Engaging Exposition

23.

SECTION 1

CHAPTER 1

A JOURNEY OF DISCOVERY

A Chinese philosopher once stated that a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. Every journey requires three things: a destination, a plan to reach it, and the will to take the first step. In this textbook, you are embarking on a unique journey of discovery in the fields of hermeneutics and homiletics. Your destination is clear—to cultivate the ability to craft and deliver engaging expository sermons. To help you reach your destination, we have developed a plan to guide you on your journey. As you will soon realize, this journey can be challenging, and danger awaits those who take a detour.

When some people prepare for ministry, they only want to learn how to preach. Before we can craft and deliver an expository sermon, however, we must learn how to correctly [teach] the word of truth (2 Tim 2:15). John Broadus, the famed Southern Baptist homiletician, described the importance of this task in his classic work On the Preparation and Delivery of Sermons:

For the Scripture to have value for preaching and for the preacher's text to become God's message, the Bible must be interpreted correctly. To interpret and apply his text in accordance with its real meaning is one of the preacher's most sacred duties. He stands before the people for the very purpose of teaching and exhorting them out of the Word of God. He announces a particular passage of God's Word as his text with the distinctly implied understanding that from this his sermon will be drawn. By using a text and undertaking to develop and apply its teachings, he is solemnly bound to represent the text as meaning precisely what it does mean.¹

In short, the goal of hermeneutics is to help the pastor-teacher interpret and apply his text in accordance with its real meaning. Section 1 of this textbook is devoted to helping you learn how to take a biblical text and interpret it correctly, with the goal of developing an expository sermon. It is time to begin your journey of discovery—a journey that begins with a single step.

THE MEANING OF HERMENEUTICS

Hermeneutics has been defined in a variety of ways. The Concise Encyclopedia of Preaching provides this definition: Hermeneutics in general terms is the art of understanding. More specifically, it refers to the method and techniques used to make a text understandable in a world different from the one in which the text originated.² David Dockery states, "Hermeneutics is a term from the Greek, hermeneuien, meaning to express, to explain, to translate, to interpret. Traditionally, hermeneutics sought to establish the principles, methods, and rules needed in the interpretation of written texts, particularly sacred texts."³ For the purpose of our discussions in this text, the process of hermeneutics will be defined as the proper use of the principles of interpretation to discover the author's intended meaning of a biblical text, with a goal of applying that meaning to a contemporary audience.

The Dangers of Poor Hermeneutics

Sadly, many prospective pastor-teachers grew up under preachers who struggle to handle the Scriptures either carefully or accurately. As a result, they continue to emulate the preaching modeled for them, and this perpetuation of poor preaching has dangerous implications for the people of God. Make no mistake—bad hermeneutics leads to bad sermons.

Many pastor-teachers make a number of classic mistakes when approaching the Bible. First, some go to the Scriptures in an attempt to discover something new. The aim of good interpretation is not uniqueness; one is not trying to discover what no one else has ever seen before.⁴ James Rosscup notes, "What a preacher claims a passage says can be very different from what it actually says. His goal should be to ferret out the indication of the text, not to foist upon it some imagination of his own."⁵ Sadly, the attempt to discover something new in the Scriptures is the root of many sects and cults.

Second, some pastor-teachers go to the Scriptures to find support for their own personal interpretations. Grant Osborne defines this fallacy as the proclamation of one's subjective religious opinions.⁶ He states, The basic evangelical fallacy of our generation is 'proof-texting,' that process whereby a person 'proves' a doctrine or practice merely by alluding to a text without considering its original inspired meaning.⁷ Often, a lack of theological training accompanies this tendency. Please understand that we are not calling into question the motives of good men who love God. However, a lack of theological training may contribute to the adoption of certain presuppositions or beliefs that Scripture cannot support. The inability to apply good hermeneutics to one's interpretation often leads to the proof-texting found in much topical preaching.

Third, some pastor-teachers work so hard to be relevant to contemporary culture that they either misuse the biblical text or fail to address it altogether. Walter Kaiser notes,

Those sermons whose alleged strength is that they speak to contemporary issues, needs, and aspirations often exhibit the weakness of a subjective approach. In the hands of many practitioners, the Biblical text has been of no real help either in clarifying the questions posed by modern man or in offering solutions. The listener is often not sure whether the word of hope being proclaimed is precisely that same Biblical word which should be connected with the modern situation or issue being addressed in the sermon since the Biblical text often is no more than a slogan or refrain in the message. What is so lacking in this case is exactly what needs to be kept in mind with respect to every sermon which aspires to be at once both Biblical and practical: It must be derived from an honest exegesis of the text and it must constantly be kept close to the text [emphasis ours].⁸

In other words, the failure to keep any sermon closely anchored to a text will ultimately result in hindering the text from accomplishing its intended purpose in the lives of the listeners.

Finally, the people of God suffer when pastor-teachers look to discover new interpretations of Scripture, or when they look for Scripture verses to support their own personal ideas about the Bible, or when they place relevance over revelation. Michael Fabarez reminds us of this sobering truth: Though many intend to base a sermon on a text of Scripture, incompetent handling of the text can lead the preacher to reach unbiblical conclusions and thus waylay his congregants.⁹

The Benefits of Good Hermeneutics

The decision to learn and practice good hermeneutics will benefit the life of the pastor-teacher and his listeners. First, good hermeneutics will keep the pastor-teacher focused on discovering the meaning and significance of a text. John Stott discusses the tension between these two concepts in his classic work Between Two Worlds. He notes,

It is essential to keep these two questions both distinct and together. To discover the text's meaning is of purely academic interest unless we go on to discern its message for today, or (as some theologians prefer to say) its significance. But to search for its contemporary message without first wrestling with its original meaning is to attempt a forbidden shortcut. It dishonors God (disregarding his chosen way of revealing himself in particular historical and cultural contexts), it misuses his Word (treating it like an almanac or book of magic spells) and it misleads his people (confusing them about how to interpret Scripture).¹⁰

Good hermeneutics assists the pastor-teacher in discovering the author's intended meaning in a text, whose ultimate author is God the Holy Spirit.

Second, good hermeneutics will assist the pastor-teacher in considering all aspects of a passage's context, while pursuing the author's intended meaning. Since every book of the Bible was written in a unique context, every text has one primary normative meaning—that which the author intended.¹¹ To fully understand that meaning, however, the pastor-teacher must understand the context in which the text was written. Kaiser, speaking of the historicity of the Bible, notes that "its words are most frequently . . . directed to a specific people in a specific situation at a specific time and in a specific culture."¹² Good hermeneutics enables the pastor-teacher to incorporate a thorough understanding of context when striving to discern the author's intended meaning.

Third, good hermeneutics protects the pastor-teacher from rushing prematurely into the application stage of interpretation. As Stott noted above, the study of a text is incomplete if it fails to assess its significance for today's listeners. However, attempting to discover the significance of a text, without first gaining a thorough understanding of the author's intended meaning, will be equally incomplete. After all, some of our preconceived interpretations are incorrect because our preconceived understandings of a text's meaning are incorrect as well. Consequently, good hermeneutics will force us to make the discovery of the author's intended meaning our first priority, enable us to examine the context fully so that we can arrive at the intended meaning, and lead us to the proper application of the text for our listeners.

1. John A. Broadus, On the Preparation and Delivery of Sermons, ed. V. L Stanfield, 4th and rev. ed. (San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 1979), 23–24.

2. James A. Sanders, Hermeneutics, in Concise Encyclopedia of Preaching, ed. William H. Willimon and Richard Lischer (Louisville: WJK, 1995), 175.

3. David Dockery, Preaching and Hermeneutics, in Handbook of Contemporary Preaching, ed. Michael Duduit (Nashville: Broadman, 1992), 142.

4. Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003), 16.

5. James E. Rosscup, Hermeneutics and Expository Preaching, in Rediscovering Expository Preaching, ed. J. MacArthur Jr. and the Master's Seminary Faculty (Dallas: Word, 1992), 123.

6. Grant R. Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral, 2nd ed. (Downers Grove: IVP, 2006), 23.

7. Ibid.

8. Walter C. Kaiser Jr., Toward an Exegetical Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981), 19.

9. Michael Fabarez, Preaching that Changes Lives (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2002), 18.

10. John R. W. Stott, Between Two Worlds (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 221.

11. Dockery, Preaching and Hermeneutics, in Duduit, Handbook of Contemporary Preaching, 147.

12. Kaiser, Toward and Exegetical Theology, 37.

CHAPTER 2

THE ORIGINS OF BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS

For many students, the word hermeneutics produces fear and trembling. It conjures up images of brilliant scholars, cloistered in quiet rooms, parsing verbs from original manuscripts by candlelight. Hermeneutics, however, is not a subject for students of the Scriptures to fear. Rather, it provides the framework needed to interpret the Scriptures correctly. In this chapter we will examine the origins of Scripture and trace the historical development of hermeneutics in the church.

DEVELOPMENT OF THE CANON IN THE EARLY CHURCH

The early church engaged in the oral communication of the gospel following the resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ to heaven. The book of Acts records the early years of the church and reveals that preaching and teaching took place in an oral context. Over time, however, church leaders began to recognize the need to record the events surrounding the life of Jesus. God used several external factors to motivate them to write. First, the church leaders recognized the need to record the events and teachings of Jesus. Because He was the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies concerning the Messiah, the church needed to communicate that message to the world. Second, the church recognized the importance of recording the events of Jesus' life while eyewitness accounts were still available. Third, a number of heretical teachings about Jesus began to infiltrate the early church.¹ This infiltration of heresy motivated church leaders to confront error with the truth of the gospel.

As multiple works were written about Jesus, the church responded by discerning which writings were God-breathed and then collecting them for the benefit of the church. Several factors motivated them to begin this process. First, church leaders recognized the need to gather all of the inspired documents into one collection. Initially, all of the gospels and early apostolic letters circulated individually (Col 4:16). Ultimately, nine scrolls were needed to contain all of the writings of the New Testament.² A new invention—the codex—emerged in the second century and enabled the church to collect the texts of the New Testament into a more user-friendly format. The codex was the first book, and it foreshadowed today's books. The development of the codex provided an impetus for church leaders to determine which books should be included as part of the New Testament canon.³

Second, persecution motivated church leaders to clarify which texts were inspired. Believers could receive the death penalty under Roman law for possessing Christian writings. As a result, believers needed to know which writings to protect. Third, as Christianity became more accepted, church leaders needed to determine with certainty which texts passed the test of inspiration and should be included in the canon. A major test was based on authorship: Was it written by an apostle, or an associate of an apostle? Fourth, the internal evidence in the New Testament Scriptures revealed that God intended for these texts to be preserved for the benefit of the church. God used the combination of all of these factors to motivate church leaders to both record and preserve the truth about the life, teachings, and ministry of Jesus.⁴

Early church leaders operated with some basic presuppositions about the nature of the biblical texts contained in the canon. First, they affirmed that the Holy Spirit inspired the New Testament texts.⁵ In three distinct New Testament texts, the biblical authors affirmed the supernatural, spiritual nature of Scripture (Col 4:16; 1 Tim 5:18; and 2 Pet 3:15–16). These texts affirmed placing the writings of the New Testament alongside those of the Old Testament as inspired Scripture. Second, the early church affirmed that the New Testament texts themselves claimed to be inspired and infallible. While some scoff at the use of internal evidence as a support for the supernatural nature of Scripture, the New Testament texts have much to say about their own revelation, inspiration, and infallibility (Matt 5:17–18; 2 Tim 3:16; and 2 Pet 1:20–21).⁶ Third, the early church believed that God preserved an inspired, infallible text. As a result of rigorous prayer and effort, the early church leaders discerned those books whose writing the Holy Spirit had inspired, and as such, were both truthful and consistent in all areas of faith and practice. The doctrine of inspiration guided the church in the identification of the canon.

The doctrine of biblical inerrancy is an outgrowth of our conviction that the Scriptures are both inspired and infallible. We believe that God can reveal Himself in Scripture by breathing-out truth to first-century authors and can preserve those writings so that twenty-first-century readers will know their truth today. We will leave a thorough explanation of the doctrine of inerrancy for theology books. Be assured, however, that our views concerning hermeneutics and homiletics are based on our conviction that the Bible is inspired, infallible, and inerrant.⁷

THE DEVELOPMENT OF BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS

The church entered a new phase in its history when it received the admonition of both Paul and Peter that the new Spirit-given texts be read and taught in the churches. Churches moved from simply recounting the oral stories about the ministry and teachings of Jesus to being able to read and study them. This reading and studying ushered in a whole new era of biblical proclamation. As a result, the early church soon recognized that pastor-teachers needed formal training to interpret the Scriptures. In response to this need, two schools emerged during the patristic period of church history: Alexandrian and Antiochian.⁸ Two different methods of hermeneutics developed within these schools. Their influence can still be felt in contemporary theological education today.

The Alexandrian School

This school, located in Alexandria, Egypt, began as a place for the instruction of catechumens but evolved into a place for training teachers and preachers.⁹ Clement (c. AD 150–215), the famous teacher and writer, administered the school in the second century.¹⁰ His most famous pupil Origen (c. AD 185–254) succeeded him as the school's director. Origen became a significant leader in the church, and his sermons were routinely preserved through transcription for the benefit of believers.¹¹ Despite his many positive contributions, he adopted the allegorical method of interpretation, which had a negative influence on the early church. Historian Charles Dargan notes, While he was not, strictly speaking, the originator of this method, he is perhaps more responsible than anyone else for giving it dignity and enabling it to fasten such a tremendous grip on the pulpit of all ages.¹²

As a result of Origen's influence, this school became identified with the allegorical interpretation of the Scriptures. The proponents of allegorical preaching taught that deeper, spiritual meanings were hidden beneath the literal words of Scripture. These hidden meanings contained the truth of Scripture and could be discovered through the study of the biblical texts. Often, those who practiced allegorical interpretation were limited solely by their own imaginations. Unfortunately, allegory became the dominant method of interpretation in the early church.¹³

The Antiochian School

This school, located in the city of Antioch, developed later than the school at Alexandria. Its development was significant because it represented a distinctively different approach to the interpretation of Scripture. Rather than adopting the allegorical approach to interpretation, the Antiochian School taught and emphasized the literal, historical, and grammatical interpretation of Scripture.¹⁴

It would be years before the interpretive model of the Antiochian School came to the forefront in the preaching of its greatest proponent, John of Antioch (c. AD 347–407). John became the chief preacher in Antioch in AD 386, and his fame as a preacher spread throughout the region. He was so gifted that he was given the name Chrysostom (the Golden Mouth). Chrysostom had been trained under Diodorus, and he was committed to the literal interpretation of Scripture. He believed that allegorical preaching was dangerous because it opened the door for faulty interpretation. Dargan notes that while Chrysostom was known on occasion to utilize a loose interpretation of Scripture, he did not allegorize after the Origenistic fashion.¹⁵

Chrysostom served as the Archbishop of Constantinople for six years, but he ended his ministry in self-imposed exile. His legacy was one of faithful exposition. He was an advocate of a verse-by-verse approach to preaching, so he generally preached homilies: simple sermons that followed the order of the text. As a result, Chrysostom emphasized that the literal meaning of the text was the most important meaning. His strength in preaching lay in his ability to apply the plain meaning of the text to the existing situations of his people and to do so with such oratorical power that people were compelled to listen. Chrysostom urged others to adopt his philosophy of preaching, but the interpretive model developed in Antioch did not become the predominant one during the patristic era. Consequently, almost a thousand years would pass before an emphasis upon the literal interpretation of Scripture would reemerge.¹⁶

The Reformation

Many scholars identify October 31, 1517, as the beginning of the Reformation. That is the day when Martin Luther (1483–1546) nailed his 95 theses to the church door at Wittenberg, Germany. The concept of sola scriptura (Scripture alone) was critical in the development of Luther's theology. He was convinced that Scripture alone contains the truth that is necessary to experience God's forgiveness. As a result of his commitment to the authority of Scripture, he was willing to set aside the teaching and traditions of the Roman Catholic Church.

Luther's high view of Scripture led him to adopt a literal approach to the interpretation of biblical texts. His principles of interpretation have influenced hermeneutics for more than 500 years. Luther advocated three principles of interpretation: (1) Scripture is the only form of revelation and must be interpreted by itself; (2) Every Scripture passage has one simple meaning; (3) Some problems exist in Scripture that cannot be resolved.¹⁷

Luther began with the presupposition that the Bible is the revelation of God. As a result, he challenged the interpretive methods of Rome, which de-emphasized biblical authority in favor of church teaching and tradition. He rejected this approach and affirmed that Scripture is internally consistent, and external sources should not overrule its truth. He even translated the Scriptures into German so that they would be available for his people.

The implications of Luther's methodology were significant. In fact, the development and use of the literal method of biblical interpretation, and the subsequent preaching it produced, were key factors in the success of the Protestant Reformation. Luther was not the only one who was utilizing this method to great effect, however. In Switzerland, John Calvin (1509–64) was developing his own method of biblical interpretation. Dargan notes that Calvin began his career as an expository preacher while yet a young law student at Bruges. . . . It became the delight and the established method of his life.¹⁸ Calvin made it his habit to preach through books of the Bible, and he delivered his expositions in an extemporaneous way. Luther and Calvin changed the way biblical interpretation was taught and practiced, and they modeled a new approach for those who would follow in the Protestant tradition.¹⁹

The Modern Era

A renewed interest in the literal interpretation of the biblical texts emerged as a result of the Reformation. The popularity of this interpretive model grew as the Bible was translated into different languages and distributed in Europe and beyond. During the seventeenth century, however, a strong conviction regarding the authority and infallibility of Scripture began to erode in some places. The development of German higher criticism would lead to a hermeneutic that abandoned the concept of a literal, biblical historicity based upon the inspiration of Scripture. Years later, as some scholars rejected historical research in favor of studying the psychological impact of texts upon the reader, numerous reader-driven models of hermeneutics appeared.²⁰ Despite the development of these new approaches, scholars who embraced biblical inspiration and inerrancy remained committed to the literal interpretation of Scripture.

Modern theories of hermeneutics that embrace the literal interpretation of biblical texts operate with a presupposition of biblical inspiration and inerrancy. In the early modern era, William Perkins contributed significantly to the continuing development of the literal interpretation of Scripture. His interpretive method, contained in his work The Art of Prophesying, emphasized four key principles: (1) Read the passage out of the canonical Scriptures; (2) Gain a clear understanding of the passage from Scripture itself; (3) Choose several points of doctrine from the natural sense of the passage; (4) Apply the doctrines, rightly collected, to the life and habit of men in plain language.²¹

Perkins' method was built upon four presuppositions. First, he affirmed that God had inspired the canonical Scriptures. As a result, their claims about truth were essential for the church. Second, he affirmed that a literal interpretation of the text was possible and necessary. Like Luther, Perkins held that the literal meaning of the text was the primary meaning of the text. He favored the clear understanding of literal interpretation, while he rejected allegorical interpretation and the error it could produce in the church. Third, he affirmed that God had given the biblical texts to the church to illuminate the rule of faith. He believed teaching doctrine was important for the health of the church. Fourth, Perkins affirmed that biblical doctrines, once discovered, must be explained and applied to the listener. He understood that explanation without application results in a proclamation that is incomplete and ineffective. Also, he understood the importance of sermon delivery. He advocated preaching in plain language so that his listeners could understand the Scriptures.²²

William Perkins' interpretive model influenced the evangelical landscape for more than two hundred years. In 1870, John A. Broadus published a seminary textbook entitled On the Preparation and Delivery of Sermons. It remains a significant resource in the field of homiletics and was the standard text for many decades. Like Perkins, Broadus emphasized a literal interpretation of the Scriptures. While the majority of his text is focused on the actual preparation of sermons, he did emphasize three steps in the process of interpretation. First, he challenged pastor-teachers to study the text minutely. He taught his students to study the vocabulary and grammar of every discourse while looking for key theological concepts. Also, he admonished them to study the text in the original languages if they were able to do so.²³ Second, he urged them to study the text in its immediate connection. Here, he taught that texts always have meaning in the specific context of the paragraph, chapter, and book.²⁴ Third, Broadus challenged his students to study the text in its larger connections.²⁵ He taught them to remember that every text has a larger historical and theological context that must be considered when engaged in the task of exegesis.²⁶ He taught his students to allow the totality of biblical truth to assist them in discovering the primary meaning of every discourse.²⁷

During the twentieth century, the growth of hermeneutics as a field of study has been exponential. The writings of men like John Stott, Walter Kaiser, Gerhard Maier, Sydney Greidanus, and Grant Osborne have continued to provide valuable insights for those who embrace the literal interpretation of Scripture within the context of biblical exposition. As we make our way through the following chapters, we will stand on their shoulders as we examine the principles of hermeneutics and the process of exegesis.

1. Gnosticism, Antinomianism, and the teachings of the Judiazers all threatened the early church. The New Testament writers confronted these heresies.

2. Gerald Cowan, NT Canon lecture, Fall 1996, Southeastern Seminary, Wake Forest, NC.

3. The Greek word, κανών had a variety of meanings: reed, rod, measuring rod, rule, law, or standard. It may have originated from a Hebrew word meaning reed. In time, it came to be used for an instrument of measurement. As such, it was eventually used to refer to a rule or a standard. This usage was further changed in the church to refer to the rule of faith or the rule of truth. Soon after, it came to represent those books that contained the rule of faith and practice for the church. In this context, κανών was used for the ecclesiastically normative or accepted list of books containing rules of faith. Ibid., Cowan, NT Canon lecture.

4. There are a number of excellent works on canonicity. See F. F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture (Downers Grove: IVP, 1988); Philip Comfort, ed., The Origin of the Bible (Wheaton: Tyndale, 1992, 2003); Robert L. Plummer, 40 Questions about Interpreting the Bible (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2010), 57–67; Paul Wegner, The Journey from Texts to Translations: The Origin and Development of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999), 101–51.

5. The church embraced a belief in the inspiration of Scripture in the first century, a belief they inherited from their Hebrew heritage.

6. For more on Jesus' view of the inspiration of the Bible, see J. Wenham, Christ and the Bible, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994); Daniel L. Akin, Sermon: What Did Jesus Believe About the Bible? SBJT 5.2 (Summer 2001): 80–88.

7. See Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: IVP, 1994) for an excellent section on inerrancy. He says in part, "Inerrancy has always been claimed for the first or original copies of the biblical documents. Yet none of these survive: we have only copies of copies of what Moses or Paul or Peter wrote. . . . It must be stated that for over 99 percent of the words of the Bible, we know what the original manuscript said. Even for many of the verses where there are textual variants (that is, different words in different ancient copies of the same verse), the correct decision is often quite clear, and there are really very few places where the textual variant is both difficult to evaluate and significant in determining the meaning. In the small percentage of cases where there is significant uncertainty about what the original text said, the general sense of the sentence is usually quite clear from the context. . . . For most practical purposes, then, the current published scholarly texts of the Hebrew Old Testament and Greek New Testament are the same as the original manuscripts. Thus when we say that the original manuscripts were inerrant, we are also implying that over 99 percent of the words in our present manuscripts are also inerrant, for they are exact copies of the originals." Grudem, Systematic Theology, 96. See also David Dockery and David Nelson, Special Revelation, in A Theology for the Church, ed. Daniel L. Akin (Nashville: B&H, 2007), 118–74.

8. The patristic period refers to the life and times of the early church fathers. Most scholars place the dates for the period from the end of the first century to the fifth century AD.

9. Edwin Charles Dargan, A History of Preaching, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1954), 49.

10. Ibid.

11. Ibid., 50.

12. Ibid., 51. Dargan notes that Origen taught a threefold sense of the Scripture: grammatical, moral, and spiritual (or allegorical). However, he believed that the allegorical sense was the best sense.

13. The allegorical approach to preaching remained the primary model throughout the Middle Ages through the ministries of preachers like Bede, Anselm, Bonaventure, and John Tauler. The allegorical method of interpretation remains strong today in some faith traditions that continue to reject the need for instruction in biblical hermeneutics.

14. Dargan, A History of Preaching, vol. 1, 51.

15. Ibid., 92.

16. The Antiochian model of preaching had few proponents during the Middle Ages. However, in the years leading up to the Reformation, the preaching of men like John Huss, John Wycliffe, and Girolamo Savonarola began to reflect a commitment to teaching the Scriptures in a literal way. This commitment provided an impetus to have the Bible translated into the languages of the common people.

17. It must be noted that Luther was not always faithful in following a literal hermeneutic. Further, out of a struggle to reconcile some of the biblical texts with one another, he placed Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation at the end of his translation of the New Testament. He accepted them as Scripture, but had questions about their value in relation to some of the other New Testament books.

18. Dargan, A History of Preaching, vol. 1, 381.

19. Luther and Calvin were joined by numerous others in the practice of communicating the literal meaning of the text. Men like John Knox and Balthasar Hubmaier helped establish the literal interpretation of Scripture as one of the defining aspects of both the Magisterial and Radical branches of the Reformation.

20. For a brief but helpful discussion of reader-driven hermeneutics, see Plummer, 127–29. For a more detailed and technical analysis, see G. Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral, rev. and expanded (Downers Grove: IVP, 2006), 465–521.

21. Edwin Charles Dargan, A History of Preaching, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1954), 21.

22. M. William Perkins, The Works of That Famous and Worthy Minister of Christ in the Universitie of Cambridge, M. William Perkins, 2:762, located in James F. Stitzinger, The History of Expository Preaching, The Master's Seminary Journal (Spring 1992): 22.

23. John A. Broadus, On the Preparation and Delivery of Sermons, ed. V. L. Stanfield, 4th and rev. ed. (San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 1979), 24.

24. Ibid.

25. Ibid.

26. Ibid., 25–26.

17. Ibid., 26–27.

CHAPTER 3

THE AUTHOR'S INTENDED MEANING IN A TEXT

In the study of hermeneutics, discovering the author's intended meaning is essential for those who affirm and embrace the literal interpretation of Scripture. As we will note in the following chapters, we believe that we can discover the author's intended meaning through a careful study of a text's content and context. Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart agree: The aim of good interpretation is not uniqueness; one is not trying to discover what no one else has ever seen before. . . . Unique interpretations are usually wrong. . . . The aim of good interpretation is simple: to get at the 'plain meaning of the text.'¹ The discovery of the author's intended meaning is the ultimate goal of hermeneutics and exegesis.

DISCOVERING THE LOCATION OF MEANING

Some of the defining issues in the study of contemporary hermeneutics relate to the location of meaning. When we discuss the locus of meaning in a text, we are attempting to answer one primary question: Where does meaning reside in a biblical text? Recent scholarship in hermeneutics provides three options for determining the location of meaning: behind the text, in front of the text, and within the text.²

Behind the Text

Since the seventeenth century, proponents of German higher criticism have been suggesting that meaning lies behind the text. Most proponents of this position have not been seeking the author's intended meaning in a particular text. Rather, they have been studying the Bible like any other literary text and seeking to determine, among other things, questions of authorship, dating, and historicity. German higher criticism was birthed in the era of modernity. When Immanuel Kant and other philosophers suggested that one must separate faith and reason, many scholars began to view and study the Bible as they would any other type of literature. As higher criticism developed, its proponents rejected the concept that the Bible is supernaturally inspired in its entirety. At best, it may contain a canon within a canon; at worst, it is just another religious book. Because of their rejection of the doctrine of inerrancy, proponents of higher criticism approached biblical stories as myths or legends. Ultimately, proponents of this method claimed that it was