Hermeneutics is the art of determining what the “meaning of a text” is for us. Often people with an understanding of hermeneutics are on the lookout for misuse of Scripture. I call these people the “hermeneutics police”. For an example, see this article (which I enjoyed). Now on the whole, these guys do the church a great service by exposing some real exegetical criminals. But just occasionally, I wonder whether they get a little bit carried away and only allow us to take one “main point” away from a text.

The Meaning of a Text

Quite often the hermenuitics police point out an illegal use of a text: “That’s not the point, the original author did not mean to say that.” But how do you know what you can or can’t use a text for? Didn’t some of the biblical authors themselves use texts in inconventional ways? I think there are a number of levels of teaching that can be drawn out from a passage, which I will enumerate below. I will use the story of the Saducees asking Jesus a question about the resurrection in Mark 12:18-27 as my example text.

The Main Point

Well this comes as one example in a series of questions posed to Jesus that were designed to either trap him or test him. In each case he demonstrates his wisdom and authority and puts his questioners on the back foot with his superior handling of Scripture. I would say therefore that Mark’s main point in this passage is to show us (by means of an illustration) Jesus’ wisdom and authority. But we should note that even though this is the “point” of the passage, it is never stated explicitly.

The Direct Teaching

The passage does actually directly teach us some stuff (i.e. spelled out unambiguously for us). For example we are told about the Saducees’ beliefs (v18). We also are taught that Jesus believed in the resurrection of the dead (v25). Taking it for granted that Mark is viewing Jesus’ teaching with approval, we could also say that this passage directly teaches the resurrection of the dead. It also directly teaches that there will not be marriage when we are in the resurrected state. Notice that these direct teachings are not the same as what we picked out as the “main point” above.

Inferred teaching

There are also some inferred points that we can pick up on. For example, if we were doing a study on angels, this passage might suggest that they do not have gender. It might infer something about an “intermediate state” after death – Jesus considered the Patriarchs to be living. These types of observation will make their way into systematic theology books, but we are now some way off what is the “main point” of the passage.

Illustrated principles

Then there are some principles that are illustrated by the passage. We might observe how Jesus deals with a hostile question – he answers using Scripture. We might suggest that this is a good model for resolving theological debates. We might also observe that though the Saducees did in fact know the Scriptures, they didn’t really “know” them, and nor did they know the power of God. This could be seen as an example of how it is possible to have a lot of theological and biblical knowlege but still be in the dark. Again these are not the “main point”, but would hardly be disputed as “valid points”, even though we acknowlege that the author’s intention is not explicitly to teach us these things.

Vaguely related stuff

There are of course all kinds of other directions we could go in. We could talk about polygamy – it was clearly unthinkable to the Saducees that a woman might have seven husbands in heaven. You could equally discuss the ethics of “Levirite marriage” and whether it should apply to Christians today. You could even take the phrase “You are badly mistaken” and aim it at whatever group of people you felt were misinterpreting Scripture.

Conclusion

So if you were to preach on Mark 12:18-27, which of the above could legitimately come out? If the “main point” is missing, I would say something is wrong. There needs to be a sense of context. I would not have a problem either with people making points from what I have called “direct teaching” and “inferred teaching” so long as they were not misrepresented as being the main point. But what about “illustrated principles”? Must their use be banned? I don’t think so. Again as long as we are clear that they are not the “main point” of the passage, and we show how what we draw out harmonises with other Scriptures, then these things can be very profitable to discuss.

So I’ll agree with the “hermeneutics police” on most occasions – preachers often take a passage and make it prove some very “vaguely related stuff”. But please don’t insist that we can never consider some of the “illustrated principles” and ponder how we might apply them to our own situation. My own hermeneutic position is that God actually does intend to speak to us in this way through Scripture. As long as it is not uncontrolled, then finding practical points for our own application is a legitimate use of Scripture.