Do you have a Bible verse[s] to back up your hermeneutic?

This was a question I posed to a guy on an ordination council. It however haunted me for a while until my hermeneutic adjusted to match a Biblical practice.

So for me, my hermeneutic is a Christocentric one (John 5:39; Luke 24:27, 44-47; 2 Cor. 1:20; Gal. 3:16). This means there will be figural understandings many times. There will be canonical understandings (inter & intra-textuality). There will be a theological interpretation of scripture (TIS) considering the Author. And my interpretation should be guided by the meta-narrative of Scripture (the gospel in all its comprehensive form; the kingdom; the covenants; the presence of God; the mission of God to bless the nations; and other Biblical theological motifs).

What is your hermeneutic, and do you have a verse to back it up?

 

The way the apostles in the NT use the OT often goes against the "plain and literal" meaning of the text. They would frequently interpret it with a theological/messianic/Christocentric motif (Matt. 2 being a good example and Acts 15:16ff. being the best acid test).

Your second question seems somewhat arbitrary. After all, isn't proper exegesis of a verse (no matter what the translation) best done in the original languages? I don't care much about the "rule guiding interpreting via translations."

Not sure what you mean by "Christ centered view" or if I explained a Christocentric hermeneutic well. But I am leaning towards a canon within a canon approach to understanding Scripture. I like the understanding of the early church where the 4-fold gospel account is the keystone of the Bible archway. Jesus is the goal of the OT. Redemption is being initiated in Abraham, extended in and to Israel for the sake of the nations at the Exodus, renewed in David, and accomplished in Jesus. It is ultimately consummated at the new creation when the reign of God is re-established as it was in the garden of eden.

Your last question was a bit confusing. Could you rephrase or clarify?

 

Even though none of those speak on interpretation at all (at least not in the sense of literal or figural or something else).

 

Read Amos 9:11ff. and interpret that passage first. Then come back to Acts 15 and see how the apostles interpreted and applied it to their own setting. Pretty interesting hermeneutic they apply. Definitely not "literal".

 

Not to be rude... but what basis do you claim to apply "plain logic in a spiritual sense" to the text of Scripture. As something as important as hermeneutics (since it will inevitably affect all other areas in one way or another), it would seem that "bible-believers" would want biblical support for their hermeneutic.

 

This is why I mentioned Acts 15. It was not just "under inspiration" what Luke recorded. It was the way the early church used the OT scriptures to verify the ingathering of the Gentiles with the understanding that the restoration of Israel has begun. We can't just say "they had the HS" b/c we have the same HS. Acts demonstrates the hermeneutical practices of the early church. Luke records those facts. He doesn't make the same kind of interpretations as Matthew does in Matt. 2. So I think that is more of a cop-out.

That is fine and well and good. But it makes no difference in your basic interpretive philosophy.

Your sentiment is admirable, but you are assuming the biblical writers wrote from a western understanding post-enlightenment. Not to mention that you have not provided a verse to verify your claim of interpretation in the "plain and literal" meaning. Not to mention further that this was not the practice of the early church. The pre-modern mindset sought for figural understandings and christological understandings. WEre they always right? Probably not. Did they offer great insight into the apostle's doctrine? I think yes. At the very least, they offer great insight into the apostles use of Scripture since they are so close in time to the apostles. This matches 2nd temple literature better than the "plain & literal" camp of hermeneutics.

 

Except you do not list any verses to back up your modernistic, post-enlightenment hermeneutic that was never in the minds of the authors of Scripture.

Plus... Luke records the practice of the early church in Acts. He is not changing their words to make a theological point. The way in which the apostles interpret the OT is very telling in the early church. What Luke does in Acts is not the same as Matthew's use of the OT. Not that I agree that being an apostle gives you a special hermeneutic. After all, Jesus had to explain to them repeatedly that the OT was about him. He even promised that they would remember these things when the Spirit was given to them. And we have that same Spirit in us, given to us.

 

Still no Bible verse to back up your claim. That was my problem too when I held to a plain & literal view.

Plus, you keep arguing from a modernistic, post-enlightenment understanding of literature. This is foreign to the authors of Scripture. What justification is there for such an approach.

You also seem to ignore the fact that the early church practiced figural/messianic interpretation demonstrated in Acts 15. This was not just the apostles either. This was the church in Jerusalem. So you can't just claim the revelation/inspiration battle cry b/c this was their method of interpreting Amos.

Hope this is a good discussion. I'm enjoying it!

 

Perhaps I should define plain and literal. But I would imagine it is the similar meaning as you. I think both words are self explanatory.

But Acts 15 is not just about the apostles but the entire church at Jerusalem. It is the way the early church interpreted the OT. They looked at things messianically, figurally, intracanonically. I think we would do well to emulate that.

And I might argue that since we are to follow the apostles model of faith and practice, then we should find the christological meaning of a verse in the OT b/c they taught us to do so would be correct.

And I am not talking about a 100% correct interpretation. We know that what they wrote in Scripture is 100% correct b/c it is also inspired. But we are given revelation and should do our best to follow the practice of the early church starting w/ the apostles.