'n Hermeneutiese beoordeling van Johannes Calvyn se hantering van meervoudige verklarings van Bybeltekste in sy kommentaar op die Romeinebrief

Abstract

An integral part of the practice of exegesis of a Bible text is that the exegete often considers various possible explanations and interpretations of the text, and eventually makes his choice on the basis of the hermeneutic framework to which he subscribes. If, however, he compares his own exegesis to the interpretations of other exegetes, it often results in the problem of multiple and even opposing interpretations of the same Bible text, even if the exegesis is presented within the very same hermeneutic framework. The most recent examples of such differences are found in the debate about homosexuality in die Dutch Reformed Church and the role of women in the church within the Reformed Churches of South Africa. It is clear that the exegetical differences in these debates cannot be resolved, probably due to a lack of clearly formulated uniform measures and norms by which differing interpretations can be weighed and judged. The aim of this study is to make a contribution towards formulating such measures and norms. This is done by making a study of the measures and norms that the reformer John Calvin applied when he had to compare and weigh different interpretations of a Bible text. The hypothesis of the study is that Calvin, without explicitly formulating his measures and norms, indeed applied them in his commentaries when comparing variant interpretations of the text. The main purpose of this study is to identify and formulate the measures and norms that Calvin used in his Commentary on Paul’s letter to the Romans, and to present them as a point of departure in history for reformed hermeneutics of today. The investigation begins with a literature study about the hermeneutic principles and rules that were followed by Calvin in his writings, followed by a survey of passages in Calvin’s Commentary on Romans in which differing interpretations are mentioned and discussed. It proved that Calvin treated such differences in more than one way. In some instances he was willing to accept interpretations that differed from his own unconditionally, sometimes conditionally. Sometimes he found more than one interpretation acceptable and despite his own preference, would leave the final choice to the reader. There are, however, a large number of interpretations that he found less acceptable or that he rejected entirely and strongly refuted. Also interpretation differences that led to differences in translation, are pointed out and treated in Calvin’s commentary. In the study the reasons that Calvin in his treatment of each interpretation difference gave for his judgement, were identified. Based on a study of these reasons the various hermeneutic principles, rules, norms and measures that Calvin used, are identified and discussed. It proves that he, in weighing multiple interpretations of a text, considered inter alia intrinsic matters, cultural-historic matters, agreement with the teachings of Paul, agreement with the total Scriptural revelation, and also some external factors. In the final part of the study the principles, measures and norms applied by twenty first century reformed exegetes in the practical treatment of multiple textual interpretations are compared to those that were applied by Calvin. The way in which interpretation differences are treated by modern-day reformed exegetes is studied at the hand of a literature study, with special focus on the debate about homosexuality in die Dutch Reformed Church, and the role of women in the church within the Reformed Churches of South Africa, as practical examples of how interpretation differences are treated by exegetes. It is observed that all of the exegetes in the consulted literature present their interpretation broadly within the framework of reformed hermeneutic, on the basis of the same principles, measures and norms as those that Calvin subscribed to. Yet serious differences exist, often due to opposing views among the exegetes about how important or decisive each of these measures and norms are for interpretation. Eventually it proves that many of the differences are rather related to or even driven by dynamic globalised and continually changing cultural situations, as well as a humanistic basis for the judgment of moral and ethical issues