When approaching systematic theology, the inevitable first topic is hermeneutics. One’s hermeneutical approach lays the groundwork for how every other topic is addressed. It provides the methodology for reading the text of scripture and the means for drawing conclusions about any of the topics that follow it.
Now, when one sets out to determine what a text means, it is often first set in the surrounding context, not only of the surrounding text but of the time, place, author, etc. And here is where hermeneutics, as it relates to the bible, takes a turn from hermeneutics dealing with other texts. This is primarily because the Bible is inspired, and our theology of inspiration affirms a dual-authorship of the biblical texts.
Inspiration
The typical way to express a Reformed view of inspiration is by the phrase verbal plenary inspiration, meaning that the entire (hence plenary) Bible is the word of God (hence verbal) but spoken through the background, grammar, style, etc. of the human authors (in contradistinction to a dictation theory).
As it is the word of God, we affirm that the Bible is infallible and inerrant, and thus does not contradict itself. We affirm that, while a story may be recounted in different ways depending on the book, this is not because the authors disagree on the facts, but because the authors had different backgrounds, audiences, and focuses.
Comparable to the Reformed view of compatibilism as it pertains to predestination and free will, we could say that inspiration works by God’s words and the human author’s words speaking simultaneously. God’s will is done and man’s will is done in such a way that the same actions occur and the same words result.
This is, however, where I think the greater hermeneutical difficulties can come in.
Authorial Intent
One of the primary questions that children are taught to ask in English class is “what did the author mean by this?” It aims at understanding not only the vocabulary but the history and personality of the author to decipher how different literary features may be interpreted.
In theological circles, however, I find that the search for authorial intent can be expanded in such a way that it forgets God’s authorship. For example, a common test case for hermeneutics is the comparison of Hosea 11:1 with Matthew 2:14. In a recent discussion I had with someone about Dispensational hermeneutics, the issue arose about whether Hosea 11:1 was about Christ. Clearly, when Hosea was writing, he was writing about Israel. I don’t think Hosea necessarily knew that his words would be applied to Christ when he first wrote them. But Matthew 2:15 definitely makes it clear that Hosea 11:1 was about Christ, even though Hosea didn’t know it at the time.
The search for authorial intent can chase down one leg of the hermeneutical discussion, but to the detriment of the fact that God is also the author of Hosea 11:1 and he may have had a different intent with those words than Hosea. Similar to how Joseph’s brothers are responsible for their actions despite God’s good intentions for them, Hosea intended to write about Israel, but God’s intention for his words extended to Christ as well.
The biblical authors likely didn’t have systematic theologies in mind when they were writing their letters or historical accounts. But God’s authorship enables a book like Acts to be mined for the truth about God’s attributes, proper ecclesiological structure, spiritual gifts, etc. Luke was writing a historical narrative, but Acts serves systematic purposes as well.
Death of the Author
With the former being said, we do not wish to fall too far in the other direction. Death of the Author is the literary theory that essentially removes the author from the equation and allows the reader to interpret the text largely unguided. Once the author completes the text, it is released upon the world for the audience to make of it what they wish. It frees the audience to read into the text whatever meaning they wish.
This pitfall of hermeneutics is often seen when prophetic writings are directly connected to modern events (Jeremiah 29:11 and 2 Chronicles 7:14 being common examples). But it’s also seen when a text is read and each person provides “what it means to them,” with no regard for the author’s context. The focus is wholly placed on the fact that the Bible is inspired and therefore has meaning for us, but leaves out completely any biblical constraints as to what that meaning is.
God’s inspiration does not eliminate the surrounding context of the author. That is to say, God’s inspiration does not grant us the right to read the Bible as though the human authorship doesn’t matter. The historical events surrounding the scriptures still give insight as to what they mean.
Conclusion
As we take our hermeneutics into the rest of scripture and theology, let us remember these potential pitfalls. Since God is the author of scripture, he can superintend texts to point beyond their immediate historical context into a greater meaning and application. He can inspire texts to communicate truth beyond the human author’s awareness. But since scripture has a human author, we constrain our interpretation from drifting into total subjectivism by being mindful of what the human author first wrote the text to mean. And we are further constrained by the remembrance that the Bible will never be contradictory because God is perfect and his word reflects that.