Hermeneutics is the science or art of interpretation. It is from a Greek word meaning to interpret, explain, translate or bridge a gap. Hermes (equivalent to Mercury) was supposed to be the messenger of the gods and the deity of writing, arts and sciences. It can be defined as
The science of interpreting an author's language or Principles, laws and methods of interpretation. Hermeneutics can apply to any sort of literature but it especially refers to the Bible, God’s inspired Word.
Lateral thinking is not, as some wags would have it, thinking whilst lying on one side! The word does come from the Latin word for side but the idea here is of coming at a subject sideways, ie from an unusual angle. Much favoured by Dr Edward de Bono and others in recent times, the idea is of solving problems by means of unorthodox or apparently illogical approaches.
So what about lateral hermeneutics? There is certainly plenty of unorthodox hermeneutics going on. As when people come up with a doctrine first and then try to find something in the Bible to support it. Whether they do this unconsciously or on purpose, it surely will not do. Yet plenty of it goes on. Then there are those who begin with Scripture but quickly disregard the plain meaning of the words in context and come up with their unique interpretation. When so called Jehovah’s Witnesses claim that what Jesus meant when he spoke to the thief on the cross was not I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise but Today I say to you, you will be with me in Paradise that is not lateral hermeneutics but straightforward Scripture twisting. As for obscurantists who want to forget grammar and find hidden meanings by adding up the numerical equivalents of the original letters, they are hardly worth taking time to refute.
But may be there is something here. In the late William Hendriksen’s helpful commentary on Romans, under his comments on Romans 5 you will find a poem he has written based on the chapter. This is certainly not the usual method employed for elucidating the text by scholarly Reformed commentators. Hendriksen feels obliged to justify himself a little. In order to do so, he mentions a number of more unusual but defencible approaches to getting at the meaning of a text. It may be that some of these could be a help to us in understanding the Scriptures better. He mentions,
1. Acting the passage out. What is in mind is not an elaborate production but simply acting out, alone or with others, events depicted in a certain passage. The moment you consider where characters stood or what was the look on their faces you have begun to consider questions often overlooked in more conventional readings of a text. This method also highlights exactly how actions were performed. With these things in mind think of Ehud slaying Eglon or Jesus washing the disciple’s feet or Paul handing over the Gentile churches' gift to the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem.
2. Illustrating the passage. However limited your artistic skills you may nevertheless find valuable insight into certain passages of Scripture by means of attempting to draw or model things referred to. I defy anyone to have a real grasp of the Old Testament Tabernacle and Temple without means of some sort of visual aid. The device has similarities with the one above but extends to passages where there is little action or that involve non human creatures. The images in Revelation and some Old Testament prophecies are not easily represented but in merely trying to draw them one notices elements easily missed when simply reading the text.
On a different level someone told me recently of an illustration in a children’s magazine of Jeremiah being hoisted out of the cistern somehow clean shaven! Surely not. Similar realisations await anyone who tries to portray Joseph at the various stages of his sojourn in Egypt. Or more significantly, picture in your mind Titus the Greek in his toga meeting the long robed and bearded Jews of Jerusalem who so opposed the reception of the Gentiles into the church.
These methods are not necessarily appropriate for other uses and we may have difficulties in some cases. Certainly we must be careful about any representation of the Lord. His portrayal in paintings and drama does much harm.
3. Engaging in a debate about the passage. Often where there is disagreement on a passage it forces us to take a fresh look at it. This can open our eyes to things that have remained hidden. Sometimes this happens in the midst of argument. There is the obvious danger here of finding support for a position where it clearly does not exist but at other times it can prove a genuine means of insight.
4. Writing a poem based on the passage. Similar insights would be gained from any re-working of a passage in written form, such as in order to provide a unified or simplified account. Such work sometimes involves consulting parallel passages, an important hermeneutical device in its own right.
5. One other method that Hendriksen does not mention but of which he makes use is the diagrammatic presentation of a verse or passage. In his commentaries he often draws attention to chiastic parallelism by means of little ‘X’ shaped diagrams. Similarly his Bible Survey gives a helpful spiral diagram illustrating the encircling route of the judgments in Amos 1 and 2. More Than Conquerors has a useful diagram illustrating the vision of Revelation 4 and 5. Such devices are in some ways the fruit of other hermeneutical methods but are worth mentioning here. If you cannot make sense of a passage try putting it down in diagram form.
The suitability, of course, of such approaches will vary from passage to passage. It is unlikely that earth shattering new doctrines will be discovered by such means but it may be a help to us in entering into the spirit of a passage. By such means we may well gain new insights that would have been denied us by more conventional methods. When forced to think of questions that would never have been faced otherwise new understandings can sometimes be found even of familiar passages.
This article first appeared in Grace Magazine
