1). What is the nature of communication? The nature
and definition of communication is when one party (the author)
has the desire to pass on specific ideas to another party
(the audience).
NOTE: The following precepts presuppose that an author
is adequately able to articulate their ideas. Instances where
an author is not adequately able articulate their ideas to
their audience are beyond the scope of the study of Biblical
interpretation because such instances would require that God
is either incapable of articulating His ideas or that God
fails to understand the limitations of the audience to whom
He is writing.)
2.) The entire process of communication presupposes
the intent of the author to convey specific ideas to an audience.
3.) The entire process of communication assumes that
the author has in mind an idea of who he wants to pass his
ideas to.
4.) The act of communicating inherently and irrevocably
implies that the author desires to succeed in communicating
his thoughts to the audience. (It would do no good to speak
Spanish to an audience of Russians.)
5.) To write something an audience cannot understand
negates the very definition of communication.
6.) The desire to succeed in communicating one's ideas
to another party inherently and irrevocably implies that the
author writes in such a way that his audience can and will
understand it.
7.) Furthermore, the very desire to communicate successfully
requires that an author must accurately perceive and take
into account the limitations and current level of understanding
possessed by his audience and write to them according to such
things.
8.) Consequently, to understand an author's intent,
since an author writes according to the limitations and understanding
of his intended audience, we must interpret his words as his
intended audience would have.
9.) The Inherencies of Communication are: a)
the author intends to pass on specific ideas to another party,
his audience b) the author desires to succeed in this
task c) to succeed the author must take into account
the limitations and current understanding of his audience
d) for communication to take place, an author's words
must be interpreted according to the way the author's intended
audience would have been able to understand them.
10.) Any break down in these precepts necessarily constitutes
a break down and faltering of the process of communication.
Inherent to Inspiration and Interpretation
"Inspire - 1. To affect, guide, or arouse by divine
influence." - The American Heritage Dictionary of the
English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.
"Interpret - 1. To explain the meaning of: interpreted
the ambassador's remarks. See synonyms at explain." -
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language:
Fourth Edition. 2000.
1.) God is ultimately the author of the Bible.
2.) God could have written His truths in any way that
He wanted.
3.) God did not have to choose to write His ideas through
human authors who had particular ideas that they were trying
to convey to a particular audience.
4.) If God wanted to communicate His truths without
implying or involving the author's intent, the limitations
and current understanding of the intended audience, or the
historic circumstances in which a human literary work is written,
God could have and would have communicated through another
means.
5.) God chose to write His truths through human authors.
6.) God's choice to convey His truth through a means
of communication that contains author's intent, the limitations
and current understanding of the intended audience, and the
historic circumstances in which a human literary work is written,
inherently implies that God's doing so was intentional and
that God saw these traits as valuable for conveying His truths.
7.) God's choice to express His truths through documents
that contained ideas intended by human authors to be understood
by their intended audience inherently implies that God is
using those author's intended ideas as they were intended
to be understood by the author's intended audience AS THE
MEANS to contain and convey His truths.
8.) In accordance with the Inherencies of Communication,
the human authors that God chose to express His truths through
were writing to a particular intended audience to convey particular
concepts for a particular purpose according to the limitations
and understandings of that intended audience.
9.) Each human author's writing was inspired by God
the moment that it was written and, as such, became God's
means of conveying His truths the moment that it was written.
10.) Consequently, the author's original audience was
the original audience to whom God was communicating as well.
11.) By selecting that author writing to that audience,
God is also choosing to communicate originally to that same
audience.
12.) If God did not intend that message for the people
of that time, then God would have waited. By choosing to write
at any particular point in time, God must have intended His
message through that author FOR the people of that time.
13.) And by choosing to communicate originally to that
same audience, as a perfectly able author who desires to succeed
in communication, God must be writing in accordance with the
limitations and current understanding of that original audience,
which He knew would be the first to receive His Word.
14.) In order to understand God's Word as He intended
it, we must interpret God's Word according to the human author's
ideas whose words God originally chose and put his sanction
upon.
15.) In order to understand God's Word as He intended
it, we must interpret God's Word according the limitations
and current understanding of the human author's original,
intended audience whom God also chose to be the first to hear
that inspired message.
16.) Failure to adopt these precepts constitutes a
breakdown and faltering in the process of interpretation and
thus, will not yield a correct or accurate understanding of
God's truths.
Inherent to Reliance
"Reliance - 1. The act of relying or the state
of being reliant. 2. The faith, confidence, or trust
felt by one who relies; dependence. See synonyms at trust.
3. One relied on; a mainstay." - The American Heritage
Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.
1.) What is the point of reading or appealing to the
Bible? To read or appeal to the Bible inherently implies that
one's own opinions, preferences, or experiences do not establish
what is true. To read or appeal to the Bible inherently implies
that the Bible establishes what is true.
2.) If one's own opinions, preferences or experiences
were sufficient authorities of truth, then there would be
no need to read or appeal to the Bible in the first place.
3.) Furthermore, to read one's own opinions, preferences,
or experiences into the meaning of the Bible, inherently reasserts
that one's own opinions, preferences, or experiences are sufficient
establishers of truth. The phrases of the Bible simply become
the shape or means of expressing "the truth contained" in
our own opinions, preferences, or experiences.
4.) Consequently, to determine the Bible's meaning
according to your own opinions, preferences, or experiences
negates the very purpose of reading or appealing to the Bible.
If the goal is to understand what the Bible means, then for
each person to give the Bible his or her own meaning undermines
the very point of looking to the Bible in the first place.
Since the reason for reading or appealing to the Bible is
because our own opinions, preferences, or experiences are
not sufficient to establish truth, for each person to give
the Bible his or her own meaning negates the very purpose
of reading or appealing to the Bible. To derive truth from
our own opinions, preferences, or experiences negates God's
very purpose in giving us the Bible and conveying His truth
through its human authors.
5.) Therefore, the very act of reading or appealing
to the Bible inherently implies that the Bible only establishes
truth when its meaning supercedes and is not determined by
one's own opinions, preferences, or experiences.
6.) Consequently, we must refrain from letting our
own opinions, preferences, or experiences influence or dictate
our interpretation of the Bible.
7.) Conversely, we must determine the Bible's meaning
based upon the Inherencies of Communication and the
Inherencies of Inspiration and Interpretation, as described
above.
8.) Failure to adopt these precepts constitutes a breakdown
and faltering of one's confession of reliance upon
the Bible as the source of truth.
Summary
The conclusions of the precepts above can be summarized collectively
as follows.
1.) The Inherencies of Communication are: a)
the author intends to pass on specific ideas to another party,
his audience b) the author desires to succeed in this
task c) to succeed the author must take into account
the limitations and current understanding of his audience
d) for communication to take place, an author's words
must be interpreted according to the way the author's intended
audience would have been able to understand them.
2.) In order to understand God's Word as He intended
it, we must interpret God's Word according to the human author's
ideas whose words God originally chose and put his sanction
upon.
3.) By selecting each particular Biblical author, God
is also choosing to communicate originally and therefore primarily
to that author's same audience.
4.) By choosing to communicate originally to that same
audience, as a perfectly able author who desires to succeed
in communication, God must be writing in accordance with the
limitations and current understanding of that original audience,
which He knew would be the first to receive His Word.
5.) In order to understand God's Word as He intended
it, we must interpret God's Word according the limitations
and current understanding of the human author's original,
intended audience whom God also chose to be the first to hear
that inspired message.
6.) If the goal is to understand what the Bible means,
then for each person to give the Bible his or her own meaning
undermines the very point of looking to the Bible in the first
place. Since the reason for reading or appealing to the Bible
is because our own opinions, preferences, or experiences are
not sufficient to establish truth, for each person to give
the Bible his or her own meaning negates the very purpose
of reading or appealing to the Bible. To derive truth from
our own opinions, preferences, or experiences negates God's
very purpose in giving us the Bible and conveying His truth
through its human authors.
Therefore, the very act of reading or appealing to the Bible
as a means of learning truth inherently REQUIRES that the
reader interprets the Bible according to the intent of the
original author and in accordance with how that original audience
would have understood that author's words, given that God
has chosen to express his truths THROUGH those authors and
TO those authors' original audiences primarily. Conversely,
to do anything else inherently CONTRADICTS the whole point
of reading or appealing to the Bible as a means of learning
truth.
When one ignores the intention of God's chosen author and
the understanding of God's chosen original audience, then
one is forced to read their own meaning, opinions, preferences,
and experiences into the text of scripture. Simply put, if
one interprets scripture by asking the question, "What does
this mean to me?" then one cannot derive any authoritative
truth from scripture, because one is simply expressing his
or her own opinions, preferences, or experiences, which have
no authority even if they wear the words of scripture as clothing.
So, in order to really understand truth, we must interpret
the meaning of scripture in terms of the intent of the author
whom God selected to express His truths through and in terms
of the original audience that God chose to pass on those truths
to. This leads us to the process known as exegesis. Exegesis
is a technical word that is of central importance to Biblical
interpretation. The definition is provided below.
"Exegesis - [N.L. - Gr. exegesis, - exegeisthai, explain,
- ex-, out of, and hegeisthai, lead.]
Critical explanation or interpretation, esp. of Scripture."
- The Living Webster Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English
Language
"Exegesis - the critical interpretation of the biblical
text to discover its intended meaning." Britannica.com
As we can see from the definitions, "exegesis" is a compound
word comprised of the Greek prefix "ex," which means "out
of" and the Greek word "hegeisthai," which means "lead." Or
in other words, "exegesis" means "to lead out of" or more
simply, "to lead from inside outward" rather than from "outside
inward."
If a person simply asserts their own opinions, preferences,
and experiences into the meaning of scripture, then this is
"leading" from "outside in." In other words, the meaning of
scripture comes from outside the scripture itself. In this
case the meaning comes from the reader and is "put into" scripture.
On the other hand, if a person refrains from letting their
own opinions, preferences, and experiences influence how he
or she perceives the meaning of scripture and instead interprets
the text in terms of author's intent and original audience's
understanding, then this is "leading" from "inside out," which
is exegesis. Simply put, the meaning comes from inside the
text itself and moves out into the perception and life of
the reader.
In this way we let the text "speak for itself" rather than
using the words of scripture as a ready-made, empty vessel
into which we insert our own meaning so that we clothe our
own views with the words of scripture, in which case the scripture
ends up simply "speaking for us." And so long as it is simply
our ideas that are being expressed, there is no authority
or ability to establish truth and there is no point in even
using scripture, since it is merely our own views and not
the views of scripture that are being expressed.
This is why Britannica.com defines exegesis as the process
of interpreting a biblical text "to discover its INTENDED
meaning." The goal is not to put a meaning of our own invention
into the text, but to discover the meaning of God's selected
author who wrote the text in accordance with the limitations
and level of understanding possessed by his original audience.
Consequently, the entire process of reading or appealing to
the Bible to learn truth inherently requires that one interpret
the text according to the intent of God's selected author.
This is the only way that the meaning can flow from the text
to us rather than from us into the text. This is the only
way that exegesis can occur. And there are certain necessary
and commonsense rules required in order to allow proper discovery
of the author's intended meaning in accordance with the limits
and understanding of his audience. These intuitive rules can
be collected into an interpretive method called "hermeneutics."
There are different hermeneutic systems, but the only system
that preserves the intention of the original author in accordance
with the understanding of the original audience is the grammatical
historical method. In our next section we will discuss and
compare these different systems and demonstrate why the grammatical
historical method is necessary and also superior to all other
options.
|
 |
|
 |

|
 |