Biblical Hermeneutics
Hermeneutics is the science and methodology of Bible study interpretation. One of the most fundamental principles of Bible interpretation is to interpret the Bible in light of God's character. If a particular interpretation contradicts God's character, that interpretation is wrong. The second principle of Bible interpretation is that what the Bible says clearly, explicitly and comprehensively takes precedent over interpretations which are based on inference or peripheral passages or just a few verses. Now granted that what we know of God's character is revealed in the Bible, and so requires some interpretation. But God clearly, explicitly, and rather comprehensively reveals His character throughout the Bible. Consequently to get God's character wrong one would have to make real effort to misread the Bible. But many have managed to do so.
Interpretation particularly comes into play in passages where the interpretation may not be clear or intuitively obvious, when there's possible ambiguity or something paradoxical. When there is more than one possible interpretation of a text, what principles do we use to determine the right one? For this reason I think it best to instruct by examples. For example it says, "God is just" 2Th 1:6a Therefore any interpretation which proposes that God imputes guilt to the innocent or holds people accountable for other people's crimes or for things over which they have no control, is a Biblically incorrect interpretation.
One of the things about Bible study is that what may seem clear to you may be not be clear to someone else. (Ex - meat sacrificed to idols) Frequently in such a case even many well-educated theologians resort to the kind of rhetoric that goes like: "You've got to be an idiot not to see it the way I see it." or perhaps even a more severe accusations of "heresy" or the like shrouded in religious terminology. (See Calvin's style of arguing) But in reality such a reaction is often because the person has no idea how else to defend his interpretation. In fact often people use the word "clearly" in an argument on a point which is actually unclear. Don't use the word "clearly" in an argument unless everyone agrees that the point is in fact clear, and not just clear to you!
Everyone uses principles to interpret the Bible, though they may not be able to verbalize those principles. What are some of those principles?
One principle of bad Bible study is known as eisogesis - which basically means to read into the Bible rather than reading out of it. Such a person approaches the Bible trying to justify his chosen lifestyle or ideas rather than deriving his life and ideas from the Bible. Often such a person approaches particular passages with a "how can I get around what it says" type of attitude rather than making an honest attempt at deducing what the author actually has in mind.
Often used in combination with eisogesis is over-allegorizing passages. This is one way to make the Bible say whatever you want it to say. This is particularly used with regards to historical events. Though a person may claim that his conclusion or application is based upon the Bible, yet it may have little correlation to what the Bible actually meant.
On the opposite extreme is taking things too literally. For example is says in Matthew 5:29 "If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you." I've heard of a man who literally did that. Sometimes the literal interpretation is not the correct one. At times the Bible uses figures of speech, poetic forms of speech like hyperbole to get a point across, whereas the literal interpretation would not be what the author intended.
In contrast, the Grammato-historical hermeneutic is a good principle to use. This is basically trying to interpret the Bible in the way it is written, using Semantics based upon syntax, contextual interpretation, consistency, possible versus probable interpretation. The objective is to try to understand what the author meant based upon what he said. The Bible is assumed to represent actual history in those texts which use rhetoric one would expect in describing historical events. But it is also acknowledged that allegorical connections are often meant to be drawn from actual historical events.
Ex: Galatians 4:22-25 "For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar—— for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children—— but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all.")
And when it comes to applying passages, rather than use a "That was then, this is now" approach, which is often the phrase used to eliminate any application of the Bible that one feels uncomfortable with, instead we look for the "for" statements, look for an explanation in the text itself. Often in combination with a particular command or application the author may give an explanation which is inconsistent with the "that was then, this is now" hermeneutic. In other words the Bible at times tells us why it says what it says, which should not be overlooked.
Women in Authority?
Example: 1Tim 2:11-14 "Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression."
Why does Paul not allow a woman to take such a position? Those who say it simply had to do with the culture at that time have ignored the "For" statement. It is because of the order of creation and the order of the fall, which is in the law. Is this consistent with what the Bible says elsewhere? Notice 1Cor 14:34 "Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says." Where does the law say it? The quote from 1Timothy indicates that it can be inferred from Genesis, which is the first book of the Law of Moses.Given what the Bible says we can use simple logic to infer meaning.
Digressing on what "says" means
In this example in 1Cor 14:34 Paul uses the phrase "as the law also says", but the law doesn't explicitly make such a statement. Therefore when such a phrase is used it may be meant as "the law implies". Furthermore just by observation of other verses we can conclude that "says" or "said" often means "said in effect" or "implied". Compare quotations of Jesus in the different gospels. While it could be argued that Jesus may have repeated himself on a number of occasions, yet even when it is agreed upon that we are observing the same event in the different gospels, yet the gospel writers seem to quote Jesus slightly differently, not word for word. Most of the quotations of Jesus should be understood as "He said (in effect)..." or "Essentially he said...".
Now getting back to the quote from 1Tim 2:11-14 I will give an example where using a logical deduction can guard us from a false interpretation. A popular misinterpretation of this passage by feminist evangelicals is to propose that a woman can be assigned to such a role of authority over men as is described in the passage as long as she has a male authority figure over her. But why then would Paul not be assigning women to such positions, seeing as he would be the male authority over them? It can be logically deduced that Paul rejects the "umbrella theory" outright. Not based upon culture or ability or such, but based upon what God has revealed in the Genesis of the gender relationships it is inappropriate for women to have such positions of authority over men.
By now I suspect many readers are in the "how can we get around what the Bible says" mode. Given that the feminist culture tends to be predominant in much of Christianity today, I purposely chose such a passage to invoke such a reaction. Bad hermeneutics often comes from a "how can we get around what the Bible says" type of mentality. Popular theology is often in conflict with Biblical theology.
Here's an example of using the possible versus probable hermeneutic to interpret an "ambiguous" verse.
Divorce = Adultery?
Mark 10:11,12 "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her. And if a woman divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery."
While the verse seems clear enough to me, I was surprised to learn of a number of theologians who hold a different interpretation based upon the meaning of "and". What does "and" mean? There are those who interpret "and" to mean "or", as a listing of a number of different ways a person commits adultery. In effect "Whoever divorces his wife or marries another commits adultery" which is the same as "Whoever divorces his wife commits adultery and whoever marries another woman commits adultery". Or is "and" being used as a logical "and" as in (if (A and B) then C) [that's && for you software programmers] In this case it would mean that adultery is committed only if a man both divorces his wife and marries another.
So we have two interpretations. Need we leave it at that? Certainly not. Now we have to figure out which is more probable. First of all we note that divorcing and remarrying are not unrelated. For a person to remarry, they must logically first divorce out of a married situation. Divorce precedes remarriage. And so also in Jesus' statement the word "divorce" precedes "marries another". So far this supports the logical "and" concept. Furthermore if Jesus meant "or" then why didn't he say "or" and eliminate the ambiguity. The word in Greek "kai" is never translated "or". In fact there is a special word in Greek "eite" which is used for situations of "whether A or B" or "if A or if B", such as is used in 2Cor 1:6 for example. But it isn't used here. Why? So again we see the logical "and" is supported in this by the fact that Jesus could have phrased it differently if he meant something else. Next is the issue of consistency with the rest of the Bible concerning marriage. "Adultery" is normally thought of as involving a sexual act with someone other than your legitimate spouse. But if we interpret Mark to mean that he who doesn't remarry after divorce is nonetheless still guilty of adultery even though there is no sex with others. Such an interpretation has little consistency with the rest of the Bible. So such an interpretation through grammatically possible is highly improbable.
What else can we learn from these verses? Does divorce nullify a marriage? Do the divorced still have obligations towards their ex-spouse? If divorce nullifies a marriage, then why would remarriage to someone else constitute adultery? The logical deduction is that divorce does not nullify a marriage. (See also Marriage, Divorce, and Adultery)
Original Sin?
Now let's take an example from a theology which used to be popular, namely Reformed Theology. And while I could deal with the issue of infant baptism, I would like to deal with something even more fundamental, namely Original Sin. The issue I would like to deal with is whether the guilt of Adam's sin is imputed to all mankind. Does God hold people responsible for things they have no control over, namely are we held responsible for what some other guy did thousands of years before we were even born?
There is a division in the Christian community over this issue. Those of an Augustinian-Calvinist background (namely Catholics and those of the Reformed theology) hold that the guilt of Adam's sin is imputed to us, while many Arminians, varieties of evangelicals, and those of a Western or Eastern Orthodox theology believe that though we have been affected by Adam's sin, the guilt of Adam's sin in particular has not been imputed to us.
What does the Bible have to say on this issue? First of all does it say anything explicitly? While Adam is mention a few times in the New Testament, the only times relevant to this issue are in 1Cor 15:22 and Romans 5:12-21. Let's deal first with 1Cor 15:22 "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive." The context of 1Corinthians 15 is dealing with physical death and physical resurrection. We notice no mention of sin or guilt here. It's essentially stating that humans die, but Christians shall be raised to life. As nothing much more relevant to the subject can be derived explicitly from this verse concerning the topic best to move on to the passage in Romans, where I've done an exegetical analysis which can be found at Romans 5:12-21. But we're still left with some ambiguity. Some may read the passage and conclude that guilt is imputed, while others like myself don't hold to such an interpretation, even after a thorough analysis of the syntax.
However a stronger argument can be made when considering the implications of each interpretation, and whether such implications are consistent with the rest of the Bible. I included such an argument in that study guide as well. For if God holds people responsible for things they have no control over, then how is that consistent with how God speaks of His judicial nature in the Bible? It simply isn't. Though I could digress further to entertain armchair theologians. Or some would say that we were essentially a part of Adam and therefore we were actually involved in committing the sin. But God says, "Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin." Deuteronomy 24:16 If we're reckoned guilty for our own sin and not our parent's sin, then it seems consistent that neither are we reckoned guilty for Adam's sin. So there's a problem with the internal consistency with the interpretation of imputed guilt. And therefore the derivation of such an interpretation based solely upon the passage in Romans may be grammatically possible but improbable especially when considering what the rest of the Bible says.
Conclusion
There are of course a multitude of examples of verses in which people may derive conflicting interpretations. But while there may be many "possible" interpretations given a particular verse standing alone, yet the objective of Bible study is to discover what is the one probable interpretation which the author had in mind.
The Berean Christian Bible Study Resources
Hermeneutics is the science and methodology of Bible study interpretation. One of the most fundamental principles of Bible interpretation is to interpret the Bible in light of God's character. If a particular interpretation contradicts God's character, that interpretation is wrong. The second principle of Bible interpretation is that what the Bible says clearly, explicitly and comprehensively takes precedent over interpretations which are based on inference or peripheral passages or just a few verses. Now granted that what we know of God's character is revealed in the Bible, and so requires some interpretation. But God clearly, explicitly, and rather comprehensively reveals His character throughout the Bible. Consequently to get God's character wrong one would have to make real effort to misread the Bible. But many have managed to do so.
Interpretation particularly comes into play in passages where the interpretation may not be clear or intuitively obvious, when there's possible ambiguity or something paradoxical. When there is more than one possible interpretation of a text, what principles do we use to determine the right one? For this reason I think it best to instruct by examples. For example it says, "God is just" 2Th 1:6a Therefore any interpretation which proposes that God imputes guilt to the innocent or holds people accountable for other people's crimes or for things over which they have no control, is a Biblically incorrect interpretation.
One of the things about Bible study is that what may seem clear to you may be not be clear to someone else. (Ex - meat sacrificed to idols) Frequently in such a case even many well-educated theologians resort to the kind of rhetoric that goes like: "You've got to be an idiot not to see it the way I see it." or perhaps even a more severe accusations of "heresy" or the like shrouded in religious terminology. (See Calvin's style of arguing) But in reality such a reaction is often because the person has no idea how else to defend his interpretation. In fact often people use the word "clearly" in an argument on a point which is actually unclear. Don't use the word "clearly" in an argument unless everyone agrees that the point is in fact clear, and not just clear to you!
Everyone uses principles to interpret the Bible, though they may not be able to verbalize those principles. What are some of those principles?
One principle of bad Bible study is known as eisogesis - which basically means to read into the Bible rather than reading out of it. Such a person approaches the Bible trying to justify his chosen lifestyle or ideas rather than deriving his life and ideas from the Bible. Often such a person approaches particular passages with a "how can I get around what it says" type of attitude rather than making an honest attempt at deducing what the author actually has in mind.
Often used in combination with eisogesis is over-allegorizing passages. This is one way to make the Bible say whatever you want it to say. This is particularly used with regards to historical events. Though a person may claim that his conclusion or application is based upon the Bible, yet it may have little correlation to what the Bible actually meant.
On the opposite extreme is taking things too literally. For example is says in Matthew 5:29 "If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you." I've heard of a man who literally did that. Sometimes the literal interpretation is not the correct one. At times the Bible uses figures of speech, poetic forms of speech like hyperbole to get a point across, whereas the literal interpretation would not be what the author intended.
In contrast, the Grammato-historical hermeneutic is a good principle to use. This is basically trying to interpret the Bible in the way it is written, using Semantics based upon syntax, contextual interpretation, consistency, possible versus probable interpretation. The objective is to try to understand what the author meant based upon what he said. The Bible is assumed to represent actual history in those texts which use rhetoric one would expect in describing historical events. But it is also acknowledged that allegorical connections are often meant to be drawn from actual historical events.
Ex: Galatians 4:22-25 "For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar—— for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children—— but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all.")
And when it comes to applying passages, rather than use a "That was then, this is now" approach, which is often the phrase used to eliminate any application of the Bible that one feels uncomfortable with, instead we look for the "for" statements, look for an explanation in the text itself. Often in combination with a particular command or application the author may give an explanation which is inconsistent with the "that was then, this is now" hermeneutic. In other words the Bible at times tells us why it says what it says, which should not be overlooked.
Women in Authority?
Example: 1Tim 2:11-14 "Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression."
Why does Paul not allow a woman to take such a position? Those who say it simply had to do with the culture at that time have ignored the "For" statement. It is because of the order of creation and the order of the fall, which is in the law. Is this consistent with what the Bible says elsewhere? Notice 1Cor 14:34 "Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says." Where does the law say it? The quote from 1Timothy indicates that it can be inferred from Genesis, which is the first book of the Law of Moses.Given what the Bible says we can use simple logic to infer meaning.
Digressing on what "says" means
In this example in 1Cor 14:34 Paul uses the phrase "as the law also says", but the law doesn't explicitly make such a statement. Therefore when such a phrase is used it may be meant as "the law implies". Furthermore just by observation of other verses we can conclude that "says" or "said" often means "said in effect" or "implied". Compare quotations of Jesus in the different gospels. While it could be argued that Jesus may have repeated himself on a number of occasions, yet even when it is agreed upon that we are observing the same event in the different gospels, yet the gospel writers seem to quote Jesus slightly differently, not word for word. Most of the quotations of Jesus should be understood as "He said (in effect)..." or "Essentially he said...".
Now getting back to the quote from 1Tim 2:11-14 I will give an example where using a logical deduction can guard us from a false interpretation. A popular misinterpretation of this passage by feminist evangelicals is to propose that a woman can be assigned to such a role of authority over men as is described in the passage as long as she has a male authority figure over her. But why then would Paul not be assigning women to such positions, seeing as he would be the male authority over them? It can be logically deduced that Paul rejects the "umbrella theory" outright. Not based upon culture or ability or such, but based upon what God has revealed in the Genesis of the gender relationships it is inappropriate for women to have such positions of authority over men.
By now I suspect many readers are in the "how can we get around what the Bible says" mode. Given that the feminist culture tends to be predominant in much of Christianity today, I purposely chose such a passage to invoke such a reaction. Bad hermeneutics often comes from a "how can we get around what the Bible says" type of mentality. Popular theology is often in conflict with Biblical theology.
Here's an example of using the possible versus probable hermeneutic to interpret an "ambiguous" verse.
Divorce = Adultery?
Mark 10:11,12 "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her. And if a woman divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery."
While the verse seems clear enough to me, I was surprised to learn of a number of theologians who hold a different interpretation based upon the meaning of "and". What does "and" mean? There are those who interpret "and" to mean "or", as a listing of a number of different ways a person commits adultery. In effect "Whoever divorces his wife or marries another commits adultery" which is the same as "Whoever divorces his wife commits adultery and whoever marries another woman commits adultery". Or is "and" being used as a logical "and" as in (if (A and B) then C) [that's && for you software programmers] In this case it would mean that adultery is committed only if a man both divorces his wife and marries another.
So we have two interpretations. Need we leave it at that? Certainly not. Now we have to figure out which is more probable. First of all we note that divorcing and remarrying are not unrelated. For a person to remarry, they must logically first divorce out of a married situation. Divorce precedes remarriage. And so also in Jesus' statement the word "divorce" precedes "marries another". So far this supports the logical "and" concept. Furthermore if Jesus meant "or" then why didn't he say "or" and eliminate the ambiguity. The word in Greek "kai" is never translated "or". In fact there is a special word in Greek "eite" which is used for situations of "whether A or B" or "if A or if B", such as is used in 2Cor 1:6 for example. But it isn't used here. Why? So again we see the logical "and" is supported in this by the fact that Jesus could have phrased it differently if he meant something else. Next is the issue of consistency with the rest of the Bible concerning marriage. "Adultery" is normally thought of as involving a sexual act with someone other than your legitimate spouse. But if we interpret Mark to mean that he who doesn't remarry after divorce is nonetheless still guilty of adultery even though there is no sex with others. Such an interpretation has little consistency with the rest of the Bible. So such an interpretation through grammatically possible is highly improbable.
What else can we learn from these verses? Does divorce nullify a marriage? Do the divorced still have obligations towards their ex-spouse? If divorce nullifies a marriage, then why would remarriage to someone else constitute adultery? The logical deduction is that divorce does not nullify a marriage. (See also Marriage, Divorce, and Adultery)
Original Sin?
Now let's take an example from a theology which used to be popular, namely Reformed Theology. And while I could deal with the issue of infant baptism, I would like to deal with something even more fundamental, namely Original Sin. The issue I would like to deal with is whether the guilt of Adam's sin is imputed to all mankind. Does God hold people responsible for things they have no control over, namely are we held responsible for what some other guy did thousands of years before we were even born?
There is a division in the Christian community over this issue. Those of an Augustinian-Calvinist background (namely Catholics and those of the Reformed theology) hold that the guilt of Adam's sin is imputed to us, while many Arminians, varieties of evangelicals, and those of a Western or Eastern Orthodox theology believe that though we have been affected by Adam's sin, the guilt of Adam's sin in particular has not been imputed to us.
What does the Bible have to say on this issue? First of all does it say anything explicitly? While Adam is mention a few times in the New Testament, the only times relevant to this issue are in 1Cor 15:22 and Romans 5:12-21. Let's deal first with 1Cor 15:22 "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive." The context of 1Corinthians 15 is dealing with physical death and physical resurrection. We notice no mention of sin or guilt here. It's essentially stating that humans die, but Christians shall be raised to life. As nothing much more relevant to the subject can be derived explicitly from this verse concerning the topic best to move on to the passage in Romans, where I've done an exegetical analysis which can be found at Romans 5:12-21. But we're still left with some ambiguity. Some may read the passage and conclude that guilt is imputed, while others like myself don't hold to such an interpretation, even after a thorough analysis of the syntax.
However a stronger argument can be made when considering the implications of each interpretation, and whether such implications are consistent with the rest of the Bible. I included such an argument in that study guide as well. For if God holds people responsible for things they have no control over, then how is that consistent with how God speaks of His judicial nature in the Bible? It simply isn't. Though I could digress further to entertain armchair theologians. Or some would say that we were essentially a part of Adam and therefore we were actually involved in committing the sin. But God says, "Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin." Deuteronomy 24:16 If we're reckoned guilty for our own sin and not our parent's sin, then it seems consistent that neither are we reckoned guilty for Adam's sin. So there's a problem with the internal consistency with the interpretation of imputed guilt. And therefore the derivation of such an interpretation based solely upon the passage in Romans may be grammatically possible but improbable especially when considering what the rest of the Bible says.
Conclusion
There are of course a multitude of examples of verses in which people may derive conflicting interpretations. But while there may be many "possible" interpretations given a particular verse standing alone, yet the objective of Bible study is to discover what is the one probable interpretation which the author had in mind.
The Berean Christian Bible Study Resources