Was Eli Soriano Correct In His Criticism of Hermeneutics?
There is a right handling of the Word of God. The Bible tells us that God commends those who do so. “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.” (2 Tim. 2:15)[1] We evangelicals call the correct handling of the Scriptures “hermeneutics,” which is “the science (principles) and art (task) by which the meaning of the biblical text is determined.”[2] That means that there is also an incorrect handling the Bible. Thus, hermeneutics is essential in understanding it.
There are preachers who think that, through hermeneutics they can rightfully understand the Bible. We believe that the laws of men do not apply here. They do not contribute in developing correct interpretation and understanding of the Bible. We do not have to follow any set of principles formulated by men…[3]
So, was Soriano correct in his criticism of hermeneutics? Is hermeneutics merely “the laws of men” that we apply on the Bible and does not really help at all in Bible interpretation?
According to a study of the state of theological education here in the country, “16% churches without pastors plus 39% churches with untrained pastors translates into a need to train pastors for 55% of the churches in the Philippines.”[4] One of the basics that a pastor has to learn is hermeneutics. I heard enough horror stories of pastors mangling the Word in their preaching. The want of training on Bible interpretation weakens the pulpit ministry and worsens the Bible illiteracy among believers. Thus, cults such as ADD are on the rise, capitalizing on such ignorance of the Word. Its members claim that ADD is “the only religious program which heightened the religious awareness of many people”[5] and that millions have already converted to their faith because of that program, which is aired not only nationwide but even worldwide through their own cable TV channel, a hundred radio stations and the Internet. Hence, we need to defend hermeneutics against the criticisms of people like Soriano. We need to teach pastors how to interpret the Bible so that they could equip their people to know what and why they believe “so that [they] may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes.” (Eph. 4:14)
I believe that every passage has one intended meaning though it has many applications. We draw out that intended meaning through hermeneutics. One can rightly apply the Word only if he has rightly interpreted it. Thus, I am committed to “grammatico-historical interpretation,” which focuses on “both the language in which the original text was written and to the specific cultural context that gave rise to the text.”[6] I also believe in “the analogy of faith” or “the rule that Scripture is to interpret Scripture”.[7] It means “that no part of Scripture can be interpreted in such a way as to render it in conflict with what is clearly taught elsewhere in Scripture.”[8] I hereby venture further that, in order for the Bible to interpret the Bible, it even modeled for us how to do so. The Scripture itself taught us that there are rules for its interpretation and provided us some of those rules. Therefore, hermeneutics is no mere man-made rules imposed on the Word of God.
God gave every believer the right and the privilege to interpret the Bible. This is based on the doctrine of the priesthood of the believer. That means that “all Christians have some ability to interpret Scripture and some responsibility to seek God’s wisdom in applying it to situations.”[9] Sproul declared that one “of the great legacies of the Reformation [was] the principle of private interpretation”.[10] He clarified what he meant with the term.
Private interpretation never meant that individuals have the right to distort the Scriptures. With the right of private interpretation comes the sober responsibility of accurate interpretation. Private interpretation gives license to interpret but not to distort.[11]
The proof-text model often relies on a naïve reading of the text. It may disregard the purpose for which the text was written, the historical conditioning in which it is set, and the genre conventions that shaped it. Consequently, this method is vulnerable to allegorization, psychologization, spiritualization, and other forms of quick-and-easy adjustments of the scriptural words to say what one wishes them to say in the contemporary scene, ignoring their intended purpose and usage as determined by context, grammar, and historical background.[14]
Watching just one broadcast of ADD would suffice to convince a careful interpreter of the Bible that what Soriano dubs as “reading the Bible” is actually mere proof-texting.
As his proof-text, Soriano quoted 2 Peter 1:20 in the King James Version which says, “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.”[15] Crucial to our discussion then is a proper understanding of 2 Peter 1:20. Does it really rule out hermeneutics? Was Peter actually talking about hermeneutics when he mentioned “private interpretation”? There are at least two views on 2 Peter 1:20. The first view says that the verse explains “the origin of the prophecies of the OT Scripture”.[16] The second view says that it is “speaking of how OT prophecies are to be interpreted”.[17] Soriano appears to be leaning on the latter view. But the context of our text leans in favor of the former view.
In view of his imminent death, the apostle Peter was reminding his readers about the truth that they received from him (2 Pet. 1:12-15). He assured them that they “did not follow cleverly devised myths” (v. 16). They got it from reliable sources. They heard it directly from eyewitnesses such as Peter. He personally saw the transfiguration of the Lord and heard the voice of God along with the apostles James and John (vv. 17-18). But Peter affirmed that they have an even better source of revelation: “And we have something more sure, the prophetic word” (v. 19a) Then he wrote “that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation” (v. 20). It appears that, based on the context, what Peter meant with the word “interpretation” was the origination or revelation of the prophecies. The next verse supported that line of thought. “For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” (v. 21. Emphasis added.) What he was saying was that the prophets did not make it up but instead made known what they received from God. That is why the NET Bible® goes like this: “No prophecy of scripture ever comes about by the prophet’s own imagination, for no prophecy was ever borne of human impulse; rather, men carried along by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.” (Emphasis added)
Therefore, Soriano misinterpreted 2 Peter 1:20. The verse did not actually rule out hermeneutics. Peter was not even talking about hermeneutics. It was just unfortunate that scholars like Sproul used the term “private interpretation” which is the exact phrase that the King James Version used in 2 Peter 1:20. But there was no connection at all and different definitions were intended in the usage of the phrase. Same vocabulary but different dictionary.
Now we set out to establish that the Bible itself taught us that we should observe rules for its interpretation and gave us some of those rules. Second Timothy 2:15 reminds us that there is a right way and a wrong way of handling the Bible. The words “rightly handling” literally mean “to cut straight.”[18] As a tentmaker, Paul would stitch together animal skins. The parts had to be cut the right size so that they would have the right fit when patched to each other. It is the same with the Word. We cannot just patch verses together without making sure their contexts fit even if they have a common word or wordings. The part (verse) must fit the whole tent (the entire Bible). This supports analogy of faith. An interpretation of a part of the Bible should not contradict with what it teaches in other parts of it. Thus, here we see an assumption that there are rules for cutting the Word straight. Without those rules, we may end up cutting it crooked.
In 1 Corinthians 4:6, Paul reminded the believers “not to go beyond what is written”. In this passage, he exhorted them not to judge their leaders beyond what the Bible says. He taught them to evaluate their leaders based on what the Bible teaches about church leadership in general. But this “proverb [perhaps] common among the rabbis”[19] appears to be an interpretive rule that the apostle follows as well. (Even Soriano loves to quote this verse again and again.) To mark it as a rabbinical saying, the New International Version even placed it in quotation marks.
Although we are not aware of any wording quite like this [“not to go beyond what is written”] elsewhere, clearly Paul and his readers were, and the phrase ‘what is written’ is a common enough way in which Paul referred to the Old Testament Scriptures; he uses it sixteen times in his letter to the Romans alone, and more than thirty times at all.[20]
But it is not just limited to quoting verses since that saying is “directing attention to the need for conformity to Scripture.”[21] Based on the way Paul mentioned it in 1 Corinthians, he is not just teaching them to remain Scriptural, that is, paying attention on what is actually written, but also to remain Biblical, that is, on what it really teaches, either by its precepts (commands) or principles.
We must always distinguish between something that is contrary to Scripture and something that is not in Scripture; a thing may be non-scriptural without being against Scripture. We are allowed to do things not specifically mentioned in Scripture provided they are not contrary to Scripture; that is, provided they are in harmony with scriptural principles.[22]
When we affirm what the Bible affirms and when we deny what it denies, we are not going beyond but staying within the Word. Due to the limited scope of this paper however, we need not debate whether we are free or not to do things that the Bible is silent about or does not discuss at all. But it is enough to point out that the “not to go beyond what is written” proverb is a hermeneutical rule that the Word of God gave us. Also, it is a scriptural support for the analogy of faith.[23]
In Mathew 4, we see the Lord Jesus model analogy of faith for us. When the enemy tempted Him to jump off the apex of the temple by misquoting Psalm 91:11-12, He countered with a quotation from Deuteronomy 6:16. He even prefaced it with “Again it is written” (Matt. 4:7) Here we see that Scripture interprets Scripture. One cannot claim divine protection when he foolishly puts himself in harm’s way. Christ balanced the promise of Psalm 91 with the prudence of Deuteronomy 6.
Other than observing the analogy of faith, the Lord Jesus also interpreted the Scripture based on the intent of the author. Determining the authorial intent is another important hermeneutical rule.
What a passage means is fixed by the author and is not subject to change by readers… Meaning is also definite in that there are defined limits by virtue of the author's expressed meaning in the given linguistic form and cultural context. Meaning is determined by an author; it is discovered by the readers.[24]
In Matthew 19, the Pharisees tried to drag Jesus into the ongoing debate at that time about divorce and its grounds. When He quoted Genesis 2:24, His opponents argued against it by quoting Deuteronomy 24:1-4. When the Lord concluded that “What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate” (v. 6b), they countered it by asking, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” (v. 7) He then clarified that Moses did not actually command divorce but just consented to it on clear-cut grounds. “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.” (v. 8) It was not the intent of Moses to abolish marriage by allowing divorce. Note also that He had put more weight on Genesis 2:24 than Deuteronomy 24:1-4, that the former determines the meaning of the latter, by saying “but from the beginning it was not so.” (v. 8b) He surfaced the intent of the ultimate Author of the Scripture, God Himself.
Another rule that the Bible gave us is to interpret it according to the rules of grammar. We call this “grammatical interpretation”. Zuck gave much emphasis on its importance.
Thoughts are expressed through words, and words are the building block of sentences. Therefore to determine God’s thoughts we need to study His words and how they are associated in sentences. If we neglect the meaning of words and how they are used, we have no way of knowing whose interpretations are correct. The assertion, “You can make the Bible mean anything you want it to mean,” is true only if grammatical interpretation is ignored.[25]
Galatians 3:16 in its discussion of “the promises… made to Abraham and to his offspring” shows us grammatical interpretation in action: “It does not say, ‘And to offsprings,’ referring to many, but referring to one, ‘And to your offspring,’ who is Christ.” Paul built his argument on the number indicated in the noun “offspring” in Genesis 13:15 and 17:8. The fact that God made the promise to a singular offspring and not plural (“offsprings”) led him to conclude that it referred to Christ. “Paul’s willingness to make an argument using a singular noun in distinction from its plural form (which occurs in other OT verses) indicates a high level of confidence in the trustworthiness of the small details of the OT text.”[26]
Even Jesus Himself observed grammatical interpretation. In Matthew 22, the Sadducees tried to trap Him with a trick story that they usually used as their argument against resurrection. But He answered them, “And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God: ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not God of the dead, but of the living.’” (Vv. 31-32) Christ based his counter-argument on the present tense of “I am” in Exodus 3:6 to prove the resurrection. His conclusion that God is the God of the living and not of the dead agrees with the tense of “I am.” It shows the great trust He had even in the minutia of the Bible, just like Paul. No wonder Zuck wrote, “Only grammatical interpretation fully honors the verbal inspiration of the Scripture.”[27] If grammatical interpretation is good enough for the Lord Jesus and the apostle Paul, it is good enough for all of us.
I believe that hermeneutics is a biblical set of rules for understanding the biblical set of rules for understanding the Word of God. I deny that it is merely man-made interpretive laws imposed on the Scripture. Scripture truly interprets Scripture.
God commends workers who would commit to correctly handle His Word (2 Tim. 2:15). To rightly handle the Scripture is to rightly interpret it. Thus, the Bible itself taught us that we should observe rules for its interpretation. The Lord Jesus Christ and the apostle Paul themselves have modeled for us those hermeneutical rules. We are to follow their example. Not to do so would be condemnable, not commendable. To hone my skills in understanding the Word of God is to honor the God of the Word.
© 2012 Bible Exposé Apologetics Ministry. To know more about us, click here.
NOTE: We have moved to our new home, http://bibleexpose.org/.
________________________________
[1]Unless otherwise noted, Scripture quotations are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a division of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
[2]Roy B. Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation, (Colorado Springs: Victor, 1991), 19.
[3]Eli Soriano, “Should the Bible be interpreted?” Bible Guide, 11 July 2004, http://www.kaanib.net/bible/bible_study.html (accessed August 6, 2005).
[4]Manfred Waldemar Kohl, The Church in the Philippines: A Research Project with Special Emphasis on Theological Education (Phil: OMF, 2005), 19.
[5]“About This Site,” Ang Dating Daan Bible Exposition Online, 15 June 2004, http://www.angdatingdaan.org/about/about_us.htm (accessed August 10, 2005).
[6] Walter Kaiser, Jr. and Moises Silva, An Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1994), 19.
[7]R.C. Sproul, Knowing Scripture (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1977), 46.
[8]Ibid.
[9]Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1994), 933.
[10]Sproul, 34.
[11]Ibid, 35-36.
[12]Soriano. Emphasis his.
[13]Zuck, 26.
[14]Kaiser, 31-32.
[15]Soriano.
[16]Wayne Grudem, gen. ed., ESV Study Bible (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Bibles, 2008), 2420.
[17]Ibid. Emphasis his.
[18]James Strong, The Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible: Showing Every Word of the Text of the Common English Version of the Canonical Books, and Every Occurrence of Each Word in Regular Order, electronic ed. (Ontario: Woodside Bible Fellowship., 1996), G3718.
[19]Kenneth Barker, gen. ed., NIV Study Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1995), .
[20]Brian H. Edwards, Nothing but the Truth (Great Britain: Evangelical Press, 1993), 103.
[21]Ibid.
[22]Ibid, 96-97.
[23]1 Corinthians 4:6 (specially the clause “not to go beyond what is written”) is an excellent supporting verse also for the doctrine of the sufficiency of the Scripture.
[24]Norman Geisler, “Explaining Hermeneutics: A Commentary on The Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics Articles of Affirmation and Denial” Biblical Hermeneutics, http://hermeneutics.kulikovskyonline.net/hermeneutics/csbh.htm (accessed December 10, 2009).
[25]Zuck, 99.
[26]ESV Study Bible, 2250.
[27]Zuck, 99.
posted by Bible Exposé at 10:08 AM
<< Home