Chapter 2

Reading the Scriptures: The Necessity and

Importance of Biblical Hermeneutics
Richard M. Davidson, Miguel Patiño-Hernández,
and Joel Iparraguirre

How shall we approach Scripture? With what hermeneutic shall we con-

duct our study of the Bible? A bewildering array of past and current herme-
neutical theories confronts us. These range from the allegorical hermeneutic
of the Alexandrian school and the medieval Church, to the literal-historical
and typological hermeneutic of the Antiochene school and the Protestant
Reformers; from the antisupernatural rationalist (historical-critical) herme-
neutic of the Enlightenment to Friedrich Schleiermacher’s hermeneutic of
subjective understanding; from the neo-orthodoxy of Karl Barth and Emil
Brunner, to the existentialist models of Martin Heidegger and Rudolf Karl
Bultmann; from the metacritical hermeneutical theories of Hans-Georg
Gadamer and Wolfhart Pannenberg, to the hermeneutic of suspicion and
retrieval of Paul Ricoeur; from the hermeneutics of socio-critical theories
(including liberation theology and mujerista interpretation, feminist and
womanist interpretation, post-colonial interpretation, ideological criticism,
etc.) to the new literary-critical hermeneutical approaches (rhetorical criti-
cism, new criticism, structuralism, semiotics, narrative theory, discourse
analysis, intertextuality, etc.); from reader-response criticism to radical de-
constructionism; etc.1 In the face of this plethora of suggested hermeneuti-
cal methodologies, how shall we proceed in our approach toward Scripture?
It appears evident that without specific divine revelation on the subject of

1. Richard M. Davidson, “Interpreting Scripture: An Hermeneutical Decalogue,” JATS

4.2 (1993): 95–96. For an overview and discussion of these various hermeneutical
approaches, see Anthony C. Thiselton, New Horizons in Hermeneutics: The Theory
and Practice of Transforming Biblical Reading (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992); Joel
M. LeMon and Kent Harold Richards, eds., Method Matters: Essays on the Interpreta-
tion of the Hebrew Bible in Honor of David L. Petersen (Atlanta: Society of Biblical
Literature, 2009); and John Hayes, “Biblical Interpretation, History of,” NIDB
1:455–461, and the numerous other entries of NIDB as cross-listed by Hayes.
22 A ffirming O ur i dentity

hermeneutics, we will never be able to find our way through the maze of
human theories. On the other hand, if we accept the full authority of Scrip-
ture2 with regard to other biblical doctrines, should we not also expect to
find in Scripture the divine perspective on how to interpret Scripture?
Seventh-day Adventists believe that just as we go to Scripture to find
the doctrines of God, humanity, sin, eschatology, etc., so it is appropri-
ate, yes, essential, that we should go to Scripture itself to discover the
doctrine of Scripture, and in particular, to learn the Scriptural teaching
on hermeneutics as a basis for constructing a theology that is hermeneu-
tically faithful to Scripture. Of course, we come to Scripture acknowl-
edging our own biases, our own pre-understandings, as far as we are
aware of them, but we come willing, and claiming the divine promise,
that the Spirit will bring our presuppositions ever more in harmony with
the biblical presuppositions (see John 16:13; 14:16, 17, 26, etc.).
In this context, this chapter (1) seeks to determine what hermeneutics
is and briefly discusses whether or not hermeneutics is necessary, especially
if a specific biblical hermeneutics is needed. Then, it (2) identifies the rela-
tionship between hermeneutics and presuppositions; it (3) explores the
influence of presuppositions in hermeneutical methods; and (4) contrasts
the two major methods of biblical interpretation.

The Art and Science of Hermeneutics3

What Is Hermeneutics?
Hermeneutics is a term that has been defined in numerous ways. For
instance, Stanley E. Porter and Jason C. Robinson state that it “refers to

2. This is not the place for a full-blown discussion of Revelation-Inspiration-Illumina-

tion. The doctrine of revelation-inspiration is foundational to the whole enterprise
of biblical interpretation. According to the biblical record, God has revealed himself
and his will in specific statements of propositional truth to his prophets (Heb 1:1).
Through the inspiration of the Spirit He has enabled his prophets to communicate
the divine revelation as the trustworthy and authoritative Word of God (2 Tim
3:15–16; 2 Pet 1:19–21). The same Spirit, who has inspired the prophets has been
promised to illuminate the minds of those who seek to understand the meaning of
the divine revelation (John 14:26; 1 Cor 2:10–14). For further discussion, see Peter
M. Van Bemmelen, “Revelation and Inspiration,” in Handbook of Seventh-day Ad-
ventist Theology, ed. Raoul Dederen, Commentary Reference Series 12 (Hagerstown,
MD: Review and Herald, 2000), 22–57; and Fernando Canale, “Revelation and
Inspiration,” in Understanding Scripture: An Adventist Approach, ed. George W.
Reid, BRISH 1 (Silver Spring, MD: Biblical Research Institute, 2005), 47–74.
3. The basic content of this section is based on the conversation notes that I (Joel Iparra-
guirre) had with Ekkehardt Mueller during our participation in the XII South Ameri-
 The Necessity and Importance of Biblical Hermeneutics 23

the many ways in which we may theorize about the nature of human in-
terpretation, whether that means understanding books, works of art, ar-
chitecture, verbal communication, or even nonverbal bodily gestures.”4
According to Bernard C. Lategan, “In the most general terms, hermeneu-
tics can be described as the ‘art of understanding.’ Used in the narrower
sense, hermeneutics can refer to the method and techniques used to inter-
pret written texts. In a wider sense, it can refer to the conditions which
make interpretation possible and even to the process of understanding as a
whole.”5 Moisés Silva mentions hermeneutics as the science of interpreta-
tion and the art of interpretation,6 and Gerhard Maier talks about the “cor-
rect conception” and the “correct representation” when we discuss herme-
neutics.7 So, it encompasses many disciplines and approaches, such as phi-
losophy, theology, philology, literature, and law. As such, hermeneutics is
a complex and multifaceted field that requires careful study and reflection
in order to be fully understood.

Is There a Need for Hermeneutics?

Extensive scholarly writing has been dedicated to the study of herme-
neutics, more so than to any other field of knowledge.8 The history of the
development of hermeneutics is as extensive as it is diverse,9 and yet, some

can Biblical Theological Symposium titled “El justo por la fe vivirá,” Argentina, 27
April to 01 May 2017, and also from Ekkehardt Mueller, “A Short Introduction to
Biblical Hermeneutics” (unpublished manuscript, 2017).
4. Stanley E. Porter and Jason C. Robinson, Hermeneutics: An Introduction to Interpre-
tive Theory (Grand Rapids: Eerdmands, 2011), 1
5. Bernard C. Lategan, “Hermeneutics,” ABD 3:149.
6. Walter C. Kaiser Jr. and Moisés Silva, An Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics: The
Search for Meaning (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 15.
7. Gerhard Maier, Biblical Hermeneutics (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1994), 15.
8. For instance, Silva notes: “Partly because the distance (both linguistic and historical)
separating us from the Bible is so great; partly because the Bible is a rather long
document written by many people over a long stretch of time; partly because the
Bible has attracted the professional attention of many, many scholars during the last
twenty centuries; partly because the Bible touches on the deepest problems faced by
people everywhere—for these and other reasons, no literary document has given rise
to a larger body of scholarly writing . . .” (Kaiser and Silva, Introduction to Biblical
Hermeneutics ,19–20).
9. See, e.g., Lategan, “Hermeneutics,” 3:149–152; Gerhard F. Hasel, Biblical Interpreta-
tion Today (Washington: Biblical Research Institute, 1985), 1–99; Alan J. Hauser and
Duane F. Watson, eds., A History of Biblical Hermeneutics: The Ancient Period, vol. 1
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003); Alan J. Hauser and Duane F. Watson, A History of
Biblical Interpretation: The Medieval through the Reformation Periods, vol. 2 (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008); Alan J. Hauser and Duane F. Watson, History of Biblical
24 A ffirming O ur i dentity

may question the necessity of hermeneutics, wondering if understanding

a speech or a written source is not a task that comes automatically. After
all, people learn to communicate with their friends and family without
taking a course on hermeneutics. While this is so, everyday life tells us
that this does necessarily apply to other areas beyond daily conversation.
When approaching the Bible, the need for interpretation becomes obvi-
ous. For instance, Jesus’s disciples did not fully understand Jesus and his mis-
sion. After his resurrection, he had to explain the Scriptures to them: “And
beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the
Scriptures the things concerning Himself” (Luke 24:27). The term “to inter-
pret” is dihermēneuō, a form of the Greek hermēneuō plus prefix. The disci-
ples’ response was, “Did not our hearts burn within us while he talked to us
on the road, while he opened to us the Scriptures?” (Luke 24:32).
Various churches, however, have come to different interpretations of
the biblical texts dealing with homosexual behavior, formulating different
doctrines of sexuality. While some welcome a homosexual lifestyle, others
are opposed, depending on their understanding of biblical texts.10 Where
believers rely on secondary texts and biblical concepts, the need for herme-
neutics becomes even more pronounced. As Gerhard F. Hasel suggests, any
modification to the methods of biblical interpretation “inevitably would
be accompanied by a shift or change in its course, doctrines, self-under-
standing, purpose, and mission.”11 Barriers to understanding biblical texts
such as language, time, culture, and geography,12 as well as social location13

Interpretation: The Enlightenment through the Nineteenth Century, vol. 3 (Grand Rap-
ids: Eerdmans, 2017); Henning Graf Reventlow, ed., History of Biblical Interpreta-
tion, trans. Leo G. Perdue and James O. Duke, 4 vols. (Atlanta: Society of Biblical
Literature, 2009–2010). See also the resources in note 1.
10. For an in-depth study of biblical passages regarding sexuality and analysis of various
interpretations, see Richard M. Davidson, Flame of Yahweh: Sexuality in the Old Tes-
tament (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2007). See also Ekkehardt Mueller and Elias
Brasil de Souza, eds., Sexuality: Contemporary Issues from a Biblical Perspective, BRIS-
BE 2 (Silver Spring, MD: Biblical Research Institute, 2022).
11. G. F. Hasel, Biblical Interpretation, 1.
12. See Grant R. Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to
Biblical Interpretation (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2006), 25.
13. Boubakar Sanou and John C. Peckham define “social location” as “the sum total of
human experiences that contribute to and shape a person’s overall perspective on life.
These human experiences not only include a person’s physical location in age, gender,
race, and community, but also the moral, intellectual, emotional, and spiritual atmo-
sphere they live in, their social class, marital status, political convictions, language,
nationality, history of the communities they belong to, etc.” Boubakar Sanou and
John C. Peckham “Canonical Theology, Social Location and the Search for Global
 The Necessity and Importance of Biblical Hermeneutics 25

might be overcome with appropriate hermeneutics and a theological meth-

od where the Scripture is granted normative and final authority (Scriptura
norma normans).

Is a Specific Biblical Hermeneutics Needed?

This raises the question of whether or not the study of the Bible de-
mands a particular hermeneutics that, while having some common ele-
ments with hermeneutics in other fields of knowledge, goes beyond these
commonalities. Lategan states: “Hermeneutics as a general philosophical
enterprise should be distinguished from specialized forms like legal and
theological hermeneutics, which were designed to interpret a specific cor-
pus of texts or to meet a special need.”14
Because the Bible is simultaneously a human and divine document, the
hermeneutical principles of other fields should not be applied to the Scrip-
tures. Therefore, an appropriate hermeneutical method must accommo-
date, in one way or another, the specific characteristics of the divine author-
ship of the Holy Scriptures. As Frank M. Hasel has rightly pointed out, “It
is a truism that every method is determined by its object . . . Every object
determines the method with which it is studied. Thus, our study of the Bi-
ble is ill-advised if it simply takes over methods from other disciplines.”15
Maier lists several reasons that support his claim for the need for bibli-
cal hermeneutics. First,
The Bible—if what it says is true even to a small degree—
is the most unusual and unique object there is. It is in-
comparable. There is nothing else like it in all of world
literature. No other book can compare with the prophetic
array of sixty-six books hailing from various centuries, all
furnishing a pregiven framework pointing to the one God
and the one Messiah.16

Theological Method,” in Scripture and Theology: Historical and Systematic Perspectives,

ed. Tomas Bokedal, Ludger Jansen, and Michael Borowski (Berlin: De Gruyter,
2023), 349.
14. Lategan, “Hermeneutics,” 3:149.
15. Frank M. Hasel, “Elements of Biblical Hermeneutics in Harmony with Scripture’s
Self-Claims,” in Biblical Hermeneutics: An Adventist Approach, ed. Frank M. Hasel,
BRIBH 3 (Silver Spring, MD: Biblical Research Institute, 2020), 32; Norman R.
Gulley affirms, “All true science will allow the object under investigation to reveal
what it knows about itself.” Norman R. Gulley, Systematic Theology: Prolegomena
(Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 2003), 307.
16. Maier, Biblical Hermeneutics, 21.
26 A ffirming O ur i dentity

A unique object to be studied requires a unique approach. The Bible can-

not be treated like any other book.
Maier’s second justification is that the biblical authors intentionally
aim to fade into the background. They ascribe the authorship of their
message to God rather than to themselves. This has several ramifications,
the most prominent among them being that we should relinquish “sys-
tematic doubt” and no longer trust reason.17 Third,
The Bible sets up a singular unmistakable relation between
God and the interpreter. . . . the Bible intends a transforma-
tion of the interpreter and his existence. . . . Decision,
faith, obedience, transformation in view of our salva-
tion—these are all goals that transcend general hermeneu-
tic and once again suggest a special biblical hermeneutic.18
Fourth, Maier talks about the unavoidable problem for the interpreters
of the Scriptures: that they cannot work without presuppositions. Yet, these
presuppositions are affected by sin and are challenged. Further difficulties
consist “in the encounter between incomparable persons,” the challenge of
human thought and reason, and unique historical events which raise the
question of the relationship between revelation and history.19
Like Maier, others support the claims for biblical hermeneutics. For ex-
ample, Grant R. Osborne discusses hermeneutics as science and art, as en-
countered above. Still, he adds hermeneutics as a “spiritual act,” namely “when
utilized to interpret Scripture.”20 While we support Maier’s claim, we also no-
tice that it is based on presuppositions. For this reason, Richard M. Davidson
notes, “Interpreters must make a decision that their preunderstandings will
derive from and be under the control of the Bible, constantly open to modi-
fication and enlargement of their ideas on the basis of Scripture.”21 Thus,

17. Maier, Biblical Hermeneutics, 22–24

18. Maier, Biblical Hermeneutics, 24–25.
19. Maier, Biblical Hermeneutics, 25, 26.
20. Osborne, Hermeneutical Spiral, 22. Maier, Biblical Hermeneutics, 39-44, and Osborne,
Hermeneutical Spiral, 21, would insist that theological hermeneutics is a science, even
though others may deny that. Maier, Biblical Hermeneutics, 40, therefore, defines science
in the following way: “methodologically ordered reflection, making use of all available
means, which can be executed and tested under the same conditions by others. . . . And
precisely because it involves a science sui generis and suae rationis, no one can demand of
theology that it ‘emulate’ every ‘major variation in all the sciences.’ That would mean to
give up its own distinctive legitimacy and ultimately its scientific character as well.”
21. Richard M. Davidson, “Biblical Interpretation,” in Handbook of Seventh-day Adven-
tist Theology, ed. Raoul Dederen, Commentary Reference Series 12 (Hagerstown,
MD: Review and Herald, 2000), 67.
 The Necessity and Importance of Biblical Hermeneutics 27

They must consciously reject any external keys or systems

to impose on Scripture from without, whether naturalis-
tic (closed system of cause and effect without any room
for the supernatural), evolutionary (the developmental
axiom), humanistic (human beings the final norm), or
relativistic (rejection of absolutes).”22
Therefore, we must approach the biblical text, intentionally identifying our
presuppositions.

Hermeneutics and Presuppositions

While in the past there was the call to empty oneself of all presupposi-
tions or previous ideas that can intervene in the interpretation of the biblical
text, today it is recognized that it is impossible to approach the object of
study without presuppositions. In other words, it is only possible to inter-
pret with previous knowledge.23 Frank M. Hasel affirms, “We know that no
one studies Scripture with a blank mind. We all bring our presuppositions
and experiences to the task of biblical interpretation.”24
The intention of those demanding a presuppositionless approach may
have been to try to deal with the text as objectively, openly, and free from
dogmatic concerns of a particular faith community as possible. This may not
be entirely wrong when the concern is to listen to the biblical message afresh
and with openness to be addressed and corrected. And yet, it makes a differ-
ence if the Bible is seen as a text as all other texts are or as the word of God.
In addition, if one set of presuppositions is not accepted, another set will be
adopted automatically. Therefore, Raoul Dederen’s observation is correct that
The nature and authority of the Bible largely determine
his [the interpreter’s] hermeneutical methods. . . . Pre-
suppositions there must be, and presuppositions there

22. Davidson, “Biblical Interpretation,” 67.

23. For a description of metaphysical and epistemological presuppositions in hermeneu-
tics, see Kwabena Donkor, “Presuppositions in Hermeneutics,” in Biblical Hermeneu-
tics: An Adventist Approach, ed. Frank M. Hasel, BRISH 3 (Silver Spring, MD: Bibli-
cal Research Institute, 2020), 7-30. For an in-depth analysis of the influence of
extrabiblical presuppositions in Christian thought, see Raul Kerbs, El problema de la
identidad bíblica del cristianismo: Las presuposiciones filosóficas de la teología cristiana,
desde los presocráticos al protestantismo (Entre Ríos, Argentina: Universidad Adventista
del Plata, 2014). See also Raúl A. Kerbs, Cómo el pensamiento cristiano ha sido condi-
cionado por la filosofía y cómo puede dejar de serlo (Entre Ríos, Argentina: Universidad
Adventista del Plata, 2023).
24. Hasel, “Elements of Biblical Hermeneutics,” 31.
28 A ffirming O ur i dentity

are. But ideally, the basic difference between our presup-

positions and those of many other groups is that those of
the Adventist are provided by Scripture itself, whereas I
fear many of those of the other groups are not.25
In other words, committed Christians would typically listen to the
self-testimony of the Bible and accept its claim concerning divine revela-
tion and inspiration. They would regard Scripture not only as a human
product but the Word of God and therefore ascribe to it ultimate author-
ity in matters of faith and Christian life.
The underlying assumptions of these premises will be discussed later.
However, it is worth noting that interpreters who generally possess a high
view of the Scriptures would be inclined to approach their interpretation
of biblical passages differently than those who do not. This is a vital con-
sideration when understanding the meaning of biblical passages. That
does not mean closing one’s eyes to the phenomena of the text and disre-
garding challenges and tough questions. It would, however, point to ap-
proach the Bible from a faith perspective instead of a view of suspicion.
Presuppositions play a crucial influence in shaping the starting point
for the hermeneutical endeavor. When it comes to approaching the Bible,
the question of whether to begin with human reasoning or divine revela-
tion must be answered in favor of the latter. Scripture has priority over the
expositor, who in turn must be committed to personal openness to be
guided by Scripture. Furthermore, divine revelation holds more signifi-
cance than personal experience, and Christian theology must not be dom-
inated by secular sciences, nor even tradition.

Presuppositions and Hermeneutical Methods

We have seen that presuppositions determine much about hermeneu-
tics. Depending on their presuppositions, interpreters may choose a her-
meneutical method such as the historical-grammatical method, the histor-
ical-critical method, reader-response criticism, structuralism, social-scien-
tific criticism, psychological biblical criticism, etc. The actual steps of how
to do exegesis are dependent on the hermeneutical method selected. While
presuppositions lead to a methodology and methodology to exegesis, the
latter prepares the way for theology and, hopefully, for practice and proc-
lamation. All of these are interconnected forward and backward.

25. Raoul Dederen, “Revelation, Inspiration, and Hermeneutics,” in A Symposium on Biblical

Hermeneutics, ed. Gordon M. Hyde (Silver Spring, MD: Biblical Research Committee,
1974), 3.
 The Necessity and Importance of Biblical Hermeneutics 29

Presuppositions
↕
Hermeneutical Methods and Deliberations
↕
Exegetical Steps (Guidelines for Interpretation)
↕
Theology
↕
Practice and Proclamation

Since the purpose of approaching the Scriptures is to know (episte-

mology) the message revealed from God in order to apply it to our lives
and disseminate it among others, this endeavor requires an understanding
(presupposition) of who God is, what he is like (divine ontology), and
how he relates with his creatures.

The Role of Presuppositions

To clarify the role of presuppositions in hermeneutics, it is essential to
briefly distinguish the “micro,” “meso,” and “macro” levels of interpreta-
tion.26 According to Roy E. Graf, “The micro hermeneutical level is the
level of textual or exegetical interpretation.”27 The “meso” level refers to
the interpretation of doctrines and theology, and the “macro” level deals
with “the level of the basic presuppositions of the mind.”28
Let us consider the understanding of the heavenly sanctuary as an ex-
ample of the relationship and distinguishing of the micro, meso, and macro
hermeneutical levels.29 Does Christ’s intercessory ministry in heaven, after

26. Borrowing from Hans Küng terminology, Fernando Canale was the first Seventh-day
Adventist theologian to use macro, meso, and micro hermeneutics terminology to refer
to these three levels or principles in hermeneutics. See Fernando Canale, Back to Reve-
lation-Inspiration: Searching for the Cognitive Foundation of Christian Theology in a Post-
modern World (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2001), 148–149; Fernando
Canale, “Evangelical Theology and Open Theism: Toward a Biblical Understanding of
the Macro Hermeneutical Principles of Theology?” JATS 12.2 (2001): 20–26.
27. Roy E. Graf, The Principle of Articulation in Adventist Theology: An Evaluation of Current
Interpretations and a Proposal (Berrien Springs, MI: Adventist Theological Society,
2019), 6.
28. Graf, The Principle of Articulation in Adventist Theology, 6.
29. For an example of the micro, meso, and macro levels and its influence in prophetic
interpretation, see Roy E. Graf, “Las presuposiciones básicas del pensamiento y la in-
terpretación de las profecías apocalípticas,” in Símbolos, sueños y visiones: Estudios sobre
Daniel y Apocalipsis, ed. Jiří Moskala, Roy E. Graf, and Joel Iparraguirre, trans. Ro-
lando Iparraguirre (Doral, FL: IADPA, 2021), 57–74. For an example of the influence
30 A ffirming O ur i dentity

his ascension, occur in a real (literal), immaterial, or metaphoric heavenly

sanctuary? In other words, what is the nature of the heavenly sanctuary
depicted in the Bible?
The emphasis at the micro level is in the individual passages of the Bible
that refer to the heavenly sanctuary. An interpreter at this level will analyze,
for instance, Heb 9:23–24 with an emphasis on the meaning of the words
(text and translation), the historical context of the passage (Hebrews in this
case), the literary context of these couple of verses, and consideration of
grammatical and syntactical issues aiming to define first what the text
meant to the readers and to find possible theological implications of the
nature of the heavenly sanctuary.30 In analyzing this passage, the micro
level will consider other instances in Hebrews where the heavenly sanctu-
ary is explicitly or implicitly mentioned.
The meso level approaches the doctrine of the sanctuary to define its
place in a theological system.31 In this level, one will consider how the OT
and NT refer to this teaching and how it affects the sanctuary doctrine
and other related teachings of the Scripture. For example, why is it neces-
sary to purify the heavenly things? Is this activity of Christ related to the
atonement (soteriology) and the eradication of sin (hamartiology)? Will
Jesus return (eschatology) after the purification of the heavenly things?
The answers to these (doctrinal) questions will be related to how the inter-
preters understand the nature of the heavenly sanctuary.
The macro level will consider the nature of the heavenly sanctuary with
a different approach. For instance, if one takes non-biblical methods to
interpret the biblical passage (Heb 9:23–24), the assumption might be that
God does not reveal himself to humans, and the Scripture might be merely

of the macro level in the doctrine of the final judgment, see Miguel Patiño-Hernán-
dez, “La influencia de las presuposiciones ontológicas en la doctrina del juicio final,”
Theo 35.2 (2020): 124–143.
30. E.g., King L. She shows how an assumed reality of the heavenly sanctuary results in di-
verse interpretations using the historical-grammatical method. See King L. She, The Use
of Exodus in Hebrews, SBL 142 (New York: Lang, 2011), 4.
31. For the purpose of this chapter, we endorse the minimal definition of system in theol-
ogy provided by John C. Peckham as “a collection of working parts that contribute
to and complement a whole.” John C. Peckham, Canonical Theology: The Biblical
Canon, Sola Scriptura, and Theological Method (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016),
206. In the case of our example, the findings of the micro level will require an inser-
tion of this “working part” of the understanding of the sanctuary in the doctrinal
system as “a whole”. For a thorough consideration of system and its relation to theol-
ogy, see Timothy Watson, “The Meaning and Function of System in Theology” (PhD
diss., Andrews University, 2012).
 The Necessity and Importance of Biblical Hermeneutics 31

the work of humankind; in consequence, the heavenly sanctuary would be

only metaphoric or an anthropomorphic accommodation.32 Some even
take it to the extreme of denying the very existence of heaven and the super-
natural beings and events associated with it.33
What about those who claim to use a biblical method? Throughout
history, it is evident that a singular, uniform approach to biblical interpre-
tation has not characterized Christianity. In relation to the topic of the
heavenly sanctuary, Carlos F. Teixeira has identified three distinct perspec-
tives that illustrate the influence of the macro hermeneutical level.34
Metaphoric perspective
Influenced by Greek philosophical presuppositions, this perspective
considers that God does not interact with humankind.35 Therefore, there
is no heavenly sanctuary (no structural correspondence), and the biblical
references to the heavenly sanctuary are only metaphorical or allegorical.
The significance lies in the accommodative human expressions for us to
understand God’s plan (no functional correspondence).
Symbolic perspective
This perspective affirms that there is a sanctuary in heaven but claims
that it is distinct from any known element in the natural world due to its
transcendent conception. As a result, while acknowledging that biblical
references to a heavenly sanctuary support the reality of such a place, this
perspective assumes that such descriptions are merely a symbolic manner
of expressing ideal “spiritual” truths that do not correlate to what we have

32. Millard J. Erickson and Louis Berkhof consider the biblical references to Christ sitting at
the “right hand of God” as symbolic or figurative expressions. Heaven is spaceless; con-
sequently, there is no real sanctuary in heaven. Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology,
3th ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013), 710–712; Louis Berkhof, Systematic
Theology, 4th rev. and enlarged ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 352, 734.
33. In adopting the historical-critical method of biblical interpretation, the denial of
God’s interaction with human writers is assumed. In consequence, there is no real
heaven and no real heavenly sanctuary. Why? Because “one of the assumptions of
historical criticism is that texts are human products.” John J. Collins, The Bible After
Babel: Historical Criticism in a Postmodern Age (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 6.
Cf. Gerhard F. Hasel, Biblical Interpretation Today, 77–78.
34. Carlos F. Teixeira, “Os principios macro hermenêuticos do santuário celestial e suas
implicações – Parte II,” Theo 35.2 (2020): 78–101.
35. For a consideration of the influence of Greek philosophical presuppositions, see John
C. Peckham, Divine Attributes: Knowing the Covenantal God of Scripture (Grand
Rapids: Baker Academic, 2021), 19–38. For a detailed analysis of the macro level
and the nature of the heavenly sanctuary, see Fernando Canale, “Philosophical Foun-
dations and the Biblical Sanctuary,” AUSS 36.2 (1998): 183–206.
32 A ffirming O ur i dentity

in the physical world. A radical way to apply this perspective claims that
references to the sanctuary are symbolic forms used by biblical authors to
make references to all of heaven. An attenuated (qualified) version of this
perspective even acknowledges that the descriptions of the heavenly sanc-
tuary are allusions to a specific divine habitation that is distinct from all
heaven, but it maintains that these allusions are symbolic allusions to God’s
dwelling place. Both versions of this perspective acknowledge some degree
of functional (Christ priestly ministry) and structural correspondence be-
tween the earthly sanctuary and the heavenly dwelling place of God.
Literal/real perspective
This perspective affirms the existence of a sanctuary in heaven and
recognizes its nature, details, and functions as corresponding, in analogical
terms, to the earthly tabernacle. Analogical, in this perspective, refers to
the clarification that the heavenly sanctuary is not equal to its earthly
counterpart (univocal) or dissimilar (equivocal); instead, it emphasizes
that there is some “analogy or correspondence.”36 From this perspective,
the nature and details described of the heavenly sanctuary are interpreted
literally, admitting their historicity and superiority (intensification) in re-
lation to the earthly sanctuary. The earthly sanctuaries were historical
since they corresponded, as a prophetic type,37 to the historicity of their
original counterpart in heaven. So, this view emphasizes an analogical
spatio-temporality,38 structural (intensified), and functional (dynamic)39
correspondence between the earthly and heavenly sanctuary.

36. Peckham, Divine Attributes, 36.

37. For a recent study on typology and the sanctuary, see Richard M. Davidson, A Song
for the Sanctuary: Experiencing God’s presence in Shadow and Reality (Silver Spring,
MD: Biblical Research Institute, 2022), 155–184.
38. Regarding the spatiotemporal reality of the heavenly sanctuary, Davidson states, “The
heavenly sanctuary is shown to have many different functions—divine assembly,
worship, heavenly court in session, ratification of covenant, kingship, place of atone-
ment and forgiveness and cleansing, supervision, dwelling place, source of help and
vindication and salvation, locus of answered prayer, and place of cosmic battle, to
name the most prominent ones—and all these portrayals converge in ascribing spa-
tio-temporal reality to a place in heaven known as the heavenly sanctuary or temple.”
Davidson, A Song for the Sanctuary, 24.
39. The dynamic correspondence is described as follows, “it may be stated that the heav-
enly sanctuary/temple was understood to function in close connection to its earthly
counterpart. It was found that the vertical movement of this dynamic relationship
could operate either from heaven to earth, from earth to heaven, or in both directions
simultaneously. That is to say, the heavenly sanctuary could affect the earthly coun-
terpart; be affected by it, or work in close connection with mutual cooperation.” Elias
Brasil de Souza, The Heavenly Sanctuary/Temple Motif in the Hebrew Bible: Function
 The Necessity and Importance of Biblical Hermeneutics 33

The following chart makes evident the macro level (presuppositions)

and its implications in each of the perspectives.40

Comparison of Macro Hermeneutic Perspectives on the Sanctuary

Principles/
Ontological Structural Functional
Perspectives
Correspondence Correspondence Correspondence
Relationship
There is no
Metaphoric correspondence No structural No functional
perspective (mere allegorical correspondence correspondence
language)
Radical
spiritualization No structural
One phase
(abstraction/ correspondence
Symbolic transcendence)
perspective
Attenuated
No structural
spiritualization Two phases
correspondence
(dissimilarity)
“Analogous”
Literal Two phases
history Bipartite (intensified)
perspective (dynamic)
(spatiotemporal)

The Hermeneutical Method

Interpreters who generally claim a high view of the Scriptures would
be inclined to approach their interpretation of biblical passages differ-
ently than those who do not. But even if they claim to use a biblical
method, as also noted above, it will be possible to observe different
conclusions. For instance, Adventist theology employs the historical-
grammatical method (also called the biblical-historical method or the
historical-grammatical/literary-theological method) of interpretation at
the micro level of hermeneutics.41 This approach, which is considered

and Relationship to the Earthly Counterparts, Adventist Theological Society Disserta-

tion Series 7 (Berrien Springs, MI: Adventist Theological Society, 2005), 493.
40. Teixeira, “Os principios macro hermenêuticos,” 83. Even though some might use
metaphorical and symbolism interchangeably, the author uses the former to empha-
size the denial of a literal correspondence and to look beyond the surface to uncover
underlying truths.
41. For the Seventh-day Adventist view on biblical hermeneutics, see also, Gordon M.
Hyde, ed., A Symposium on Biblical Hermeneutics (Washington, DC: Biblical Research
Institute, 1974); Methods of Bible Study Committee report, voted at Annual Council
in 1986 (reproduced in the Adventist Review, 22 January 1987); George W. Reid, ed.,
34 A ffirming O ur i dentity

“scientific” because it is used following specific methodological steps, was

used by the pioneers of the Adventist movement,42 and it is believed that
Adventist doctrines (meso level) rest on a firm biblical warrant (in all
three levels of interpretation, namely, macro, meso, and micro level).43
As Seventh-day Adventists, our commitment to the sola Scriptura prin-
ciple44 aligns with the historical-grammatical method of biblical interpreta-
tion of the Reformation period45 instead of the allegorical method of the
pre-Reformation or the historical-critical method of the post-Reformation
periods.46 However, using the historical-grammatical method of interpre-
tation, which allows for a high view of Scripture, does not resolve all the
issues since it provides little room47 for identifying the role of metaphysical
(God, humans, and the world) or epistemological presuppositions (those
things taken for granted in thinking).48 This occurs because the historical-
grammatical method aims to interpret the Scripture using the OT and NT
as data (the “micro” level of hermeneutics)49 and usually assumes that no

Understanding Scripture: An Adventist Approach, BRISH 1 (Silver Spring, MD: Bibli-

cal Research Institute, 2005); Frank M. Hasel, ed., Biblical Hermeneutics: An Adventist
Approach, BRISH 3 (Silver Spring, MD: Biblical Research Institute, 2020).
42. Roy E. Graf, “Cambios en la articulación de la teología adventista: del santuario a la
justificación por la fe,” TeoBiblica 3.1–2 (2017): 197–217.
43. Fernando Canale, “From Vision to System: Finishing the Task of Adventist Biblical
and Systematic Theologies—Part II,” JATS 16.1–2 (2005): 120.
44. For a brief definition and significance of this principle, see John C. Peckham, “Un-
derstanding Sola Scriptura: A Constructive Approach for the Church,” in this vol-
ume. For a detailed treatment of sola Scriptura and its scope, see Peckham, Canonical
Theology, 140–165.
45. Canale details the historical process in selecting the historical-grammatical method of
biblical interpretation in Adventism because of the assumption that historical events
depicted in the Bible occurred in history instead of the methodological procedures
that allegorize or spiritualize such events. Fernando Canale, “From Vision to System–
Part II,” 114–142.
46. Hasel, Biblical Interpretation, 1–6. See also the section “Is a Specific Biblical Herme-
neutics Needed?,” in this chapter.
47. For a synthesis of the theological method during the Reformation and the assumed
presuppositions of the Reformers, see Marcos Blanco, “La doctrina de Dios en Lutero,
Calvino y Arminio – Parte I: Antecedentes históricos”, Theo 32.2 (2017): 156–187;
Marcos Blanco, “La doctrina de Dios en Lutero, Calvino y Arminio – Parte II:
Metodología y presuposiciones,” Theo 33.1 (2018): 4–32.
48. See Donkor, “Presuppositions in Hermeneutics,” in Hasel, Biblical Hermeneutics, 7–30.
49. Several theologians in Adventism consider this classification useful for hermeneutics
and the theological task. Among others, Graf, The Principle of Articulation, 1–15;
Donkor, “Presuppositions in Hermeneutics,” 10–19; Peckham, Divine Attributes,
29–33; Adriani Milli Rodrigues, Toward a Priestly Christology: A Hermeneutical Study
of Christ’s Priesthood (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2018), 9–10.
 The Necessity and Importance of Biblical Hermeneutics 35

extrabiblical ideas (the “macro” level of hermeneutics)50 will be incorpo-

rated. Nevertheless, as we noted above, the wide spectrum of interpreta-
tions occurs because of the influence of the macro level on the other levels.
John C. Peckham explains this relationship as follows, “Whereas each of
these three (macro-, meso-, and micro hermeneutical) levels affect one an-
other, one’s macro-hermeneutical presuppositions set the parameters with-
in which doctrines (meso-hermeneutics) and biblical texts (micro-herme-
neutics) are understood.”51
Historically, when interpreters begin the process of interpreting the
Scriptures, they take for granted epistemology (what is true), ontology
(the study of being), and metaphysics (what is real) unless they intention-
ally bracket out (epoché) these foundational presuppositions, suspending
them to allow the Scriptures to provide the required biblical presupposi-
tions.52 An increasing number of theologians and philosophers recognize
that Christian thinkers have employed extrabiblical assumptions concern-
ing divine ontology (how the being of God is understood) throughout
history.53 When reality (metaphysics) is extrabiblical, the approach to the
Scriptures will misrepresent the biblical meaning. A non-biblical set of
presuppositions produces a non-biblical interpretation of knowledge
(epistemology) and a non-biblical interpretation of reality (metaphysics).
To represent and articulate canonical realism as accurately as possi-
ble, it is necessary to approach the biblical text (1) allowing the canon
(tota Scriptura) to provide the required foundational presuppositions,
and (2) allowing the Scriptures their cognitive preeminence (Scriptura
norma normans) according to the historical actions of God.

50. The relationship between these hermeneutical levels (micro, meso, and macro) is
detailed later in this chapter.
51. John C. Peckham, “Towards a Systematic Theology of the Sanctuary—Part I,” Theo 33.2
(2018): 218.
52. Peckham, Canonical Theology, 212-214.
53. Among others, R. T. Mullins, The End of the Timeless God, Oxford Studies in Analytic
Theology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016); Natalja Deng, God and Time, Cam-
bridge Elements (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019); Nicholas Wolsterst-
off, Inquiring About God: Selected Essays, Volume I, ed. Terrence Cuneo (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2010), 157–181; Fernando Canale, A Criticism of Theologi-
cal Reason: Time and Timelessness as Primordial Presuppositions, Andrews University Press,
1987; Peckham, Divine Attributes, 19–38. For a recent consideration of divine timeless-
ness as a presupposition, see R. T. Mullins, “Classical Theism,” in T&T Clark Handbook
of Analytic Theology, ed. James Arcadi and James Truner Jr. (London: T&T Clark, 2021),
85–100. For an analysis of the influence of macro in the meso level of hermeneutics, see
Miguel Patiño-Hernández, The Divine Judgment and the Role of Angels: An Evaluation of
Conflicting Models Based on the Ontology of God (Lima, Perú: Alétheia, 2023).
36 A ffirming O ur i dentity

Christian Community
(Doctrinal commitments)

Social
Christian Location
Conceptual Tradition
Framework

Object of
Study

Figure One: The Lenses of a Telescope

Foundational presuppositions resemble the primary lenses of a potent

telescope. In Figure One, presuppositions represent the lens through which
we view the broad field of religious thinking, just as telescope represents
the instrument through which we study the cosmos. They are the under-
stated but powerful mechanisms that remain hidden in our perception.
Consider theology, doctrines, biblical exegesis, and ministry-mission as ce-
lestial bodies in the night sky. Each one stands for a different star or planet
in the spiritual universe. We require the appropriate lenses (presupposi-
tions) to observe and comprehend them clearly.54
Like calibrating the telescope’s settings to bring hidden cosmic won-
ders into focus, “seeing what is not seen” in religious matters involves
recognizing how presuppositions impact one’s viewpoint. It is necessary to
tune our lenses to the object to perceive the unnoticed information. Just
as astronomers switch between various lenses to capture different aspects
of the universe, exploring various facets of religious thought (theology,
doctrine, exegesis, mission) necessitates distinct sets of presuppositions. It
is important to emphasize that these presuppositions themselves must be

54. Lenses in Figure One affect one another. It is beyond the scope and purpose of this
chapter to determine which has a prominent influence on the other or affects the
previous interpreters’ cognitive process. This illustration considers “conceptual frame-
work” as the primordial understanding of reality (metaphysics) and how to know
about it (epistemology); “Christian tradition” refers to the accepted orthodox version
as established throughout Christian history (for a definition of “social location,” see
note 13 in this chapter); and the “Christian community (doctrinal commitments)”
alludes to the normative preeminence to the Creeds (or related beliefs) of a given com-
munity that interpreters might incorporate in hermeneutics.
 The Necessity and Importance of Biblical Hermeneutics 37

grounded in Scripture and always open to correction by Scripture. These

different lenses offer a deeper understanding of religious concepts.
Much like refining the telescope’s settings to gain a sharper view of celes-
tial bodies, fine-tuning one’s presuppositions is essential for achieving a more
profound understanding of theology, doctrine, exegesis, and mission. It’s
about the precision of thought and the clarity of perception. By skillfully ad-
justing and understanding these lenses, we can “see” what may not be imme-
diately evident in theology, doctrine, biblical exegesis, and proclamation (mis-
sion), much as astronomers select specific lenses to gain clearer insights into
celestial bodies, allowing us to articulate and express as accurately as possible
(though not exhaustively) the “overarching claims that flow from Scripture.”55
To avoid the tendency to rely on extra-biblical ontological and epistemo-
logical presuppositions (conceptual framework in the macro-hermeneutical
level) to determine the outcome in the exegetical process (micro-hermeneu-
tics), the text provides the necessary information to critique and correct the
interpreter’s pre-understanding to create an ongoing “hermeneutical spiral.”56
This might be considered an ascending spiral rather than circular since it
provides the opportunity to get close to the spiritual and elevated nature of
the Bible in a continuous and ascending process as Peckham explains,
This spiral takes place via the reciprocal operation of mi-
crohermeneutical and macrophenomenological exegesis.
Whereas microhermeneutical exegesis refers to the philo-
logical and historical dimensions of the grammatical-his-
torical exegetical method, essential to the task of locating
the range of the specific meaning in the text, macrophe-
nomenological exegesis consists of looking for the con-
ceptual framework implicit in the text as canon. Macro-
phenomenological exegesis utilizes exegetically derived
canonical data in order to uncover and abstract the (meta-
physical, epistemological, and axiological) conceptual
framework implicit in the canon, which itself undergirds
the text’s meaningfulness in communication. This level of
interpretation goes beyond the limited pericope to seek
the horizon of the text as canon, which also impacts tex-
tual meaning itself.57

55. Sanou and Peckham, “Canonical Theology, Social Location,” 358.

56. “Continuous interaction between text and system forms a spiral upward to theologi-
cal truth.” Osborne, Hermeneutical Spiral, 392.
57. Peckham, Canonical Theology, 213–214.
38 A ffirming O ur i dentity

The importance of presuppositions in hermeneutical methods lies in

their ability to provide foundational knowledge and context that is essen-
tial in grasping the complexities of theological concepts. As such, it is a
vital step to recognize the influence of presuppositions for anyone seeking
to deepen their understanding for a correct understanding of God’s Word.

Canonical Theology
Considering the recognition among Christians of the normative char-
acter of the Scriptures in theology, we consider that the Bible should re-
form and correct the lenses. Extrabiblical influences distort and fail to pro-
vide the necessary and basic primordial set of presuppositions. Peckham
provides a series of steps to provide the Scriptures with this normative
character as the final norm for theological claims:
(1) identify the issues/questions by extensive literature
review (subject to change based on canonical investiga-
tion), (2) attempt to table known presuppositions that
impinge upon the theological issues/questions and con-
duct an inductive reading of the canon and extract for
further study any texts/passages that even touch on the
questions, (3) pore over the data derived from the in-
ductive reading, analyzing and organizing it according
to discernible canonical patterns, (4) based on the analy-
sis of the data, construct a minimal model that addresses
the theological issues/questions, and, finally, (5) system-
atize the model by situating the tentative theological
conclusions within the context of the wider theological
landscape, with openness to further investigation and
correction.58
Considering the influence of the macro level in interpretation and the
impact that the other two levels have on one another, it is necessary to
intentionally grant preeminence to the Scriptures and its normative char-
acter at every level. These levels operate in coordination, adjusting, re-
forming, and transforming the interpreters’ view. Once we have recog-
nized the importance of presuppositions in hermeneutics (macro level), it
is important to provide a contrast between the historical-grammatical and
the historical-critical methods used at the micro level.

58. Sanou and Peckham, “Canonical Theology, Social Location,” 356.

 The Necessity and Importance of Biblical Hermeneutics 39

The Historical-Grammatical vs.

the Historical-Critical Method
There are two major methods of biblical interpretation at the micro-
exegetical level. The historical-grammatical method attempts to interpret
biblical data using only methodological factors derived from Scripture,
recognizing the dual authorship of the Bible (divine and human). In order
to provide epistemological supremacy to the Bible, the following funda-
mental principles (an hermeneutical decalogue)59 to approach the Holy
Scriptures are classified into general and specific principles to provide
epistemological supremacy to the Bible. The first four general principles,
considered as the “first table” of the decalogue and their corollaries, are
summarized as follows:
(1) The Latin phrase sola Scriptura originates in the Protestant Refor-
mation (though not invented); this Latin expression is frequently rendered
as “by Scripture alone” or “Scripture alone.” This sola considers the Scrip-
tures the “unique rule (canon), or standard, of faith and practice while
recognizing that we never approached Scripture alone.”60 Accordingly, only
the Bible “is the “uniquely normative, divinely commissioned, trustworthy
and theologically sufficient, and interpretatively normative rule of faith
and practice.”61 The primacy and supremacy of Scripture are two corollaries
of this principle. Scripture takes place above all other sources of revelation
(general, partial, or special revelation) and is the only infallible. Scripture is
the norma normans that rules and tests all faith and practice.
(2) By tota Scriptura, we refer to all the sixty-six books of the Bible
considered as the authoritative and reliable source, adequate foundation,
and ultimate standard of theological interpretation (2 Tim 3:16). There-
fore, we shouldn’t highlight some passages of Scripture while ignoring or
undervaluing others. We must permit the whole text of Scripture to be the
foundation for our beliefs and practices. The first of the corollaries in this
principle include that the Bible contains and “equals the Word of God (see
2 Chr 36:15–16; Matt 4:4; Rom 3:2; 1 Cor 2:13; 1 Thess 2:13; Heb
1:5–13; etc.).”62 The second is that the Bible is divine-human as Jesus was.

59. This section summarizes Davidson, “An Hermeneutical Decalogue,” 95–114. Cf.
John C. Peckham, God With Us: An Introduction to Adventist Theology (Berrien
Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 2023), 331–343.
60. For more details of the first four general principles, see Peckham, “Understanding
Sola Scriptura,” in this volume.
61. Peckham, “Understanding Sola Scriptura.”
62. Davidson, “An Hermeneutical Decalogue,” 98.
40 A ffirming O ur i dentity

(3) The phrase analogia Scripturae expresses the principle of reading

the Bible as a cohesive, internally coherent (harmonious) body of texts,
with each book being understood in the context of the complete canon
(Isa 8:20; Luke 24:27, 44, 45). Scripture should, therefore, be entitled to
establish its own rules of interpretation.
(4) Spiritual discernment (spiritalis spiritaliter examinatur) affirms that
spiritual things are discerned spiritually (1 Cor 2:11–14). “The Bible can-
not be studied as any other book, coming merely ‘from below’ with sharp-
ened tools of exegesis and honed principles of interpretation.”63 Only the
Holy Spirit, who inspired the Bible, can illuminate the mind of the one
who seeks the message coming “from above” sincerely.
The specific principles, considered as the “second table” of the herme-
neutical decalogue are the following: (1) text and translation; (2) histori-
cal context/questions of introduction; (3) literary context and analysis;
(4) grammatical/syntactical/semantic analysis; (5) theological context/
analysis; (6) practical application.64
In contrast to the historical-grammatical method, another major meth-
od of biblical interpretation arose during the time of the Enlightenment
(17th century), which has become known as the historical-critical method.65
Whereas the historical-critical method attempts to verify the truthfulness
and understand the meaning of biblical data on the basis of the principles
and procedures of secular historical science, the historical-grammatical
method seeks to understand the meaning of biblical data by means of meth-
odological considerations arising from Scripture alone (sola Scriptura).
It is significant to note that the central presupposition of the historical-
critical method is the principle of criticism. The term “criticism” is used

63. Davidson, “An Hermeneutical Decalogue,” 100.

64. For more details, see Davidson, “Biblical Interpretation,” passim; Ekkehardt Mueller,
“Guidelines for the Interpretation of Scripture,” in Understanding Scripture: An Ad-
ventist Approach, ed. George W. Reid, BRISH 1 (Silver Spring, MD: Biblical Re-
search Institute, 2006), 111–134; Ekkehardt Mueller, “Principles of Biblical Inter-
pretation,” in Biblical Hermeneutics: An Adventist Approach, ed. Frank M. Hasel,
BRISH 3 (Silver Spring, MD: Biblical Research Institute 2020), 209–232
65. See the classic formulation of the prepositions of this method by Ernst Troeltsch in
1913, “Über historische und dogmatische Methode in der Theologie,” Gesammelte
Schriften 2 (Tübingen, 1913): 729–753; reprinted in Gerhard Sauter, ed. Theologie als
Wissenschaft (Münich, 1971), 105–127. For an overview of the historical-critical
method by one of its foremost proponents and practitioners, see Edgar Krentz, The
Historical-Critical Method, Fortress Guides to Biblical Scholarship (Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1975). For a critique of the presuppositions and procedures of the historical
critical method, see G. Hasel, Biblical Interpretation Today, 73–99.
 The Necessity and Importance of Biblical Hermeneutics 41

by proponents of the historical-critical method in its technical sense of

Cartesian “methodological doubt.”66 According to this principle, nothing
is accepted authoritatively at face value; everything must be verified or
corrected by rationally67 reexamining the evidence; the Bible is always
open to correction and therefore the human interpreter is the final deter-
miner of truth and his/her reason is the final test of the authenticity of a
passage. As Edgar V. McKnight summarizes: “The basic postulate [of the
historical-critical method] is that of human reason and the supremacy of
reason as the ultimate criterion for truth.”68
With regard to the historical-critical method, and the principle of
criticism in particular, Maier, who broke with the historical-critical
method, writes:
A critical method must fail, because it presents an inner
impossibility. For the correlative or counterpart to revela-
tion is not critique but obedience; it is not correction [of
the text]—not even on the basis of a partially recognized
and applied revelation—but it is a let-me-be-corrected.69
As to the basic hermeneutical procedures, both the historical-critical
and historical-biblical methods deal with historical context, literary fea-
tures, genre or literary type, theology of the writer, the development of
themes, and the process of canonization. But the historical-biblical ap-
proach rejects the principle of criticism; it analyzes, but refuses to critique
the Bible; it accepts the text of Scripture at face value as true, and refuses to
engage in the three-fold process of dissection, conjecture, and hypothetical
reconstruction (often contrary to the claims of the text) that is at the heart
of standard historical-critical analysis.

66. See Krentz, Historical-Critical Method, 56–57. The word “critical” in the expression “his-
torical-critical method” is not used in its ordinary meanings of “careful” (“take a ‘critical’
look at something”), “crucial” (“this is a ‘critical’ issue”), or “faultfinding” (“he is a ‘critical’
person”), but is given a technical meaning. The terms “critical” and “criticism” in the
historical-critical method refer to the approach in which “historical sources are like wit-
nesses in a court of law: they must be interrogated and their answers evaluated. The art of
interrogation and evaluation is called criticism.” Krentz, Historical-Critical Method, 42.
67. The reference to “rational” here implies not only the use of reason as a final norm, but
also of any other humanistic process of the mind, such as the empirical, existential,
or pragmatic.
68. Edgar V. McKnight, Post-Modern Use of the Bible: The Emergence of Reader-Oriented
Criticism (Nashville: Abingdon, 1988), 45.
69. Gerhard Maier, The End of the Historical Critical Method (St. Louis: Concordia,
1977), 23.
42 A ffirming O ur i dentity

Some evangelical (including Seventh-day Adventist) scholars in recent

decades have attempted to “rehabilitate” the historical-critical method by
removing its anti-supernatural bias and other objectionable features and
still retain the method. However, this is not really possible, because presup-
positions and method are inextricably interwoven. The basis of the histori-
cal-critical method is secular historical science, which by its very nature
methodologically excludes the supernatural and instead seeks natural causes
for historical events. Moreover, the fruits of this enterprise have not been
encouraging. The process has continued the dismantling of Scripture as
the authoritative Word of God.70
As long as the basic principle of criticism (“methodological doubt”) is
retained even to the slightest degree, the danger of the historical-critical
method has not been averted, even though the supernatural element in
theory may be accepted. And if this principle of criticism is removed, it
ceases to be a historical-critical method. The presence or absence of the
fundamental principle of criticism is really the litmus test of whether or
not critical methodology is being employed. The Seventh-day Adventist
Church has taken an official stand against even a modified version of the
historical-critical method which retains the principle of criticism: “Even a
modified use of this [the historical-critical] method that retains the prin-
ciple of criticism which subordinates the Bible to human reason is unac-
ceptable to Seventh-day Adventists.”71
Those who follow the historical-biblical method apply the same study
tools utilized in historical criticism. There is careful attention given to his-
torical, literary and linguistic, grammatical-syntactical, and theological
details. But while utilizing the gains brought about by the historical-criti-
cal method in sharpening various study tools for analysis of the biblical
text, there is a consistent intent in historical-biblical study to eliminate
the element of criticism that stands as judge upon the Word.
In the last few decades, there has been a major paradigm shift in
critical biblical studies toward an emphasis upon various new literary-
critical hermeneutical approaches and postmodern “reader-oriented”
methodologies. These critical procedures usually do not deny the results
of historical-criticism, nor abandon the central principle of criticism, but

70. For illustrations and a critique of such attempts, see, e.g., Ángel Manuel Rodríguez,
“The Use of the Modified Version of the Historical-Critical Approach by Adventist
Scholars,” in Understanding Scripture: An Adventist Approach, ed. George W. Reid,
BRISH 1 (Silver Spring, MD: Biblical Research Institute, 2005), 339–351.
71. Methods of Bible Study Committee Report, approved at Annual Council, 1986,
printed in Adventist Review, 22 January 1987, 5.
 The Necessity and Importance of Biblical Hermeneutics 43

rather bracket out the historical questions concerning the historical de-
velopment of the biblical text.
Many of the literary-critical hermeneutical approaches focus upon
the final form of the biblical text as a literary work of art. These syn-
chronic approaches (i.e., approaches which deal with the final form of
the text) include such (overlapping) procedures as rhetorical criticism
(James Muilenberg), New Literary criticism (poetic and narrative analy-
sis, Robert Alter), and close reading (Meir Weiss). Common to all of
these is the concern for the text as a finished work of art.
Seventh-day Adventists welcome this renewed interest upon the syn-
chronic analysis of the received canonical form of the biblical text and appre-
ciate many of the literary tools of analysis developed within these approaches.
Unfortunately, however, in these approaches as commonly practiced by criti-
cal scholars, the literary productions of the Bible are usually divorced from
history and regarded as works of fiction or myth, with their own “autono-
mous imaginative universe” and “imitation of reality.” Emphasis is placed
upon the various literary conventions utilized (consciously or unconscious-
ly) by the writer as he creatively crafts the fictional biblical “story” into a
literary work of art. Such presuppositions that ignore or go against the his-
torical claims of the biblical texts are rejected by Adventist interpreters.
Another synchronic approach is structuralism. Biblical structuralism
builds upon modern linguistic theory fathered by the French theorist
Claude Levi-Strauss, and has been developed in the USA by such scholars
as Daniel Patte. Its main purpose is to “decode” the text to uncover the
subconscious “deep-structures” universally inherent in language that deter-
ministically impose themselves upon the writer. The divine absolute in this
method is replaced by an absolute from below—the deep structures of lan-
guage. A related literary approach is semiotics, or “sign-theory”, fathered by
Ferdinand de Saussure and Charles S. Pierce, which focuses upon the lin-
guistic codes that form the framework within which the message of the text
is given (much like the musical staff and clef in music where the specific
notes may be placed). The concern of these approaches is upon neither
the history nor the meaning of the text, but upon the layers of linguistic
structures or sign-systems underlying the message. These approaches have
limited value in Adventist hermeneutics inasmuch as fundamental pre-
suppositions tend to compromise the sola Scriptura principle.
In recent decades, a number of post-modern approaches to Scripture
have also been developed that retain the critical presuppositions of the
historical-critical method but focus attention upon other goals than hy-
pothetically reconstructing the historical development of the biblical
44 A ffirming O ur i dentity

text. Major examples of these postmodern approaches include the follow-

ing: philosophical hermeneutics (the metacritical hermeneutical theory of
Gadamer and the hermeneutic of suspicion and retrieval of Ricoeur);
hermeneutics of socio-critical theory, including sociological criticism
(Norman K. Gottwald), liberation (Gustavo Gutierrez) and feminist her-
meneutic (Phyllis Trible); reader-response criticism (McKnight), and decon-
structionism (Jacques Derrida), etc.
In these postmodern methodologies, no longer is there a single objec-
tive, normative meaning of Scripture: rather there is a feminist reading, a
black reading, an Asian reading, a Latino reading, etc. All are seen to have
their own validity as the reader’s horizon merges with the horizon of the
biblical text. These latter approaches have provided some useful insights
into the biblical text, and rightfully point out the need for the modern
interpreter to recognize his/her individual cultural context, but the com-
mon tendency is to have some external norm—be it philosophy, sociology,
Marxist political theory, feminism, or the subjectivism of the reader—
which replaces the sola Scriptura principle and relativizes Scripture. For
this reason, authors such as Ellen G. White strongly recommended,
the Word of God as the rule of your faith and practice. By
that Word we are to be judged. God has, in that Word,
promised to give visions in the “last days”; not for a new
rule of faith, but for the comfort of His people, and to
correct those who err from Bible truth.72
Alternative (postmodern) hermeneutical approaches result from the
emergence of various rationalist ideologies that reinterpreted the narra-
tives on the meaning of life and the church, including the Scriptures. As
new hermeneutical methods emerged, a different interpretation of the
Bible resulted, producing a “new theological reading,” as summarized in
the following table.73

72. Ellen G. White, A Sketch of the Christian Experience and Views of Ellen G. White
(Saratoga Springs, NY: James White, 1851), 64.
73. Carlos F. Teixeira, “Nuevas lecturas: Las hermenéuticas alternativas y sus implicacio-
nes para la iglesia,” Ministerio Adventista, July-August, 2021, 18. Cf. Frank M. Hasel,
“Recent Trends in Methods of Biblical Interpretation,” in Biblical Hermeneutics: An
Adventist Approach, ed. Frank M. Hasel, BRIBH 3 (Silver Spring, MD: Biblical Re-
search Institute, 2020), 405–461. Also, the approach one adopts to interpret the
Bible carries significant implications for one’s spiritual well-being. For more details,
see Zoltán Szallós-Farkas, From Doing Theology to Being a Theologian: Principles and
Methods of Theology (Cernica, Romania: Editura Universitatii Adventus, 2022).
 The Necessity and Importance of Biblical Hermeneutics 45

Contemporary Alternative Hermeneutics

Resulting
Theories Key Interpretation Proposals
Theologies
Evolutionary
Deconstruction of creationist structures and
Evolutionary Theism or
discourses seen as unscientific and therefore
theory Theistic
fundamentalist
Evolution
Gender Deconstruction of structures and discourses Queer Theology
neutrality of categorization (ontological and function- (or Gay
theory al) related to sexual identities Theology)
Deconstruction of structures and discourses
Feminist Feminist
said to be patriarchal, and strong emphasis
theory Theology
on “God’s femininity”
Deconstruction of structures and discourses
Marxist Liberation
Interpretive Paradigm of Narrative Criticism

considered economically exploitative and

theory Theology
dominating
Deconstruction of structures and discourses
Theory of Black
seen as imperial domination and ethnic and
God’s color Theology
aesthetic superiority
Deconstruction of structures and discourses Indigenous
Tribal Theory
aimed at acculturating indigenous peoples Theology
Political
Emancipation Deconstruction of political structures and
Theology
or Decoloni- discourses considered hegemonic and
(postcolonial
zation Theory dominant
hermeneutics)
Theory of Deconstruction of structures and discourses
Theology of
cultural of separation and boundaries between
Culture
correlation religious culture and secular culture
Deconstruction of structures and discourses
Theories of
that limit or obstruct the psychic potential of Psychoanalytic
psycho-
self-affirmation and empowerment of the Theology
analysis
human being
Deconstruction of structures and discourses
Ecumenic
that prevent or hinder reaching “a multifaith Ecumenic
theory
ecumenic world community” based on the Theology
(oikuméne)
new “world ethos”
Deconstruction of structures and discourses
Theory of that hinder inculturation, seen as necessary
Emerging
contextual- for relational missionary relevance to
Theology
ization the public of (post) modern and
(post) Christian minds
46 A ffirming O ur i dentity

Conclusion
To interpret a subject effectively, it is essential to utilize a method
aligned with its specific requirements. From a sola Scriptura perspective,
the most suitable biblical hermeneutic is one that intentionally regards
the Scriptures as the final standard (norma normans) for theological for-
mulations and practical applications. Furthermore, an interdisciplinary
(biblical and systematic) theological approach, which consistently and
coherently integrates metaphysical (the study of what is real), ontologi-
cal (the study of being), and epistemological (the study of what is true)
aspects from Scripture, serves as a foundational basis for productive
theological dialogue. Finally, it is crucial to remember that the approach
one adopts to interpret the Bible carries significant implications not only
for one’s comprehension of the text but also for one’s spiritual well-being.
Therefore, approaching biblical interpretation with both care and diligence
is essential, as it has the potential to profoundly shape one’s spiritual beliefs
and practices.