Is it possible to understand the intended meaning of the Biblical writers?
Martin Luther once admitted ‘that many passages in Scriptures are obscure and abstruse; not from the majesty of the things, but from our ignorance of certain terms and grammatical particulars; but which do not prevent a knowlege of all the things in the Scriptures’[1]. Luther was not the first to suggest that it was possible to know the intended meaning of Scripture. The Church Fathers believed in the perpescuity of Scripture in a time when the Gnostic notion was that it was only the ‘initiated’ who could understand Scripture. Jesus Himself rebuked the Pharisees for failing to grasp the plain meaning of Scripture. If Jesus expected the plain meaning of Scripture to be understood, then obviously it can be understood.
Jesus also said that ‘man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God’[2]. If the believer is to live and build his life on the word of God, then logically, the word of God must be understood. A requirement for pleasing God is faith[3]. What we know about God is revealed in His word, so if one is to exercise faith in God based upon Scripture, then the meaning of Scripture needs to be understood. This is further reinforced by the fact that Scripture encourages meditation[4] and that God Himself has put teachers within the Church[5]. Larry Pettegrew makes the comment that Scripture is ‘clear in its essential matters’[6]. This truth is further expanded by Robert Reymond who says ‘one does not need to be ‘learned,’ when reading the Gospels or hearing them read or proclaimed, to discover that they intend to teach that Jesus was born of a virgin, lived a sinless life, performed mighty miracles, died on the cross ‘as a ransom for many,’ and rose from the dead on the third day after death’[7]. While this is correct, one needs to explore the reality that not all scriptures are clearly and plainly understood. Peter wrestled with some of Paul’s letters which he referred to as Scripture.
Why should one need to learn how to interpret Scripture? Moises Da Silva offers the answer, in that the Bible ‘in addition to being divine, it is a human book’[8]. As one approaches Scripture, the first priority is to shed personal presuppositions and biases before seeking to interpret its meaning. Typical presuppositions would include one’s denominational tradition, gender, social and cultural background. However, ‘not only is such a goal unlikely to be achieved, but also it is doubtful whether an attempt to shed presuppositions or preconceptions is always the best way of achieving openness to the text’[9]. Only one presupposition should be retained, namely that Scripture is inspired by God. In order to establish the meaning of a Scripture, one must probe what it first meant to its author. In otherwords, what was the author’s intention and understanding of what he wrote. This is known as ‘authorial’ intent and it is discovered by applying the grammatical-historical method of interpretation which ‘tries to take Scripture at its plain sense’[10].
J. Daniel Hays states that ‘evangelicals believe that the Bible functions as communication from God to His people. Thus the goal in interpreting the Bible, including the narrative sections, is to determine authorial intention’[11]. Furthermore, in the case of an epistle, it needs to be established as to what the original recipients understood what was written. Fee and Stuart state that ‘over a 1500-year period, God's Word was expressed in the vocabulary and thought patterns of those persons and conditioned by the culture of those times and circumstances. That is to say, God's Word to us was first of all God's Word to them’[12].
E.D. Hirsch commented that ‘meaning is that which is represented by a text; it is what the author meant by his use of a particular sign sequence; it is what the signs represent’[13].
Applying the Historical grammatical method to establish authorial intent involves examining both the historical and literary context of the text. Historical context takes into consideration, the ‘sitz im leben’ or life-setting of the author and what occasioned the book’s writing. It benefits greatly to know something of the culture and worldview of the day in which the book was written. In essence, historical context ‘has to do with the occasion and purpose of each biblical book’.[14] The literary context means that to understand the meaning of a text, its context must be examined carefully by seeking to establish the style of writing. For example, is it poetry, prose, narrative or history? In addition to the historical context, the text must also be interpreted grammatically.
‘Grammatical interpretation is the process that studies the text of Scripture (exegesis, the critical analysis of the text) to determine four important things: (a) the meaning of words (lexicology), (b) the form of words (morphology), (c) the function of words (parts of speech), and (d) the relationship of words (syntax)’ [15] which essentially means that the exegete must examine the verbs, tenses, prepositions etc and the way they are structured.
At first glance, this all seems straightforward. However, what happens when it’s difficult to establish authorial intent?
Some texts can be problematic as they were not originally written to us, nor were we there at the time of their writing. Examples would be ‘Christ preaching to the spirits in prison’ and the identity of ‘the man of sin’. In the case of the latter, Paul tells the Thessalonians that ‘you know what is holding him back’[16]. How does the exegete approach such passages? Fee points out that ‘God wants us to know that He has communicated to us’[17].
He goes on to say that even if we have difficulty with certain details, ‘very often the point of the whole passage is still within one’s grasp’[18]. The exegete needs to determine what is certain and what is possible though uncertain.
Furthermore, what happens when on occasions the New Testament writer does not adhere to the grammatical historical meaning when quoting an Old Testament passage? W. Edward Glenny asks ‘is it fair to suggest that in such situations the expanded or focused meaning that differs from the meaning in the original context is part of God’s intended meaning in the original passage?’[19] It’s common to see a New Testament writer expand the meaning and even apply a different meaning. This is known as ‘Sensus Plenior’ which simply brings out a fuller meaning. Sensus Plenior does ‘not eradicate the literal meaning of the OT passage, but simply applies the O.T. wording to a new setting.’[20] Given the fact that a New Testament writer could do this, does not suggest that the exegete has the liberty to do this today? One cannot do this today because the New Testament writers were inspired by God and possessed an apostolic gifting which enabled them to expand the original meaning, whereas the modern exegete does not. When Sensus Plenior occurs it does not violate the Historical grammatical interpretation as the original Old Testament text meaning does not change. Upon reading the New Testament writer’s citation of an Old Testament text one now applies the historical grammatical principle to the text in its New Testament context. Both texts must be interpreted separately by using the historical grammatical method, which means that the Old Testament text cannot be interpreted with its Sensus Plenior application in the New Testament. Not everyone however favours establishing authorial intent.
Since 1946, the definition of the meaning of a text went though some changes even to the extent of stating that ‘it is a fallacy to depend on what an author meant to say as a guide to determining what a text means’[21].
Some will seek to separate what the author meant and what the text now means. In other words the text stands alone and has something to say in its own right. This is known as textual autonomy. In essence textual autonomy is saying that once an author writes a manuscript the text takes on a life of its own independent of the author.
The implication then is that while one can’t understand the author’s mind, the meaning therefore must be in the text. This may seem logical, but when this is applied, it can result in competing meanings of a text which further raises the objection that if the author’s view isn't important, then how does one understand which competing interpretation is correct?
Textual autonomy expresses itself in what’s known as the ‘Reader-response method’ and ‘social linguistic’ or ‘community interpretation’. In social linguistic interpretation, a group decides the meaning whereas in reader-response the reader decides the meaning.
Reader-response method is where one reads his own meaning into the text. It has been stated that ‘reading is a dangerous activity. It can change our perspective, stir our emotions, and provoke us to action’[22]. A motivation for employing reader response is that it is seen to be a reaction against the historical grammatical method which is perceived by some to be dull and lifeless. Some would say that while it’s acceptable to understand what the text originally meant, it’s equally important to grasp what it means to the reader or society today. Mark W. Hoffman says that ‘rather than reading a text and then sitting back to consider what it finally means, the emphasis is on the actual process of reading’[23]. Reader-response essentially engages the reader with the text and encourages the reader to ask certain questions as he reads the text. This is clearly a positive aspect. However the problem is that rather trust the Holy Spirit to help one apply the text without changing its original meaning, the interpreter can now decide the meaning for himself. Robert L. Thomas states that when ‘an interpreter begins his investigation with a preconceived idea of what a passage should say, he is committing the sin of depriving that passage of the meaning the Holy Spirit and the human author intended it to have’[24].
A balance must be sought to keep the historical context while at the same time allowing Scripture to speak and be applied to the reader’s personal circumstances. Scripture has a personal application as the word of God after all is ‘living and active…discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart’[25]. Howard Marshall states that ‘the point is that the meaning of a text is constant and objective, whereas its significance may vary for different readers’[26].
Once the meaning of a text is established, one now then must consider its application. Having applied historical grammatical hermeneutics, it is imperative that one is dependent upon the Holy Spirit to make the text become living and personal without changing its context. F.F. Bruce states that ‘the biblical witness cannot be properly appreciated without the illuminating aid of the Spirit’[27]. Fallen man is incapable of understanding the truths of Scripture without the help of the Spirit. Paul says the unbeliever is unable to accept the things of the Spirit of God because they are spiritually discerned[28]. He goes on to say that it is the Holy Spirit who knows the thoughts of God and that because the believer has received the Spirit, he can understand the things freely given by God[29].
In summary, I believe it is possible to establish the intended meaning of a text’s author. Establishing the meaning creates faith in the reader. In contrast, a reader-oriented criticism as Wayne McDill points out, ‘is based on the assumption that the writer and the text itself are of less importance than what the reader brings to his interaction with the text’[30].
Establishing authorial intent and trusting the Holy Spirit to provide application of it to the individual exegete is ideal and in my opinion the safest way to exegete Scripture.
[1] Luther, Martin. On the Bondage of the Will. London: T. Bensley, 1823, p13.
[2] Mt 4:4.
[3] Heb 11:6.
[4] Jos 1:8.; Ps 1:2.
[5] Eph 4:11.
[6] Pettegrew, Larry, D. The Perspicuity of Scripture. Masters Seminary Journal, TMSJ 15:2, (Fall 2004), p214.
[7] Reymond, Robert. A New Systematic Theology. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998, p88.
[8] Kaiser Jr, Walter, C., Silva, Moises. An Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics: The Search for Meaning. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994, p16.
[9] Clines, David, J.A. Biblical Hermeneutics in Theory and Practice. Christian Brethren Review, 31,32, 1982, p70.
[10] Dockery, David, S. Martin Luther’s Christological Hermeneutics. Grace Theological Journal, GTJ 04:2, (Fall 1983), p199.
[11] Hays, Daniel, J. An Evangelical Approach to Old Testament Narrative Criticism. Bibliotheca Sacra, BSAC 166:661, (January 2009), p7.
[12] Fee, Gordon, D., & Stuart, Douglas. How to Read the Bible for all it’s Worth. Bletchley: Scripture Union, 1993, p18.
[13] Hirsch Jr, E.D. Validity in Interpretation. Yale University Press, 1967, p8.
[14] Fee, Gordon, D., & Stuart, Douglas. How to Read the Bible for all it’s Worth. Bletchley: Scripture Union, 1993, p23.
[15] Keathley III, J, Hampton. Bibliology: The Doctrine of the Written Word. Biblical Studies Press, 1997, pp36,37.
[16] 2 Thess 2:6.
[17] Fee, Gordon, D., & Stuart, Douglas. How to Read the Bible for all it’s Worth. Bletchley: Scripture Union, 1993, p59.
[18] Ibid.
[19] Glenny, W, Edward. The Divine Meaning of Scripture: Explanations and Limitations. Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, JETS 38:4, (December 1995), p482.
[20] Thomas, Robert, L. The New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Masters Seminary Journal, TMSJ 13:1, (Spring 2002), p81.
[21] Kaiser Jr, Walter, C., Silva, Moises. An Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics: The Search for Meaning. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994, p26.
[22] Coggins, R, J., & Houlden, J,L. The SCM Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation. London: SCM Press, 1990, p.578.
[23] Hoffman, Mark, W. Authority: Text or Reader. Michigan Theological Journal, MTJ 04:2, (Fall 1993), p108.
[24] Thomas, Robert, L. The Rationality, Meaningfulness and Precision of Scripture. Masters Seminary Journal, TMSJ 15:2, (Fall 2004), p185.
[25] Heb 4:12.
[26] Marshall, I, Howard. How do we Interpret the Bible Today? Themelios, 5.2, 4-12, (January 1980), p5.
[27] Bruce, F.F. What Does it Mean? Christian Brethren Review, 31,32, 41-52 (1982), p52.
[28] 1 Co 2:14.
[29] 1 Co 12:12.
[30] McDill, Wayne. Interpreting the New Testament for a Faith Response. Faith and Mission, FM 12:1, (Fall 1994), p86.
Martin Luther once admitted ‘that many passages in Scriptures are obscure and abstruse; not from the majesty of the things, but from our ignorance of certain terms and grammatical particulars; but which do not prevent a knowlege of all the things in the Scriptures’[1]. Luther was not the first to suggest that it was possible to know the intended meaning of Scripture. The Church Fathers believed in the perpescuity of Scripture in a time when the Gnostic notion was that it was only the ‘initiated’ who could understand Scripture. Jesus Himself rebuked the Pharisees for failing to grasp the plain meaning of Scripture. If Jesus expected the plain meaning of Scripture to be understood, then obviously it can be understood.
Jesus also said that ‘man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God’[2]. If the believer is to live and build his life on the word of God, then logically, the word of God must be understood. A requirement for pleasing God is faith[3]. What we know about God is revealed in His word, so if one is to exercise faith in God based upon Scripture, then the meaning of Scripture needs to be understood. This is further reinforced by the fact that Scripture encourages meditation[4] and that God Himself has put teachers within the Church[5]. Larry Pettegrew makes the comment that Scripture is ‘clear in its essential matters’[6]. This truth is further expanded by Robert Reymond who says ‘one does not need to be ‘learned,’ when reading the Gospels or hearing them read or proclaimed, to discover that they intend to teach that Jesus was born of a virgin, lived a sinless life, performed mighty miracles, died on the cross ‘as a ransom for many,’ and rose from the dead on the third day after death’[7]. While this is correct, one needs to explore the reality that not all scriptures are clearly and plainly understood. Peter wrestled with some of Paul’s letters which he referred to as Scripture.
Why should one need to learn how to interpret Scripture? Moises Da Silva offers the answer, in that the Bible ‘in addition to being divine, it is a human book’[8]. As one approaches Scripture, the first priority is to shed personal presuppositions and biases before seeking to interpret its meaning. Typical presuppositions would include one’s denominational tradition, gender, social and cultural background. However, ‘not only is such a goal unlikely to be achieved, but also it is doubtful whether an attempt to shed presuppositions or preconceptions is always the best way of achieving openness to the text’[9]. Only one presupposition should be retained, namely that Scripture is inspired by God. In order to establish the meaning of a Scripture, one must probe what it first meant to its author. In otherwords, what was the author’s intention and understanding of what he wrote. This is known as ‘authorial’ intent and it is discovered by applying the grammatical-historical method of interpretation which ‘tries to take Scripture at its plain sense’[10].
J. Daniel Hays states that ‘evangelicals believe that the Bible functions as communication from God to His people. Thus the goal in interpreting the Bible, including the narrative sections, is to determine authorial intention’[11]. Furthermore, in the case of an epistle, it needs to be established as to what the original recipients understood what was written. Fee and Stuart state that ‘over a 1500-year period, God's Word was expressed in the vocabulary and thought patterns of those persons and conditioned by the culture of those times and circumstances. That is to say, God's Word to us was first of all God's Word to them’[12].
E.D. Hirsch commented that ‘meaning is that which is represented by a text; it is what the author meant by his use of a particular sign sequence; it is what the signs represent’[13].
Applying the Historical grammatical method to establish authorial intent involves examining both the historical and literary context of the text. Historical context takes into consideration, the ‘sitz im leben’ or life-setting of the author and what occasioned the book’s writing. It benefits greatly to know something of the culture and worldview of the day in which the book was written. In essence, historical context ‘has to do with the occasion and purpose of each biblical book’.[14] The literary context means that to understand the meaning of a text, its context must be examined carefully by seeking to establish the style of writing. For example, is it poetry, prose, narrative or history? In addition to the historical context, the text must also be interpreted grammatically.
‘Grammatical interpretation is the process that studies the text of Scripture (exegesis, the critical analysis of the text) to determine four important things: (a) the meaning of words (lexicology), (b) the form of words (morphology), (c) the function of words (parts of speech), and (d) the relationship of words (syntax)’ [15] which essentially means that the exegete must examine the verbs, tenses, prepositions etc and the way they are structured.
At first glance, this all seems straightforward. However, what happens when it’s difficult to establish authorial intent?
Some texts can be problematic as they were not originally written to us, nor were we there at the time of their writing. Examples would be ‘Christ preaching to the spirits in prison’ and the identity of ‘the man of sin’. In the case of the latter, Paul tells the Thessalonians that ‘you know what is holding him back’[16]. How does the exegete approach such passages? Fee points out that ‘God wants us to know that He has communicated to us’[17].
He goes on to say that even if we have difficulty with certain details, ‘very often the point of the whole passage is still within one’s grasp’[18]. The exegete needs to determine what is certain and what is possible though uncertain.
Furthermore, what happens when on occasions the New Testament writer does not adhere to the grammatical historical meaning when quoting an Old Testament passage? W. Edward Glenny asks ‘is it fair to suggest that in such situations the expanded or focused meaning that differs from the meaning in the original context is part of God’s intended meaning in the original passage?’[19] It’s common to see a New Testament writer expand the meaning and even apply a different meaning. This is known as ‘Sensus Plenior’ which simply brings out a fuller meaning. Sensus Plenior does ‘not eradicate the literal meaning of the OT passage, but simply applies the O.T. wording to a new setting.’[20] Given the fact that a New Testament writer could do this, does not suggest that the exegete has the liberty to do this today? One cannot do this today because the New Testament writers were inspired by God and possessed an apostolic gifting which enabled them to expand the original meaning, whereas the modern exegete does not. When Sensus Plenior occurs it does not violate the Historical grammatical interpretation as the original Old Testament text meaning does not change. Upon reading the New Testament writer’s citation of an Old Testament text one now applies the historical grammatical principle to the text in its New Testament context. Both texts must be interpreted separately by using the historical grammatical method, which means that the Old Testament text cannot be interpreted with its Sensus Plenior application in the New Testament. Not everyone however favours establishing authorial intent.
Since 1946, the definition of the meaning of a text went though some changes even to the extent of stating that ‘it is a fallacy to depend on what an author meant to say as a guide to determining what a text means’[21].
Some will seek to separate what the author meant and what the text now means. In other words the text stands alone and has something to say in its own right. This is known as textual autonomy. In essence textual autonomy is saying that once an author writes a manuscript the text takes on a life of its own independent of the author.
The implication then is that while one can’t understand the author’s mind, the meaning therefore must be in the text. This may seem logical, but when this is applied, it can result in competing meanings of a text which further raises the objection that if the author’s view isn't important, then how does one understand which competing interpretation is correct?
Textual autonomy expresses itself in what’s known as the ‘Reader-response method’ and ‘social linguistic’ or ‘community interpretation’. In social linguistic interpretation, a group decides the meaning whereas in reader-response the reader decides the meaning.
Reader-response method is where one reads his own meaning into the text. It has been stated that ‘reading is a dangerous activity. It can change our perspective, stir our emotions, and provoke us to action’[22]. A motivation for employing reader response is that it is seen to be a reaction against the historical grammatical method which is perceived by some to be dull and lifeless. Some would say that while it’s acceptable to understand what the text originally meant, it’s equally important to grasp what it means to the reader or society today. Mark W. Hoffman says that ‘rather than reading a text and then sitting back to consider what it finally means, the emphasis is on the actual process of reading’[23]. Reader-response essentially engages the reader with the text and encourages the reader to ask certain questions as he reads the text. This is clearly a positive aspect. However the problem is that rather trust the Holy Spirit to help one apply the text without changing its original meaning, the interpreter can now decide the meaning for himself. Robert L. Thomas states that when ‘an interpreter begins his investigation with a preconceived idea of what a passage should say, he is committing the sin of depriving that passage of the meaning the Holy Spirit and the human author intended it to have’[24].
A balance must be sought to keep the historical context while at the same time allowing Scripture to speak and be applied to the reader’s personal circumstances. Scripture has a personal application as the word of God after all is ‘living and active…discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart’[25]. Howard Marshall states that ‘the point is that the meaning of a text is constant and objective, whereas its significance may vary for different readers’[26].
Once the meaning of a text is established, one now then must consider its application. Having applied historical grammatical hermeneutics, it is imperative that one is dependent upon the Holy Spirit to make the text become living and personal without changing its context. F.F. Bruce states that ‘the biblical witness cannot be properly appreciated without the illuminating aid of the Spirit’[27]. Fallen man is incapable of understanding the truths of Scripture without the help of the Spirit. Paul says the unbeliever is unable to accept the things of the Spirit of God because they are spiritually discerned[28]. He goes on to say that it is the Holy Spirit who knows the thoughts of God and that because the believer has received the Spirit, he can understand the things freely given by God[29].
In summary, I believe it is possible to establish the intended meaning of a text’s author. Establishing the meaning creates faith in the reader. In contrast, a reader-oriented criticism as Wayne McDill points out, ‘is based on the assumption that the writer and the text itself are of less importance than what the reader brings to his interaction with the text’[30].
Establishing authorial intent and trusting the Holy Spirit to provide application of it to the individual exegete is ideal and in my opinion the safest way to exegete Scripture.
[1] Luther, Martin. On the Bondage of the Will. London: T. Bensley, 1823, p13.
[2] Mt 4:4.
[3] Heb 11:6.
[4] Jos 1:8.; Ps 1:2.
[5] Eph 4:11.
[6] Pettegrew, Larry, D. The Perspicuity of Scripture. Masters Seminary Journal, TMSJ 15:2, (Fall 2004), p214.
[7] Reymond, Robert. A New Systematic Theology. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998, p88.
[8] Kaiser Jr, Walter, C., Silva, Moises. An Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics: The Search for Meaning. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994, p16.
[9] Clines, David, J.A. Biblical Hermeneutics in Theory and Practice. Christian Brethren Review, 31,32, 1982, p70.
[10] Dockery, David, S. Martin Luther’s Christological Hermeneutics. Grace Theological Journal, GTJ 04:2, (Fall 1983), p199.
[11] Hays, Daniel, J. An Evangelical Approach to Old Testament Narrative Criticism. Bibliotheca Sacra, BSAC 166:661, (January 2009), p7.
[12] Fee, Gordon, D., & Stuart, Douglas. How to Read the Bible for all it’s Worth. Bletchley: Scripture Union, 1993, p18.
[13] Hirsch Jr, E.D. Validity in Interpretation. Yale University Press, 1967, p8.
[14] Fee, Gordon, D., & Stuart, Douglas. How to Read the Bible for all it’s Worth. Bletchley: Scripture Union, 1993, p23.
[15] Keathley III, J, Hampton. Bibliology: The Doctrine of the Written Word. Biblical Studies Press, 1997, pp36,37.
[16] 2 Thess 2:6.
[17] Fee, Gordon, D., & Stuart, Douglas. How to Read the Bible for all it’s Worth. Bletchley: Scripture Union, 1993, p59.
[18] Ibid.
[19] Glenny, W, Edward. The Divine Meaning of Scripture: Explanations and Limitations. Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, JETS 38:4, (December 1995), p482.
[20] Thomas, Robert, L. The New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Masters Seminary Journal, TMSJ 13:1, (Spring 2002), p81.
[21] Kaiser Jr, Walter, C., Silva, Moises. An Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics: The Search for Meaning. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994, p26.
[22] Coggins, R, J., & Houlden, J,L. The SCM Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation. London: SCM Press, 1990, p.578.
[23] Hoffman, Mark, W. Authority: Text or Reader. Michigan Theological Journal, MTJ 04:2, (Fall 1993), p108.
[24] Thomas, Robert, L. The Rationality, Meaningfulness and Precision of Scripture. Masters Seminary Journal, TMSJ 15:2, (Fall 2004), p185.
[25] Heb 4:12.
[26] Marshall, I, Howard. How do we Interpret the Bible Today? Themelios, 5.2, 4-12, (January 1980), p5.
[27] Bruce, F.F. What Does it Mean? Christian Brethren Review, 31,32, 41-52 (1982), p52.
[28] 1 Co 2:14.
[29] 1 Co 12:12.
[30] McDill, Wayne. Interpreting the New Testament for a Faith Response. Faith and Mission, FM 12:1, (Fall 1994), p86.