HISTORY OF MODERN INTERPRETATION

I. Liberalism 

A. Following from the emphasis on rationalism, a new breed of Christianity arose, which challenged the historic form.

B. Liberalism used the same words as traditional Christianity, yet it redefined the words in such a way that the essence of the faith was fundamentally altered.

C. J. Gresham Machen, who went to get a doctoral degree in Germany, the center of liberal ideology, returned to write the book, “Christianity and Liberalism.” 

D. Rudolph Bultmann 

Bultmann was a famous liberal interpreter of the Bible. He claimed that modern man was no longer capable of believing Scripture.

Instead, man should look deeper into Scripture, where he will find that the miracle stories contain spiritual truths.

The problem with fundamentalists is that they take the book at face value, but the disciples surely knew people did not rise from the dead. Apostles wrote believing that later interpreters would know the stories were noble myths.

By “demythologizing” Scripture, we find the meaning tucked into the fantastical narratives.

For example, Jesus’ resurrection was merely a way of saying that the ideas of Jesus concerning love and acceptance will never die. 

E. The fruit of liberalism continues to influence theology today 

JEDP theory

Theories on the Gospels

Denial of apostolic authorship 

F. Liberalism is alive today. 

Every generation siphons new converts to liberalism

Liberalism itself is sterile, for it cannot produce its own disciples.

Liberal congregations are always seeking to change the Scripture to whatever modern ideas are prevalent. 

II. Neoorthodoxy 

A. In response to liberalism, some theologians (chief among them Karl Barth) began teaching a new form of orthodoxy.

B. Believing he was saving Christianity, Barth sought to put Scripture outside the reach of man.

C. Neoorthodoxy claims that the Bible is not the Word of God; instead, the Bible gives us access to the Word.

D. God is in control of Scripture, so He can make the Word come to men at any time and through any means.

E. The normal means would be the Word of God, yet one may not experience the Word of God when they read the Word of God.

This is because doing so would put man in control of God. 

III. Modern Debates on Meaning 

A. Interpretation has blossomed in the last few centuries providing three distinctive views of meaning. 

Text based—the text is an artifact which has independent meaning.

Reader based—the text is a game which allows all players to derive their own meaning.

Author based—the text is a channel of communication designed to reveal the author’s thought. 

B. Text–Based Meaning 

Overview 

The meaning of a text is independent of the author.

The text, once penned, has an authoritative meaning that cannot change (unless edited).

Even if Paul were to appear and contradict, we should not listen, since the book means what it says, not what he says it means. 

The primary problem with this approach is that a text—words and letters—cannot have meaning unless made meaningful by someone. Meaning takes reasoning and logic, but words and letters cannot reason by themselves. Thus, meaning must begin somewhere with a person. 

Though it is possible that a text can say something other than intended (e.g., the adultery Bible), the Spirit’s inspiration of Scripture guarantees that we have no errors. 

C. Reader–Based Meaning 

Overview 

The meaning of a text cannot be communicated from one speaker to another.

All communication is time–bound, culture–bound, and person–bound, so meaningful communication is impossible.

Thus, reading is a futile exercise unless we maximally personalize the test, producing our own meaning in our own time/culture/person. 

Reader based methods in Evangelical Churches? 

There is a danger of this with non–expository preaching, where a preacher determines what he wants to say and then seeks a text to reflect his preconceived message.

There is a danger of this in small group studies, which focus more on what people think than what the text says. 

Embracing a reader-centered hermeneutic destroys meaning. 

If the text means something unique to everyone, it cannot mean something to everyone!

“When critics deliberately banished the original author, they themselves usurped his place, ... Where before there had been but one author, there now arose a multiplicity of them, each carrying as much authority as the next. To banish the original author, as the determiner of meaning was to reject the only compelling normative principle that could lend validity to all interpretation.... For if the meaning of a text is not the author’s then no interpretation can possibly correspond to the meaning of text, since the text can have no determinate... meaning”28

Famous example—U.S. Constitution and the Supreme Court (Roe v Wade)

D. Author–Based Meaning 

Prior to the present age, this has always been understood to be the proper way to interpret.

Reading a text is communicating with a person. If we value that person, we care about what they mean, not what their words could mean (text–based) or what I want their words to mean (reader based). 

IV. The Reader’s Involvement in Reading 

A. Despite the primary place the author has in the question of meaning, the reader does have a place in the communication event. 

Meaning is not from the reader, but application is. 

Meaning is different from application. 

Applications are ever changing. Though meaning never changes, the reader constantly interprets application to fit their own context. 

Meaning is not from the reader, but the discovery of implication is from the reader. 

When the Scripture says “do not be drunk with wine,” one implication is that we should not be drunk with beer either.

In other words, we need to go back to the principles and then expand the principles. This does not change the meaning, but it has a large impact on how we apply texts today.

Example: Thou shalt not kill (Matthew 5:21-22)

For a pregnant woman, it means I should not get an abortion

For someone angry with another man, it means he should not physically kill him

Jesus indicates that the text goes deeper than even these (Matt 5:22) 

Readers bring pre-understandings (i.e., presuppositions) 

There is no such thing as a “pure reading” without pre-understandings.

It is not even desirable that one read without presuppositions.

The question is not whether we read with pre-understandings,

the question concerns whether we are aware of our pre-understandings. 

__

Our pre-understandings can either help us interpret correctly or hinder us from interpreting correctly. 

Helpful pre-understandings: the Bible has no errors; God is speaking to me in His Word; all Scripture is given to me by God; I have a sin nature; God has created all people equal; no one deserves salvation; etc.

Unhelpful pre-understandings: man is morally good; some races are inferior; truth is relative to each person; differing gender roles indicates patriarchy; etc. 

Unfortunately, our pre-understandings can determine our understanding. That is, we approach Scripture thinking we will find something and sometimes twist the text into saying what we thought it should say.