Principles of Interpretation or Conclusions?
I’m always happy to see discussion about principles of interpretation of scripture, because in general when we have large differences of opinion between Christians they can be traced back to our approach to interpreting scripture and more broadly to our understanding of how doctrine is formed. Thus I was delighted to see General Principles for the Interpretation of Scripture listed in this week’s Christian Carnival.
I’m responding here to a couple of potential points of disagreement, but I don’t want this to overshadow my appreciation for having someone lay out their principles so they can be discussed. It is so incredibly important that we talk about how we come to an understanding of scripture and acknowledge those principles. In pursuit of that, my own principles can be found in extended form in the participatory study method, and one of my key principles in Hanging Biblical Interpretation. The latter essay is subject to the same criticisms I’m expressing here–in fact, I’m not sure we can avoid these criticisms.
The issue can be illustrated very simply. Quoting:
The Scripture is infallible.
John 10:35 (Very Literal)
. . . the Scripture is not able to be broken.
What we have done here is interpreted the text in order to produce a principle of interpretation. Now if you think about it, you are likely to believe I’m being quite unfair. If you read my own essay, listed above, you will be even more convinced I’m being unfair. How else does one proceed? It’s a fundamental of inductive Bible study. But at the same time it’s one of our problems.
I recall a visit from a very earnest young couple who wanted to save my soul. Their ardor for this task was not dimmed when I told them that I was a Christian and involved in a church. I didn’t mind talking with them, so we settled in to talk about salvation and eventually the topic worked its way around to faith and works. (You can see some of my own thoughts at A Fruitful Faith.) At one point in the argument he separated out a single phrase in a text and said that it applied to a different dispensation. He further claimed that his dispensational view was totally derived from scripture. In my experience, however, what is derived from scripture through a fully dispensational approach differs quite a bit from what others derive from scripture.
In the case of the particular argument before us, can one justifiably move from the text to infallibility and make that a fundamental principle of Bible study? I think one would have to ask precisely what the scripture was intended to accomplish and how. The phrase “broken scripture” cries out for definition. In the case of John 10:35 it was a particular application to Jesus that could not be broken. But how does that become a basic principle of interpretation?
I would suggest that it has to go through testing. In other words, I don’t have to begin my approach to scripture with the view that it is going to produce no errors or contradictions, or that it will provide me with true propositions. I would take John 10:35 with me to many different scriptures and ask just how it functioned in those contexts. I’m assuming that Mr. Harvey Bluedorn, who wrote the article I’m referencing, has done precisely that, and has found through testing that this principle continues to apply. Some may think that is a bit circular, but I would suggest it’s no more circular than life. If I touch a hot stove and get burned (hopefully only when I was younger!) I may conclude that the single object in question is dangerous. Through testing of that principle, perhaps a bit more carefully, I’ll find out just how universal my insight is, and how it applies.
But for those who are just starting out perhaps that principle will require some testing. I think I come to some different conclusions along the line. The key here, however, is to know the principles you are applying, and to test them, especially by interacting with others to test your conclusions. Can you back them up?