Hermeneutics

Hermeneutics
1. Introduction
Hermeneutics is not isolated from other fields of biblical study. It is related to study of the canon, textual
criticism, historical criticism, exegesis and biblical and systematic theology.

Until Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher, Biblical hermeneutics was usually seen as a form of special
hermeneutics (like legal hermeneutics): the status of Holy Scripture was thought to necessitate a particular form
of understanding and interpretation.

Since the days of Schleiermacher, it has become increasingly common, at least in academia, to read Scripture just
like any other writing, though precisely what that means is not without dispute. Schleiermacher argued against a
distinction between 'general' and 'special' hermeneutics, and for a general theory of hermeneutics applicable to all
texts, including the Bible.

Since Schleiermacher's days, the concept of hermeneutics has acquired at least two different (related but
nevertheless distinct) meanings, both of which are in use today. First, Biblical hermeneutics may be understood as
the theological principles of exegesis; in fact, it is often virtually synonymous with 'principles of biblical
interpretation', or methodology of Biblical exegesis. Second, the more recent development is to understand the
term 'Biblical hermeneutics' as the broader philosophy, linguistics etc. underpinnings of interpretation. The
question is posed: "How is understanding possible?" The rationale of this approach is that, while Scripture is
'more than just an ordinary text', it is in the first instance 'text', which human beings try to understand; in this
sense, the principles of understanding any text apply to the Bible as well.

In this second sense, all aspects of philosophical, linguistic, etc. hermeneutics are considered to be applicable to
the Biblical texts as well. There are obvious examples of this in the links between 20th century philosophy and
Christian theology. For example, Rudolf Bultmann’s hermeneutical approach was strongly influenced by
existentialism, and in particular by the philosophy of Martin Heidegger; and since the 1970s, the philosophical
hermeneutics of Hans-Georg Gadamer have had a wide-ranging influence on Biblical hermeneutics as developed
by a wide range of Christian theologians.

This particular form of theological hermeneutics, especially within the mainstream Protestant tradition, considers
Christian Biblical hermeneutics in the tradition of explication of the text, or exegesis, to deal with various
principles that can be applied to the study of Scripture. If it is axiomatic that the canon of Scripture must be an
organic whole, rather than an accumulation of disparate individual texts written and edited in the course of
history, then any interpretation that contradicts any other part of scripture is not considered to be sound. Thus
Biblical hermeneutics differs from hermeneutics as generally understood. Within such traditional Protestant
theology, there are a variety of interpretive formulae. Such formulae are generally not mutually exclusive, and
interpreters may adhere to several of these approaches at once.

To be a good interpreter, thus, one must learn the rules of hermeneutics as well as the art of applying those
approaches.

2. Definitions of the terminology

The word hermeneutics is said to have had its origin in the name Hermes, the Greek god who served as messenger
for the gods, transmitting and interpreting their communications to their fortunate, or often unfortunate, recipients.

In its technical meaning, hermeneutics is often defined as the science and art of biblical interpretation.
Hermeneutics is considered as science because it has rules and these rules can be classified into an orderly system.
Thus, it is a science of interpretation. It is considered an art because communication is flexible, and therefore, a
mechanical and rigid application of rules will sometimes distort the true meaning of communication.

1 Jibu Ninan
Hermeneutics

Webster’s dictionaries define hermeneutics as a science of interpretation or have finding the meaning of author’s
words and phrases and explain it to others. It is science because it is concerned with the principles with in and
ordered system. It is an art, because it has an application.

Biblical hermeneutics is the study of the principles of interpretation concerning the books of the Bible. It is part
of the broader field of hermeneutics which involves not just the study of principles for the text, but includes all
forms of communication: verbal, nonverbal and written. It is a science of interpreting the Bible.

Hermeneutical theory is sometimes divided into two sub-categories-general and special hermeneutics. General
hermeneutics is the study of those rules that govern interpretation of the entire biblical text. It includes the topics
of historical cultural, contextual, lexical-syntactical, and theology analyses. Special hermeneutics is the study of
those rules that apply to specific genres, such as parables, allegories, types, and prophecy.

Hermeneutics are two kinds. The general and special hermeneutics. The general hermeneutics deal with context,
language, history and culture. Special hermeneutics deal with figures of speech, symbols, poetry, prophecy,
typology, doctrinal teachings and various literary forms.

3. The need for hermeneutics

Understanding of what we hear or read is usually spontaneous and the rules by which we interpret meaning occur
automatically and unconsciously. When something blocks that spontaneous understanding of the meaning, we
become more aware of the process we use to understand. Hermeneutics is essentially a codification of the
processes we normally use at an unconscious level to understand the meaning of a communication. The more
blocks to spontaneous understanding, the greater the need for hermeneutics. When interpret the scripture, there are
several blocks to a spontaneous understanding of the original meaning of the message. Such as:-

1. A Historical gap/ A Time gap

It is caused by the fact that we are widely separated in time from the original writers and readers. Because of the
extensive time gap between ourselves and the written and initial readers of the Bible, a huge chasm exists. Thus, it
is difficult to discover firsthand the meaning of what they wrote.
2. A Cultural gap / A Customs gap
It is resulting from the fact that there are significant differences between the culture of the ancient Hebrews and
our contemporary one. The differences between the two can result in serious misunderstanding of the meaning of
biblical words and actions. Great differences exist between the way people in the western world do things and
think and the way people in Bible lands lived and thought. Therefore, it is important to know the cultures and
customs of peoples in Bible times.
3. A Linguistic gap
There is a chasm between our way of speaking and writing and the way people in Bible times spoke and wrote.
The Bible was written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek- three languages that have very different structures and
idioms from our own.
4. A Philosophical gap
Views of life, of circumstances, of the nature of the universe differ among various cultures. To transmit message
validity from one culture to another, a translator or reader must be aware of both the similarities and the contrast
in world views.
5. A Space gap
Most readers of the Bible today live thousands of miles from the countries where bible events took place. The
Middle East, Egypt and the southern Mediterranean nations of present-day Europe were the places where Bible
people lived and traveled. This geographical distance puts us a block in understanding the real meaning.
4. The history of the Biblical hermeneutics
The historical survey makes use of material found in classic works on hermeneutics, to which the reader is
referred for more extensive coverage.

4.1. The ancient Jewish period

2 Jibu Ninan
Hermeneutics
The history of biblical interpretation usually begins with the work of Ezra. On their return from the Babylonian
exile, the people of Israel requested to Ezra read from the Pentateuch Neh. 8:8. Since the Israelites had probably
lost their understanding of Hebrew during the exilic period, most biblical scholars assume that Ezra and his
helpers translated to Hebrew text and read it aloud in Aramaic, adding explanations to make the meaning clear.
Thus began the science and art of biblical interpretation.

The scribes took great care in copying the scriptures, believing every letter of the text to be the inspired word of
God. The rabbis presupposed that since God is the author of scripture, (1) the interpreter could expect numerous
meaning in a given text, and (2) every incidental detail of the text possessed significance Rabbie Akiba, in the first
century A.D., eventually extended this to maintain that every repetition, figure of speech, parallelism, synonym,
word, letter, and even the shapes of letters had hidden meanings. This letterism was often carried to such an extent
that the author’s intended meaning was overlooked and fantastic speculation introduced in its place.

At the time of Christ, Jewish exegesis could be classified into four main types: literal, midrashic, pesher, and
allegorical. The literal method of interpretation apparently served as the basis for other types of interpretations.
Richard Longenecker suggests that the reason for the relative infrequency of literalistic interpretations in
Talmudic literature is “that this type of commentary was expected to be known by everyone; and since there were
no disputations about it, it was recorded”.

Midrashic interpretation included a variety of hermeneutical devices which had developed considerably by the
time of Christ and which continued to develop for several centuries thereafter. Rabbi Hillel is credited with
developing the basic rules of rabbinic exegesis that emphasized the comparison of ideas, words, or phrases found
in more than one text, the relationship of general principles to particular instances, and the importance of context
in interpretation.

The trend toward more imaginary rather than conservative exposition continued. The result of this was an
exegesis that (1) gave meaning to texts, phrases, and words with out regard to the context in which they were
meant to apply (2) combined texts that contained similar words or phrases whether or not such text were referring
to the same idea; and (3) took incidental aspects of grammar and gave them interpretive significance.
However, by focusing on the identification of hidden meanings from incidental grammatical details and unnatural
numerical thoughts, midrashic exegesis often lost sight of the actual meaning of the text.

Pesher interpretation existed particularly among the Qumran communities. This form borrowed extensively
from midrashic practices, but included a significant eschatological focus. Pesher interpretation was often denoted
by the phrase “this is that”, indicating that “this present phenomenon is a fulfillment of that ancient prophecy”.

Allegorical exegesis was based on the idea that beneath the literal meaning of scripture lay the true meaning.
Historically, allegorism had been developed by the Greeks to resolve the tension between their religious myth
tradition and their philosophical heritage. Because the religious myths contained much that was immoral or
otherwise unacceptable, the Greek philosophers allegorized these stories; i.e., the myths were not to be understood
literally, but as stories whose real truth lay at a deeper level. At the time of Christ, Jews who wished to remain
faithful to the Mosaic tradition yet adopt Greek philosophy were faced with a similar tension. Philo (c 20 B.C. –
A.D. 50) is well known in this regard. Philo believed that the literal meaning of Scripture represented an immature
level of understanding; the allegorical meaning was for the mature.

During the first century A.D Jewish interpreters agreed that scripture represents the words of God, and that these
words are full of meaning for believer. Literal interpretation was employed in the areas of judicial and practical
concerns. Most interpreters employed Midrashic practices, particularly the rule developed by Hillel, and most
used allegorical exegesis gently. However, within the Jewish community, some groups went in separate directions.
The Pharisees continued to develop midrashic exegesis in order to tie their oral tradition more closely to scripture.
The Qumran community, believing themselves to be the faithful remnant and recipient of the prophetic mysteries,
continued to use midrashic and Pesher methods to interpret scripture. And Philo and those who desired to
reconcile Jewish scripture with Greek philosophy continued to develop allegorical exegetical methods.

3 Jibu Ninan
Hermeneutics
4.2. The interpretation of Jesus and apostles
Jesus” use of the Old Testament
 He consistently treated the historical narrative a straightforward records of fact. The allusions to Abel,
Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and David, for example, all seem to be intended and were understood s
references to actual people and historical events.
 When Jesus made an application of the historical record, He drew it from the normal, as opposed to the
allegorical, meaning of the text. He showed no tendency to divide scriptural truth into levels- a superficial
level based on some derived mystical level.
 Jesus denounced the way the religious leaders had developed casuistic methods that set aside the very
word of God they claimed to be interpreting, and replaced it with their own traditions (Mk.7:6-13, Mat.
15:1-9).
 The scribes and Pharisees never accused Him of using any scripture unnaturally or illegitimately. Even
when Jesus was directly repudiating the Pharisaic accretions and misinterpretations of the Old Testament
(Mt. 5:21-48), the scriptural record tells us that “the crowds were amazed at his teaching, because he
taught as one who had authority, not as their teachers of the law”. (Mt. 7:28-29).
 When Jesus occasionally used a text in a way that seems unnatural to us, it was usually a legitimate
Hebraic or Aramaic idiom or thought pattern that does not directly translate into our culture and time.
Mt.27:9-10. (Jer.32:6-9. Zech.11:12-13.

The Apostles’ Use of the Old Testament

The apostles followed their lord in regarding the Old Testament as the inspired Word of God (2 Tim. 3:16, 2
Pet.1:21). Like Christ, they accepted the historical accuracy of the Old Testament (e.g., Acts. 7:9-50; 13:16-22,
Heb. 11). There are several questions that commonly arise about the New Testament writers’ use of the Old
Testament. One of the most frequently asked is: When quoting the Old Testament, the New Testament frequently
modifies the original wording. How can that practice be justified hermeneutically? Three considerations are
relevant here:

First, there were Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek versions of the biblical text circulating in Palestine at the time of
Christ, some of which had different wording than others.
Second, it was not necessary for the writers to quote Old Testament passages word for word unless they claimed
to be quoting verbatim, particularly since they were writing in a language different from the original Old
Testament texts.
Third, in ordinary life, freedom from quotation is usually a sign of mastery of one’s material; the New Testament
writers sometimes paraphrased or quoted indirectly from the Old Testament in no way indicates that they were
using inaccurate or illegitimate interpretive methods.

The vast majority of the New Testament references to the Old Testament interpret it literally; that is, they interpret
according to the commonly accepted norms for interpreting all types of communication-history as history, poetry
as poetry, and symbols as symbols. There is no attempt to separate the message into literal and allegorical levels.
The few cases where the New Testament writers seem to interpret the Old Testament unnaturally can usually be
resolved as we understand more fully the interpretive methods of biblical times. Thus, the New Testament itself
lays the basis for the grammatical-historical method of modern evangelical hermeneutics.

4.3. Patristic interpretation

An allegorical school of interpretation dominated the church in the succeeding centuries. This allegorization
sprang from a proper motive-the desire to understand the Old Testament as a Christian document. However, the
allegorical method as practiced by the church fathers often neglected completely the author’s intended meaning
and the literal understanding of a text to develop speculations the author himself would never have recognized.

Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215)

4 Jibu Ninan
Hermeneutics
A well known patristic exegete, Clement believed that Scriptures hide their true meaning so that we might be
inquisitive, and because it is not suitable for everyone to understand. He theorized that there are five senses to
scripture (historical, doctrinal, prophetic, philosophical, and mystical), with the deepest riches available only to
those who understand the deeper senses.

Origen (185-254)
Origin was the well-known successor of Clement. He believed that scripture is one vast allegory in which every
detail is symbolic. Origen believed that even as man consists of three parts- body, soul, and spirit-so scripture also
possesses three senses. The body is the literal sense, the soul the moral sense, the spirit the allegorical or mystical
sense. In practice Origen typically disparaged the literal sense, rarely referred to the moral sense, and constantly
employed allegory, since only allegory yielded true knowledge.

Augustine (354-430)
In terms of originality and genius, Augustine was by far the greatest man of his age. In his book on Christian
doctrine, he laid down a number of rules for exposition of scripture, some of which remain in use today. In
practice Augustine forsook most of his own principles and tended toward excessive allegorizing. He believed that
scripture had a fourfold sense-historical, an etiological, analogical, and allegorical. His view became the
predominant view of the middle ages. Thus Augustine’s influence on the development of a scientific exegesis was
mixed: in theory he articulated many of the principles of sound exegesis, but in practice he failed to apply those
principles in his own biblical study.

The Syrian School of Antioch

A group of scholars at Antioch in Syria attempted to avoid both the letterism of the Jews and the allegorism of the
Alexandrians. They faithfully defended the principle of grammatical-historical interpretation, i.e., that a text
should be interpreted according to the rules of grammar and the facts of history. They avoided dogmatic exegesis,
asserting that an interpretation must be justified by a study of its grammatical and historical context, and not by an
appeal to authority. They criticized the allegorists for casting into doubt the historicity of much of the Old
Testament.

The Antiochian view of history differed from that of the Alexandrians. According to the allegorists, floating above
the historical meaning of the Old Testament events was another, more spiritual, meaning. The Antiochians
believed that the spiritual meaning of an historical event was implicit within the event itself. The exegetical
principles of the Alexandrian school laid the groundwork for modern evangelical hermeneutics.

4.4. Medieval Exegesis (600-1500)

Little original scholarship was done during the Middle Ages; most students of scripture devoted themselves to
studying and compiling the work of the earlier Fathers. Interpretation was bound by tradition, and the allegorical
method was prominent.

The fourfold sense of scripture articulated by Augustine was the norm for biblical interpretation. These four levels
of meaning, expressed in the following verse that circulated during this period, were believed to exist in every
biblical passage:
The letter shows us what God and our fathers did;
The Allegory shows us where our faith is hid;
The moral meaning gives us rules of daily life;
The anagogy shows us where we end our strife.
The city of Jerusalem can be used to illustrate this idea. Literally, Jerusalem refers to the historical city itself;
allegorically, it refers to the church of Christ; morally, it indicates the human soul; and anagogically
(eschatologically), it points to the heavenly Jerusalem.

During this era the principle was generally accepted that any interpretation of a biblical text must adapt itself to
the tradition and doctrine of the church. The source of dogmatic theology was not the bible alone, but the Bible as
interpreted by church tradition. Throughout the late medieval period continued the practice of letterism to the
point of silliness. They believed that every letter, and even every possible transposition or substitution of letters,
5 Jibu Ninan
Hermeneutics
had supernatural significance. Attempting to unlock divine mysteries, they resorted to the following methods:
substituting one Biblical word for another that had the same numerical value; adding to the text by regarding each
individual letter of a word as the initial letter of other words; substituting new words into a text by an interchange
of some of the letter of the original words. They suggested that exegesis should give rise to doctrine rather than
making the meaning of a text coincide with previous ecclesiastical teaching.

4.5. Reformation period (1500s)

In the fourteenth centuries, dense ignorance prevailed concerning the content of scripture. But, the Renaissance
called attention to the necessity of knowing the original languages in order to understand the bible. So that, the
fourfold sense of scripture was gradually abandoned and replaced with the principle that scripture has but a single
sense.

Luther (1483-1546)
He believed that faith and the spirit’s illumination were prerequisites for an interpreter of the Bible. He said that
the church should not determine what the scriptures tech, but rather that scripture should determine what the
church teaches. He rejected the allegorical method of interpreting scripture, calling it dirt, scum and obsolete
loose rags. For him, a proper interpretation of scripture must come from a literal understanding of the text. The
interpreter should consider historical conditions, grammar and context in his exegesis. He also believed that the
Bible is a clear book, in opposition to the Roman Catholic dogma. Luther’s Christological principle did enable
him to show the unity of scripture without recourse to mystical interpretations of the Old Testament text. His
major hermeneutical principles were that one must carefully distinguish between Law and Gospel. For Luther,
Law refers to God in His wrath, his judgment, and his hatred of sin; Gospel refers to God in His grace, love and
salvation. Thus he believed that recognition and careful maintenance of the Law-Gospel distinction was crucial to
proper biblical understanding.

Calvin (1509-1564)
Probably the greatest exegete of the reformation was Calvin, who agreed in general with the principles articulated
by Luther. He believed that spiritual illumination is necessary, and regarded allegorical interpretation as a
contrivance of Satan to obscure the sense of scripture. “scripture interprets scripture” was a favorite phrase of
Calvin, which alluded to the importance Calvin placed on studying the context, grammar, words and parallel
passages rather than importing one’s own meaning onto the text. The hermeneutical principles articulated by these
Reformers were to become the major guiding principles for modern orthodox protestant interpretation.
4.6. Post-reformation period (1550-1800)
Confessionalism
The council of Trent met at various times from 1545 through 1563 and drew up a list of decrees setting forth the
dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church and criticizing Protestantism. In response, Protestants began developing
creeds to define their own position. Hermeneutical methods were often poor during this time, for exegesis became
the handmaid of dogmatics, and often degenerated into mere proof-texting.

Pietism
Pietism rose as a reaction to the dogmatic and often bitter exegesis of the confessional period. It made significant
contributions to the study of scripture. They had a deep desire to understand the word of God and appropriate it
for their lives with a fine appreciation of grammatical-historical interpretation. However, many later pietists
discarded the grammatical-historical basis of interpretation, and depended instead on an ‘inward light’ or ‘unction
from the Holy one’. These expositions based on subjective impressions and pious reflection, often resulted in
interpretations which contradicted one another and had little relationship to the author’s intended meaning .

Rationalism
Rationalism, the philosophical position of accepting reason as the only authority for determining one’s opinions or
course of action, emerged as an important position during this period and was soon to have a profound effect on
theology and hermeneutics. This movement stressed that the human intellect can decide what is true and
false. The Bible is true if it corresponds to man’s reason, and what does not correspond can be ignored or

6 Jibu Ninan
Hermeneutics
rejected. According to Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677), reason is all embracing criterion for judging any
interpretation of a Bible passage.

For several centuries before this time the church had emphasized the reasonableness of faith. Revelation was
considered superior to reason as a means of understanding truth but revelational truth was considered to be
inherently reasonable. During this period following the reformation the magisterial use of reason began to emerge
more fully than it had ever done before. Magisterial use of reason referred to the use of human reason to stand in
judgment over God’s word.

4.7 Modern Hermeneutics (1800 to the present)

Liberalism
Rationalism in philosophy laid the basis for liberalism in theology. Whereas in previous centuries revelation had
determined what reason ought to think, by the late 1800s reason determined what parts of revelation were to be
accepted as true.

Neo-orthodoxy
Neo-orthodoxy is a twentieth-century phenomenon. It occupies a position midway between the liberal and
orthodox views of Scripture. It breaks with the liberal and orthodox views of Scripture is only a product of man’s
deepening religious awareness, but stops short of the orthodox view of revelation. They generally believe that
scripture is man’s witness to God’s revelation of Himself. They maintain that God does not reveal Himself in
words, but only by His presence. When a person reads the words of scripture and responds to God’s presence in
faith, revelations occurs. Revelation is not considered to be something that happened at a historical point in time
which is now transmitted to us in the Biblical texts, but is a present experience that must be accompanied by a
personal existential response.

Infallibility or inerrancy has no place in the neo-orthodox vocabulary. Bible stories about the interaction between
the supernatural and the natural are considered to be myths, but in the sense that they do not each literal history.
Biblical myths seek to introduce theological truths as historical incidents. In neo-orthodox interpretation, for
example ‘the fall’ informs us that “man inevitably corrupts his moral nature”. “The incarnation and cross show us
that man can not achieve his own salvation, but that it “must come from beyond as an act of God’s grace”. The
major task of the interpreter is to divest the myth of its historical wrappings in order to discover the existential
truth contained within.

The New Hermeneutics

The New Hermeneutics has been primarily a European development since World War II. It emerged
basically from the work of Bultmann and was carried further by Ernst Fuchs and Gerhard Ebeling. Much
of what has been said regarding the neo-orthodox position applies to this category of interpretation as
well. Building on the work of the philosopher Martin Heidegger, Fuchs and Ebeling emphasize the
Bultmann did not go far enough. They maintain language is not reality, but only a personal interpretation
of reality. One’s use of language is a hermeneutic- an interpretation. Hermeneutics for them is no longer
the science of stating principles were by texts can be understood, but is rather than investigation of the
hermeneutical function of speech as such and this has a much wider and more profound scope.

5. The Qualification of an Interpreter

1. The interpreter must born of the spirit and word (John 3:12 1Pet. 1:21).
Although Nickodemus was a teacher in Israel, he still needs to be born from above. It is impossible for any one to
see or understand the things concerning the Kingdom of God and the plan of redemption unless he is born of the
spirit. How can one who is no born of spirit and word comprehend or interpret the word. Which was produced by
the spirit? 1Cor.2:14-16, Rom.8:5-7. As interpreters of the word the same Spirit that inspired those who wrote it
must guide us in our interpretation.

2. The interpreter must have the passionate hunger for the word of God.

7 Jibu Ninan
Hermeneutics
If one has been truly born again the first evidence of birth is hunger. This refers to an intense desire for that which
highly valued. Knowing God through His word must be of primary important to the interpreter. Job exemplified
this as his spoke of his hunger and love for the word of God (Job 23:12; cf Psa 119:47; Jer 15:16:Ps.19 2-10;
Ezek. 3:1-3: Matt: 4:4; Rev 10:8-10).

3. He must posses an attitude of humility

The attitude of the humility is the quality essential in spiritual insight. Pride and arrogance brings spiritual
blindness. Making the true meanings of God’s word impossible. The religious leaders of Christ day were haughty
and proud. Though they holding the scripture in their hand they blinded them in the true interpretation. They
rejected and crucified the very Christ to whom the scriptures pointed (Acts 13:27). The scriptures exhort us to
posses the holiness of mind and humility of heart (Phil.2:3; Act. 20:19; Jas. 1:21).
4. He must posses an attitude of reverence and respect for the word of God.
One of the greatest safe guard against mishandling the word of truth is to maintain a wholesome reverent for the
God’s word. If the interpreter recognizes the awareness of the book, which he is interpreting, there will be less
intensive to handle lightly. A proper respect will act as a restrain against using the God of project his own ideas.
David says, “then shall I not be ashamed when I have respect unto all thy commandment (Ps.119:6).

5. The interpreter must accept the total inspiration of Scripture.

According to Paul, in 2Tim.3:16, “All Scriptures is given by the inspiration of God…in righteousness.” The Holy
Spirit inspired the word it was God’s breath. The Holy Spirit berthed into the human vessels the very thought and
words he wanted to be written. These words flowered through human channel without destroy their emotions,
education, experience and personalities. Yet the H.S guided persuaded each phrase thought and word from any
error, omission or inaccuracy (2Peter 1:21). If the interpreter doesn’t accept the total inspiration of the Scripture it
is impossible to properly interpret them.
6. The interpreter must approve the Word of God in true Faith.
Heb. 11:3 tells us “through faith we understand” reason one cannot preserve and grasp the divine communication.
It is unfortunately possible to have eyes and not to see, ears and not to hear, and heart not to preserve (Is 6:9, 10;
Matt 13:14, 15). It was because of religious leaders depending on reasons done that they could not comprehend
the saying of Christ (Mat.13:54, 56, 16:1-4; Mk 12:18-27). And over dependence on reason will result faltering
interpretations and misunderstanding. Faith however is not contrary to reason but rather above it faith brings
understanding the heart which reason could never acquire. Heb: 11:6.
7. The interpreter needs a renewal of mind.
The natural and carnal mind is at enmity with God and is not subject to Him. He cannot understand the things of
the Spirit of God. Only the regenerated mind can tell and understand the Scriptures (1Cor 2:14-16; Rom 8:5-7;
Eph 4:23; Phil 2:2, 3).
8. The interpreter needs to depend upon the Holy Spirit’s illumination.
It’s necessary that the interpreter receive the illumination from the Holy Spirit. The Spirit inspired the Word and it
is he who must interpret the word. This occurred through illumination. The Bible is primarily the spiritual book
and spiritual things must be spiritually described (2Cor 2:7-13). The interpreter must recognize the theological
different between Revelation, inspiration and illumination.
9. The interpreter needs to maintain a spirit and attitude of prayer.
Those who wrote the Bible were all men of prayer much of the word was communicated to them by the spirit of
while they were in attitude of prayer. Prayer is the method by which men communicate with God. Illumination of
the word most often comes as the interpreter waits upon the Lord in prayer. (Acts 6:4, Daniel 2:19).
10. The interpreter needs to mediate on the word.
In meditation upon the word of God the spirit enables to bring holly thoughts to the heart and mind of the
interpreter. To meditate to ponder, reflect, think deeply. (Ps 1:2,119:48, 78,148).
11. He needs to recognize the unity of the spirit and the word.
The spirit and the word agree (1John 5:7&8). The spirit inspired the word and thus it will be never contradictor.
No man can claim illumination by the spirit by his interpretation of any passage if that interpretation is in conflict
with other passage of the scripture. The believer must discern between the spirit of truth and spirit of error (1John
4:1-6). The spirit of error can take a word and supports it says oppose of that which the spirit of truth says. When
in reality no words can be made to contradict another word. The spirit will never communicate to the mind of the
believer any doctrine or meaning of scripture which is not already in the scripture itself.

8 Jibu Ninan
Hermeneutics
12. He must understand the relationship between the Old Testament and New Testament.
The theme of the both OT&NT is Jesus Christ and his plan of redemptions. The OT should be viewed as
preparatory to the NT with the Cross, the dividing line between two. Both Testaments must be interpreting the
light of that which took place at the cross. The dealing of God with Israel and Gentile under the Old covenant
must be distinguished from his dealing with them under the new covenant Jer. 31:34.
13. The interpreter needs to recognize the harmony and unity of the progressive revelation of the scripture.
There is unity progressiveness in the book of Bible. It is one book of the many books. A survey of the bible shows
clearly that the revelation of God to fallen men has been progressive. The revelation of the plan of redemption
moves progressively through the history of the OT&NT.

There is a harmony of the revelation in the book of the Bible (Isa 34:16.28:10, 11; Heb.1:1). No book contradicts
to another. Thus, the 66 books of the Bible are a unity, a progressive revelation. God already reveal everything
what the men must know for his redemption and destiny in Him. Beyond these there is no revelation from God as
it is the doctrinal statement of faith in men to believe and practice. But still God speak to his people. Since, he is a
living God who dwells in the believers, which are different to each other’s in their personal experience with Him.
6. The basic convictions of an interpreter about the authority of the text
It is clear that Bible is from God. It is unique for it has come to us from God himself. The Bible is revelation (not
only a record of revelation), and inspiration is the act whereby God put the revealed truths into infallible written
form. Revelation is the spirit’s disclosure of divine truth, where as inspiration is the spirit’s superintending process
of recording His revelation. Revelation is the communication of truth which would not be known otherwise,
whereas inspiration is the process whereby this information is presented accurately in written language. The
affirmation is that the Bible is a divine book. Therefore, the Bible interpreters should recognize the following as
they approach the scripture.
1. The Bible, being a divine book, is inerrant.
The logical inference from the Holy Spirit’s inspiration of the scriptures is that they are inerrant, that is, without
error in their original writings. There should be no problem in understanding that the manuscripts were inerrant,
when inspiration is understood as the Holy Spirit’s work of guarding and guiding the writers to write what he
wanted recorded, word for word. The Holy Spirit’s work of superintending guaranteed that what they wrote was
protected from error. Since God is true (I Thes.1:9; I Jn.5:20), and can not lie (Tit.1:2; Heb.6:18), He can and did
preserve His Word from error. Therefore, when we interpret the Bible, accept it as a supernatural book that
contains no errors in its original form.
2. The Bible, being a divine book, is authoritative.
The authority of the Bible for what we believe and how we are to live stems from the fact that it is inerrant.
Inerrancy in turn stems from the truth of the Holy Spirit’s inspiration. Since the Bible comes from God, it has an
intrinsic authority. Jesus’ frequent quotations of the Old Testament, in which he recognized its supernatural origin,
also indicate his acceptance of its authority. As the word of God, the Bible is trustworthy and authoritative. This
behooves as to be reverent and diligent in our approach to understanding the scriptures.
3. The Bible, being a divine book, has unity.
Though recorded by approximately 40 human authors, the Bible, as discussed earlier, is the work of God himself.
Thus, it can be expected to possess unity. This suggested several matters.
First, the Bible will not contradict itself. Being from God, who is truth, the scriptures are coherent and consistent.
All the parts fit together.
Second, because the Bible contains unity. Its obscure and secondary passages are to be interpreted in light of clear
and primary passages. John Knock says, “The word of God is plain in itself; and if there appear any obscurity in
one place, the Holy Ghost, which is not contrarious to Himself, explains the same more clearly in other places”.
Third, another implication of the unity of the scriptures is that the Bible often interprets itself. Martin Luther and
John Calvin often said, “Scripture interprets scripture”
Fourth, accepting the unity of the Bible also means that we should acknowledge what is called the progress of
revelation. This does not mean that Biblical revelation progressed in an evolutionary sense. Instead, it means that
in later scriptures God added to what he had given in earlier portions. This is not to suggest that what was
recorded in earlier portions of the Bible was in imperfect and that the later revelations were perfect.
4. The Bible, being a divine book, has mystery.
It must recognized that the Bible contains many things had to understand. Bible students must acknowledge that
they cannot always ascertain what a given passage means. The Bible contains mystery in four areas.
9 Jibu Ninan
Hermeneutics
1. Prophecy. The Bible includes predictions of future events, which no human could possibly predict by
himself apart from divine revelation.
2. Miracles. If we accept the divine nature of the bible, we then can accept the record of these miracles as
being true.
3. Doctrine. A Number of teachings in the Bible are difficult for the finite mind to comprehend.
Accepting the divine nature of the Bible means we acknowledge its inerrancy, authority, unity, and mystery.
7. Problems in Biblical interpretations
7.1. Two Contexts. The socio-cultural background of the biblical text is totally different from our context today.
So it is difficult to understand fully the meaning of the text. Some words are obsolete and expressions are not
clear. Today’s ideologies, thought patterns and cultural ethos are entirely different from the Biblical period. This
can be a hurdle in the interpretation of the scripture.
7.2. The Pre-supposition. The presuppositions or prejudices can negatively influence the interpretation of the
text. These can prevent the objective study of the text. The different denominations hold divergent views on
baptism. This denominational presupposition can affect our interpretation when we approach the text.
7.3. Additional meaning of the text. When the interpreter is deviating from the intention of author and adding his
own idea, it is a distortion. The interpreter is adding to the text, the meaning which is not intended by the author. It
carries the prejudice of the interpreter. In this attempt, the interpreter is not doing justice to the text. It is an
arbitrary way of dealing the text. It is important to give emphasis to the meaning of the text in the context than
interpreting the text in our own way. Introducing our ideas to the text is a distortion.
8. The Techniques of Interpretations
In the interpretation of a text, hermeneutics considers what language says, supposes, doesn't say, and implies. The
process consists of several theories for best attaining the Scriptural author's intended meaning(s). Such as:
1. Lexical-syntactical method: This method looks at the words used and the way the words are used.
Different order of the sentence, the punctuation, the tense of the verse are all aspects that are looked at in
the lexical syntactical method. Here, lexicons and grammar aids can help in extracting meaning from the
text.
2. Historical/cultural method: The history and culture surrounding the authors is important to
understand to aid in interpretation. For instance, understanding the Jewish sects of the Palestine and the
government that ruled Palestine in New Testament times increases understanding of Scripture. And,
understanding the connotations of positions such as the High Priest and that of the tax collector helps us
know what others thought of the people holding these positions.
3. Contextual method: A verse out of context can often be taken to mean something completely different
from the intention. This method focuses on the importance of looking at the context of a verse in its
chapter, book and even biblical context.
4. Theological method: It is often said that a single verse usually doesn't make a theology. This is because
Scripture often touches on issues in several books. For instance, gifts of the Spirit are spoken about in
Romans, Ephesians and 1 Corinthians. To take a verse from Corinthians without taking into account other
passages that deal with the same topic can cause a poorer interpretation.
5. Special literary methods: There are several special literary aspects to look at, but the overarching
theme is that each genre of Scripture has a different set of rules that applies to it. Of the genres found in
Scripture, there are: narratives, histories, prophecies, apocalyptic writings, poetry, psalms and letters. In
these, there are differing levels of allegory, figurative language, metaphors, similes and literal language.
For instance, the apocalyptic writings and poetry have more figurative and allegorical language than does
the narrative or historical writing. These must be addressed, and the genre recognized to gain a full
understanding of the intended meaning.
6. Historical-grammatical methods. The historical-grammatical method is a Christian hermeneutics
process that strives to discover the Biblical author's original intended meaning in the text. It is the primary
method of interpretation for scholars in the major branches of Christianity: Protestant, Roman Catholic,
and Eastern Orthodox. The terms grammatico-historical, historico-grammatical and historical-
cultural are regarded as synonymous with historical-grammatical. The historical-grammatical method
distinguishes between the one original meaning of the text and its significance. The significance of the
text is essentially the application or contextualization of the principles from text. This is often popularly
(but inaccurately) referred to as the "literal" interpretation of Scripture. Just as it is with progressive

10 Jibu Ninan
Hermeneutics
revelation, the historical-grammatical method is not a concept or practice that is exclusive just to
dispensationalists. However, a dispensational distinctive is created when the historical-grammatical
method of interpretation is closely coupled with an emphasis on progressive revelation along with the
historical development of the covenants in Scripture.
7. Allegorical Methods. The allegorical persuades that beneath the plain and obvious sense of the
scripture lights is true meaning. It believes that what in the word of scripture literally says is only eternal
that which hides the true spiritual meanings of the word. In allegorization a passage with obvious literal
meaning the interpreter using point by point comparison which brings out a hidden spiritual meaning, not
evidential the plain language of the passage. This method has been applied to the whole of the scripture
by allegorist both ancient and modern times. As an example of allegorical, Pop Gregory, a great
interpreter of the Book of Job says , “The patriarch’s three friends denotes the heresies, his seven sons are
twelve apostles, his 7000 sheep are God’s faithful people, and 3000 humpbacked camels are the deprived
gentiles. Centuries have proved that allegorical method is inadequate in the interpretations of scriptures.
The error of this method begins at its foundational assumption that what God aid in the plain language is
not really what he means. The allegorical method of interpretation obtained an early prominence among
the Jews of Alexandria. Its origin is usually attributed to the mingling of Greek philosophy and the
biblical conceptions of God. The allegorical method of interpretation is based upon a profound reverence
for the Scriptures, and a desire to exhibit their manifold depths of wisdom.
8. Dogmatic Methods. The interpretation may come under the influence of the dogma or the traditional
teaching of the church. The church holds certain teachings and they use certain texts to substantiate the
view, so the text carries meaning related to dogma. This can be a subjective interpretation which is
prejudiced based on certain distinct doctrines of the church.
9. Existential method The existential method of interpretations was widely used by German scholars like
Bultmann, Von Rad and Westermann. This method can be called as ‘Theological and Existential’
interpretation. According to them, the historical-critical method will only partly fulfill this task. The
question was seriously considered by the existential school of Rudolf Bultmann. According to Bultmann,
the Biblical language is mythological, so the myths like incarnation, resurrection, ascension, heaven and
hell are insensible to the modern reader. He suggested that the demythologization to interpret the Biblical
text in the light of present context. Bultmann was influenced by reason, science and humanism.
10. Sociological method. The sociological reading of the text is a common method today. This method is
concerned of the social context and the nature of the community. The context of the author and the
recipient very significant over here. This is concerned of the kind of the society and the class of the
people. The dynamics of the society and the relationship of the people are very much considered. The
social life and the network of relationship are very significant in this regard.

9. General principles of hermeneutics

9.1. Interpret in the light of context
The immediate context of a passage may indicate a limited audience. The author may plainly state his intended
recipient, or it may be implied in the context. D.A. Carson has been quoted as saying, "A text without a context is
a pretext for a proof text." By "proof text," of course, Carson means the abuse of a single verse or phrase taken
out of context to "prove" a particular view. The word "text" is derived from the Latin word, which means to
“weave.” The context is that which accompanies the text. The Word of God is a perfect unit. The scriptures
cannot be broken; they all hang together, a perfect unity. We must look and consider the verses immediately
before, after, and around the passage. We must consider the book of the Bible and the section of the Bible in
which the passage occurs. The Bible must be interpreted within the framework of the Bible. The author’s intention
is to make meaningful the message to the recipient, so he would be influenced by that context. So in the
interpretation it is important to know the recipients and their context to interpret the text sensibly.
9.2. Interpret according to the correct meaning of the words.
The Bible was originally written in three languages: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. While we have several highly
accurate translations of the Bible in English, all translation involves a certain amount of interpretation on the part
of the translator. Thus, the study of word meanings, grammar, and syntax of the original languages is important
for a proper understanding of Scripture. This doesn't mean that every student of the Bible must learn Hebrew or
Greek. There are a number of tools available - lexicons, Bible dictionaries, detailed exegetical commentaries -
that can provide a deeper understanding of crucial passages. Etymology refers to the root derivation and
11 Jibu Ninan
Hermeneutics
development of words. It helps to get back to the root meaning of the word and to see how the word developed.
However, a biblical word should not be explained on the basis of its English etymology. This is to read back into
scripture what is not there. The intent is to get behind the meaning of a passage in order to discern what response
the author desired from his original audience.
9.3. Interpret according to the grammar of the passage.
For interpreting the Bible grammatically, interpreter must refer to the process of seeking to determine its meaning
by ascertaining four things. (a) The meaning of the words (lexicology), (b) the form of words (morphology) (c)
The function of words (parts of speech) and (d) The relationship of words (syntax). In the meaning of words
(lexicology), interpreter is concerned with (a) etymology-how words are derived and developed, (b) usage- how
words are used by the same and other authors, (c) synonyms and antonyms- how similar and opposite words are
used, and context-how words are used in various contexts. In discussing the form of words (morphology)
interpreter should look at how words are structured and how that affects their meaning. The function of words
(parts of speech) considers what the various forms do. These include attention to subjects, verbs, objects, nouns,
and others, as will be discussed later. The relationships of words (syntax) are the way words are related or put
together to form phrases, clauses, and sentences.
9.4. Interpret according to the purpose and plan of the author.
If the interpreter knows the author of a particular book, it will provide good ideas about the message of the book.
In interpretation, it is very crucial to know the mind of author. Each book is written with a purpose. There is a
specific motif behind each book. The epistles to Corinthians were written to tackle the issue of immorality and
dissensions. The Epistles to Galatians is dealing with the issue of liberalism and Judaizers. Thus, the interpretation
of each passage should be in conformity with the purpose of the book as a whole. An author may use many
possible plans or literary forms, and the interpreter must seek for the meaning of each passage in line with the
form the author has chosen. The plan of a book influences interpretation. Therefore, to discern the plan of a book
we need to outline.
9.5. Interpret in the light of the historical geographical and cultural background.
The Bible was composed in a specific culture at a particular point in time. While they are universal in application,
the truths in the Bible can most fully be realized only when taking the surrounding culture, geography and history
into account. For example, when Jesus is called "the first fruits" (1 Corinthians 15:20), we may have some
understanding of this title from the Old Testament, but a study of Jewish religious practice in the first century can
provide a deeper understanding of why Paul chose this title in this passage, as opposed to another title with the
same general meaning of "first."
9.6. Interpret scripture by scripture.
God did not reveal an important doctrine in a single, ambiguous passage. All essential doctrines are fully and
clearly explained - either in the immediate context, or somewhere else in the Bible. This principle is best
illustrated by what is known as "topical Bible study." There are two essential 'rules' for applying this principle:
1) The context of the two passages must be the same; and 2) The plain passage must be used to guide our
interpretation of a less clear passage - not the other way around.
10. Interpreting specific Genres
Genre is a literary term having to do with the category or "genus" of literature under consideration. Proper
interpretation must take the general literary category of any given passage into consideration. Are we dealing
with poetry or prose? Are we dealing with history or prophecy? It is important that when we interpret the Word of
God, we understand as much as possible the author's intent. For example, if the author is writing history - the
genre of the Pentateuch of Moses - it would not be proper to interpret a single reference (such as the speech of
Balaam's ass) as a poetic personification, unless a variety of contextual markers compelled us to do so.
Here are some books of the Bible and their respective genres:
Psalms - Poetry
Proverbs - Wise Sayings
Isaiah - History and Prophecy
The Gospels - Biography and History
The Epistles - Teaching and Doctrine
Revelation - Eschatology and Prophecy
10.1. Identifying the various genres and literary devices
Two of the simplest literary devices are similes and metaphors
12 Jibu Ninan
Hermeneutics
i. Simile
A simile is simply an expressed comparison: it typically uses the words like or as (eg., “the kingdom of heaven is
like…”. The emphasis is on some point of similarity between two ideas, groups, actions, etc. The subject and the
thing with which it is being compared are kept separate (i.e., not “the kingdom of heaven is…” but rather “the
kingdom of heaven is like…”. Similitude’s normally refers to customary habits, stated in the present tense.
(Mk.7:16-17; Lk. 14:7-8; 21:30; Matt. 15:14-15)
ii. Metaphor
A metaphor is an unexpressed comparison: it does not use the words like or as. The subject and the thing with
which it is being compared are intertwined rather than kept separate. Jesus used metaphors when he said , “I am
the bred of life”, and “you are the light of the world”. Although the subject and its comparison are identified as
one, the author does not intend his words to be taken literally: Christ is no more a piece of bread than Christians
are photon-emitters. In both similes and metaphors, because of their compact nature, the author usually intends to
stress a single point (e.g., that Christ is the source of sustenance for our spiritual lives, or that christens are to be
examples of godly living in an ungodly world).
iii. Proverb
A proverb may be conceived as a compressed parable or allegory, sometimes partaking of characteristics of both,
schematically the relationship between these five literary devices is presented below:
Simile extended parable
Compressed
Proverb
Compressed
Metaphor extended Allegory
Proverbs can provide an important antidote, for they demonstrate true religion in specific, practical, and
meaningful terms. (Matt. 5:14; 6:24; 9:12; 13:57; Lk.6:40; 10:7; 13:10; Jn.13:16; Matt.24:28; 5:13; Mk. 4:12;
Lk.4:23).
iv. Parable
A parable can be understood as an extended simile. The comparison is expressed, and the subject and the thing
compared, explained more fully, are kept separate. It is true to life.
A parable generally proceeds by keeping the story and its application distinct from each other: usually the
application follows the story and its application follows the story. Thus the story is thrown alongside the truth to
illustrate the truth. Parable records a specific instance, using the past tense (Matt. 13:3; 13:10; Mk.4:10,11;
Lk.7:41-43; 15:8-10)
v. Allegories
Similarly an allegory can be understood as an extended metaphor: the comparison is unexpressed, and the subject
and the thing compared are intermingled. Allegories intermingle the story and its application so that an allegory
carries its own interpretation within itself. The following examples of a parable and an allegory illustrate this
distinction: parable (Is.5:1-7), allegory (Ps.80:8-16) In the parable the story is found in verses one to six and the
application in verse even. In the allegory the story and its application are intermingled and proceed together.
(Jn.10:1-16; 15:1-6; Is. 5:1-7; Ps. 23:1-4; Pro. 5:15-20; Ez.13:8-16; Gal. 4:21-31). Allegory may be true of life.
vi. Types
The basic ideas expressed by types and its synonyms are the concepts of resemblance, likeness, and similarity. A
type is a preordained representative relationship which certain persons, events and institutions bear corresponding
persons, events and institutions occurring at a later time in salvation history. Jn. 3:14-15. Typology is based on the
assumption that there is a pattern in God’s work throughout salvation history. God prefigured His redemptive
work in the Old Testament, and fulfilled it in the New Testament. In the Old Testament there are shadows of thing
which shall be more fully revealed in the New Testament. Types are similar to symbols and can be even
considered a special kind of symbol. Types resemble in one or more ways the things they prefigure (Rev.2:1,
Jn.3:14-15, I Cor. 10:1-11).

10.2. O.T. Narratives

To understand the Old Testament narratives, we must move into the mental old of the first century Jew. The most
important feature of the narrative is the scene. The action of the story is broken up into a sequence of scenes, each
scene presenting what took place at one particular place and time. One of the most notable features about biblical
narrative is the pervasive presence of God. Often, God is one of the two characters in these scenes, or the voice of
the prophet functions in place of God’s presence. Such two character scenes in Genesis as God and Adam (ch.3),
13 Jibu Ninan
Hermeneutics
God and Cain (Ch.4), God and Noah (Ch.6), and God and Abraham (Ch.12). God’s presence often begins to
establish the point of view taken by the narrator. Thus, the interpreter must identify each of these scenes, much as
one would break up a long passage into paragraphs. It is helpful to draft a summary statement for each scene.
At some point in the narrative, the author brings to a climax the whole series of episodes in the various scenes,
thereby supplying the whole point of view for the story (E.g., I King 17). Another major element of biblical
narrative is dialogue. Robert Alter noted that everything in the world of biblical narrative ultimately gravitates
toward dialogue…. Quantitatively, a remarkably large part of the narrative burden is carried by dialogue.
Dialogue occasionally appears in the form of stylized speech, where one character repeats a part or the whole of
another character said. Another elements of biblical narrators commonly relied on certain rhetorical devices that
appears also in others kinds of prose and in poetry. Three important ones are repetition, inclusion, and chiasm.
Repetition is one of the favourite rhetorical devices in Hebrew narrative was repetition. One type of repetition
uses the recurrence of words or short phrases; another links together actions, images, motifs, themes, and ideas.
The repetition of words was especially significant. (e.g., 2 Ks. 1:3,6 and 16, I Ks. 19:9, 13; 2 Ks.1:9,11).
Inclusion is actually a form of repetition. This refers to a repetition that marks the beginning and the end of a
section, thus effectively bracketing or enveloping the marked-off material. (e.g., Ex.6:13, 26-27, Gen.35: 22, 25-
31; 49:4).
Chiasm is a literary device named after the Greek letter chi (χ). It is named for the crossing or inversion of related
elements within parallel constructions. It may involve the inversion of anything from words or clauses in two
parallel lines of poetry to a series of dialogues or even of a series of chapters of narration. It is easiest to identify
chiasms where the same words, clauses or phrases are reversed. E.g., Isaiah. 11:13; Dan.1-7.
Introduction. Dan.1
a. Dan.2 Four Gentile world empires
b. Dan.3 Gentile persecution of Israel
c. Dan.4. Divine providence over Gentiles
c. Dan.5 Divine providence over Gentiles
b.Dan.6. Gentile persecution of Israel
a. Dan.7 Four Gentile world empires
Structural Level in Narrative
The verbal level: the analysis of structure based on the verbal level focuses particularly on words or phrases that
are repeated. Repetition includes the use of metaphors, similes, and unusual constructions of the grammar or
syntax.
The level of Narrative Technique: it is expressed by the alternating patterns of (1) dialogue versus narrator’s
description; (2) narration versus descriptions (3) comment or even explanation an presentation of scenes versus
summary of the action. However, the most important is the first.
The level of the narrative world: it is realm in which the story is set. It deals mainly with the two main
components or contents of narratives: characters and events.
The level of conceptual content: this elements focuses on themes, which are usually expressed in short phrases or
ideas, which come in the form of complete sentences. Themes set forth the central issues of the narrative, while
ideas point to the lesson, message, or teaching found in the narrative.
The interpretation of narrative must give priority to the literary devices and the literary structure if we are to be
successful in interpreting this very plentiful genre.
10.3. The gospels
At first glance, gospels would seem to be easy enough to interpret. However, it is not quite that easy. The gospels
are a unique literary genre with special hermeneutical problems. The most important thing is that Jesus did not
write a gospel. But what we have is not merely a collection of sayings of Jesus, nor the teaching of Jesus written
by Himself. What we do have are four anonymous documents, whose earliest titles bore the insightful words,
“according to Mark”, etc. What this means is that the gospels have the dual nature of being both records of Jesus’
life and words and witnesses to Him on the part of the evangelists. Gospels are a transcription of those word and
events as they had also lived in a continuing ministry to the church for a thirty –fifty year period. The gospels give
us not only the deeds and words of Jesus Himself, but also reveal how Jesus continued to minister to needs in the
church in new settings, must be a consideration in their interpretation. The dual nature of the gospels will affect
our interpretations. The problem here is first of all whether the context of a given saying or narrative goes back to

14 Jibu Ninan
Hermeneutics
Jesus or belongs to the evangelist. The point is that during the oral period, whole gospels were no being handed
down. Rather, the stuff of the gospels, the sayings and narratives, were being handed down and were probably
used in isolation from their original context (eg. I Cor. 7:10-11; 9:14). The problem is that the interpreter will have
to two contexts. This does not mean that the contexts are necessarily contradictory, but that one probably is that of
Jesus and the other that of the evangelist. Thus, the interpreter should see that the Holy Spirit at work in both
contexts, should be ready for both. Eg., Lk 15 and Matt.18. in Luke, it is a parable justifying Jesus’ actions in
receiving sinners. Where as in Matthew, it is a parable telling the church what to do about a straying member.
However, not every word must be understood in light of its literary genre.
10.4. The book of Acts
The hermeneutical problem of Acts is a crucial one and touches many parts of scripture which are basically
historical narrative. Acts does serve as the basic source of early Christian history. At the same time, some of its
sections, especially the words of the apostles, have been treated very much as the epistles, i.e., as speaking
directly to our situation. However, the hermeneutical accuracy at this point seems to be of crucial importance.
Therefore, the following suggestions are proffered as some basic guidelines for interpretation.
1. In the hermeneutics of biblical history the major task of the interpreter is to discover the author’s intent in the
recording of that history. This is a general saying of hermeneutics and applies to the other literary genres as well.
But it is of special importance to the hermeneutics of the historical narratives.
2. One of the purposes that Acts has often served for the church is to establish norms for its experiences and
practices. But almost always such norms derive from descriptions of what happened, nor from statements as to
what should happen.
10.5. N.T. Epistles
Traditionally, for most Christians the epistles seem to be the easiest portions of the New Testament to interpret.
But, it is clear that the epistles are not as easy to interpret as is often thought. The following principles apply
specifically to this genre.
It is necessary to note that the epistles themselves are not a homogenous lot. There is a distinction between letters
and epistles. The former, the “real letters” were nonliterary, i.e., not written for the public and posterity, but
intended only for the person or persons to whom they are addressed. In contrast to the letter is the epistle, which is
an artistic literary form, a species of literature… intended for the publicity. The epistles may have on thing in
common. They are occasional documents of the first century, written out of the context of the author to the
context of the recipients. It is precisely these factors -that they are occasional and that they belong to the first
century- that make the interpretation of the epistles so difficult at times. They must be taken seriously as being
more letter that epistle. But that often increase our difficulties, because the author assumed so many things on the
part of the recipients. All of this took place in the first century. Our difficulty here is that we are removed from
them not only by so many years in time, and therefore in circumstances and culture, but also very often in the
world of thought.
Sound hermeneutics with regard to the epistles seems to require three steps.
1. To understand as much as possible the original setting: The interpreter must try all costs to reconstruct the
situation of the recipients. He must try to live with the author and understand his mentality and his context. He
must try to understand what the author intended the recipients to hear.
2. To hear the word of God that is addressed to that situation.
3. To hear that same word as it is addressed to our situation. One should ask whether something would truly be an
issue for the twentieth century if one had never encountered the issue in these first century documents. And also
must be alert to possible cultural differences that are sometimes not immediately obvious.
10.6. The book of psalms
The psalms are the sacred songs of Israel. It forms a part of the word of God. They comprise both lyric and
didactic poetry. In the didactic psalms, God gives instruction through the poet and addresses himself to the
understanding; in the lyric, He reveals himself through the emotions and spiritual experiences of the sacred poets,
and directs himself to the heart. In these psalms, the poet gives utterance to his deepest experiences and emotions
of joy and sorrow, hope and fear, gladsome expectation and bitter disappointment, childlike confidence and
grateful recognition. Lyric poetry contains, (1) an individual element. The poets sing of their own historical
circumstances and of their personal experiences. (2) a representative character. In the innermost depressions of
his soul, the poet is conscious of his solidarity with mankind as a whole, and feels the pulse of the communal life
of man. Therefore, the general principle must be borne in mind in the interpretation of the psalms.
a. A historical occasion for the composition of a psalm should be carefully studied.
15 Jibu Ninan
Hermeneutics
b. The interpreter should study the character of the poet and the frame of mind in which he composed his song.
c. The interpreter should not rest satisfied until he understands how they reveal God’s will.
d. In the interpretation of the messianic psalms, a careful distinction must be made between psalms or part of
psalms that are directly, and those that are indirectly messianic (Ps.2, 22, 45, 110). Since the messianic psalms are
prophetic, special attention should be paid to the quotations from them in the New Testament, and to the New
Testament realization of their predictions.
10.7. Wisdom writings
Wisdom literature expresses the writers’ concern that we order our lives according to God’s own order in the
world. Hebrew wisdom is not simply one genre but a composite with many subgenres. Among the subgenres are
the proverb, saying, riddles, admonition, and dialogue.
Proverb: proverbs are brief sayings that are memorable, embody the wisdom of many, possess a fullness of
meaning with a wide application, and have a bit of a kick or bite to them to ensure their saltiness and continued
usefulness. They are found in practically all parts of the Bible. By their nature and form, proverbs are generalized
statements that cover the widest number of instances, but in no case are they to be taken as a set of unbending
rules that must be applied in every case without exceptions.
The Saying: Closely related to the proverb is the saying. Sayings typically are statements that note what does or
does not take place from time to time. Again, they should not be taken as fixed rules, but only as observations.
These sayings may be didactic (prov.14:31) or merely experiential, describing situations that are apt to come up
frequently but that have no fixed rules (prov.17:28). Often these sayings are grouped around one topic, much in
the manner that Proverbs 1-9 returns time and again to the two contrasting women Madame Folly and Lady
Wisdom.
The Riddle: The riddle is designed to puzzle and to perplex the listener or reader in order initially to obscure and
hide some parts of its meaning, thereby testing the acuity and skill of those who attempt to solve it. The best
known riddle in the Bible does not occur in the wisdom section, but in Judges 14:14,18. I Kings 10:1. There are
riddles in the New Testament as well. Rev. 13:18.
The Allegory: An allegory is an extended metaphor-just as the parable is an extended simile. The allegory
contains its interpretation within itself. Ex. The allegory of the vine out of Egypt in Psalms 80:8-15.Eccl.12:1-7.
The genre of allegory brings a great deal of richness to both wisdom selections and other literary forms in the
Bible.
The Admonition: it is so common in the ancient Near East. The Egyptians developed this form to a high art in the
many instructions they gave for the would-be ruler and leader in Egypt. It appear in either a positive form
(commands) or a negative expression (prohibitions). Normally, a motivational clause is attached to each
admonition explaining why the injunction is being issued and noting the results that will follow (Prov. 23:3).
The Dialogue: the book of Job illustrates the most extensive use of dialogue in the wisdom writings. The dialogue
takes place between Job and his three friends: Eliphaz the Temanite, Bildad the Shuhite, and Zophar the
Naamathite. Later, Elihu the Buzite and God enter into the dialogue. Cf. Prov.5:12-14; 7:13-21; 8:4-36.
The interpreters of wisdom genres must first determine to which of the subgenres the text belongs. Each subgenre
will call for an adjustment in the interpretive strategy for that text. Perhaps more practical skill is required in
determining the exact character and the scope of this type of literature than that of any other Biblical form. Of
course, one should use the context whenever it is of any help in clarifying the background for any of these
differing forms.
10.8. The Apocalypse
The word apocalyptic is derived from the Greek word apocalupsis (Rev.1:1), which means uncovering or
revelation. Apocalyptic literature’s primary focus is the revealing of what has been hidden, particularly with
regard to the end times. Apocalyptic literature shares a number of points in common with biblical prophecy. Both
are concerned with the future. Both frequently employ figurative and symbolic language. Both emphasize the
unseen world that lies behind the action of the visible world. Both emphasize the future redemption of the faithful
believer. Apocalyptic sections do occur within the canonical books, most notably in Daniel (chapters 7-9) and in
Revelation. There are also apocalyptic passages in Joel, Amos and Zachariah.
The Apocalypse must be taken seriously as a first century document, written to a specific group of people in a
specific historical context. The Apocalypse was literary from the start, whereas their writings were first of all

16 Jibu Ninan
Hermeneutics
spoken oracles, which were later gathered and written down. The following items are recognizable apocalyptic
features and should be kept in view at any specific point of interpretation.
1. The tendency toward various kinds of schematizations should alert one to some of the carefully designed and
significant structural arrangements in the Apocalypse. Eg., (seven seals, trumpets, vials).
2. In contrast to the figures of speech or the realistic symbolism one finds, for example, in the prophets (baskets of
summer fruit) and the apocalyptists regularly used fantastic symbolism. E.g.,Beasts, horns, heads.
3. These two features of schematization and symbolism join in the apocalyptist’s use of numbers. E.g., 1000 yrs.
4. Some scholars have recognized that dramatic nature of the Apocalypse, with its varying acts and scenes.
5. All interpreters of the Apocalypse submit to the kind of humility that admits that the first recipients had
possible keys and insights which we may never have.
10.9. The prophetical writings
The interpretation of prophecy starts with the procedures that as contextual, historical-cultural, lexical-
syntactical, and theological analyses. The context of the first three chapters would be examined for
information relevant for the interpretation of what follows. Lexical-syntactical analysis would proceed
as with other genres, with the recognition that both prophecy and apocalyptic tend to use words more
frequently in symbolic, figurative and analogical senses than do other genres. Theological analysis
would ascertain how the prophecies fit into other parallel information in scripture. In interpretation of
prophecy as in other types of biblical literature, comparison of one’s work with that of others is
important.
11. Controversial Issues in Contemporary Hermeneutics
There are five issues that mainly affect hermeneutics
11.1. Validity in interpretation
Perhaps the most basic question in hermeneutics is, “Is it possible to say what constitutes the valid meaning of a
text?” or are there multiple valid meanings? E.D. Hirsch discusses the philosophy that has been gaining
acceptance since the 1920s- the meaning of a text is what it means to me”. Whereas previously the prevailing
belief had been that a text means what its author meant. Such a belief soon influenced literary criticism in areas
other than poetry, fostered by the relativism of our contemporary culture. The study of “what a text says” became
the study of “what it says to an individual critic”. For if the meaning of a text is not the author’s, then no
interpretation can possibly correspond to the meaning of the text, since the text can have no determinate or
determinable meaning.
In the study of scripture, the task of the exegete is to determine as closely as possible what God meant in a
particular passage, rather than what it means to me. If we accept the view that the meaning of a text is what it
means to me, then God’s word can have as many meanings as it does readers. To say that a text has one valid
interpretation ( the author’s intended meaning) is not to say that his writing has only one possible application. The
position scholars take on this issue of the validity of interpretation influences their exegesis. Thus it is a crucial
issue for the study of hermeneutics.
11.2. Double Authorship and sensus plenior(fuller sense).
A second controversy in hermeneutics is the double authorship issue. The orthodox view of scripture is one of
confluent authorship; that is, the human and divine authors worked together to produce the inspired text. This
issue raises these imperative questions: “what meaning did the human author intend?” “What meaning did the
divine author intend?”
Donald A. Hagner discusses this issue in the following way: To be aware of sensus plenior is to understand that
there is the possibility of more connotation to an Old Testament passage than was intentionally evident to the
original author, and more than was consciously clear to the original author, and more than can be gained by strict
grammatico-historical exegesis. Such is the nature of divine inspiration that the authors of scripture were
themselves often not conscious of the fullest significance and final application of what they wrote. This fuller
sense of the Old Testament can be seen only in retrospect and in the light of the New Testament.
Several arguments are used to support a sensus plenior position. Such as; (1) I Peter 1:10-12 seems to suggest that
the Old Testament prophets did at times speak things they did not understand; (2) Daniel 12:8 seems to indicate
that Daniel did not understand the meaning of all the prophetic visions that had been given to him; and (3)a
number of prophecies seem unlikely to have had contemporaneous comprehension (eg., Dan. 8:27, Jn. 11:49-52).
17 Jibu Ninan
Hermeneutics
Those who argue against a sensus plenior position make the following points: (1) Accepting the idea of double
meanings in scripture may open the way for all sorts of exegetical interpretations; (2) the I Peter 1:10-12 passage
can be understood to mean that the Old Testament prophets wee ignorant only of the time of the fulfillment of
their predictions but not of the meaning of their predictions; (3) in some instances prophets understood the
meaning of their predictions but not the full implications of prophecy, and (4) in some instances the prophets may
have understood the meaning of their prophecy but not its historical referent.
However, the sensus plenior controversy is one of those issues not likely to be settled even today.
11.3. Literal, Figurative, and Symbolic Interpretations of Scripture
Third controversial issues in contemporary hermeneutics involve the literalness with which we interpret the words
of scripture. According to Henry A. Virkler, liberal theologians claim that incidents such as the fall, the flood, and
the story of Jonah’s submarine voyage should be understood as metaphors, symbols and allegories rather than as
actual historical events. They say that since all the words are symbols representing ideas, we should not seek to
apply these words in a strictly literal sense. Where as conservative theologians agree that words can be used in
literal, figurative, or symbolic senses. The following three sentences exemplify this:
1. Literal: A crown was placed on the king’s head.
2. Figurative: (Angry father to son) “If you do that once more, I will crown you”.
3. Symbolic: A great and wondrous sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, with the moon
under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head” Rev. 12:1.
Literal and figurative expressions usually do refer to actual historical events. The relationship between the ideas
expressed by the words and reality is direct, rather than symbolic. However, ideas conveyed in symbolic language
also frequently have historical referents. Thus the woman in Revelation 12:1 may signify the nation of Israel, with
twelve stars presenting the twelve tribes, the moon the Old Testament revelation, and the sun the light of New
Testament revelation.
Problems result when readers interpret statements in a mode other than the one intended by the author. As much
distortion of the author’s meaning results from interpreting a literal statement figuratively as from interpreting a
figurative statement literally. If all words are in some sense symbols, how can we determine when they are to be
understood literally, or figuratively, or symbolically? The conservative theologians say that the same criterion for
determining the valid interpretation of all other types of literature applies here, namely, that the words are to be
interpreted according to the author’s intention. If the author meant them to be interpreted symbolically, we err
equally if we interpret them literally.
11.4. Spiritual Factors in the Perceptual Process
A fourth controversial issue in contemporary hermeneutics has to do with whether or not spiritual factors affect
ability to perceive accurately the truths contained in scripture. Some scholars say that scripture itself teaches that
spiritual commitment, or lack of it, influences ability to perceive spiritual truth. Based on Rom. 1:18-22, Icor.2:6-
14, Eph.4:17-4, spiritual blindness and darkened understanding hinder a person’s ability to discern the truth
regardless of one’s knowledge and application of hermeneutical principles.

10.6. O.T. Laws

The exegesis dealing with legal matters was called halakic midrash. This form of interpretation attempted to apply
the law by analogy and by a combination of texts to those exceptional cases for which there was no special
enactment in Moses’ law. Jewish interpretation was determined by its own theological framework and the goals of
the community in which the scriptures played a role. Three important groups helped to formulate different aspects
of Jewish interpretation: the rabbis, the Qumran sect of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the Jewish Diaspora.
The Rabbis: After the days of Ezra and the teachers, who came after the Maccabean revolt, a tradition began that
eventually resulted in the great written collections that in the Christian era were called the Mishnah, Gemara, and
the Talmud. In the beginning, this tradition of oral law developed as a parallel to the Torah. But as time went on,
the validity of this tradition had to be proved by referring to the biblical texts themselves.

18 Jibu Ninan