圣经研究3——他赐给我们圣经: 解释圣经的基础 HGB——第四课   含义的进路

目录

一、介绍

二、客观式

背景

影响

三、主观式

背景

影响

四、对话式

背景

影响

比较

权威-对话与客观

权威-对话与主观

五、结论

一、介绍

时不时曾不经意地，我们都听过人们对《圣经》某处经文的含义持有不同的看法。这样的谈话经常以类似的方式收场。一个人说：「好了，你的解释不过是你的意见。」但另外一个人回应说：「不，这不仅是我的意见，这是事实。」这些话反映出《圣经》解释当中一个最根本的问题：当我们读到一处《圣经》经文，得出关于它含义的结论，我们的结论是一种客观事实，还是一种主观意见，或是介乎二者之间？

这是我们这个系列《他赐给我们圣经：释经的基础》的第四课，我们给它定的标题是「含义的进路」。我们在这一课，要看解释《圣经》的人辨认和描述《圣经》含义的一些主要方法。

我们开始提出关于我们在《圣经》中看到经文含义的问题时，一开始就在知识的客体，与知识的主体之间做基本分别，这将对我们蛮有益处。知识的客体就是我们尝试去认识的事物，这些客体可以是抽象的，比如观念，也可以是具体的，比如人物或地方。

例如，生物学家研究像动物、植物这类的客体。音乐家研究像音乐和乐器这样的客体。与之相对的，知识的主体则是进行研究的人。在生物学这个领域，生物学家本身是知识的主体。在音乐领域，音乐家是知识的主体。

所以我们解释《圣经》时，我们是主体，因为我们是进行解释的人。我们研究的客体是《圣经》，因为这是我们尝试去解释的客体。

我们很容易看到，人对各种事物的理解都牵涉到知识的客体和主体。但在追求知识的过程中，客体和主体该怎样配合？

基本上，以三种主要进路来处理人类知识的主、客体之间的关系，会对我们很有帮助。第一种，一些人倾向采纳我们称为客观主义的进路。客观主义者相信，在适当的条件下，人有可能获得无偏见的或客观的知识。第二种，其他人倾向一种称为主观主义的进路。主观主义者相信，我们的知识总是受到我们个人偏见的影响，不可能有公正的客观。第三种，一些人发现有一种中间地带，我们可以把它称为对话主义。这种进路强调客观现实和我们主观看法之间存在不断的「对话」或互动。

毫不奇怪，所有这三种的进路都被人用来解释《圣经》。所以，我们在这一课思想《圣经》的含义时，我们要关注它们每一样，尝试回答这个问题：我们对《圣经》经文含义的理解是客观式的，主观式的，还是对话式的？

我们在这一课，要关注这三种主要含义进路的每一种。第一，我们要来看客观式进路。第二，我们要看主观式进路。第三，我们要探索对话式进路。让我们从客观寻求《圣经》含义的进路开始。

二、客观式

我们常会碰到一些人﹐对于各类议题总是有他们的看法，可是，却没办法提出客观的事实来支持他们所信的。显然在解释《圣经》时，我们也会碰到相同的状况，对于许多经文的意思，多数的人总是有他们自己的看法，可是他们中的大部分人却不肯试着以客观的事实根据来支持他们的解释。他们只是坚持对于某段经文的看法，然后不再做任何探索。当这样的问题我们遇见的多了，真会让自己很有受挫感，与此同时，也会更激发我们大家至少在某种程度上渴望知道《圣经》的客观含义。

自从十七和十八世纪以来，在欧洲客观主义大大影响了对《圣经》的解释。从根本上讲，学者们认为他们能无偏见地解释《圣经》，能相对肯定地认识《圣经》的含义。大多数客观主义者并不认为人解释《圣经》时，能除去所有的个人偏见和看法。但他们确实相信，我们能防止这些偏见和看法影响我们的解释，从而能获得对《圣经》正确的认识。例如我们都知道《圣经》的第一节经文，创世记1章1节，它说：

起初   上帝创造天地。（创世记1章1节）

大部分人会认同，要明白这节经文的基本含义，这相对是容易的。在最低程度上我们可以有信心说，它的意思是「   上帝创造一切。」

客观主义者说创世记1章1节的意思是「   上帝创造一切」时，他们相信自己是没有偏见地理解这节经文。所以他们会倾向认为，任何拒绝他们这种解释的人，就是在不认同一个明显的事实。

为什么如此众多解释《圣经》的人乐意遵循这种认识《圣经》含义的进路？在《圣经》释经学中，客观主义带来怎样的结果？

要回答这些问题，我们就要从两方面来调查解释的客观式进路。第一，我们要触及这些进路的哲学和文化背景。第二，我们要提到它们对《圣经》解释的影响。

让我们首先来看解释《圣经》的客观式进路的背景。

背景

我们可以把客观主义和现代哲学最明显的思潮——我们称为科学理性主义的思潮联系起来。生活在1596年和1650年之间的勒内•笛卡尔，常被人称为是现代理性主义之父，因为他推崇理性，以此作为对真理至高的判断。按照他的观点，像信仰、传统、信念、直觉和迷信这样的事情，是混乱了我们的思维，把客观现实向我们隐藏起来。为此，笛卡尔强调，努力的依靠逻辑思维，就能让人摆脱混乱，使我们能够发现客观真理。

科学理性主义也受到自然科学发展的影响。生活在1561到1626年之间的弗朗西斯•培根，常被称为现代科学之父，因为他把理性、逻辑思维应用到了对物质世界的研究方面。培根实际上是推广了这种观念，就是有序、实证的调查，也就是我们常说的「科学方法」，约束了人的主观性，使我们能客观认识我们周围的世界。

科学理性主义影响力如此之大，以致从十七世纪一直到二十世纪中期，几乎所有的研究领域都接受了它的看法。就连像信仰和神学这样的学科，也被人置于理性、科学的分析之下。当然，在几个世纪之内，理性和科学的概念已经在几个不同方面发生了变化。但是，客观主义的根本认定仍然是一样的，具体来讲，就是通过理性和科学的分析，我们能获得客观的知识。

在二十世纪，现代客观主义被一种称为结构主义的广泛哲学观带到了极端的地步。简单来讲，结构主义者尝试使用理性和科学的客观性来获取对他们一切研究，包括社会学，艺术，语言和文学的彻底认识。结构主义者对解释文学的客观性追求到了如此极端地步，以致他们把所有引入任何主观元素的考虑都排除出去。作者的意图，原本受众的需要，当代读者的意见，都被看作是过于主观，不能与理性科学分析相容。为此，结构主义者相信，努力的理性分析能为他们提供对所解释文本的客观认识。

  上帝是与我们全人相遇，因为祂创造我们每个部份，祂造我们的心思，造我们的直觉，我们的情感，造我们的整体，因此祂才要我们全心、全性、全力、全意地爱祂，这是涉及我们生命的每个部份；因此单以狭隘的理性来研读《圣经》是不够的，而以狭隘的感情或是直觉来读，同样也是不够的；你必须以生命的每个部位来回应   上帝的话语，因为那是   上帝对我们的要求。当然，罪会影响我们的心思和直觉，因此   上帝才要我们以此互相更正。有时人们可能直觉上倾向于某个观念，但是当他们读《圣经》时，会如此说道：老实说，当我用心思读这段经文时，我发现需要修正自己的直觉。反之亦然，不是吗？有时我有某些理性的观点，我需要对自己说实际内涵远比我想得更宽。因此，直觉在我提醒我自己，或许我最好要抛开那些观点，因为它们不合乎《圣经》。——温•皮薛士博士

在看了对认识含义客观式进路的哲学和文化背景后，让我们把注意力转向客观式进路对解释《圣经》造成的影响这个方面。

影响

理性科学客观主义在两个基本方面影响了对《圣经》的解释。首先，它把我们带到我们称为的批判性《圣经》研究。其次，它也影响了福音派《圣经》研究。

批判学者通常会论证说，评价《圣经》的最佳方法，就是通过理性调查，比如研究科学、考古学和历史学使用的调查。令人难过的是，批判学者常常没有认识到这些类型调查的局限性，结果他们最后拒绝了《圣经》许多的宣告和教训。

与批判学者形成对照的是，福音派人士强调《圣经》的绝对真实与权威，所有的科学发现都必须最终服从《圣经》的教训。这并不意味着我们不能从科学、考古学和历史学学到关乎《圣经》的重要事情。理性和科学方法若使用得正确，服从《圣经》的权威，就可以成为发现《圣经》含义的非常有用的工具。从这些学科得到的见识，常常帮助我们认识《圣经》里与科学、考古学和历史信息有关的方面。但是，这些学科绝不应该被用来拒绝《圣经》的宣告和教训。

每个研读、查考《圣经》的人都会使用一些解释经文的方式，问题是我们是否察觉自己在使用什么方法，并且对于经文的疑问加以深入思考，及其我们是如何得到答案的。我真的鼓励人们在刚开始研读并且想要理解《圣经》时，能按着一些有正规步骤的研读方法，对所读的每一段经文，提出问题。不过要注意，解释《圣经》不是一门科学，而是艺术；也不是说我们若是问对问题，就能够知道经文的全盘意思。然而随着时日过去，我们会逐渐学会不是只盲目的采用一个方法，而是要敞开心思让圣灵带领，指引我们对于任何一段经文的解释。——菲利普•莱肯博士我们若是采用严谨的方式来解释《圣经》，这个方式的一个好处﹐就是让我们能实在的查看经文，使得我们在读《圣经》时，能避免陷于随意解经，或导致认知不足。一个好的研读方式驱使我们作足功课﹐助长我们的认真和注意﹔不过严谨的释经有时也会妨碍让经文说出文句本来要表达的意思，从而导致缩减性的解释。我喜欢引用的一个例子就是约翰福音13章﹐耶稣为门徒洗脚的故事。如果按着我们习惯使用的归纳法查经﹐我们很容易导致一个信念﹐就是这个记载主要是讲为仆的服事精神。但若是按着约翰所要表达的﹐或是《圣经》整体所要呈现的﹐我就越来越觉得﹐约翰福音13章是以戏剧性方式﹐来传达保罗在腓立比书2章所说的﹕「你们当以基督耶稣的心为心：他本有   上帝的形像，不以自己与   上帝同等为强夺的；反倒虚己，取了奴仆的形像，成为人的样式；^elli^^elli^存心顺服，以至于死，且死在十字架上。所以，   上帝将他升为至高，^elli^^elli^叫一切^elli^^elli^因耶稣的名无不屈膝﹐无不口称耶稣基督为主。」我们从这两段经文看到同一个故事﹐就是涵盖之前的荣耀﹐虚己﹐服事﹐然后又回返到高升状况。就如帕利坎所讲到的基督的先存﹐虚己和高升。约翰的经文里包含有这些线索﹐虽然它们很隐约。因此﹐我认为在研读《圣经》时﹐我们要记住﹐研经的方法只是手段﹐而非目的﹐它的目标是要让我们能够正确的理解经文﹐这才是重点。——凯里•温赞特博士

认识含义的客观式进路可以在许多方面对我们有帮助。它们的好处在于肯定了合理地使用理智和正确的解释方法的确能够帮助我们仔细、负责任地解释《圣经》。尽管此进路对《圣经》解释有它应有的价值，我们必须不断地提醒自己，终极而论只有   上帝对他自己的知识是完全客观的，因为任何事物对他都是赤露敞开的。即使我们竭尽全力，人类不可能完全地客观，出现完全没有偏见的事实查考者。所以，我们不光要抓住客观进路带来的这些好处，我们也需要一种比客观式更广阔的进路，以此发现《圣经》的含义。

明白了客观式含义的进路之后，让我们转过来看主观式进路。

三、主观式

主观主义有许多不同的类型。但总体而言，我们可以说主观主义者承认，人类和世界，特别是信仰的事，经常太过复杂，是不能用科学理性主义分辨的。所以他们对含义的探求，通常是强烈依靠像直觉和情感这样的个人官能。例如，耶稣在约翰福音13章34和35节发出这熟悉的教训：

我赐给你们一条新命令，乃是叫你们彼此相爱；我怎样爱你们，你们也要怎样相爱。你们若有彼此相爱的心，众人因此就认出你们是我的门徒了。（约翰福音13章34-35节）

在一个层面上，耶稣的命令相对而言是很明显的：我们应当彼此相爱。但不同的人对什么是爱有很不一样的看法。

一个客观主义者可能看整本《圣经》，要发现爱是什么。但一位主观主义者可能更愿意按自己的说法给爱下定义，然后按照那定义相应行事。

我们讨论认识含义的主观主义进路，与我们对客观主义进路的讨论基本类似。首先，我们要触及主观主义进路的哲学和文化背景。第二，我们要提一提它们对解释《圣经》的一些影响。首先，让我们来看对解释的主观主义进路的背景。

背景

现代主观主义引人注目，部分是出于对十七、十八世纪启蒙运动中客观主义的回应。像生活在1711到1776年间苏格兰怀疑论者大卫•休谟那样的哲学家，论证说理智和科学研究不能带领我们进入对世界的客观认识那里。休谟和其他人相信，我们的情感、愿望和思想范畴总是在影响着我们的思维，这让不偏不倚的客观性成为一件远不及、难以达到的事。

生活在1724年到1804年间的德国哲学家伊曼努尔•康德也对主观主义思想做出了巨大贡献。康德论证说，我们不可能认识真正的客观事实——或者他用德语表达的Ding an sich，「自在之物」，即事物本身。他相信我们只是看到向我们显出来的世界，然后通过我们思想里已经存在的理性范畴或概念处理我们的看见。康德的结论是，我们通常称为「对世界的认识」，总是涉及我们的实证认识和我们的思想概念分析。

在休谟和康德之后，认识含义的主观主义进路在十九世纪，通过像浪漫主义这样的运动继续发展。浪漫主义者和跟从他们的人论证说，表现式的诗歌、戏剧、音乐和视觉艺术提供了对事实的认识，这种认识能远远优越于理性和科学的讨论。他们也强调，理性主义有一种消灭人性的效果，因为它贬低像直觉和感情这些重要的人类特征。他们也坚持认为，解释《圣经》的人在解释经文时，应当依靠他们自己个人的人类特征。

认识含义的主观主义进路在二十世纪后半期再次有所改变，这表现在那称为后结构主义的运动上。法国理论家让-弗朗索瓦•利奥塔，雅克•德里达，米歇尔•福柯，和一群其他的人拒绝二十世纪结构主义的客观性。实际上，许多人如此远离客观性，以致他们拒绝承认人有任何盼望可以达到客观。他们强调人宣称获得客观认识，这是不可信的，因为人太受主观偏见、感觉和存在信念的局限，也太受这些方面的影响。

而且许多后结构主义者认同19世纪德国哲学家弗里德里希•尼采，以及一些20世纪存在主义者的观念，他们说，一切关于得到认识的宣告，主要都是在企图把一个人或一群人的偏见强加在其他人身上。他们中的一些人甚至把这些观念扩展到艺术和文学，论证说即使是艺术的解释也是一种玩弄权术，目的是要取得社会上的主导地位。

在我们今天，主观主义已经变得很普及，在对艺术和文学的解释方面尤为如此。主观主义的解释者论证说，因为我们不能发现对我们周围世界的客观认识，那么艺术和文学，包括《圣经》的含义，就必须是存在于我们里面。所以，主观主义者不是在讲艺术和文学的客观含义，而是讲不同的文化，不同的族群，不同的经济阶级，不同性别的人等等，这些人是怎样看待音乐、绘画、书籍和类似的事物。他们特别感兴趣的是，这些不同的群体怎样使用艺术和文学，以此服务他们对社会的不同诉求。

我们在纵览了对认识含义的主观主义进路的历史背景之后，现在可以来思想它们对解释《圣经》的影响。

影响

理想状况下﹐基督的跟随者们应当小心，不让他们周围的当代文化潮流影响他们对《圣经》的解释。但在实际生活中﹐当我们解释《圣经》时﹐无人可以全然地避免文化产生的影响。最近几十年来﹐释经学的主观主义已经大大超越了学术性探讨的范围﹐而变得非常普遍﹐因此你会发现越来越多的人坚持这种观点：所谓要求事实﹐实际来说，根本上就是个人主观的意见和看法。特别在信仰和《圣经》上﹐更是如此。为此缘故﹐我们需要更加留意﹐现今文化的主观主义倾向已经在各个方面影响着我们对于《圣经》的解释。

和理性科学客观主义一样，主观主义影响了批判性《圣经》研究和福音派的《圣经》研究。受主观主义影响的批判性《圣经》学者经常论证说，人不可能在《圣经》经文里找到客观的含义。所以，他们不是教导他们的学生去发现《圣经》原本的含义，而是鼓励读《圣经》的人使用《圣经》创造出他们自己的含义，迎合他们自己的目的。一些人甚至论证说，这正是新约《圣经》作者解释旧约《圣经》时做的事情。他们相信新约《圣经》作者不在乎旧约《圣经》经文的客观含义，新约《圣经》作者主要关注的是怎样使用旧约《圣经》来宣传他们的基督教信念。批判性的主观主义解释者论证说，我们应该做同样的事——就是说，我们不必介意《圣经》的客观含义，我们应当使用《圣经》来鼓吹我们自己的社会、政治和信仰诉求。

与批判性的《圣经》研究形成对比，福音派的《圣经》研究在大部分方面回避了极端的主观主义观点。至少在原则上，福音派通常承认《圣经》是   上帝的话语，所以《圣经》的含义应当由   上帝来决定，而不是来自解释者。但是，福音派人士并非没有受到主观主义在释经方面的消极影响。他们经常问，「这节经文对你有什么含义？」却一点也没有想到经文的客观含义。传道人和教导《圣经》的人经常把当代的关注读进到《圣经》的经文里，却毫不关注经文的历史背景。

但是，虽然主观主义有这样的错误，它仍对福音派的《圣经》解释作出了有价值的贡献。它正确指出，我们的文化和个人背景、技巧、能力、弱点和局限大大影响了我们对《圣经》的理解。它帮助我们看到，正如圣灵使用受到默示的人类作者的主观看法来写《圣经》，同样他使用我们的主观看法，帮助我们在我们今天的日子明白和应用《圣经》的含义。

《圣经》总是要求我们要有个人的回应﹐《圣经》给予我们能够相信的应许﹐需要留意的警告﹐和应该遵守的诫命。因此，   上帝的话语总是包含个人回应的这个要素。   上帝在《圣经》里对我们说话﹐但我想﹐有个我们要注意的重要情况，就是我们并不是以这个为起点﹐着手经文的解释﹐认为读《圣经》时﹐问的第一个最重要问题是﹕『这段经文让我有何感觉﹖或是我应该有甚么回应﹖』在这之前﹐我们需要先知道﹐《圣经》在它的原始场景里所要表达的意思﹐才能晓得在现今的景况里，经文要传达给我们的完全意思。所以我们需要先认真查考﹐知道经文本身的意思。但我们不要停在这里﹐而是要有接续的个人回应。在解释《圣经》过程﹐知道它的含义和生活应用﹐这两方面都很重要。——菲利普•莱肯博士

若认识含义的主观式进路在评估不同《圣经》的解释方法上是没有准则的话，此进路对我们必有损害。事实上，的确有些《圣经》的解释要比另一些的更好。不过，解释《圣经》的主观式进路同时也能打开我们的眼界，发现在认识经文含义的过程中，我们背景、个性、甚至直觉和情感都能影响我们对经文的解读。承认这些影响就能帮助我们更有效地使用它们，从而使我们能更加负责地解释《圣经》。

我们已经探索了认识含义的客观式和主观式进路，现在让我们转过来关注对话式的进路。

四、对话式

时不时地，我们都会碰到一些坚持己见的人，对某些事情有特定看法﹐他们总是要大家都要完全认同他们的看法。许多时候为了息事宁人﹐我们就顺应他们的要求。但有些时候﹐触及的事件相当重要﹐我们因此坚持要有更多的探讨。在良好有效的对话里﹐双方都尽力将自己的观点表达清楚﹐也仔细聆听对方的意见。双方都希望随着谈话的进展﹐彼此能够达成某种程度的共识与认同。在最近这几十年来﹐这样的对谈或对话逐渐发展成为解释所有文献的一种模式﹐包括对《圣经》的解释。

对话式这个词指的是解释涉及到读者和文本之间一种形式的谈话和讨论。基本的意思就是，文本有一种客观的含义，然而，通过读者和文本之间一种主观的互动或对话，人们能最好地发现这客观的含义。我们在诗篇119篇18节看到这种对话的一个例子，诗人向   上帝发出这请求：

求你开我的眼睛，使我看出你律法中的奇妙。（诗篇119篇18节）

诗人在这篇诗篇中讲他是怎样经常默想《圣经》。他表达了一种在根本上是对话式的对解释的看法。首先，他相信可以在「律法中」发现客观的含义。但与此同时，他认识到为了正确理解律法，他需要一种主观的，「开眼睛」的经历。

诗人不是请求   上帝消灭他的主观影响，而是求他增强自己的见识，提高他的主观看法。正如这节经文更大范围的上下文让我们看到的，诗人为了提高他的认识，不断回到律法的文字中；他保持与《圣经》的对话，不断改进他对《圣经》含义的把握。

我们对认识含义的对话式进路的探索，与我们思想客观主义和主观主义进路的方式基本相同。首先，我们要看对话模式的哲学和文化背景。第二，我们要思想它们对解释《圣经》的影响。不过，在这之后，我们要更进一步，一方面在客观式和主观式进路之间作比较，另一方面要以符合《圣经》的方式认识对话式进路。让我们首先来看对话式进路的背景。

背景

在哲学诠释的领域，生活在1768年和1834年间的德国哲学家、神学家和语言学家弗里德里希•施莱尔马赫强调解释的对话性质。他提出了一种出名的解释模式，称为「解释学循环」，解释者以此尝试认识文本或其他复杂的客体。这个循环开始的时候，是我们遇见一个对象，开始在我们思想里处理这客体。然后我们反复回过头来，与这客体有更多相遇，更多对我们的认识进行处理。施莱尔马赫的解释学循环经常被其他人描述为是一种解释学的螺旋运动，一种解释者主体和他们研究对象客体之间的循环运动，是渐进性地向越来越多的认识迈进。

对话模式也在科学领域出现。二十世纪的科学哲学家，比如生活在1922到1996年间的托马斯•库恩，论证说科学知识是客观事实与我们带进科学研究之中的认识范式之间互动的结果。范式的基本概念，就是我们所有的信念都是互相联系的。它们在一个复杂的结构里彼此结合，每一样都彼此增强和影响。一个新的信念，只要不挑战我们的范式，我们就很容易接受。但是，我们会抵制威胁我们范式结构的新信念。即使如此，当与我们范式对抗的证据变得充分时，它能迫使我们改变——有时这改变是革命性的，使我们重新思想我们以为自己已经知道的一切。但无论改变的程度或大或小，我们思想范式和对客观事实的经历之间总是在进行着一种对话，不断促使我们在其它信念的光照下，重新评价我们各样的信念。

也许二十世纪最有影响力的解释对话模式，就是生活在1900年到2002年间的汉斯-格奥尔格•伽达默尔提出的模式。伽达默尔从两种眼界交融的角度讲述科学、哲学、神学、艺术和文学的含义。按照伽达默尔的思路，眼界是从特定视角可以看见或认识的一切事物。在解释学的情境里，文本的眼界可以是一种眼界。它的眼界包括文本表达的所有看法，以及可以从这些看法得出的合理结论。读者的眼界可以是另外一种眼界。这种眼界包括他们所有的看法、信念、感觉、偏见，等等。当读者开始把文本眼界的方面加入他们自己的眼界时，这些眼界就融合在一起。当读者向文本学习，或者采纳文本的观点，他们自己的眼界就会扩展，包括了从文本眼界得来的新元素。

在看完对话模式的背景之后，我们来看它们对解释《圣经》的影响。

影响

按照在这一点上我们的目的，我们要集中讨论福音派使用对话式进路增强对《圣经》解释的一些方法。具体来讲，福音派人士强调读《圣经》有别于与一本普通的书展开对话，因为《圣经》不像其他的书，它在我们之上有绝对的权威。出于这个原因，我们要把福音派对这些问题的进路说成是权威-对话式的。

在一个通常的日子，我们大多数人会与不同的人展开对话。取决于参与这对话是怎样的人，这些对话会走向不同的方向。当我们和朋友随意交谈有关我们大家都明了之事时，我们是以同辈彼此相处的。这对话是你来我往，我们都试图听去别人的声音，力图尊重彼此的立场。但是，当我们开始谈论一些重要话题时，诸如有关健康或教养儿女等，我们往往是与比我们有更多的知识和技能的人在对话，智慧的人会对这类的对话采取不同的进路。虽然我们知道专家也会犯错，我们仍会以认真的态度小心聆听他们的看法。

但是，设想一下，你正与你知道的一个从未犯错，永远正确的人在对话。你当然会带着你的问题和观点进入谈话，但是，你会尽力来理解和接受那个人对你讲论的一切。

在许多方面，这正是我们在解读《圣经》时面临的处境。我们无法避免地会带着我们的问题和观点来到《圣经》的面前，但是因为《圣经》是无误的，因为它总是正确的，我们就会尽一切所能来理解和接受它要告诉我们的一切。

解释《圣经》就像与我们能想象得出具有最大权威的人物，就是与   上帝他自己对话一样。这是一场对话，因为它涉及一种在读者和《圣经》之间对话式的「给予和接受」。在对话的读者这边，我们都是带着许多问题、先入之见、文化背景和个人经历来到《圣经》这里。这些事情的每一样都影响着我们对《圣经》的理解。在这场对话《圣经》的这边，   上帝不断通过他的话语向我们说话，有时确立我们相信的，有时纠正我们的看法。

我的生活背景﹐过往的经历﹐形成现今我这个人﹐在我阅读《圣经》时﹐这些因素都会产生影响。我会很自然的按着那些经历来解释﹑和思考经文。重点就是﹐当我阅读《圣经》时﹐我要知觉这一点。显然的﹐过往的经验使得我能够阅读《圣经》﹐聆听   上帝的话语﹔但是我必须全心全意的顺服经文﹐谦卑的将我个人经历﹐置于《圣经》之前﹐扪心自问﹐『我这些回应正确吗﹖经文是肯定还是修正我所认为的﹖』当我这么持续的反复阅读经文﹐聆听经文﹐等候指引﹐也从文句上下文﹐来理解经文意思﹐看自己的回应是否需要修正﹐以符合经文本身的教导﹐或是遵行   上帝所说的话。当然﹐如果它们越符合经文教导﹐表示我对于经文的理解更正确。我越是了解经文﹐就更能够将回应带到《圣经》面前﹐让《圣经》话语来塑造我的回应。——盖瑞•科克尔博士

每当我们顺服《圣经》的权威，就可以盼望得到智慧、教训和鼓励。我们相信圣灵能按他的裁决辨别力，不断地光照我们，使我们认识《圣经》的实际含义，使我们能更加忠心地把这含义应用到我们的人生当中。所以，我们越是负责任地读《圣经》和解释《圣经》，我们就越能期望我们的理解是正确的——我们的恩赐就越会得到增强，我们的思想得到挑战，我们的文化背景得到正确评价，我们的个人经历被转化。

顺服《圣经》的权威很重要﹐因为我们这么作﹐显示出我们是在顺服   上帝的权柄。《圣经》是   上帝的话语﹐我们是否顺服《圣经》的权柄﹐都显示出我们对   上帝的心态。因此我们要谨慎﹐读《圣经》时﹐不是带着批判的心态﹐而是俯伏于那些话语的权柄﹐因为我们这么作﹐其实乃是俯伏于   上帝的权柄。——罗伯特•李斯特博士

我们现在已经看了对话模式的背景，它们对解释《圣经》的影响，就让我们来看认识含义的对话式进路与客观式及主观式进路的比较。

比较

认识含义的客观式和主观式的这两种进路，在一些根本方面是彼此对立的。但它们有某些非常重要的共同之处：这两种模式发展到了极端，最终都会把解释者的权威提升到与《圣经》本身相同或更高的权威之上。客观主义过分强调我们的理性和科学观点是绝对可靠的。而主观主义则强调读者我们自己的直觉和感受是至高无上。但在这两种情形里，结果都是一样的：现代的读者坐着审判《圣经》。所以，即使这些进路提供了一些有帮助的看法，一种对话式的模式却能更好地帮助我们，既能适当地处理我们自身的这些弱点，又能看重《圣经》具有的神圣权威。

我们在这一课主要关注的是福音派认识《圣经》含义的权威-对话式进路，而不是一般含义上的对话式进路。所以，我们的比较首先要关注在权威-对话与客观模式上，然后是关注权威-对话与主观模式。让我们首先看权威-对话与客观的模式。

权威-对话与客观

和客观模式一样，权威-对话模式承认可以在《圣经》经文中寻找到客观真理。《圣经》是   上帝对我们说的话和启示，它说的每一样事情都是客观真实和有意义的。解释的方法只要符合《圣经》标准，就能帮助我们认识这启示。正如保罗在提摩太后书2章15节说的：

你当竭力在   上帝面前得蒙喜悦，作无愧的工人，按着正意分解真理的道。（提摩太后书2章15节）

保罗在此表明，存在着一种分解真理之道的正确方法。很重要的，他把这种正确方法比作是工人的劳动。他要说明的要点就是，读《圣经》要求认真的研究和负责任的方法。这些方法本身不是万能的，但是仍然要负责任解释《圣经》的重要部分。

虽然权威-对话模式和释经的客观主义一样有这些正确的看法，但是，它却避免了与客观主义极端联系在一起的一些严重危险。它有助我们避免那种危险的看法，以为我们来读《圣经》时可以做到彻底客观。另外，一种权威-对话式的进路帮助我们记住，理性和科学的判断必须总是要放在顺服《圣经》权威的位置上加以看待。

看了权威-对话式进路和客观模式的比较之后，让我们转过来关注权威-对话和主观模式之间的比较。

权威-对话与主观

正如权威-对话和客观模式在某些方面有相似之处一样，它与主观模式也有相似的地方。它承认我们读《圣经》的时候，都是带着影响我们解释《圣经》经文的看法和信念。而且，它也认同《圣经》和主观主义的看法，就是我们解释《圣经》时，带着的个人的主观看法是有其价值的。

《圣经》反复强调类似的主观观点，正如在诗篇119篇，它讲到默想   上帝的律法，全心寻求   上帝的真理，求   上帝打开我们的眼睛，看到他在《圣经》中的启示，带着喜乐和顺服的态度来读《圣经》，爱慕律法，因为它是   上帝美好的恩赐，起誓要顺服《圣经》，以及我们与   上帝权威的圣道对话时许多其它主观的方面。只举一个例子，请听诗篇119篇97节：

我何等爱慕你的律法，终日不住地思想。（诗篇119篇97节）

诗人在这节经文中表明，他自己对   上帝律法的爱慕，大大影响了他对《圣经》的学习和认识。他写下有关默想《圣经》的事—这是一种主观的做法，不是严格方法论的一部分——表明他自己思想《圣经》的话语，也许甚至等候圣灵来光照他。

但即使权威-对话式进路和主观模式有一些相似之处，它却在重要的方面与它们有所不同。例如，与一些主观主义者不同的，在于它警告说，如果我们不把自己的主观顺服在《圣经》的权威之下，我们对《圣经》的解释就会严重受阻。这一点得到《圣经》本身的确认，例如在像彼得后书3章16节的地方，彼得这样讲到保罗的书信：

他一切的信上也都是讲论这事；信中有些难明白的，那无学问、不坚固的人强解，如强解别的经书一样，就自取沉沦。（彼得后书3章16节）

彼得承认保罗书信的一些内容是难明白的。但是他还说一些读者因着无知和灵命不稳，不能明白这些难懂的部分。因着这些主观失败的结果，他们读保罗书信时不顺服，扭曲强解保罗书信的含义。

正如我们的权威-对话模式表明的那样，查考《圣经》是毕生的过程，在这过程当中《圣经》改变我们，让我们在我们的基督教信仰中成长成熟。我们成熟的时候——如果我们负责任地使用合乎《圣经》的解经方法——权威-对话模式，就会越来越促进我们对《圣经》客观含义的理解。这转过头来，又促成我们在个人、主观方面进一步长进，这个过程继续发展。这样，我们可以把我们与《圣经》的对话想象成是一种螺旋，重复围绕有权威的经文和读者之间转动。我们参与这螺旋运动的目标，就是越来越接近《圣经》经文的含义。如果一切进展顺利，这个螺旋转动越多，它就越收紧，越接近《圣经》的真实含义。

什么使得这样的对话能得以成功？正如我们已经指出的，它肯定要求我们努力。但是，除非   上帝的圣灵推动我们更明白和应用《圣经》，我们的努力就毫无用处。因为有圣灵的工作，当我们真诚地使我们自己顺服他和他的话语时，我们就能盼望我们解释《圣经》的能力会不断地增强。

当我们阅读《圣经》时﹐会带着自己的世界观和各种假设﹐来理解经文的意思﹐但是若我们持续以祷告的心态与经文本身互动﹐《圣经》的文本就会带着我们﹐好似螺旋形态那样盘旋而上﹐越来越靠近并且知悉文本更深的真实意思。因此重点在于﹐你若是以祷告的心态来与经文互动﹐那些话语就越能影响你的观点和认知﹐你就会越来越明白文本里永生   上帝要表达的真正意思。——P.J.•百思博士

结论

我们在这一课，纵览了解释《圣经》的人贯穿几个世纪采用不同的含义的进路。我们看了客观式进路，它们倾向在《圣经》本身里面寻找含义，而主观式进路则倾向从《圣经》读者的观点寻找《圣经》含义，对话式进路——特别是权威-对话式进路，这种进路说读者通过与有权威的《圣经》经文互动来得到《圣经》的含义。

时不时的在日常生活中，我们都会遇见一些极端客观主义的人和一些极端主观主义的人。这两种进路都不是合宜地理解和应用《圣经》的方式。我们必须总要时刻牢记我们自身的缺陷，主观的观点会持续不断地影响着我们对《圣经》话语的理解。但是同时，我们必须总是在信心中竭力聆听，把自己顺服在《圣经》含义的权威下。当圣灵祝福我们以权威-对话方式把自己浸泡在《圣经》的含义中，我们就会不断地加增我们更好的、更加负责任地解释   上帝的圣言。

He Gave Us Scripture: Approaches to Meaning

INTRODUCTION

At one time or another, we've all overheard people disagreeing about the meaning of a passage in the Bible. Often, these conversations end in a similar way. One person says, "Well, your interpretation is just your opinion." But the other person responds, "No, it's not just my opinion. It's a fact." These remarks reflect one of the most fundamental questions in biblical interpretation: When we read a passage in the Bible and come to a conclusion about what it means, is our conclusion an objective fact, a subjective opinion, or is it something in between?

This is the fourth lesson in our series He Gave Us Scripture: Foundations of Interpretation, and we've entitled it "Approaches to Meaning." In this lesson, we'll look at some of the major ways interpreters have identified and described the meaning of Scripture.

As we begin to ask questions about the meaning of passages we find in the Bible, it will help to begin by making a basic distinction between objects of knowledge and subjects of knowledge. Objects of knowledge are the things that we try to understand. And these objects can be either abstract, like ideas, or concrete, like people or places.

For example, biologists study objects like animals and plants. And musicians study objects like music or musical instruments. By contrast, subjects of knowledge are the people that do the studying. In the field of biology, biologists themselves are the subjects of knowledge. And in the field of music, musicians are the subjects of knowledge.

So, when we interpret the Bible, we're the subjects, because we're the ones doing the interpretation. And the object of our study is the Bible, because that's what we're trying to interpret.

Now, it's easy to see that human understanding of every sort involves both objects and subjects of knowledge. But how do objects and subjects work together in the pursuit of knowledge?

Well, it's often helpful to talk about three major approaches toward the objects and subjects of human knowledge. First, some people tend toward an approach we call objectivism. Objectivists believe that under the right circumstances, it's possible to arrive at impartial or objective knowledge. Second, other people tend toward an approach called subjectivism. Subjectivists believe that our knowledge is always influenced by our personal biases, making impartial objectivity impossible. And third, some people have found a middle ground that we might call dialogism. This approach emphasizes the constant "dialog" or interplay between objective reality and our subjective perspectives.

Not surprisingly, all three of these approaches have been used in biblical interpretation. So, as we consider the meaning of Scripture in this lesson, we'll pay attention to each of them as we try to answer the question: Is our understanding of the meaning of a biblical passage objective, subjective or dialogical?

In this lesson, we'll focus on each of these three major approaches to meaning. First, we'll consider objective approaches. Second, we'll look at subjective approaches. And third, we'll explore dialogical approaches. Let's begin with objective approaches to the meaning of Scripture.

OBJECTIVE

We've all run into people who have opinions about this or that subject, but have no ability whatsoever to support what they believe with objective facts. Of course, the same kind of thing is true when it comes to interpreting the Bible. There is no shortage of opinions on what many biblical passages mean, but the vast majority of people don't even try to base their interpretations on objective facts. They simply assert what they believe a biblical passage means and leave it at that. When we run into this problem frequently enough, it can be very frustrating, and it can cause all of us to yearn for understandings of the Scripture that are at least somewhat objective.

Since the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries in Europe, objectivism has greatly influenced the interpretation of the Bible. In essence, scholars have believed that they can interpret Scripture impartially, and that they can know its meaning with relative certainty. Most objectivists don't argue that we can remove all our personal biases and perspectives when we interpret the Bible. But they do believe that we can prevent these from affecting our interpretations, so that we can arrive at a true understanding of Scripture. For example, we all know the first verse of the Bible, Genesis 1:1, which says:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1).

Most people would agree that it's relatively easy to understand the basic meaning of this passage. At a minimum, we can say with confidence that it means "God created everything."

When objectivists say that Genesis 1:1 means that, "God created everything," they believe that they understand the verse without bias. So, they tend to think that anyone who rejects their interpretation simply disagrees with an obvious fact.

Now, why have so many biblical interpreters followed this approach to the meaning of Scripture? And what have been the results of objectivism in biblical hermeneutics?

To answer these questions, we'll investigate objective approaches to interpretation by looking in two directions. First, we'll touch on the philosophical and cultural background of these approaches. And second, we'll mention their influence on biblical interpretation. Let's begin by looking at the background of objective approaches to interpretation.

Background

Objectivism can be identified with the most prominent current in the stream of modern philosophy — the current we'll call scientific rationalism. Rene Descartes, who lived from 1596 to 1650, is often called the father of modern rationalism because he promoted reason as the supreme judge of truth. From his point of view, things like religion, traditions, beliefs, intuitions and superstitions confuse our thinking and hide objective reality from us. But Descartes insisted that reliance on rigorous logical thinking frees human beings from confusion and enables us to discover objective truth.

Scientific rationalism was also affected by developments in the natural sciences. Francis Bacon, who lived from 1561 to 1626, is often called the father of modern science because he applied rational, logical thinking to the study of the physical world. In effect, Bacon promoted the idea that orderly, empirical investigation — what we often call the "scientific method" — restrains human subjectivity, enabling us to gain an objective understanding of the world around us.

Scientific rationalism was so influential that nearly every field of study from the seventeenth century through the middle of the twentieth century adopted its perspectives. Even disciplines like religion and theology have been subjected to rational, scientific analysis. Of course, the concepts of rationality and science have changed in a variety of ways over the centuries. But the fundamental assumption of objectivism has remained the same, specifically: by following rational scientific analysis, we can arrive at objective knowledge.

In the twentieth century, modern objectivism was taken to the extreme by a broad philosophical outlook known as structuralism. To put it simply, structuralists tried to use rational and scientific objectivity to obtain an exhaustive understanding of everything they studied — including sociology, art, language and literature. Their desire for objectivity in the interpretation of literature was so extreme that structuralists excluded every consideration that introduced any element of subjectivity. The intentions of authors, the needs of the original audiences, and the opinions of modern readers were thought to be too subjective for rational scientific analysis. But structuralists were convinced that rigorous rational analysis could provide them with an objective understanding of the texts they interpreted.

God meets us as whole people. He's made every aspect of us. Thus he's made our minds; he's made our intuition; he's made our emotions. He's made it all, and he wants us to respond in love with all our heart and soul and strength and mind, so it's engaging every aspect of us. So a narrow intellectualist reading of the Bible is not sufficient, and a narrow emotional or intuitive reading is not sufficient. You've got to respond with everything that is in you. That's what God is asking for. And it's true also that sin can affect both our minds and our intuitions. So the Lord has provided so that we can in a sense begin to correct one with the other. Right? So people may be intuitively inclined to some idea and they read the Scripture and they say, "Honestly, when I apply my mind to this, I can see that my intuition needs correction." And vice versa, right? That sometimes I've got intellectual ideas and I need to say it's bigger than that. And intuitive sense can warn me, you know, maybe you'd better stay away from this idea because it isn't biblical. [Dr. Vern Poythress]

Having looked at the philosophical and cultural background of objective approaches to meaning, let's turn our attention to the influence objective approaches have had on biblical interpretation.

Influence

Rational scientific objectivism has influenced biblical interpretation in two basic ways. First, it has led us to what we might call critical biblical studies. And second, it has also influenced evangelical biblical studies.

Critical scholars normally argue that the best way to evaluate the Scriptures is by means of rational investigation, such as those used by science, archaeology and history. Sadly, critical scholars often fail to recognize the limits of these kinds of investigations, so they end up rejecting many of Scripture's claims and teachings.

In contrast to critical scholars, evangelicals insist that Scripture is absolutely true and authoritative, and that all scientific findings must ultimately be subject to its teachings. This doesn't mean that we can't learn important things about the Bible from science, archaeology and history. Used rightly and in submission to biblical authority, reason and scientific methods are very useful tools for finding meaning in the Bible. And insights from these disciplines often help us understand those aspects of Scripture that relate scientific, archaeological and historical information. But these disciplines should never be used to reject the claims and teachings of Scripture.

Everyone who reads and studies the Bible has some method of interpretation. It's a question of whether we're really aware of the kind of method that we're using and think carefully about the questions that we ask of Scripture and how we find the answers. I really encourage people who are just beginning to study and understand the Bible to have some regular step-by-step method that they begin to follow, questions that they ask of every passage that they study. But it's important to say that biblical interpretation is not a science; it's an art. And it's not as if we just ask the right questions we can always understand the full meaning of a biblical text. And so, I think as time goes on, we learn not to just follow slavishly one method but to be open even to the Holy Spirit's leading in interpreting any particular passage of Scripture. [Dr. Philip Ryken]

When we employ a rigorous methodology in biblical interpretation, that is an advantage in that it keeps us honest. It prevents us from being either casual or less than properly informed when we go to Scripture… You know, a good methodological grounding drives us to do our homework, and so it fosters diligence and attention. At the same time, methodological rigor can lead at times to not allowing the biblical to say what it is saying. It can lead to reductive interpretations. One of my favorite examples of this is John 13, the foot-washing story. If you approach this with the sort of inductive methodology that a lot of us have learned along the way, it's all too easy to come away from John 13 with the conviction that it is simply a lesson in servanthood. But the more I consider that passage in the larger sweep of John and within the Canon as a whole, the more convinced I have become that John 13 is in fact a dramatization of the same story arc that Paul presents in Philippians 2 where he says, "Let this mind be in you which was in Christ Jesus who being in very nature God did not consider equality with God something to be grasped but humbled himself, taking the form of a servant and was obedient… even to death, death on a cross… For this reason God has given him the highest place that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord." We have in both of these passages a story arc of prior glory, self-emptying and service, and then a subsequent return, a subsequent exaltation. It's like what Pelikan talks about as the Christology of preexistence, kenosis and exaltation. And there are textual clues in John that take you there, but they're subtle. And so, I think it's important that when we go to the Bible we always keep in mind that methodology is a means to an end. It is not an end in itself, and therefore the goal is to rightly understand Scripture. That's always the point. [Dr. Carey Vinzant]

Objective approaches to meaning can help us in many ways. They have the benefit of drawing from reason and sound methods of interpretation that can help us interpret the Bible carefully and responsibly. But as valuable as this approach to biblical interpretation may be, we always have to remind ourselves that ultimately only God is objective in his knowledge because nothing is hidden from his sight. As hard as we may try, human beings can never be completely objective, completely unbiased investigators of facts. So, without losing sight of the benefits of objective approaches, we need a broader understanding of what's entailed in discovering the meaning of Scripture.

With this understanding of objective approaches to meaning in mind, let's turn our attention to subjective approaches.

SUBJECTIVE

There are many different types of subjectivism. But in general, we can say that subjectivists recognize that human beings and the world, and especially matters of faith, are often too complex to be discerned by scientific rationalism. So, their search for meaning typically relies strongly on personal faculties like intuition and emotions. For example, in John 13:34-35, Jesus gave this familiar instruction:

A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another (John 13:34-35).

On one level, Jesus' command is relatively obvious: we're supposed to love each other. But different people have very different ideas of what love is.

An objectivist might look through Scripture to find out what love is. But a subjectivist might be more inclined to define love on his own terms, and then to act in accordance with that definition.

Our discussion of subjective approaches to meaning will resemble our discussion of objective approaches. First, we'll touch on the philosophical and cultural background of subjective approaches. And second, we'll mention some of their influence on biblical interpretation. Let's begin with the background of subjective approaches to interpretation.

Background

Modern subjectivism gained prominence partly in response to the objectivism of the seventeenth and eighteenth century Enlightenment. Philosophers like David Hume, the Scottish skeptic who lived from 1711 to 1776, argued that reason and scientific study can't lead us to objective knowledge about the world. Hume and others believed that our emotions, desires and mental categories always influence our thinking, making impartial objectivity impossible.

The German philosopher Immanuel Kant, who lived from 1724 to 1804, also made tremendous contributions to subjective thought. Kant argued that we can't know objective reality as it really is; we can never know a Ding an sich, or "a thing itself." He believed that we only perceive the world as it appears to us, and then process our perceptions through the rational categories or concepts that already exist in our minds. Kant concluded that what we commonly call "knowledge of the world" always involves both our empirical perceptions and our mental conceptualizations.

After Hume and Kant, subjective approaches to meaning continued to develop in the nineteenth century through movements like romanticism. The romantics and those that followed them argued that expressive poetry, drama, music and visual arts provide an understanding of reality that can be far superior to rational, scientific discourse. They also insisted that rationalism had a dehumanizing effect because it devalues important human characteristics like intuition and emotion. And so, they insisted that interpreters should rely on their own personal human characteristics when they interpret texts.

Subjective approaches to meaning shifted again in the late twentieth century in a movement known as post-structuralism. French theorists Jean-Francois Lyotard, Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault and a host of others rejected the objectivity of twentieth century structuralism. In fact, many moved so far from objectivism that they rejected all hope for objectivity. They emphasized that objective claims of knowledge can't be trusted because they're far too limited and far too influenced by subjective prejudices, feelings and existing beliefs.

Moreover, many post-structuralists agreed with the nineteenth century German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, as well as a number of twentieth century existentialists, who said that all claims to knowledge are primarily attempts to impose the prejudices of one person or group onto others. Some of them even extended these ideas to art and literature arguing that even artistic interpretation is a power-play designed to achieve social dominance.

In our day, subjectivism has become widespread, especially in the interpretation of art and literature. Subjective interpreters argue that since we can't discover the objective understanding of the world around us, then the meaning of art and literature, including the Bible, must be located within us. So, rather than speaking of objective meaning in art and literature, subjectivists talk about how music, paintings, books and the like are viewed by different cultures, different ethnic groups, different economic classes, different genders, and so on. And they're particularly interested in how these different groups use art and literature in service to their various social agenda.

Now that we've surveyed the historical background of subjective approaches to meaning, we're ready to consider their influence on biblical interpretation.

Influence

Ideally, followers of Christ don't allow the currents of culture surrounding them to influence the way they interpret the Bible. But in reality, none of us can entirely escape the effects of culture on our approach to biblical hermeneutics. In recent decades, hermeneutical subjectivism has moved beyond the confines of academic discussions and has become so common that we run into more and more people who insist that claims of fact are actually no more than personal subjective opinions. And this is especially true in matters of faith and the Bible. For this reason, we all need to become more aware of the ways subjectivism has influenced biblical interpretation in our day.

Like rational scientific objectivism, subjectivism has influenced both critical biblical studies and evangelical biblical studies. Critical biblical scholars influenced by subjectivism often argue that no objective meaning can be found in a biblical text. So, instead of teaching their students to discover the original meaning of Scripture, they encourage readers of the Bible to create their own meanings by using the Scriptures to suit their own purposes. Some even argue that this is exactly what the writers of the New Testament did when they interpreted the Old Testament. They believe New Testament writers didn't care about what Old Testament texts meant in an objective sense, and that New Testament authors were mainly concerned with how the Old Testament could be used to promote their Christian beliefs. And critical subjectivist interpreters argue that we should do the same thing — that we shouldn't worry about the objective meaning of Scripture, and that we should use the Bible to promote our own social, political and religious agendas.

In contrast to critical biblical studies, evangelical biblical studies have mostly avoided extreme subjective perspectives. At least in principle, evangelicals usually acknowledge that the Bible is God's Word, and therefore that its meaning is determined by God rather than by interpreters. But evangelicals haven't been immune to the negative influence of subjectivism on hermeneutics. They often ask, "What does this text mean to you?" without any thought of the objective meaning of the passage. And preachers and Bible teachers frequently read contemporary interests into Bible passages, without any concern for the historical setting of the text.

But despite errors like these, subjectivism has still made valuable contributions to Evangelical biblical hermeneutics. It has rightly pointed out that our cultural and personal backgrounds, skills, abilities, weaknesses and limitations significantly influence our understanding of Scripture. And it's helped us see that just as the Holy Spirit used the subjective outlooks of inspired human authors to write Scripture, he uses our own subjective outlooks to help us understand and apply the meaning of Scripture in our own day.

The Bible always compels from us a personal response. The Bible is always giving us promises to believe, warnings to follow, commands to obey. And so there's always an element of personal response to the Word of God that is really called for. God himself is speaking to us in his Word. But I think it's important to recognize that's not the place that we start in interpreting the Bible, as if the very first, most important question is, "How does this passage make me feel?" Or "What is my personal response to this passage?" We need to understand what the Bible meant in its original context before we can get the full meaning that the Bible has for us in our contemporary situation. And so it's important to work hard to understand the meaning of the Bible in and of itself and then not stop there because we want to go on to the personal response. But both of those are important in the process of interpreting the Bible. [Dr. Philip Ryken]

Subjective approaches to meaning can be harmful when they leave us no standard for evaluating different interpretations of the Bible. The simple fact is that some interpretations of Scripture are better than others. But subjective approaches to biblical interpretation can also open our eyes to the ways in which our backgrounds, and personalities, even our intuitions and our emotions often affect our interpretations of Scripture. And recognizing these influences can help us manage them more effectively so that we can interpret the Bible more responsibly.

Now that we've explored objective and subjective approaches to meaning, let's turn our attention to dialogical approaches.

DIALOGICAL

At one time or another, we've all met people who have such strong opinions about something that they insist that everyone must completely agree with them. Now, many times we just go along with them to keep the peace. But at other times the issue at hand is so important that we insist on talking more about it. In a good conversation like this, both people will do their best to express themselves clearly and to listen to each other carefully. And hopefully, as the conversation continues, some measure of consensus will emerge. Well, in recent decades, this kind of conversation or dialog has become a model for interpreting all literature, including the Bible.

The word "dialogical" refers to the idea that interpretation involves a type of dialog or discussion between the reader and the text. The basic idea is that the text has an objective meaning, but that this objective meaning is best discovered through a subjective interaction or dialog between the reader and the text. We see an example of this kind of dialog in Psalm 119:18, where the psalmist made this request of God:

Open my eyes that I may see wonderful things in your law (Psalm 119:18).

In this psalm, the Psalmist was talking about the way that he regularly mediated on Scripture. And he expressed a fundamentally dialogical view of interpretation. First, he believed that objective meaning could be found in the law. But at the same time, he realized that he needed a subjective, eye-opening experience in order to understand the law rightly.

The Psalmist wasn't asking God to eliminate his subjective influences, but to improve his subjective perspective by increasing his insight. And as the broader context of this verse shows us, the Psalmist kept returning to the text of the law in order to improve his understanding; he maintained a dialog with Scripture that continually improved his grasp of its meaning.

Our exploration of dialogical approaches to meaning will begin in the same way as our consideration of the objective and subjective approaches. First, we'll look at the philosophical and cultural background of dialogical models. And second, we'll consider their influence on biblical hermeneutics. But then we'll go a step further by offering a comparison between the objective and subjective approaches on the one hand and a biblical understanding of the dialogical approach on the other hand. Let's begin by looking at the background of dialogical approaches.

BACKGROUND

In the field of philosophical hermeneutics, the dialogical nature of interpretation was emphasized by the German philosopher, theologian and linguist Friedrich Schleiermacher, who lived from 1768 to 1834. He offered a well-known model of interpretation called the "hermeneutical circle," by which interpreters attempt to understand texts or other complex objects. The circle begins when we encounter an object and initially process it in our minds. Then we return over and over to encounter more of the object and to process more understanding. Schleiermacher's hermeneutical circle has often been described by others as a hermeneutical spiral, a circular movement between interpreters and their objects of study that progressively moves toward greater and greater understanding.

Dialogical models have also emerged in science. Twentieth-century philosophers of science like Thomas Kuhn, who lived from 1922 to 1996, have argued that scientific knowledge results from interactions between objective reality and the paradigms of understanding that we bring to scientific investigation. The basic concept of a paradigm is that all our beliefs are interrelated. They fit together in a complex structure, each one reinforcing and influencing the others. As long as a new belief doesn't challenge our paradigm, it's easy for us to adopt it. But we resist new beliefs that threaten the structure of our paradigm. Even so, when the evidence contradicting our paradigms is sufficient, it can compel us to change — sometimes in revolutionary ways that cause us to rethink everything we thought we knew. But regardless of the degree of change, a sort of dialog is always taking place between our mental paradigms and our experience of objective reality, constantly causing us to reevaluate each of our beliefs in light of the others.

Perhaps the most influential dialogical model for hermeneutics in the twentieth century was that of Hans-Georg Gadamer, who lived from 1900 to 2002. Gadamer spoke of meaning in science, philosophy, theology, art and literature in terms of the fusion of two horizons. In Gadamer's thinking, a horizon was everything that could be seen or understood from a particular point of view. In the case of hermeneutics, one horizon would be that of the text. Its horizon would include all the perspectives expressed in the text, and the legitimate conclusions that could be drawn from those perspectives. Another horizon would be that of the readers. This horizon would include all their perspectives, beliefs, feelings, prejudices, and so on. And these horizons would fuse when the readers began to incorporate aspects of the text's horizon into their own horizon. As the readers learned from the text, or adopted viewpoints of the text, their own horizon would expand to include new elements from the horizon of the text.

Now that we've looked at the background of dialogical models, let's turn our attention to their influence on biblical hermeneutics.

Influence

For our purposes at this point, we'll focus our discussion on some of the ways that evangelicals have used dialogical approaches to meaning to enhance their interpretations of Scripture. Specifically, evangelicals have emphasized that reading the Bible is different from having a dialog with a normal book because, unlike other books, the Bible has absolute authority over us. For this reason, we'll speak of evangelical approaches to these matters as authority-dialogs.

During a normal day, most of us have conversations with different kinds of people. And these conversations take different directions depending on who's involved. When we're talking casually with our friends about something we all understand, we relate to each other as equals. The conversation goes back and forth, and we all try to listen and we all try to respect each other's outlooks. But when we dialog about important matters, like our health or raising children, and we do this with someone who has far more knowledge and expertise than we do, we're wise to approach the conversation differently. Although we know that experts make mistakes, we do our best to listen to them carefully.

But now, imagine that you're having a conversation with someone you know never makes mistakes, someone who's always right. You'll certainly come to that conversation with your questions and opinions, but you'll do all you can to understand and accept everything that person says to you.

Well, in many ways, that's how it is with interpreting the Bible. We can't escape coming to the Bible with our questions and our opinions, but because the Bible is infallible, because it's always right, we do everything we can to understand and accept everything it tells us.

Interpreting the Bible is like having a dialog with the most authoritative figure we can imagine, God himself. It's a dialog because it involves a type of conversational "give and take" between readers and the Scriptures. On the reader's side of the dialog, we all come to the Bible with many questions, preconceptions, cultural backgrounds and personal experiences. And each of these things influences what we understand from the Bible. On Scripture's side of the dialog, God continually speaks to us through his Word, sometimes confirming what we believe, sometimes correcting it.

My background — my experiences from the past and so forth — is what I have when I read Scripture; I naturally interpret it, think of it in those terms. The point is that when I come to Scripture, I come conscious that do that. Obviously that's what enables me to hear Scripture, my background and so forth. But I come with the full intention of submitting that to Scripture. I come humbly before the Scripture, bring my own experiences. Yes, that enables me to understand the text but I'm submitting that back saying, "Okay, are my responses correct? Does the Scripture affirm or correct what I think it means?" So I continually come back and look at the text, listen to the text, wait before the text, understand the text of Scripture, look at it within its larger context to see where my responses need to be reshaped in order to conform to the text of Scripture, to what God is saying. And of course, the more they conform to Scripture, the better I understand Scripture. The better I understand Scripture, then the more I am able to bring my responses to Scripture and let them be shaped by Scripture. [Dr. Gary Cockerill]

When we submit to the Bible's authority, we expect to receive wisdom, instruction, and encouragement from it. We trust that the Spirit can, at his discretion, illumine us more and more to the actual meaning of Scripture, and enable us to apply it more faithfully to our lives. So, the more we read and interpret the Bible responsibly, the more we can expect our understanding to be correct — and the more our gifts can be strengthened, our thinking challenged, our cultural backgrounds evaluated and our personal experiences transformed.

It's crucial that we submit to the authority of Scripture because our doing so reflects a disposition to submit to the authority of God. As the very words of God, when we do or don't submit to the authority of Scripture, we're saying something about our disposition towards God himself. And so, we want to be careful that we do not come to the Scriptures as the judge of them, but underneath their authority, because we come underneath God's authority in the first place. [Dr. Robert G. Lister]

Now that we've considered the background of dialogical models and their influence on biblical hermeneutics, let's look at a comparison of the dialogical approach to meaning with objective and subjective approaches.

Comparison

Objective and subjective approaches to meaning oppose each other in some fundamental ways, but they have something very important in common. In the extremes, both models ultimately make the authority of interpreters equal to or even greater than the authority of the Bible itself. Objectivism tends to overestimate how reliable our rational and scientifically objective views are. Subjectivism tends to overestimate how reliable our personal intuitions and opinions are. But in both cases the result is the same: We sit in judgment over Scripture. So, even though these approaches offer some helpful insights, a dialogical model helps us deal more adequately with our own weaknesses and with the divine authority of the Bible.

In this lesson, we're concerned primarily with evangelical authority-dialog approaches to meaning rather than with dialogical approaches as a whole. So, our comparison will focus first on authority-dialog and objective models, and second on authority-dialog and subjective models. Let's begin with authority-dialog and objective approaches.

Authority-Dialog and Objective

Like objective models, an authority-dialog model acknowledges that objective truth can be found in the text of Scripture. The Bible is God's word and revelation to us, and everything it says is objectively true and meaningful. And methods of interpretation can help us understand this revelation as long as the methods comply with biblical standards. As Paul told Timothy in 2 Timothy 2:15:

Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15).

Here, Paul indicated that there's a correct way to handle the word of truth. And significantly, he compared this correct way to the labors of a workman. His point was that reading the Bible requires careful study and responsible methodology. These methods aren't sufficient in and of themselves. But they're still an important part of responsible interpretation.

While an authority-dialog model shares these wholesome outlooks with hermeneutical objectivism, it also avoids some serious dangers associated with objectivist extremes. It helps us avoid the danger of thinking that any of us can be utterly objective when we approach the Scriptures. And more than this, an authority-dialog approach helps us remember that rational and scientific judgments must always be viewed in submission to the authority of Scripture.

Having seen how an authority-dialog approach compares to objective models, let's turn to our comparison between authority-dialog and subjective models.

Authority-Dialog and Subjective

Just as an authority-dialog model resembles objective models in some ways, it also has similarities with subjective models. It acknowledges that we all come to the Scriptures with perspectives and beliefs that influence the way we interpret biblical passages. Moreover, it agrees with Scripture and subjectivism that the personal, subjective input we bring to interpretation is valuable.

Scripture repeatedly emphasizes similarly subjective ideas, as in Psalm 119 where it speaks of meditating on God's law, seeking God's truth with all our heart, asking for open eyes to see what God has revealed in Scripture, approaching the Bible with an attitude of joy and obedience, loving the law because it's God's good gift, taking oaths to obey Scripture, and many other subjective aspects of our dialog with God's authoritative Word. As just one example, listen to Psalm 119:97:

Oh, how I love your law! I meditate on it all day long (Psalm 119:97).

In this verse, the Psalmist indicated that his personal love for God's law impacted his study and understanding of Scripture. And he wrote about meditating on Scripture — a subjective practice that isn't part of a rigorous methodology — indicating that he personally reflected on the Bible's words and perhaps even waited on the Holy Spirit to illumine him.

But even though an authority-dialog approach shares similarities like these with subjective models, it also differs from them in important ways. For example, unlike some subjectivists, the authority-dialog model warns that if we don't submit our subjectivity to the authority of Scripture, our interpretations of the Bible will be severely hindered. And this is confirmed by Scripture itself, in places like 2 Peter 3:16, where Peter talked about Paul's writings in this way:

He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction (2 Peter 3:16).

Peter admitted that some things in Paul's letters were "hard to understand." But he also said that some readers fail to work through these difficulties because of ignorance and spiritual instability. And as a result of these subjective failures, they read without submission, and distort the meaning of Paul's writings.

As our authority-dialog model indicates, investigating the Bible is a lifelong process in which Scripture changes us and causes us to grow and mature in our Christian faith. As we mature — assuming we use biblical methods of interpretation in responsible ways — the authority-dialog model will increasingly enhance our understanding of the objective meaning of the Bible. This, in turn, causes further personal, subjective growth, and the process continues. In this way, our dialog with the Bible can be thought of as a spiral that repeatedly circles between the authoritative text and the reader. The goal of our involvement in this spiral is to move closer and closer to the meaning of biblical texts. If all goes well, the more turns this spiral makes, the tighter it becomes, closing in on the true meaning of Scripture.

And what makes this dialog successful? As we've noted, it certainly requires hard work from us. But our efforts are useless unless the Holy Spirit of God moves us toward greater understanding and application of the Scriptures. Because of the Spirit's work, we can hope that when we sincerely submit ourselves to him and his Word, our ability to interpret the Bible will increase.

You approach the Bible with your own worldview and your own hypothesis — how to understand it — but if you continue to interact with the text prayerfully, then the text will lead you in a spiral to come closer and understand deeper the real meaning of the text. So the story is, or the point is there, the more you interact prayerfully with the text itself, the more the text will influence your own view and understanding, and you will come closer to understand the real meaning of the living God in that text. [Dr. P. J. Buys]

CONCLUSION

In this lesson, we've surveyed a variety of approaches to meaning that interpreters have taken throughout the centuries. We've looked at objective approaches that tend to locate meaning solely within the Scriptures themselves, subjective approaches that tend to locate the meaning of Scripture in the viewpoints of its readers, and dialogical approaches — especially the authority-dialog approach, which says that readers access meaning through their interactions with the authoritative biblical texts.

At one time or another, we've all met people who go to the extremes of objectivism and subjectivism. Neither of these approaches is adequate for understanding and applying the Scriptures. We must always keep in mind that our flawed, subjective viewpoints constantly influence our understanding of what the Bible means. But at the same time, we must always strive in good faith to listen and to submit ourselves to what the Bible means. As the Holy Spirit blesses our attempts to engage the Scripture in this kind of authority-dialog, we'll be able to move forward toward better and more responsible interpretations of the Bible.