2. Definition of hermeneutics
• Comes from the word Hermes , the Greek god
who was a messenger for gods interpreting
their communications to the recipients.
• Hermeneutics is the science and art of Biblical
interpretation
• It is science because it has rules which can be
classified in an orderly system.
• It is an are because communication is flexible
• One must learn the rules and should have the
are to apply the rules
3. The need for Hermeneutics
Obstacles in interpreting the Scripture
Historical: There is a historical gap
Jonah’s antipathy for Ninevites
Jesus withdrew from the place after feeding
five thousands.
Cultural: Culture of the ancient Hebrew and first
century Mediterranean world and our
contemporary situation
Leaving father and mother , cleaving with the
wife
Prodigal son
4. The need for Hermeneutics
Philosophical : There is a tremendous change
in philosophical understanding
Views of life, of circumstances, of nature of
universe
Linguistic: Three languages Hebrew, Aramaic
and Greek
Every language has its expression Know in
Hebrew and in English
English has changed over centuries,
Prodigal
5. Definition of hermeneutics
Two subcategories of Hermeneutical theories
General: Rules governing interpretation of the
entire Bible.
Example: Historical cultural context, Isaiah
6:1
Special: Rules applying to specific genres like
Psalms, parables , prophecies etc
Example : the poor man a the door of the
rich man
6. Alternative views of inspiration
Three main views of inspiration
1. Authors transcribed primitive Hebrew
religious conceptions about God and his
working. It is like putting pieces together to
give a comprehensive picture.
2. A position by neo-orthodox scholars. God
revealed himself in mighty acts and not in
words. The Bible becomes the word of God
when individuals read it and words acquire
personal, existential significance for them. A
demythologizing process
7. Alternative views of inspiration
3. God worked through the personalities of the
Biblical writers in such a way that without
their personal style of expression of freedom,
what they produced was literally “God-
breathed”
Scripture is and always will remain truth,
whether or not we read and appropriate it
personally.
8. Relations of hermeneutics to other fields of biblical
study
A. Canonicity : Canon has to do with a fixed group
of books recognized to bear the impress of
divine authority. Here, it means the Protestant
canon comprising the sixty six books of the Bible
which are accepted as authoritative for teaching
and practice or a Christian and his faith
community. The interpretation should stay
within the canon of Scripture.
Ecclesiastes 9:10 “Whatever your hand finds to
do, do it with all your might.”
9. Relations of hermeneutics to other fields of biblical
study
B. Textual criticism (lower criticism) : Since the
originals (autographs) are no longer in
existence—as is the case with the Bible,
textual criticism reconstructs from the copies
of the originals with all their variants, and
gives the public a text or reading that is
allegedly the original, or nearly the original
reading.
10. Relations of hermeneutics to other fields of Biblical
study
C. Historical (higher) criticism: It studies the
contemporaneous circumstances surrounding the
composition of a particular book. This study concerns
with questions of authorship and audience of a book,
the date of its composition, the historical
circumstances surrounding its composition, the
authenticity of its contents, and its literary unity.
• Conservative Bible scholars and Christian believers
reject the use of historical criticism in biblical
interpretation because this method leads to the
questioning of the belief that Scripture is God’s
inspired Word for humanity
• The Seventh-day Adventist church counsels against the
use of historical criticism in Bible study and
interpretation
11. Relations of hermeneutics to other fields of Biblical
study
D. Exegesis vs eisegesis.
• The first refers to a deriving of understanding
from the text; whereas the second refers to
the supplying of meaning to the text. Eisegesis
has to do with what the reader wants the text
to mean, and not what the text itself means.
Exegesis applies the principles of
hermeneutics to understand the author’s
intended meaning.
12. Relations of hermeneutics to other fields of Biblical
study
E.Biblical theology : the study of divine
revelation as it was given through the OT and
NT. The questions it asks:
• a. How did this specific revelation add to the
knowledge that believers already possessed at
that time?
• b. It attempts to show the development of
theological knowledge during the OT and NT
era.
• c. It organizes the data in a historical manner
13. Relations of hermeneutics to other fields of Biblical
study
F. Systematic theology:
1.Organizes the biblical data in a logical rather
than a historical manner (biblical theology).
2.It attempts to place all the information on a
given topic together so that we can
understand the totality of God’s revelation on
that topic.
• 3. Both biblical and systematic theologies are
needed to give us a greater understanding of
scripture. One cannot do without the other
14. Relations of hermeneutics to other fields of Biblical
study
G.Practical theology: the final stage of the hermeneutical
process.
1. It describes, analyzes and synthesizes contemporary
situations and practices.
2. Then it dialogues with the work of the above
disciplines as those of social and natural sciences.
Based on this dialogue it arrives at a response to the
contemporary situation.
3. It then develops an effective strategy for Christian
life and practice that speaks to the contemporary
situation. It explores the significance of what the Bible
says and applies that to specific contemporary
contexts.
15. Controversial issues in contemporary hermeneutics
• A. Validity in interpretation
1. What constitutes the valid meaning of a text?
Or, are there multiple valid meanings? This is
the most basic question in hermeneutics.
Response: It gives rise to a multiplicity of
meanings, none of which is more right than
the others; and this defeats the very purpose
of the writer himself—which is to convey a
definite message of his conviction.
16. Controversial issues in contemporary hermeneutics
2. If there are more than one, are some more valid
than others? In that case, what criteria can be
used to distinguish the more valid from the less
valid interpretations?
Response: In view of the Bible being God’s word, it
would be obvious that God used the
prophet/apostle to convey certain specific
messages, instructions, commands, etc., and in
no way would He expect the prophet/apostle to
interpret, or change it the way he saw fit. (In
fact inspiration itself has to do with
safeguarding God’s message from corruption.)
17. Controversial issues in contemporary hermeneutics
3. By the 1920s the meaning of a text is what is means
to me, vs. the prevailing belief that a text means what
its author meant.
4. Is it true that what the text says to the individual critic
is more important that deciphering the original
meaning? Should this individual be the determiner of
the meaning of the text rather than allowing its
author to tell us its meaning—his meaning?
Response: If the interpreter/reader/hearer is given the
right to determine the message, then the Bible is no
longer God’s word, it is the word of whoever the
reader/interpreter is. This being the case then we have
no basis to conclude that the orthodox interpretation
of a passage is more valid than a heretical one. Indeed,
the distinction between orthodox and heretical
interpretations is no longer meaningful.
18. Controversial issues in contemporary hermeneutics
• 5. However, there is definitely the possibility of
one interpretation (the author’s intended
meaning) and more than one possible application
(significance), depending on the
situation/context. E.g. Ephesians 4:26-27 “In your
anger do not sin: Do not let the sun go down
while you are still angry, 27and do not give the
devil a foothold.”
• More than one possible application/significance
is possible for this text because it depends on the
situation—it could be while you are angry with
your employer, or wife, or son, or father, etc.
19. Controversial issues in contemporary hermeneutics
• Double authorship and sensus plenior ( a fuller sense of scripture)
1. What meaning did the human author intend?
2. What meaning did the divine author intend? Did the intended meaning of the
divine author exceed that of the human author?
• Response 1: could it be that at a certain point the understanding of the meaning
between God and the prophet/apostle coincide? But God’s understanding goes
beyond that? Example: the analogical form of language is a case in point.
3. Were the authors aware of the full implications of what they wrote? Could there
be the possibility of more significance to an OT passage than was consciously
apparent to the original author? In favor of the sensus plenior position, Read 1 Pet
1:10-12.
• Response 2: Who will decide the sensus plenior, if there is one? And on what
basis? The authors refer approvingly to God’s “later revelation.” . What do they
mean? If the NT is the later revelation of the OT, then what is the later revelation
of the NT?
• 1 Peter 1:10-12 “Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace
that was to come to you, searched intently and with the greatest care, 11 trying to
find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them was
pointing when he predicted the sufferings of the Messiah and the glories that
would follow. 12 It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves
but you, when they spoke of the things that have now been told you by those who
have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven. Even angels
long to look into these things.”
20. Controversial issues in contemporary hermeneutics
• Literal, figurative, and symbolic interpretations of Scripture
1. Questions are raised about the degree of literalness of interpretation of
Scripture. Conservative Christians are often accused of this as being
“wooden-headed literalists.” .
2. Is Jonah’s story in connection with the sea monster to be taken literally?
What about Noah’s flood, or the fall?
3. Liberal Christians: These must be taken symbolically, not literally. They
are to be understood as metaphors, symbols, and allegories rather than
historical events.
4. Conservatives recognize that Scripture uses all these senses
• Caution: Problems that arise when readers interpret statements in a mode
other than the one intended by the author.” That is, we must take it
literally if that’s what the author wants us to take; or symbolically if that’s
what he intends, and so on. And we use context and syntax as safeguards
and clues to whether the author is speaking symbolically or literally
21. The question of inerrancy
A. Full inerrancy: the original manuscripts (mss) of Scripture
are without error in the things they asserted.
B. Limited inerrancy: Affirms that Scripture is without error
in matters of faith and practice but may include errors on
matters such as history, geography, or science. (Ex: Lord’s
prayer Mt6 & Lk 11. Where did Jesus actually teach the
prayer.)
Implications:
1. If it has errors on these areas, then it may be in error
whenever it speaks about the nature of human beings,
interpersonal and family relationships, sexual lifestyles, the
will and emotions, and a host of other issues related to
Christian living.
22. The question of inerrancy
2. History bears out that the questioning of the validity of
small details of Scripture eventually question larger
doctrines as well. Acceptance of an errant Scripture in
peripheral matters has soon been followed by the
allegation that Scripture is errant in more central teachings
as well.
3. What do we do when there appears to be a discrepancy
between two or more texts? Should we decide that one or
both of them contains errors?
4. On the other hand, if we begin with the presupposition
that Scripture does not contain errors, then we are
motivated to seek an exegetically justifiable way of
resolving any seeming discrepancy.
23. The question of inerrancy
• Jesus and the Bible
If Jesus Christ is, in fact, the Son of God then his attitude toward Scripture
will provide the best answer to the question of inerrancy.
1. In referring to the various OT personalities and institutions and events,
Jesus uses them as straightforward records of fact. See examples—
.10ff./30
2. Jesus used OT stories as the basis of his teaching such as Noah and the
flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, Jonah....the very stories modern critics find
unacceptable.
3. Jesus consistently adduced the OT Scriptures as the authoritative court
of appeal in his controversies with the Scribes and the Pharisees.
4. Jesus did not make any distinction between revelatory and non-
revelatory in Scripture. He accepts whatever is claimed in Scripture as
revelatory and thus true. In other words, Jesus accepted the infallibility of
Scripture. This acknowledgment is admitted even by radical scholars like
Harnack, Bultmann, and H. J. Cadbury.
5. The significance of this is that if we accept Christ’s claims, we have to
likewise accept all that he taught and believed, including his belief about
Scripture (OT)
