A Consistently Normal Hermeneutic
We have previously asserted that the goal of biblical interpretation is to arrive at the author’s original and intended meaning as written in the text of Scripture. How, then, should we discern this meaning? I am thoroughly persuaded and will seek to demonstrate that we do this by following a consistently normal hermeneutic. By this, I mean that meaning within any text of Scripture is determined by the normal means of communication, namely the rules of grammar, the dynamics of genre, and the facts of history all in accordance with context. By this, I also mean that meaning is conveyed in the intentions of the original biblical author. Thus, the goal of the biblical interpreter is to ascertain, as accurately as possible, the author’s original intent.
This is what all human communication is based on. In any communication—written, verbal, or otherwise—the goal of the recipient is to interpret whatever symbols are used (e.g., letters, words, sounds, etc.) according to a common, shared understanding so as to ascertain the meaning intended by the source. Only when this is done, can it be said that true, efficacious communication has occurred. When this goal is not reached, communication has not occurred.
The word normal avoids the miscommunication that can occur by using the word literal, which when understood correctly is a perfectly acceptable term. However, normal best encapsulates what I mean because I assume that people already know how to and already currently engage in normal communication. Within normal communication, there is poetry, prose, narrative, figures of speech, parables, jokes, etc. Each category has its own common, shared understanding by which one interprets it so as to arrive at the intended meaning. People already do this constantly with the massive amounts of communication that they engage in every day. Therefore, the term normal indicates that there is absolutely nothing innovative about this methodology.
The word consistently indicates that this normal method of interpretation should be applied to every passage of Scripture, OT and NT. As stated before, this takes into account all of the normal means of communication, including genre. Thus, this is not a whitewashing of poetry nor is it a literalistic approach. Rather, it desires to take seriously every portion of Scripture in its own context and desires for every passage of Scripture to be counted as significant in its own right, without later reinterpretation or modification of meaning. This necessitates against allegorical, typological, and spiritualizing[1] interpretations. In contrast to this position would be any position which maintains that previous revelation (especially the OT) can and should be reinterpreted by subsequent revelation (especially the NT). It also stands in contrast to positions that believe that the meaning of OT passages may develop organically as the progress of revelation proceeds.
Examples in Scripture
I believe that God has spoken clearly in his word through the normal means of communication. We may supply several examples from Scripture to support this. When God first spoke to Adam saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” (Gen 2:16–17), he certainly spoke in language that Adam understood. Adam was not expected to find any different or deeper meaning of God’s words. He was simply to obey what God had clearly commanded.
When God made Abram a covenant and told him, “Know for certain that your offspring will be sojourners in a land that is not theirs and will be servants there, and they will be afflicted for four hundred years. But I will bring judgment on the nation that they serve, and afterward they shall come out with great possessions.” (Gen 15:13-14), was he supposed to understand this in any other way but normally? Apparently, Moses and Stephen both understood this normally instead of allegorizing or spiritualizing it so as to mean something different (Ex 1:11–12; 6:6 12:35–37, 40–41; Acts 7:6–7).
When God spelled out the exact dimensions of the land Abram’s descendants were to inherit by saying, “To your offspring I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates, the land of the Kenites, the Kenizzites, the Kadmonites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Rephaim, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girgashites and the Jebusites” (Gen 15:18-21), was he expected to understand this an any other way besides normally? Again, Moses understood it normally (Ex 3:7–8), Joshua understood it normally (Josh 21:43–45), the psalmist understood it normally (Ps 106:42–45), and Nehemiah understood it normally (Neh 9:7–8). They never reinterpreted it to mean something else.
Finally, when Micah prophesied that the Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem saying, “But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose coming forth is from of old, from ancient days.” (Mi 5:2), did he expect others to understand it in any other way than normally? Apparently, the chief priests and scribes understood it normally (Mt 2:4–6). Even the common people understood it in the same, normal way (Jn 7:42–43).
From this sampling, it may be seen that biblical authors understood previous revelation in a normal way. I believe this is an accurate representation of how all of the biblical authors use previous revelation. In other words, I believe that it is normative for biblical authors to interpret the Scriptures in a consistently normal way. Therefore, we have no precedent to do otherwise. Those who say that biblical authors use previous revelation in a different way must compellingly demonstrate that such is the case. I have found no argument to lead me to such a position.
Additional Distinctions
To the basic definition of a consistently normal hermeneutic, we may add three additional distinctions to clarify this position. First, there is a unity of meaning of the divine author and human author within the whole text of Scripture.[2] This is in contrast to some interpretive models which allow for the possibility of a divinely intended meaning in Scripture that goes beyond the human-intended meaning. This is often classified as sensus plenior (“fuller meaning”). The question may be posed this way, “Is there a divine meaning contained within the text of Scripture that is separate from the meaning intended by the human author?” If there is, a normal hermeneutic is not able by itself to discern that meaning. One must posit some other hermeneutical grid by which he discovers the meaning of the text.
For many, this hermeneutical grid is the “Christ event.” In other words, Christ’s life, death, resurrection, and ascension provide the basis for reinterpreting certain passages of the OT in ways that were not wholly intended by the original authors. This is seen to be acceptable in their view because of the dual authorship of the Bible. One implication that they draw from dual authorship is that there is divinely intended meaning contained within the text of the OT which the original author could not have known. On the other hand, the consistently normal position maintains that the means by which you arrive at the divinely intended meaning of any passage—including in the OT—is to discover the human intended meaning since God through his Holy Spirit superintended the entire process of inspiration (circumstances, author’s experiences, literary skills, etc.) such that the human author was fully aware of what he wrote.
Second, the earliest revelation is the starting place for forming a biblical theology. This is not to say that earlier revelation has “priority” in interpretation. However, it does mean that I believe that God spoke in an understandable way at each stage of revelation. Therefore, one should carry what he knows from previous revelation to the passage under consideration. This does not mean that earlier revelation interprets subsequent revelation but that it provides the necessary context for a proper understanding of it.
Thirdly, the NT authors use the OT in a consistently normal and contextual manner. This touches on the topic of biblical intertextuality (i.e., the use by subsequent authors of a previously written work in some way). But essentially, a normal hermeneutic maintains that the OT authors use previously written revelation within the OT in ways that are consistent with the original intention, and that this hermeneutic is continued into the NT.[3]
Meaning and Significance
Before moving on to a process for determining the meaning of a particular passage, we need to know how to distinguish between meaning and significance. Meaning “refers to the particular ideas of the original author in the text,” while significance “denotes the various valid repercussions, inferences, or implications stemming from the author’s meaning,” which “can include (but is not limited to) the ramifications of a text’s meaning on our lives today or its bearing on a theological topic.”[4] Fuhr and Köstenberger explain,
While the interpretation of the text is reasonably objective and concrete, being tied to authorial intent, application moves into a much more subjective realm, the realm of the reader. Interpretation depends largely on an accurate understanding of words, phrases, and clauses functioning together in biblical discourse, written communication designed to convey the author’s message to his readers. Interpretation can be discovered through a study of the historical, literary, and theological contexts of the original setting in which Scripture was written and received. However, application requires movement from the original context to our contemporary context.[5]
Thus, meaning is determined by words and sentences within grammatical, linguistic, cultural, and historical context, while significance is any other implication or application of that text. But these must remain distinguished from one another. Consider three distinctions we must make.
Distinguish Between Meaning and Personal Application
In reading Scripture, we often come across passages which “really speaks to us.” When we have these moments, we are seeing clearly the relevance a truth from Scripture has for our lives. This is a wonderful thing. However, we must be careful to distinguish between the meaning of a text and its personal application to our lives. Further, we must be certain that our personal application derives from the original meaning of the text at hand. Bernard Ramm has trenchantly explained,
In the intense desire to find something practical or devotional in Scripture, we are in danger of obscuring the literal or genuine meaning of the passage. It may sound harsh to so speak, but not too infrequently a very devotional message is conjured up from the Scriptures by a method of interpretation which is nothing short of trifling or tampering with Scripture. Never should we handle a passage of Scripture in such a way as to distort its original meaning simply because we feel under pressure to find something devotional or spiritual or especially edifying in every passage we are called upon to teach or explain. Let the truth of God be its own blessedness.[6]
We must not confuse meaning and application, and we must ensure that our application comes from a proper understanding of the meaning of Scripture. We must first determine the original meaning of the passage, and only then can we determine what God wants us to do in response.
Distinguish Between Meaning and Later Significance
Often times, earlier passages of Scripture will have new significances applied to them as God progressively reveals more of his mind. This does not change the original meaning of the passage but does deepen its significance. Let us look at an example for illustration. Consider Genesis 3:15 for a moment:
I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel. (Gen 3:15)
Does this text in its original context speak of a man called Jesus who is truly God and truly human, who lived a sinless life, who died on a cross, was buried, and three days rose again so that sinners might receive the forgiveness of sin? No, of course not. It speaks of one who will one day have victory over the serpent. No greater detail is given within this text. We get a hint of the extent of what people understood from this promise in Gen 5:29 when Lamech fathers Noah and says, “[He] called his name Noah, saying, ‘Out of the ground that the LORD has cursed, this one shall bring us relief from our work and from the painful toil of our hands.’” They were looking for someone but did not know all of the details.
Now, is it right to see Jesus, in all his person and work, to be the fulfillment of this promise? Certainly! However, that reality does not change the meaning or cause the meaning of Gen 3:15 to develop. Rather, now on this side of the cross, further along in the progress of revelation, we have greater clarity regarding the significances of this passage. Nothing has changed concerning its meaning. The words of the text and the intention and understanding of Moses in writing them down remains the same. In this sense, then, meaning is static while significance is dynamic.
Another example of this is when an author of Scripture will quote a previously written passage of Scripture and apply it to a particular situation. In doing so, the author is not reinterpreting the previous revelation but is recognizing a valid application of it. An example of this can be found in Paul’s use of Dt 25:4 in 1 Cor 9:9–10 in order to support why gospel ministers should be able to accept payment for their work. We read,
Do I say these things on human authority? Does not the Law say the same? For it is written in the Law of Moses, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain.” Is it for oxen that God is concerned? Does he not certainly speak for our sake? It was written for our sake, because the plowman should plow in hope and the thresher thresh in hope of sharing in the crop. If we have sown spiritual things among you, is it too much if we reap material things from you? If others share this rightful claim on you, do not we even more? (1 Cor 9:8–12)
It is clear from Dt 25:4 that Moses did indeed speak of oxen. However, the law was also intended to be a teaching guide to truth. Further, all of the laws in the Mosaic Law have timeless principles that undergird them. In this case, Paul is drawing on these principles to make an application to his contemporary situation. Although Paul applied significance to the passage that Moses did not necessarily specifically foresee, the meaning of the original is unchanged.
Distinguish Between Meaning and Relevance to Theology
In systematic theology, we seek to understand what the whole testimony of Scripture says concerning a topic. The process starts by examining passages of Scripture which directly speak to that issue. However, there are many times that we can gain insight into theological topics from passages which do not directly address them but have significant implications. Jesus engages in this task as he is reasoning with the Sadducees who denied the resurrection. In Mt 22:32, he quotes Ex 3:6 to support his claim that the resurrection is a reality. We read, “And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God: ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not God of the dead, but of the living” (Mt 22:30–32). In its original context, Ex 3:6 did not intend to give a detailed defense of the resurrection. However, Jesus makes a valid implication from the text which demonstrates the reality of the resurrection.
[1] I am not arguing that the Bible is not a spiritual book. I am arguing that it is wrong to spiritualize the normal meaning of a text in such a way that it is interpreted to mean something that it did not originally mean. I believe that the Bible, when properly and normally understood, is magnificently spiritual on its own. We have no need to attempt adding to it in that regard.
[2] Contra Tremper Longman III, Literary Approaches to Biblical Interpretation, vol. 3 of Foundations of Contemporary Interpretation (Grand Rapids, MI: Academie Books, 1987), 65, who states, “God is the ultimate author of the Scriptures, so it must be said that final meaning resides in His intention. Of course, He condescended to reveal His message to the biblical authors, who did not write in a trance but had conscious intentions of their own. But it is wrong to equate fully the intention of God with that of the human author. For instance, the application in the New Testament of an Old Testament text frequently exceeds the obvious meaning intended by the author of the latter.”
[3] For a thorough defense of this position, see Abner Chou, The Hermeneutics of the Biblical Writers: Learning to Interpret Scripture from the Prophets and Apostles (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2018).
[4] Ibid., 32.
[5] Richard Alan Jr. Fuhr and Andreas J. Köstenberger, Inductive Bible Study: Observation, Interpretation, and Application through the Lenses of History, Literature, and Theology (Nashville, Tennessee: B&H Academic, 2016), 290.
[6] Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation, 186. To preachers, he further says, “The preacher must always distinguish the initial meaning of the text from the particular application he makes with it…It is therefore mandatory for a preacher to realize that interpretation of the meaning of the text is one thing, and the range of application is another, and that he must always keep these two matters separate…In the devotional use of Scripture there is again the temptation to presume that a devotional thought or two gathered from the text is the original meaning of the text” (ibid., 113).
A Boy and His Bible 