Let's begin by admitting that we cannot do detailed exegetical work in sermons or on every page of a popular book; it would kill
the enterprise. But neither can we avoid it because Scripture is our only authority for saying anything. Quality-work done in the study
under-girds the work of the pulpit and literature as the only way of validating our
conclusions. It goes without saying that filling a sermon or book with textual
references while ignoring exegetical rigour and reformed theological
parameters does little more than create an illusion of faithfulness. A sound hermeneutic for this writer is the Confessional hermeneutic of Westminster.
William Evans reminds us that confessions are the product of their age and are normative for the communities that produce and interpret them. Exegeting the Confession might be thought to be less exacting than exegeting Scripture. Not so, he tells us, for the problems are the same. For instance, we cannot get back to the original authors' intent and therefore must make of it what we can. We have to 'contextualize' the Confession. This has implications for how we understand subscription and the taking of exceptions.
William Evans reminds us that confessions are the product of their age and are normative for the communities that produce and interpret them. Exegeting the Confession might be thought to be less exacting than exegeting Scripture. Not so, he tells us, for the problems are the same. For instance, we cannot get back to the original authors' intent and therefore must make of it what we can. We have to 'contextualize' the Confession. This has implications for how we understand subscription and the taking of exceptions.
If the Confession really is the product of the believing community, we might reasonably anticipate that exceptions will be few, not many, minor not major and public not private. If we cannot proceed in the confidence that the men of Westminster said what they meant and meant what they said, we can proceed nowhere at all. Acknowledging the essential difference between inspired an uninspired writings, we must yet affirm that no doctrine of the Confession is of any private interpretation. In the words of Charles Hodge, 'It is no less plain that the candidate has no right to put his own sense upon the words propounded to him. He has no right to select from all possible meanings which the words may bear, that particular sense which suits his purpose.'2 As for revision, unless we (the church) have compelling scriptural reasons for for change, the confession should remain intact as the public statement of faith and practice to which we are bound to subscribe.
In it application to Christian discourse the confession sets the hermeneutical parameters. The interpretive method is set down in the Confession. If subscription is at all meaningful, we should not fear theological parameters but be thankful for them. Nor should we feel the need to break the mould or kick over the traces, whether in the interests of semper reformandum or as a reaction to the anachronistic charge that the Assembly failed to address today's issues. The Confession is 'dated', we know that, but not essentially, otherwise it could have little relevance. What is might be 'guilty' of is by omission not commission, which leaves little need for revision. As a comprehensive and systematic summary of biblical doctrine it sets forth 'supracultural’ truth with great clarity, laying down timeless principles especially relevant to the interpretation of scripture, which is what this article is really about. So while revision is always possible3 the truth summarised and set forth represents both the irreducible deposit and the safe environment in which to carry out exegetical exploration.
A confessional hermeneutic for our purpose therefore, is not primarily about interpreting the confession but about interpreting scripture. It has to do with how we get out of scripture what is in it. The hermeneutic of 'reformed' preaching and literature must necessarily resemble the hermeneutic of the standards in its employment of the principle of scripture being its own interpreter. At a time when it is de rigeur to come at the biblical text from a point on the outside, the proposition that 'The infallible rule of interpretation of scripture is the scripture itself...' draws us back to what is fundamental and essential. Whatever the possible insights of Literary Theory, Social Anthropology, Second Temple Judaism, Discourse Analysis and other disciplines, none constitutes the key to getting out of scripture what is in it.
It goes without saying that this does not remove the necessity of appropriate principles and methods. Where there is a question about the true and full sense of scripture, we employ as our basic tool the analogy of faith so that what is 'not alike clear' 'may be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.' This is simple but emphatically not simplistic. Comparing texts requires discernment of their doctrinal content and didactic import, which is why we call it the analogy of faith. It is more than a simple comparison of texts. Rather we have to exegete texts in order to know that they are truly comparable as opposed to being superficially similar.
Additionally,
when texts do not speak directly to a point, we apply the principle of necessary
and justifiable inference: 'The whole counsel of God, concerning all things
necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either
expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be
deduced from Scripture.' The Westminster Assembly took great care to safeguard
the method so as to avoid superficial exegesis based on false comparisons and
eisegesis issuing from the use of strange and unbiblical hermeneutical grids.
Yet in all this there is room for exegetical disagreement. The Assembly, which was not a hermeneutical monolith, admitted that all places in scripture are not alike plain. Variations of understanding may occur but reassuringly, always within the boundaries of the system of doctrine agreed by the church and set forth in the confession. A confessional hermeneutic provides a necessary, if not infallible, safeguard against exegetical, hermeneutical and doctrinal aberration and provides a safe environment for exploration and discussion about the meaning of texts.
Successful exegesis is not a matter of intuition. Students learning to exegete are often unaware of their hermeneutical baggage and fail to recognise the difference between themselves and the text. Consequently they read their own experience or that of others into it. Distanciation helps us come to grips with our personal hermeneutical predispositions. Eisegesis or reading meaning into the text goes hand in hand with failure to recognise personal interpretive baggage and a predilection for superficial comparison. The idea that because texts are similar-looking or sounding they necessarily speak to the same point is simplistic. These weaknesses, which are neither truly exegetical nor reformed, may combine to create an illusion of understanding but in reality are the consequence of distracting influences and presuppositions. A certain facility and ease of movement in the handling texts can be mistaken for spiritual illumination. Yet the idea that not having to work hard with the text equals inspired insight probably has nothing to do with the Holy Spirit and everything to do with an ability to elevate the incidental to a position of first importance – the genesis of heresy!
In the words of the Westminster
Directory For the Public Worship of God, what matters is that we 'insist upon those doctrines which are principally intended.' In order to do this we must get out of the text what it says (author's intention) in a way consistent with the nature, character, content and context of scripture itself. This was the conviction of the reformers and their successors. According to The Second Helvetic Confession 'we hold that interpretation of the Scripture to be orthodox and genuine which is gleaned from the Scriptures themselves (from the nature of the language in which they were written, likewise according to the circumstances in which they were set down, and expounded in the light of like and unlike passages and of many and clearer passages) which agrees with the rule of faith and life, and contributes much to the glory of and man's salvation.' (Ch. 20.5.010)
1 The following are reflections drawn from a paper entitled Discoursing Like Paul, presented at the annual officers’ conference of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church in England and Wales’, September 2011. As such they are little more than introductory.
2 http://www.reformation21.org/blog/william-b-evans/owards a Confessional Hermeneutic: Some Suggestions
2 http://www.reformation21.org/blog/william-b-evans/owards a Confessional Hermeneutic: Some Suggestions
3 (The minister’s
Vows and the Confession of Faith: http://continuing.wordpress.com/tag/charles-hodge/)
4 For example the adjustments to Articles 23 et al in
American editions.
