Hermeneutics: General Principles

THEO 6101: Theological Research

Dr. James R. Adair

There are certain principles of interpretation that people should follow when reading the Bible that will help to determine the understanding that the original recipients of the text (in its written form) would likely have had. Although these principles may be seen as a more detailed understanding of the historical-critical method, they are really fundamental for any informed method of reading the text. The principles may be divided into two areas: (1) general principles that apply to all texts and (2) specific principles that apply primarily to particular types of texts.

General Principles

1. Grammatico-historical methodology
   1. Grammatical considerations: Determine the meaning of words and idioms in general and in the immediate context. Be aware of the principles of grammar and syntax that apply to the sentences in the passage under consideration. Be aware of various forms of word-play that might be a factor in interpretation.
      • Example: "Mene mene tekel upharsin" (Dan 5:25): U- at beginning of fourth word is Aramaic word "and"; -in ending on fourth word is Aramaic plural ending (the singular form is peres). Each word is a word-play: mene can mean a mina (a large weight) or the verb "to count"; tekel can mean a shekel (1/60 of a mina) or the verb "to weigh"; peres can mean a half-shekel, or the verb "to divide," or the word "Persia"; the apparently plural ending on upharsin could actually be a dual ending, referring to the Medes and the Persians.
      • Example: "holy, holy, holy" (Isa 6:3): Normal Hebrew idiom repeated a word to emphasize its completeness, so this phrase should be interpreted as "perfect holiness," not as a reference to the Trinity (a concept foreign to the Old Testament); cf. also Jer 6:14: "Peace, peace" = "perfect peace."
      • Example: "born again" (John 3:3)": This phrase in Greek can mean both "born again" (the way Nicodemus understands it) and "born from above" (the way Jesus means it).
      • Example: "a son of the gods" (Dan 3:24-25): This phrase is sometimes rendered "the Son of God" and interpreted as a pre-Incarnate manifestation of Jesus in the fiery furnace. However, a simple understanding of Aramaic idioms yields a more natural reading: "a son of the gods" means "one of the gods." Nebuchadnezzar does not reveal an inchoate understanding of the Trinity that is nowhere evident in the book of Daniel, not even in Daniel himself, but rather he sees an angel (and angels are prevalent in Daniel), which he interprets according to his own polytheistic understanding as a god.
   2. Historical considerations: The history and geography of the ancient world, not the modern world, should be considered when interpreting a passage.
      • Example: "mountains of Ararat" (Gen 8:4): This phrase refers not to a specific mountain (note the plural) but to the mountainous region of the ancient kingdom of Urartu, north of Assyria.
      • Example: lukewarm water (Rev 3:15-16): A common interpretation of this passage maintains that Jesus would prefer people to be either totally committed to him (hot) or totally opposed to him (cold) than partially committed (lukewarm). However, this reading has obvious logical problems. An understanding of the geography of the region around Laodicea, however, solves the problem. The neighboring city of Hierapolis was famous for its hot springs, which were reported to have healing properties. The neighboring city of Colossae had access to cold spring water, which was refreshing to thirsty travelers. However, Laodicea's water supply was carried by aqueduct, and by the time it reached the city, it was tepid and relatively unappealing. The contrast, then, is between hot and cold water on the one hand (both of which have high value) and lukewarm water on the other hand (which is less appetizing).
2. Context: The reader should consider the context of the passage under consideration, particularly the immediate context (what do the sentences immediately before and after reveal about the possible meaning of the passage?) and the context within the book (are there clues elsewhere in the book to help elucidate the meaning?). Because this is one of the most important yet commonly ignored principles of interpretation, we will consider several examples.
   • Example: "Behold, I stand at the door and knock" (Rev 3:20): The immediate context (Rev 3:14-22) indicates that these words were addressed to Christians, not non-Christians.
   • Example: "Your eyes are too pure to behold evil" (Hab 1:13): This verse is often interpreted to mean that God cannot look upon evil, and this meaning is applied to the passion narratives of Matthew and Mark, where Jesus' cry from the cross ("My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?") is interpreted as meaning that because Jesus had taken upon himself the sins of the world, God could no longer look at him. There are some obvious theological problems with this interpretation: (1) If God is omniscient, God is capable of seeing everything. (2) If God couldn't look upon sin, God would never see any human being. (3) If God is omnipotent, it makes no sense to limit God's power by saying that God cannot do something. More importantly for our purposes, the whole theological basis for the argument, based on the verse from Habakkuk, rests on an interpretation that ignores both the context and the proper understanding of a normal Hebrew idiom. The phrase "to look upon" usually means "to look upon with favor," and the context in the same verse verifies that understanding. In the second half of the verse, the prophet asks, "Why do you look on the treacherous?" Clearly he believes that God is in fact looking with favor upon the wicked, and he wonders why. There is no question here of God not being able to observe anyone, good or bad.
   • Example: "How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn!" (Isa 14:3-23): Verse 12 in this passage is often understood as referring to the fall of Satan from heaven, and the King James Version explicitly supports such a reading, rending the Hebrew for Day Star as "Lucifer," based on a reading of the Latin Vulgate. (Lucifer is Latin for "light bearer" or "morning star," the mythological son of Aurora and Cephalus.) However, a cursory examination of the passage will show that the individual addressed by this verse is not Satan (the association between Satan and Lucifer is late and based on a misunderstanding of this passage) but the king of Babylonia. Verse 4 says, "Take up this taunt against the king of Babylon." Verse 22 says, "I will rise up against them, says the Lord of hosts, and will cut off from Babylon name and remnant, offspring and posterity, says the Lord." Cf. also verse 16: "Is this the man who made the earth tremble?" a clear reference to a human rather than an angelic being.
   • Example: "You were in Eden, the garden of God" (Ezek 28:1-19): Verse 13 in this passage, like Isa 14:12, is often understood as referring to the fall of Satan. However, the context here clearly indicates that the individual addressed is the king of Tyre (Ezek 28:12; cf. also 26:2-3; 27:2-3; 28:2, 21 (Sidon is often associated with the neighboring city of Tyre). Furthermore, though the the person addressed has delusions of divinity, the prophet is clear that he is a man and not a divine being (Ezek 28:2, 9, 10). Cf. also the reference to "the unrighteousness of your trade" (28:18). The Phoenicians were famous as traders in the ancient world; Satan was not.
   • Example: "one will be taken and one will be left" (Matt 24:40-41): This phrase, repeated twice in these verses, is often used as evidence of a biblical teaching concerning the Rapture, in which one person is "taken" (to heaven to be with Jesus) and the other is "left behind" in the world. However, a glance at the immediate context shows that this interpretation is the exact opposite of what Jesus intended to teach in this saying. Verse 37 refers to the days of Noah, when the flood swept away the unsuspecting. Those who were "taken" were taken away in judgment. So too the woman grinding meal who is "taken" will be taken to judgment, as will the person who is "taken" from the field. This passage, then, does not support the idea of a Rapture.
3. Critical considerations: The various critical tools discussed earlier in the lesson on the historical-critical method should be used as applicable to help determine the meaning of the text.
   1. Isolating the pericope: It is important to isolate distinct units of meaning, or pericopes (per-ik-o-peez), before beginning interpretation. A pericope may range from a single sentence to several paragraphs, depending on the type of material. Determining the extent of the pericope will establish the immediate context discussed above. Pericopes in narrative or legal sections can be quite long, and the boundaries are often determined by standard opening and closing formulas. Pericopes in prophetic material are usually somewhat shorter, and a distinct pericope often begins with a phrase like, "And the Lord said to the prophet," or ends with a phrase like, "says the Lord." Pericopes in poetic material are rarely bounded by standard formulas and must usually be determined from context, though literary devices such as acrostic formulas (each line beginning with a consecutive letter of the alphabet) sometimes help. Pericopes in wisdom material can range from a single sentence (a proverb) to a lengthier discourse on some wisdom topic. Note that many pericopes must be determined purely by context, by shifts in structure or subject matter.
      • Example: The narrative in Genesis 31 ends with the standard "dual departure" formula in 31:55 and 32:1a, where the two main characters part company and go their separate ways.
      • Example: The acrostic structure of Psalms 9-10 suggests that they were originally a single psalm, since the acrostic structure extends across both psalms.
      • Example: In the gospels, new pericopes are often indicated by narrative devices that separate one saying or story from another. For example, in Mark 2, new pericopes start in verses 1, 13, 15, 18, 21, 23.
   2. Use of various critical tools: Critical tools such as textual criticism, form criticism, and redaction criticism can help in understanding the meaning of a passage. The use of these tools has already been illustrated in the lesson on the historical-critical method.
4. Determination of genre: It is important to determine the genre of a pericope before attempting to interpret it. Narrative, poetry, wisdom, prophecy, and apocalyptic often need to be interpreted differently. Figures of speech must likewise be identified within each genre.
   • Example: "Come to Bethel and transgress!" (Amos 4:4-5): This passage is not a command for people to sin. It is an example of irony; the prophet proclaims a message that is obviously facetious in order to get his audience's attention.
   • Example: "Train children in the way they should go, and when they grow old, they will not depart from it" (Prov 22:6): This statement is a proverb, a type of wisdom material, and it is intended to be a general rule, not an absolute guarantee. Just because a person strays from the truth, it doesn't mean that his parents failed him.
   • Example: "144,000" (Rev 7:4-8): This number should not be interpreted literally, because it appears in apocalyptic literature. Instead, the meaning of the numbers twelve and perhaps one thousand should be considered.
5. Theological considerations: The reader's personal theological understanding should not color his or her analysis of the meaning of a passage to its original readers. Instead, we should be aware of the theological perspective of the author of the material we are evaluating.
   • Example: Differences in theological perspective can be found throughout the Bible (e.g., Deuteronomy vs. Exodus, Hosea vs. Amos, Proverbs vs. Job, Micah vs. Isaiah, Matthew vs. Mark vs. Luke vs. John, Galatians vs. James).
   • Example: Sometimes it is possible to trace the development of overarching themes chronologically through the Bible. This is sometimes called progressive revelation. Some examples are belief in the afterlife (Sheol earlier, heaven and hell later), Satan (mentioned in only three places in the Old Testament, ubiquitous in the New Testament), and the Holy Spirit/Spirit of God (a manifestation of God's power throughout the Old Testament and in some of the New Testament, a distinct personality in Paul and especially John).
6. Ethical considerations: Some aspects of the Bible are troubling from a modern perspective. Evidence of ethical difficulties with earlier books is sometimes reflected in later books. Passages can be analyzed by asking certain questions that sometimes help to clarify ethical dilemmas.
   1. Ethical difficulties in earlier books are sometimes corrected or questioned in later books.
      • Example: God/Satan inciting David to number the people (2 Sam 24:1; 1 Chron 21:1): In 2 Samuel, God incites David to take a census of the people, and God later punishes the people for David's act. The author of Samuel apparently saw all divine causality behind events as the work of God; there is no concept in the earlier parts of the Old Testament of an evil divine (or semi-divine) presence. The author of Chronicles, writing at least 200 years later, attributed only good divine causality to God, and he attributed evil (semi-)divine causality to Satan.
      • Example: exclusion of foreigners from the community of God (Deut 23:3-8; Isa 56:3-8): The legal tradition in Deuteronomy excludes Moabites and Ammonites from the assembly of the Lord, even if the connection to a Moabite or Ammonite ancestor is ten generations back. The exilic prophet sometimes called Second Isaiah, on the other hand, says that God welcomes all people of any nation who voluntarily join themselves to God. Similarly, Ruth relates that King David himself had Moabite ancestry only three generations back. The argument over whether the Jewish community would be exclusive or inclusive was particularly acute in the postexilic period. The books of Ezra and Nehemiah support the exclusivist position (Ezra 9:1-15; Neh 13:23-28), while the book of Jonah supports the inclusivist position. Jonah tells of the repentance of the Assyrians, who were Israel's greatest historical enemies, and God's acceptance of their worship.
      • Example: corporate vs. personal responsibility (Josh 7:22-26; Num 16:23-33; Jer 31:27-30; Ezek 18:1-32): The Joshua and Numbers passages teach corporate responsibility, where the children are liable for the sins of their parents or ancestors. Jeremiah and Ezekiel, on the other hand, explicitly reject corporate responsibility, saying that each person will be judged for his or her own obedience or sin.
      • Example: "but I say to you" (Matt 5:21-48): Jesus reinterprets many Old Testament laws in the light of his new teachings about God and the community of faith. Of particular interest is Jesus' rejection of the lex talionis, or law of retribution, which demanded "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth."
   2. Does the passage relate initiative on the part of a human actor or response to a divine command?
      • Example: Jephthah and his daughter (Jdg 11:29-40): Jephthah vows to God that he will sacrifice the first thing that comes out of his house to greet him if he returns victorious, and he ends up fulfilling his vow by sacrificing his daughter. It is important to note that Jephthah was acting on his own initiative; there is no indication that God demanded such a sacrifice, either before or after Jephthah's vow.
   3. Is the passage describing a certain event prescriptive or descriptive?
      • Example: David's execution of Saul's descendants (2 Sam 21:1-9): When a famine strikes the land for three years, David tries to find out the reason, and he is told that the cause is Saul's slaughter of Israel's allies the Gibeonites. David then takes seven of Saul's descendants and hands them over to the Gibeonites for execution for Saul's crime. This event is descriptive, not prescriptive. It describes what David did, but it is not intended as a model for others to follow. Note that the phrase "inquired of the Lord" in v. 1 is an idiom for "consulted the Urim and the Thummim," the sacred lots cast by the priest to determine God's will.
   4. If the passage is prescriptive, is it meant to be applied universally or particularly?
      • Example: "Do not pray for this people" (Jer 7:16): This command to Jeremiah is clearly not a universal command not to pray for one's own people. Rather, it is a reminder to Jeremiah that God's judgment against Judah will not turn back, regardless of Jeremiah's prayers.
   5. For Christians, the ultimate ethical standard is the life and teaching of Jesus. If an Old Testament teaching or a teaching from elsewhere in the New Testament conflicts with the message of Jesus, the message of Jesus takes precedence.
      • Example: command to commit genocide (Josh 6:17-21): Jesus' command to love one's enemies trumps any attempt to justify the slaughter of innocents.
7. The worldview of the author and his audience must be considered when interpreting scripture. All the books of the Bible come from a pre-scientific age, and authors and recipients alike shared beliefs and perspectives that are foreign to modern readers.
   • Example: "the dome/firmament of the heavens" (Gen 1:6-8; 9:12-16): People in the ancient world viewed the universe as a three-story structure: underworld, earth, and heaven. Modern people know that heaven, if defined as the dwelling-place of God, is not physically located just above the sky, beyond the firmament. Modern people also see scientific causes for rain (condensation vs. God opening the windows of heaven) and rainbows (light refracted through water droplets vs. direct creation of God), but many also see great symbolic value in the Genesis accounts about the rain and the rainbow (both are indications of God's grace).
8. When parallel passages deal with the same incident or the same theme, it is useful to compare the passages with one another. However, each passage must be allowed to speak on its own. Readers should not conflate (fill in missing details) or harmonize (change the meaning of one passage to match another) passages.
   • Example: the death of Josiah (2 Kgs 23:29; 2 Chron 35:20-24): The tragic death of Josiah in battle against Pharaoh Neco is recorded simply in Kings, but the Chronicles account is more elaborate. Because of his theology that the righteous prosper and the wicked perish, the Chronicler had to account for the apparent anomaly in Josiah's untimely death, since Josiah was recognized by the author as one of the best of Judah's kings. His solution is to have Pharaoh Neco become a prophetic spokesman for God, warning Josiah not to hinder him on his way to fight with the Assyrians against the Babylonians. Because Josiah disobeys the prophetic word of God, he is killed in battle. The Chronicler's account makes sense within the framework of the books of Chronicles, but it would not make sense in Kings, which has a somewhat different theology.
   • Example: Peter's denials of Jesus (Matt 26:69-75; Mark 14:66-72; Luke 22:56-62; John 18:15-27): In each of the gospels Peter denies Jesus three times. However, the list of the people whose questions provoke Peter's denials is slightly different in each of the gospels:
     • Mark: a servant-girl, the same servant-girl, bystanders;
     • Matthew: a servant-girl, a different servant-girl, bystanders;
     • Luke: a servant-girl, a man, another man;
     • John: the woman who guarded the gate to the courtyard of the high priest, people, male slave of the high priest.
     A few interpreters who take the details extremely literally conflate the passages and claim that Peter denied Jesus six times, or maybe even twelve times! The number of Peter's denials--three--is consistent throughout the gospels, so the differences in detail must not be allowed to override the essential unity of the four witnesses to this event.

Next: Hermeneutics: Specific Principles

© 2011, James R. Adair, Jr.