Hermeneutics is the study of how Christians read and interpret Scripture. For example, when someone says that Scripture interpretation should always follow the literal-historical-grammatical (LHG) method, they are articulating a hermeneutic. In Genesis 1:5, we read, “And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.” Using the LHG hermeneutic would naturally lead to understanding “evening” as the period that begins after 5-6 p.m., “morning” as the time when the sun rises, and “day” as a 24-hour period. This is a standard hermeneutic and a great starting point for reading the Bible.
However, this isn’t the only hermeneutic (way or method) for interpreting Scripture. Consider Genesis 4:7 in the context of Cain not responding well to God’s rebuke of his offering. Yahweh tells Cain, “Sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is for you, and you must rule over it.” Sin isn’t literally crouching at a door. Notice how Moses personifies sin—a type of figurative language. Sin can’t crouch; it has no legs. Without warning, the author shifts to a different mode of expression and expects me to adjust my hermeneutic seamlessly.
Figurative language is everywhere in the Bible, and students of the Word don’t always agree on what is and is not figurative. How we determine the meaning of Scripture divides the church. Consider Matthew 26:26: “Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, ‘Take, eat; this [the bread] is my body.’” Is the bread Jesus’s body? Yes or no? If you are a devout Catholic, you would argue that this need not be interpreted only figuratively. If you are a Baptist, you would say, “No, this is figurative language.” The point is simple: the hermeneutical principles we follow and prioritize determine how we read and interpret Scripture.
I am very comfortable with the hermeneutic of sensus plenior, a Latin phrase meaning “fuller sense” or “fuller meaning.” But not everyone is. Sensus plenior holds that, because Scripture has both a human and a divine author (the Holy Spirit), there are times when the human author writes about something whose fuller meaning becomes clearer with further revelation. The text always has an initial meaning for its original audience, but with further revelation, its fuller sense can become apparent. Hosea 11:1 is an example of this. Hosea writes, “When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.” Hosea is writing about the literal exodus out of Egypt. Yet Matthew reveals the sensus plenior in Hosea 11:1. He writes, “[Jesus] remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, ‘Out of Egypt I called my son.’” The LHG meaning was national Israel being delivered out of Egypt. Yet Matthew reveals the text’s fuller Christocentric meaning. He shows that Jesus is Yahweh’s true Son, delivered out of Egypt. Matthew does it again in Matthew 2:17–18. Peter does it in Acts 2. Paul does it in Acts 13 and on and on.
A failure to adhere to a single, consistent LHG hermeneutic is problematic for some. But for me, I see how Jesus and His Apostles interpret the OT and desire to learn from them. I don’t believe I am creating a canon within the canon. Instead, I believe that Christ and the NT writers reveal the text’s fullest meaning. This deeper sense is always there, even if the original writers and audience did not fully grasp it yet.
Ultimately, my hermeneutic is Christocentric. Jesus said that the Scriptures “bear witness about me” (John 5:39), and beginning with Moses and the Prophets, He interpreted “in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself” (Luke 24:27). I simply want to read the Old Testament the way Jesus and His Apostles taught us to read it.
