Exegesis and Hermeneutics: Some Thoughts on Interpreting the Scriptures (Updated)
Lately I have been reading a couple of books by Dr. Peter Enns, a biblical scholar who has written much on hermeneutics. I came across Enns while reading a Latter-day Saint scholar recently, Ben Spackman (highly recommend his blog check it out here). The current book I am reading by him is Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament. I don't want to get into the book too much, but Enns is writing about common failings in reading the Old Testament that Evangelicals do (and he is an Evangelical). Latter-day Saints fall into the same failings. I highly recommend his book. It got me thinking a lot about interpretation and how to do it properly. Caveat: we all make mistakes with interpreting scriptures no matter who we are and I hope to illustrate this well. It should come as no shock to anyone.
First, lets define these terms. I frequently have a hard time defining terms of similarity like these. I remember spending forever trying to figure out the difference between doctrine and principles mainly due to bad definitions given to me by others. Thankfully Elder Bednar has a great book that defines them well. Hermeneutics and exegesis both fall under the umbrella of interpretation, interpretation being the most general then hermeneutics and finally exegesis. "The term interpretation is often used in a less technical and more general sense . . . [and] being the broadest of the three terms, incorporates both hermeneutics and exegesis as subcategories. . . . The next term to follow is hermeneutics, which refers to the over-arching theories or philosophies that guide exegesis. And finally, exegesis, the most specific of the three terms, refers to the actual practice, procedures, and methods one uses to understand a text.”1 I'm going to flesh these out a little more.
Hermeneutics
Ben Spackman, a scholar Semitic languages, Biblical studies, and other specialties, defines them both succinctly. He states, "For those unfamiliar, “exegesis” is the process of interpretation, Greek for “drawing out. “Hermeneutics” is the study, philosophy, and science of interpretation. We might think of “exegesis” as producing a result, and hermeneutics as more to do with studying the process itself, being aware of what’s in our Black Box."2 The black box being our interpretive lens and consists of various things including background, training, and culture. Hermeneutics involves the study and philosophy of the methods or principles we use to interpret. For example, a method I am found of would be the historical-critical method. This method tries to uncover the original meaning by diving into the historical context. But this is just one method. There are numerous methods or principles of interpretation and they can be good or bad. So you may ask yourself "what is my approach when I am reading and interpreting scripture? What are my assumptions? What are my lenses?" Doing so would draw out the methods you used. These methods along with the study of them is hermeneutics.
The methods you choose will depend on your goal. A quote I very much enjoy comes from the Biblical Archaeology Society, Dr. White said the following, "Your interpretive goal will ultimately determine your Biblical hermeneutic."3 They give some good examples in the linked article. Hopefully that is as clear as mud.
Exegesis
Now we will look at the actual process of interpretation with its various methods involved. This is exegesis. It falls under the broader umbrella of hermeneutics. I will be utilizing the historical-critical method in this explanation. When looking at scripture our first questions should be to understand what the original intent of the author is and how the audience would have understood it. There is a lot that goes into this. It requires us to read the text very carefully. What is the author's point? What is their train of thought? It is also important to understood the history and culture of the region. There is a lot of stuff that goes without being said. Idioms for example are statements that we typically understand but other cultures would have a very difficult time understanding. For instance, "beating a dead horse." That is a strange phrase but we understand what it means, another culture may not. Another example, is sarcasm. I have a friend from Nicaragua that has had a hard time understanding sarcasm in American culture because it is not part of his culture. There are things in our culture that we take for granted and they go without being said. We can easily misread the scriptures because of it, placing our culture in the scriptures where it does not belong. As L.P. Hartley famously said, "the past is a different country; they do things differently there." I hope I have been able to illustrate exegesis to you by briefly detailing the process of using this method to draw out the meaning of the text. To sum it up, hermeneutics is the science or study of interpretation and exegesis is the process or the interpretation in action. Hermeneutics guide the exegesis. They are the what, why, and how of the process.
The Black Box
I want to dive a little deeper into this idea of what can color our lenses and lead us on the wrong path when interpreting scripture. I highly recommend this book, Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes. For instance, we often misread the Nativity story by thinking because there was no room in the inns that Mary and Joseph were left out in the street to find a stable. The inhospitality would be so out of character for their culture. It would be considered a grievous sin. That is why in Ezekiel 16 it states that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was due to their inhospitable natures. So we need to remove our cultural blinders as much as possible and ask the right questions. There are many books that can help us with that. You can start with the Bible Dictionary in our study helps, but it is out of date and not as comprehensive as others. An understanding of the ancient Near East helps tremendously. There is quite a bit to learn to fully grasp the ancient worldview. And to simply say we only need the scriptures is missing the mark, in my opinion, if we truly want to understand the text. I place that caveat at the end knowing full well that resources are limited for some people and I believe God is merciful and understanding. I have another blog on the importance of seeking knowledge coming up. I think Ben Spackman sums it up nicely, "I believe you cannot fully learn from scripture unless you are also actively learning about scripture. The first is the act of a disciple and the second that of a scholar."4
One last thought before moving on. President Nelson stated, "good inspiration is based upon good information."5 Likewise, the quality of our sources will determine the quality of our answers. We have so many good resources at our disposal. Here are a few good options from BYU: BYU Studies, Religious Educator, and Maxwell Institute. And here is a list of others that are very helpful:
Prophetic Interpretation
How do we view all of this in light of having modern prophets? How do they fit into all of this?
First of all, there are fifteen men who stand at the helm sustained as prophets, seers, and revelators. The President of the Church holds all priesthood keys and has authority to exercise them. They are the watchmen on the tower. They are the Lord's spokesmen and reveal the mind and will of the Lord for His Church. They interpret scripture, receive new revelation, and establish doctrine for the Church. As the Apostle Paul taught:
They are the foundation on which the Church rests. Why? He answers that in Eph. 4. He writes:
Nephi wrote, "For my soul delighteth in plainness; for after this manner doth the Lord God work among the children of men. For the Lord God giveth light unto the understanding; for he speaketh unto men according to their language, unto their understanding." (2 Ne 31:3, emphasis added) I think we often overlook the last part of this verse because of the beginning. The Lord speaks plainly, period. Well, yes, he does, but according to our understanding. What we read in the Book of Mormon was given to the understanding of their people. But you may ask, isn't it written for our day? Well, not in the sense you are stating it. It was edited for our day. Mormon and Moroni under the inspiration of the Almighty selected and abridged passages of their records for us. That didn't remove the human element. For example, Nephi and Moroni speak little of war, but Mormon talks about it a lot. It is clear that is where some of his interests lie. Nothing wrong with it, just shows more of his worldview, even to the point of quite possibly naming his son, Moroni, after Captain Moroni. I find that rather intriguing. So the Lord reveals His word to us according to our language and understanding. Enns, speaking of Genesis, states, "It is wholly incomprehensible to think that thousands of years ago God would have felt constrained to speak in a way that would be meaningful only to Westerners several thousand years later. To do so borders on modern, Western arrogance. Rather, Genesis makes its case in a way that ancient men and women would have readily understood--indeed, the only way."7
This brings up an important question, does this mean prophets can be wrong? Well, we act according to the our understanding and the light we are willing and able to receive. After the 1978 Revelation extending the priesthood to all worthy males, Elder Bruce R. McConkie had this to say:
Just as the Lord states, "I will give unto the children of men line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little; and blessed are those who hearken unto my precepts, and lend an ear unto my counsel, for they shall learn wisdom; for unto him that receiveth I will give more; and from them that shall say, We have enough, from them shall be taken away even that which they have." (2 Ne 28:30)
The ancient prophets and apostles interpreted the scriptures differently from the today's prophets and apostles, the same goes within our own dispensation as is evident by Elder McConkie's words. Furthermore, original intent does not bar today's prophets and apostles anymore than it barred the ancient ones from interpreting scriptures differently as they are moved upon by the Holy Spirit. The same goes for us. As the Lord sheds forth more light and knowledge, our understanding evolves to a more complete truth. That means we cannot be absolutist in our views about whatever method we in interpreting scripture nor can we view things in the past with our modern glasses. As Peter wrote, "no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by human will, but men and women moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." (2 Pe 1:20-21 NRSV) We know that the Earth is not a flat disk protected by a firmament from the chaotic waters which surround us, but that is what the ancients believed and God revealed to them according to their understanding. Genesis is not meant to be a scientific story of the creation.
Update: I wanted to add in this quote from Ben Spackman. I just read it and it illustrates the point well. "I raised the idea that prophets tend to share the worldviews and myths of their culture, with myth properly defined as something like 'worldview expressed in narrative.' Their revelations are by necessity received and framed within that worldview. In other words, prophets in different times and places would understand the world differently, though they may share some revealed knowledge of the Gospel. Put very bluntly, some prophets in the past believed things we would today consider false or counter-factual and, further, the scriptures themselves are the evidence for that."9 You can see the article here. He goes on to talk about the firmament in the heaven and how it was understood anciently. It was considered to be a solid dome that held back the chaotic waters. That fits well into the culture they lived and their understanding of how things worked.
We also cannot be absolutist with our own current views. I know there are certain truths that have been revealed that eternal and unchanging. For instance, Jesus is the Christ, the son of the living God. That is an eternal truth. But there are also many things we do not know. For example, we have no clue where Zarahemla is, other than somewhere in the Americas. We just don't know. Absolutism is dangerous ground and we should not be so rigid that we break when new truth is revealed. That being said understanding original intent is crucial to understanding the scriptures. It is just not as black and white as many want it to be. But therein lies the fun, the journey towards truth. And from good information we obtain, the Lord will uncover many truths.
And let me add in, unequivocally, the need for a modern prophet. Please do not take what I said to denigrate the Brethren. I only wished to convey that they are subject to the same weaknesses as the rest of us. It has been said that the Catholics are taught that the Pope is infallible, but they don't believe it, and Latter-day Saints are taught that the Prophet is fallible, but they don't believe it. Let us place our faith in the Lord and do the work required of us. These principles I have shared can assist us in this quest.
To sum it all up and principles to help us interpret properly:
Sources:
1. Stanley E. Porter and Kent D. Clarke, “What Is Exegesis? An Analysis of Various Definitions,” in Handbook to Exegesis of the New Testament, ed. Stanley E. Porter (Boston: Brill, 2002), 6.
2. Spackman, Ben. “Mormon History Association Conference 2020: Scripture, Science, Interpretation, and Fundamentalism.” Ben Spackman, January 16, 2020. https://benspackman.com/2020/01/15/mormon-history-association-conference-2020-scripture-science-interpretation-and-fundamentalism/.
3. White, Ellen. “Defining Biblical Hermeneutics.” Biblical Archaeology Society, May 8, 2019. https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/bible-interpretation/defining-biblical-hermeneutics/.
4. Spackman, Ben. “New Testament Gospel Doctrine Resources (Post 1): Top 5 Books.” Benjamin the Scribe. Patheos, November 17, 2018. https://www.patheos.com/blogs/benjaminthescribe/2018/11/new-testament-gospel-doctrine-resources-post-1-top-5-books/.
5. President Russell M. Nelson. "Revelation for the Church, Revelation for Our Lives." https://bit.ly/39Z1MKY
6. Woodruff, Wilford. “Living Oracles Even More Important Than Scriptures.” Brigham Young University Idaho. https://emp.byui.edu/satterfieldb/quotes/Modern Prophet More important the Scripture.html.
7. Enns, Peter. Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2005), 55.
8. Elder Bruce R. McConkie. FairMormon. https://bit.ly/39Z1Dao
9. Spackman, Ben. "Encultured Prophets and the Firmament of Genesis: Peter Enns Continued." Ben Spackman, November 9, 2010. https://benspackman.com/2010/11/09/encultured-prophets-and-the-firmament-of-genesis-peter-enns-continued/.
First, lets define these terms. I frequently have a hard time defining terms of similarity like these. I remember spending forever trying to figure out the difference between doctrine and principles mainly due to bad definitions given to me by others. Thankfully Elder Bednar has a great book that defines them well. Hermeneutics and exegesis both fall under the umbrella of interpretation, interpretation being the most general then hermeneutics and finally exegesis. "The term interpretation is often used in a less technical and more general sense . . . [and] being the broadest of the three terms, incorporates both hermeneutics and exegesis as subcategories. . . . The next term to follow is hermeneutics, which refers to the over-arching theories or philosophies that guide exegesis. And finally, exegesis, the most specific of the three terms, refers to the actual practice, procedures, and methods one uses to understand a text.”1 I'm going to flesh these out a little more.
Hermeneutics
Ben Spackman, a scholar Semitic languages, Biblical studies, and other specialties, defines them both succinctly. He states, "For those unfamiliar, “exegesis” is the process of interpretation, Greek for “drawing out. “Hermeneutics” is the study, philosophy, and science of interpretation. We might think of “exegesis” as producing a result, and hermeneutics as more to do with studying the process itself, being aware of what’s in our Black Box."2 The black box being our interpretive lens and consists of various things including background, training, and culture. Hermeneutics involves the study and philosophy of the methods or principles we use to interpret. For example, a method I am found of would be the historical-critical method. This method tries to uncover the original meaning by diving into the historical context. But this is just one method. There are numerous methods or principles of interpretation and they can be good or bad. So you may ask yourself "what is my approach when I am reading and interpreting scripture? What are my assumptions? What are my lenses?" Doing so would draw out the methods you used. These methods along with the study of them is hermeneutics.
The methods you choose will depend on your goal. A quote I very much enjoy comes from the Biblical Archaeology Society, Dr. White said the following, "Your interpretive goal will ultimately determine your Biblical hermeneutic."3 They give some good examples in the linked article. Hopefully that is as clear as mud.
Exegesis
Now we will look at the actual process of interpretation with its various methods involved. This is exegesis. It falls under the broader umbrella of hermeneutics. I will be utilizing the historical-critical method in this explanation. When looking at scripture our first questions should be to understand what the original intent of the author is and how the audience would have understood it. There is a lot that goes into this. It requires us to read the text very carefully. What is the author's point? What is their train of thought? It is also important to understood the history and culture of the region. There is a lot of stuff that goes without being said. Idioms for example are statements that we typically understand but other cultures would have a very difficult time understanding. For instance, "beating a dead horse." That is a strange phrase but we understand what it means, another culture may not. Another example, is sarcasm. I have a friend from Nicaragua that has had a hard time understanding sarcasm in American culture because it is not part of his culture. There are things in our culture that we take for granted and they go without being said. We can easily misread the scriptures because of it, placing our culture in the scriptures where it does not belong. As L.P. Hartley famously said, "the past is a different country; they do things differently there." I hope I have been able to illustrate exegesis to you by briefly detailing the process of using this method to draw out the meaning of the text. To sum it up, hermeneutics is the science or study of interpretation and exegesis is the process or the interpretation in action. Hermeneutics guide the exegesis. They are the what, why, and how of the process.
The Black Box
I want to dive a little deeper into this idea of what can color our lenses and lead us on the wrong path when interpreting scripture. I highly recommend this book, Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes. For instance, we often misread the Nativity story by thinking because there was no room in the inns that Mary and Joseph were left out in the street to find a stable. The inhospitality would be so out of character for their culture. It would be considered a grievous sin. That is why in Ezekiel 16 it states that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was due to their inhospitable natures. So we need to remove our cultural blinders as much as possible and ask the right questions. There are many books that can help us with that. You can start with the Bible Dictionary in our study helps, but it is out of date and not as comprehensive as others. An understanding of the ancient Near East helps tremendously. There is quite a bit to learn to fully grasp the ancient worldview. And to simply say we only need the scriptures is missing the mark, in my opinion, if we truly want to understand the text. I place that caveat at the end knowing full well that resources are limited for some people and I believe God is merciful and understanding. I have another blog on the importance of seeking knowledge coming up. I think Ben Spackman sums it up nicely, "I believe you cannot fully learn from scripture unless you are also actively learning about scripture. The first is the act of a disciple and the second that of a scholar."4
One last thought before moving on. President Nelson stated, "good inspiration is based upon good information."5 Likewise, the quality of our sources will determine the quality of our answers. We have so many good resources at our disposal. Here are a few good options from BYU: BYU Studies, Religious Educator, and Maxwell Institute. And here is a list of others that are very helpful:
- Book of Mormon Central
- Loads of good resources on this website
- Be sure to pick up their new app ScripturePlus
- Pearl of Great Price Central
- Ben Spackman's blog
- His blogs are filled with great info and links to great books
- Ploni Almoni-Stephen Smoot's blog
- Lots of great blog posts, critiques, and information here.
- Temple Themes-Jeffrey Bradshaw
- Several free books that are wonderful reads. Links to good videos too.
- The Interpreter Foundation
- Biblical Archaeology Review
- Lots of good YouTube channels from the above and others.
- I cannot even begin to list all the recommended books. Too many. I am partial to Nibley, but that is because I love his style. But there is too many to list. The above is a good start.
Prophetic Interpretation
How do we view all of this in light of having modern prophets? How do they fit into all of this?
First of all, there are fifteen men who stand at the helm sustained as prophets, seers, and revelators. The President of the Church holds all priesthood keys and has authority to exercise them. They are the watchmen on the tower. They are the Lord's spokesmen and reveal the mind and will of the Lord for His Church. They interpret scripture, receive new revelation, and establish doctrine for the Church. As the Apostle Paul taught:
"So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are citizens with the saints and also the members of the household of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the cornerstone." (Eph. 2:19-20 NRSV)
They are the foundation on which the Church rests. Why? He answers that in Eph. 4. He writes:
"The gifts he gave were that some would be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until all of us come to the unity of faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to maturity, to the measure of the full stature of Christ. We must no longer be children tossed to and fro and blown about by every wind of doctrine, by people's trickery, by their craftiness in deceitful scheming. But speaking the truth in love, we must grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by every ligament with which it is equipped, as each part is working properly, promotes the body's growth in building itself up in love." (Eph. 4:11-16 NRSV)Just as a foundation is a critical part to any building, the apostles and prophets are critical to the Lord's Church. They are His ambassadors to the world and through them He gives us direction. Just as in days long past, we have a prophet at the helm leading and guiding us home to Christ today. To illustrate this point further I will quote from Wilford Woodruff. President Woodruff recorded a meeting in which Hyrum Smith recounted the need for the scriptures and to stay close to them. After which Joseph asked Brigham Young to speak. President Woodruff records:
Joseph turned to Brother Brigham Young and said, “Brother Brigham I want you to take the stand and tell us your views with regard to the written oracles and the written word of God.” Brother Brigham took the stand, and he took the Bible, and laid it down; he took the Book of Mormon, and laid it down; and he took the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and laid it down before him, and he said: “There is the written word of God to us, concerning the work of God from the beginning of the world, almost, to our day.” “And now,” said he, “when compared with the living oracles those books are nothing to me; those books do not convey the word of God direct to us now, as do the words of a Prophet or a man bearing the Holy Priesthood in our day and generation. I would rather have the living oracles than all the writing in the books.” That was the course he pursued. When he was through, Brother Joseph said to the congregation: “Brother Brigham has told you the word of the Lord, and he has told you the truth.”6I wanted to be clear about the importance of the role of prophets. That being said prophets are still human like you and me, subject to the same frailties. They have their own background, cultural upbringing, their own black box through which they see the world. That doesn't mean they are not trustworthy, only that there is a human element. It is clear that prophets and apostles interpret by the power of the Holy Spirit, and under that same power new revelation is also given. But that doesn't take away the human element. Hence, often the way the Apostles of the ancient Church interpreted the Old Testament is different than the way the original author intended. Each prophet, every person has their own cultural milieu, their own way of looking at the world. Revelation does not bypass that but goes through it.
Nephi wrote, "For my soul delighteth in plainness; for after this manner doth the Lord God work among the children of men. For the Lord God giveth light unto the understanding; for he speaketh unto men according to their language, unto their understanding." (2 Ne 31:3, emphasis added) I think we often overlook the last part of this verse because of the beginning. The Lord speaks plainly, period. Well, yes, he does, but according to our understanding. What we read in the Book of Mormon was given to the understanding of their people. But you may ask, isn't it written for our day? Well, not in the sense you are stating it. It was edited for our day. Mormon and Moroni under the inspiration of the Almighty selected and abridged passages of their records for us. That didn't remove the human element. For example, Nephi and Moroni speak little of war, but Mormon talks about it a lot. It is clear that is where some of his interests lie. Nothing wrong with it, just shows more of his worldview, even to the point of quite possibly naming his son, Moroni, after Captain Moroni. I find that rather intriguing. So the Lord reveals His word to us according to our language and understanding. Enns, speaking of Genesis, states, "It is wholly incomprehensible to think that thousands of years ago God would have felt constrained to speak in a way that would be meaningful only to Westerners several thousand years later. To do so borders on modern, Western arrogance. Rather, Genesis makes its case in a way that ancient men and women would have readily understood--indeed, the only way."7
This brings up an important question, does this mean prophets can be wrong? Well, we act according to the our understanding and the light we are willing and able to receive. After the 1978 Revelation extending the priesthood to all worthy males, Elder Bruce R. McConkie had this to say:
There are statements in our literature by the early brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things.... All I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world. We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness, and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don't matter any more. It doesn't make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June of this year [1978]. It is a new day and a new arrangement, and the Lord has now given the revelation that sheds light out into the world on this subject. As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them. We now do what meridian Israel did when the Lord said the gospel should go to the gentiles. We forget all the statements that limited the gospel to the house of Israel, and we start going to the gentiles.8
The ancient prophets and apostles interpreted the scriptures differently from the today's prophets and apostles, the same goes within our own dispensation as is evident by Elder McConkie's words. Furthermore, original intent does not bar today's prophets and apostles anymore than it barred the ancient ones from interpreting scriptures differently as they are moved upon by the Holy Spirit. The same goes for us. As the Lord sheds forth more light and knowledge, our understanding evolves to a more complete truth. That means we cannot be absolutist in our views about whatever method we in interpreting scripture nor can we view things in the past with our modern glasses. As Peter wrote, "no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by human will, but men and women moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." (2 Pe 1:20-21 NRSV) We know that the Earth is not a flat disk protected by a firmament from the chaotic waters which surround us, but that is what the ancients believed and God revealed to them according to their understanding. Genesis is not meant to be a scientific story of the creation.
Update: I wanted to add in this quote from Ben Spackman. I just read it and it illustrates the point well. "I raised the idea that prophets tend to share the worldviews and myths of their culture, with myth properly defined as something like 'worldview expressed in narrative.' Their revelations are by necessity received and framed within that worldview. In other words, prophets in different times and places would understand the world differently, though they may share some revealed knowledge of the Gospel. Put very bluntly, some prophets in the past believed things we would today consider false or counter-factual and, further, the scriptures themselves are the evidence for that."9 You can see the article here. He goes on to talk about the firmament in the heaven and how it was understood anciently. It was considered to be a solid dome that held back the chaotic waters. That fits well into the culture they lived and their understanding of how things worked.
We also cannot be absolutist with our own current views. I know there are certain truths that have been revealed that eternal and unchanging. For instance, Jesus is the Christ, the son of the living God. That is an eternal truth. But there are also many things we do not know. For example, we have no clue where Zarahemla is, other than somewhere in the Americas. We just don't know. Absolutism is dangerous ground and we should not be so rigid that we break when new truth is revealed. That being said understanding original intent is crucial to understanding the scriptures. It is just not as black and white as many want it to be. But therein lies the fun, the journey towards truth. And from good information we obtain, the Lord will uncover many truths.
And let me add in, unequivocally, the need for a modern prophet. Please do not take what I said to denigrate the Brethren. I only wished to convey that they are subject to the same weaknesses as the rest of us. It has been said that the Catholics are taught that the Pope is infallible, but they don't believe it, and Latter-day Saints are taught that the Prophet is fallible, but they don't believe it. Let us place our faith in the Lord and do the work required of us. These principles I have shared can assist us in this quest.
To sum it all up and principles to help us interpret properly:
- Hermeneutics is the study or science of interpreting. It study of the philosophies and methods used.
- Exegesis is the process of interpreting. It depends on your goal. I have illustrated the historical-critical method in this post. It requires studying about scripture. Going to the best books. And there are a lot of them. We have scrutinize and read carefully.
- It is always good to check ourselves along the way to see if you are interpreting properly. It is good ask questions such as How do I know it means that? What assumptions am I making? Any cultural blind spots? Check high quality sources including scholars.
- Remember to check the canon, the Standard Works, they are the standard by which we measure.
- Do not forget to check the words of modern-day prophets. They hold the keys of authoritative interpretation. They reveal the mind and will of the Lord to the Church and are here to guide and direct us.
- Do not forget to pray. This is a crucial part of the whole process.
- As always remember to follow the Spirit. That is first and foremost.
Again a word of caution, if the Spirit leads you to interpret a passage a way that is known to be contrary to the author's original intent of that scripture, first follow it, He is always right. Second, don't confuse your interpretation with the original intent. I think that is the biggest goal of the post, is we often confuse our interpretations with the original intent to the point of being absolute and rigid, unwilling to change our minds. I have been there on several occasions in the past and thanks be to God that He has opened my eyes to see more clearly. We misread due to cultural blindness, lack of understanding, and lack of learning. And learning and understanding will lead to my next post. We need to wrestle with the text, wrestle with God as Jacob once did. Just my two cents.
Sources:
1. Stanley E. Porter and Kent D. Clarke, “What Is Exegesis? An Analysis of Various Definitions,” in Handbook to Exegesis of the New Testament, ed. Stanley E. Porter (Boston: Brill, 2002), 6.
2. Spackman, Ben. “Mormon History Association Conference 2020: Scripture, Science, Interpretation, and Fundamentalism.” Ben Spackman, January 16, 2020. https://benspackman.com/2020/01/15/mormon-history-association-conference-2020-scripture-science-interpretation-and-fundamentalism/.
3. White, Ellen. “Defining Biblical Hermeneutics.” Biblical Archaeology Society, May 8, 2019. https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/bible-interpretation/defining-biblical-hermeneutics/.
4. Spackman, Ben. “New Testament Gospel Doctrine Resources (Post 1): Top 5 Books.” Benjamin the Scribe. Patheos, November 17, 2018. https://www.patheos.com/blogs/benjaminthescribe/2018/11/new-testament-gospel-doctrine-resources-post-1-top-5-books/.
5. President Russell M. Nelson. "Revelation for the Church, Revelation for Our Lives." https://bit.ly/39Z1MKY
6. Woodruff, Wilford. “Living Oracles Even More Important Than Scriptures.” Brigham Young University Idaho. https://emp.byui.edu/satterfieldb/quotes/Modern Prophet More important the Scripture.html.
7. Enns, Peter. Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2005), 55.
8. Elder Bruce R. McConkie. FairMormon. https://bit.ly/39Z1Dao
9. Spackman, Ben. "Encultured Prophets and the Firmament of Genesis: Peter Enns Continued." Ben Spackman, November 9, 2010. https://benspackman.com/2010/11/09/encultured-prophets-and-the-firmament-of-genesis-peter-enns-continued/.
Comments
Post a Comment