TOWARD MISSIOLOGICAL APPROACH TO HERMENEUTICS
Hermeneutics is, as James E. Massy defines it,
"that science or methodology by which the meaning in a text is sought,
discovered, and then related and applied to one’s own cultural context
and life-setting" (1993:360). The focus is first upon seeing and
understanding the author's intended meaning. Once understood, that
meaning is to be expressed and applied to teaching or proclamation.
This is especially true with the interpretation of the Bible. The
Scripture verse is interpreted to be communicated or proclaimed to an
audience. In this, we see a missiological implication in the task of
hermeneutics.
Issues in Hermeneutics for Proclamation
In our discussions of hermeneutics for
proclamation, one needs to identify the horizons in interpretation.
Another issue is the tension between the scientific theology and church
proclamation.
The Three Horizons
In studying hermeneutics for proclamation,
we will first need to note that there are three horizons in Bible
interpretation.[1] Let us
note first what Thiselton has to say as a biblical theologian. While
traditional hermeneutics began with the recognition that a text was
conditioned by a given historical context, Thiselton maintains that
historical conditioning is two-sided: the modern interpreter, no less
than the text, stands in a given historical context and tradition
(1980:11).
The nature of the hermeneutical problem is
shaped by the fact that both the text and the interpreter are
conditioned by their given place in history. For understanding to take
place, two sets of variable must be brought into relation with each
other. As he argues, “Understanding takes place when two sets of
horizons are brought into relation to each other, namely those of the
text and those of the interpreter” (Thiselton 1980:103). Thiselton
employs the phrase, ‘The Two Horizons’ to denote this hermeneutical
concept.
But in our consideration of ‘hermeneutics
for proclamation,’ there is still the third horizon, namely, the horizon
of the audience. The preacher must study and interpret the biblical
text. The preacher, however, also needs to understand the modern
audience. Merrill R. Abbey depicts the problem of the modern hearer:
Preaching encodes its message truly only
after it has carefully decoded what has come to us through the
Biblical documents. Here is the problem of the modern hearer. For
the Biblical message was not only encoded in ancient languages that
must be translated; its encoding occurred in a culture so unlike
ours that, even when its words are accurately translated into the
modern vernacular; its customs, worldview, and axiomatic assumptions
are after all but impenetrable for modern men. To decode the
message so that across this cultural chasm we comprehend, what the
ancient writers were saying, and then to, encode that intended
meaning in imagery that can accurately convey it to men immersed
in contemporary culture, is the formidable assignment of the
preacher (1973:99-100).
He goes on to remark that the interpreter " is not
a reporter of history, repeating what the text said; he is a
contemporary messenger, proclaiming in the symbols of his time what the
text proclaimed in the image of another day” (1973:100).
The Tensions
Gerhard Ebeling had raised the issue of
tension between theology and proclamation. For Karl Barth this
hermeneutic tension lies between the profundity of gospel message and
the simplicity of preaching.[2]
For Ian Pitt-Watson, the problem is the tension between 'the original
meaning of the text' and 'the meaning which are possible within our
present culture' (1978:51-63).
Ebeling’s Hermeneutics: Word Event
In his work, Gerhard Ebeling attempts to clarify
the nature of the problems which interrupts the unity of theology and
proclamation. Theological hermeneutic, he says, should not be separated
with the task of proclamation
For Ebeling, the hermeneutical problem
consists in the connection between 'exposition of the text as
proclamation that has taken place' and 'the implementation of the text
in proclamation in the present.' He employs the concept of
existentialist interpretation to characterize this fundamental
hermeneutical problem. He discusses it:
Now existence is through Word and in Word.
Then existentialist interpretation would mean interpretation of the
text with regard to the word event. There lies the decisive
starting point from which to direct historical exposition of its
task, and precisely in so doing to gain criteria for the inner
connection between text and sermon (1964:109).
Ebeling characterizes the process from text
to sermon as: 'Proclamation that has taken place is to become
proclamation that takes place.' This translation from text to sermon is
a transition from Scripture to the spoken word. This task consists in
making what is written into spoken word---in letting the text become
God’s word again. That does not normally happen through recitation.
Here rises a question of interpreting the text as word (:107).
James M. Robinson depicts ‘word event’ in
Ebeling’s hermeneutics:
The text is not there for its own sake, but
rather for the sake of the word event that is the origin and hence
also the future of the text. Word event is the event of
interpretation taking place through the word. Hence the text is
there for the sake of the event of interpretation, which is the
text’s origin and future…. What happens in the word event can thus
be called interpretation, since it is the essence of word to clarify
what is obscure, to bring light into darkness…(1964:68).
This movement from the text to the sermon is a
hermeneutical process. It comes within the scope of the hermeneutical
problem as posed by the text. The problem of theological hermeneutic
would not be grasped without the inclusion of the task of proclamation
(Ebeling 1964:107).
Thus, Ebeling views sermon as proclamation
in the present. The sermon as a sermon is not exposition of the text as
past proclamation, but is itself proclamation in the present. That
means that the sermon is 'execution' (or implementation) of the text.
It carries into execution the aim of the text. It is proclamation of
what the text has proclaimed. And with that the hermeneutical sense of
direction is, so to speak, reversed. The text by means of the sermon
becomes a hermeneutical aid in the understanding of present experience.
Where that happens radically, there true word is uttered, and that means
God's word (:109).
A Missiological Approach Toward Hermeneutics
During the last two decades there have been
notorious awareness for hermeneutical approach to the missionary tasks
in today’s world.
A Review of Recent Hermeneutical Approach
Grant R. Osborne and David S. Dockery are
among those theologians who have shown their missiological awareness in
their recent hermeneutic works.
Relevance to the Contemporary Context
Dockery suggests that textual inquiry
should begin with the questions: “What is the author’s historical
situation?” and “What is the cultural context out of which the autor
wrote?” He believes that interpretation is the most important step in
seeking the textual meaning from an author-oriented perspective. The
question to be asked is, therefore, What did the text mean in its
historical setting to the initial readers? It will help to ask the why
question—Why was it written this way (1994:51-52).
What follows interpretation is to determine
the theological significance of the passage by posing the questions: (1)
What does the text mean to contemporary readers? (2) What cultural
factors need to be contextualized or retranslated?
John Stott asserts that the preacher is
both a man of biblical and modern world. By this, he indicates that one
must take account into the horizon of the contemporary audience in
hermeneutic process for preaching. On this ground he makes a point that
biblical and theological studies do not by themselves make for good
preaching. He discusses it: "They [Biblical and theological studies]
are indispensable. But unless they are supplemented by contemporary
studies, they can keep us disastrously isolated on one side of the
cultural chasm. We need, then, to study on both sides of the divide"
(1982:190-191).
Recently, Charles Van Engen notes Lesslie
Newbigin's observation (1986; 1989) that Western culture's preoccupation
with the origin of the created order and human civilization brought with
it a degree of blindness to question of purpose, design, and intention.
Identifying the similar pattern in the area of biblical scholarship, Van
Engen remarks: "To a large extent, biblical scholars have followed the
same path in their examination of the biblical text. With notable
exceptions, their analysis of Scripture has seldom asked the
missiological question regarding God's intention and purpose"
(1996:35-36).
Van Engen pointedly expresses his view that
missiologists are in need of a hermeneutical method in order to deal
with the whole Scripture as a diverse unity. Affirming that we cannot
have mission without the Bible, nor can we understand the Bible apart
from God's mission, he discusses:
Yet the missio Dei [God's mission]
happens in specific places and times in our contexts. Its content,
validity, and meaning are derived from Scripture, yet its action,
significance, and transforming power happen in our midst. Even when
we affirm that we will take the whole of Scripture seriously, we
still need a way to link the numerous contexts of the Bible with the
here and now of our mission endeavor today (1996:37).
Van Engen recognizes David Bosch’s
“critical hermeneutics” as being a major contribution toward
hermeneutical approach to missiology (1996:39). Bosch’s work was a
response to the theory of paradigm construction that Hans Küng and David
Tracy (1989) adapted from the philosophy of science. He maintains that
self-definitions are offered in the biblical text as well as in our
modern contexts. Accordingly, his hermeneutic approach is “an
interaction between the self-definition of early Christian authors and
actors and the self-definition of today’s believers who wish to be
inspired and guided by the early witnesses” (1991:23).
The strength of Bosch’s hermeneutic
approach is its relevancy to contemporary context as Van Engen puts it:
“This in turn would move us to reread the biblical text, incorporating
the newer sociological analysis, then going beyond to a series of
self-definitions of mission for today’s contexts” (1996:40). The
challenge of mission theology for Bosch is to relate “the
always-relevant Jesus event of twentieth century ago to the future of
God’s promised reign by means of meaningful initiatives for the hear and
now…(1991:23-24).
Although Van Engen recognizes Bosch’s major contribution in his
comprehensivedescription of the “missionary paradigm” of Matthew, Luke
and Paul, he sees that a further work still needs to be done as to what
is the coherence or consistency between paradigms. In the end of his
book Transforming Mission, Bosch suggests a hosts of “elements of
an emerging ecumenical mission paradigm.” But his work still leaves us
the need to construct it. On this background Van Engen suggests his
hermeneutical model (1996:40).
One illustration of Van Engen’s
hermeneutical method is “a tapestry of God’s action in the world”—viz.
“a tapestry of missional motifs in context.” His method approaches
Scripture from the perspective of a number of themes and subthemes (or
motifs) of God’s action in the world. For instance, the themes (such as
Kinhsip, refugees, peasant, industrial, displaced, and conquered) can be
viewed from the perspective of missionary motifs (such as God’s
universal love of all peoples, dispersion of refugees, and light to the
Gentiles). This method provides the interaction of both perspective
“from above” and “from below.” The themes are from above because they
are the action of God in history. They are also from below because they
occur in the midst of human history in the context of the lives of men
and women (1996:40-41).
The Task of Hermeneutics for Proclamation
Haddon W. Robinson delineates the place of
hermeneutics for proclamation. Homiletics deals with the construction
and communication of sermons. It involves the question: “How do I get
the message across?” Hence, the preacher as a communicator may borrow
from rhetoric, the social science, and communication theories. Yet for
the content of preaching, he must also ask the hermeneutic question:
“How do I get the message?” (1982)
On the other hand, René Padilla makes it
clear that the main task of hermeneutics is to address the issue, “How
do I get the message across?” What Padilla has to say, however, does
not contradict with Robinson’s view. They are simply speaking of
different realms of hermeneutic tasks. One is speaking of hermeneutics
for Bible interpretation, while the other of hermeneutics for
cross-cultural communication of the gospel.[3]
For Padilla, cross-cultural hermeneutics is
is highly required when preaching across cultures. He admonishes
against the attempt to evangelize without seriously facing the
hermeneutical task. He comments, “Western missionaries have often
assumed that their task is simply to extract the message directly from
the biblical text and transmit it to their hearers in the “mission
field” with no consideration of the role of the historical context in
the whole interpretive process” (1981:23).
Padilla’s Contextual Hermeneutics
Combining the strengths of the intuitive
and scientific methods, the contextual approach recognizes both the role
of the ancient world in shaping the original text and the role of
today’s world in conditioning the way contemporary readers are likely to
“hear” and understand the text (Padilla 1981:18). This approach seeks
the answer for the question: “How can the chasm between the past and the
present be bridged?” It, therefore, seeks to interpret both the context
of the ancient text and the context of the modern reader (19). Padilla
expresses this concept in diagram 1.

Diagram 1. Padilla's Contextual Approach to
Bible Interpretation.
______________________________________________________________
The interpretive process is not a simple
one-way process. For whenever interpreters approach a particular
biblical text they can do so only from their own perspective. This
gives rise to a complex, dynamic two-way interpretive process depicted
as a “hermeneutical circle,” in which interpreters and text are mutually
engaged (Padilla 1981:20).
The aim of the interpretative process is
the transformation of the people of God within their concrete
situation. Now a change in the situation of the interpreters (including
their culture) brings about a change in their comprehension of
Scripture, while a change in their comprehension of Scripture in turn
reverberates in their situation. Thus, the contextual approach to the
interpretation of Scripture involves a dialogue between the historical
situation and Scripture, a dialogue in which the interpreters approach
Scripture with a particular perspective (their world-and-life view) and
approach their situation with a particular comprehension of the Word of
God (their theology). Padilla indicates this dialogue as hermeneutical
circle in the diagram below (1981:22).

Diagram 2. Padilla's Hermeneutical Circle.
________________________________________________________
Multi-faced Exegetical Method
The work of Leonora Tubbs Tisdale (1997)
reflects the recent awareness of missiological understaning of preaching
by a homiletician. Her cross-cultural ministry experiences in Korea,
and in rural and Urban areas in America, has helped her to understand
preaching as a cross-cultural communication. A preacher needs to be
sensitive to the peculiar subculture of his or her audience. She
believes that theology needs to be contextualized for local
congregation. She then boldly states preaching as folk art. What she
suggests by that is that preaching may needs different modes depends on
the subcultures of the audience. While one group of the audience can be
reached by the good logic of preaching, the other group will be more
responsive to the relevant stories that touch their heart and emotion.
In order to address these communication issues she presents to us the
‘holistic preaching’ model. This idea, in turn, leads to her discussion
for a multi-faced exegetical method. She discusses it: "Holistic
preaching requires a multi-facet exegetical method. Just as no single
approach is adequate for interpreting biblical texts, so no single
method is sufficient when it comes to interpreting living bodies as
complex, dynamic, and multidimensional as local congregations"
(1997:57).
Tisdale takes a step further and even
describes the pastor as ethnographer. She believes that if preachers
are to achieve the theological contextualization and effect in our
sermons a fresh hearing of the gospel for a particular people, then, it
is essential that we engage in interpretive activities that not only
give access to the worlds revealed in biblical texts, but also give
access to the subcultural worlds in which our congregations live
(59-60).
According to Charles Fabor, what we have
discussed above involves a two-directional task of hermeneutical
translation. The human mediator of the message must understand the
Scripture itself and translate it into appropriate terms in the receptor
culture and also understand the culture (a hermeneutical task) and
translate it back into categories which he can compare with Scripture
(1978:7-8).
When Lesslie Newbigin presents ‘the New
Testament model of gospel communication,’ he implies the need to read
and interpret the Biblical text from the perspective of the receptor’s
culture. He believes that “the movement of the gospel from its origin
in the cultural world of Judaism to its articulation in the language and
practice of Greek-speaking Gentile communities” in the New Testament
provides us with the model of gospel communication across a cultural
frontier. Expounding the twenty-sixth chapter of Acts, he declares,
“The communication has to be in the language of the receptor culture.
It has to be such that it accepts, at least provisionally, the way of
understanding things that is embodied in that language” (1986:4-6).
Respecting the Particularity of the Text
Anthony Thiselton introduces the
observation of James Barr to demonstrate the need to respect the
particularity of the text, who points out that many of the standard
reference works in biblical studies tend to encourage the method of
arriving at conclusions about meaning on the basis of etymology. The
very arrangement of the Hebrew lexicon of Brown, Driver, and Briggs adds
fuel to the fire, and some of the articles in Kittels’ Theological
Dictionary of the New Testament comes for criticism on the basis.
What Barr insists is that “The etymology of a word is not a statement
about its meaning, but about its history.”
[4]
The English word “nice” is a typical example. Etymologically, it comes
from nercius, ignortant. But no one would claims that “a nice
doctor” literally meant “ an ignorant doctor” (1979:125-128).
Eugine A. Nida demonstrates the
particularity of meaning, for example, as in “green house.” Green
may denote a color, a lack of experience (he is green at the job), and
unripe (green fruits) and house may indicate a dwelling, a
lineage (the house of David), and a legislation body. But in
combination green house the meaning of both green and
house are restricted to only one of each of these meanings. Nida
concludes, “Words do not carry with them all the meanings which they may
have in other sets of co-occurrences” (1972:86).
Thiselton asserts, “The interpreter of the
New Testament must respect distinctive particularity of meaning conveyed
by individual passage, and resist the temptation to interpret them
wholly in the light of pre-understanding already decisively shaped by
the interpretation of other passages" (1979:128).
Conclusion
Among the recent missiological contribution
to hermeneutics this study highlights Charles Van Engen's “a tapestry of
God’s action in the world”—viz. “a tapestry of missional motifs in
context.” His method approaches Scripture from the perspective of a
number of themes and subthemes (or motifs) of God’s action in the
world. For instance, the themes (such as Kinhsip, refugees, peasant,
industrial, displaced, and conquered) can be viewed from the perspective
of missionary motifs (such as God’s universal love of all peoples,
dispersion of refugees, and light to the Gentiles).
The interpreter of the New Testament must
respect distinctive particularity of meaning conveyed by individual
passage, and resist the temptation to interpret them wholly in the light
of pre-understanding already decisively shaped by the interpretation of
other passages.
Missiological approach to hermeneutics
seeks for the relevance of the biblical message to contemporary
context. Even when we affirm that we will take the whole of Scripture
seriously, we still need a way to link the numerous contexts of the
Bible with the here and now of our mission endeavor today. For this, we
need an interaction between the self-definition of early Christian
authors and actors and the self-definition of today’s believers who wish
to be inspired and guided by the early witnesses. Applying this to
preaching, if preachers are to achieve the theological contextualization
and effect in our sermons a fresh hearing of the gospel for a particular
people, then, it is essential that we engage in interpretive activities
that not only give access to the worlds revealed in biblical texts, but
also give access to the subcultural worlds in which our congregations
live.
In summary, there are three key
principles of Bible interpretation from the missiological aproach to
hermeneutics. They are: (1) Contextual principle of the Bible
interpretation. Read the biblical text from the perspective of the
whole context and find a tapestry of missional motifs in context. (2)
Respecting the particularity of the text. Respect distinctive
particularity of meaning conveyed by individual passage. (3) The
relevance of the biblical message to contemporary context. Seek to
link the numerous contexts of the Bible with the here and now of our
mission endeavor today.