Exegetical and hermeneutical principles

Exegesis and hermeneutics are terms used in Jewish and Christian theological circles to describe the principles of interpretation of scripture. The primary goal is to arrive at biblical truths and values by a principled and unbiased process. It is important to have principles as their lack can easily lead to a reliance on a writer’s authority or a religious tradition to dictate interpretation. “Biblical exegesis is the actual interpretation of the sacred book, the bringing out of its meaning; hermeneutics is the study and establishment of the principles by which it is to be interpreted.” — Encyclopedia Britannica

The WBTS doesn’t use the word “exegesis” very often and when it does it is usually in quotes of non-Watchtower sources, so it’s possible that some JWs don’t understand and therefore don’t trust the concepts of exegesis and hermeneutics. However, rest assured, everyone who interprets religious texts has principles they use to do so, if not consciously, then unconsciously, even JWs and the Watchtower Society. For example, sometimes a text is interpreted as having a symbolic meaning. What are the reasons to think that it is symbolic? Are there reasons in the text itself or is it because the interpreter claims it is symbolic, or because a literal interpretation would contradict other teachings or doctrines? All of these reasons, and more, can be seen as hermeneutical principles. The word “principles” here is important because if you don’t realize why you are making decisions then you can end up interpreting the Bible in an ad hoc, confusing and hodge-podge manner. Principles can guide us and give us greater certainty in establishing truth.
Sometimes you can discover good hermeneutical principles when you look at why you disagree with someone else’s interpretation. A good example of this can be found in the Watchtower magazine where an article (in 1997) discusses the Seventh Day Adventist interpretation of their investigative judgment doctrine.

“This means that”

In that article the observation is made that certain verses (in Leviticus, Daniel and Hebrews) are connected because of certain words which occur in those passages. Thus these passages interpret each other to support a doctrine they call the investigative judgment.

Because of the phrase “then shall the sanctuary be cleansed,” many Adventists link this verse with Leviticus chapter 16. It describes the cleansing of the sanctuary by the Jewish high priest on the Day of Atonement. They also connect Daniel’s words with Hebrews chapter 9, which describes Jesus as the Greater High Priest in heaven. One SDA scholar says that this reasoning is based on the “proof-text” method. A person finds “a certain word like sanctuary in Dan. 8:14, the same word in Lev. 16, the same word in Heb. 7,8,9” and holds “that they are all talking about the same thing.” ... “No wonder, says Dr. Cottrell, that informed Bible students blame Adventists for “reading into Scripture” what cannot “be drawn from Scripture”! WT July 15, 1997

Who is making the link of “this means that” between those various passages? Bible writers? Jesus? Paul? No, it is “many Adventists”. Thus it is based on their authority, which cannot and should not be raised to the same level of authority as scripture itself. When scripture itself does not make an explicit link between “this and that” but we do, then we are walking on thin ice and asking people to place their trust in us, not scripture.

Many groups throughout history have made end times prophecies. In each of these attempts there are many elements of saying “this is that”. Either a biblical figure, an event, or numbers are given historical, current or future significance and then incorporated into a system that claims to foretell the future. Note who is giving the significance to, and linking these biblical passages. It doesn’t arise out of scripture itself; it’s not given by Jesus Christ or the apostles, or any Bible author. It is the interpreter who does it. Thus the interpretation rests on the authority of another fallible human being. It’s no wonder history is littered with so many end times prophecies that have all failed. This natural tendency of Bible students to connect scripture to past, current or future events seems admirable but it has a dismal failure rate. Of equal or greater concern is if these Bible students don’t rely only on the strength of their arguments to convince people, but use their social power to enforce its acceptance.

Looking for positive and negative evidence

Both positive and negative evidence is useful in the search for truth. And both are better than either alone. Positive evidence is that which supports a claim. Negative evidence is that which contradicts a claim. Now, if you can find positive textual support and no negative evidence (despite looking hard for it! = intellectual honesty) then your case is much stronger. If you never ask if there is evidence that contradicts a position and focus only on statements that support it, you have not yet established the strongest possible foundation for the position. So, a good method would be to always look for negative evidence as well as positive evidence. The lack of negative evidence (despite having looked hard for it) and the presence of positive evidence puts the interpretation on the strongest foundation.

This is similar to trying to figure out what your net worth is. If you only add up your assets you don't really have an accurate picture yet of what your net worth really is. You also have to include your debts into the calculation to get an accurate view of how much you are worth.

One variation of this principle is when people only use one (or a selected number of) verses for supportive evidence. This is often called the “proof-text” method. I call it “a guided tour of scripture.” If I have one verse that supports a particular interpretation then it is enough. No, it is not. “That in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.” (Deu 17:6; 19:15; Mat 18:16; 2Co 13:1; 1Ti 5:19; Heb 10:28. There, I’ve found 6 “witnesses” to support that principle.😃😊) This is why I like to use a Bible Search program that allows me to search the entire Bible for a word or phrase in any translation or language, be it English, Greek or Hebrew. There are websites that offer this ability for free, like Blue Letter Bible, Bible Web App, or Net Bible. When I find agreement in such a search (and no significant disagreement) then I am more confident in my conclusions.

Special pleading

Special pleading is a selfish use of logic. A short definition is: “If X then Y, except when it hurts me.” Or, I will refer to a principle when it works in my favour, but ignore the same principle when it works against my position. For some reason, I give myself special privileges to ignore a principle that I hold my opponents to. This leads to a charge of hypocrisy and double standards. This was exactly what Jesus charged the Pharisees with. If I accuse my opponents of using terminology that doesn’t exist in scripture, then I should check to see if my side doesn’t also use their own unique terminology which also doesn’t exist in scripture. Do I hold my opponents to a higher standard of evidence than I am willing to accept for my own positions? If my side can use it, but I accuse my opponents for using their own, then I am relying on “special pleading”. If I claim that your doctrine can’t be correct because it is not found literally in scripture, but my doctrine is correct because it is based on reasoning from scripture (also not found literally in scripture) then I’m relying on “special pleading”.
If my favourite translation omits certain words or phrases that were added to support a specific doctrine in some verses because they don’t exist in the oldest manuscripts (the principle), but then in other places my favourite translation ignores manuscript evidence and replaces certain words to support their own doctrine, then I am relying on “special pleading”. Basically, it boils down to using the same standard when making judgments. “Do unto others as you would like them to do unto you.” A good way to avoid this error is whenever I make a criticism about someone’s point of view, check to see if my own position can survive the same criticism.

Literal versus interpretation

We should not demand stronger evidence from our opponents than we are prepared to accept for our own claims. If our position is based on a “possible” interpretation, we should not claim our opponents interpretation is false because it is not found “literally” in scripture. If our teaching is based on a comparison of titles, actions, and descriptions to make a connection between 2 persons mentioned in scripture, then we should not demand a literal statement in scripture for our opponent’s position.

Context

There are varying degrees of context. The closest would be a sentence, then a paragraph, a chapter, a book, and lastly, the entire Bible. Then there are also other kinds of contexts, including: the same referent (person or thing), topic, event, genre, author, time, language and culture. The more points of commonality different verses have, the stronger the evidence is if it points in the same direction. A word used symbolically, figuratively or metaphorically in one context by one author cannot be used to make the same word also symbolic in a completely different context if there is no indication in the second passage that also makes it symbolic.

Etymology

Sometimes people base a lot of their interpretation on the etymology (or historical meaning) of a word. However, this can easily lead to wrong conclusions. Meanings can change over time. This applies to compound words as well. They are not always simply the sum of their parts, they can have special meanings that are not derived from their individual parts.

Summary

This has been a short look at the deep and complicated world of interpreting texts using principles of hermeneutics. There are still more principles than the ones I have briefly mentioned. If we are students of scripture then we already use principles to understand its meaning. If we are teachers then we must be doubly sure that we are aware of them and use them appropriately and correctly. Paul’s admonition is applicable in 2 Timothy 2:15 (NASB) “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.”

A shortcut to this hard work is to rely on someone else’s authority, be it theologians, pastors, priests, the Pope, a church’s tradition or, ... the Governing Body.