I have divided this older but over-long piece into more digestible bits:
In this essay I want to examine some of what is happening in the world of philosophical hermeneutics so that we can better understand the influences that are being seen in evangelical textbooks on the subject. Still more, we shall start to understand why evangelicals are jumping ship from grammatico-historical interpretation; a situation that threatens dispensationalism even more.
- Definitions: Hermeneutics, Exegesis, Application
In any discussion, but especially in those involving foundational matters, it is crucial to define ones terms. Hermeneutics has been given a few different definitions. Many are covered by Robert Thomas in his book, Evangelical Hermeneutics.For the moment it will suffice to borrow from a standard conservative manual.
As a theological discipline hermeneutics is the science of the correct interpretation of the Bible…It seeks to formulate those particular rules which pertain to the special factors connected with the Bible. It stands in the same relationship to exegesis that a rule-book stands to a game.
The definition above draws a helpful comparison between a book of rules that acts as the control over what is admissible and what is precluded in playing a game. All ought to play by the same rules. If they don’t; if each player thinks they can make up their own rules, the game is spoiled. This has been a good assumption of Bible interpreters, which has yielded excellent sermons, commentaries and theologies in the past. It has also been the operating assumption of those modern scholars whose hermeneutics books advocate a more subjective, reader-response attitude to the text of Scripture. As E. D. Hirsch noted, “Most authors believe in the accessibility of their verbal meaning, for otherwise most of them would not write.” It would seem to be safe policy to define hermeneutics in a reductionistic fashion so as to leave room for clear roles for exegesis and application. Thus, we may begin by agreeing with Thomas’s classification of hermeneutics as “a set of principles” for right interpretation. In the picture of the bridge across the frozen river (obtained from Servant’s Place) the two banks of the river are connected by the structure. Hermeneutics is the bridge between the author and the interpreter. It should be the best way to get from the one to the other.
Once hermeneutics has been so narrowly (and properly) labeled, it is alright to proceed to define exegesis. Exegesis is the implementation of the rules of hermeneutics to the Biblical text. As such, it involves the use of sanctified reason, as well as a certain finesse wrought out of a familiarity with the contents of Scripture. It is the act of investigative interpretation, which comprises adherence to hermeneutical principles along with a certain artistry brought by the subject. One should not speak of art or imagination when one is defining hermeneutics. Hermeneutics does not entail active engagement with a text. That is where exegesis takes over.
To understand how the definition of hermeneutics has become confused, consider these definitions:
Hermeneutics: Theory and principles of interpretation; for writings, correctly understanding the thought of an author and communicating it to others.
Hermeneutics: The “science” of understanding the significance for a new audience of a text originally intended for a different audience
The first definition proceeds from formulation to implementation without batting an eyelid. Indeed, it moves beyond that and incorporates application within the actual process of interpretation, so that whereas application should be associated with the end-product of exegetical-expositional communication, here it is being read into the text.
In the second definition authorial intention is displaced by a preoccupation with present-day significance. Application is king! But by what rules is application guided? We see then that a precise and exclusive delineation of hermeneutics is mandatory for accurate guidance in scriptural comprehension.
- Why Hermeneutics is Important
God has given us the Bible so that we can know about Him, about ourselves, and about our world. We understand from Scripture that we need a Savior, and we discover who the Savior is, what He has accomplished on our behalf, and what we must do to acquire salvation.
All of this presupposes that we can understand what God is saying in His Word. Indeed, without the Bible, it is not possible for fallen man to interpret his life correctly. As one recent book explains it, “the Bible provides us with the basic story that we need in order to understand our world and to live in it as God’s people.”
Every time a child opens up a story-book and starts to read he or she takes for granted certain rules of interpretation; rules about spelling, basic grammar, context, and so on. As grown ups we do the same. Whenever we read or write something we presuppose certain norms of communication. Without them we could neither read nor write intelligibly. In the biblical philosophy of life, God gave human language so that He could converse with His creature, man, and so that man could obey Him dutifully. Language was also given in order that man could converse with God and verbalize God’s praise back to Him. Thirdly, language was given so that man could communicate with his fellow man. This view of language should be taken with us when we attempt to devise a set of principles for Biblical interpretation. The whole aim of Biblical hermeneutics is spelled out by Ramm when he says, “we need to know the correct method of interpretation so that we do not confuse the voice of God with the voice of man.”
The Starting-Point of Interpretation
Obviously, we must ascertain what the right set of principles is with which to interpret the Bible, and for this we must ask ourselves where the starting point of hermeneutics is.
Before hermeneutical principles can be clearly ascertained the reader of Scripture must realize that either he/she is the starting-point of interpretation or God is. Interpretation is grounded in the internal musings of man or it is grounded in the external Word of God to man. Any sound biblical philosophy will stipulate that the Christian heart and mind must begin from a transcendent point – the mind of God expressed in His Word.
Liberal hermeneutics, falling in line with man-centered thought forms, always assumes an immanentistic outlook. The Tubingen scholar Gerhard Maier supposes that the question of whether one takes man as the starting-point or revelation itself as the starting-point is “the most significant hermeneutical decision.” If that is the case then the Bible-believer has no choice but to adopt a transcendent starting-point. If such a view goes against the grain of the interpreter it should be pointed out that this is the only position to take if one is going to take the Bible’s own attestation seriously. When an immanent standpoint is taken, the interpreter places himself under the dictates of Cartesian foundationalism, and when that step is taken “truth” is no longer derived from God through Divine revelation, it must be found out somehow by men whose wisdom it would be to declare, because of their finiteness and ignorance, that the task is beyond them.
We are left, then, with dependent reason, guided by faith in the God who has graciously revealed Himself to us. To cite Maier,
If we have rightly defined our task, namely, to understand the Bible in accordance with its own basic claim, and if we have rightly observed that the Bible is the most unique “object,” then our guiding principle must be to proceed consistently from the revelation that encounters us in the form of the Bible. The starting point must strictly and consistently be revelation itself.
Once we have decided which comes first, the mind of the interpreter or the mind of God as revealed in Holy Scripture, we can look into the rules of interpretation themselves.Some evangelicals (e.g. Jonathan Edwards) have argued that because the Bible is inspired it ought to be interpreted by a different set of principles from a normal book.Maier is one of those who believe a special biblical hermeneutics is necessary.He puts forth four good reasons for his opinion.
First, the Bible is unique in the world of literature by the very fact that it is inspired. In here alone God speaks in written form.
Second, Maier very perceptively says that “the biblical writers seek consciously to recede into the background. They point away from themselves to God as the author of their message.” This being the case, Maier thinks that to begin with a “normal hermeneutic” would be to set up the banner of human reason over the whole process.
In the third place, in order for the proper distinction between Creator and creature be kept, it is imperative that the Holy Spirit help us to comprehend His meaning. Surely this implies that a deeper understanding does not come through reading the bare words on the page, but from Divine illumination.
Then finally, one cannot disregard the deleterious effects of sin upon our reason, not to mention the problem of preunderstanding that makes impartial interpretation impossible. Sin is shaping the reader of the Bible in some way
Our response to these issues is that although we see the truth in them all we do not believe that this clears the way for a special kind of hermeneutical engagement -provided reason is subordinated to revelation.The first two points have been pivotal to the thesis we have been presenting.And the third grows naturally out of those points.Even the last matter is granted to some extent, although we think that properly conceived grammatico-historical rules of interpretation, employed by a regenerate and obedient person will reduce the risk of “noetic contamination” considerably.
 This essay is an extract, slightly adapted, from the author’s dissertation
 Robert L. Thomas, Evangelical Hermeneutics: The New Versus the Old, (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2002), 28.
 Bernard Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation, (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1975), 11.
 E. D. Hirsch, Jr., Validity in Interpretation, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1978), 18.
 Thomas, 27.
 As e.g., William W. Klein, Craig L. Blomberg, Robert L. Hubbard, Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, (Nashville, TN: Nelson, 1993, revised and expanded), 5.There is much fine material in this work.
 It is unfortunate that even some dispensationalists confound hermeneutics and exegesis. This is somewhat due to the employment of an inclusive designation of hermeneutics as including “observation, interpretation, and application.” Such a definition is, of course, far too broad for a dispensationalist.
 Bruce Corley, Steve Lemke, Grant Lovejoy, eds., Biblical Hermeneutics, (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1996), 367.
 Richard J. Erickson, A Beginner’s Guide to New Testament Exegesis, (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2004), 222.
 Craig G. Bartholomew & Michael W. Goheen, The Drama of Scripture, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004), 21.
 A thought-provoking treatment of language from a Christian perspective is Quentin J. Schulze, Communicating for Life: Christian Stewardship in Community and Media, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000).
 Ramm, 2.
 See chapters 4, 6 and 7 of the present writer’s dissertation, Method and Function in Dispensational Theology.
 Gerhard Maier, Biblical Hermeneutics, (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1994), 29.
 Ibid, 30.
 Ibid, 34.
 Ibid, 20-21.
 Ibid, 22-23.
 Ibid, 24.
 Ibid, 25.
 Maier recommends a Biblical-Historical hermeneutics.Ibid, 375-409.