The Liberation of Puerto Rico: The Hermeneutical Principle

                         The Liberation of Puerto Rico: The Hermeneutical Principle

Having dealt with the issues of the inspiration and the authority of Scripture, we now move on to a very important issue which many readers of Scripture make every attempt to avoid dealing with.  It is the issue of biblical hermeneutics or in other words the principle of determining the interpretation and meaning of the text. Many readers believe that the issue at hand (whatever it may be) can be resolved merely by quoting Scripture or regurgitating "what it says."  While I believe that our theology needs to be biblically rooted, I also am convinced that our use of Scripture has to be a responsible one, and that we should make every effort to avoid a haphazard approach in our utilization of the Bible.  Biblical theology goes over and beyond the cliche of "going by what the Bible says." There are certain procedures that one must follow if one is to construct a theology which can claim to be biblically based.  They are as follows:

1. Linguistic Origins- The reader of Scripture should be aware that the Bible was not written in English, Spanish, or in any of the languages which the majority of people in the world read it in. The Bible was written in three ancient languages, i.e. Hebrew and Aramaic for the Old Testament, and Greek for the New Testament.  Some may ask "What is the big deal about the linguistic origins of Scripture?"  The "big deal" is that there are instances where they may be a gap between what is written in the original language of Scripture, and what we read in the modern language translations. The following are examples:

A. In the Old Testament, the Hebrew word for God is "Elohim."  In the Hebrew language, the word "Elohim" is plural and would be translated into English as "gods."  In essence, the opening words of Genesis would read in Hebrew "In the beginning gods created the heavens and the earth."  No reader of Scripture, whether Christian or Jew,  would say that because the word "Elohim" is plural, that the book of Genesis is promoting a belief in polygamy or the worship of more than one God. How, then, can the appearance of God's name in plural be reconciled with the biblical notion of one God?  The careful student of Scripture would note through research that the reason why the word God appears in plural is because in the ancient Middle Eastern culture God was described and thought of in terms of a multiplicity of attributes such as justice, love, power, protection, etc.  The attributes of God were personalized and therefore, the term "Elohim" was used for God.

B.  In the English and other translations of the Old Testament, the term "Lord" appears for God.  However, the term that appears in the Old Testament "Yahweh" which some have translated into English as Jehovah. Thus in the English translations the twenty-third Psalm begins with the words "The Lord is my shepherd." The rendering in Hebrew is "Yahweh is my shepherd."  In Spanish, it is rendered "Jehovah es mi pastor (Jehovah is my shepherd).   Why do some translations use the word "Lord" while others use the term "Jehovah?"  If the Hebrew renders it as Yahweh, should not the translations use the original word?  The issue here is that of the use of the divine name, or what is called the Tetragrammaton.  The Hebrews/Jews had a great reverence for the Ten Commandments, especially for the one that said, "You shall not take the name of Yahweh your God in vain.  Because they had had such a great reverence for God's name, they were afraid to pronounce it, and even went as far as becoming superstitious about it.  Therefore, whenever they came across the name Yahweh, even though it was written there, in order to avoid the slightest possibility of blasphemy, they would substitute the name Yahweh with the title "Adonai" which is Hebrew for "Lord."  That is the reason why many translations use the word "Lord" instead of Yahweh, i.e. recognizing the reverence which the Hebrews/Jews had for God's name along with the superstitions accompanying that reverence.

C. In Paul's letter to the Colossians, he makes use of the word "firstborn" to refer to Jesus.  This has lead certain groups throughout Christian history such as the Arians and the modern-day Jehovah's Witnesses to sustain that Jesus was created by God and that there was a time that He did not exist,  The reasoning of these groups is, if the Scripture refers to Jesus as being the "first-born," doesn't that point to Him being a creature rather than being God the Creator as many Christians believe He is?  Here again, we run into the issue of language.  There are two words in the Greek (the original language of the New Testament) which are translated as "firstborn."  The first word is "protogenes," which means literally, the first one to be born or the oldest.  The second word is "prototokos," which means the heir or inheritor.  The word which Paul uses in the original Greek is "prototokos," rendering Jesus as the "heir" or "inheritor" of God.

D.  In John's Gospel account (John 3:16), we are told that God so loved the world (in Greek "cosmos" or "kosmos") that He gave His only begotten Son.  In one of his letters at the end of the New Testament, this very same writer tells Christians that they should not love the world ("cosmos," "kosmos") because whoever loves the "world" is an adversary of God.  Why does John at one point say that God loved the "world" and at another point tell Christians not to love what God loved?  Again it is an issue of language. In the Gospel account "kosmos" refers to human beings, and in the letter "kosmos" refers to the human systems that have been built.

2.  Cultural Origins-The careful reader of Scripture will know that the cultural mindset of the biblical writers  was different than the cultural mindset of the writers.  Thus in the culture of the biblical writers, washing the feet of guests who entered one's home was a custom reflecting hospitality.  It would correspond to the modern-day equivalent of offering a guest a cup of coffee, a soft drink, or even a glass of wine. In that culture, sexual morality was tied to property.  For example, the woman was considered the property of the man, and marriages were arranged..  That raises the question as to whether sexual morality in the Bible can be applied to a society and times such as ours? It would, no doubt, explain why Solomon would advise his readers that when they sit down at the dinner table to "put a knife to their throat."

3.  The careful reader of Scripture will note that the books of the Bible represent a variety of literary styles. There is literal history, there is allegory, metaphor, legend, myth, etc.  None of these various styles vitiate the message which comes through Scripture, but rather affirm that God speaks in a variety of ways.

4.  The reader of Scripture will note that the Bible was not written in heaven and thrown down to earth. The text reveals that divine revelation was filtered and mediated through human experience and history.  The Bible was not written in a cultural or historical vacuum.

5. Those who make not only a careful, but also, a responsible use of Scripture will note that there is an apparent time gap between the time of the events recorded on the one hand, and the time of their being recorded in written form on the other hand.  For example, the reader should know that there was a time gap of anywhere between thirty and fifty years between the time of Jesus's earthly ministry, death, and resurrection, and the time that these events were recorded.  It would be obvious that the Gospel writers did not follow Jesus around recording every single thing that He said and did.

6.  The responsible reader of Scripture will be careful to avoid reading the Scripture through the prism of her/his own upbringing in the home, community of faith, and society.  We do tend to bring the baggage of our experience and upbringing to the Bible.

7.  The reader of Scripture will not only ask "What did this mean back then?" He/she will also ask "What does this mean today and how can it be applied today?"

In order to determine what the "correct" interpretation of the biblical text is, and especially how one derives a body of interpretive theory relevant to the situation of a colonial people, one would want, I believe, to follow the following guidelines that would constitute a sound hermeneutical principle.

1.  The Bible should be its own interpreter (E. Lund, Hermeneutics. Springfield: Gospel Publishing House, n.d. p. 19).  By this I mean that the Scriptures should be interpreted by the use of the Scriptures themselves. Support for erroneous views of God, humanity, and life can be found in the Scriptures if one abandons this simple principle.  People can use the Bible to make a case for reincarnation, the infallibility of human leaders, militarism, etc. by lifting out passages, which in their thinking, establish the basis for such beliefs.  The principle of biblical self-interpretation is one which calls for us to compare the various parts of Scripture in order to arrive at some understanding of the passage in question.

2.  The words of Scripture should be understood in their usual and ordinary sense (Lund, p. 25). What I am saying is that one should examine and seek to determine how the writers of Scripture made use of familiar words.  The writers of Scripture were not addressing a certain caste of privileged people.  Therefore, they did not use language or terminology which was far and above the comprehension of the people.  A perfect example of this is that the New Testament was written in koine Greek (the Greek of the common people) and not in Attic Greek (the Greek of the upper echelons of society.) They wrote in a way that was very intelligible to their audience.  It is for that reason that we find in the writings of the Bible freedom and variety of expressions.

3.  Words should be understood according to the conjunction of the phrase (Lund, p.28).  The meaning of some words varies according to the phrase, text, or verse.  An example would be the use of the word "flesh." In Romans 3:20, this word is used to refer to persons: Therefore, by the deeds of the law, there shall no flesh be justified in His sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

4. Words should be understood according to the context (Lund, p. 32).  This is made possible when one takes into consideration the verses that precede and follow within the body of the text itself.  Many times the conjunction of the phrase does not provide any clarity as to the meaning of a particular word.  In such instances, one should examine preceding and following verses so that obscure phrases can be properly understood.

5.  One should attempt to discern the purpose of the book or passages in which certain words or expressions occur (Lund, p. 39). This rule is really an amplification of the previous ones.  It is to be applied when the conjunction of the phrase and the context do not provide a clear light on the meaning of the words. One can best determine the purpose of the writing of the book or passage when they are read in their entirety. One should study the book or passage attentively and  repeatedly, taking into account all the people that the writers were addressing. This rule enables the reader of Scripture to have a better understanding of the passages which appear to be contradictory.  It also enables one to attain a broader understanding of passages which,  in themselves are clear.

6.  The Bible comes from God and possesses unity of design and teaching (Northeast Bible Institute, Biblical Hermeneutics. Greenlane: n.p., n.d. p. 1). By this I am saying that the Bible is not merely the product of the human mind.  The interaction of the divine and the human spirits produced the writing of Scripture. In spite of the diversity which exists, there is an underlying unity which becomes apparent to the reader of Scripture. One should approach the Scriptures with the assumption that they are inspired by God, and that the writers expressed the thinking of God in their writings.  If one can accept this assumption, then there is very little difficulty in accepting the basic unity of this body of writing.

7.  The Bible cannot contradict itself (Northeast Bible Institute, p. 1).  Its teaching in one part must agree with its teaching in every part.  The contrasts and the variety which one finds in Scripture in no way indicate that there is contradiction in the Bible.  Any interpretation which renders the Bible self-contradictory or inconsistent must rest on false premises.

8. No meaning should be elicited from Scripture other than that which a fair and honest interpretation yields (Northeast Bible Institute p. 1).  By this I mean that the reader of Scripture should make use of all the tools which one has available in attempting to determine what the correct interpretation of a particular passage or book may be.  To elicit in interpretation which is not found even implicitly in Scripture, is to distort the original intention of the writers of Scripture.  If possible, one should make use of the original languages in which the Bible was written. In this way, it is possible to come closer to the meaning which the writers sought to give.  In the event that one is not able to undertake a full study of the biblical languages, one should then obtain a lexicon (Bible dictionary in the original languages) which present the meaning of certain words in the original language and their meaning via translation into the languages which are spoken today.