Bovine Droppings in the House of Prayer - 5. Hermeneutics

This will probably be the final paper of this series that relates directly to Scripture as such, and is a rather difficult one to write for one, like the present writer, who insists on responsible use of Scripture and a fairly rigid orthodoxy of doctrine.
There is a lot of truly dreadful “interpretation” of Scripture being done. There is a dismaying lot of doctrine built upon passages wrest from their context and thoroughly misunderstood. There is, I think, more eisegesis than exegesis being done—more of reading preconceived ideas into the text than of deriving doctrine from the text. There is, moreover, an appalling ignorance among Biblical interpreters of such niceties as historical background, identity of author and audience, and original language, and, just lately, a lot of theology being derived from inadequate contemporary translations.
Opposed to this wasteland of misinterpretation there is a well-developed set of principles which goes under the name of hermeneutics, a set of instructions about context and background, and generally on the ways the intended meaning can be derived from any document. Historical records, scientific texts, other factual and philosophical works, and even works of fiction can be approached in this way and their meaning discerned.
Scripture, too, is usefully approached through the tested rules of hermeneutics. Much is to be learned, and much is to be gained in this way, and one is protected from the worst kinds of misinterpretation, and yet . . .
Jesus said, ‘Search the Scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life, but they are they which testify of me.’ He said this to the Pharisees, who were satisfied that their interpretation of Scripture was thorough and accurate. Jesus seems to have agreed with that, for another thing he said about them was that people should listen to what the Pharisees taught, because ‘they sit in Moses’ seat.’ Sound interpretation, accurate interpretation, even valuable interpretation, but interpretation that was unable to find Jesus—and He is the reason for the Book, both Old and New Testaments.
One of the things that perplex liberal scholars and even many conservative Evangelicals is the use of Old Testament texts by the New Testament writers. Most of the prophetic statements quoted and applied to the Christ are far from obvious in context. In very truth some of them, at least, when read in their original context, appear to be saying something entirely other than what, say, Matthew quotes them as saying. Furthermore, Paul’s extensive use of OT scripture would get a failing grade from any hermeneutics professor. He wrests from context, makes truly surprising applications, and fails ever to take background into consideration. What’s going on?
The word of God is quick [alive] and powerful [effective] and sharper than any twoedged sword piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. (Hebrews 4:12)
In effect, it’s alive, and does what a mere unliving book cannot do. It reads the reader. It speaks individually to the individual listener. It says more to those who will seek it out than it appears to be saying. It is, in some sense, the incarnate Christ Himself. The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us . . . refers not only to Bethlehem, but also to the written Word that He has chosen to inhabit. God is in it, and He is not a tame God. He does what He wills. Thus it is that readers of Scripture are often surprised. Often, yea very often, one hears in Scripture things that one cannot actually find on the page. Sometimes one is impressed with a teaching truly Biblical, yet not really supported by the particular passage at hand. Many have come to a saving knowledge of Christ through a completely mistaken understanding of a verse.
I find it no wonder that the dispute raged for so many centuries as to whether the Bible should be understood literally or allegorically. Some of the early Fathers did one, and some the other. Who was right? Both . . . and neither. To refuse to reason out the plain meaning of Scripture is to deny that there is a reliable written Word from God, but to bind the Book with unbreakable chains of logic is to banish the living presence of an unbindable God from its pages.
Recommendations

By all means, study the Scriptures systematically, according to good hermeneutical principles. Use the God-given resource of an intelligent mind to find the plain meaning of the text before you. By all means, approach the Bible devotionally. Let it speak as it will to your heart. Hear what it says to you, even outside the plain text you see.
For both reasons Christians, when they gather together, need to listen together to an orderly plan of readings (a lectionary), that Scripture may speak for itself, independently of what explanations teachers may wish to give. Also for both reasons Christians, when they gather together, need to listen together to an orderly and thoughtful teaching of the scriptures
If you learn something new by either approach, hold it loosely. Check with other Christians. Is it in accord with what generations of Christians have found to be true? Is it in accord with what Christians generally believe? If it’s not, it’s most likely a mistake. Though Christ does make everything ’new’, he does not revel in producing ’novelties. If you still believe you have a correct insight not accepted by others, hold it loosely and humbly. It is far better to love than to be correct, and fighting over doctrinal insights is seldom edifying.
But hold fast to the faith once delivered to the saints.

From the droppings of sacred cattle, Good Lord deliver us. Amen.