Latest / Reformed Thinking / The Interpreter

Transcript

The Interpreter · Reformed Thinking

• 0:00
  Welcome to reformed Thinking. We take a stack of challenging
• 0:03
  sources and unpack the central ideas, giving you a clearer
• 0:07
  perspective on Christian knowledge and life today.
• 0:10
  Our conversation gets into a subject that is, I think, one of
• 0:14
  the most intellectually demanding for any serious
• 0:17
  believer how we handle the Holy Scripture.
• 0:21
  We're looking at a set of sources focused on the
• 0:22
  principles and the qualifications needed for
• 0:26
  interpreting the Bible. Right.
• 0:28
  And it really is about a kind of spiritual G system.
• 0:31
  Yeah, that's a good way to put it.
• 0:33
  We're trying to chart a course to find the fixed original
• 0:36
  meaning of the text. The mission, really, is to get
• 0:39
  past the echo chamber. Exactly.
• 0:41
  It's just so easy to read the Bible and only hear your own
• 0:43
  voice, your own thoughts coming back at you.
• 0:46
  Reinforcing what you already believe.
• 0:48
  So we need to figure out the mechanisms, the, you know, the
• 0:50
  scientific methods, the theological mindsets and the
• 0:54
  spiritual disciplines required to stop that echo.
• 0:56
  And start hearing God's words speaking to us instead.
• 0:59
  You know that tension is right at the heart of biblical
• 1:02
  studies. Our sources frame interpretation
• 1:05
  as a kind of tightrope. Walk a tightrope.
• 1:08
  And on one side, it's a very rigorous science.
• 1:10
  It demands accurate, systematic work.
• 1:13
  On the other, it's an art acknowledging the well, the
• 1:16
  subjective frame we all bring to the reading.
• 1:19
  So there's a paradox right from the start.
• 1:21
  A huge one. Every single interpreter comes
• 1:23
  with unavoidable assumptions. We call this pre understanding,
• 1:27
  but those very assumptions can't be allowed to govern the meaning
• 1:30
  of the text. If they do, you're just stuck.
• 1:33
  You're trapped in a vicious circle.
• 1:34
  We have to find a path that ensures actual growth and
• 1:37
  understanding, not just stagnation.
• 1:40
  So the central challenge for this deep dive is pretty clear.
• 1:43
  Then how can we consciously evaluate and maybe more
• 1:47
  importantly, correct our starting assumptions?
• 1:49
  Yeah, to make sure we are truly hearing God's Word and not just,
• 1:52
  you know, reading ourselves into the text.
• 1:55
  We have to start by confronting that baggage.
• 1:57
  We can't pretend to be neutral readers.
• 1:59
  That's a fiction. It is.
• 2:00
  The goal isn't neutrality. The goal is correction.
• 2:03
  OK, let's unpack this. If we can't start with a a
• 2:07
  sterile mind, then we have to begin by cataloguing the lens
• 2:10
  we're all looking through. Before we even open the Bible,
• 2:14
  we're bringing these deeply ingrained patterns of thought.
• 2:17
  So what precisely is pre understanding and why is it
• 2:20
  impossible to not have it? Pre understanding is, in short,
• 2:24
  the totality of who you are when you sit down to read.
• 2:27
  It's the whole body of assumptions, attitudes, and
• 2:30
  information you bring to interpreting reality.
• 2:32
  So. Everything.
• 2:33
  Everything. Your language, your culture,
• 2:35
  your intellectual capacity, your religious background, even the
• 2:38
  conditioning you got as a child. It sounds less like a choice and
• 2:41
  more like a prerequisite, like you can't even start
• 2:44
  understanding without it. It is absolutely necessary.
• 2:47
  You cannot read without it. Think about a medical doctor
• 2:49
  reading a prescription. OK?
• 2:51
  Their specialized background knowledge is an asset, right?
• 2:54
  It lets them pull out so much more meaning than you or I
• 2:56
  could. That specialized knowledge is
• 2:58
  their pre understanding. Exactly, and in that case it
• 3:01
  helps understanding. But the danger where it becomes
• 3:04
  a culprit, as our sources say, is when it involves unchecked
• 3:07
  dyess or or just bad information.
• 3:10
  That's the flip side. If the pre understanding is
• 3:13
  flawed, it prohibits or at least slows down accurate
• 3:17
  understanding. Imagine trying to read a history
• 3:19
  of the Roman Empire while being absolutely convinced the Roman
• 3:23
  Empire never existed. Your starting point makes real
• 3:25
  interpretation impossible. Your pre commitment closes the
• 3:29
  door before you start, so we have to learn to distinguish
• 3:32
  when our framework is an asset and when it's a distorting
• 3:35
  filter. Diaz Ferguson's categories help
• 3:37
  with that, right? He's splits pre understanding
• 3:39
  into four types. Let's start with the most basic
• 3:42
  informational pre understanding. Informational pre understanding
• 3:46
  is just the factual data you have on a subject beforehand.
• 3:49
  It's your background knowledge. So if you know nothing about
• 3:52
  ancient Near Eastern culture, trying to understand the Book of
• 3:55
  Judges is going to be difficult. Very difficult.
• 3:58
  You'll struggle to get the context for the violence, the
• 4:01
  legal stuff, all of it. Our sources have a great, almost
• 4:04
  funny example of this the African student who assumes snow
• 4:09
  comes from the ground. It's a perfect illustration.
• 4:13
  The student's assumption was totally logical based on his
• 4:16
  limited experience. He'd only ever seen water like
• 4:19
  dew appearing on the ground. So he figured snow must work the
• 4:22
  same way. A perfectly logical conclusion,
• 4:25
  but it was immediately corrected the moment he got new concrete
• 4:29
  facts. He saw.
• 4:30
  It to know it. He saw it falling from the sky.
• 4:33
  And this tells us something critical.
• 4:35
  Our informational assumptions, even if they seem logical, have
• 4:39
  to be held lightly. They have to be open to complete
• 4:41
  revision when we get new data from the text or its context.
• 4:45
  This feels really relevant when we read ancient texts.
• 4:48
  We come to Genesis One, for instance, with a 21st century
• 4:51
  scientific pre understanding. While the original audience had
• 4:54
  a, you know, a three tiered universe in their mind, if we
• 4:57
  don't recognize that the biblical writers accommodated
• 5:00
  the science of their day, that they wrote phenomenologically,
• 5:03
  describing things as they appeared, we'll create all sorts
• 5:06
  of needless conflicts. We end up judging them by our
• 5:08
  standards. And we missed the point.
• 5:10
  Our informational pre understanding needs constant
• 5:12
  recalibration. OK, so that's facts.
• 5:15
  Let's move to disposition, attitudinal pre understanding.
• 5:19
  This is where prejudice really enters the picture.
• 5:21
  This is about the disposition or attitude you bring to the
• 5:24
  reading. It's the home of real prejudice
• 5:26
  or bias, and it's often subconscious.
• 5:28
  It's an effective thing that colors your judgment.
• 5:31
  The sources bring up the classic case of Julius Wellhausen, the
• 5:34
  Old Testament scholar. The argument is that his anti
• 5:37
  Judaism led him to well to denigrate the law.
• 5:41
  That example shows the danger perfectly.
• 5:44
  Wellhausen was methodologically brilliant.
• 5:46
  The science part was there, right?
• 5:48
  But his negative personal attitude toward Judaism as a
• 5:51
  sort of later, less spiritual version of Israelite faith meant
• 5:55
  he saw the priesthood and the law as late bureaucratic and
• 5:59
  inferior. His attitude controlled his
• 6:02
  intellectual conclusion. And we see this all the time,
• 6:04
  even among believers who agree on the basics.
• 6:07
  I mean, think about the debates between Calvinists and
• 6:09
  Armenians. Oh, absolutely.
• 6:10
  If a reader comes in with a rigid attitudinal stance on
• 6:13
  God's sovereignty, they might approach a tough text like
• 6:15
  Romans 9 with a bias that must find absolute individual
• 6:19
  predestination everywhere. And they might be blind to other
• 6:22
  things the text is saying about, say, corporate election or human
• 6:26
  responsibility. And the reverse is also true.
• 6:29
  Someone with an attitudinal bias against the idea of sovereign
• 6:32
  decree might read that same chapter and just explain away
• 6:35
  the clear language of God's choice.
• 6:38
  In both cases a personal bias is pre selecting the acceptable
• 6:42
  meanings. So we've got facts and
• 6:43
  dispositions. The third category, ideological
• 6:47
  pre understanding, feels like maybe the most powerful filter
• 6:50
  in modern interpretation. I think it is ideological.
• 6:53
  Pre understanding is about your overarching view of reality,
• 6:56
  your worldview. It's the whole philosophical
• 6:58
  system that tells you what's possible, what's normal, what's
• 7:01
  true. This is where we crash into
• 7:03
  things like scientism and this is where it gets really
• 7:05
  interesting how a non biblical ideology can just act as a
• 7:09
  gatekeeper for the text. The ideology of scientism claims
• 7:13
  that science alone sets the criteria for truth and settles
• 7:16
  all matters of fact. So if an interpreter buys into
• 7:19
  that modern viewpoint, they've already decided that anything
• 7:22
  outside of natural causality is impossible.
• 7:24
  So before they even read a line about a miracle.
• 7:27
  They are compelled to find a naturalistic explanation.
• 7:30
  So if the text says Christ was resurrected, the ideological
• 7:34
  filter just says Nope, can't have happened because modern
• 7:37
  science says bodily resurrection is impossible.
• 7:40
  Recisely the text is forced to fit the modern viewpoint instead
• 7:44
  of the modern viewoint being challenged or corrected by the
• 7:47
  text. The interpreter has to conclude
• 7:49
  the resurrection accounts are myth or legend or a
• 7:52
  psychological event. The ideology controls the result
• 7:56
  completely. We also see this in how scholars
• 7:58
  approach supposed conflicts in the Bible.
• 8:00
  The sources contrast those who look for conflicts with those
• 8:03
  who look for harmonization. And that is a purely ideological
• 8:07
  split. One group approaches scripture
• 8:08
  with the assumption that it's a document full of human error, so
• 8:11
  they expect to find contradictions.
• 8:13
  Their job is to find them. While the other group.
• 8:15
  The other group assumes trustworthiness based on the the
• 8:18
  idea of divine authorship, so they look for ways to harmonize.
• 8:21
  They assume apparent conflicts come from our lack of knowledge,
• 8:25
  not from an error in the text. That initial ideological stance
• 8:29
  just changes everything. The questions you ask, the
• 8:32
  methods you use, the conclusions you're willing to accept.
• 8:35
  It does, and you can see how modern ideologies like, say,
• 8:38
  liberation theology, can fundamentally change the entire
• 8:43
  goal of interpretation. How does that one work for
• 8:45
  example? Well, a liberation theology
• 8:47
  framework centers reality on historical materialism and the
• 8:51
  struggle of the oppressed against oppressors.
• 8:53
  So when that lens is applied to Scripture, the focus shifts.
• 8:57
  Away from traditional doctrine. Right away from justification by
• 9:00
  faith and toward seeing all biblical stories through this
• 9:03
  narrative of economic and social conflict, Jesus's main role
• 9:07
  becomes Liberator from political oppression, which can sideline
• 9:11
  or reshape his primary spiritual and atoning work.
• 9:14
  The clear danger is that the interpreter's modern agenda gets
• 9:17
  imposed on the ancient text. It silences what the text might
• 9:21
  actually be trying to say. This brings us to the last
• 9:23
  category, methodological pre understanding.
• 9:26
  Methodological pre understanding is about the technical approach
• 9:29
  you use, be it historical, scientific or the grammatical
• 9:32
  historical method, and the method you choose influences the
• 9:36
  results you get. Gunkel's form criticism, for
• 9:38
  example, dominated OT studies for a generation because it
• 9:41
  introduced a new technique. So the choice of method creates
• 9:45
  boundaries. If I use a purely
• 9:47
  psychoanalytical method to read the Psalms, I'm only going to
• 9:51
  find psychological patterns. And you might totally miss the
• 9:54
  theological reality of divine revelation.
• 9:56
  Absolutely. But on the other hand, good
• 9:59
  methodology is also what we use to guard against all the bias
• 10:02
  we've been talking about. So it's a double edged sword.
• 10:04
  It is a rigorous grammatical historical method, forces you to
• 10:08
  analyze the language systematically to ground your
• 10:12
  reading in the original context. It's a check on your own biases
• 10:14
  running wild. The challenge is to see all
• 10:17
  these things at play and be willing to submit them to
• 10:19
  correction. OK, so once we admit we all
• 10:21
  start with pre understanding with baggage, the big question
• 10:24
  is how we stop that baggage from becoming a prison for life.
• 10:27
  If every reading I do is filtered through what I already
• 10:30
  believe, how do I keep my interpretation from just
• 10:33
  becoming isagesis? You know that process of reading
• 10:37
  my own ideas in where I'm just entombed in my prior ideas?
• 10:40
  That is the vicious circle danger, and it's exactly why our
• 10:43
  source is pushed back against the old analogy of the
• 10:47
  hermeneutical circle. And they prefer the
• 10:49
  hermeneutical spiral. The hermeneutical spiral, yes.
• 10:51
  Let's pin down the difference. The circle is static, a closed
• 10:54
  loop. The circle implies you're stuck.
• 10:57
  You start with your biases, you read the text, and you just come
• 11:01
  back to where you started, only maybe a bit more convinced you
• 11:04
  were right all along. It's a closed system.
• 11:07
  It leads to theological and intellectual spaces.
• 11:10
  Whereas the hermeneutical spiral suggests movement progress, it's
• 11:14
  dynamic. It is the spiral describes a
• 11:16
  dynamic, progressive growth and understanding.
• 11:20
  It still acknowledges we start with a pre understanding, but it
• 11:23
  insists that an honest, faithful engagement with the text has to
• 11:27
  lead to continuous revision and refinement of that
• 11:29
  understanding. So it's a cycle of advancement,
• 11:31
  not just repetition. What's the key mechanism then?
• 11:34
  What forces that circle open and turns it into a spiral?
• 11:38
  The single most important feature of the spiral is that
• 11:41
  the text has to be allowed to affect changes in the
• 11:44
  interpreter. The relationship becomes
• 11:46
  reciprocal. It's not just I interpret the
• 11:49
  text, the text has to be allowed to interpret me.
• 11:52
  Your own views have to be on the table subject to revision.
• 11:54
  They have to be, so the text becomes the active agent that
• 11:59
  corrects the reader. In a very real sense, the
• 12:01
  interpreter becomes the object being interpreted.
• 12:04
  That's the psychological and theological reality of it, isn't
• 12:07
  it? The text judges the reader.
• 12:09
  Responsible Bible study forces you to admit your views might be
• 12:12
  flawed, that they might need to be transformed.
• 12:15
  Right, you come to the text with question A based on your pre
• 12:18
  understanding, but the text makes you realize that question
• 12:20
  A might be the totally wrong question to ask.
• 12:23
  And that changes everything. It changes your entire
• 12:25
  perspective, so the newly interpreted interpreter then
• 12:27
  goes back to the text, but this time with a revised, more
• 12:30
  biblically aligned viewpoint. This speaks to the need for some
• 12:33
  kind of objective constraint. If interpretation were purely
• 12:38
  subjective, we could never escape ourselves.
• 12:41
  We'd be stuck in the circle. Exactly.
• 12:43
  The spiral only works if the text possesses an independent
• 12:46
  fixed meaning that exists outside of the reader.
• 12:49
  And the proof that the process is a spiral is that real change
• 12:52
  actually happens. Yes, the fact that an
• 12:55
  interpreter can genuinely move from one deeply held theological
• 12:59
  system to another, say, changing a lifelong view on covenant
• 13:03
  theology or baptism. That change shows that the text
• 13:06
  presented an objective reality strong enough to overcome their
• 13:09
  prior views. A change like that is often
• 13:12
  really costly intellectually and spiritually.
• 13:15
  It proves the reality of the spiral because it shows there's
• 13:17
  friction. It requires huge intellectual
• 13:19
  honesty and humility. Changing a core theological
• 13:23
  position is never comfortable. It forces you to look at
• 13:25
  yourself and admit I was looking at this through the wrong lens.
• 13:29
  That uncomfortable process of adjustment?
• 13:31
  That's the engine that drives the spiral forward.
• 13:33
  And through all of this, the meaning of the text itself
• 13:36
  remains fixed. It's immutable.
• 13:38
  The change is entirely within the reader.
• 13:40
  Precisely. The text means what it meant,
• 13:43
  what it was written. The growth is in the
• 13:45
  interpreter's ability to grasp that fixed meaning more
• 13:48
  adequately and apply it more effectively.
• 13:50
  So we move from a naive understanding through deeper
• 13:53
  analysis, and then we come back to the text with a more
• 13:55
  sophisticated, informed reading the next time.
• 13:58
  It's a continuous you as positive progression.
• 14:01
  The whole goal is to let scripture inform our worldview,
• 14:04
  to let it correct our pre understanding, instead of
• 14:07
  letting our pre understanding control scripture.
• 14:10
  That's the entire function of the spiritual life applied to
• 14:12
  study. I think so.
• 14:13
  If you never feel any discomfort or friction or change from your
• 14:16
  reading, you're probably trapped in the hermeneutical circle.
• 14:19
  You're just reading your own biography into the Bible.
• 14:22
  The spiral demands submission to the authority of the fixed word.
• 14:25
  OK, so the spiral gives us the framework for growth.
• 14:29
  It shows that change is possible.
• 14:31
  Now we need the components, the tools, and the orientation to
• 14:33
  actually achieve that growth. Our resources frame this as that
• 14:37
  tightrope walk. Again, interpretation is both a
• 14:39
  science and an art. And that analogy is so good
• 14:43
  because you have to maintain the tension.
• 14:45
  You need the methodological precision, the science to figure
• 14:49
  out what the text says. But you also need the
• 14:52
  theological and spiritual orientation, the art, to grasp
• 14:56
  the significance of what it says.
• 14:58
  Right. It's significance within the
• 15:00
  whole context of redemptive history.
• 15:02
  You need both. All right, let's start with the
• 15:05
  science side. This part demands correct and
• 15:08
  accurate methodology. What does that systematic work
• 15:11
  actually look like for a scholar, or even just for a
• 15:14
  diligent lay reader? It requires competence and
• 15:17
  diligence, like a surveyor using precision tools.
• 15:20
  It means using every technique you can to determine the
• 15:23
  objective meaning of the text in its original context.
• 15:26
  This covers specialized areas like lexicography syntax.
• 15:29
  Lexicography, syntax, discourse analysis, all of it.
• 15:32
  Let's break those down. Lexicography.
• 15:33
  That's the science of word meaning.
• 15:35
  Right, and we can't just assume an English word today means
• 15:38
  what? The equivalent Greek or Hebrew
• 15:40
  word meant 2000 years ago. We can't even assume a word
• 15:43
  means the same thing every time it's used in the Bible.
• 15:46
  Can you give an exam? Sure, the word decay soon often
• 15:49
  translated as righteousness. You have to study that word in
• 15:53
  its specific semantic field, in, say, Paul's writings, how it
• 15:58
  relates to justice, to covenant fidelity to God's legal actions.
• 16:02
  You can't just import a modern general idea of moral goodness
• 16:05
  and think you've got it. OK, and syntax.
• 16:08
  That's about how the words connect.
• 16:10
  Syntax is about the grammatical relationships between words and
• 16:13
  clauses. It determines the flow of an
• 16:15
  argument, and a mistake in syntax can lead to a huge
• 16:18
  mistake in doctrine. So understanding whether a
• 16:21
  particular participle is causal or concessive isn't just
• 16:25
  academic hair splitting. Not at all.
• 16:27
  It's purely a matter of grammatical analysis.
• 16:29
  But if you misread the relationship between clauses and
• 16:32
  Romans 8, you're going to misread the nature of the
• 16:35
  spirits work in the believer. It's critical.
• 16:37
  And what about discourse analysis?
• 16:38
  That seems like a bigger picture tool.
• 16:40
  It is discourse analysis looks at the structure of the whole
• 16:43
  literary unit, an entire book or a major section.
• 16:46
  It helps identify the author's argument, the flow of thought,
• 16:49
  key structural markers. Like why did Paul shift topics
• 16:52
  here? What's the main thesis of this
• 16:53
  section? Exactly.
• 16:54
  These tools give us the objective constraints to make
• 16:57
  sure we're reading the argument the author actually built, not
• 17:00
  just imposing our own preferred logic on top of it.
• 17:03
  And this rigor is so important because factual matters need
• 17:06
  historical and cultural study, not just spiritual insights.
• 17:10
  Precisely. You can't settle objective
• 17:13
  factual questions like the identity of an ancient God or
• 17:16
  the geography of a battlefield by prayer alone.
• 17:20
  If you want to understand battle worship, you need to use
• 17:22
  archaeological and historical methods.
• 17:24
  Or what a high place at vessel meant to an ancient Israelite.
• 17:28
  You have to consult extra biblical sources and historical
• 17:30
  data. God chose to reveal himself in
• 17:32
  history, so historical methods are necessity.
• 17:35
  The best techniques are simply the most likely to give you the
• 17:38
  most accurate objective insights.
• 17:40
  OK, the science side is clear. Now for the art.
• 17:43
  How do our personal and theological presuppositions are
• 17:46
  subjective side effect this otherwise objective analysis?
• 17:50
  The art side acknowledges that the interpreter is not a
• 17:53
  machine. We come to the text with a set
• 17:56
  of beliefs, a spiritual orientation, and these
• 17:59
  presuppositions Causeway us to accept or reject certain
• 18:03
  possibilities, which controls the final result, even if our
• 18:06
  grammar is perfect. O an unbelieving scholar could
• 18:09
  do a technically perfect analysis of the syntax, but
• 18:13
  still missed the real message. Absolutely.
• 18:15
  It's like an art critic who knows the chemical makeup of the
• 18:18
  paint and the history of the canvas, but can't grasp the
• 18:21
  spiritual or aesthetic meaning of the painting.
• 18:23
  Because they lack the necessary context or sensitivity.
• 18:27
  In the same way, an unbelieving scholar can identify every
• 18:30
  Hebrew verb form in the Old Testament, but only the believer
• 18:33
  who has the faith that grants spiritual sensitivity can truly
• 18:37
  grasp the significance the saving revelatory message of the
• 18:40
  Bible. What's the classic example of
• 18:42
  how a non biblical presupposition forces someone to
• 18:45
  reject a biblical claim? We can go back to the issue of
• 18:48
  miracles. If an interpreter starting point
• 18:51
  is secular rationalism, they have already rejected the
• 18:54
  category of the miraculous. So when they read about demonic
• 18:56
  possession in the Gospels. They will methodologically
• 18:59
  reject the idea of literal demons.
• 19:01
  They have to. Instead, they'll explain those
• 19:03
  accounts as well, ancient writers using the language of
• 19:07
  their day to describe what was really epilepsy or
• 19:09
  schizophrenia. The outcome is predetermined by
• 19:12
  the modern viewpoint. So the art part isn't a
• 19:15
  replacement for the science, it's more like the governor of
• 19:18
  it. It steers the methodological
• 19:20
  tools within a framework that submits to divine authority.
• 19:24
  That's a perfect way to put it. We're guided by our belief that
• 19:28
  this book is God's communication, and that starting
• 19:31
  point acts as a positive check on methods that would undermine
• 19:34
  its truthfulness. We reject approaches that treat
• 19:37
  the Bible as just another human document with errors because our
• 19:41
  view of God's nature and veracity the art prohibits.
• 19:44
  It the science gives you the data, the art gives you the
• 19:46
  context and sensitivity to grasp what that data means.
• 19:50
  Yes, what it means for the church and for the individual.
• 19:52
  Now, to make sure the art doesn't just run away with the
• 19:55
  science, we need a fixed objective benchmark.
• 19:58
  We need the original meaning. Our sources use speech act
• 20:01
  theory to define that fixed meaning.
• 20:04
  Specifically, the relationship between locution and elocution.
• 20:09
  This seems to be key for affirming the trustworthiness of
• 20:12
  Scripture while also acknowledging its human
• 20:14
  presentation. This distinction is, I think,
• 20:18
  one of the most intellectually freeing concepts in
• 20:20
  hermeneutics. It directly addresses that
• 20:23
  perceived conflict between divine truth and human standards
• 20:27
  of precision. And the fixed meaning we're
• 20:29
  after is the author's intended message, found primarily at the
• 20:32
  elocutionary level. That's right.
• 20:34
  OK, let's define the components of speech act theory, and let's
• 20:37
  make sure we hit all three. We start with locution.
• 20:39
  What is that? Locution is the physical act of
• 20:41
  speaking or writing. It's the actual words on the
• 20:43
  page, the surface statements, and our sources recognize that
• 20:47
  locutions can sometimes contain imprecisions or use descriptive
• 20:51
  language that isn't technically perfect by our modern standards.
• 20:54
  Because they have to accommodate culture or genre.
• 20:56
  Exactly. Can you give us a standard
• 20:58
  example of that kind of locutionary imprecision?
• 21:00
  The most common 1 is probably the reporting of huge numbers
• 21:04
  like the 600,000 men leaving Egypt and Exodus.
• 21:07
  That specific precise count is the locution.
• 21:11
  But ancient writers often use big numbers as a form of
• 21:14
  hyperbole to communicate magnitude, not a precise census
• 21:18
  count. Correct.
• 21:19
  Another example is the locution in Isaiah where all the trees of
• 21:23
  the field will clap their hands. The words are there, but the
• 21:25
  surface articulation describes something physically impossible.
• 21:29
  OK, now for the core of the fixed meaning elocution.
• 21:33
  Elocution is the author's intent, it's the purpose behind
• 21:36
  the statement, the commutative act the writer wanted to
• 21:38
  perform. And the critical point is this
• 21:41
  while the locutions might accommodate ancient conventions,
• 21:44
  the elocutions, the author's intentions superintended by the
• 21:47
  Holy Spirit, they do not err or fail to convey God's message.
• 21:52
  So applying this, the locutionary number in Exodus
• 21:54
  might be imprecised by modern standards, but the elocution is
• 21:57
  trustworthy, yes. The trustworthy elocution, the
• 22:00
  fixed intended message, was to communicate that the crowd
• 22:03
  leaving Egypt was huge, just vast, emphasizing God's
• 22:07
  miraculous deliverance. And in the Isaiah example, the
• 22:10
  elocution is about a time of absolute joy and jubilation in
• 22:13
  creation. The truth, the message, is in
• 22:16
  the elocution, not in the literal possibility of trees
• 22:19
  growing hands. This distinction is also really
• 22:22
  helpful for handling apparent contradictions, like the two
• 22:25
  proverbs about how to answer a fool a.
• 22:27
  Perfect case study Proverbs 26. Verse 4 says do not answer a
• 22:32
  fool according to his folly. Verse 5 immediately says, answer
• 22:36
  a fool according to his folly. On the locutionary level, they
• 22:39
  conflict. They absolutely conflict, but
• 22:41
  their truth is easy to grasp at the illocutionary level because
• 22:44
  their intentions are distinct and clear.
• 22:47
  Verse 4 is a warning. Don't stoop to the fool's level
• 22:51
  and become like him. Verse 5 is a strategy.
• 22:54
  Expose the fool's arrogance by showing him the absurdity of his
• 22:57
  own logic. The fixed meaning is an
• 22:59
  understanding the different purpose behind each statement,
• 23:02
  right? This principle must be a game
• 23:04
  changer for looking at the gospel accounts where you often
• 23:07
  have different chronologies or details of the same event, like
• 23:09
  the resurrection. It is if we demand perfect
• 23:13
  scientific chronological lockstep across 4 independent
• 23:16
  testimonies, the locution we will find variations, but if we
• 23:21
  affirm the illocutionary intent. Which is to convey the
• 23:25
  historical factual reality that Jesus was physically
• 23:28
  resurrected. Then the variations in reporting
• 23:30
  details, the locutions, don't undermine the fixed
• 23:34
  authoritative truth of the message.
• 23:36
  We affirm the authors intended to convey historical fact
• 23:40
  regardless of the specific details they chose to highlight.
• 23:42
  OK, and we have to address the third element perlocution.
• 23:45
  We didn't define it earlier, but it completes the cycle.
• 23:48
  Right. Perlocution is the effect of the
• 23:49
  speech act on the listener or reader.
• 23:52
  So if elocution is the author's intent, perlocution is the
• 23:55
  desired response. Like conviction or faith or
• 23:58
  obedience? Exactly, locution is the words,
• 24:00
  elocution is the meaning and perlocution is the result.
• 24:03
  And why is it so important to distinguish perlocution from the
• 24:06
  other two? Because perlocution is
• 24:08
  subjective and it's variable, the author might intend for a
• 24:11
  reader to feel conviction and repent.
• 24:13
  That's the illocutionary purpose.
• 24:15
  But a hardened reader might respond with anger and
• 24:18
  rejection. That's the perlocutionary
• 24:19
  result. We can't determine the fixed
• 24:21
  meaning of the text based on its effect on us.
• 24:24
  We can't. Meaning is fixed in the author's
• 24:27
  intent. The illocution application is
• 24:30
  secondary and it has to be guided by that fixed meaning.
• 24:33
  This whole distinction seems crucial unless interpreters
• 24:36
  affirm the trustworthiness of God's message while still
• 24:39
  dealing with the, you know, the human element of communication.
• 24:42
  It does, but it requires A governing theological framework
• 24:46
  to work. The evangelical presuppositions
• 24:49
  have to control the methodology. We hold the Bible to be a divine
• 24:52
  human book, authoritative and true, and that dictates our
• 24:55
  whole stance. Can you describe that
• 24:57
  relationship? How does seeing it as a divine
• 25:00
  human book constrain our interpretation?
• 25:02
  We hold that God superintended the human writers so that what
• 25:06
  they wrote was precisely His message.
• 25:08
  This means two things for us. 1st, we have to accept the
• 25:12
  miraculous as factual, because the authority of the divine
• 25:14
  author validates those claims. Second, our assumption of
• 25:19
  truthfulness means that when we see a perceived conflict, we
• 25:22
  have to assume the problem is with our insufficient data, not
• 25:26
  with an error in the text. This framework makes it
• 25:29
  illegitimate to use methods that start by denying the Bible's
• 25:32
  divine claims. Like rejecting the possibility
• 25:35
  of predictive prophecy based on a modern secular timeline.
• 25:39
  Exactly. The authority of the text itself
• 25:41
  has to govern which methods are even admissible.
• 25:43
  OK, so interpretation is this necessary tension between
• 25:47
  objective methods, the science, and subjective guidance, the
• 25:50
  art, all governed by the author's fixed intent for this
• 25:53
  whole process to move us successfully through that
• 25:56
  hermeneutical spiral. The sources list 5 essential
• 25:59
  qualifications. These are the internal and
• 26:01
  external checks that help ensure our study is faithful and
• 26:04
  accurate. We can group them into two
• 26:05
  categories. There are the spiritual
• 26:07
  foundations which give us the right orientation, and then the
• 26:10
  objective correctives which provide the constraints.
• 26:13
  Let's start with the spiritual foundations.
• 26:16
  First and most obvious, a reasoned faith in the God who
• 26:20
  reveals. This is just non negotiable for
• 26:22
  full comprehension. To understand a book offered by
• 26:26
  God, you have to know the author.
• 26:28
  Faith gives you the spiritual sensitivity.
• 26:30
  You need to grasp the significance of the message, the
• 26:33
  saving truth, the redemptive purpose.
• 26:36
  Without it, the text is just an ancient document.
• 26:39
  But if we stop there, we fall into the trap of thinking face
• 26:42
  guarantees accuracy it. Absolutely does not.
• 26:45
  Faith guarantees the capacity to apprehend significance, but it
• 26:48
  does not guarantee correct interpretation.
• 26:50
  The believer is still obligated to defend and demonstrate the
• 26:53
  validity of their interpretation using rational, rigorous
• 26:56
  methods. So you can't just say I believe
• 26:58
  this is true because of my faith and leave it at that.
• 27:01
  No. You have to be able to show how
• 27:03
  you got to that meaning through a careful study of the texts,
• 27:06
  grammar and context. Otherwise the interpretation is
• 27:09
  suspect. The second qualification is
• 27:12
  about our posture, A willingness to obey its message.
• 27:16
  This is the practical check against treating the Bible like
• 27:19
  some philosophical curiosity. Full understanding is promised
• 27:23
  to the sincere follower, to the person willing to submit to the
• 27:26
  text and actually practice its message.
• 27:29
  If we just study it for intellectual points, we lose its
• 27:32
  voice and its authority in our lives.
• 27:35
  And the critique here is that any application has to be tied
• 27:38
  to the historical meaning. Without a doubt, obedience
• 27:41
  follows the fixed historical meaning of the text, the
• 27:44
  elocution. If we prioritize finding some
• 27:48
  immediate, subjective modern application while abandoning the
• 27:51
  original historical reference, Scripture loses its
• 27:54
  normativeness. We have to figure out what it
• 27:56
  meant there and then before we can figure out what it means
• 27:58
  here and now all. Right.
• 27:59
  The third spiritual qualification is the
• 28:01
  illumination of the Holy Spirit. What is the Spirit's specific
• 28:04
  job in this process, and how does it connect to all our hard
• 28:07
  work? The spirit gives the believer an
• 28:09
  internal capacity for dynamic comprehension.
• 28:13
  It's at a HA moment of enlightenment about Scripture's
• 28:16
  significance and its application to your life.
• 28:19
  The Spirit is what makes the words of the Bible a word from
• 28:22
  God for you personally. And the sources give a pretty
• 28:25
  stern warning against thinking the spirit replaces methodology.
• 28:29
  They call it veiled egotism to claim you only need the spirit
• 28:32
  while you neglect careful study. It's an arrogant assumption that
• 28:36
  your personal internal feeling is enough without the external
• 28:39
  checks of historical and grammatical rigor.
• 28:42
  So the spirit works through the methods.
• 28:44
  Within and through them, Yes, illumination enhances your
• 28:47
  apprehension. It doesn't replace the need for
• 28:49
  sound exegesis. Prayer is an indispensable
• 28:52
  ingredient, but it is not a shortcut around doing your
• 28:54
  homework in Greek and Hebrew. OK, that brings us to the
• 28:57
  objective and corrective qualifications, the external
• 29:00
  checks. The 4th qualification is a
• 29:02
  willingness to employ appropriate methods.
• 29:05
  This is the rigor we talked about earlier.
• 29:06
  It demands diligence and a pursuit of excellence in
• 29:09
  language, history, culture, literary genres.
• 29:13
  The methods provide the objective constraints.
• 29:16
  They are the surveying tools that check our internal map.
• 29:19
  And why do we have to keep saying that tactical precision
• 29:21
  alone isn't enough? Because the framework dictates
• 29:24
  the results, we have to use these methods within the
• 29:27
  framework of presupposing the Bible's divine status.
• 29:30
  We use the best methods of historical criticism, but we
• 29:34
  reject any philosophical assumption, like secular
• 29:37
  naturalism, that denies the text's own claim to be God's
• 29:41
  authoritative word. The method has to be subordinate
• 29:44
  to the presupposition of divine truth.
• 29:46
  And finally, the crucial external check that pulls us out
• 29:50
  of our own isolated subjectivity.
• 29:52
  Membership in the church. Communal accountability.
• 29:55
  Individualism is the breeding ground for error and for
• 29:57
  sectarianism. The community, both your local
• 30:00
  church and the worldwide body of Christ, provides essential
• 30:03
  accountability. It offers enrichment, historical
• 30:06
  perspective from the confessions and creeds, and most critically,
• 30:09
  a way to check your perceptions and affirm their validity.
• 30:11
  So if an interpretation is correct, it shouldn't just feel
• 30:14
  right to me, it should bring true to the broader body.
• 30:17
  Exactly when the evidence is openly assessed within the
• 30:20
  believing community, the interpretation should resonate
• 30:24
  with the collective wisdom and orthodox understanding that
• 30:27
  God's people have maintained over centuries.
• 30:30
  This guards against those highly personalized, often self-serving
• 30:33
  conclusions that pop up when someone interprets Scripture
• 30:36
  without any reference to the Church's historical perspective
• 30:40
  or the community around them. The corporate context is God's
• 30:43
  antidote to maverick readings. I think so.
• 30:45
  So those five elements, faith, obedience, illumination methods,
• 30:50
  and church membership, they all have to work together.
• 30:53
  They operate synergistically. You need the spirit to grasp the
• 30:57
  significance, but you need grammar and history to strain
• 31:00
  the meaning. We have covered a lot of ground
• 31:02
  today. The goal of objective
• 31:04
  understanding requires this conscious ongoing process of
• 31:07
  evaluating and revising our pre understandings of embracing the
• 31:11
  progressive nature of the hermeneutical spiral.
• 31:13
  And the ultimate governing principle is always the fixed
• 31:16
  meaning intended by the author, which we find at the
• 31:19
  illocutionary level. Interpretation succeeds when we
• 31:22
  understand that original meaning.
• 31:24
  So what does this all mean for you, the reader?
• 31:27
  Interpretation is a rigorous, lifelong process of growth where
• 31:31
  you have to intentionally invite the text to correct your
• 31:35
  assumptions. You have to drink it at the well
• 31:37
  of rational methods, the science, while letting your work
• 31:41
  be guided by your faith, the art.
• 31:44
  The process of moving toward a biblically oriented pre
• 31:47
  understanding is fundamentally about humility.
• 31:49
  It's like a cartographer who starts with their own subjective
• 31:52
  location, their biased map, but they use objective surveying
• 31:56
  tools, the methods and community knowledge, the church, to
• 31:59
  correct that initial view until their map finally aligns with
• 32:03
  the fixed geography which is the texts intended objective
• 32:06
  meaning. That submission is the constant
• 32:09
  tension of interpreting the Word of God.
• 32:11
  And here's a thought for you to carry forward from this If your
• 32:14
  study is truly spirit LED and methodologically rigorous, that
• 32:17
  means you're in the middle of the spiral right now.
• 32:19
  You are. So what specific cultural or
• 32:21
  ideological conviction might the scripture be challenging or
• 32:24
  transforming in your life at this moment, forcing you to
• 32:27
  admit that a previous assumption was flawed?
• 32:30
  That discomfort is proof that you're hearing God's voice and
• 32:33
  not just your own echo. A difficult but necessary
• 32:36
  question to ask. Thank you for joining us for
• 32:39
  this deep dive into the world of hermeneutics.
• 32:41
  We look forward to seeing how your own interpretations grow in
• 32:43
  the spiral.