While reading through The Hermeneutics of the Biblical Writers again,I noted various points of interest that I found helpful. There were many excellent points I wrote out separately while reading the book’s chapters. This outline is of some perspectives that stood out and serve as valuable examples.
Jesus drew upon the logic of the OT writers
Jesus adhered to principles from the old covenant that extended to the new covenant
Jesus recognized the biblical writer’s claims and roles in redemptive history
The gospel writers were in thought continuity about OT subject matter
Christ’s claims instantiated the grounds that the gospel writers interpreted and applied OT Scripture (i.e., recognition of new and progressive revelation) to derive imperatives and illocutionary force
The biblical writers attached new and consistent meaning to earlier authors’ authority
The presuppositions of biblical authors were informed by the continuity of OT covenants, humanity’s redemptive history, and YHWH’s soteriological purpose
“Look among the nations, and see; wonder and be astounded. For I am doing a work in your days that you would not believe if told.” – Hab 1:5
Look, see, wonder, and be astounded at what God has done during redemptive history during OT and NT revelation
Making Coherent Scripture Connections
Let Scripture illuminate Scripture. There are numerous allusions, echoes, citations, and quotes between the biblical writers. Let’s recognize them to interpret and understand what they meant. The continuity of the prophetic and apostolic hermeneutic rests upon the logical biblical writer’s expression of Scriptural intertextuality. They were models for believers today who seek to interpret and understand revelation according to proper methods of interpretation. The development of biblical theologies is guided by what God wrote through a corpus of texts by authors He appointed. Let’s abide by what He brought together through them for generations who seek Him by His Word.
The Master’s Seminary posted a video series (31-lectures) of Dr. Thomas Schreiner’s course of Biblical Theology. In the first lecture, he briefly points to James Hamilton’s work (very end of the video). Notably, concerning the trace work of passages that concern biblical concepts that extend to further passages through historical and theological development. While Schreiner spoke of the Biblical Theology of God’s Glory in Salvation through Judgmenttext, he also made a vague reference to Hamilton’s paper The Skull Crushing Seed of the Woman: Inner-Biblical Interpretation of Genesis 3:15. Anyone can download the paper (PDF copy) from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.
I highly suspect that Hamilton’s paper about Genesis 3:15 from 2006 had a bearing on his biblical theology text as it was published in 2010. In the Genesis 3:15 paper (The Skull Crushing Seed of the Woman: Inner-Biblical Interpretation of Genesis 3:15), Hamilton wrote about biblical connections; not explicitly as an example of a method, but of substance.
Dr. Abner Chou’s hermeneutics text is an excellent complementary view about the how with Hamilton’s textbook example concerning the what and why. To unearth the treasures of biblical theologies from God’s appointed writers. — So, in this case, and in many places, the crushing, smashing, and puncturing of the head of the enemy, beginning from Genesis 3:15, shows up in various canonical texts to definitively record what would happen again and again both literally and figuratively. By this connect the dots approach, Hamilton demonstrates that the OT canon as a whole is a messianic document with soteriological continuity straight from the garden. Which is utterly amazing.
In addition to the Hamilton paper I read this afternoon, I also highly recommend Schreiner’s Biblical Theology 31-lecture series he gave to TMS some while back.
I also gathered quite a bit from Dr. Chou’s book concerning the prophetic and apostolic hermeneutic. To where their hermeneutic becomes the Christian hermeneutic. Having read Dr. Chou’s book twice, the intertextual relationships between the biblical materials are important to grasp.
There really is quite a bit there when running a topical course as a biblical theology of interest. For example, here are a few screen captures below from the Logos application I use to visually see what relationships exist. Many theologians, exegetes, pastors, and students use this tool. A lot of bible students use this application and I highly recommend it.
Conducting intertextual analysis is much more efficient this way and all the links of NT to OT and OT to NT are visually mapped with active multi-dimensional links between all passages in the canon. This example below, among very many, is about Jesus from both testaments intertextually linked bringing to the surface contours of meaning. As patterns of continuity among the biblical authors (such as comparing what Isaiah said about Messiah as compared to Ezekiel). From the New Testament’s use of the Old alone, there are 2,574 total allusions, citations, echoes, and quotations definitively mapped. However, there’s quite a bit more from a lateral perspective.
Example – The Intertextuality of Biblical Christology
Example – The Christological Intertextuality of Isaiah to the NT
Example – The Christological Intertextuality of Hebrews to the OT
Of course, any book combination between the OT and NT can be selected. And once a link (or strand) is clicked, a grid of reference listing is rendered for the patterns, contours, citations, quotations, allusions, and echoes. As we traverse specific topics to recognize and understand biblical theology, it is with limited results since the text is translated to English. But the breadth and depth are more comprehensive this way to get a rich and full meaning. In my view, full immersion within these tools is time well spent.
While doing the research to understand the differences between the Jewish beliefs and practices of the Old Testament and those of the second temple period, I arrived at an area of interest that bears further exploration. As a matter of comparison between old and new covenant interpretation of Scripture, this is a useful reference between Judaism and Christianity. It so happens that from an earlier post, I also posted about the methods of interpretation from within the NT.
The Middot of Hillel
Middot in Hebrew means “measure” or “norms.” These are the seven principles, or methods used to interpret biblical meaning (OT) from Rabbi Hillel in the 1st century BC. An early form of Jewish hermeneutics around the study of Judaism that grew in number to 13 under Rabbi Ismael ben Elisha (100 A.D.) then to the 32 from Galilean Rabbi Eliezer ben Yose (150 A.D.). Beginning from the Greek influence of Hellenism upon Judaic thought, these principles remain in place for many centuries.1
The beginning seven principles by name were as follows to have a bearing upon second temple Judaism.2
Qal wahomer Inference from the less important to a more important case (lit., light to heavy), and vice versa.
Gezerah shawah Inference by verbal analogy from one verse to another; where the same words are applied to two separate laws it follows that the same regulations and applications pertain to both.
Binyan ’ab mikathub ’ehad Building up a family from a single text; when the same phrase is found in a number of passages, then a regulation found in one of them applies to all of them.
Binyan ’ab mikathub ’ehad Building up a family from two texts; a principle is deduced by relating two texts together, and the principle can then be applied to other passages.
Kelal upherat The general and the particular; a general principle may be restricted by a particularization of it in another verse, or conversely, a particular rule may be extended into a general principle.
Kayoze bo bemaqom ʾaher Something similar in another passage; a difficulty in one text may be solved by comparing it with another that has points of general (though not necessarily verbal) similarity.
Dabar halamed meʾinyano A meaning established by its context.
Mitigating Jewish Beliefs & Practices
Old Testament to second temple Judaism differences and conditions at the time of Christ. Several factors had a bearing on how OT biblical interpretation and NT authorship originated.
There was a greater adherence and devotion to the law during the second temple period as compared to the prior Old Testament era.3
During the Old Testament, and second temple periods, Jews of Judaism placed primacy of scripture upon the Torah. Jews of Christianity, during the second temple period, placed an emphasis on the Nevi’im and Ketuvim.4
From the second temple period, there was significant weight placed upon the oral law to accompany the written law as a way to govern everyday Jewish life.5 Whether for ceremonial, traditional, or “fencing” purposes, the oral law set up a type of Judaism that extended well beyond covenant intent.
During the apostolic period, there were various sects that had a bearing on the Jewish way of life and beliefs. The Essenes of Qumran, the Sadducees who controlled the Jerusalem Temple, the Pharisees with their Hasidim background, and additional sects were new or distinct in Judaism as compared to the earlier figures and groups in the Old Testament.
Since the prophets fell silent during the intertestamental period, they were replaced by the Scribes of the second temple period concerning matters of authority around the scriptures.6 Torah observance was of prominent interest to the Jews of Judaism during the second temple period which gave rise to the class of “professional scribes”. 7
_________________________
1 Everett Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, Third Edition. (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2003), 545. 2 Tosefta. Sanhedrin 7.11; Aboth de R. Nathan 37; Sifra 3a 3 Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 3rdEdition. (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2003), 539. 4 Ibid., 543. 5 Ibid., 542. 6 Valdizan, “Historical Background of the New Testament Course Notes,” Unpublished course notes, 2018, 133. 7 Valdizan, “Historical Background of the New Testament Module 6 Lectures,” Jewish Beliefs and Practices, Part 1.
The book entitled “The Hermeneutics of Biblical Writers” details the notion that Prophets and Apostles from both the New and Old Testaments saturated themselves in Scripture. Specifically, that they had a hermeneutical method of interpretation that produced both meaning and significance. The book’s author Abner Chou sets out on a quest to account for both authorial intent and authorial logic using principles of intertextuality.
Throughout the pages of the book, there are various examples of the use of Scripture involving biblical characters to highlight the specifics about their methods of interpretation. Often where it is necessary to go beyond the surface of Scriptural references elsewhere. Such as with allusions in language, or with word-by-word comparisons from one account of a biblical matter to another. The author uses numerous specifics with precision to demonstrate the interconnectedness and authorial logic to reveal to us how to draw upon Scripture to understand what the word of God says. As a Bible student, this is crucial to understand the word as the biblical authors intended as we seek its significance and ramifications to follow it.
Introduction
Early in my reading of this book, I was fascinated by the idea of “authorial logic” as compared to “authorial intent.” Nearly dismissive of the idea because I had come to recognize that God is not logical or illogical, but alogical. Since logic or critical thinking is a human framework of thought, and God is the Creator of such a framework, God is an alogical being. It is currently my view that the explanation of the LORD’s ways and thoughts rest within His aseity. After all, as we see in Scripture, “For My thoughts are not your thoughts, either is your ways my ways (Isaiah 55:8).” So, I have concluded that the LORD must be alogical, in the sense that the LORD is beyond or outside the bounds of logic itself. Not illogical, or contrary to logic, but separate or distinct. Where, more pointedly, logic and reason are subordinate to the LORD.
Upon further reading and understanding Chou’s
perspective, I became reminded about authorial intent and that the primary Author
is divine who chooses to communicate through His created people. We are created
in His image to include some of His attributes. If He wants to structure our
way of thinking within a cause-and-effect framework for His glory and purposes,
I want to make it my priority to embrace and honor that in the field of
hermeneutics. So, reading on into the book, I was more tentatively open to see
what Chou had to say. Specifically, I spent many hours with his work as he set
about the quest of authorial logic, which is integral to both prophetic and
apostolic hermeneutics. Toward the end of his book, Chou’s conclusion was to
claim the prophetic and apostolic hermeneutic as the Christian hermeneutic and,
ultimately, our hermeneutic.
The Prophetic Hermeneutic
It is with numerous references that Chou makes the
case that prophets were not only scholars of Scripture, but also exegetes and
theologians. They were steeped in the word of God as their writings and conduct
reflected an immersion of understanding among biblical authors from before
their time. Prophets were not unintelligent or biblically illiterate people. As
Old Testament authors, they referenced numerous earlier Old Testament writings.
A practice today understood as intertextuality to affirm and build upon new
revelation.
By various examples, theological development becomes written among Old Testament books to highlight the nature of the prophetic hermeneutic. Whereas precise exegesis of texts naturally flows into theological progression down through the centuries.
As demonstrated that the prophetic hermeneutic is widespread, prophets pay close attention to general ideas in addition to precise verses, phrases, and words. Indeed, this occurs throughout the entire canon. In just one example, Chou refers to the eagle metaphor in the language of Exodus. Israel’s corresponding delivery from exile was much later referenced by David and Isaiah. Such prophetic hermeneutical recognition applies to wisdom literature and law, along with major and minor prophets. In Chou’s words, “The evidence for exegetical accuracy is in the text not only in general tenor but also in its details.”
While I do not fully understand or agree with the counterpoint objections presented in the book, Chou makes Scripturally sound arguments to mitigate them — centered on the progressive revelation that stem from ramifications of the text. The prophets knew “the what” of historical Scripture to further convey meaning in their writings. Prophets of old were also concerned with the “now what” or “what do we do with this” implications of what they understood. Redemptive history unfolded through the use of their hermeneutical outcomes.
Chou considerably enhances my view of the prophets and their role in the development of Systematic Theology in contrast to Biblical Theology. Due to the prophets’ overall composite view of Israel’s eschatological history. That is, they knew the theological implications from both a systematic and biblical perspective. They knew the development and advancement of God’s redemptive plan through the replacement of one covenant to another.
The Spirit of God’s influence toward directionality
and revelation appears sparsely placed. Particularly from Chou’s prophetic
hermeneutic rationale and arguments against objections. Did the prophets and
apostles write more than they knew? My view is both yes and no, rather than
only “no.” Yes, in the sense that God inspires all Scripture (2 Tim
3:16). No, in the sense that they were well studied in Scripture to support
Chou’s view of authorial logic. My view is ambidextrous in thinking this way
since two conditions can overlap or hold at once from an alogical perspective.
To walk through the examples below, further theological development among prophets shows how they are theologians with accurate hermeneutical capabilities. They are said to set a trajectory about how God’s plan develops to achieve His promises and aims.
The Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants become
intertwined into the Davidic covenant. While the Davidic covenant brings into
it some attributes of the Noahic covenant, meaning, Noah can plant a vineyard
as God restrains the effects of the Fall to move creation back toward its
original sabbath rest. No longer does the earth yield thorns, thistles, and
weeds. At least to the written extent and pronouncement at the curse of the
Fall.
The Davidic covenant obtains rest from the Mosaic conquest of Canaan through Joshua. As incorporated by the promises of Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Noahic covenants, “God has made the weight of redemptive history fall upon the Davidic dynasty.” All covenants converge into one Davidic covenant that, in turn, extends to an eschatological prophecy and reality in fulfillment of God’s promise to restore His people and creation.
Chou’s rationale is understood, accepted, and appreciated, but it concerns me that the Spirit of God does not get explicit theological treatment of this to understand the prophetic hermeneutic. That, in my mind, limits a full understanding and credibility of the prophetic hermeneutic as described and advocated. Let us know and interpret what the Lord is doing and is going to do as a continuing revelation as the canon becomes formed. The prophets were uniquely placed participants as vessels of the Lord. Interpreted revelation does not just sit with the people of God to figure things out within Scripture by their developed capabilities. When it comes to God’s purposes, they were not well developed among themselves. Without question, there is certain enlightenment that has occurred by divine involvement (1 Cor 1:27).
Theological development goes further as prophetic hermeneutic recognition extends into the apostolic hermeneutic. Through the prophets Amos, Hosea, and Micah. Amos clarifies that God will keep His promises while the house of David has collapsed. Hosea affirms a new, or a second David by God’s promises to fulfill His Davidic covenant. In time, Micah prophesies that the Messiah shall be born in Bethlehem as a second King since David was born there. The Messiah will enter the wilderness to be tempted to fulfill David’s role and restore his royal house. Again, theological principles are derived from the wisdom literature, and law, to include major and minor prophetic contributions.
Accordingly, Chou wrote that the prophetic hermeneutic came through the great intellectual insight of people who excelled at exegesis with profound capabilities. The hermeneutic of biblical prophets were from their depth of understanding to rightfully interpret meaning and significance. Cast, as they were, profound biblical thinkers and writers. Exceptional exegetes and theologians were due in part to their accuracy in handling Scripture. Intertextual precision characterizes their hermeneutic exceptionalism as necessary for careful application and theological formation.
In contrast, I would observe, this was their
specific intertextual methodology of interpretation. While Chou articulates his
view by compelling examples, it becomes demonstrated that the “what-of” their
hermeneutical process has relevance. Yet not the “how-to” at this point per se
as he continues in further depth during his treatment of the apostolic
hermeneutic.
While the LORD informs Moses that He would speak through him before Pharaoh (Exodus 4:10-12), that situation occurred out of concern that Moses was “slow of speech and tongue.” Moreover, it intuitively feels somewhat out of character that prophets would confidently make pronouncements from exegetical advancements because of verbiage such as “thus saith the Lord.” So, I am a bit nervous about the confidence Chou has in the prophetic hermeneutic he claims. Certainly, no quarrel about prophetic hermeneutic recognition and its support of an apostolic hermeneutic. It only appears that specific methodology that involves the Spirit of God according to His plan and trajectory seems missing or too distant.
It is my conviction that hermeneutics is a practice and process of exegetical interpretation. It is a “how-to” effort to understand the meaning and significance of biblical authors fully. It is a labor to understand Scriptural ramifications with suitable applicability to our life context. It is not solely a result or outcome of intuitive and meticulous effect or performance, but the practice of it with specific custodial methods (or gifts) with Spiritual guidance along an individual’s process. Yes, prophetic hermeneutic, but how? Not what, by naming it as intertextuality with examples along with intervals of new revelation. How did their relationship with the Lord affect their interpretation? With others? What were the theological bridges they had to cross, and how did they pass them? I suggest that in the absence of theological criteria formed for eligibility and use, the LORD was an active participant to shape the thinking of His prophets. Without too much freestanding credit on their own, prophets and patriarchal fathers had an extraordinary and unique role in serving the LORD’s purposes. They are exceptional for more reasons than their ability to exegete and produce theological continuity. As well-read and articulate as they were, they were chosen and loved by YHWH with His influence upon them to set theological depth, revelation, and directionality. It is that which significantly contributed to the results we see. So, the question is about how it is they performed their hermeneutic and not what their hermeneutical outcome was through intertextual analysis. Not what we discover in the original languages for them, but instead by what it was that they were doing in terms of methodology. If prophets were proof-texting cross-references throughout the Old Testament to build theological relevance to demonstrate meaning and significance, is that then a valid and acceptable hermeneutic or methodology of interpretation?
Intent to write is not an explanation about how to abide by the law, recognize the propagation of covenant promises, or follow revelation and communicate accordingly. Neither is the perception about intended meaning from prior Scriptural authors. The methodology is about the process, not an identification of facts or the presence and acknowledgment of exceptional performance.
It is my limited view that apostles and prophets were not ignorant but understood Scripture and wrote beyond natural understanding to deliver the meaning that they intended under the inspiration of YHWH. They were not on their own to derive Scriptural and theological truth. Not by an individual effort by their exceptionalism as exegetes or theologians. They were not empty vessels or as everyday people, but unique individuals of their being. Anthropomorphically speaking, set apart in the hands of the Lord while steeped in God’s word.
The Apostolic Hermeneutic
Continuing through this section, I reset my perspective with a fresh outlook. It became necessary to begin combing through Chou’s book in a nonlinear way and to skip back and forth between section conclusions and examples he provided. Primarily to come to grips with the legitimacy of authorial logic and most notably by the intertextual practices as led by the Spirit. I found this was necessary because much less emphasis was placed upon the role of the Spirit toward prophetic interpretation. It was through my apprehension about the accolades placed upon the stature prophets and apostles that I was entirely cautious and picky about what I accepted.
Especially while in the Old Testament since it serves as grounds for the apostles’ reasoning. As Chou wrote, due to introductory formulas like “it is written,” or “because of,” it is natural to make comparisons among segments of Scripture. Then afterward, to conclude a basis of formed rationale without error as the identified formulae claimed the foundation of legitimacy toward the apostle’s understanding. All leading to the recognized intent and developed logic of their Old Testament predecessors. Ultimately, the same authorial logic as continued in the New Testament as they were readers of Scripture and those who revealed Scripture by new revelation.
Chou advocates prophetic intertextuality within the
Old Testament. As a setup and projection of an apostolic hermeneutic.
Eventually, he takes a reader through the apostolic hermeneutic as a foundation
of new revelation and exegetical discovery from the Old Testament. Where it so
appears from Chou, authorial intent between human and divine contribution is
made distinct and separate from his following affirmation of the Lord’s work
and involvement.
As such, a human author was not always fully aware of what the divine author intended backward and forward in time. From the prophetic hermeneutic to the apostolic hermeneutic, new and continuous revelation unfolded over the course of history. Even with adopted authorial logic through prophetic intertextuality, the apostolic author did not on their own have the insight or clarity of view about the Lord’s near or long-term redemptive intentions. So, New Testament authors who read and wrote did so generally by instruction and inspiration as the new revelation came to them by the work of Christ while the hermeneutical examples of Old Testament prophets or New Testament apostles further revealed the truth of God’s word.
According
to Chou, apostolic interpretation of the Old Testament came from study and
exegesis by the prophetic hermeneutic made their own. Moreover, what theological
principles developed by Old Testament prophets discovered through their
hermeneutic is what the apostles did as well to inform their authorial logic. Yet
it is my view that it is not studying or analytical methods alone that brought
about a trajectory for overall directionality and later interpretation or
theological development. God was at work in the lives of those who were interpreting
and writing Scripture to communicate His intentions and redemptive plan.
From observations among the many examples given in
Chou’s book, I sought to identify contributing factors of authorial logic. Here
is an outline I noted during reading time to see if there is a more concrete
outline of practical advice to think through and use.
Contributors to Authorial Logic
Consistent and Ongoing Immersion
Comprehensive Cross-Referencing Activity
Meticulous Attention to Languages
Use of Inductive Non-Linear Thinking
In Context Proof Texting
Chronologically Independent Correlations
Use of Root Translations (LXX, MT)
Recognition of Prophetic Speech-Acts
Detection of Divine Inference
Apostolic Consistency of Application
The Christian Hermeneutic
Chou makes the point that we are more than cross-referencers. That the intertextuality modeled for us is more than that. We should look to imitate the hermeneutic of the apostles. Look to the reading quality of their rationale and direct our efforts to standard hermeneutic textbooks. Chou asserts that what we learn in standard hermeneutical textbooks is similar to what biblical writers read in their Bible. As Chou wrote, “the prophetic hermeneutic and the apostolic hermeneutic becomes the Christian hermeneutic.” Much of which comes through the adoption of modern, conventional, and proven hermeneutical methods.
Moving from meaning to significance, we consistently set a course toward application as we understand biblical implications and theology from Scripture. Just as biblical writers cared about the cultural, historical, and literary backgrounds of prior Scriptural authors, they serve as an example to us to derive meaning. Through interconnectedness or connecting dots to understand application as they did. Not only to clearly understand what they wrote and meant to follow them but also to recognize what they thought and what their motivations were. To get into their minds, so to speak.
To help us arrive at specifics about the intended significance for application purposes, Chou concludes his work by giving us four areas to frame our approach in applying Scripture. (1.) Worship God for His Works, (2.) Learn Theology, (3.) Morally Respond, and (4.) Adopt a Worldview in Light of Redemptive History. All taken together, these areas represent a body of effort that Christians use to get a practical application from the meaning and significance derived from biblical authors. By connecting the dots throughout Scripture to form an interconnectedness of authorial logic, we obtain an inspired way of getting to the significance and meaning of God’s word. This is the prophetic hermeneutic that the apostolic hermeneutic reaches into while we make them both our own.
When a biblical author writes about a specific matter or topic and conveys meaning in a real or strict sense as given by terminology, background, grammar, and context, it is that literal hermeneutic or meaning which a reader comes to accept and understand. It becomes recognized as an appropriate and necessary contribution to context and the direct course of work provided in Scripture.
As a reader sets sail toward spiritualizing Scripture, true and accurate interpretation of God’s word can become adrift in a sea of confusion. While human intellect and imagination can never prevail over what the Spirit of God has revealed in His word, an arbitrary retrojection must become rejected as it is dangerous and harmful.
The authors of Grasping God’s Word prefer the term literary meaning as a comparison to the literal meaning.[1] I especially appreciate this rationale because the term incorporates a real and valid spiritual meaning as well. It is a refreshing perspective rather than a purely clinical, sterile, or academic view of God’s word. When the Spirit of God’s authority, influence, and inspiration upon biblical authors is neglected or dismissed, that imposes a hostile vacuum of significance, which can become alarming.
As recently presented within the Truth Matters conference about the Sufficiency of Scripture, personal revelation in the absence of Scriptural truth was rightfully assailed. The hyper-spiritualization of personal and emotional experience must never override the truth of our LORD as the way of Balaam shall never prevail. The canon is closed. Our God is a consuming fire and He must be worshiped in spirit and truth.
Concerning typology, the New Testament serves as a general and necessary guide about what is permitted or acceptable for proper and correct Old Testament interpretation. While we desperately want to find Jesus anywhere and everywhere we can find Him, typologies of Christ are available to us through God’s word in the New Testament. Let the New Testament point to the foreshadowing of Christ in the Old Testament.
[1] J. Scott Duvall and J. Daniel Hays, Grasping God’s Word, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2012), 207.
When we are reading or studying the Old Testament, this should lead us to find relevant theological principles through the lens of the New Testament. That biblical interpretation differences between the old and new covenants have a bearing on how we approach and apply Scripture. Especially for Mosaic law and narrative stories, but more generally by interpretive walkthrough as it concerns all genres.
Old Testament Genres
Reading and Interpretation of the Old Testament through the lens of the New Testament.
The genres of Narrative, Law, Poetry, Prophets, and Wisdom books within the Old Testament can invite us to draw out meaning according to their typology. Each can also, in turn, somewhat overlap depending upon the author, historical conditions, cultural setting, and time frame of characters we read about. It is within these circumstances that the LORD uses the various biblical genres to record and convey meaning. So it isn’t a stretch to see that an interpretive effort itself serves as a grid or framework by which we can come to grasp God’s word.
Harvesting A Spiritual Substance
For example, think about the spiritual substance drawn from theological principles we find. While seeking and recognizing principles from the Old or New Testaments, we get to a place where we see, learn, and understand what Scripture presents as relevant to us. Not to get to the cultural or historical specifics within the OT or NT to apply them per se, but to understand basic or more involved characteristics of a total or guiding sense of a message. By whatever genre or form, it is what touches our whole person as we seek to know and understand the LORD and grow in our love for Him.
So the effort in all its forms with guidelines, questions, observations, and methods of interpretation by genre we can follow in our approach. That which is unique about Scripture types should adhere to a framework of study by which we get their meaning to understand them.
It was more than fifteen years ago that I entered the laboratory of Professor Agassiz, and told him I had enrolled my name in the scientific school as a student of natural history. He asked me a few questions about my object in coming, my antecedents generally, the mode in which I afterward proposed to use the knowledge I might acquire, and finally, whether I wished to study any special branch. To the latter, I replied that while I wished to be well-grounded in all departments of zoology, I purposed to devote myself specially to insects.
The Student, the Fish, and Agassiz
“When do you wish to begin?” he asked.
“Now,” I replied.
This seemed to please him, and with an energetic “Very well,” he reached from a shelf a huge jar of specimens in yellow alcohol.
“Take this fish,” he said, “and look at it; we call it a Haemulon; by and by I will ask what you have seen.”
With that, he left me, but in a moment returned with explicit instructions as to the care of the object entrusted to me.
“No man is fit to be a naturalist,” said he, “who does not know how to take care of specimens.”
I was to keep the fish before me in a tin tray, and occasionally moisten the surface with alcohol from the jar, always taking care to replace the stopper tightly. Those were not the days of ground glass stoppers and elegantly shaped exhibition jars; all the old students will recall the huge, neckless glass bottles with their leaky, wax-besmeared corks, half-eaten by insects and begrimed with cellar dust. Entomology was a cleaner science than ichthyology, but the example of the professor who had unhesitatingly plunged to the bottom of the jar to produce the fish was infectious; and though this alcohol had “a very ancient and fish-like smell,” I really dared not show any aversion within these sacred precincts, and treated the alcohol as though it were pure water. Still, I was conscious of a passing feeling of disappointment, for gazing at a fish did not commend itself to an ardent entomologist. My friends at home, too, were annoyed, when they discovered that no amount of eau de cologne would drown the perfume which haunted me like a shadow.
In ten minutes I had seen all that could be seen in that fish, and started in search of the professor, who had, however, left the museum; and when I returned, after lingering over some of the odd animals stored in the upper apartment, my specimen was dry all over. I dashed the fluid over the fish as if to resuscitate it from a fainting-fit, and looked with anxiety for a return of a normal, sloppy appearance. This little excitement over, nothing was to be done but return to a steadfast gaze at my mute companion. Half an hour passed, an hour, another hour; the fish began to look loathsome. I turned it over and around; looked it in the face — ghastly; from behind, beneath, above, sideways, at a three-quarters view — just as ghastly. I was in despair; at an early hour, I concluded that lunch was necessary; so with infinite relief, the fish was carefully replaced in the jar, and for an hour I was free.
On my return, I learned that Professor Agassiz had been at the museum, but had gone and would not return for several hours. My fellow students were too busy to be disturbed by continued conversation. Slowly I drew forth that hideous fish, and with a feeling of desperation again looked at it. I might not use a magnifying glass; instruments of all kinds were interdicted. My two hands, my two eyes, and the fish; it seemed the most limited field. I pushed my fingers down its throat to see how sharp its teeth were. I began to count the scales in the different rows until I was convinced that that was nonsense. At last, a happy thought struck me — I would draw the fish; and now with surprise, I began to discover new features in the creature. Just then the professor returned.
“That is right,” said he, “a pencil is one of the best eyes. I am glad to notice, too, that you keep your specimen wet and your bottle corked.”
With these encouraging words he added —
“Well, what is it like?”
He listened attentively to my brief rehearsal of the structure of parts whose names were still unknown to me; the fringed gill-arches and movable operculum; the pores of the head, fleshly lips, and lidless eyes; the lateral line, the spinous fin, and forked tail; the compressed and arched body. When I had finished, he waited as if expecting more, and then, with an air of disappointment:
“You have not looked very carefully; why,” he continued, more earnestly, “you haven’t seen one of the most conspicuous features of the animal, which is as plainly before your eyes as the fish itself. Look again; look again!” And he left me to my misery.
I was piqued; I was mortified. Still more of that wretched fish? But now I set myself to the task with a will and discovered one new thing after another until I saw how just the professor’s criticism had been. The afternoon passed quickly, and when, towards its close, the professor inquired,
“Do you see it yet?”
“No,” I replied. “I am certain I do not, but I see how little I saw before.”
“That is next best,” said he earnestly, “but I won’t hear you now; put away your fish and go home; perhaps you will be ready with a better answer in the morning. I will examine you before you look at the fish.”
This was disconcerting; not only must I think of my fish all night, studying, without the object before me, what this unknown but most visible feature might be, but also, without reviewing my new discoveries, I must give an exact account of them the next day. I had a bad memory; so I walked home by Charles River in a distracted state, with my two perplexities.
The cordial greeting from the professor the next morning was reassuring; here was a man who seemed to be quite as anxious as me that I should see for myself what he saw.
“Do you perhaps mean,” I asked, “that the fish has symmetrical sides with paired organs?”
His thoroughly pleased, “Of course, of course!” repaid the wakeful hours of the previous night. After he had discoursed most happily and enthusiastically — as he always did — upon the importance of this point, I ventured to ask what I should do next.
“Oh, look at your fish!” he said and left me again to my own devices. In a little more than an hour he returned and heard my new catalog.
“That is good, that is good!” he repeated, “but that is not all; go on.” And so for three long days, he placed that fish before my eyes, forbidding me to look at anything else or to use any artificial aid. “Look, look, look,” was his repeated injunction.
This was the best entomological lesson I ever had — a lesson whose influence was extended to the details of every subsequent study; a legacy the professor has left to me, as he left it to many others, of inestimable value, which we could not buy, with which we cannot part.
A year afterward, some of us were amusing ourselves with chalking outlandish beasts upon the blackboard. We drew prancing star-fishes; frogs in mortal combat; hydro-headed worms; stately craw-fishes, standing on their tails, bearing aloft umbrellas; and grotesque fishes, with gaping mouths and staring eyes. The professor came in shortly after and was as much amused as any at our experiments. He looked at the fishes.
“Haemulons, every one of them,” he said; “Mr. ____________ drew them.”
True; and to this day, if I attempt a fish, I can draw nothing but Haemulon.
The fourth day a second fish of the same group was placed beside the first, and I was bidden to point out the resemblances and differences between the two; another and another followed until the entire family lay before me, and a whole legion of jars covered the table and surrounding shelves; the odor had become a pleasant perfume; and even now, the sight of an old six-inch worm-eaten cork brings fragrant memories!
The whole group of Haemulons was thus brought into review; and whether engaged upon the dissection of the internal organs, preparation and examination of the bony framework, or the description of the various parts, Agassiz’s training in the method of observing facts in their orderly arrangement, was ever accompanied by the urgent exhortation not to be content with them.
“Facts are stupid things,” he would say, “until brought into connection with some general law.”
At the end of eight months, it was almost with reluctance that I left these friends and turned to insects; but what I gained by this outside experience has been of greater value than years of later investigation in my favorite groups.
Jean Louis Rodolphe Agassiz (1807-1873) was a famous scientist and Harvard professor. American Poems 3rd Edition; Boston: Houghton, Osgood & Co., 1879, 450-54
This post is about how to gather, sort, filter, and orchestrate words from root Scripture languages to get at a New or Old Testament author’s intended word meaning. It’s about how to do Bible word analysis and avoid false interpretation or erroneous meaning from Scripture.
Method of Biblical Word Study
For purposes of consistency and as a repeatable exegetical methodology, it is an efficient use of time and effort to do Bible word studies with a proven and well-developed process. This post outlines a process where the analysis guidelines are given by the “Grasping God’s Word” [1] text is adapted to this Bible word analysis method with Logos software.
This walk-through is a highly useful method for carrying out Bible word studies, and it is now central to a personal workflow. The same process is suitable for both the Old and New Testaments and can be done both manually or automatically to a limited extent.
Select Word for Study
Words that are crucial to a Scripture passage.
Repeated words.
Figures of speech.
Words that are unclear, puzzling, or difficult.
The outline given below makes trial use of the chosen word “confidence” in Hebrews 4:16 NASB and ESV.
“Therefore let us draw near with confidence to the throne of grace, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need. ” – Hebrews 4:16
Determine Semantic Range
Gather a listed range of all possible word definitions using a standard English dictionary.
Do Concordance Work
Determine what the word could mean from the original Hebrew or Greek language. This is a further narrowing of the semantic range as it becomes recognized what the words mean in that language. From the original manuscript word, isolate the other word terms to identify their meaning from the reading of the text. In this example, the Greek word for “παρρησία” (parrēsia) could mean “confidence,” “plainly,” “boldness,” “public, publicity,” or “openly, openness.”
Several modern Bible translations can now align with one another as the word chosen for analysis become compared between text translators. All translations taken together in the concurrently listed form should translate from the same original word.
Drill down into the circular word definition segment to separate the term given in Greek. By extracting this term for greater precision, it then becomes possible to see the differences among all variability. By process of elimination, we can from there conclude the word has a “confidence, boldness, plainly” meaning. As compared, for example, to “persuade” or “convince,” which isn’t the rendered word used by the author. We can, therefore, understand from the word choice that a person isn’t to approach the throne of grace of the LORD Most High to “persuade” or “convince”.This method can sometimes reconcile rendered word differences between various formal or informal Bible translations.
Examine the Context of Word Analysis
This is a crucial step to determine what the word could mean. From the chosen word for study, examine other sources of context located among biblical passages, as indicated in this diagram below. Imagine this diagram as a 3D Venn-type illustration. With the chosen word study at the top and its surrounding concentric circles of context beneath, examine progressive levels of context while extending outward. Each circle supports or reinforces its suitable meaning.
Look up all verses associated with the separated word to identify commonalities in meaning elsewhere. With the same author and then all verses together that make use of the specific word through the same covenant (OT or NT).
To assure faulty logic is not applied to word analysis and arrive at a false conclusion, test, or screen the rationale for a prospective and interpreted meaning. Specifically, this is to check tentative findings against any potential pitfalls. If the word-analysis fails any of these tests, the process must begin again. The process must remain iterative until there is a high degree of certainty about a word’s interpreted meaning.
Watch for Fallacies of Interpretation
English-Only Fallacy
This occurs when you base your word study on the English word rather than the underlying Greek or Hebrew word.
Root Fallacy
Falsely concludes that the real meaning of a word always comes from the original root or etymology of the word. For example, a butterfly is not a fly soaked, or coated in butter.
Time-Frame Fallacy
This occurs when the definition or meaning of a term in modern use is read back into Scripture, or applied to biblical times.
Overload Fallacy
An acceptance that a word means every definition within its semantic range.
Word-Count Fallacy
To conclude that a word has the same meaning every time it occurs.
Word-Concept Fallacy
A false assumption that the full meaning of a concept is the same as the meaning of a single word. The meaning of a concept is bigger than a single word.
Selective-Evidence Fallacy
Choosing an interpreted word that matches our preference while we dismiss evidence that contradicts our view.
Conclude the Author’s Intended Definition and Use of the Word
Specifically, for the verse interpreted inside the passage and within context, it is safe to conclude and accept the intended meaning of the word.
[1] J Scott Duvall and J. Daniel Hays, Grasping God’s Word, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2012), 163 – 184. [2] Ibid. 177. [3] Ibid. 164 -166.
Throughout the pages of “Scripture as Communication,” we read and learn about concepts and methods around biblical communication and interpretation. We explore hermeneutical principles and perspectives from various schools of thought. From both a theoretical and practical frame of reference, readers become informed through illustrations, definitions, outlines, and models that educate students of Scripture on what it is to bring about a full and more productive study of God’s word.
Book Review
Within this book review, various subjects covered among both practical and theoretical sections in Dr. Brown’s book reflect her walkthrough about what interpretation and meaning are and what they involve. Much of Dr. Brown’s use of technical language and prose to guide readers through these subjects is distilled in this review to gain a clear understanding of what a student of Scripture learns within her book about biblical hermeneutics. The first half of the book’s theoretical topics cover the roles of biblical authors, readers, and texts to arrive at conclusions intended for communicative purposes. A reader could view this first section as a survey of internal interest about textual meaning, its implications, historical development, and interest to both readers and authors of Scripture. The second half of the book pertains to practical or external applicability and relevance to what readers understand from the prior section.
Theoretical Perspectives on Scripture as Communication
Terminology & Context
The book begins with definitions and terminology that set up a foundation of understanding within its chapters to follow. Specifically, the author builds upon various terms as new topics are introduced or reinforced. To further understand the definitional meaning of hermeneutics, exegesis, genre, literary context, social setting, and contextualization. These terms become further and progressively explored in-depth to one another. To bring understanding about how they are relevant to the interpretation and application of Scripture as intended.
Dr. Brown defines hermeneutics as the study of activity involving interpretation. It is a meta-textual analysis process that enables a reader or study to arrive at accurate and meaningful conclusions about what becomes communicated. This process gets applied across various genres to interpret and grasp meaning successfully. As readers, we reach an understanding of poetry, narratives, epistles, and legal texts of the Bible. While attending to literary and social contexts in which an author intended. Particularly in their original settings at the time, written works occur for transmission and delivery to readers centuries later.
The introductory topic of exegesis carries more practical relevance in later chapters. However, it is of significant interest from a theoretical perspective because it pertains to the historical context of Scripture as written. Dr. Brown refers to this as an “exegetical process” that is culturally significant concerning a gap between a modern reader and the author of Scripture during the time events, or literary occurrences become committed to text. Exegesis is a practice that a reader applies to get at the closest interpreted meaning of Scripture, most notably concerning its genre, literary context, and social setting.
Communication Models of Interpretation
A greater depth of theoretical understanding becomes developed across numerous models with their historical backgrounds. With examples of their usage, Dr. Brown describes each model in summary and detail. Among the first introduced is speech-act theory while accompanied by language theory, relevance theory, and literary theory. The speech-act theory stands out among all others in Dr. Brown’s further written work among later chapters. In due course, it then becomes necessary to refer back again to the definitions and descriptions associated with this theoretical model to get at its relevance and applicability.
Speech-Act theory calls attention to the functional nature of language. In that, there are specific purposes of language recognized and put to use during a communicative process. There are four critical points of interest — First, a locution as defined by what is said. Second, an illocution to describe what is accomplished by what is said. Third, a perlocutionary intention is an intended response by hearers or readers. Finally, an unintended perlocution is what is accomplished by what is said, but not intended. In an effort to hold together these technical concepts for later reference, students of Scripture can find these terms of limited interest as they appear meant for academics or scholars. Still, the purpose of their definitions within this theoretical model helps to better understand the context of textual work completed thousands of years back in history.
To further draw into the various additional theoretical models of interpretation, Dr. Brown calls attention to their histories, academic contributors, and rationale about their suitability within the exegetical process.
Authors, Texts, Readers
There is a three-way contrast made between each functional role of communicative participants. Introduced are an original author, an implied or actual reader, and an autonomous text that bears its meaning in a free-standing way. It is here that “authorial intention” is introduced as a way to describe and emphasize meaning as best derived from what an author intends or expects. All essential attributes associated with an author such as language, social, economic, and political realities have a bearing on meaning. This meaning, in turn, contributes to the context that conveys understanding, research, application, and contextualization as further explained later in the book.
Further attention has been given to what form of meaning as developed from a reader’s perspective. Where what prevails is the subjective view and preferences of readers with their own biases, traditions, and influences. Over time, this emphasis on a reader’s interpretation to establish meaning has developed but does not hold weight among modern expositors.
Meaning becomes further categorized as intentionality types along a scale or continuum. Between transmissive and expressive intentionality, there are various Scripture genres to bring about outcomes that align with authorial intent — either expressive as apparent among works of poetry, or transmissive and instructional works found among epistles. The Bible’s authors have communicated meaning in their texts to convey intent. Whether in the narrative form or through instructional and emotive style, the method of communication chosen fits the purpose and substance of that which is conveyed. In a context of textual coherence appropriate to what a reader should come to understand and accept.
Developing Textual Meaning
There is a distinction between implicit and explicit meaning as covered by Dr. Brown to probe patterns of communication. Moreover, her book refers to inference beyond explicit intentions. To come closer to what an author intends by written Scripture, we can interpret patterns of meaning that are otherwise less available if we read and understand the Bible at a surface level. This poses certain risks toward false interpretation, but if a reader adheres to literary and historical context according to the purpose of Scripture, they become mitigated or reduced.
Of particular interest is the notion that authors can and do communicate beyond what they consciously express, where there is a (sub)meaning of context which holds validity to a pattern of meaning an author willed or infers. What is striking is that these authors are unaware of meaning and inference, which still carries validity. As explained, an author cannot explicitly attend to all expressive or transmissive meaning toward communicative intent because he or she is unable to pay attention to all aspects of meaning. Inferences and implications, therefore, emerge to further the body of work authors produce to communicate with their readers. Thus, implied meaning from New Testament sources compared to implied meaning from Old Testament sources provides opportunities for careful exegetical analysis less evident to many readers.
At the core of textual meaning is perlocutionary intention. Where it becomes recognized that words do things and say things. It is an extension of meaning as it helps form a theological hermeneutic. Both locution and illocution constitute meaning with perlocutionary intention giving activity to what becomes communicated. From this constructed view of Scripture, core textual, its extension, and continuing meaning together represent a total body of substance to interpret implications of written Scripture from an author and transmissive or expressive genre. In a context of textual coherence appropriate to what a reader should come to understand and accept.
Invitation to Active Engagement
It is somewhat surprising that each person who studies Scripture has an individual hermeneutic. There is a single hermeneutic, or linear formula as a checklist of sorts to exegete Scripture for consistent outcomes. We all have our own individual “location” of perspective and influence that affects our interpretive efforts. These are blind spots that keep us from gaining a clear understanding of Scripture. We have our traditions and preconceptions that predispose us to eisegesis of Scripture — all to keep original and intended meaning out of view. Worse yet to arrive at conclusions from Scriptural misinterpretation.
There is an additional discussion about the differences between an implied reader and an actual reader where the actual reader is at a separation some distance in meaning from an implied reader. This is where the implied reader is who an author intends to communicate. However, since there is a necessity for communication that involves interpretation with all of its exegetical issues, the actual reader applies the best effort to get at meaningful understanding. The closer an actual reader is to intended and accurate meaning, the more that the reader becomes an implied reader as biblical authors form their written work across various Scriptural genres. With this difference drawn in Dr. Brown’s book, it becomes apparent that a well-developed hermeneutical interpretation process should include an effort to get as close as possible to original meaning. As an implied reader, rather than an actual reader who takes a superficial view of engaging genre.
It is a mistake to assume that readers are free to read in isolation without any attention to a community at large. Such as a community or group of people who together read and interpret Scripture with various perspectives. Who can, in turn, more accurately apply hermeneutical practices, which contribute to contextualization of those who seek the truth of the Bible. Moreover, either individually or in a group setting, a biblical hermeneutic must attend to biblical genres, languages, social settings, and literary contexts.
Practical Guidance for Interpreting Scripture
Genre and Communication
There are three genres in which Dr. Brown chooses to focus. Poetry, epistles, and narrative are the genres, and she goes into thorough detail about their function and role within Scripture. First, Poetic utterance and meaning as a communicative act involve various devices, imagery, and metaphor. Example after example, Dr. Brown highlights Psalms and Proverbs as a way to form concrete meaning from emotive expression in context with the cultural or traditional setting of biblical authors.
While we as readers tend to prefer prose in narrative form, we do accept and make use of poetry along with more modern expressions. Such as found within music and other forms of entertainment. Imagery called upon to communicate sense and comparison provide the metaphors that bring about added depth and richness in meaning that gets even closer to what an author has conveyed.
The genre of epistle is one of coherent thought within social and cultural settings to affect how biblical meaning and principles are formed. As epistles are explicit letters to individuals and groups of people, there are found within the stories of interpersonal relationships and deeply theological subject matter. Common among all of them is a stream of thought from writers to communicate direct meaning with less room for ambiguity. Often these letters are instructions to early churches within development to include numerous people new to their faith in Christ. New to fellowship, church practices, worship, and other disciplines characteristic of what Jesus set in motion with Peter, His apostle.
Narrative types of Scripture are about stories and discourse. For example, the synoptic gospels are side-by-side perspectives of a common story about the life and ministry of Christ. As a subset to a narrative story, some discourses serve to communicate levels and shapes of Scriptural meaning. Either as thematical, chronological, or rhetorical devices to render comprehension of story participants and readers. With our understanding and interpretive efforts, learned principles, facts, and events of narrative Scripture must become recognized as having profound theological relevance. Gospel urgency, life lessons, spiritual guidance, kingdom awareness, missionary efforts, and so forth get their communicative depth from religious narrative discourse. All are originating from stories that come from gospel writers. They extend out to more immediate readers in their cultural setting as well as those of us who seek to learn and accept their truth and meaning to act upon.
The Language of the Bible
In her effort to share relevant guidance of communication involving languages of the Bible, Dr. Brown collects and records facts and opinions about linguistic challenges, academic perspectives, and the pragmatic inter-workings of biblical languages. Dr. Brown’s technical views about languages of the Bible are strenuously difficult to follow. As an effort to mindfully bring into structured order corresponding usefulness to the overall aim of understanding introductory hermeneutics.
It is widely understood that the Bible is written in Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic. The absence of topics such as the Septuagint, Masoretic Text, and translations in this section is a point of wonder. Most especially concerning formative languages for interpretative examples. Since New Testament writers read Greek and earlier forms of the Old Testament, it would be highly enlightening what their interpretive process was to demonstrate examples for generations to consider or apply. Or at least to give added credence to the models earlier presented in her book. While much more attention gets placed upon the nature and function of language itself, its thereafter Biblical applicability is bolted on as having viable and legitimate suitability.
Dr. Brown’s book on Scripture as Communication is written for seasoned academics and linguistic scholars. Or at least this section of “Language of the Bible.” While we are presented with an explanation about how language works, various linguistic terms follow and have a considerable bearing on an interpretive process from a scholarly and peer-reviewed perspective. The density and concentration of subject matter in this section are extraordinarily broad and comprehensive and should take several days of full absorption to grasp its informative and educational value. A first-pass read-through doesn’t do it justice with an outcome of limited retention in a short duration of time.
Context and Contextualization
Having read at length and depth through this entire section, primary and secondary sources of material to support the exegetical study of Scripture is outlined and explained to become oriented about what is most suitable for a given purpose. There are various suggestions about skills to develop toward the study of Scripture. Of outstanding value are the sections about outlining, summarizing, identifying themes, and identifying functions.
This is probably the most crucial topic throughout Dr. Brown’s book. While spanning across 41-pages of text at the end of the book, there are exceedingly useful tools covered here. Such as macro-contextualization that provides guidelines about how to traverse across scripture elements to interpret and study for meaning. To include principles and methods that have a bearing on the spiritual development and health of a believer in Christ.
To effectively contextualize meaning from Yahweh through the authors of Scripture, the biblical reader eventually comes to recognize that God inspires all Scripture (2 Tim 3:16). Where along with an indwelling Spirit, a reader gets at intended meaning that takes into account a biblical context. Specifically to appropriate original meaning in a powerful, relevant, and truthful way.
Across time, worldviews, and cultures, a reader takes a position from authorial intent to recognize scriptural specifics and principles. To appropriate and contextualize meaning for his or her circumstances over a lifetime.
An absent or disconnected author from textual communication with multiple potential language conflicts can allow for numerous possibilities in meaning from nonsense to that which goes well beyond linguistic intent. Furthermore, communicative intentionality can become lost along a spectrum between what is transmissive or expressive. Such as a range of biblical Epistles, and Poetry to a narrative storyline somewhere in the middle.
While poetry and some forms of narrative communication are relatively safer to accurately interpret and get at relevant meaning without authorial intent and control, an author’s objective and transmissive intent are not. Transmissive meaning that is instructional or objective at its surface is independent of an author, as illustrated on Brown’s communication spectrum of intent.
While there are often presuppositions between an author and reader that affect textual meaning. With those, there are risks of misinterpretation from a reader to suit intended or unintended personal interest. A misreading can, in turn, result in unfavorable or harmful outcomes. Whereas, eventually, readers of text become the authors and assert all-powerful ownership of meaning. “The reader becomes the god of the text whether through assimilation or mastery.”
There are three broad areas of thought about where the meaning of Scripture is best originated. In that meaning either comes from the author, text, or the reader of Scripture in a more effective way to understand the communicative intent of what is written in the Living Word. To develop a reliable and effective hermeneutic, Dr. Brown has developed a Scriptural communication model that evaluates the merits of each approach and ties together a coherent way of developing a personal and community-based hermeneutic that honors the intent of the Bible and our LORD.
By spending a lot of time in Dr. Brown’s book, I have developed some opinions about what is largely of interest to the personal and structured study of Scripture and its relevance.
The meaning of Scripture best lies with the author. More specifically, meaning rests with Yahweh through various authors throughout Scripture.1 As Biblical writers communicate in their local contexts, they demonstrate perlocutionary intentions to their audience. Their literary expressions go beyond a full understanding of what becomes communicated.2 Their communicative act to warn, advise, praise, inform, invite, and so forth calls for interpretation and actualization among those who would listen or read what they have to say. Regardless of verbal and literary form, meaning becomes adapted and transposed to new contexts among listeners and readers. Meaning retains its purpose and integrity as to how it becomes applicable rests with individuals and communities.
Dr. Brown’s communication model about meaning comes with several affirmations.3 Her arguments throughout the book were summarized as having various contributing factors, one of which specifies meaning as “author-derived but textually communicated.” Subordinate to the communicative intention of Biblical authors, readers attend to Scripture by contextualization. Readers who appropriate Scripture in their local culture by interpretation and “illumination” form settled and reliable meaning for relevant use as communicated from authors of the Bible.
These affirmations that Dr. Brown wrote coincides with what I have come to understand and accept as the root and origin of meaning. Primarily because of my newly developed view about the subjective nature of reader interpretation and the limits to what autonomous texts can provide without arbitration from an author.
1. Brown, Jeannine K. Scripture as Communication: Introducing Biblical Hermeneutics. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2007, 92 2. Ibid, 114 3. Ibid, 99
