Methodical Musings

Please don’t be intimidated by the length of this post…

The purpose of this post is to explore the traditional basics of fundamentalist hermeneutics and why I think it fundamentally flawed.

Historical-Grammatical [-Theological] Method

It is extremely difficult to “sum up” traditional Biblical hermeneutics in a short space, but I will try.

First, a definition. In my own words, hermeneutics is the study of proper interpretation of a text.

The hermeneutic that I was taught is called the historical-grammatical method. In this method, considerable devotion is spent to understanding the context of a word, a phrase, a sentence, a paragraph, a chapter, a verse, a book, a set of books, etc. before pronouncing the meaning. Context can include everything from the use of the words to historical background to the author’s life. Basically context includes all known relevant historical or grammatical data. The ultimate goal in this hermeneutic is to determine what the author meant. The reason for this is that when we read, we interpret what the author is saying through our own present understanding. However, our present understanding can cause us to misinterpret the text if we do not know all of the background information that caused the author to write what he did. If we are not careful, we end up like a person who dropped into the middle of a conversation. Things become even more obtuse when we consider that any English text is at least once removed from the original language. One commonly misinterpreted text is Jeremiah 29:31: “For I know the plans I have for you, says the Lord…” When many Christians read this verse they interpret it as God speaking to them. However, the verse in its historical-grammatical context was speaking to God’s chosen people about the restoration of Israel. Therefore, the warm and fuzzy personal interpretation of Jeremiah 29:31 is just plain inaccurate when applying the historical-grammatical hermeneutic. Sure, the interpretation works to make a person feel warm and loved, but it is completely wrong regardless of how it makes a person feel.

One of the first things a person should understand is that the rules and guidelines used to interpret texts have changed over time. For example, the way in which first century authors interpreted what they considered Scripture is different than the way all modern scholars interpret those same texts. For example, take some time to look at verses quoted in the New Testament. Then take at look at the surrounding context in the Old Testament. Often there is no appparent connection between how the New Testament authors used the verse and what it communicated in the original text. While this is not always the case, even a deep study of how the verses are used never ceases to cause conflict among Bible scholars since scholars often have to go to lengths to justify the way in which New Testament authors interpreted the Old Testament, all to defend the integrity of the New Testament authors.

A good example is Paul’s use of Hagar and Sarah as an allegory. Allegory? There is nothing in the original text that would ever hint it was an allegory! Today, historical-grammatical scholars will tell you to never interpret a text as an allegory unless the text is obviously intended to be an allegory. As such, if you tried to interpret the story of Lot and his daughters as an allegory, you would most likely get a slap on the hand. Consider: if Sarah and Hagar can be interpreted allegorically, why can’t Genesis 1-2 be interpreted as allegory as well? If anything, Genesis 1-2 is more poetic in nature than the story about Hagar and Sarah and one would think you could be more loose on your interpretation of Genesis 1-2! Regardless of the technicality of any answer given (and I am aware that there are elaborate fundamentalist defenses of every apparent contradiction I am presenting), it is obvious Paul did not use the historical-grammatical method, for the method was not truly developed until the last couple of centuries. Therefore, the way Paul interpreted Scripture is different than the way modern scholars interpret Scripture. That means that the meaning Paul gathered from Old Testament passages is different than the meaning we gather today.

Note that: the interpreted meaning of the text changes when you change your hermeneutic. Therefore, since Paul used a different hermeneutic – one which he never fully explains, I might add – Paul sometimes gathers a different meaning from an Old Testament text than we ever would imagine using the grammatical-historical method of interpretation. In short, this means Paul saw the Old Testament different than we do.

As with all religions, the founders of Christianity are given exceptions in their behavior. The reason the New Testament authors are excused in their use of the Old Testament is because they are assumed to be inspired and therefore always innocent. The problem is that there is no way to prove them guilty because scholars will do everything in their power to invent an interpretation that lets them off the hook! Inspired could mean that a New Testament author would use an Old Testament passage wrong and yet the Holy Spirit used that mistake to communicate the truth (I’ve actually heard this argument presented). For example, New Testament authors paraphrase Old Testament passages, combine them together where no apparent connection exists, quote from non-canonical texts, and make grammatical mistakes left and right. They even quote from non-existence Old Testament passages, but are given a free ride because they are inspired. Somehow even missing texts do not phase a fundamentalist. Their faith is not built on what Scripture says, their interpretation of what Scripture says is built on their faith. So regardless of all this talk on getting all of their understanding of the world from the Bible: it is not true. They interpret the Bible through a lens already chosen, and then work backwards to make the text communicate the theology that makes the most sense to them at the time. This is why the followers can disagree vehemently on the most core issues (like soteriology – or their understanding of salvation) and both agree the text they are getting these ideas from is inspired. Since the original authors are excused, a priori, from any possibility of mistake, the followers simply push all blame on disagreements on those doing the interpreting.

Now what I discovered was this. Fundamentalist Bible schools slowly ease their students into these problems so that they do not alarm anyone. The idea is that you expose the students to the problems at a rate at which you can also provide them the answers. The students (like me) are told time and time again that the answers exist, we just have to look for them. The assumption, of course, is that the students will look for answers that confirm what they already believe so that no ones faith is shaken. The Bible school is right: there are answers.

You can find any answer you want using this method.

Why This Method is Wrong but Works Flawlessly

Quite simply, the fundamentalist historical-grammatical method is wrong because the text is subjected to theological claims first and then interpreted through the historical-grammatical method. In other words, if applying the method contradicts present theological claims in a disruptive fashion the results are thrown out.

There are a couple of “tricks” that are used to achieve this effect. I call them tricks because I honestly don’t think anyone realizes they are doing this. Anyway, the following two hermeneutical claims work together perfectly to create a machine that never fails, but yields the exact results that the interpreter wants them to. We were taught these two claims in our earliest classes at Moody Bible Institute:

1) The plain meaning of a text is normally closest to the real meaning.

2) Difficult passages are to be interpreted in light of easier passages.

At first, these two hermeneutical principles appear to make a lot of sense. But combined together they produce an incredible illusion! Under this illusion, you can have two Christians going at it in endless debates over something crucial (like salvation) and both of them will never stop to wonder how the two of them can both still consider the Bible inerrant and yet they obviously interpret it in such a radically different way.

Let me show you how it works:

Take two apparently contradictory passages: P1 and P2. Assume they do not contradict (a theological claim). Take your current theology and figure out which passage most clearly teaches it (P1 or P2?). The passage that “clearly” (to you) teaches your theology is declared easy to understand (Pe). The other passage is the hard to understand passage (Ph). Find a way to interpret Ph in light of Pe and you have made both verses say the same thing.

That’s it!

Do you want the Bible to teach once-saved-always-saved theology or that salvation can be lost? Take your pick! All you have to do is pick passages that “clearly” teach one or the other and declare every other passage difficult to understand. Now you can just accuse all of your opponents as just ignoring the “clear” meaning of Scripture and leaning on a bad understanding of “difficult to understand” passage!

Since one has to start with a theology that informs the way they interpret Scripture, but they cannot know proper theology unless they properly interpret Scripture, one can never know whether they are interpreting Scripture accurately. The historical-grammatical method is only a clever way of defending the theology you start out with, not the other way around. As long as you don’t find anything that clearly contradicts your current understanding of theology, you can keep it and argue endlessly with whomever you want to.

Beautiful, isn’t it? It is a perfect tool to keep the faith and never have to change your theology and yet retain your confidence in the inerrancy of Scripture.

In short? The historical-grammatical method is an intellectual farce to defend whatever you want it to defend when you begin with any theological premise, since no matter what you find you can keep your current theology anyway. And if you do decide to change theology, you can just find a church where people agree with you.

Apparently, few are interested in the actual meaning of the text (otherwise I would expect that they would all be bothered by the diversity of interpretations), but only in finding people who agree with their current interpretation.

This is probably why, when I had certain questions at Moody Bible Institute, they just told me I should go to a different school. They obviously did not care about genuinely answering my questions accurately.

- Josh