Owen's Hermeneutics: A Breath of Fresh Air

In the modern West, there is almost universally such a strong sense of progress that the past is incessantly despised or looked upon with condescension. I don't think the fields of linguistics and hermeneutics are exempt either. Older handlers of language are frequently spoken of as apes that simply plopped noncontextual dictionary definitions into the meaning of words in a given context, ignoring like idiots the obvious, namely, the larger linguistic structures of which the words partake.

Now in saying this sort of thing, I don't want to dismiss the real instances of progress that have been made, nor ignore the shortcomings or bone-ignorance of the past. But I do want to say that our sense of progress is a bit overblown, and oftentimes overweeningly arrogant. Moreover, and this is my chief concern, important methods and approaches and lessons are sometimes lost.

What follows now is a small sampling (three statements) from John Owen's work on the Spirit, from the third volume of his Works, with my brief commentary along the way. The first one particularly pleases me.

Here is Owen on hermeneutics: "Scripture is able of itself to manifest its own intention and meaning unto humble and diligent inquirers into it" (47).

This sort of statement is conspicuously absent in modern
discussions and treatments of hermeneutics (at least as far as I've been able to listen in). And I want to point out here four important elements in his assertion: 1) Scripture is competent to interpret Scripture and make plain its sense (esoteric and specialized knowledge are not necessary for a true and deep knowledge of the things of the Spirit; and recall, as B. B. Warfield pointed out some time ago, we see that Scripture and God are spoken of virtually interchangeably at times; see, e.g., Rom. 9:17 and Ex. 9:16); 2) there is divine authorial intentionality in Scripture (not just human authorial intentionality; we're dealing with two authors, not one); 3) Scripture really means something (which should not have to be said, but alas, we move about in very murky waters these days); 4) and there are God-ordained means for understanding Scripture aright (Owen highlights what are perhaps the chief qualifications: humble and diligent inquiry).

Now speaking on how the Hebrew word for "Spirit" (ruah) is used variously in the Old Testament, Owen says: "The context determines the signification of the word beyond all just exceptions" (49). Really this is all I've learned thus far in graduate school, and Owen states the obvious with just a handful of words. He then gives six common different senses for the Hebrew word (ruah), with the particular nuance shaped by the context of each usage.

Next and last (and here is just a word to induce zeal for learning Hebrew and Greek), Owen says: "I cannot but observe . . . the great necessity there is of searching the original text in the interpretation of the Scriptures . . ." (50). Maybe there seems to be some tension here with my appropriation of Owen's first assertion above. I don't really think that there is, but I'm willing to think this one through more. In any case, let all who would be teachers of Holy Scripture learn the languages according to ability, calling, and opportunity.