Occasional musings drawn from the depths of my Reformed faith and the relative shallowness of my daily life. 
Proper Understanding of Grammatical-Historical Hermeneutics
Posted 11th October 2010 at 02:06 AM by AMR
I don't deny the use of the historical-grammatical methods as they should be properly understood.
From the grammatical aspect, the Scriptures and all other books are written in a human language and all the rules of understanding any language apply. Unfortunately, the grammatical aspect used in too much of hermeneutics today has went beyond the simple motivation for understanding the grammar of Scripture—that the literal meaning of Scripture is the only correct meaning. And by this I don’t mean we ignore figures of speech, the many dreams or visions with accompanying symbolic representations. All of which was revealed in the infallible record of Scripture in historical progression. If the literal meaning is not the correct meaning, then there is no hope for the ordinary believer to understand anything in Scripture and we are at the mercy of a special priestly-like order of men, the higher critics, to properly interpret Scripture for us, and thus, well on our way back to Rome.
The historical method of hermeneutics means that revelation was given in history so the believer should learn all that they can about the historical backdrops of Scripture. Unfortunately again, so many proponents of redaction criticism, higher criticism, etc., argue that the believer’s understanding of Scripture depends upon such knowledge. On the contrary, I do not think I, nor anyone else that is filled with the Spirit, needs to be required to understand archeology, rabbinic writings, Greek thought, Egyptian poetry, etc., to understand the open book of Scripture. Yes, such knowledge may help, but it is not a linchpin of understanding Scripture.
The underlying issue, the root issue in my opinion, is that so many have rejected or recast the infallibility of Scripture. The authority of Scripture is self-testifying. It is the very Word of God in the words of men as the words of God. With this presupposition, the only presupposition one needs to properly interpret Scripture, we need not
- wax eloquent or spend our efforts towards the verification of Scripture’s claims; or
- seek evidence outside of Scripture to defend the claims of Scripture to determine if we should believe Scripture.
There have been far too many hermeneutical chimeras raised by the “scholars” to hide the underlying issue that they frequently find wanting—that of the authority of the Word of God. So we are subjected to treatises that argue from extra-Scriptural sources, that the sun and moon really did not stand still because of a prayer, an axe head could not have floated, there is a Synoptic “problem”, Paul could not have written Colossians, and on and on. Denying the very testimony of Scripture itself is the error of these approaches to what we call hermeneutics today, for it is nothing more than a denial of the verbal inspiration of Scripture.
An expert in hermeneutics has no advantage over the ordinary believer. If these experts believe this, they are fooling themselves and deny the perspicuity of Scripture. I am not claiming the truths of Scripture can be exhausted, for the truths of Scripture are indeed inexhaustible. Hermeneutics merely helps us systematize and make more clear what is already intuitively known by the Spirit filled believer. Sadly, many think hermeneutics has plenty of new things to communicate to the serious student of Scripture. These “scholars” would have us believe they have found the key to unlocking an apparently closed book and are now able to share new information about Scripture with the ordinary believer.
This is not a “me and my Bible” stance. That sad stance is one taken by those that refuse to stand on the shoulders of others who have come before us. That stance is in evidence when we hear the self-righteous refrain “I don’t believe in the writings of men, I believe my Bible”. That stance is one who is un-teachable.
When we deny the verbal inspiration of Scripture, the door is flung wide open to passing off in wholesale manner sections of Scripture as culturally or time conditioned, since after all, the men “authoring” Scripture only wrote about what they knew at the time when they “authored” the texts they wrote. It is an unfounded warrant for all manner of heresy and unorthodoxy that has crept into the visible churches across the land. It is as if God, the Author of Scripture, was unable to communicate things known only by direct revelation to those men He used to write Scripture.
AMR
From the grammatical aspect, the Scriptures and all other books are written in a human language and all the rules of understanding any language apply. Unfortunately, the grammatical aspect used in too much of hermeneutics today has went beyond the simple motivation for understanding the grammar of Scripture—that the literal meaning of Scripture is the only correct meaning. And by this I don’t mean we ignore figures of speech, the many dreams or visions with accompanying symbolic representations. All of which was revealed in the infallible record of Scripture in historical progression. If the literal meaning is not the correct meaning, then there is no hope for the ordinary believer to understand anything in Scripture and we are at the mercy of a special priestly-like order of men, the higher critics, to properly interpret Scripture for us, and thus, well on our way back to Rome.
The historical method of hermeneutics means that revelation was given in history so the believer should learn all that they can about the historical backdrops of Scripture. Unfortunately again, so many proponents of redaction criticism, higher criticism, etc., argue that the believer’s understanding of Scripture depends upon such knowledge. On the contrary, I do not think I, nor anyone else that is filled with the Spirit, needs to be required to understand archeology, rabbinic writings, Greek thought, Egyptian poetry, etc., to understand the open book of Scripture. Yes, such knowledge may help, but it is not a linchpin of understanding Scripture.
The underlying issue, the root issue in my opinion, is that so many have rejected or recast the infallibility of Scripture. The authority of Scripture is self-testifying. It is the very Word of God in the words of men as the words of God. With this presupposition, the only presupposition one needs to properly interpret Scripture, we need not
- wax eloquent or spend our efforts towards the verification of Scripture’s claims; or
- seek evidence outside of Scripture to defend the claims of Scripture to determine if we should believe Scripture.
There have been far too many hermeneutical chimeras raised by the “scholars” to hide the underlying issue that they frequently find wanting—that of the authority of the Word of God. So we are subjected to treatises that argue from extra-Scriptural sources, that the sun and moon really did not stand still because of a prayer, an axe head could not have floated, there is a Synoptic “problem”, Paul could not have written Colossians, and on and on. Denying the very testimony of Scripture itself is the error of these approaches to what we call hermeneutics today, for it is nothing more than a denial of the verbal inspiration of Scripture.
An expert in hermeneutics has no advantage over the ordinary believer. If these experts believe this, they are fooling themselves and deny the perspicuity of Scripture. I am not claiming the truths of Scripture can be exhausted, for the truths of Scripture are indeed inexhaustible. Hermeneutics merely helps us systematize and make more clear what is already intuitively known by the Spirit filled believer. Sadly, many think hermeneutics has plenty of new things to communicate to the serious student of Scripture. These “scholars” would have us believe they have found the key to unlocking an apparently closed book and are now able to share new information about Scripture with the ordinary believer.
This is not a “me and my Bible” stance. That sad stance is one taken by those that refuse to stand on the shoulders of others who have come before us. That stance is in evidence when we hear the self-righteous refrain “I don’t believe in the writings of men, I believe my Bible”. That stance is one who is un-teachable.
When we deny the verbal inspiration of Scripture, the door is flung wide open to passing off in wholesale manner sections of Scripture as culturally or time conditioned, since after all, the men “authoring” Scripture only wrote about what they knew at the time when they “authored” the texts they wrote. It is an unfounded warrant for all manner of heresy and unorthodoxy that has crept into the visible churches across the land. It is as if God, the Author of Scripture, was unable to communicate things known only by direct revelation to those men He used to write Scripture.
AMR
Total Comments 2
Comments
 | Although I would go some way towards agreeing with you, it is nevertheless the case that the biblical writers were conditioned by the culture they lived in. It is to be hoped that nobody would today try and use Paul's apparent acceptance of slavery as a way of justifying slavery. Nor is it to be expected that a scientific account of creation will be found in Genesis 1. There is no reason to suppose that God would have any interest in supplying such an understanding. But it can reasonably be expected that God would condescend to their (and our) limited capabilities in understanding himself and his creation. Of course it is true that somebody can read Genesis 1 naively, and come away with the theological truths it is meant to impart. |
  |
| |  Genesis is an historical account, as such I don't see any warrant to assume scientific views that support an old universe are proper. Paul makes no explicit support of slavery, instead he argues that those in bondage accept their state of affairs as an ordaining will of God. Furthermore, the Biblical concepts of thralldom were far different and more benevolent than our recent histories of the same. AMR |
| |
Total Trackbacks 0
Trackbacks
Recent Blog Entries by AMR
- Galatians - Who Was The Audience? (22nd March 2012)
- Bible Translations and Tradition (23rd November 2011)
- Works and Faith - James vs. Paul (1st November 2011)
- Why Jesus Had to Die (22nd October 2011)
- Ought Implies Can? (21st October 2011)
