Distinct from exegesis

Although one may encounter the terms "hermeneutics" and "exegesis" used interchangeably, there is a distinction to
be maintained. Bernard Ramm describes the difference as follows:

"Hermeneutics . . . stands in the same relationship to exegesis that a rule-book stands to a game. . . . The
rules are not the game, and the game is meaningless without the rules. Hermeneutics proper is not exegesis,
but exegesis is applied hermeneutics."[1]

Perhaps the closest relation between these two terms would be "hermeneutics" and "exegetical method."

Challenges

Applying sound principles of hermeneutics requires answers to a variety of questions:

• Who was the writer?

• To whom were they writing?
• Is the choice of words, wording, or word order significant in this particular passage?
• What is the cultural, historical context?
• What was the author's original intended meaning?
• How did the author's contemporaries understand him?
• Why did he say it that way?

General rules of hermeneutics

One original interpretation

A fundamental belief in hermeneutics is that there is one original interpretation. When the author of a book recorded
history, or wrote their letter(s) or gospel, they had a single intended meaning attached to what they wrote. For
example, when a person writes a letter, they are not thinking of how they can write it so that the receiving person
either cannot understand it or ends up with many different interpretations. Instead, there is a particular meaning in
what was written. The interpretation is restricted by the writers intentions. Thus, when doing hermeneutics, one
should always be aware of what the authors intended meaning was. This should guide and direct one's studies, and
should also safeguard against interpretations that do not fit the thought or flow of the book one is studying.
Application

It should be noted that although there is a single interpretation to be found in each passage, there can be more than
one application. However, these applications should stem from the interpretation and be guided by what Scripture
says elsewhere.

Regard for genre

"A passage might be legal, narrative, polemic, poetry, wisdom, gospel, logical discourse, or prophetic literature,
each having specific guidelines for proper interpretation."[2]

Regard for literary devices

"Various forms of Hebrew poetry, simile, metaphor, and hyperbole need to be recognized if the reader is to
understand the passage's meaning." [3]

Regard for literal meaning

A text should be interpreted with the degree of precision intended by the author. It should be interpreted "according
to its literal, or normal, sense. The literal sense is the grammatical-historical sense, that is, the meaning which the
writer expressed. Interpretation according to the literal sense will take account of all figures of speech and literary
forms found in the text."[4]

Rules specific to the Bible

Divine accommodation

"The Bible is to be interpreted in view of the fact that it is an accommodation of Divine truths to human minds: God
the infinite communicating with man the finite... We must be careful, then, not to push accommodating language
about God and His nature to literal extremes. God does not have feathers and wings (e.g., Psalms 17:8); nor is He
our literal Father in the same sense our earthly father is." Robert Hommel, forananswer.org

Progressive revelation

"The Old Testament is the New Testament concealed, and the New Testament is the Old Testament revealed." "The
Word of God is to be understood from the Old Testament to the New Testament as a flower unfolding its petals to
the morning sun."[5]

Harmony

"No part of the Bible may be interpreted so as to contradict another part of the Bible. The Christian presupposes the
inerrancy and harmony of Scripture as a necessary result of a perfect Creator God revealing Himself perfectly to
Mankind."[6]

Methods/schools

Allegorical
"Prior to the Protestant Reformation in the 1500s, biblical interpretation was often dominated by the allegorical
method. Looking back to Augustine, the medieval church believed that every biblical passage contained four levels
of meaning. These four levels were the literal, the allegorical, the moral, and the eschatological. For instance, the
word Jerusalem literally referred to the city itself; allegorically, it refers to the church of Christ; morally, it indicates
the human soul; and eschatologically it points to the heavenly Jerusalem."[7]

Grammatico-historical

"[T]his method of interpretation focuses attention not only on literary forms but upon grammatical constructions and
historical contexts out of which the Scriptures were written. It is solidly in the 'literal schools' of interpretation, and
is the hermeneutical methodology embraced by virtually all evangelical Protestant exegetes and scholars."[8] "The
writings of the earliest Church Fathers (Ignatius of Antioch, Ireneaus, and Justin Martyr) indicate that they took
Scripture literally, unless the context clearly militated against it."[9]

Letterism

"While often ignoring context, historical and cultural setting, and even grammatical structure, letterism takes each
word as an isolated truth. A problem with this method is that it fails to take into account the different literary genre,
or types, in the Bible. The Hebrew poetry of the Psalms is not to be interpreted in the same way as is the logical
discourse of Romans. Letterism tends to lead to legalism because of its inability to distinguish between literary
types. All passages tend to become equally binding on current believers."[10]

Postmodern

Role of the Holy Spirit

"Some have wrongly argued that knowledge of the culture and languages of biblical times is not necessary, that the
Holy Spirit will interpret the text for us. The role of the Holy Spirit is to illumine the believer in order to accept and
apply what is found in Scripture. The Bible says that the natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit (1 Cor
2:14). The Greek word for "accept" means 'to take something willingly and with pleasure.' The key role of the Spirit
is not to add information to the text, or to give us special translating abilities, but to soften our hearts in order to
receive what is there."

"[W]e must not say that the Spirit adds more revelation to the written Word. This denies the sufficiency of Scripture.
Further, it renders such an interpretation non-falsifiable because then the Spirit's added revelation is accessible to me
only through you. Finally, it comes perilously close to Barth's neoorthodox position that the Bible becomes the
Word of God in one's experience."[11]