The Place of the Holy Spirit in the Exegetical Process

I. Introduction

In every generation there remains a perennial concern for all conscientious pastors, teachers and Christian workers. The question arises how can we, who have been entrusted with the ministry of expounding God’s word make it clear and relevant while at the same time maintaining fidelity to the author’s original intent? Furthermore how can we, coming from the framework of a Pentecostal or Charismatic tradition, integrate our distinctives in the exegetical process? More specifically with our emphasis on the Holy Spirit, what can He be expected or not expected to do in the preparation of our messages?

To date, the task of this integration process has not always produced legitimate results. Many theological aberrations abound in our circles, which cause a great deal of heartache and confusion among our people. The suggestions that follow are an attempt to help full-gospel ministers proclaim the Word of God with greater clarity and possibly curb careless abuses from our pulpits and lecterns.

The general thesis of this article is: In order to be relevant and responsible we need to subscribe to a legitimate hermeneutic: One that maintains the integrity of the author’s meaning via grammatico-historical exegesis, while at the same time, one that elicits a real, personal and “experiential” (or “existential” some may prefer) response on the part of the reader or hearer via the illumination of the Holy Spirit. With this in mind let us explore how the Holy Spirit interacts within the matrix of the text and reader and faith and reason.

 

II. Interpreting I Corinthians 2:14

Basic to any discussion of the Holy Spirit’s role in illuminating the Biblical text is one’s view of inspiration. What is the nature of God’s revelation to man? Is it verbal prepositional truth embodied in the Biblical record or is it an experiential encounter with God independent of the author’s intended meaning? Does one discover God’s meaning via the grammatico-historical method or by direct illumination by the Spirit? Has God superintended the writings of Scripture to the extent that the “author’s view” is God’s view? What is the nature of Scripture itself? One’s view of the Holy Spirit’s role in the interpretive process will be greatly determined by how one answers these questions.¹

According to Paul in I Corinthians 2:13 the vehicle for divine disclosure was by the instrumentality of words “Not in words taught by human wisdom, but in words taught by the Holy Spirit.” In the following verse Paul explains: “but a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.”

We can do no better at this point than to note D.P. Fuller’s statement:

In others words, the message which Paul and others were inspired to transmit can be “received” and “known” only by those who are indwelt by the Holy Spirit. Obviously, then, the Holy Spirit does play an indispensable role in enabling the interpreter to gain the proper meaning of the text. But what is his role? And how does this role urge the exegete always to acknowledge his complete dependence on the Holy Spirit, and at the same time urge him to develop his skill in using valid exegetical means to determine the meaning that was intended by the words which the Holy Spirit inspired the biblical writer to use? ²

Certainly then, I Corinthians is a pivotal verse for our discussion and brings us to the heart of the issue. By looking at a number of key words in this text, we hope to offer a place in the exegetical process. One that follows the careful perimeters of the grammatico-historical method and is “experientially” fulfilling for the interpreter.

 

Receive

The first word that demands careful attention is that of dechomai. Although Paul had the option of using the word lambano he chose not to use it. Though both words connote the idea of receiving something, dechomai carries with it the special nuance of receiving something with pleasure.³

The point we feel Paul is making is that the reason man is culpable before God is precisely that he has the ability to have cognition of what God has said and demands.

In Romans 1:18-21 Paul argues that the fact that God is the creator is evident, “clearly perceived” in the world. The evidence is everywhere, even though people do not acknowledge the truth. If people refuse to accept the evidence, it is because of the hardness of their hearts, because they “suppress the truth,” not because the evidence is not clear. Hardening of the heart in Scripture means willful and inexcusable rejection of the truth. ⁴

Also in this same verse Paul states that the things of God are “foolishness to him.” Consequently for man to reject something as foolishness he must have a reasonable cognition on which to base his rejection. Obviously then, Paul is arguing that the “natural man” does have an adequate knowledge of what is being said but fails to embrace God’s truth claims because of the darkness and hardness of his heart.

To sum up we ought to note Zuck’s observation:

The verse does not mean that an unsaved person, who is devoid of the Holy Spirit, cannot understand mentally what the Bible is saying; instead it means that he does not welcome its message of redemption into his own heart. He rejects the message, refusing to appropriate it and act on it. By contrast, people in Berea “received (from dechomai) the message with great eagerness” (Acts 17:11), and the Thessalonians “received (from dechomai) the Word…with joy of the Holy Spirit” (1 Thess. 1:6).⁵

Know

Paul continues in the same verse “for they are foolishness to him, (the things of God), and he cannot understand them.” The word that the Apostle uses here is a form of ginosko (know). Again Paul could have chosen another word oida to convey the idea of knowing something. Some argument can be made for the idea that where oida is used mere cognition is in mind, whereas when the word ginosko is used the idea of actualizing or embracing an object is in view.⁶ Making note of this distinction Zuck observes, “the Greek word that is used means ‘know by experience’ ginosko, as opposed to oida which means ‘know intuitively or intrinsically.’”⁷

One may further ask if Paul’s use of this word is not to be understood against the Old Testament concept of knowledge? In Hebrew, Da’at (knowledge), many times, is to be understood experientially rather than merely intellectually.⁸

Again we cite D. P. Fuller’s observation:

But in general, ginosko means not merely perceiving, but “embracing things as they really are.” If ginosko is used in this sense, the second half of I Cor. 2:14 would mean, “The natural man does not embrace the realities represented by the Bible’s teaching,” and this would be a close parallel to the earlier statement that “the natural does not welcome spiritual things.”⁹

We suggest that what Paul is saying here is that man does know what God is saying but refused to welcome the truth. To use the vocabulary that is in vogue today we might suggest that the “natural” man has Erklarung but no Verstehen. Or in other words a “head” knowledge but no “heart” knowledge.

 

Discern

The “natural” man cannot understand “existentially” the things of God, for as Paul says, “they are spiritually appraised.” An investigation of this word anakrino reveals some evidence for the inability of unregenerate man to appreciate the things of God. The word anakrino can be used in respect to the act “of discerning or determining the excellence or defects of a person or thing.”¹⁰

W. C. Kaiser Jr. notes this point well:

Thus, the natural man neither welcomes nor embraces the realities found in the biblical text because they are “discerned” (anakrino) that is, they are investigated and appraised to have a certain value or worth by a person who is aided by the illuminating work of the Holy Spirit. Now that Spirit’s ministry is one of aiding the believer to apply, to see the value, worth and significance of a text for his own person, situation, and times. But the natural man has, or wants, none of his help.¹¹

The sad state of affairs is that man being unregenerate and unaided by the Holy Spirit is not able to comprehend the supreme worth and value of God’s words and deeds as revealed by Him.

 

III. Some Legitimate Limits of Grammatico-Historical Exegesis

Our objective here is not to outline a detailed exposition of this method but rather to show the perimeters of its effectiveness. We have already stated in the above discussion that Scripture indicates that even an unregenerate man can have a cognitive understanding of what God is saying. There we agree with D. P. Fuller’s observation:

Consequently, the Holy Spirit’s role in biblical interpretation does not consist in giving the interpreter cognition of what the Bible is saying, which would involve dispensing additional information, beyond the historical-grammatical data that are already there for everyone to work with.¹²

Making much the same observation W. C. Kaiser Jr. states:

His work, (the Holy Spirit), does not offer the believer a short-cut which avoids the perspiration of grammatical, syntactical, historical, cultural, and theological exegesis. There is no royal road to interpreting the Scriptures. He does not infuse a meaning or meanings beyond what he has already taught to the writers when they combined spiritual truths with the appropriately taught spiritual words.¹³

From the evidence of Scripture and experience of daily life we suggest that the time honored grammatico-historical and recent addition of syntactical analysis is indispensable and adequate for cognitive understanding of Scripture.¹⁴

Only when we recognize our God-given ability to think rationally will we be on the road to discovering God’s Word afresh for our generation. As A. Holmes notes:

Propositional revelation is by its very nature addressed to men as rational beings, capable of textual study, exegesis, and all the theological sciences. Nobody who believes in an informative revelation can consistently depreciate man’s rational powers. On the contrary, such a revelation, entrusted as it is to fallible but rational men, bears eloquent testimony to the confidence God has both in the rational powers as he gave to men and in man’s ability to make a reasoned judgment at least regarding Scripture.¹⁵

We must not be paranoid of so called “intellectualism,” thereby continuing a guise of pseudo-spirituality by sustaining a false dichotomy between faith and reason. There must be a synthesis in the old struggle between rationalism and romanticism and the effect that it has on our methodology.

But lest we be overcome with undue optimism in man’s rational prowess and be guilty of reviving a “neoEnlightenment” mentality let us heed Holmes’ sober warning:

Textual criticism is a fallible science; we can misread the text and misunderstand it even when we read it aright; our knowledge of the Biblical language may be at fault, our hermeneutic misguided, or our generalizations about a Biblical teaching incomplete; theologians err and apologists may spend their energies defending a theologian’s mistake. The problem of error haunts us still.¹⁶

Likewise we must guard against modernist tendencies that would suggest to us that a valid meaning of Scripture is different from what the author intended to communicate. We must not fall into the trap of espousing a pneumatic hermeneutic where the Holy Spirit is responsible for giving us meaning independent of sound exegesis and the author’s intended message revealed thereby. Again we suggest that the Holy Spirit’s role is not to provide the interpreter cognition of what is being said by the text but rather to move the interpreter into a place of readiness whereby he might welcome and receive what is being said.

Because of our human frailties or “ontological preunderstanding” in coming to the text, that is, our sinful nature we as Biblical exegetes need the illuminating power of the Holy Spirit.¹⁷

 

IV. Some Legitimate Limits of Spiritual Illumination

As we have stated in the above discussion, if we are to have an understanding of the Biblical text we must approach it via a critical methodology. Likewise, if the role of the Holy Spirit in the interpretive process is not “essential” at this level, where then does He enter the process? If His role is not that of bringing cognition of the text, what is it? Although we have addressed these issues earlier we offer the following two observations. D. P. Fuller sets the course in the following statement:

The Holy Spirit’s role is to change the heart of the interpreter, so that he loves the message that is conveyed by nothing more than the historical-grammatical data.¹⁸

Along the same lines W. C. Kaiser Jr. notes:

The Holy Spirit does and indeed, he must aid me in assessing, appraising, and evaluating the word.¹⁹

First of all, then, the Holy Spirit is He who helps us as interpreters to value and hold in high esteem the Word of God. Because of our predisposition to sin and our tendency to hold in contempt the things of God, the Holy Spirit is absolutely indispensable in breaking through our “sinful preunderstanding.”

Basic in the Bible is the teaching that man is a sinner whose problem is so serious that he can do nothing to earn deliverance. Instead he must cast himself upon God’s mercy, which is made possible by Christ who died for him and rose again. But the focal point of man’s sin is his proud self-confidence, which revolts at the idea that he is utterly helpless to save himself. Thus by various means and often without realizing it, the natural man seeks to revise the biblical message so it will not be so offensive to him.²⁰

Consequently then, we as believers, indwelt by the Holy Spirit are not immune to the bias of our sinful nature. Only when we are led and submitted to the work of the Holy Spirit in the exegetical process will we be able to embrace God’s intent revealed in Scripture.

We will do well to conclude this point by observing D. P. Fuller’s three helpful suggestions:

1.) The Christian is utterly dependent upon the indwelling Holy Spirit to check these remnants of pride as he studies the Bible, 2.) Only the Holy Spirit provides the Christian with the ability to be honest with the textual and historical data so that he can come to an understanding of what the Bible means, 3.) Likewise, the Holy Spirit gives the Christian the experience of the truths taught in the Bible so that he can more readily grasp them and thus account them as true.²¹

Secondly, the Holy Spirit is the one who makes the Scriptures come alive “experientially.” Christians through the ages have been crying out for some valid meaning and significance. Time and time again they have felt compelled to fill the spiritual void by engaging the Scriptures.

The cold, dead, overly rationalistic methodology of the Enlightenment period spawned an existential hermeneutic desperately seeking for a faith that was alive, vibrant, and personal. We cannot fault the desires of these Romanticist exegetes, only their methodology that led to a nihilistic subjectivism.

 

V. Conclusion

What is needed, and what we have suggested all along, is a methodology that is critically sound and “experientially” alive. In order to accomplish this goal we must embrace the best of the grammatico-historical-syntactical method which is the reasonable use of our God-given capabilities. Likewise we must acknowledge our utter dependence on the Holy Spirit’s role in illuminating the Biblical text. Without His help the spiritual cravings of man will never be met. Critical methodology without the illumination of the Spirit in the final analysis is bankrupt and devoid of real significance.

Therefore, those who engage in the task of interpreting the Bible because of a conviction that it sets forth teachings that are true and beneficial must spare no effort to perfect their skills of exegesis. But they must also look to God to enable them to have and maintain the humble and contrite spirit (Isa. 57:15) that will welcome what the Bible teaches. Otherwise the deceitfulness of sin will cause even the most skilled exegete, by some legerdemain, to modify the meanings yielded up by the historical-grammatical data so they will not offend the ego. Even though the teachings of the Bible are manifestly reasonable, our reasoning powers are not sufficient to suppress the awesome power of sin which predisposes us to glory in ourselves. Only God, through the Holy Spirit, overcomes this power of sin, so that we are willing to love from the heart what our minds can tell is reasonable.²²

Sin then is a powerful pre-understanding that we as interpreters need to address as a lethal bias that distorts the textual meaning of scripture and makes it spiritually irrelevant. But thanks be to God who with the giving of the Spirit has also given us the ability to overcome biases that would otherwise distort His intention. Illumination therefore is indispensable for man to embrace God’s word that “confronts man with a message that strikes at the very core of his sinfulness.”²³

 

PR

^ 

Notes

¹ For an Evangelical over-view of pertinent issues in inspiration and inerrancy see The Foundation of Biblical Authority, cited by J. M. Boice (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing Co., 1978).

² Daniel P. Fuller, “The Holy Spirit’s Role in Biblical Interpretation.” in Scripture, Tradition and Interpretation, ed. by W. Ward Gasque and William Sanford LaSor, (Grand Rapids: Eerdman’s Publishing Co., 1978), p. 190.

³ See Walter C. Kaiser, “A Neglected Text in Biblical Discussions: 1 Corinthians 2:6-16.” The Westminster Journal 43 (Spring 1981). Also cognates of this word lend additional weight to this understanding: dektos acceptable, welcome, agreeable, favorable; apodechomai admit; apodoche acceptance, approval, pleasant, welcome; prosdechomai take up, receive, welcome, wait for, expect; doche reception, banquet; eisdechomai take in, receive, welcome.

⁴ Ronald Macauly and Jerram Barrs, Being Human: The Nature of Spiritual Experience (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1978), p. 147.

⁵ Roy B. Zuck, “The Role of the Holy Spirit in Hermeneutics,” Bibliotheca Sacra 141 (April-June 1984), pp. 123-124.

⁶ Rudolf Bultmann, “Ginosoko,” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. by Gerhard Fredrich (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1968), pp. 689-714.

⁷ Zuck, Ibid., p. 124.

⁸ R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer and Bruce Waltke, “Yada,” Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Chicago: Moody Press, 1980), Vol. 1, pp. 366-367.

⁹ Fuller, Ibid., p. 191.

¹⁰ W. E. Vine, “Discern,” An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (Iowa Falls: Riverside Book and Bible House), p. 306.

¹¹ Kaiser, Ibid., p. 319.

¹² Fuller, Ibid., p. 192.

¹³ Kaiser, Ibid., p. 319.

¹⁴ See Kaiser, Toward an Exegetical Theology, pp. 87-104 for a discussion of syntactical analysis and “mapping the route between the actual determination of the authentic meaning and the delivery of that word to modern men and women.”

¹⁵ Arthur F. Holmes, All Truth is God’s Truth (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1977), p. 79.

¹⁶ Ibid., p.78.

¹⁷ See Eisuke Kanda, “The Role of the Holy Spirit in Hearing the Word of God,” (Th. M. Thesis, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 1971), for detailed study of man’s depravity and its relation to illumination.

¹⁸ Fuller, Ibid., p.192.

¹⁹ Kaiser, Ibid., p. 319.

²⁰ Daniel P. Fuller, “Do We Need the Holy Spirit to Understand the Bible?” Eternity 10 (Jan. 1958), p. 7

²¹ Ibid.

²² Fuller, “The Holy Spirit’s Role in Biblical Interpretation,” pp. 197-198.

²³ Fuller, “Do We Need the Holy Spirit to Understand the Bible?” p. 7.

 “The Place of the Holy Spirit in the Exegetical Process” originally appeared in Issue 6 (Summer 1988) of Basileia: A Journal of Theology for Worshipping Churches published by Christian Life College in Mt. Prospect, Ill. Used by permission.