In my previous Theological Soapbox I described the historical-critical method of Biblical exegesis. The goal of this method is to discover the literal meaning of Scripture, where literal is defined as the meaning that the human author of the Biblical passage intended. It is not to be confused with literal as some fundamentalist Christians use this term, by which they indicate an interpretation which requires that descriptive Biblical passages be read as accounts of historical fact. For example, they would interpret the story in Genesis of the first man and woman as a description of historical events.

An exegete following the historical-critical method would interpret Genesis differently. The exegete would say that the authors of this passage did not think as we moderns do. We distinguish between an event and the meaning of the event. We consider the event to be caused by previous events. Both events and the causal process can be described scientifically. They exist outside of us. However, it is we who give an event its meaning. Unlike the event itself, which is the product of previous historical events, the meaning we give an event is the result of a social process of interpretation. The physical properties of the event are fixed in space and time, its meaning is variable, a product of the human mind.

The ancient Biblical authors did not separate an event from its meaning; in fact, they viewed the meaning of an event as the most important thing about the event. The authors of the first two chapters of Genesis were concerned with the meaning, not just of one event, but with the meaning of human life as the People of Israel experienced it. The authors conceptualized this meaning in the form of a story about God. This story is a myth. The events of this story do not exist in historical time. The story unfolds in the realm of meaning, outside the cause-and-effect sequence of historical events. It describes how the authors and their People experience their life and their relationship to their God.

The historical-critical exegete, being familiar with the genre of myth, asks, What meaning for human life, as they experienced it, did the authors of these passages intend to convey? 

Exegesis by the historical-critical method has proved immensely illuminating over the past two centuries. The meanings intended by the Biblical authors are rich in spiritual truth. Taking mythical and poetic Biblical passages as historical accounts puts them into a straitjacket because we then limit their meaning to what we consider to be historically possible. When they are liberated to be myth and poetry, they can speak to us of the larger context in which history takes place. They bring us into the realm of God.

At the same time, if we limit the meaning of Biblical passages to what their authors intended, we may be shutting out other meanings that are equally or perhaps more important than what the authors intended. To see this we have to look closely at how Scripture is divinely inspired.
We hold that Scripture is inspired by God. How does God inspire a Biblical author? Does he put words into the authors head? Does he dictate the text? Some people think so, but I think not. I take for my model of divine inspiration the story of Marys visit to Elizabeth. When Elizabeth heard Marys greeting, the child in her womb, the prophet we know as John the Baptist, leaped for joy. This was Johns first prophecy. The child sensed, through the sound of Marys voice, the presence of God. His leap was a prophetic symbol, interpreted correctly by Elizabeth, that the Lord was present in Marys womb.

Did God say to the baby John, I (or my Son, or the Messiah) am now present in the world, causing the baby to leap. That clearly is nonsense. The unborn child was incapable of understanding any kind of communication in words or concepts. The Holy Spirit was in John in such a way that at the sound of Marys voice, Johns body felt the presence of God. But had he not heard the sound of Marys voice, the baby would have not felt the presence of God.

The gift of inspiration, then, was not the sound of Marys voice, but the recognition that the sound held the presence of God. The sound had to be heard by natural means. The recognition of  what the sound contained came by inspiration.

In the same way, God does not give words to prophets. Prophets hear the words of others, or think up words on their own, as they try to understand what God is doing in the world. This trying to understand is hard work. But when the prophet finally hears or speaks words that are true, something within the prophet leaps for joy. The prophet recognizes that the words are true. Grace builds on nature. Inspiration confirms an understanding that has been arrived at by natural means.

So the prophet speaks, but that is only half the story. The prophecy only succeeds when the hearer recognizes that the words are true. And this recognition is also inspired. But has the hearer understood what the prophet has understood? Do the words mean the same to the hearer as to the prophet?

It is my view, and that of many before me, that the hearer of inspired words may interpret the words differently from their author and still by divine inspiration recognize the truth of the words as he, the hearer, understands them.

An example of this is how the Gospel of Matthew interprets the prophecy of Isaiah:  Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel, which means, God with us (Mt 1:23). (In the original Hebrew text, it is a young woman, not a virgin that gives birth.) Isaiahs prophecy concerned the birth of a child in the prophets own time, hundreds of years before the birth of Jesus. That is what his prophecy meant to him and that is what he intended to say. And this message was true. Matthew, on the other hand, hears in Isaiahs words a prophecy concerning the birth of Jesus. This is what Matthew understands. It is not what Isaiah intended. Nevertheless, Matthew is inspired to recognize the truth of the meaning he gives to Isaiahs words.

Had Matthew limited himself to interpreting the Bible only by means of the historical-critical method, he would have closed himself off from the inspiration of the Holy Spirit which enabled him to recognize a greater truth than what Isaiah intended to say about a child born in Isaiahs time.

What if we were to approach Biblical passages the way literary critics approach a work of literature? For the critic, what the work means may be much more than what the author may have intended it to mean. The work is something which, once written, has its own separate existence apart from the writer. Because the work is made up of language, and language is inherently ambiguous, the work contains a multiplicity of meanings (some of which may contradict one another). Some of those meanings may be far more profound or beautiful than what the writer intended. If the works of Shakespeare, for example, could only mean what Shakespeare intended them to mean, we would have become bored with them very quickly. But as it is, each generation can find in the words of Shakespeare meanings and truth that Shakespeare himself never dreamed of.

What then of Scripture? We are not concerned with all the meanings it contains as an artifact of language. We are concerned with those meanings that communicate truths which God wishes to reveal. It is possible for the Holy Spirit to inspire in us John the Baptist-like recognition of the truth expressed by one or more of the many meanings the text contains. This would seem to be a good thing, and I cannot think of a reason why the Holy Spirit would not do so.

It is true that we avoid a danger if we accept only the meaning intended by the Biblical author, for then we cannot be misled by other, possibly false meanings the text may contain. For example, we can say to people who use the Book of Revelation to label some contemporary person or institution as the Whore of Babylon, Your interpretation is unacceptable because we can show that this in not what the author of the book intended.

Yes, there is danger in allowing the wider scope of interpretation, but it is mitigated by controls. There is the text itself. While a passage may be inherently ambiguous, there is an infinitude of meanings it does not permit. If the passage of Isaiah quoted by Matthew had originally read, A prostitute shall conceive and bear a son, the interpretation, A virgin shall conceive and bear a son, would have been impossible.

Secondly there is the control that passages maintain internal consistency. If the original Isaiah had read, A young women shall conceive and bear a son and his name shall be called Emmanuel and in the next verse added, This shall be her second-born, once again the interpretation, A virgin shall conceive and bear a son, would have been impossible.

Finally there is the control of the sensus fidelium (what is believed in faith by the entire body of the faithful). One persons interpretation cannot be inspired if the People of God reject it. For the Spirit that inspires the individual is the same Spirit that inspires the Church.

With these controls in place, we can invite readers of the Bible to share with us a meaning contained in a text that they believe is a true interpretation inspired by the Holy Spirit, even if it is different from the meaning intended by the Biblical author. This makes the Bible an inexhaustible source of truth for every generation that seeks in the Bible guidance for the circumstances of their times. Many, perhaps most, claims of inspiration will turn out to be unfounded. But those interpretations which truly are inspired, which are in time confirmed by the sensus fidelium, will be invaluable to the People of God.