TMSJ 13/1 (Spring 2002) 65-77

INSPIRED SUBJECTIVITY AND

HERMENEUTICAL OBJECTIVITY
John H. Walton *

Objectivity is the goal of hermeneutics so that the text of Scripture may

speak for itself. Fo r an interpre ter to bring his subjective views to the text
jeopardizes the authority o f the Word. Two forces at wo rk am ong evan gelicals
today tend to increase the subjective element in interpretation. The first is the
principle of the analogy of faith or the harmonizing of different texts with one
another. Harm onizing is desirable, but if taken too far, it can distort a text by
inserting theological motifs into places where they do not belong. Doctrinal
considerations should be introduced only to solve complexities of certain passages.
The second force is the practices of NT authors. Sometimes the interpreter must
choose between using objective methods and following the example of NT au thors
in their use of the O T. He must m aintain objectivity rather than pattern his exegesis
after the NT in matters of typology, symbolism, role models, and fulfillmen ts. The
difference between contemp orary exegetes and NT writers is that the former must
abide by principles of hermeneutical objectivity while the former were led to follow
the pattern of inspired subjectivity. Inspired subjectivity is not an option in this day
and time.

*****

Ever since the Reformation we have prided ourselves in our commitment

to the historical-grammatical method. The science of hermeneutics has developed
to give shape to that method and to affirm our commitment to the authority of the
Scriptures and the importan ce of objectivity 2 in interpretation. Yet pockets of

*
John H. Walton is professor of Old Testament at the Wheaton College Graduate School. One of
his works is the recently released NIV Ap plica tion C om me ntar y on Ge nes is (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
200 1).
2
B y “objectivity” we do not refer to absolute objectivity that allows the interpreter to repress or
sub ord inate cu lture an d p ersp ecti ve tota lly. W e only refer to the procedures that assume that the author
is a competent communicator a nd ca pa bl e o f b ei ng u nd er st oo d . I n r ec en t t er mi no lo g y w e mig ht refe r to

65
66 The Master’s Seminary Journal

subjectivity have no t only been retained, but have thrived. Subjec tive metho ds are
healthy and prosperous in the pews of our churches, firmly entrenched in our pulpits,
and are not strangers to the halls of our seminaries. We are eager to display and
celebrate the bankruptcy of the disreputable allegorica l method, y et continue to
prom ote the same sort of subjectivism in our use of typology, our interpretation of
sym bols in prophetic literature, the identification of fulfillment, and the pervasive
presence of role model interpretation of the OT, to name a few of the more
prominent examples. Most of these concern the use of the OT, either by the New
Testament authors or by the church. In this essay I w ill address the relative m erits
of objective and subjective approaches and the role of hermeneutics with regard to
each. I will then consider the areas where subjectivism is prevalent and discuss how
those areas ought to be approached. In conc lusion, I will be able to respond to often
asked questions such as, “Can we reproduce the hermeneutics of the NT authors?”
and “Did the prophets understand what they were talking about?” The objective of
this essay is that we might see c learly how the O T can be h andled consisten tly
according the principles of the historical-grammatical method.
It has long been recognized that no one is ca pable of being en tirely
objective, but that does not m ean that objective m ethod s are im practical. W e can be
committed to objectivity, yet at the same time realize that abso lute objectivity is o nly
an ideal tha t can never b e fully achiev ed. Th is com mitment to objectivity is b uilt
into our hermeneutics. As a science, hermeneutics espouses the value and necessity
of objectivity. Such an element is theologically manda ted because in the interpreta-
tion of Scripture we realize that the most important aspects of the text come with the
text, rather than being brought to the table by the interpreter. The objective nature
of hermeneutics is designed to allow the text to speak for itself. The extent to which
we, as fallen beings, bring our own subjective views to the text is proportional to the
degree in which the authority of the inspired message of the W ord of God is
jeopardized. We m ust not have the means at our disposal to make the text say what
we want it to say. It must be allow ed to speak for itself, address its own agenda, and
establish its own set of presuppositions. We value objective methods because they
offer greater assurance that the text is operating independently of the prejudices of
the interpreter.
On the other hand, we must be quick to admit that an observation or
interpretation is not ne cessa rily wrong if it is subjective. In interpretation of the text,
however, we always need to approach a proposed theory with the question, “Why
shou ld I believe that?” Our beliefs about the text and its purpose suggest to us that
the message of the text is accessible to anyone and not subject to b eing g iven p rivate
personal interpretations that will differ from one individual to the next and from one
minute to the next. For a tex t to have independent authority it must be shown to
have some autonomy, a source independent from the reader. Th e extent to which the
message originates with the reader is the extent to which the divine au thority is

author orientation (objective) or reader orientation (subjective) with a text orientation able to go in either
direction.
 Inspired Subjectivity and Hermeneutical Objectivity 67

compromised. If the reader brings the message and meaning to the text, that
message and m eaning ca rry only the reader’s authority. The im portance of
objec tivity concerns not truth, but authority. A gain, this is the result of our current
theological convictions about the Bible. If our hermeneutics and theological
convictions both lead in this direction, what forces perpetua te the inc lination to
subjectivity? Historically, two issues emerge: (1) the principle of “analogy of faith”
and (2) the practices of the NT authors.

Ana logy of Fa ith

W e are well aware that the church has not always been com mitted to
objectivity. The allegorical method dominated the church for many centuries. One
of the results of the Enlightenment was the decline of the characteristic subjectivism
of interpretation and the development of the science of hermeneutics. Such major
changes in thinking, however, do not occur overnight, and it often takes some time
before all of the ramifications are identified and all the adjustments made. Such is
still the case as we seek to apply the historical-grammatical method to every aspect
of our interpretation. The Reformers allowed for departures from a grammatical-
historical interpretation on the principle called “analogy of faith.” This concept was
incorporated into the Scots Confession, the Second Helvetic Confession, and the
Westminster Confession.1

For the Westminster Divines, the Bible was a book that told one unified story—the
saving grace of God in Jesus Christ. They referred to that theme sometimes as the
covenant. The proper interpretation of Scripture did not take the verses individually and
plug them in as proof texts of a systematic theology. The right interpretation of Scripture
allowed the analogy of faith to operate. It interpreted the individual verses as parts of the
overall message. This was the interpretative model that informed the statement: “The
infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself.” The Scripture could
be “searched and known” by understanding all the verses as parts of a whole unified
biblical story.2

While harmonization of texts is desirable and necessary, the concept of

analogy of faith can be taken too far such that it becomes a tool of theological
anachronizing by inserting im portan t theological m otifs into places where they do
not belong. Concerns for unity and coherence cann ot be used to hom ogenize all
texts. Those concerns lead us to expect harmony, but not homogeneity.3

1
Jack Ro ge rs an d D on ald M cK im, The Authority and Interpretatio n of th e Bib le (San Francisco:
Harper and Row, 1979) 213-14.
2
Ibid., 215-16.
3
See D.A. Carson, “Unity and Diversity in the New Testament: T he P ossib ility of S ystem atic
Th eo log y,” in Scr iptur e an d T ruth , ed. D.A. Carson and J. Woodbridge (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983)
92-93, for some further discussion of the limitations of analogy of faith.
68 The Master’s Seminary Journal

Analogy of faith was to be invoked where reconciliation or harmonization

was necessary. No p art of Scripture w as to be interpreted in such a w ay that it
wou ld be in contradiction with another part of Scripture. But the determination of
when harm oniza tion w as necessa ry is entirely d epen dent on the exeg etical skills of
the interpreter and the presuppositions that he holds. So, for instance, Luther
believed that James’ view of justification needed to be subordinated to Paul’s by
analogy of faith because he did not see how they could co-exist. Subsequent
interpreters, however, were able to approach the two and not find their view s at all
mu tually exclusive. Thus a sensitivity to wh at Pau l and James w ere each actually
saying eliminated the need to invoke analogy of faith. As a result, Luther’s
application of analogy of faith in this instance proved only to demonstrate exegetical
weakness and ended up compromising the authority of Scripture by opening the door
of subjectivity.

On the surface, the statement that “scripture interprets itself” seems to be another pillar
upholding the principle of sola scriptura. But Luther’s additional statement “passages
. . . can only be understood by a rule of faith” raises the question of how anyone acquires
the authority for knowing just what that rule is. As we consider how Luther and Calvin
elaborated on this principle of the analogy of faith, it becomes clear that, in the final
analysis, the subjective preference of the theologian himself is the only basis upon which
this all-important norm for interpreting the rest of scripture is established. Consequently,
the analogy-of-faith principle does not undergird but undermines the sola scriptura
principle.4

There is another important distinction to be made: that is the difference

between reconciling an apparent contradiction in the teachings of two biblical
authors (the true function of analogy of faith) and glossing a theological concept into
a context where it has no ostensible role. So, for instance, the analogy o f faith
concerning the doctrine of the Trinity may need to be invoked to help untangle some
of the comp lexities of Jesus’ subo rdination of H imse lf to the Father’s will in
Gethsemane. A Trinitarian issue is resident in the text, and we expect to depend on
other Scriptu res to give gu idanc e in interp reting this one. It is an entirely different
matter when the Trinity is brought into the question of w hy plural pron ouns are used
in Gen 1:26. The nature of the problem does not comm end itself contextually as a
Trinitarian issue and n o threat to the doctrine of the Trinity is posed by the passage.
Analogy of faith would n ot, therefore, be a legitim ate basis for importing Trinitarian
theology into this tex t. There is no contradiction, apparent or real, that needs
resolution. There is no reason to expect that this passage will require harmonization
to Trinitarian doctrine.
In recognition of the problems with how “analogy of faith” has been
applied, recent studies in hermeneutics have preferred the alternative called “analogy

4
Daniel P. Full er, “Biblical Theology and the Analogy of Faith,” in Unity and Diversity in New
Testament Theology, ed. R. Guelich (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978) 196-97.
 Inspired Subjectivity and Hermeneutical Objectivity 69

of Scripture” whereby isolated or unusual texts would not be used to comprom ise
or call into question the more extensive, clearer teachin gs on the subject. 5

New T estament Authors

Prominent among the causes of our n eglect in applying the objective

principles of the historical-grammatical method to every area of interpretation is the
fact that there are a num ber of situations whe re it appears that the biblical autho rs
themselves are not restricting themselves to objective criteria and are not being
particularly historical-gramm atical in their own ap proach to the Scriptures.6 W e then
find ourselves torn between following the objective m ethod s that w e espouse in
theory, or following the lead of the authors of Scripture and utilizing the methods
they model. How can such a dilemma be resolved?
There are four areas of tension, four major areas, that I have identified
where I believe that evangelicals continue to engage in subjective methods with
impunity. We w ill now survey each of those areas in order to seek a solution: either
explaining why they should be handled differently from other hermeneutical issues,
or arriving at guidelines that will help us achieve hermeneutical consistency.

Types
Typology is closest to allegory an d perh aps sh ould b e treated first.
Typology is the identification of a relationship of correspondence between New and
Old Testament events or people, based on a conviction that there is a pattern being
worked out in the plan of God. Sin ce this correlation is not identifiable until bo th
type and antitype exist, typology is alw ays a function of hindsight. On e thing is
never identified as a typ e of something to com e. Only after the latter has come can
the correspondence be proclaimed. As a result, one will never find confirmation of
the typological value of the type in its initial context. This creates a real problem for
hermeneutics which maintains that achieving the results of typology depends on an
analy sis of the context.
How should the interpreter come to a conclusion that one thing is a type of
another? Since typology involves the identification of a relationship, the interpreter
must detect som e sim ilarity betw een the prop osed type or antitype. But if we are
going to accept a typological relationship as coming with the inspired authority of
God ’s Word, we want to have m ore than som eone’s im agination as a b asis. Before
we dismiss the whole area as hopelessly subjective, however, we must admit that the

5
E.g ., Gr an t O sbo rne . The Hermeneutical Spiral (Downers Grove: IVP, 1991) 11, 273-74.
6
All treatments of the use of the OT by the N T grapple with this issue; one example will suffice:
“Does the method of interpreting Scripture that Jesus and the apostles taught us differ from the principles
that contemporary interpreters regard as sound exegesis? Or, are the methods of Jesus and the apostles
of t he N T c lo se r t o t he pr ac ti ce s o f r ab b in ic m id ra sh an d Qu m ra ni an p es he r? A n d, i f t he y a re , s ho u ld w e
also follow that Christological and apostolic lead and reproduce their kind of exegesis when we read or
study the Bible ?” (W .C. K aise r, The Uses of t he O ld T es ta m e nt in th e N ew [Ch icago: M ood y, 198 5] 17 ).
70 The Master’s Seminary Journal

NT authors at times utilized typology. How did they proceed and what can be
observed about their results?
The first observation we must make is a very significant one. The NT
typolo gists did not get their typological correspondence from their exegetical
analy sis of the contex t of the O T. Hermeneu tics is incapable of extracting a
typological meaning from the OT context because hermeneu tics ope rates ob jectively
while the typological identification can only be made subjectively. A second
observation that needs to be made is that the NT authors never claim to have
engaged in a hermeneutical proc ess, no r do they claim that they can support their
findings from the text; instead, they claim inspiration.
Remem ber that our standard question concerning an interpreter’s findings
is “W hy sh ould I believe that?” For most of us as interpreters, we would like to be
able to reply with an arsenal of objective pieces of evidence that would convince our
audience that our interpretation is indeed correct in that it finds its support in the text
itself rather than in a hyper-active imagination. For the NT autho rs, the response to
the question “Why should I believe that” is that they g ot the inform ation for their
interpretation from God. M ost of us cannot make such a claim (though som e try),
and it must frankly be admitted that the ability to make such a claim makes
historica l-gram matical herm eneu tics and even objectivity moot.
W e are faced then with the fact that we possess two separate and distinct
methods of interpretation. One is defin ed by herm eneu tical guid elines and is
objective in nature. The other is subjec tive in na ture bu t finds its au thority not in the
science that drives it, but in its source— inspiration from God. If you have
inspiration, you do not need historical-grammatical hermeneutics. If you do not
have inspiration, you must proceed by the acknow ledged guidlines of hermeneutics.
The credibility of any interpretation is based on the verifiability of either one’s
inspiration or one’s hermeneutics.
Coming back to typology then, the issue is very clear. We cannot speak of
reproducing the methods of the NT authors, for the su bjectivity of their methods is
not allowed to those of us whose interpretation does not enjoy the affirmation of
inspiration. We can therefore claim a typological interpretation for an OT text only
when the NT has done so. No other typology can be granted the authority of God,
for that authority can be substantiated only from context (hermeneutics) or through
inspiration. We do not therefore begrudg e, condemn, or deny the typological
interpretations of the NT authors. We m erely recognize that our interpretations
cannot meet that criterion (i.e., inspiration) that comm ends their interpretations to
us.
In the history of interpretation, as mentioned earlier, the evidence that has
been given to support typological interpretations has often been premised on the
concept of analogy o f faith. Accepting that all of Scripture is a unity (under divine
authorship) and that it is Christocentric (Luke 24:44), the claim has been made that
there is therefo re an objective basis for read ing O T passages in light of their
 Inspired Subjectivity and Hermeneutical Objectivity 71

Christocentricity.7 A recent hermeneutics textbook phrases it this way:

So the “analogy of faith” for Christians dictates both that obscure texts are understand-
able in the light of the clear and that the NT gives the correct understanding of the OT.
But it also serves to indicate that the meaning of any part of the Bible must be
understood in the context of the Bible as a whole. This principle is sometimes called
“canonical” interpretation. Texts that might have been understood in one way if they
occurred in isolation from Scripture are shown by their inclusion in Scripture to have a
somewhat different meaning.8

Assuming some degree of Christocentricity, we must still investigate how

invasive it is and what range it must be granted in interpretation. How far must we
advocate cohe siveness in order to maintain a sense of unity? D. A . Carson su ggests
that a system atic theo logy re quires “that the biblical books be close en ough in
subject matter to cohere.” He illustrates with the following analogy:

I am not saying that the Bible is like a jigsaw puzzle of five thousand pieces and that all
five thousand pieces are provided, so that with time and thought the entire picture may
be completed. Rather, I am suggesting that the Bible is like a jigsaw puzzle that provides
five thousand pieces along with the assurance that these pieces all belong to the same
puzzle, even though ninety-five thousand pieces are missing. Most of the pieces that are
provided , the instructions insist, fit together rather nicely; but there are a lot of gaping
holes, a lot of edges that cry out to be completed, and some clusters of pieces that seem
to be on their own. Nevertheless, the assurance that all the pieces do belong to one
puzzle is helpful, for that makes it possible to develop the systematic theology, even
though the systematic theology is not going to be completed until we receive more pieces
from the One who made it. And meanwhile, even some systematicians who believe that
all the pieces belong to the same puzzle are not very adept puzzle players but sometimes
force pieces into slots where they don’t really belong. The picture gets distorted
somewhat, but it remains basically recognizable.9

Even given the acceptance of the concept of Christocentricity, however, we

face several alternatives concerning the nature of that Christocentricity. This was
evident as early as the controversies between the Alexandrians and the
Antiochenes. 10 For some it bespeaks a comprehensive and intrinsic soteriology,

7
For a brief su mm ary of the se con cepts thro ugh out C hurch history see G. W . Bro m iley, “The
Church Fathers and Holy Scripture,” in Scr iptur e an d T ruth 212-17.
8
Dan McC artney and Charles Clayton, Let the Reader Understand (W he ato n, Ill.: Victor, 1994) 161
[em pha sis original]. The authors proceed to offer the example of Song of Songs which they interpret as
referring to Christ and the Church based on the fact that the NT sees “the relationship of man and woman
is p atte rne d a fter t he rela tion shi p o f G od to H is P eo ple .”
9
Carson, “Unity and Diversity in the New Testament: The Possibility of Systematic Theology” 81-
82.
10
Bromiley, “The Church Fathers and Holy Scripture” 214.
72 The Master’s Seminary Journal

resulting in “salva tion histo ry.” Fo r others it may be messianic in nature, focusing
on prophecy and fulfillment. Still a third option would be a revelatory approach
whe re Christ is seen as the ultimate goal of God’s revelatory program throug hout.
All of these represent Christocentrism, but they will lead to widely divergent
readings of the tex t when ap plied to OT . An example of the impact this can have on
interpretation can be seen in McC artney and Clayton’s recent guide to hermeneutics.

We should ask of every passage, “How does it point to Jesus Christ?” . . . This is not an
expectation that every passage will speak directly about Him, but it does mean that every
passage in some way relates to his person or work. And this question is just as relevant
to NT passages as to OT.11

This aggressive degree of Christocentrism is not required by the text of

Scripture, but it is carried in on the coattails of analogy of faith by these authors and
becomes the agenda that impacts all of their interpretation. Th ey see this relation to
Christ as the most important part of any passage , yet that part has to be supplied, for
the text says nothing of it. The primary authority of the passage is then connected
to something entirely of the interpreter’s own design. The dangers of this approach
are well addressed by Grant Osborne.

Nearly all practitioners allegorize and spiritualize Old Testament texts to fit preconceived
“types of Christ” or some such. The Old Testament as the history and record of God’s
salvific dealings with his covenant people Israel is lost. Subjective speculation and a
reductionism reduce it to a series of prophetic acts. The intention of the text, the Old
Testament as canon in its own right, and the validity of the religious experiences of the
Hebrews as the chosen people of Yahweh are all sacrificed on the altar of “relevance.”
There must be a better way to demonstrate the continuity between the covenants. 12

The point is, then, that analogy of faith can also open the door to subjective
imposition of merely hum an agen das. The p rinciple of analogy of faith retains its
importanc e, but m ust be herm eneu tically regulated if its results are to be accorded
the authority of God’s Word.

Sym bols
Prophetic literature, especially of the apoc alyptic variety, is replete w ith
symbols. Here the problem is somewhat different from that which we just
addressed. We do n ot hav e to deal with NT authors interpreting the meaning of
sym bols that occur in OT apocalyptic. Nev ertheless, many interpreters of prophetic
literature assume that it is their task and indeed, their mandate, to identify what each
symbol in the text stands for. Again we must notice imm ediately that hermeneutics
is of little use in this endeavor. If the text identifies what a symbol stands for (e.g.,

11
M cC artn ey a nd Cl ayto n, Let the Reader Understand 194.
12
Os bo rne , The Hermeneutical Spiral 280.
 Inspired Subjectivity and Hermeneutical Objectivity 73

horns = kings) then no interpretation along those lines is called for. If the text does
not identify what a symbol stands for, then hermeneutics provides no basis for
arriving at a conclusion unless it can be demonstrated that the symbolic reference
was transparent or self-evident in the culture or literature.
The speculation that often characterizes interpretation of symbols has no
place within the historical-grammatical method. Rather than assuming that
interpretation requires us to identify the meaning of symbols we need to be content
to focus our attention on the message o f the text, itself identifiable by means of
hermeneutical principles and guide lines. So me would find it unthin kable that God
would include these symbols in His revelation if He did not wish us to interpret
them. An alternative is to understand that the revelation God intended to convey is
in the message of the prophecy rather than one found in the symbols. If the text does
not reveal the meaning of the symbols, I would assume that the message can be
understood without unearthing what the symbols stand for. Perhaps God is using the
sym bols to conceal those aspects that would distract us from the central truth.
Whatever God’s reasons, we would ag ain conc lude that no w arrant or excu se exists
for our dabbling in the su bjective; and certainly God’s W ord furnishes no authority
for such speculations.

Role M odels
The OT has become a stranger to many pulpits throughout the country, but
when it is entered , it is often treated as a repository of role models. The call to
imitate the faith of Abraham, the zeal of Josiah, the love of God exhibited by David,
the humility of Moses, or the leadership of Nehemiah reverberate through sermons
and literature. After all, what else can one do with the OT? Obscure history,
prophecies about other people who do not even exist anymore, endless genealogies,
laws from the dark ages—in the eyes of many, trivial irrelevance! So we look to the
OT for examples of godliness as a token gesture in the absence of any other
redeeming value. Interpreters appeal to Hebrews 11 as offering a sound precedent
for such an approach and quote 1 Cor 10:11: “These things happened to them as
examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the fulfillment of the
ages has come” as proof that their approach is legitimate.
A moment’s consideration, howe ver, before w e accept such a view . Is
there ever any indication as we read through the literature of the O T that the text’s
intention is to offer models for imitation? Though the text is not shy to commend
individuals for their righ teous beha vior, it is not inclined to urge the reader to “go
and do likewise.” In fact the literature often passes over commendable behavior
without a pause or skips past cond uct that is morally bankrupt without disapproval.
To put it briefly, the text rarely m oralizes. This w ould be an inexcusable oversight
if its intention was to teach lessons concerning good and bad behavior and
characteristics. Certainly one could claim that the appropriateness or inappropriate-
ness of certain behaviors is clear enough without necessitating explicit comment
from the author. At the same time there are many situations where the behavior is
not clearly right or wrong. Was Jonathan right to eat the honey? Was Elijah right
74 The Master’s Seminary Journal

to mock the prophets of Baal? Was David justified in working for the Philistines?
Was Mordecai acting appropriately when he refused to bow to Haman? (Did he also
refuse to bow to Ahasueras?) The questions could go on and on.
I would co ntend that a historical-gramm atical hermeneutical app roach to
the OT offers no supp ort for role models from the text. By this I mean to say that
objective criteria fail to su stain the claim that the text’s inten tion is to teach its
audience by m eans of the good and bad m odels of the characters in its narratives.
The fact that Hebrews 11 uses the OT accounts as a source for its examp les of faith
only shows that such examples can be gleaned from the literature. The interpreta-
tions of the author of H ebrew s were n ot a result of the application of historical-
grammatical hermeneutics to the text, they rather represent his subjective judgments.
Again we are quite w illing to accept his subjective jud gm ents for they are affirmed
through the inspiration he enjoys. Hermeneutical principles of contextual exeg esis
would not always lead us to his conclusions.13

Fulfillmen ts
The Gospel w riters, particu larly Matthew, revel in the opportunities to point
out to their readers all the prophecies that find their fulfillment in Jesus. Jesus
Him self spoke of the way in which the Scriptures pointed to Him (Luke 24:27). It
is therefore not unexpected that the church has long valued these connections
between Old and New and added considerably to the list throughout the ages.
Indeed, Christ’s fulfillment of prophecy h as becom e a centerpiece of apolog etics.
Yet, at the same time books and articles continue to be written addressing the means
by which these fulfillments have been identified. One does not have to be an
experienced exeg ete to notice tha t Hosea 11:1 in its contex t appears to have little
connection to the use M atthew puts it to when he identifies Jesus as fulfilling it. Yet
many have concluded that if we fail to find Matthew’s meaning in Hosea, we
undermine the authority of the text. If Matthew says that is what Hosea meant, then
that m ust be what Ho sea m eant.
The question we must ask, however, is whether M atthew is intending to
interpret the message of Hosea . As I have written elsewhere,14 I believe that it is
essential for us to see clearly the distinction between the message and the fulfillment.
The message of the prophet was understood by the prophet and his audience and is
accessible through the objective principles of historical-grammatical hermeneutics.
Fulfillment is not the message, but is the working out of God’s plan in history.
There are no hermeneutical principles within the grammatical-historical model that
enab le one to identify a fulfillment by reading and analyzing the prophecy. Like
types, sym bols and role models, fulfillment is often a matter of making a subjective

13
For mo re de tailed d iscus sion of th is issu e an d its p articu lar application to curriculum, see J.
Walton, L. Bisley, and C. W illiford, “ Bi ble Ba sed Cu rricu la an d th e C risis of S crip tura l A uth ority ,”
Christian Education Journal 13/3 (1993):83-94.
14
A. H ill an d J. W alto n, Survey of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000) 408-13.
 Inspired Subjectivity and Hermeneutical Objectivity 75

association.
As a result, we need not be concerned with adjusting our concept of
Hosea’s message so that it can accom mod ate M atthew’s idea of fulfillment. Biblical
autho rity is not jeopardized when the message and fulfillment are not the same.
They are different issues and are arrived at through different means. One can gladly
accept Jesus as the fu lfillment of Hosea 11:1 without seeing any more in the
message of Hosea than Hosea and his audience saw. Hosea is proclaiming a
message, not revealing a fulfillment. Matthew is not interpreting the message, he
is identifying fulfillm ent. If he w ere interpreting message we would have just cause
to question the validity of his hermeneutics; but since he is identifying fulfillment
we can neither inquire of his hermeneutics nor seek to imitate them , for there are
none that apply.
As with types, our reason for affirming and accepting Matthew’s
identification of fulfillments is not because he can offer objective data that give
evidence from the text of Hosea. Rather we accept his subjective assessment
because we believe him to be inspired. Hosea was concerned to proclaim the
message that was revealed to him. He did so and that messag e was comp rehen sible
to him and his audience and that same message can be identified today through
accepted hermeneutical principles. Hosea, however, could not anticipate how, when,
or in wh at wa ys his w ords w ould find fulfillment in the outworking of God’s plan.
His message did not include any information about fulfillment. That was to be
unveiled in later revelation.
The authority of God’s Word is found in the message. Fulfillments have
no authority until they become part of a biblical author’s message. When anyone
else offers an explanation of how some prophe cy was fulfilled, we have every reason
to ask, “W hy shou ld I believe that?” Th e subjective na ture of som eone’s identifica-
tion of fulfillm ent does not make the fulfillment untrue, it only means that they
cann ot claim God’s authority for it.

Conclusions

The authors of the Bible had a message to proclaim. That message

constitutes God’s revelation of Himself and comes with the authority of G od . W e
must be about the task of identifying that m essag e and subm itting ourselves to
God ’s authoritative Word. The authors of Scripture understood their message and
it has not changed. There may be value in types, symbols, role models, and
fulfillments, but, being subjective methods, they do not carry the authority of God’s
W ord unless they become incorporated in the inspired message of a biblical author.
When the authority of an author comes by means of inspiration, he does not need
to validate his statements by appealing to hermeneutical principles.15 We do not

15
Th is conclusion is, I believe, in line with that reached (through differen t ap pro ach es) b y W . W .
Klein, C. L. B l om b er g a n d R . L. H ub ba rd, Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (Dallas: Word, 1993)
125-32.
76 The Master’s Seminary Journal

wish to reproduce the hermeneutics of NT authors because they, by virtue of

inspiration, accrued au thority to them selves by m eans unav ailable to us. We seek
only to proclaim what the text, in its authority, has already revealed.
The fact that God has made use of certain methods in the past with
beneficial results does not justify the continuing practice of those m ethods. If a
person is converted through the improper interpretation of a verse, we must cred it
God ’s sovereignty, but should not retain our poor herm eneu tics just be cause God did
something throug h them . That G od rev ealed himself at times through what we
might identify as subjective procedures should not surprise us, but likewise it should
not thereby serve as commendation of the subjective procedure. God’s use of
allegory to insp ire Pau l or His use of role m odel by inferen ce to inspire the author
of Hebrew s does not suggest we should use those methods any more than the star
of the magi suggests we should practice astrology.
W e have been lax in expunging these subjective approaches, because often
they are being used to teach valuable, scriptural truths. Therefore we view them as
innoc ent. Subjective interpretation is not a danger because it is the enemy of truth.
It is a danger because it masquerades as having the authority of God. As evan geli-
cals, we take the authority of G od’s W ord very seriously— it is wha t defines us. Yet
we sit idly by, tolerating and even propounding for expedience’s sake the same tired
old staples of interpretation, vestiges of the bygone days of allegory and mysticism.
It is no wonder then that the cults find ripe harvest in our pews. Our peop le
have been so encouraged in subjective methods that the errors of the cults are no
longer transparent. It is no wonder that existential interpretation and n ew-age-style
popular deconstructionism thrive in lay Bible stud ies. If we cann ot con sistently
exec ute our he rmeneutical theories and articulate clearly how the authority of G od’s
W ord is to be recognized and appropriated, we should not be surprised when our
churches fester with biblical ignorance, hermeneutical impropriety, and the resulting
mise rably misinformed doctrine and practice that allows the liberty of jumping on
every bandwagon that passes by, for we have paved the way.
Have we eliminated the role of the Holy Spirit by being so restricted to
objective data? Not at all. Certainly one of the basic hermeneutical principles of
the fathers was “that only as people read the Bible in the enlightening power of the
Holy Spirit, with faith an d a spiritual und erstanding, can they come to a true
appreciation of its meanin g.” 16 But we must differentiate between determining what
the text is saying and what its impact should be in our lives.17 The authority of the
text is linked to wh at it is saying. The truth of the text can only b e app ropriated to
our lives throug h the w ork of the H oly Spirit and can only be spiritually discerned.
Just as the Holy Spirit does not convey to us the semantic range of Greek or Hebrew
words and does not inform us concerning the events of history, so we do not expect
the Holy Spirit to inform us of the meanin g and nature of Sheol in the OT or of the

16
Bromiley, “The Church Fathers and Holy Scripture” 214.
17
For discussion see Klein, Bl om be rg a nd Hu bb ard , Introduction to Biblical Interpretation 82-85.
 Inspired Subjectivity and Hermeneutical Objectivity 77

identity of the Angel of the Lord. These are matters of exegesis. Theological
discussion, like lexical and historical discussion, must be submissive to its guiding
hermeneutical principles. The Reform ers were not ignorant of this.

The Reformers also distinguished between internal and external perspicuity. This
distinction calls attention to objective interpretation of the words of Scripture and
subjective appropriation of them to the heart of the reader. There is an external,
objective meaning to Scripture that can be understood by any interpreter, pagan or
Christian. There is the internal significance of personal application and love that is not
discovered apart from the work of the Holy Spirit. This is the “spiritual discernment”
about which the text itself speaks.
The external-internal distinction protects two flanks. On the one hand it recognizes
that there is some revelation that is not fully grasped apart from the Spirit’s work of
illumination. On the other hand it speaks against the idea that the Bible can be
interpreted only by mystics. What the Bible says can be interpreted accurately without
the Holy Ghost. The devil himself is capable of doing sound exegesis. However, the
saving power of God’s Word will never penetrate the heart without the work of the
Spirit.18

W e must push on in our quest to preserve the objectivity of our hermeneu-

tics, for it provides the foundation for our commitment to biblical authority. John
Calvin’s words are still true: “It is the first business of an interpreter to let his author
say what he does, instead of attributing to him w hat w e think he ou ght to sa y.” 19 For
an interpretation of the text to claim credibly that it represents the authoritative
teaching of the text, it must depend on either hermeneutical objectivity or inspired
subjectivity.

18
R . C. Sproul, “Biblical Interpretation and the Analogy of Faith,” in Inerrancy an d Co mm on Sen se,
ed. R. R. Nicole and J. R. Michaels (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980) 132-33.
19
“Preface” to the Comm entary of Romans.