I. Introduction: Roundhouse or Covenantal Hermeneutics

1) Hermeneutics concerns the system and laws, which provide warrant for interpretation and govern its practices. A hermeneutical method then establishes the framework within which legitimate interpretation may occur. Exegesis, on the other hand, is the practice of interpreting within and according to that system.

2) The designation Roundhouse Hermeneutics stresses the central role of hermeneutics, not only to matters of interpretation that involve a text but also to every endeavor of life. In the old rail yards a roundhouse was the building in the center of the yard into and out of which the various tracks ran. In the middle of this building was a large turntable that served to connect these tracts. Thus an engine traveling on a northbound track could enter the roundhouse and be switched to the eastbound track without using a crane. In short every track in the yard was joined within the complex of the roundhouse. In the same way Hermeneutics serves as a roundhouse to the various aspects of interpretation.

3) The designation Covenantal Hermeneutics indicates the theocentric nature of interpretation and the necessity of incorporation into the body of Christ for legitimate interpretation.

4) The two goals of this treaty are

(a) to present a method of interpretation which is dependent upon Scripture for its very formulation and able to demonstrate that dependency throughout every stage of the interpretation process.

(b) to show the possibility of communicating an intended meaning by bridging the gulf between the author, text, world, and reader.

II. Hermeneutics

A] Tri-Revelation basis of Hermeneutics

1) Special Revelation: Because interpretation discloses meaning, the method by which interpretation is directed will ultimately shape and determine the meaning disclosed. If man determines the method, then man not Scripture will be the final authority and source of truth. Therefore, Scripture must reveal the method of interpretation.

2) Natural Revelation: To speak with authority, God’s word must speak to a sovereignly governed creation. Notice: the plan that determines the method of interpretation is the very plan that determines the objects to be interpreted.

3) Salvific Revelation: Problem: even if method is revealed, it will be acquired by an act of interpretation that is prior to and independent of its apprehension. The result is that the revealed method can never inform practice in any actual authoritative way. It will itself be a victim of man’s autonomous method.

Traditional solution: Illumination of Holy Spirit

Problems: 1. If the integrity of man as an actual interpreter is to be maintained, then the Spirit’s illumination, no less than the Spirit’s word, will be subject to man’s autonomous norms of interpretation. As such illumination will itself require illumination, which in turn will require illumination and so on. Thus meaning will be forever lost to an infinite regress 2. On the other hand, if illumination is said to occur mystically on some deep level below man’s conscious, then (a) illumination can never inform or adjudicate matters of practice and (b) man as an actual interpreter is lost to the Spirit’s over-riding or imposed illumination.

Solution: Salvific Revelation

Illumination is an exegetical principle rather than a hermeneutical principle. That is, rather than preceding and establishing man’s ability as an interpreter, illumination presupposes a regenerate ability and works concursively with it. Regeneration then always precedes illumination. For this reason, it is only those who are first recreated by the Spirit who are said to enjoy the blessings of the Spirit’s illumination. Salvific revelation then provides the third leg of the Tri-revelational basis of interpretation. (Salvific revelation is simply regeneration viewed in terms of hermeneutics.)

Notice the result: at each stage of interpretation, God’s revelation is prior to and the basis of both man’s ability and activity as an interpreter. At no point is interpretation independent of God.

The plan that determines the method of interpretation is the same plan that determines the objects to be interpreted (revelation then is basic to man’s activity of interpretation). At the same time, the plan that determines the method and the objects of interpretation is the very plan that recreates man the interpreter after its own image (thus, revelation is basic to man’s ability as an interpreter).

4) The tri-revelational basis of interpretation closes the gap between the revelation of method in Scripture and the acquisition of that method by man (cf. #3). Method does not impart ability nor does it precede ability. Rather, the revealed method presupposes ability (regeneration) and is descriptive /normative of activity. The plan that forms is the plan that informs. Method speaks to image about creation.

5) The tri-revelational basis of interpretation and especially the necessity of salvific revelation makes interpretation covenantally determined. Fellowship then is the necessary context for right interpretation (fellowship is described on both a vertical and horizontal plane).

As such, interpretational activity is dependent on union with Christ and His people.

B] The method revealed in Scripture is a method of kinds:

1) The method revealed in Scripture does not reduce interpretation to a formula and thereby diminish the actuality of man’s duty as interpreter. Rather, the method revealed by Scripture is a Method of Kinds (the Kind of God, the Kind of world, the Kind of word, the Kind of people). The method revealed is not a formula for interpretation but a field of play within which interpretation must occur to be legitimate. Transgress a kind either directly or by implication and interpretation fails due to lack of warrant. The method, then, rather than providing a formula, provides a field or framework for interpretation. This field defines the limits of both the warrant and legitimacy for interpretation.

The kind of God.

The kind of word.

The kind of world.

The kind of people.

2) The kinds are not limitless or indeterminate in number. Rather, both their determination and their defense are established by a transcendental argument.

3) Method then is interpretation in light of basis. That is, the revealed method of hermeneutics defines the practice of hermeneutics according to the basis of hermeneutic. As such, method and warrant self-consciously coincide.

(a) The result is that the method of kinds provides for an interpretation that is a deliberately faithful activity set within a theocentric context of fellowship.

(b) Method then establishes both the warrant and the framework for legitimate interpretation. At the same time, it defines the nature and employment of the tools of exegesis/practice.

C] The roundhouse nature of hermeneutics: There is but one method revealed for all

interpretation.

1) Where God is, there He is also Lord. Therefore, any encounter with the facts or events of creation must involve an interpretation of them in light of their place and purpose within God’s plan. In science, art, math, economics, sociology, medicine, psychology, etc. the people of God are to be self-consciously and consistently a distinct kind of people with a distinct kind of purpose living in a distinct kind of world according to a distinct kind of plan. Again these kinds are revealed by God and serve as the single method for all interpretation. Any violation of a kind is tantamount to speaking otherwise than God about His creation. Hermeneutics then is a discipline that stands at the center of every human endeavor and not just those, which involve a text. In the end, a faithful Hermeneutic is one that speaks about and utilizes creation as God intends.

2) The whole of a man is hermeneutical. It is as a whole person that one encounters reality and it is as a whole person that one gains an understanding of that reality (emotions, no less than thoughts, place us within the world and provide us an understanding of it). As such, God’s people are called to be hermeneutically self-conscious in the most comprehensive sense of the word. Just as Scripture speaks to the whole of life, so too does it speak to the whole of man as he encounters that life. Therefore, every aspect of man’s experience, no less than every endeavor man undertakes, is to be subject to the method of kinds.

3) Method provides for Mandate: Man’s duty as an interpreter is actual and necessary. As such, interpretation is both personal and active (vs. clerical and generic). That is, man’s mind is not passive in interpretation (interpretation involves individuality and creativity. It is not merely a clerical task). However, because the mind of God and not the mind of man is the source of meaning, man’s activity in interpretation is not formative of meaning. Rather, it must be described as faithfulness.

Note: the context of hermeneutics is fellowship. The task of hermeneutics is faithfulness.

4) Method locates interpretation in the body of Christ (past, present, and future). Hermeneutics then is a corporate endeavor dependent on and responsible to both past and future.

5) Method locates interpretation in time and place. All governed by God’s plan is necessary to the interpretation and understanding of that plan (unity does not = uniformity; diversity does not = disparity).

6) Method provides the bridge uniting the various disciplines of interpretation (Systematic, Biblical, Exegetical as well as Science, Art, Sociology, Math, etc…)

Method then is a Roundhouse, uniting man’s experiences and disciplines.

III.  Linguistics

A] Theocentric model of language:

1) Genesis chapter one is not merely a revelation of how God spoke creation into being. It is a revelation or disclosure of language itself. Thus the very beginning of Scripture establishes a language that will be able to speak to and about creation with final authority.

C] The Aspects of Language (language as pre-text):

1) Man’s language is reflective and derivative of God’s language. At creation we hear God calling forth creation (reference) according to His plan (sense). Language then is able to speak about (sense) existence (reference). In language then neither sense nor reference is more basic or fundamental than the other. Sense is mediated through reference (sense is an understanding of something) and reference is mediated through sense (there are no brute facts). At every point sense and reference must stand together in an analytic relation.

2) Aspects of language defined:

a) Reference- aspect of reality about which something is said

b) Sense- that which is said about the aspect of reality (i.e. sense is the associations, relations, patterns of meaning, and evaluations, in terms of which the significance of a reference is identified).

3) At the same time, this dual aspect of language (sense/reference) means that language is set within the context of both world and worldview. Therefore language, no less than reality, is fundamentally hermeneutical. Hermeneutics guides the interpretation of experience. Thus, the move from experience to a text (i.e. the formation of a text) is a hermeneutical move. At the same time, the move from the text back to experience (i.e. interpretation) is by way of the same hermeneutical method. Hermeneutics then provides the basis for the relationship between language and reality at every stage. That is, at every stage, language is shaped by and dependent on hermeneutics. Language is a tool of interpretation.

D] The Aspects of Text (language as expression):

1) Language enters reality as a text and it is as a text that it is acquired and studied. The aspects of Text then are the factors and relations that govern language employed as expression. They are syntax, semantics, and use.

2) Aspects Defined

a) Use- the relation of a text to purpose/function

b) Semantics- the relation of word meaning to sentence/text meaning

c) Syntax- the structural relation between the signs of a text

3) Because each aspect of the text is linguistic, each presupposes the aspects of language (sense and reference). That is, the aspects of language are basic to the aspects of the text yet without exhausting the various relations established by the text.

4) As such the aspects of language place each aspect of text, together with the relations each establishes, within the contexts of world and worldview. In turn, the text is employed to speak about existence.

E] The distinction between the Aspects of Text and the Aspects of Language:

1) The Aspects of Text must remain distinct from and yet presuppose the Aspects of Language. If the Aspects of Text are not kept distinct from the Aspects of Language, then meaning will always be determined by extra-linguistic factors. That is meaning will always be beyond or beneath the text (i.e. meaning will either be ostensive reference or subjective sense). The result, is a meaning cut off from the relations of the text and a text inadequate to communicate meaning.

On the other hand, if the Aspects of Text do not presuppose the Aspects of Language, then meaning will always be sought or determined solely in terms of the relations that exist within the text. Meaning will be cut off from the intentions of the author as well as from its existential contexts. The result is a text that is unable to say anything to or about existence.

2) In the end, the distinction between the aspects of text and the aspects of language maintains meaning as textual while the dependence of the aspects of text on the aspects of language insures that the text is able to speak about (sense) existence (reference).

F] Formal/Particular Speech

1. Language enters existence as a text.

2. The context of a text is the history of texts.

3. Formal language then is the codification of a linguistic community’s history of speech. Even abstract treatments of language such as grammars and lexicons are merely formalizations of a linguistic communities history of speaking.

1. Text formation is volitional

2. World, worldview, and intention enter the text through the decisions of composition.

3. Predication has metaphysical mooring (the relational nature of the text reflects the relational nature of creation. Man must know by relations).

4. The relational nature of creation establishes the disclosive ability of the various degrees of predication.

X about Y (didactic)

X in terms of Y (Metaphor)

X as Y (Fictive/Modalic)

IV. Aesthetics

A] Art is a chief way that man gains and expresses an understanding of existence. Therefore art is fundamentally interpretational. As such, hermeneutics and its revealed method of kinds govern art and the measure of artistic achievement (aesthetics).

{Note: the move from experience to forming a work of art is a hermeneutical move. The move from the work of art back to experience, via the interpreter, is a hermeneutical move}

B] Art is not a matter of taste

1) If art is only a matter of taste, then the artist, even if he has something to say, is assured of never being able to say it. His meaning will forever be replaced by the private feelings of the beholder. The irony of relegating artistic meaning and value to a purely private, subjective, level is that it precludes any possibility for personal expression. The artist may speak but he will never be heard. His voice will forever be replaced by the feelings and meanings generated within the beholder.

2) On the other hand, the minute a connection is made between the work of art and the feelings or thoughts of the one beholding that work, then those feelings and thoughts can no longer be said to be purely personal, private, or subjective. When you respond to a work, however personal you hold that response to be, something other than you, something outside of yourself, is involved – that something is the work. Your response may be deeply felt or of great personal significance. No one is trying to deny or diminish the importance of such. The point here is that your personal response is just that, a response to something other than yourself, something which calls forth certain feelings while discouraging others. The artist, be he a writer, painter, or musician is one whose skills and abilities enable him to shape your responses, and to direct them to his conclusion.

3) When you encounter a work of art you are invited to see things through the eyes of another. Art enables you to experience as the artist has experienced. This “experiencing as another” carries you beyond the usual confines of yourself. Art then is personal but never private. At the same time, others who view the work and see through the artist’s eyes, also share the experience. Art then is public experience that informs and shapes a community’s understanding of itself.

4) The artist, no less than the scientist, has something to say about existence that is relevant to others. Each in his own way makes this insight available to his fellow man. That said, it now stands to reason, that what some men have to say is more interesting, informed, and enduring than what others have to say. Likewise, some will communicate their insights more clearly and exactly than will others. Aesthetics then attempts to distinguish between those who have something to say and who say it well from those who do not.

5) Such a distinction requires a standard or a basic model of art, which will describe for us something of the fundamental nature of art as well as how that nature is achieved.

-Art is the manipulation of a media in order to express insight into or the

potential of a subject matter (the media may be verbal, musical, or visual).

-Artistic merit is measured by

(1) Exactness of expression – the manipulation of a media to express insight without loss or excess.

(2) Depth of insight – the revelation of something worthwhile and enduring in significance.

-Artistic merit is best discerned by comparison (comparing one

work with another work, one age with another age).

C] Covenantal Aesthetics

1. The force of creation is that of the centrifuge (radiance of meaning and purpose outward from a single point).

-Existence is meaningful

2. Man’s thoughts are mediated. That is, man thinks about creation in terms of creation (colors, shapes, sounds, and etc.).

3. As such, man’s thoughts always involve the analytic relationship of sense and reference.

4. Man’s thought then may be described in terms of Language (including but not restricted to verbal language).

5. Thus the idea of text must be expanded to include all composed communication.

6. The artistic composition is a work of interpretation. As such, aesthetics is hermeneutical.

7. The orientation of creation’s meaning is theocentric. As such creation is fundamentally relational. Its fundamental relation is to God and His plan.

8. Art’s disclosive potential is moored in the relational nature of creation.

9. Art’s disclosure then is defined in terms of likeness (X as Y)

10. As such, art is the arrangement or relations by which insight is brought to expression. Art subdues its media to render meaning and potential visible.

11. Artistic ability is the subjugation of perception in form without a loss.

12. Artistic encounter is perception entering the form of a work of art to be shaped by it.

13. Art’s mandate is to discover and subdue. Its measure is faithfulness. Its means is the revealed method of kinds.

14. Artistic merit then may be described as follows:

-Art is the manipulation of a media in order to express insight into or the

potential of a subject matter (the media may be verbal, musical, or visual).

-Artistic merit is measured by

a) Exactness of expression – the manipulation of a media to express insight without loss or excess.

b) Depth of insight – the revelation of something worthwhile and enduring in significance.

15. Christian art is not determined or limited by subject matter but rather by its orientation to that subject matter.

Only the Christian can truly grasp the tragic

Only the Christian can truly give expression to the grotesque

Only the Christian can offer hope that does not ignore or deny the horrors of living

(“At least we can still recognize a misfit”)