Hermeneutics Part1| Dr. Conrad Vine

By /

Sermon Study Guide: Principles of Interpretation (Hermeneutics)

Text: Based on a sermon on Hermeneutics (Principles of Interpretation)
Objective: To understand the historical development of biblical interpretation, identify our own hermeneutical assumptions, and better understand the challenges facing the modern church.

Introduction: The Hermeneutical Triangle

  1. The Core Question: What is hermeneutics?

    • Answer: Hermeneutics is the study of interpretation. It is the process we all engage in when we read any text.

  2. The Three Key Elements: There is always a dynamic interplay between three things in any act of reading:

    • The Author: What was the author’s original intention?

    • The Text: What does the text actually say?

    • The Reader: Who is reading it, and what do they bring to the text?

  3. Historical Shift in Focus:

    • Pre-Reformation: The focus was on the author (and the church’s authority to interpret him).

    • The Reformation (Luther): The focus shifted to the text itself (“What does it say?”).

    • The Modern/Postmodern World: The focus has shifted to the reader, giving the reader authority over the text. This is seen in “Reader Response Criticism” and specialized Bibles (e.g., Men’s Devotional Bible, Teen Study Bible).

Discussion Questions:

  • Can you identify a time you’ve heard someone say, “That’s your interpretation”? What does that statement reveal about their view of who has authority over a text?

  • Do you think a text can have an objective meaning, or does its meaning always depend on the reader’s perspective? Why?

Part 1: Old Testament Interpretation

  1. Midrash: The Jewish practice of interpreting the Old Testament texts.

    • Halakhic Midrash: Commentary on the Law (Torah). An example is Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount (“You have heard it said… but I say unto you”).

    • Haggadic Midrash: Commentary on the other writings (Prophets & Writings).

    • Key Concept: The Jews believed in both a Written Torah (the text) and an Oral Torah (the interpretation and application of the law).

  2. Jesus and the Oral Torah: Jesus criticized the tradition when it overrode the plain reading of the commandments. (Mark 7:8-9).

    • A Case Study in Interpretation: The debate between conservative (Shammai) and liberal (Hillel) rabbis on divorce (Deuteronomy 24:1).

      • Shammai’s View: Divorce is only allowed for adultery.

      • Hillel’s View: Divorce is allowed for almost any reason (“if she burns the toast”).

      • Application: Joseph is called a “righteous man” (Matthew 1:19) for choosing the liberal (Hillel) interpretation to quietly divorce Mary, showing that a “conservative” interpretation is not always the most righteous choice.

  3. Rabbinic Methods in the New Testament:

    • The Haraz (String of Pearls): A rabbinic method of linking seemingly disconnected texts. The more disconnected, the greater the rhetorical impact of the conclusion.

    • Example: Hebrews 1 uses a string of Old Testament verses to prove the divinity of Christ.

      • Activity: Look up Hebrews 1:5-13. Write down who the author says is speaking, then check the original Old Testament context. Note how the author (under the Holy Spirit) applies the texts differently than their original context.

  4. Literary Devices within the Old Testament:

    • Glosses: Explanatory notes added to help later readers understand the text (e.g., Genesis 23:2—Kiriath Arba, that is Hebron).

    • Juxtapositions: Placing two stories side-by-side to show two sides of a coin.

      • Example: 1 Samuel 8 (negative view of a king) and 1 Samuel 9 (positive view of a king) remind us that human institutions can be forces for good or evil.

    • Echoes: Using a familiar narrative structure to help the reader understand a new story.

      • The Well Motif: Abraham’s servant, Jacob, Moses, and Jesus all meet a woman at a well. This structure ensures the meeting is seen as proper, not immoral.

      • The Sodom/Gomorrah Echo: The story in Judges 19 echoes the story of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19), raising the question: “Is God going to bring judgment on His own people because they are now morally indistinguishable from the original inhabitants of the land?”

Discussion Questions:

  • How does understanding that Jesus was engaging in Jewish rabbinic debate change your understanding of the Sermon on the Mount?

  • What modern examples of “echoes” or “juxtapositions” can you think of in literature or movies that help you understand the theme?

  • Why do you think the author of Judges used an “echo” of the Sodom story to end the book?

Part 2: New Testament & Early Church Interpretation

  1. The Rise of the New Testament:

    • How was it formed? The early church recognized books as authoritative if they had:

      1. Apostolic Authority: Traced directly to an apostle.

      2. Consistency with Apostolic Teaching: What was called the “Rule of Faith.”

  2. The Transition to the Early Church (2nd-5th Centuries):

    • Theological Chaos: The church struggled with heresies like:

      • Gnosticism: Salvation comes through secret knowledge.

      • Docetism: The belief that Jesus only seemed to be human but wasn’t truly human.

    • The Great Debate: Modern scholars debate the divinity of Christ; the early church debated the humanity of Christ.

    • A “Solution” is Proposed: Amid the chaos, Vincent of Lerins (5th century) proposed that the meaning of scripture must be directed by the “norm of the ecclesiastical and catholic sense.” This led to Authoritative Interpretation.

  3. Authoritative Interpretation:

    • The Principle: The church (specifically the Bishop of Rome) determines the meaning of scripture. The scripture is subject to what the church says about it.

    • The Catholic Practice: Books and teachings are often published with a nihil obstat (“nothing stands in the way”), signifying it is consistent with the Church’s authoritative interpretation.

    • Augustine’s View (a transition): Some things you cannot understand until you first believe.

Discussion Questions:

  • What are the pros and cons of “authoritative interpretation”? Why did it become so popular in the early church?

  • How does the Catholic view of nihil obstat differ from the Protestant view of “Sola Scriptura”?

  • How do we balance the need for sound doctrine with the risks of a single person or group having final authority?

Part 3: The Reformation & The Shift to the Text

  1. The Pre-Reformation Revolution (1453 & Beyond):

    • Fall of Constantinople (1453): Greek manuscripts flooded Western Europe, allowing scholars to compare them to the Latin Vulgate.

    • Black Death: Wiped out a third of the population, leading to the end of feudalism, labor mobility, and the rise of powerful independent city-states and merchants.

    • The Printing Press: Democratized knowledge, allowing the common person to read the Bible.

    • The Connection: The speaker notes that our modern conditions (decline of old systems, rise of powerful merchants, information revolution) mirror those of the Reformation era.

  2. Desiderius Erasmus:

    • Compiled and published the first Greek New Testament (1516).

    • Advocated for a personal religion, not one dominated by Catholic hierarchy.

    • Believed the purpose of scripture was not perfect understanding but moral transformation.

  3. Martin Luther:

    • His Impact: Shifted the focus of interpretation from the author (as defined by the church) to the text itself.

    • His Goal: Translated the Bible into German (the vernacular) so common people could read and understand it.

    • Exegetical Optimism: The belief that every person has the right and responsibility to read the scriptures for themselves and that God will give them sufficient understanding for salvation.

    • The Reaction: When peasants read the Bible for themselves, they began to question the divine right of kings and nobles, leading to the Peasants’ Revolt. The Catholic church blamed Luther for the resulting chaos.

    • Luther’s Correction: In response to the chaos, Luther retreated from extreme “exegetical optimism” to a middle position. His view evolved to: Individuals should read scripture, but they must submit their interpretations to the considered view of the church leadership/elders.

    • Application for Adventists: The speaker compares this process to the Adventist structure of “Sabbath School” and the General Conference voting system, where new light is submitted for study and approval at multiple levels.

  4. A Case Study in Textual Criticism: 1 John 5:7

    • The famous “Comma Johanneum” (which speaks of the Trinity in heaven) is found in the King James Version but is absent from most modern translations because Erasmus initially couldn’t find it in any Greek manuscript. He only added it to his Greek New Testament after a critic produced a (likely forged) manuscript in response to a challenge.

Discussion Questions:

  • Why was Luther’s translation of the Bible into German such a momentous event? What happens when people can read the Bible for themselves?

  • The speaker says that Adventists practice “exegetical optimism” in Sabbath School. How can this be dangerous, and how can it be productive?

  • Why is it important to have a Bible with a critical apparatus (footnotes explaining textual variants) at the bottom of the page?

Part 4: The Modern & Postmodern Crisis & Conclusion

  1. The Modernist Era (Enlightenment & Higher Criticism): The focus on the text. In this worldview, the concept of doctrine makes sense because there is a belief in a common, objective understanding of the text (the “Stop” sign means “Stop” to everyone).

  2. The Postmodern Era: The focus has shifted to the reader. The reader is the authority. The text has no objective meaning; it is interpreted through the lens of the individual’s subjective experience and identity.

    • The “Stop” Sign Example: A modernist sees “STOP” and obeys. A postmodern sees “STOP” and, based on their own experience, decides it means “do a rolling stop.”

  3. The Crisis for the Adventist Church:

    • The 28 Fundamental Beliefs are a product of the modernist worldview, where a common understanding of the text is assumed.

    • However, most young people are raised with a postmodern worldview, where the concept of objective doctrine is seen as an imposition.

    • This is why we see theological disintegration. People can hold the name “Adventist” while holding radically different interpretations on issues (like LGBTQ+ inclusion) because they are reading with a different set of “spectacles.”

Final Encouragement:

  • We are not saved by virtue of being a member of a church or by having perfect doctrine. We are saved by our personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

  • Understanding these different worldviews helps us be more gracious and effective in sharing our faith in a world that is rapidly changing.

Discussion Questions:

  • How has the internet and social media contributed to a postmodern view where “everyone has their own truth”?

  • How can we, as a church, remain faithful to our biblical foundation while effectively communicating the gospel to a postmodern generation?

  • What is the difference between “a personal relationship with Jesus” and a “personal interpretation of scripture”?

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *