Defining Hermeneutics as it pertains to the Bible is not a simple task. There are so many variables to take into account that it can be absolutely mind-boggling to make sense of all the potential definitions. However, in reading and researching, I believe that I have a definition of what hermeneutics is to me as it pertains to Scripture. Hermeneutics is the process of taking the original intent of a passage of Scripture (found by proper exegesis) and seeing how, or if, it applies to the time, place, and circumstances in which we live today.
Even with proper exegesis, we still come up against issues as we try to apply Scripture to our lives hermeneutically. While there are many, let us focus on three. The first of these is what Fee and Stuart call “The Basic Rule.” “a text cannot mean what it never could have meant to its author, or his or her readers…This rule does not always help one find out what a text means, but it does help set limits as to what it cannot mean. (Fee & Stuart, 74).”
The second focus issue is that of “Cultural Relativity”. This issue is particularly troublesome, due to the complete differences in cultures all across the globe. As Fee and Stuart put it, “The point is that it is extremely difficult to be consistent here, precisely because there is no such thing as a divinely ordained culture; cultures are in fact different, not only from the first to the twenty-first century, but in every conceivable way in the twenty-first century itself (81).”
The third issue has to do with the Biblical text being put in isolation. This approach attempts to detach the text from any and all external factors, including the author and the cultural setting. In doing so, it supposedly allows the text to say what it wants to any time, place, culture, or people. Jack K. Willsey of the Northwest Baptist Seminary says, “This approach assumes that meaning is a factor of written sentences, not the intention of the author nor the bias of the reader (NARBC Preaching Seminar, 2000).”
In response to the first focus issue, it is of the utmost importance that we do not allow our interpretation of Scripture to convey a meaning that it could not originally convey. First and foremost, our efforts should be to perform an exhaustive exegesis of the passage we intend to interpret. Only then can we get a solid idea of the author’s original intent. Once we know what the passage was trying to convey to those it was written to, we can begin the process of interpretation for our current place, time, culture, and people. By following “The Basic Rule”, we can assure ourselves of making less hermeneutical mistakes when interpreting Scripture.
Now look at the song “His Grace Covers Me”. This song is typically detested by traditionalists because of its simplicity. Yet, it is doctrinally significant because, when played right and sung with passion, it can really bring out the purity and intention of grace:
ReplyDelete“Amazing Grace,
How sweet the sound
Amazing love
Now flowing down
From hands and feet
That were nailed to the tree
As grace flows down and covers me
It covers me
It covers me
It covers me”
The imagery of rain is strong in this song, but we kind of look past it because we don’t do our exegetical homework. So not only do we lose doctrinal significance of parts of Holy Scripture, but we also lose out on the doctrinal significance of our art.
Your last point, is what I think we practice most of the time. Topical Biblical studies have a nasty habit of isolating the text from its original intent. While I don’t actually mind the idea of a topical study, and I do tend to think that Holy Scripture is more flexible than many hardcore exeggetes do, I almost always cringe when I find out that we are going to be doing a topical study. Why? Because so many of them isolate scripture and make it say things that it was never designed to say.
In conclusion, your conclusion is very accurate. If we are going to really figure out what scripture is conveying to us, we have to practice good hermeneutics first then approach Holy Scripture topically second.
OK, I have said enough. ha!
Hermeneutics is an important word, but I would suggest that it is a lost science. Lack of hermeneutics is what allows us to think that Burger King worship is OK. Lack of hermeneutics is what allows us to believe that we have to understand what happened to us to forgive. When you sit in a Sunday School class and you hear “what this says to me” and what comes out is something totally unrelated to the passage, you have a demonstration of this void leads to. Lack of good hermeneutics as a science compromises our ability to understand the art and creative side of God (as I’ll demonstrate later).
ReplyDeleteNow, when it comes to exegetical interpretation, culture is a problem (as you mentioned). The trick here, in my opinion, is to recognize that while certain cultural idioms and icons change, people, in fact, do not. We are the same now as we were when sin entered into the world. Thus, while some of the stories might not carry the same meaning in practical terms, the point remains relevant simply because we behave the same as we have always behaved.
One of the things that I have been researching is the idea of rain. Rain today doesn't have quite the same significance as rain yesterday, even though rain is always rain. When we sing "Grace like rain" it doesn't quite have the same power to most of us as it would have to ancient man.
Now, modern man recognizes the importance of rain, but we aren't as Dependant on it as man once was. Really, judging by the people who run to get out of the rain, we probably see rain as an annoyance to our lives.
But when we start applying good rules of interpretation, we start to see that rain is really quite significant in Holy Scripture. Rain gave life. Without it, man could do nothing but live miserably and die, that is, unless they had some other water supply... which didn't always happen.
In Robert Eisenman's essay "Eschatological 'rain' Imagry in the War Scroll and the Letter of James" he discusses the importance of rain. People who are righteous are associated with rain. Elijah is thought of as being a rain maker (this is how important Elijah is). When James, in Ch 7, starts talking eschatology, rain and Elijah are core to the entire discussion:
Be patient like a farmer to waits for rain.
When Elijah prayed for no rain, it didn’t rain. When he prayed for rain, it rained.
Read 17-20 and the rain seems purely incidental. Most of the time when people talk about the passages, they don’t even mention the fact that rain is there. To us, it seems to have little doctrinal significance. However, the opposite is true - rain, in this context, has major doctrinal significance.
When James writes, we treat 17-20 like he is merely pointing out a simple fact from Biblical history wasn’t he? Yup, but this isn’t a mere coincidence or just a casual observation. This is HUGELY important. The point is that with faith, we can get a lot done. We have the ability to kill with our faith. We also have the ability to restore. James concludes his thought by emphasizing that we need to work for restoration because this is where we will find life and not death.
The rain imagery here allows us to see how important the passage is. Now, apply these lessons to a song like “Grace like Rain”:
“hallelujah, grace like rain falls down on me
Hallelujah, all my stains are washed away, washed away.”
The doctrinal significance in those two lines is huge. Grace, which comes through the Christ, which is often associated with rain in many writings (even if this is done sparingly in Holy Scripture). Grace isn’t just something that we are given to get by. Grace is where we are given life, pure life, holy life. Life without pain, suffering, or sadness. Life that is so clean and pure you might as well be walking in the garden with God himself.