Christ-followers are called to combat false ideas raised up against the knowledge of God (2 Cor. 10). It seems there is an endless number of dangerous ideas always knocking on the door of the church. At our present point in history, however, there are three particular dangers currently facing evangelicals: the denial of objectivity, the adoption of “wokeness” ideology, and the weakening of biblical inerrancy. We only have space here to briefly examine the first of these dangers.

When one thinks about apologetics, he usually thinks about such disciplines as philosophy, history, archaeology, etc. There is one area, however, that is relatively undeveloped in the practice of apologetics, and yet it is ripe for the work: literary studies. I am not talking about what genre the gospels happen to be, or if the saints in Matthew 27 were literally raised, or any such argument that has been popular as of late. I am talking about theories in English and literature that dramatically influence the field of hermeneutics (how we study the Bible). While there are many issues to address, such as deconstructivism, postmodernism, etc., the issue that seems to be most prevalent in standard hermeneutics textbooks is the role of the interpreter and how he either uncovers or imparts meaning to the biblical texts. In this article I will talk about two books that are standard for evangelical studies on biblical interpretation, and why I think they are undermining the objective meaning of the text.

The Books and Their Claims

The first book is Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, Revised and Updated, by William W. Klein, Craig L. Blomberg, and Robert L. Hubbard Jr. In general, this is a very good book, which is why it is used by many Bible colleges and seminaries. I even use it in my classes. The overall hermeneutical principles laid out in the book are very good. So what’s the problem?

The problem is what the authors say about the role of the interpreter and the nature of bias, presuppositions, and preunderstanding (the body of knowledge the reader brings to the text). They state:

“No one interprets anything without a set of underlying assumptions. When we presume to explain the meaning of the Bible, we do so with a set of preconceived ideas or presuppositions. These presuppositions may be examined and stated, or simply embraced unconsciously. But anyone who says that he or she has discarded all presuppositions and will only study the text objectively and inductively is either deceived or naïve.” (143)

It is certainly true that we all have biases, etc. However, the startling claim these authors make is that, due to our biases, we can’t study the Bible objectively. Unfortunately, and per usual for these kinds of books, the notion of “objectivity” is left undefined and unclear. They later deny that such biases leave the reader bereft of objectivity; however, they do not explain how he can be objective since they have seemingly taken away that possibility via the role of biases and presuppositions. Such is especially the case given this statement:

“The preunderstanding and presuppositions of the interpreter contribute enormously to the results of the interpretive process. We might even say they determine the results.” (197)

If the preunderstanding and presuppositions determine the interpretive results, then it is not clear at all how the reader can be objective. We wouldn’t discover the truth or meaning of the text, we would determine it... Read More