Inherent Hermeneutics: The Hermeneutic of Scripture
Introduction
The American church is in a battle for the Bible. Various factions aim to seize, brandish, and use the text of the Bible to advance their cause. To be sure, such Bibline warfare has been endemic through decades, even centuries. Yet today it is fiercer the ever. How do we interpret the words of the Bible? What do those words mean? The answer has sweeping cultural effects; more than that, is a question that every follower of Christ surely longs to answer. While there are many proposed solutions, the Bible itself calls the reader to interpret it through a literal, Christocentric, intertestamental hermeneutic. What exactly this means will be fleshed out in the remainder of this paper by answering three core questions.
A Literal Hermeneutic
The Bible is to be interpreted literally. While this may seem obvious, it has often been disputed. Even those who agree with the statement sometimes use different definitions of the term. So what exactly does it mean to interpret the Bible literally?
A literal hermeneutic understands the words of the text in light of the original historical and cultural context, as the author intended them. There is no effort to discern a secret or ‘hidden’ meaning that is not given by the author. When there are questions as to the meaning of the author, the context of the writing can provide valuable clues – primarily through historical and cultural context. This type of hermeneutic is often known as the ‘grammatico-historical’ approach. It indicates the literal (‘grammatico-’) and context-based (‘historical’) nature of textual interpretation.
Complicating the issue of a literal hermeneutic is the question of ‘Who is the Biblical author?’. Christians see Scripture as the product of human authors guided by Divine inspiration. This means that if one interprets the Bible as the author intended, it must be discerned which author is referred to. This concept will be dealt with in more detail in the remaining two sections, but a brief answer is necessary: the text is always interpreted first in light of the human author; then this interpretation must be associated with the larger context of Scripture, to do justice to the Divine inspiration of Scripture.
While many historical (and modern) interpreters fail to use a literal hermeneutic, the Bible itself commends it. In Nehemiah 8:8 there is a glimpse of the leaders teaching the people by reading the law, and then giving the sense of the law, such that the people could understand it. Even from the surface, this appears to be a literal hermeneutic. If it is objected that the leaders may have used allegory, the remainder of the book of Nehemiah rejects that idea. Immediately following, in Nehemiah 9, the Levites lead the Israelites in a time of worship and repentance. Much of the Biblical storyline is recited, and it is recited as the text literally says. It is not recited as allegory or hidden meaning behind the Biblical text. In the New Testament, Acts 7 provides a similar defense of literal hermeneutics. Stephen recounts the story of the Old Testament. While he clearly is using that narrative to drive a point, he does not imply that the literal facts are false, or that there is a hidden meaning which must be derived from the stories that he refers to.
Jesus himself did the same. He referred to Jonah (Matthew 12:41), Noah (Luke 17:26), and Adam (Matthew 19:4), drawing lessons from the stories of these men. Yet He handles these stories as true, literal, and factual. There is no attempt to insert a secret meaning in them.
Yet while Christ adds no secret meaning, the Savior still draws conclusions and implications from the text that are not specifically spelled out in the text. This means that a literal hermeneutic uses caution but is permitted to explore the question of obvious implications. In other words, while the meaning of the text is that which the author intends, a literal hermeneutic may explore the implications of that meaning.
Jesus demonstrates this hermeneutic in His approach to Exodus 3, where God styles Himself “the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.”[1] In Matthew 22:32, Jesus argues that there is a resurrection of the dead, based on the implications of Exodus 3. Yet the text does not itself say anything about resurrection. In fact, Moses Himself probably was not consciously thinking of resurrection when he declared these words to the Hebrew nation. Nevertheless, the implications are so obvious that Jesus used them for an argument. Therefore, the Bible itself allows for acceptance of obvious implications. Indeed, sometimes the Biblical authors tease the reader to think, without stating the obvious. When Abraham’s servant met Rebecca, the text does not say that the meeting was an amazing coincidence, though it describes the servant’s marvel (Genesis 24:21). The obvious implication is that the scene is outside the realm of obvious human occurrences and is quite remarkable. Such an implication may be accepted as part of the meaning of the text.
Finally, a literal hermeneutic interprets the words as they were intended to be interpreted, rather than in a wooden, literalistic sense. This means that sometimes the ‘literal meaning’ is not the same as the exact literal meaning of each individual word. Sometimes the Bible gives its own explanation of these passages, as when Joseph interpreted a dream for Pharaoh (Genesis 41), or when Daniel interpreted for Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 2). Here, the literal interpretation various from the literal meaning of each independent word. A cow is not a cow, but a year. A metallic substance signifies a kingdom. The essential point to remember is that the actual, literal meaning is clearly hinted at as being different from the ‘literalistic’ meaning of the text. Prophetic imagery, dreams, visions, and poetic imagery often fall into this camp. Parables also fit within this group. Anyone who fails to recognize the distinctions of this class of writing needs to look at how the Bible itself interprets these passages. Obviously, not every prophetic imagery is spelled out – only a few are. The precedent, however, is set by these examples. The reader must not approach Revelation as literally, strictly, woodenly historical, because the original author and audience obviously did not. The book was written in a context where such apocalyptic writings were understood to have a further meaning.
In summary, then, a literal hermeneutic understands the words of the text from a grammatico-historical context, from the two dimensions of authorial intent, recognizing the obvious interpretations, and interpreting the words as they were meant, rather than woodenly. Such a hermeneutic is found within the Bible itself, which should guide the reader in his understanding.
A Christocentric Hermeneutic
The issue of Divine authorship was mentioned earlier, and this raises many questions. Obviously, the Divine author had a purpose to His writing, just as the human authors. If the Bible itself calls the reader to interpret it through a Christocentric hermeneutic, then Christocentric is a loaded term. What does Christocentric interpretation look like in practice?
First, a Christocentric hermeneutic means that the reader understands each Biblical text within the broader Christotelic sweep of redemption history. While some scholars isolate ‘Christocentric’ and ‘Christotelic,’ there is no need to do so: the Bible is both. It centers on Christ, yet it also points to Christ, revealing Him to be the telos, end, and ultimate fulfilment of revelation. This was the view of the Apostles, as Enns describes: “To put it another way, it is the conviction of the Apostles that the eschaton had come in Christ that drove them back to see where and how their Scripture spoke of him…To see Christ as the driving force behind apostolic hermeneutics is not to flatten out what the OT says on its own. Rather, it is to see that, for the church, the OT does not exist on its own, in isolation from the completion of the OT story in the death and resurrection of Christ. The OT is a story that is going somewhere…”[2]
This does not mean that all the Bible speaks directly about Jesus Christ. Kaiser warns, “As praiseworthy as the goal of having every text in the Bible speak of Christ may at first appear, it really ends up being reductionistic, for it makes the key to all Bible interpretation to be what was finally said and affirmed in the New Testament and not what was in the original passage.” [3] The interpreter who understood the diligent ant in Proverbs 6:6 as a type of Christ, who diligently did the work of His Father, is a more obvious example of Christocentric eisegesis. The interpreter must use common sense and caution, beginning with the original intended meaning of the human author. Even those texts which do not directly refer to Christ have value for the Christ event. They paint a picture of God, His dealings with the world, the reality of human sinfulness, the need for grace, and the life that pleases God. The interpreter who finds Christ in the Old Testament but fails to find this background is just as guilty of presbyopia as the interpreter who finds the background without finding Christ.
Still, the Bible itself gives license to interpret texts in this Christotelic sweep. The apostle Peter says that the Biblical writers recognized that they were pointing to something coming (1 Peter 1:11). The author of Hebrews (Hebrews 11) placed the Biblical characters in a trajectory, fully indicating that they recognized this trajectory and their own incomplete role in it. The apostles identified Psalm 2 as speaking of their own time in Acts 4:27. Peter identified Joel’s prophecy as a statement about the time that Christ brought, in Acts 2:17. Such an approach was not only an occasional and accidental hermeneutic. In Acts 15, such an approach became the centerpiece of an argument at the Jerusalem Council, when James used the writings of the prophets to argue for Gentile inclusion in the church. As Glenny notes, James used multiple citations to bolster his case. [4] “He connected several contexts in order to bring out their meaning in light of the Christ events and the inauguration of the new covenant…” To interpret each Biblical passage by locating its context and its role in the progression toward advent is to interpret the Bible as it teaches.
Second, a Christocentric hermeneutic requires the reader to identify, with caution, broad types of the coming Christ, the people of Christ, and the time of Christ. This list could perhaps be expanded to other antitypes, but each of these antitypes is antitypical because of its relation to Christ. The New Testament is replete with examples of this type/antitype hermeneutic.
Jesus used Scripture to refer to Himself, pointing to David in the Tabernacle eating sacred bread (Mark 2:25-28). This story is obviously not a license for any Jew to do anything on the Sabbath – rather, Christ is positioning Himself as someone who is at least the type of David (if not the antitype of David!). Jesus explicitly identifies Himself as an antitype of Jonah and Solomon in Matthew 12:41-42.
The author of Hebrews used a similar approach, looking at Old Testament figures as types of the Christ. The Christ is the antitype of David (Hebrews 1:5, 2:12), mankind (Hebrews 2:6), and Isaiah (Hebrews 2:13). In fact, some of these quotations are highly mystifying because of the extent to which the typology is pressed; the quotation from Isaiah 8:18 pushes the boundaries of typology. Thompson points out that “the manner in which the author introduces citations is significant in demonstrating how the OT now functions for the church. The citations are introduced as words of God, of Christ, or of the Holy Spirit, not of a human author…The words of the OT are in fact God’s words to the church in the last days.” [5]
The earlier wording, that a Christocentric hermeneutic requires the reader to identify typology, was not an overstatement. While caution is necessary, it is not appropriate to simply say ‘the New Testament writers were inspired, and that is why they used the Old Testament as they did.’ To be sure, the New Testament writers can tread with greater confidence in territory that moderns must approach with diffidence. However, to identify the apostolic quotations as solely the result of Divine inspiration misses the point of passages such as Hebrews or Acts. At the time of the Jerusalem Council, various voices were raised on both sides of the issue; James had to make an argument that all sides could see and recognize as legitimate. To say that James was inspired is to miss the power of his argument. Similarly, the recipients of Hebrews did not immediately recognize that the letter was inspired. It was simply a letter that was used to ‘talk them off the ledge’ of abandoning faith. If they did not themselves recognize the validity of the arguments, the arguments would be ineffective. Therefore, to say that the author of Hebrews has a warrant to interpret the Old Testament with a different hermeneutic than the church is to hamstring the book of Hebrews. It is then only persuasive for first-century Christians who immediately identify its inspired nature.
A Christocentric hermeneutic, then, requires that the reader understand each Biblical text within a Christotelic framework while using typology with caution. Yes, typology must be used with caution, since otherwise it is open to the claim of eisegesis. Practically, the best modern application of typology will stick closely to the framework of covenants (discussed below), will base its argument on broad themes rather than minute details, and will stick to Biblically-sanctioned examples as often as possible. Christotelism and typology, in fact, are two ways that the redemptive-historical hermeneutic of Johnson can be applied. [6] In an image modified by Johnson from Edward Clowney, the reader is shown that Old Testament events or institutions are indeed true themselves, but good preaching (and good interpretation in general) will move from there to fulfillment in Christ, allowing that event to filter and guide the process of exposition.
The Christocentric approach outlined above is in line not only with the Biblical text, but also with generations of Christians (even if unsettling differences and changes have crept in at various points). Treier passes on from Brian Daley the patristic exegesis, noting that it involved “presumption of a unified narrative (from the Bible and applied to the Bible),” with “Scripture treated as diverse yet a unified whole” and “scriptural texts treated as having their own ‘historical’ meaning yet ‘meant for us.’” [7] More than merely intriguing, this shows that the earliest generations of post-New Testament Christians carried on the vital points of apostolic Christocentrism.
An Intertestamental Hermeneutic
If the Bible is Christocentric, then there is evidently a purpose toward which it advances. This would indicate that there is relationship between the covenants, rather than discontinuity. But how should one understand that relationship? If the Bible itself calls the reader to interpret it through a literal and Christo-centric hermeneutic, it also calls for an intertestamental hermeneutic – a hermeneutic that links the two covenants together in a unified narrative.
An intertestamental hermeneutic reveals that the covenants crescendo in the New Covenant. Just as a wave gradually gains strength and height as it advances toward the shore, and just as orchestral music gradually gains force and splendor as it nears its height, so the Scriptures advance a storyline that culminates in Christ. The core of this storyline is found by a careful examination of the covenants.
The Gospel of Matthew demonstrates this intertestamental, covenantal framework in the first chapter. In his genealogy, Matthew reveals Christ as one who follows David and Abraham (Matthew 1:1), two significant figures who each had a covenant relationship with God. Such a literary connection is more than coincidental; it sends an implicit but strong signal that Jesus is on at least the same level as these covenantal figures.
Gentry and Wellum identify six major covenants in the Bible: the Covenant with Creation, the Covenant with Noah, the Covenant with Abraham, the Mosaic Covenant, the Davidic Covenant, and the New Covenant. [8] Each of these covenants is useful and valid, but only the New Covenant is described in terms of completion and fulfillment. As Gentry and Wellum quote Daniel C. Lane, “A covenant is an enduring agreement which defines a relationship between two parties involving a solemn, binding obligation(s) specified on the part of at least one of the parties toward the other, made by oath under threat of divine curse, and ratified by a visual ritual.” [9] While the Covenant with Creation does seem to lack some of these features, the other major Biblical covenants listed above either identify these aspects or are specifically described in Scripture as Covenants. In fact, the Covenant with Creation could be viewed as an implicit covenant, in which creation is created ‘into’ – a relationship that exists ‘de facto’ until it is broken by sin.
An intertestamental hermeneutic does more. It identifies the fulfillment of valid but inadequate revelations. While covenants are one aspect (and an important aspect) of Biblical revelation, there is a broader theme of Scripture pointing toward Christ through revelations which are good, useful, and right, but are incomplete in themselves.
One prime example of this is found in Paul’s use of the creation order to bolster his arguments for domestic and ecclesiastical life (1 Corinthians 11:8, 1 Timothy 2:13). Paul refers to the original state of the world and indicates that New Testament believers are to fulfill this original state, as exemplified by Christ, who brings this state into being once again. Paul’s argument is profound: that there is an underlying unity that links the earliest age of the world to the final age of the world. Paradise and the eschaton are connected. Some writers miss this significance; Webb insists that “original creation patterns do not provide an automatic guide for assessing what is transcultural within Scripture.” [10] Such an argument nullifies Paul’s logic; as discussed earlier in the book of Hebrews, the logic of Paul only works if it would make sense to the original audience. That the Corinthians and Timothy place weight in this argument indicates that the early church recognized the inherent unity of all Scripture.
Prophetic texts similarly indicate that the Old Testament points to the Christian period and pays valuable witness to it. While a discussion of Daniel 9:24-27 is outside the scope of this paper, it is intriguing to notice that a careful study of the passage points the reader toward the exact time period of Christ. The chronology (when interpreted without dispensational hermeneutics) brings the reader mathematically to exactly the time of Jesus.
In other words, there is no conflict between Old and New Testament texts. The older texts are not nullified but completed. Christ Himself said that He did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it (Matthew 5:17). Earlier quotations from the book of Acts have already shown that the early church felt the use and value of the Old Testament and regularly drew from it to proclaim Christ.
The book of Hebrews has been viewed by some as contrary to this trend. Thompson (548, 561) describes the pattern of the author of Hebrews as “…finding a conflict between two passages of Scripture and understanding the latter passage to nullify the earlier one…”[11] He further asserts that “The logical conclusion drawn, based on the legal argument that subsequent wills invalidate earlier ones, is the claim that God’s message in the last days is a testament invalidating earlier testaments.”[12] Suffice it say that such a view is needlessly antagonistic toward the Old Testament. The author of Hebrews describes Jesus as the guarantor of a ‘better’ covenant (Hebrews 7:22). As the word ‘better’ is a comparative adjective, it implies that even the old covenant was still good. In Hebrews 11, the patriarchs and prophets are shown to be part of a trajectory that lands in the New Covenant. Even the priestly rituals are a ‘shadow’ of the coming form. All this implies not nullification and rejection, but acceptance and validity of what came before.
Motyer goes even further in his analysis of the Psalm quotations. [13] The author of Hebrews “…will later gently tease his readers, that they still need to be taught ‘the very basic first steps in understanding the Scriptures…This seems to be his rhetorical strategy: to baffle, overwhelm and fascinate his readers, to tantalise (sic) them with glimpses of vistas of truth yet to be discovered, and thus to engage them in the growth which has eluded them so far. Hebrews has had that effect on readers ever since.” In other words, Motyer argues that the connection between the Testaments is so deep, rich, and profound that failure to recognize it is only due to spiritual immaturity. The quotations from the Psalms reveal that, for those who are mature and insightful, the Old Testament speaks often and profoundly about the coming Messiah.
The intertestamental hermeneutic, then, uses covenants to trace God’s actions in the world. It identifies that the Old Testament is not complete or fulfilled, but it is still vital to the story and prophesies of Christ in many times and in many ways.
Conclusion
The Bible itself calls the reader to interpret it through a literal, Christocentric, intertestamental hermeneutic. While there is ongoing debate about the meaning of the Bible, the reader need look no further than the text itself. Like a machine that has operational instructions branded on its own surface, so the Bible contains its own instructions for interpretation. Truly, “His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness,” (2 Peter 1:3).
[1] All Bible references in this paper are to the English Standard Version (ESV) (Good News Publishers: Crossway, 2001, 2016 ed.
[2] Peter Enns, “Apostolic Hermeneutics and an Evangelical Doctrine of Scirpture: Moving Beyond a Modernist Impasse,” The Westminster Theological Journal 65, no. 2 (Fall 2003): 277.
[3] Walter Kaiser and Moises Silva, Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics: The Search for Meaning (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007), 70.
[4] Edward Glenny, “The Septuagint and Apostolic Hermeneutics: Amos 9 in Acts 15,” Bulletin for Biblical Research 22, no. 1 (2012): 14.
[5] James Thompson, “The Hermeneutics of the Epistle to the Hebrews,” Restoration Quarterly 38, no. 4 (1996): 233.
[6] Dennis Johnson, Him We Proclaim: Preaching Christ from All the Scriptures (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2007), 231.
[7] Daniel Treier, Introducing Theological Interpretation of Scripture: Recovering a Christian Practice (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 42.
[8] Peter Gentry and Stephen Wellum, God’s Kingdom through God’s Covenants: A Concise Biblical Theology (Wheaton: Crossway, 2015).
[9] Gentry and Wellum, God’s Kingdom, 49.
[10] William Webb, Slaves, Women & Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2001), 126.
[11] James Thompson, “The New Is Better: A Neglected Aspect of the Hermeneutics of Hebrews,” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 73, no. 3 (July 2011): 548.
[12] Ibid., 561.
[13] Stephen Motyer, “The Psalm Quotations of Hebrews 1: A Hermeneutic-Free Zone?” Tyndale Bulletin 50, no. 1 (1999): 14-15.
