SCIENCE AND HERMENEUTICS:

Copyright © 1988 by Vern S. Poythress. Published by Zondervan Publishing House, 1988. All Scripture quotations, unless otherwise noted, are taken from the HOLY BIBLE: NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION (North American Edition). Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, by the International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan Bible Publishers.

Chapter 1

How Should We Interpret the Bible?

       Science has proved remarkably successful as a technique for enhancing our knowledge of the natural world.  Can we also learn something from science about how to enhance our knowledge of the Bible?

1.  Should biblical interpretation become scientific?

        One way of following science is to try to make our study of the Bible "scientific."  Would such an approach mean simply that we study the Bible more intensively, more painstakingly?  Would it mean that we supply ourselves with all the aids and all the information about the Bible that we can gather?  Such steps are obviously useful.  They are what we might do with respect to any subject about which we were intensely interested.  But such steps by themselves would make us scientific only in a very loose sense.  What else might we do?  Should we study the Bible "objectively," without ever asking how it affects our own lives personally?  But such study would disastrously ignore the Bible's concern to be a means for our spiritual communion with God.  If the Bible is God's word, can it ever be subject to scientific investigation in quite the same way as we would investigate an animal or a plant?

        These questions are obviously important, but we cannot explore them all.  Questions about whether theology should be scientific will be covered in more detail in another volume in this series on hermeneutics.  In this volume, we will explore whether the growth of knowledge in science can tell us something about how knowledge grows in biblical interpretation and in theology.

        What is scientific method?  Does it guarantee a cumulative growth of knowledge?  Until recently, people commonly thought that scientific knowledge increased by the smooth addition of one fact to another, the smooth refinement of an existing theory, or the smooth extension of a theory to cover new data.  By analogy, ought we to expect knowledge of the Bible to progress by accumulation?  Can we devise a method that will produce such progress?  Or is such progress illusory even in science?  Are we to expect occasional "revolutions" in biblical interpretation analogous to the revolutions in scientific theory that are investigated in some of the recent trends in the history and philosophy of science?¹  What part do underlying hermeneutical or philosophical frameworks play in influencing the results of biblical interpretation?

        To answer these questions, we will have to look in some detail at theories concerned with the nature and history of scientific knowledge (chapters 2 and 3).  But first, let us start with an actual example of biblical interpretation, namely, the interpretation of Romans 7.  Because this passage has proved to be a difficult and controversial passage, it effectively illustrates some of the problems.

2.  An example: interpreting Romans 7

        How do we understand Romans 7, a passage that many have found some difficulty in grasping?  What kind of experience is being described in verses 7:7-13 and above all in verses 14-25?  And who is the "I" about whom the passage speaks?  Is Paul describing his own experience or an experience typical of a whole class of people?

        Through most of church history there have been disagreements over Romans 7.²  Most interpreters have thought that Paul was describing his own experience.  The use of the pronoun "I" naturally suggests this.  But interpreters have also sensed that Paul's discussion here has a broader bearing.  Paul would not have written at such length if he had not thought that in some respects his experience was typical.  It was intended to illustrate something relevant for the Roman Christians' understanding of themselves, of sin, of the law, and so on.

        We cannot hope to survey all the options for interpretation that have been suggested.  For the purpose of illustration, it is enough for us to concentrate on the interpretations that see Romans 7:14-25 as an example of a general pattern applicable to a whole class of people.  Perhaps these verses derived from Paul's personal experience, but it is not essential for us that they did.  The crucial question is, What is this passage an example of?  What class of people does it apply to?  Does the "I" in Romans 7:14-25 stand for a believer or an unbeliever, a regenerate person or one who is unregenerate?  Augustine and his followers, including Calvin, Luther, and most of the Protestant Reformation, thought that Paul was describing the conflict with sin that characterizes the life of a regenerate person, a true believer.  Pelagius and some Arminians thought that this passage depicts a typical unregenerate person or unbeliever.

        A third alternative is available.  Some people have seen in this passage a description of people who are regenerate but not mature, one who have not yet come into a position of triumph and victory over sin.  This interpretation often goes together with a "second blessing" theology, according to which sanctification, or "victory over sin," comes as a separate work of the Holy Spirit brought about by a second step of faith.  There are two kinds of Christians--those who are in the state of full sanctification and victory over sin, and those who are not.  Christians who do not have this victory over sin are a kind of third category intermediate between unregenerate people and ideal Christians.

        How do we decide a conflict in interpretation like this one?  At first glance, it might seem that we decide simply by looking at the passage and seeing which interpretation actually fits.  Which interpretation is consistent with all the facts of the passage?  All three interpretations above, however, claim to be consistent with the passage.  All three claim to account for all the words and sentences in the passage.

        As a next step, then, we might begin to weigh strengths and weaknesses of the three interpretations.  The view that Paul is describing the experience not of an unbeliever but of a typical believer has in its favor the fact that the description of the "inner man" and the "mind" in verses 22-23, 25 appears to harmonize with Paul's statements elsewhere about Christians (e.g., Rom. 8:6; 1 Cor. 2:10), but not with his statements about non-Christians (e.g., Rom. 8:7; Eph. 4:17-18).  These same facts are a problem, however, for the second interpretation.

        But there are some facts on the other side.  The view that the passage refers to unregenerate persons has in its favor the correspondence between Romans 7:14-15 and Paul's descriptions elsewhere of non-Christians as slaves of sin (e.g., 6:20).  Romans 7:14-15 does not match Paul's descriptions of Christian freedom (e.g., 6:22; 8:4).  These facts are difficulty for the first interpretation.

        The third interpretation, that is, the "second blessing" interpretation, might therefore seem to be the best of the both worlds.  This interpretation creates a third category, intermediate between an unregenerate person and an ideal (sanctified) regenerate Christian, namely, an immature (unsanctified) regenerate person.  By using a third category, this view avoids some of the difficulties in harmonizing the passage with statements elsewhere in Paul.  But it has weaknesses of its own.  Romans 7 seems to provide no clues to the reader that Paul has some third category in view.  Moreover, chapter 6 seems to be talking about all Christians who have come to union with Christ, as the appeal to baptism suggests (v. 3).  If so, no third category is available in the context of Romans 7.  Moreover, the competing interpretations argue that no distinctive second-blessing theology is to be found in Paul or in Scripture generally.  If so, the third interpretation is not viable for Romans 7 in particular.

3.  Using context in interpretation

        Now let us stand back for a bit and ask how we have proceeded in our analysis of Romans 7:14-25.  We have looked at particular verses within the passage (vv. 22-23 and 14-15) and have seen how well the competing interpretations are able to deal with them.  But in doing so, we have also had to go outside Romans 7 and look at other statements of Paul about Christians and non-Christians, slavery and freedom.  These other statements need to be weighed in their own contexts to see whether they really harmonize with or contradict the chosen interpretation of Romans 7.  Whether an interpretation of Romans 7 is viable depends on whether it is harmonizable with Paul's views as a whole.

        In addition, we should not oversimplify the process of judging when an interpretation generates a contradiction or an insuperable difficulty.  Each of the three interpretations has a difficulty at one point or another.  If we were harsh, we would say that each generates a contradiction.  But they are not necessarily false.  In fact, some people continue to advocate each of these lines of interpretation, even though they are well aware of the difficulties.  But they think that the difficulties are great with competing interpretations than with their own.  Hence they still endeavor to give a coherent interpretation of the difficult texts within their own viewpoint.

        For example, the regenerate interpretation explains that Romans 7:14-15, though similar in language to 6:20, is not saying quite the same thing.  The former verses describe the real hold that the remnants of sin still have on the regenerate person until the time of glorification.  In comparison with perfection, our own state might still be described as "sold under sin."  This is a necessary qualification of the apparently absolute language of Romans 6.  Romans 7:14-25 as a whole depicts a situation of struggle against sin, unlike the "slavery" in 6:20.

        Similarly, the unregenerate interpretation endeavors to explain that the language of Romans 7:22-23, 25, though not usually applied to unbelievers by Paul, can nevertheless be used for unbelievers.  Even unbelievers, it could be noted, cannot escape the knowledge of the law of God (1:32; 2:14-15).

        Hence we can see that a text like Romans 7:14-15 or 7:22-23 does not just display its meaning on its sleeve, so to speak.  It is not just a brute datum, about which no one can dispute.  A particular verse or passage might conceivably mean something slightly different from what we think it means at first.  Making sure of its meaning involves assessing context as well.  What might initially appear to be a contradiction, and thus rule out one line of interpretation, might on further investigation have an explanation.

4.  The influence of over-all theological system and personal experience

        Next, we should note that people's overall theological system influences their interpretation of Romans 7.  In the past, most Calvinists have advocated the regenerate interpretation; most Arminians have advocated the unregenerate interpretation.  Many, if not most, adherents to second-blessing theology have advocated the second-blessing interpretation.  Other combinations are possible in principle.  But one can see why these influences exist.

        Calvinists, for example, have a low view of the spiritual abilities of fallen, sinful, unregenerate people.  Calvinists emphasize that such people are spiritually unable to turn to God and to love God unless the Holy Spirit performs a special work of regeneration to change their hearts.  Calvinists are therefore reluctant to accept the positive statements of Romans 7:14-25 as descriptions of an unregenerate person.

        Conversely, Arminians have a higher view of the spiritual abilities of fallen, unregenerate people.  Such people have "free will."  Spiritual decisions that these people make when they hear the gospel are decisive in whether they become believers.  Hence Arminians are not so uneasy about attributing the positive statements in Romans 7 to unregenerate people.

        Next, we should not discount the role of personal experience in influencing people's decisions about the interpretation of this passage.  Some Christians are more often and more acutely aware of their failings and remaining sins.  Such people can identify readily with much of the language of Romans 7:14-25 and therefore find it easy to believe that the passage describes the state of a Christian.  Other Christians are more frequently aware of their joy in victory over sin.  They more readily think of the contrast of their present life with their previous unbelief.  They seldom dwell on the remaining areas of sin and inconsistency in their present life.  Such people identify more readily with the language of Romans 6 and 8.  Because 7:14-25 presents such notable contrasts with chapters 6 and 8, they are disposed to believe that it describes an unregenerate person.

        Individual experience also has a role in people's attitude toward second-blessing theology.  Some people have experienced a sharp transition from defeat to victory over some of their prominent sins.  They may find that second-blessing theology seems to match their experience, particularly if they have undergone a radical change under the influence of hearing the teaching of second-blessing theology.

        On the other hand, other people have experienced very gradual growth in their spiritual life.  They have come to understand and appropriate Romans 6 and 8 gradually.  But they have continued to be aware that subtle tendencies to sin still lurk in them.  To them second-blessing theology seems not to match their experience.  All this background of experience will influence whether a particular person finds it plausible to claim that Romans 7:14-25 describes the first-blessing stage or immature stage in a second-blessing theology.

5.  Scientific method and objectivity

        The interpretation of Romans 7 has been disputed for centuries.  Augustine and Pelagius in the late fourth and fifth centuries were early representatives of the regenerate and unregenerate interpretations.  The second-blessing interpretation arose later.  But no one of the three interpretations has been able permanently to "win the day."  When we look at some of the factors that go into the decision, we can begin to understand why.  Differences in theological systems and in personal experience and temperament are involved.

        Is there any way out of this impasse?  Can the triumphs of science and the way in which science proceeds be of any value?  The analogy with science might suggest to many people that the way out is through objectivity.  Science, it is said, consists in a dispassionate, objective analysis of the data.  The problem with the interpretation of Romans 7 is that it gets mixed up with the doctrinal commitments and personal experiences of the people doing the interpretation.  The process of interpretation needs to be freed from such doctrinal commitments and personal experiences.

        The historical-critical method, as developed in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, represented an attempt to free the study of the Bible from doctrinal commitments and to become scientific in its study.  The claim to scientific objectivity was attractive, but illusory.  Scholarship never takes place in a vacuum.  In particular, historical research cannot be undertaken without presuppositions; the researcher must presuppose some idea of history, of what is historically probable, and of what standards to use in weighing the claims of ancient texts.  Hence there is not one way of investigating history, but many, corresponding to many philosophical possibilities for one's view of history and of the possibility or actuality of God's providential control of history.

        As Ernst Troeltsch incisively argued, historical research in the context of Enlightenment thought presupposed three fundamental principles.³  According to the principle of criticism, no documents of the past can be accepted as authoritative; all claims about the past must be weighed by the modern critic.  At most, we can arrive at a greater or lesser probability concerning the past, never a certainty.  According to the principle of analogy, the present is the key to the past.  Events of the past must all be analogous to what is possible today.  According to the principle of causality, history is a closed continuum of events, in which every event has an antecedent immanent cause and there is no divine intervention (miracle) in history.  Troeltsch saw that, since the assumptions of the method already denied traditional Christianity, the results would necessarily confirm this denial.

        By "historical-critical method," then, we mean historical research on the Bible, proceeding on the basis of these Enlightenment assumptions.  Historical-critical method aspired to scientific objectivity, but in the nature of the case it could not succeed.  In freeing biblical study from commitments to denominational doctrine, it made study subject to the philosophical commitments of rationalistic, antisupernaturalistic historiography and metaphysics and to the ethical commitments of contemporary humanism.  It did not give people pristine, absolute objectivity.  Furthermore, the historical-critical method did not result in any more agreement over the meaning of biblical passages.  It resulted most often in more diversity and disagreement than before.  It simply multiplied the number of assumptions, philosophies, and background commitments that could now exert their influence on interpretation.⁴

        Is science a suitable guide, then, for biblical interpretation?  Science itself, it turns out, is not purely objective and neutral.  That is, science is not unaffected by commitments, assumptions, and philosophies.  Until recently, most people have thought that science presented a totally objective analysis of the facts.  But recent examination of the history of science has cast doubt on this assumption.  In fact, it has revealed within the realm of natural science some disputes that look curiously like the disputes over the interpretation of Romans 7.  It has revealed, in a word, how people's understanding of a particular datum (e.g., Rom. 7:14-25) is influenced by a whole cluster of interpretations, assumptions, and experiences, which provide the matrix for understanding in the field as a whole.  The problems with interpreting Romans 7 appear not to be such an oddity or perversity when compared with those that occur in science.  Understanding this state of affairs, and learning how to deal with it, may be part of the way to a solution.

        First of all, however, we must take a step backward and see what people have thought about the nature of science, scientific method, and scientific objectivity.