Hermeneutical Tips
1. Introduction
Here are some tools that might help in interpreting the bible. My focus will be on the New Testament, but most of the principles of this study can easily be transferred to the Old Testament. Most of these points are commonsensical, but usually only after learning them. I’ve broken down the interpretative process into three main sections: historical, grammatical, and redemptive historical. A little work a few times a week or even once a week will pay great dividends in the long run. At first, one will feel overwhelmed, but in time many of these principles will become second nature. The basic point of the study is: do not try to be too fancy and read the bible carefully and consistently with a heart to learn. If one does this, then most of the suggestions in this study will naturally take place. It should go without saying that theological study should be conducted with a prayerful heart.
The first step in the work of interpretation is to know something about the historical context. Without a growing appreciation of the historical setting, one is liable to miss the point of the passage, misapply it, or import modern notions that are not present in the text. For example, it would be wrong to import modern notions of slavery, politics, or religion into the New Testament. The Greco-Roman world had very different ideas, sometimes radically so. Therefore, without a growing understanding of the historical distance between the modern and ancient worlds, interpretive distortions will take place. To be honest, some distortion will always be present (distance does that), but good historical investigation will minimize this distortion and get to how an ancient reader would have understood the text. There are several ways to gain a better understanding of the historical context of a given passage.
b. Internal Evidence
Read the passage with awareness that one carries modern biases and presuppositions. This step alone will help tremendously in gaining historical information from any text. After this point, try to figure out the internal logic or worldview of the text. What does it assume and take for granted? What does it want to achieve? What does it leave out? Just by asking these questions, one will get closer to an ancient mindset. Another helpful exercise is to determine what the writers and readers might have known. One can call this a presupposition pool.[1] Also it is helpful to note that what a modern interpreter knows adds another kind of presupposition pool. For example, Peter Cottrell and Max Turner point out that the perceptions of a twentieth-century Englishman will be vastly different than a first-century Jew reading the parable of the Pharisee and tax collector.[2] In this parable (Luke 18:9-14), the modern interpreter comes to the text knowing that the Pharisee was a religious hypocrite, whereas for the ancient reader the Pharisee was a model of piety. Therefore, Jesus’ vindication of the tax collector and condemnation of the Pharisee was not only unexpected, but also a complete inversion of expectations. I would also point out that if one considers the possible presupposition pool of characters in the text (even if these characters are imaginary), another level of complexity is added, which can be fruitful. Imagine the surprise of the Pharisee and the tax collector.
In addition, read between the lines and seek to squeeze out historical information that texts do not originally intend to yield. This practice will lead to the very best historical insights. A silly example might prove illustrative. How did people find each other in the Greco-Roman world without street addresses? Acts 9:11 probably gives us the answer, but the verse was not written to give this insight at all. The author of Acts writes, “Go to the house of Judas on the Straight Street and ask for a man from Tarsus named Saul…” The more critically and widely one reads, the better one’s historical sensibilities will become. In time, one will begin to see the worldview and cultural idiom of the New Testament. With practice one will even be able to deduce information by the use of historic imagination. Finally, build off of what one already knows; historical reconstruction is a cumulative endeavor.
c. External Evidence and Secondary Literature
Apart from reading the bible, one should look at other ancient texts to gain insights. There are almost a limitless amount of ancient texts. So, one will have to be selective. A book like, C. K. Barrett’s New Testament Background, is a good place to start. It offers a selection of diverse texts that were produced around the time of the New Testament. After one gains a little experience, one can venture out to read other important works that will, undoubtedly, yield historical insights. In addition to these primary texts, there are many secondary books that are helpful. For the beginner, I recommend a good New Testament introduction and a book on the general historical milieu of the New Testament. D. A. Carson and Douglass Moo’s An Introduction to the New Testament is a good place to start. For a general historical survey, Everett Ferguson’s Backgrounds of Early Christianity is an excellent choice. The Anchor Bible Dictionary, edited by David N. Freedman will provide articles on almost any topic in the bible along with bibliography. For Greco-Roman topics, The Oxford Classical Dictionary, edited by Simon Hornblower and Anthony Spawforth, will do the same. All of this might sound like a lot of work, but if one takes a long-term approach, in a few years one’s knowledge of history will dramatically increase.
3. Grammatical
a. Contexts
The most important point in determining meaning is not surprisingly the immediate context. However, this point is worth unpacking a bit, because of its sheer importance. A good starting point will be to determine the genre of the text. Each genre will entail different reading techniques. For example, one would approach a parable differently than a historical narrative or an epistle. Just by becoming familiar with the different genres, one will take a huge step in the interpretation process.[3] After determining the genre, one will do well to follow the argument or narrative of the text and summarize it in one’s own words. This step will force one to deal with the text. If one has acquired reading knowledge of Greek, then one should translate the passage and diagram it. Diagramming passages is a lost art and rarely taught even in seminaries, but this can be one of the most fruitful exercises. It not only forces one to follow the logic of the text, but also to make decisions about the structure of the passage. If one does not read Greek, then the reading of several translations can serve a similar end and one can still diagram the passage. For a simple yet surprisingly illuminating discussion on diagramming sentences, see Gordon Fee’s New Testament Exegesis, pages 65-91.
The next level of context is the literary context of a passage. So, if one is studying Romans 2, then one should read not only Romans 1 and 3, but also the rest of Romans. One should also read the whole book in one sitting to gain a panoramic view. Remember that how New Testament letters were heard in the ancient world. Often the larger context will provide the necessary contextual clues to interpret the smaller literary unit. One can take another step and speak of the context of the book, namely, the New Testament. And if one wanted to go to the next level of context, one can begin to examine non-canonical writings and the literature of the Greco-Roman world. Notice that individual words were not emphasized at all; there are a number of abuses and errors that can take place with an emphasis of words. The sections below offer a few important considerations.
b. Denotation/Polysemy
A common misunderstanding in interpreting a passage is to look for meaning in individual words. On the surface this point sounds counterintuitive. After all, do not words convey meaning? However, some reflection will show that meaning is found in contexts, because the denotation or definition of words is broad. A brief look at any dictionary will make this point clear. Moisés Silva writes that most people would say that the word “bar” refers to an establishment that serves alcoholic beverages, but he also points out that there are other meanings as well. “Bar” can in a different context be used to refer to a straight metal object found on many windows. One could also add another meaning if one changes the context and focuses on the court of law.[4] With a little thought, one can multiply examples endlessly. Linguists call this aspect of words, polysemy. The point is that meanings can change, even radically, based on the context. Therefore, responsible interpretation will recognize that the meaning of words is almost entirely contextual.
c. Connotation
Connotation differs from denotation in that the former is related to the subjective and cultural experiences of individuals. For example, when a person uses the word, “father,” it will not be value free. A father may connote various other thoughts and feelings such as kindness, severity, love, or abuse. Therefore, in interpreting a passage, it will be important to ask what words connote in that particular context. Also it will be important to realize that words can connote very different notions with a change in time and place. For example, slavery has a very different connotation in Paul’s day than in North America. That Paul could boast of his slavery shows that the connotation behind the word was not entirely negative. In the ancient world, slavery could be a way up the social ladder as well as a way to gain great power. Moreover, unlike slavery in America, slavery in the Greco-Roman world was not motivated by race.
d. Illegitimate Totality Transfer
Closely connected to points (a) and (b) is the concept that James Barr calls “illegitimate totality transfer.”[5] Illegitimate totality transfer takes place when one takes the total meaning of a word with all its semantic nuances and reads that meaning back into a particular context in which that word is employed. This not only vitiates the word, but more importantly the context. To avoid this error, one must pay close attention to the context and decide which meaning of the word fits best into that particular context. For example, the Greek word, archon, has several shades of meaning.[6] Walter Bauer’s A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature offers several definitions – one who possess authority, a Jewish leader, a pagan official, or a reference to evil spirits. So, when one comes to the word, archon, one must decide what this words means in that context. It will have one meaning only.
e. Danger of Etymologies
Etymological studies can prove very useful when scholars seek to find meanings of unattested words through comparative linguistics, but when it comes to interpretation, etymologies are almost never necessary. What a word meant in the past or how a word has developed over time has little bearing on interpretation. For example, to know that the word “nice” comes from the Latin word “nescio” (meaning, not to know) is a point of historical interest, but this does nothing for interpretation. In fact, it can make an interpretation anachronistic and simply wrong. Neither the author, who employs the word, “nice,” nor the reader has the historical development of the word in mind. Hence, the interpreter of the bible (or any text) should stay away from etymologies.[7] The only exception is when the author shows awareness of the etymological development and signals this to the reader through contextual clues. The danger of using etymologies must be emphasized in view of the penchant to make elaborate points through etymologies.
f. Maximal Redundancy
When one is truly at a loss in terms of the meaning of a word due to textual problems or some other issue, the theory of maximal redundancy offers an important insight. The basic point is simple. The best meaning of an unknown word is the meaning that adds least to the thrust of the passage. This principle seems counterintuitive, but this principle takes into consideration a basic point of language – its redundancy. Silva writes:
We have become aware of the need for redundancy in communication. When any piece of information is transmitted, considerable interference and distortion (noise) cannot be avoided; if the means of communication is one hundred percent efficient, the slightest interference will obliterate the information. In the course of a normal conversation, the hearer’s reception is greatly distorted by a variety of causes: grammatical lapses on the part of the speaker, less than perfect enunciation, physical noises in the surroundings, momentary daydreaming on the part of the hearer. In the vast majority of cases, the hearers do receive the information because of the built-in redundancy of the language.[8]
g. Commentaries
After a good amount of effort has been spent on grammatical/historical exegesis, one should consult commentaries. It is important not to consult commentaries right away, lest one becomes unhealthily addicted to them. Commentaries can be wrong or one-sided, especially because people who write them often times come from a small cross section of society. Let me be intentionally provocative. A poor persecuted family in the countryside who communes with God will probably have a better understanding of suffering than a scholar in an ivory tower. That said reading commentaries are a necessary step. God has given knowledge to the church through scholarly work, and to learn from these scholars will be to enjoy the gifts of God and grow in knowledge.
4. Redemptive Historical
a. Variability of method
A grammatical/historical approach to interpretation does not end the exegetical work. The best way to make this point is to examine how the bible interprets itself or to ask what exegetical methods the biblical writers used. When one does this, one will immediately realize that grammatical/historical exegesis is not the method of interpretation for biblical writers. Methods are much more variable. For example, there are typological interpretations, such as when Matthew says that Jesus represents Israel in Matthew 2:15; there are allegorical interpretations, such as the parable of the sower in Matthew 13;[9] and at other times something else is going on as when the author of Hebrews states that Jesus is from the line of Melchizedek in Hebrews 7. Examples can be multiplied.[10] The point here is that hermeneutical method in the bible is variable. To put it another way, one can say that hermeneutical method is a product of one’s society. Therefore, at times in the history of the church, allegorical method was in vogue (Clement, Origen and those who favored the allegorical tradition stemming from Callimachus and the Alexandrian school of thought) and at other times, a grammatical/historical approach was favored (the Antiochean tradition with notable preachers such as John Chrysostom). All of this is to say that method is not the most important issue.
b. Exegetical Method is Subservient to Goal – Dan McCartney
The crux of the issue is the goal of scripture. If the goal of exegesis is correct, then generally speaking, one will be on the right track, irrespective of method. If the goal is incorrect, no matter what one’s method is, one will be incorrect. Dan McCartney has written a great article on this topic. I highly recommend it.[11] His basic point is: “hermeneutical method is subservient to hermeneutical goal.”[12] McCartney comes to this conclusion from Luke 24:44-47:
He told them, “This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
Most importantly, it is this last step that makes for a Christian interpretation. What separates a Christian reading from a Jewish reading or a secular reading is the goal, not the method. In all likelihood, if there is a Jew, Christian, and a secular humanist, all interpreting the same text, they will all use similar methods, especially if they are from the same culture. What will separate them is their goals. The goal is what God has done for his church through Christ. It takes faith to have this goal and it makes all the difference in interpretation.
c. Can We Do it?
In the light of this discussion, a natural question is whether one can actually interpret the bible in the way the New Testament authors did. Most people will probably hesitate, because of the potential lack of control. If method is not as important, can’t anything pass for legitimate interpretation? Where is the accountability? First of all, let me say, in my opinion, the New Testament is not only giving examples of this type of interpretation, but also calling people to replicate it. The control comes from two areas. First, a solid grammatical/historical exegesis will provide good control. A text cannot mean anything, because it is written for a specific purpose. To determine this purpose through grammatical/historical methods is essential. Second, control also comes from the hermeneutical goal. If Christ’s death and resurrection is the goal, then all interpretations must be consistent with this goal. Any interpretation that ignores or eclipses the person and work of Christ is sub-Christian interpretation at best. This, in my opinion, is the greatest control.
d. What now?
After a grammatical/historical study of the passage, begin to ask questions of how that passage might relate to the Christ or the dynamics of what Christ has done. If the passage comes before the work and Christ, how does that passage point forward to Christ? If the passages comes after Christ, how does that passage look back on the work of Christ? If there is a failure in the passage, does that failure point forward to the need for a perfect savior? Is there a dynamic of grace in the passage that might point forward to what God would do in Christ? An illustration from the movies might help. Like a well-crafted movie with many scenes that tell one story, the bible should be examined not as sixty-six separate books, but as one book with sixty-six parts or perspectives with the goal of telling one story. Therefore, each book will shed some light on Christ. The goal, then, is to discover that light and share it with others. In some instances, one will follow paths that have been well trod by New Testament writers, but in other instances, one will have to blaze new paths and illumine how a particular passage points to Christ.
5. Brief Summary
1. Historical
a. Be aware of modern presuppositions and biases.
b. Read texts and look for internal evidence.
b. Read texts and look for external evidence.
c. Read broadly and build on your knowledge of history.
2. Grammatical
a. Read the immediate context carefully.
b. Read the larger context as well – the whole book in one sitting.
c. Stay clear from word fallacies and keep in mind that words take on meaning through contexts.
d. Read commentaries to check one’s interpretation.
3. Redemptive Historical
a. Ask how the passage relates to Christ.
b. Apply the text to the life of the church in view of the death and resurrection of Christ.
6. Even Briefer Summary
All of this material can be condensed to four points for the extremely busy person:
1. Read the context of the passage closely, and do not try to be fancy with word studies.
2. Know that one’s historical position is different than the bible’s. In the light of this, try not to be anachronistic.
3. Ask how the person and work of Christ fits into all of this.
4. Talk to others.
A Short Bibliography:
-Aune, David E. The New Testament in its Literary Environment. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1987.
-Barr, James. The Semantics of Biblical Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961).
-Blomberg, Craig. Interpreting the Parables. Downer Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1990.
-Caron, D.A., Moo, Douglas and Morris, Leon. An Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992.
-Conn, Harvie M. Inerrancy and Hermeneutic: A Tradition, A Challenge, A Debate Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1988.
-Cotterell, Peter and Turner, Max. Linguistics & Biblical Interpretation. Grand Rapids: InterVarsity Press, 1989.
-Fee, Gordon D. New Testament Exegesis. Louisville: Westminster Press, 1993.
-Ferguson, Evertt. Backgrounds of Early Christianity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003.
-Hays, Richard B. Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989.
-Kümmel, Werner Georg. Introduction to the New Testament. Trans. Kee, Howard Clark. Nashville, Abington Press, 1987.
-Silva, Moisés. Biblical Word and their Meaning. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984.
[1] Peter Cottrell and Max Turner. Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation, 90-97.
[2] Peter Cottrell and Max Turner. Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation, 52.
[3] For semi-technical discuss on the various genres in the New Testament in relation to the Greco-Roman world, see: David E. Aune. The New Testament in its Literary Environment (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1987).
[4] Moises Silva. Biblical Words and Their Meaning (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), 101-117.
[5] James Barr. The Semantics of Biblical Language (Oxford: Oxford University, 1961), 206-262.
[6] This example comes from Gordon Fee’s book. New Testament Exegesis (Louisville, Westminster, 1993) 104-109.
[7] For a fuller discussion of the dangers of etymologies, see: James Barr. The Semantics of Biblical Language, 107-160.
[8] Moises Silva. Biblical Words and Their Meaning, 154.
[9] For an excellent discussion on the parables as an example of allegorical method, see: Craig Blomberg. Interpreting the Parables (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1990), 29-69. Blomberg writes, “Far from being an inferior art form, avoided by the master teacher [Jesus], allegorical interpretation is an inevitable method of explaining the parables, which even those who deny it in theory cannot avoid in practice.”
[10] For an important work on Paul’s use of the Old Testament, see Richard B. Hays. Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University, 1989).
[11] Dan McCartney. “New Testament’s Use of the Old Testament” in Inerrancy and Hermeneutic, ed. Harvie M. Conn, 101-116. (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1988).
[12] Dan McCartney. “New Testament’s Use of the Old Testament” in Inerrancy and Hermeneutic, ed. Harvie M. Conn, 103. (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1988).
