When I was younger, my parents gave me a bible for Christmas. On the "presented to" page, my Dad wrote my name and then at the bottom, he wrote three bible references. One of those bible references was 2 Timothy 2:15 - "Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth." This verse has propelled me always to strive to understand, handle and teach God's Word accurately.
The expression "rightly handling" is also translated as "rightly divide" and has in mind the idea of cutting a straight line or laying a straight path in the teaching of God's Word. There's a right and a wrong way to handle and teach God's word. Sadly, in many churches, God's word is mishandled, manhandled and at times not even handled. How we read and interpret scripture matters. In many churches, a humanistic hermeneutic influenced by postmodernism is employed. Now, that's a mouthful! So, let me break down some of those words to try to explain what I mean. Postmodernism is a philosophical worldview that focuses on the reality of an individual, making truth relative to what a person perceives to be true in his reality. Those who hold to this worldview dismiss objective truth (truth outside of a person's experience) and assert that truth cannot be known for certain. As a result, they deny any universal truth claim and absolute truth. The tell-tale sign that someone adheres to this worldview, or at the very least is influenced by it, is the expression, "Well, that may be true for you but not for me." Postmodernism is humanistic. Something that is humanist over-emphasizes humanity, especially individuals within a society. This humanistic worldview has influenced how many Christians read and interpret the Bible. That brings us to our third word – hermeneutics. Hermeneutics is the method or principle of interpretation. In the church, a humanistic hermeneutic influenced by postmodernism is one where the interpreter interprets the bible passage based on their own individual reality and experience. So what does that look like in the church? Well, let me give you a few different scenarios.
These are three typical scenarios where the humanistic hermeneutic is being employed and even encouraged. This is not how we are to read, handle and interpret the Bible. To put it bluntly, it doesn't really matter what we think of the passage. We don't want to know what we think it means; we want to know what the author intended it to mean to his original audience. An author writes a book in a historical setting with an intended purpose and audience in mind. They choose their words intentionally to build their story or argument. This is called authorial intent. And it really should be something we are familiar with. We understand that when we read a book, we don't jump in the middle of it and say, "Ah ha, the author is saying this," when we have not read what proceeded it. We also don't pick up Pilgrims Progress, a book written by John Bunyan to allegorically describe the Christian journey, and use it as a recipe book. Why? Because that's not the author's intent! Yet, for some reason, we forget to discover the author's intent when it comes to the books of the Bible, and we jump into interpreting it with our own thoughts. I think what's helpful to mention here is that the Bible consists of 66 books written by 35 authors. Each book is written with an intended audience and purpose in mind. It would be best if you learned the author's intent before you attempt to interpret what a certain passage means. Thankfully, the author's intent is found in the book they have written and often is clearly stated. I'll give you two examples:
Now, why am I harping on this? The humanistic hermeneutic I've mentioned seeks to replace authorial intent with an individualized perspective. This is appealing because it opens the scriptures up to what we want them to say, and we get to reshape them into something more palatable - something more fitting with our culture, our agenda, or even the sins we want to continue doing. The issues that are found in many churches, some of which I have discussed on other blogs, are not because they don't read the Bible; it's because they interpret it based on a man-centred hermeneutic that emphasizes individualized truths and distorts the simple meaning of scripture. As a good student of God's Word who desires to handle God's Word rightly, you need to discover the author's purpose. But that demands work! It demands study! It requires getting to know the historical setting in which the book was written. There's a method of interpretation that seeks to do this. It's called the Historical-Grammatical method of interpretation. Now, you might be cautious about using a method, thinking that it's unspiritual. I can hear it now - "Ya, but the Holy Spirit is your teacher. He's the one that will lead you in the truth. Just listen to him!" This spiritual approach may actually open the door to a humanistic hermeneutic since it relies heavily on personal revelation. Furthermore, it goes against other clear teachings of scripture like 2 Timothy 2:15 which portrays the Christian as a worker who works hard to rightly handled God's word and Proverbs 2:4 that refers to a seeker of truth as someone who works hard to discover the truth like a man seeking and minging for precious jewels. Everyone uses a method; the only question is how close does that method bring you to rightly handling God's Word? I'll state it plainly – the historical-grammatical method of interpretation is probably the best approach to studying God's Word. You may have never heard of this method; however, it has been around since Martin Luther and the protestant reformation. This method was a reaction against the Four-Fold method of interpretation that gave rise to wild ideas and allegorizations of the Bible – especially in books like Song of Solomon. The Historical-Grammatical method sought to ground God's Word in the historical context in which it was written. The method asserts that each biblical passage has ONE basic meaning, which was firmly rooted in historical truth, and relayed accurately according to common principles of human language. This method directly opposes the humanistic hermeneutic that is prevalent in the church today, which seeks to rip the truth from its historical foundations. It guards us against attempting to think, "what does this mean to me" as it prompts us to think, "what did it mean to the author and the original audience." So what steps are taken with this method? There are three steps:
So there you have it, the historical-grammatical method of interpretation, which seeks to ground the biblical passage in its historical setting so that we can rightly understand it and then apply it to our lives today. Let me end with this final thought. What would happen if more churches forsook their humanistic hermeneutic and instead embraced this method? What would the church look like then?
1 Comment
Ian kennedy
5/4/2022 06:56:46 am
Well done David. Churches have become lazy, and rely on others to inform them of biblical content. Neither is proper hermeneutics being instilled in the flock by pastors. You hit the nail on the head with this article.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorHello! I'm glad you found my blog. My name is David Hanson, and I am a concerned Christian who desires for the church of North America to become aware and begin to think biblically of what is happening around them in society. It's time for the church to awake and speak into the current events of the day. We alone have the truth to navigate life effectively. That truth is the Word of God. Archives
May 2022
Categories |