Role of Women in the Church, Readings #6

Rules of Interpretation of Scripture

Last month, I assigned 3 booklets, all from the same publisher.

Kathy Keller, Jesus, Justice, and Gender Roles: A Case for Gender Roles in Ministry

John Dickson, Hearing Her Voice, Revised Edition: A Case for Women Giving Sermons

Michael Bird, Bourgeois Babes, Bossy Wives, and Bobby Haircuts: A Case for Gender Equality in Ministry

That was probably the largest reading assignment so far. So this month, there will be a shorter reading assignment. The focus is on hermeneutics, the rules (“of thumb") of interpretation.[1] These rules show up on all three of the booklets listed above, as well as in all the readings. 

[1] Abraham Kuruvilla proposes 6 “rules of reading” the biblical text. “The rules proposed here,” he writes, “it must be noted, are more like rules of thumb, than like inviolate and unassailable rules of nature. That is, they are more descriptive than prescriptive.” Privilege the Text: A Theological Hermeneutic for Preaching, Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2013, p. 65.]

Core Issues of Interpretation

Much of the discussion of the role of women in the church pivots around how we should interpret God’s authoritative Scriptures. However, we sometimes confuse our own interpretation with the authority of the biblical texts. We sometimes can conclude that our own “common sense” reading and interpretation[2] is the only legitimate interpretation that can be asserted. 

 [2] “As David Cooper, a professor at Biola College, described his ‘Golden Rule of Interpretation’ in 1942: ‘When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise.’” The Rise and Fall of Dispensationalism: How the Evangelical Battle Over the End Times Shaped A Nation, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 2023, p 224.

In contrast, the central task of interpreting the Bible lies not what makes sense to modern reader (common or not) but what made sense to the original audience to which the texts of Scripture were addressed.

This involves “interpreting the Bible according to its literal, or normal, sense. The literal sense is the grammatical-historical sense, that is, the meaning which the writer expressed. . . .” which takes into account “all figures of speech and literary forms found in the text.” [3] 

     [3] Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermenutics, 1982, Article XV.

Differences in interpretation that emerge while using the grammatical-historical approach often arise due to one’s understanding of the word “historical.” It can mean simply, and only, the basic facts of history (e.g. names, dates of events, geography, etc.). These facts are found in the surviving writings of the elites preserved in libraries of the day or centuries later in Europe. They include literary writings of the Ancient Near East (including religious and philosophical works). Other big-picture facts are gathered in attention grabbing excavations of tombs, palaces, monuments and the like. 

 

On the other hand, the word “historical” can cover all the available artifacts of human history, including  inscriptions on monuments and governmental structures, letters and business records, common burial sites, house foundations, even on broken pottery. These artifacts reveal much of the common, everyday life in various social structures. 

A broader scope of the historical data can produce a picture of a local culture that broadens our imaginations in understanding what the 1st Century listener would have understood when a letter was read. Some have used this broader scope, coupled with an active imagination, in such a way as to de-legitimize the authority of Scripture or to support spurious interpretations of the biblical text. In response, many have sought to define the proper bounds of legitimate interpretations. Our readings this month introduce us to one such major effort. 

The Readings

Read the annotated version of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics of 1982. The articles of this statement are not exhaustive and require a bit of explanation. Thus, J.I. Packer wrote a few pages of explanation for the statement (4 pages of the 8 total). 

(NOTE: linked documents are stored in a Dropbox account. A Dropbox account is not required to read or download any file; simply close out any popup windows that request a login. If you want to print the a document stored in Dropbox, download it first and print it from your local device.) 

 

Also read an annotated version of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy of 1978. It contains one page (out of 13) related to hermeneutics. Signers recognized the need to address the issue and so convened the 1982 meeting that produced the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics.

Both documents are highlighted in order to focus more specifically on the issues related to the role of women in the church. However, the remainder of the documents should also be read, at least for context. 

For More Study

While these texts will not be used in our study of the role of women in the church, they may be of interest to the participants.
 
"Dallas Theological Seminary (DTS) incorporates advanced resources for hermeneutics courses. These might include:
    • "Introduction to Biblical Interpretation" by William W. Klein, Craig L. Blomberg, and Robert L. Hubbard Jr. - A comprehensive guide to hermeneutical theory and practice.
    • "The Hermeneutical Spiral" by Grant R. Osborne - Focuses on the process of interpreting Scripture from exegesis to theology.
    • "Exegetical Fallacies" by D.A. Carson - Discusses common errors in biblical interpretation." (Source: ChatGPT)