On Interpreting Scripture

The interpretation of Scripture is fundamental to our Christian faith. The rallying cry of the Reformation was Sola Scriptura, among others. Several hundred years later, under the influence of the postmodern, poststructuralist movement upon which human language is argued to be contingent upon the social-cultural factors of its current epoch, how then can the Christian meaningfully interpret the Bible - a book that was written several thousands of years ago.
Below is a long, but excellent reply from a friend - who is about to embark on a degree course in law. Emphasis mine.
----------------
Used with permission.

All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto
all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed,
for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture
or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the
ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of
them. - Westminster Confession of Faith, I:VII

Your question deals with the topic of what is traditionally termed "the perspicuity of Scripture", which deals with the clarity of the Scriptures. It is an interesting question to ask, after all, if even the most capable exegetes need commentaries, numerous greek/hebrew texts, and the other literature of the time in order to interpret particular portions of Scripture, what makes the layman capable of doing the job on his own? Furthermore, if even exegetes can make mistakes (and they have), how can the layman even suppose himself to embark on the job of figuring out what the Scriptures say? Analytic philosophers make it a full time job to interpret what their own peers are saying, and they exist in a similar time period! How much more the difficulties
of us people who try to read a text that was written 2000 and more years ago, in a socio-political-rhetorical context that is so vastly different from ours? Taking a good illustration, Alisdair MacIntyre, in "Whose Justice? Which Rationality?" makes an excellent case on your side by referring to translations of the Homeric plays that miss the point altogether, and often create a worldview that is off from that that is Homer's worldview, by no fault of the translator, but our socio-political-rhetorical context that causes us to interpret it in a manner different from that of Homer's worldview. Indeed, it seems that the only way we can plumb the depths of any writing whatsoever (and especially literary ones), is to first read the available resources that will first unravel the linguistic context of the time.

Looking at it, it may just seem as if this whole doctrine of the Priesthood of Believers in regards to the interpretation of Scripture is just a liberal notion of placing autonomy in the individual, instead of subjecting the individual to the relevant authority, as it is more rational to do.

I am sympathetic with your laments, especially in light of all the weird interpretations that people sometimes give of individual texts in the name of 'exegesis', which, upon closer examination, really turns out to be eisegesis. People who do not know their own worldview often uncritically apply it to their reading of Scripture, distorting its meaning many a time. Perhaps the most obvious example of this is how some people turn to the Scriptures and ask "how does it speak to me?", and, in the process, ignore the context of the text completely. All this done with the sanction of this hallowed doctrine of the reformation.

While I sympathize which much of your feelings, I will beg to differ because a proper understanding of the doctrine and the role of tradition defeat it. At the same time, I will also seek to establish a position that will attempt to meet our concerns for accurate exegesis with the role of the layman in interpretation, and necessary practical steps. I will then end by talking about why the doctrine of the Perspicuity of Scripture is one that we must continue to guard.

Some prolegomenal thoughts:The doctrine of the Priesthood of Believers with regards to believers reading the Scriptures for themselves is deeply linked with the doctrine of sola scriptura. This is because the belief that believers should interpret the sciptures for themselves is rooted in the belief that the only ultimate authority that should bind the Christian, is the Scriptures, and therefore, his own personal conviction of what the Scriptures say is what is the most important. It follows then that if he does not accept the ultimate authority of any but the Scriptures, he may (but not necessarily) start with the premises that external material is only secondary to the primary text of the Scriptures.

On Tradition

We will progress from here by considering that a doctrine of sola scriptura does not cause the believer to read the scripture in a vacuumes manner, and to make a case that the doctrine of sola scriptura encompasses with it the role of tradition, and the regula Fidei, so that it is possible to assert that the believer may hold to a doctrine of sola scriptura, but still be bound by tradition, so that we may assert that the exercise of the Perspicuity of Scripture does not open a pandora's box of arbitrary interpretations. The doctrine of sola scriptura affirms that the ultimate authority for faith and practice is to be vested in the Scriptures alone. This assertion, however, does not preclude the use of materials in a secondary manner in order to gain understanding of what the Scriptures mean to say. That defeats the notion that the Priesthood of Believers and sola scriptura conceptually serve to encourage the growth of arbitrary interpretations apart from the tradition of the Church, and with it, the resources that have been written by theologians and exegetes across time. Contrary to that, the Reformers have always likewise affirmed the importance of the regula fidei, and Keith Mathison builds a strong case for this in "The Shape of Sola Scriptura". I quote a summary portion:

"In fact, the position the magisterial Reformers maintained was essentially that
which was held in the early Church and throughout most of the medieval
Church - that Scripture was the sole source of revelation; that it was
the final authoritative norm of doctrine and practice; and that it was
to be interpreted according to the regula fidei." (p 85)

In sum, the issue that the Priesthood of Believers and sola scriptura confront is that of authority, and not interpretation. For the latter, the tradition of the Church has always been asserted to be a guide. So does this mean, that in fact, the tradition is the authoritative source, and not Scripture? Certainly not! Luther's own life experience exemplifies how the dual propositions of the Scripture's ultimate authority, and tradition's interpretative authority, may be harmonized, and how the latter would not defeat the proposition of the former. While constantly remaining a child of the Roman Catholic Church (he always meant to reform the Church, not break from it), he constantly quoted the Church Fathers in order to draw the Roman Catholic Church back to its roots. He argued that it was the Church that had strayed from the regula fidei, and that it needed to get back in line. At the same time, it is this same reformer that asserted at the Diet of Worms that his soul was bound only to the Word of God. Calvin too, was extremely well versed with the works of the Patriarchs. The reader will be directed to Alister McGrath's Reformation Thought: An Introduction for a deeper study.

Scripture and tradition are not opposed to one another, but the latter guides the former.

It may be responded, that the ordinary Christian does not possess such a tradition by him, as he does not refer to the large treasure troves of literature that have already been established. That they do not have the books and material, I may grant, but it does not follow that the reader of the Scriptures do not have the tradition of the church for lack of the books. As the Word is preached from the pulpit by competent ministers of the Word (we assume competence from ministers in general), the tradition of the Church is thereby taught to the Christian in the pews. The worldview of the Scriptures is thus expounded to them, and that serves as the regula fidei even as the Christian does his daily devotionals. It is not reasonable to demand a complete passing down of the tradition since I doubt any theologian or exegete will lay claim to having an exhaustive mastery of their own tradition. The question then, is the degree to which this tradition has been passed on. This point is recognized even by the laymen in the pews. We have labels for young Christians who are not familiar with the precepts of the faith, and 'old birds' who have been around for ages. Some of these are elders who have been in the nurture of the Church all their lives, and can boast of having been molded by countless sermons, and a lifetime of reflection. Even by the laymen, it is accepted that the exegesis of the young Christian will not be as profound or insightful as that of the 'old bird'. To make it more relevant to the issue at hand, we accept that the young Christians will make error in interpretation of the Scriptures, but have less patience if an elder makes a similar mistake, We expect that the elder would be well-versed in the Scriptures and the tradition! It is not true to assert that the only meaningful (not in an experiential sense, but in a sense of ability to gain truth) transmission of knowledge of the Scriptures is through personal reference materials.A Proper Model?What the proper position is, I will assert, is a return to the historical doctrines of the Priesthood of Believers (in the sense you mean it), and the affirmation of the doctrines of the Perspicuity of Scripture and sola scriptura.

As Keith Mathieson masterfully argues in "The Shape of Sola Scriptura", the proper doctrine of sola scriptura is one that pays careful attention to tradition, and does not operate apart from it. The Christian should always do his exegesis in light of tradition. This will manifest itself in several ways. In particular, we may mention: the referral to early creeds, the attention to exegesis done of texts throughout the passage of time, as well as referral to more mature Christians who are familiar with the orthodox tradition. Being in sync with tradition is an important factor that will ensure that one's reading of the Scriptures are not arbitrary.

Such endeavours at exegesis will only be meaningful though if there was a similar affirmation of the perspicuity of Scripture. As such, It is necessary to assert that the Scriptures can be communicated meaningfully.

On Clarity

The Westminster Confession sets forth the doctrine of clarity rather carefully, and it is my opinion that its carefulness serves us well in what we need to affirm and what we are not affirming in that doctrine. Firstly, we need to be realistic and affirm that "all things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all". We have to recognize there are difficult passages, such as those that talk about baptism for the dead, Christ's preaching in hell etc etc. Apart from that, there are less difficult passages that are still difficult, in that Christians throughout the ages have differed on their interpretation. We need only to think about the numerous denominations and beliefs there are in the Church to gain a sense of what these are. However, our doctrine affirms most emphatically that "yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them". It is the things of importance of which clarity is asserted. Of which we may mention the doctrines of Christ, the doctrines of God, etc etc.

Our doctrine affirms that the things of importance are clearly shown in Scripture, so that even the unlearned may know them.

However, the affirmation of our doctrine that there are difficulties in the Scripture also compel us to refer to the great wisdom of tradition that we have inherited, and to learn from the Scriptures with the aid of the diligent use of the grammatio-historical method, other commentaries, etc.

Why is it important for one to affirm an optimistic view of our ability to understand the Scriptures? This is not an exhaustive approach, but here are some thoughts:

1) If we could not understand the Scriptures, the purpose for which it was given would be thwarted.

One of the important affirmations of the Reformed faith is that God's will is always done. A pessimistic view of interpretation would have problems with this, because it seems that while God has given His Word to man, man cannot understand it. Unless one takes an esoteric view of the manner in which one receives affirmation from the Scriptures (and I doubt this is what you are affirming), man's inability to understand revelation thwarts the purpose of God to give His Word to man. I can imagine you laying a caveat by saying that you are not adopting a pessimistic view of interpretation, but only affirming it insofar as unlearned men are reading it. But how about regions in which there are no competent teachers of the Word? Are they unable to gain knowledge unto salvation for this lack? Indeed, the testimony of the Church is that the truth of the Scriptures unto salvation may be gained even by men who do not have the resources we do. One only need to think of missionaries to difficult regions such as Southeast Asia and Africa.

2) If we could not understand the Scriptures, the laymen would be dissuaded from seeking to understand its content and apply it.

I believe that one of the important things the Church needs in order to fulfill her cultural mandate, is first to understand her own culture before seeking out to inculcate the values of Christ in the marketplace. With such a pessimistic view of interpretation, the laymen would be deterred from attempting to understand the Scriptures and to understand her truth, let alone to seek to establish these values elsewhere. An optimistic view of interpretation (properly set out as attempted above) is vital to encouraging people to read the Scriptures and to apply it in their daily lives. Worse, a pessimistic view might leave an illusion that the Scriptures are too 'cheem', and even when it is preached and explained, people will have an automatic mental barrier, such as occurs when people talk about philosophy to laymen.Some final thoughtsActually, I really empathize with your concern for proper interpretation. I want to affirm that I believe that the teaching ministry of the Church is of great importance, and we should give this ministry its due importance instead of allowing an individualistic idea to creep in that denies the importance of the teaching ministry. But I also want to affirm that the reason why I hold this, is because teachers of the faith are expected to dig into the Scriptures with greater effort, and to convey its meaning in greater depth. We may not expect the same standard from laymen. It is the teachers that are expected to convey the tradition of the church, with the sanction of the church. This tradition that is passed on becomes the regula fidei which governs the interpretations of laymen.

Copyrights.