The Narrow Path Ministries

hermeneutics noun: the study of the methodological principles of interpretation (as of the Bible)

exegesis noun: EXPOSITION, EXPLANATION; esp : an explanation or critical interpretation of a text

Biblical hermeneutics describes the set of principles and rules used to interpret scripture. Biblical exegesis is the application of those rules to a specific passage.

What is the name for the set of principles and rules used to determine how the results of exegesis are to be applied? Does the word “hermeneutics” cover that as well?

For example, the application of hermeneutics (semantic analysis, grammatical analysis, literary analysis, historical analysis, etc.) may be applied in an exegesis of John 13 and 1 Timothy 5 to conclude that early Christians washed each others feet. What is the name for the process that we would use to determine if we should be washing each others feet? I’m not asking about foot washing specifically, I am asking about the process we should use to make an application of a valid exegesis of scripture.

What is the name of that process? (Is hermeneutics the correct word for this process as well as the word for the science of exegesis?)

What principles and rules would you suggest for this process of the application of the valid exegesis of scripture?



Thanks for your input.

SamIam wrote:What principles and rules would you suggest for this process of the application of the valid exegesis of scripture?

I'd recommend the Bibliology and Hermeneutics lessons available for free from TTP.
D.

dj,

Thanks for the link. I have listened to bits and pieces of their material and have found it useful and entertaining.

Even in their material there is ambiguity in how the word "hermeneutics" is used. I think we should distinguish "exegetical hermeneutics" from "applicational hermeneutics." These are two different categories. The first answers the question "what does the Biblical text mean." The second answers the question "how should the teaching be applied today." The two processes are related, but they are certainly different processes.

I am attempting to organize these two processes (in my own mind, at least) rather than taking an ad hoc approach.

Postulates of Applicational Hermeneutics

It seems that all who appeal to the Bible accept certain statements as true without proof. Consider the following list of statements.

Postulate 1: God is.

Postulate 2: God exercises authority over all humans by virtue of His role as creator, ruler and redeemer of mankind.
Corollary A: God wills certain behavior of all mankind and wills certain behavior from those who would be in covenant with Him.
Corollary B: Mankind is obligated to follow God’s will, especially those who wish to maintain a covenant with Him.

Postulate 3: God has revealed Himself, and expressed His will through His prophets. Jesus of Nazareth is the ultimate prophet. Jesus designated some of His disciples to be His apostles. These too were prophets.

Postulate 4: God’s revelation through His prophets was on occasion recorded in writing. Some prophets are unknown to us. Others spoke and scribes recorded portions of their message. Other prophets (such as John) more actively produced a written record. Some prophets (such as Luke) organized oral tradition and fragmentary written records into a document.

Postulate 5: God used His prophets and others in His covenant people to maintain written records of some of His prophets. Those records that were maintained are sufficient to guide mankind to maintain a covenant with God. The 66 books of the protestant Bible (in their original form) are the record of God’s prophets.

Postulate 6: The 66 books of the Bible are the expression of God’s authority over mankind, and thus, are themselves authoritative.

These 6 Postulates are the presuppositions we carry with us when we read the Bible. I consider them consistent with the Bible, but not proven by the Bible. We accept these 6 Postulates because we accept the Bible as the witness of God.

Your thoughts please.
[/b]

Many Christians agree that the Word of God is “the Truth.” Yet from one Bible come thousands of differing interpretations about exactly what “the Truth” is. It was never God’s intention that people read the same document and come away with different ideas about what it is saying. God wants us all to be likeminded about His Word.

22 Principles of Biblical Interpretation

http://www.truthortradition.com/modules ... icle&sid=9

Yes, there do seem to be thousands of differing interpretations, but it does not seem that those differences are a result of ignorance of the principles of interpretation. It seems most Christians (at least of the conservative protestant varieties) list very similar principles of interpretation. In fact, the meaning of the text, in its context, is usually not the primary matter of dispute.

The disputes typically arise over how the text should be applied in our circumstances. It seems to me that most choose their interpretations and applications based on how well they coordinate with their overall theology. Some call it using scripture to interpret scripture. Sometimes its called using clear passages to interpret difficult passages. Sometimes it is really ignoring passages that are inconvenient.

We all filter the Bible through our written or unwritten creeds. Those of us who claim not to, are often the worst offenders. The challenge for all of us is to think clearly and honestly about our own reading of the Bible.

While we may feel uncomfortable with these kind of differences, truth is better served by the discussion of various viewpoints rather than uniformity.

SamIam,

You bring up an interesting, and obviously pertinent issue. It is undeniable people do just what you say; the application of what the scripture says does not match what is actually in the text because people try to make something (baptism is an easy example) fit with another idea(s) they hold.

There is another thread with ample opportunity to discuss baptism; I am not trying to interject that issue here. However, it furnishes a good example of what I understand you are pointing out in that we can determine by overwhelming evidence what baptizo and baptizmos mean, yet because of other factors the practice of many does not match what is said in the biblical texts.

I am sure many other examples can readily be cited, such as the pastor system as popularly practiced.

We see the Calvinist's desire to give glory to God, not a bad thing, overwhelming their understanding and application of scripture.

Please correct me if I am misunderstanding what you are getting at.

Blessings, Homer

Homer,

I think we are in agreement.

For example, I take the position that the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit (those associated with revealing God's message and confirming God's message) ceased with the death of the apostles. This pre-understanding influences (or perhaps dominates) my reading of all of the passages concerning the Holy Spirit and His activities. I think I can coordinate all of those passages in a reasonable manner, but to do so, I have to accept a bit of a compromise. Namely, I must assert that terms like "baptized with the Spirit" and "filled with the Spirit" have slighty different meanings in different passages. Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong, but I must acknowledge, and critically assess my presuppositions if I am ever to do justice to the scripture.

Another example, in my experience churches are autonomous and led by a plurality of elders. Consequently I've never read in the New Testament of a singular pastor of a church. I've also never read of a church operated as a democracy. Have I not read these things because they are not there, or because my prior experience causes me not to see them?

Thanks for your comments and keep up the good work.