Inductive Bible Study

A Comprehensive Guide to the Practice of Hermeneutics

David R. Bauer, Robert A. Traina

• Publisher: Baker Academic
• Year: 2011
• Print ISBN: 9780801097430
• eBook ISBN: 9781441214515
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Biblical Criticism & Interpretation

Following up Robert Traina's classic Methodical Bible Study, this book introduces the practice of inductive Bible study to a new generation of students, pastors, and church leaders. The authors, two seasoned educators with over sixty combined years of experience in the classroom, offer guidance on adopting an inductive posture and provide step-by-step instructions on how to do inductive Bible study. They engage in conversation with current hermeneutical issues, setting forth well-grounded principles and processes for biblical interpretation and appropriation. The process they present incorporates various methods of biblical study to help readers hear the message of the Bible on its own terms.

Part 1

---

Theoretical Foundations

At the very outset, any discussion of biblical hermeneutics should address the issue of method. Hermeneutics deals with the way one thinks about and executes the practice of studying the Bible. Thus the concern for practice or performance poses the fundamental question as to how it is to be done, which is essentially the question of method. This present study of hermeneutics begins, then, by exploring the meaning of method and the ways in which method illumines the practice of Bible study.

Our English word method is really a transliteration of the Greek methodos, which literally means a “way of transit,” a way of moving from one point to another or from where we are toward our destination. The following brief definitions capture the essence of method:

• Webster’s II New College Dictionary defines method as “a manner or means of procedure, especially a systematic and regular way of accomplishing a given task, . . . an orderly and planned arrangement.”[1]
• John Dewey, perhaps the most prominent educational theorist in the twentieth century, said, “Method at bottom is but the way of doing things followed in any given case, . . . the main steps that have to be taken . . . and the crucial points where conditions of growth have to be carefully maintained and fostered.”[2]
• In his careful reflection on the ways in which method has been defined and used, Howard Tillman Kuist concludes: “Conceived in its widest possible scope, method is procedure. And the primary consideration in procedure of any kind is that it be suited to the end in view. Experience teaches men that when anything is to be done, some ways are better, certain movements more effective, than others. . . . Method is the conscious accommodation of one’s powers to the requirements of the situation.”[3]

To summarize these definitions, method has

• character—is orderly, systematic (Webster)
• content—has certain specific steps (Dewey)
• criterion—what is the best way or most suitable to the task (Kuist)

The basic meaning of method, then, is “the best specific procedure for doing anything,” where “best” is determined by what is suitable to the task. Hence, central to the notion of method is the principle of suitability. A requisite characteristic of method is that it should correspond in nature with its objective, for it is the means by which the objective is reached. For example, method applied to throwing a baseball would include, among other things, gripping the ball firmly, cocking the arm back, and propelling the ball by a forward flip of the arm. These steps are true because of the very nature of throwing a baseball. In pursuing any significant activity one should always ask, What is the nature of the task, and given the nature of the task, what is the best, most suitable, most effective way to proceed?

The application of the principle of suitability to Bible study involves reflecting upon the three major factors involved in the study of the Bible:

1. The Bible
2. The student/reader/interpreter
3. The relationship between the Bible and the student/reader/interpreter

The operative question is, Given the nature of the Bible in all aspects of its existence, the nature of the student, and the relationship between the Bible and the student, what is the most suitable way to proceed?

We devote the remainder of this part to the presentation of the major characteristics of proper Bible study. These characteristics stem from our convictions regarding the nature of the Bible, of the student, and of the relationship between the Bible and the student. We will sometimes make these convictions explicit, but at other times they will remain implicit. However, these convictions consistently stand behind all that will be presented in this enumeration of major characteristics and, indeed, in the presentation of Bible study throughout the remainder of the book. We emphasize, however, that these characteristics and the underlying convictions from which they stem are presented as a working hypothesis. We recognize that they do not possess anything like a stamp of divine imprimatur but are set forth for the thoughtful consideration of the reader, who is invited to accept them or reject them, yet hopefully always on the basis of reasonable and evidential considerations.

1

Inductive Study

Meaning of Induction and Deduction

The present discussion employs the term inductive synonymously with evidential: that is, a commitment to the evidence in and around the text so as to allow that evidence to determine our understanding of the meaning of the text, wherever that evidence may lead. Deduction is used synonymously with presuppositional: that is, a commitment to certain assumptions (whether stated or implicit) that we allow to determine our understanding of the meaning of the text.

The importance of adopting an inductive approach to the study of the Bible is based on the principle of suitability, which stands at the center of the very notion of method. Induction best suits the nature of the Bible, which stands outside of ourselves and has its own message to speak to us, a message that has its basis in, and emerges out of, its own social, linguistic, and historical context. The Bible, as we personify it, beckons us to hear its message on its own terms; it wishes to speak a new word to us, challenging our presuppositions over against conforming to them. Induction is the method of history and the humanities, including literature, whereas deduction is the method of mathematics, which assumes a self-established closed system. But an inductive approach is appropriate for exploring realities that have an existence of their own and cannot be contained by a system that we bring to them.

Essential Aspects of Induction and Deduction

An inductive approach to Bible study has two essential aspects: an inductive spirit, or attitude, and an inductive process that implements such a spirit and attitude. Ideally an inductive attitude precedes an inductive process, but at any rate, both must be present and are indispensable for genuine inductive Bible study.

The test of the inductive spirit is whether one’s approach is characterized by radical openness to any conclusion required by the biblical evidence. This attitude is the inner dimension of the inductive approach, while any specific process that might be considered inductive is its outer expression and implementation.

The deductive spirit and the inductive spirit are mutually exclusive. The deductive spirit is dogmatic and authoritarian, absolute and categorical, characterized by a closed mind. It amounts to hermeneutical absolutism. It does not entertain the possibility of being in error and therefore is unwilling to change. It is not open to challenge or dissent. It is resistant to the discussion of differing views. It is often concerned with seeking supportive proof texts for a position already held. This dogmatic mentality is well expressed in the saying “My mind is made up; don’t confuse me with the facts.”

The deductive attitude may be motivated by the fear that cherished traditions are subject to challenge. Such traditions, often based on the acceptance of what a person has heard preached or taught, may not have been examined critically in the light of the biblical text. They are sometimes viewed as foundational to one’s belief system, and the fear exists that an open-minded scrutiny of them might cause the belief system to crumble.

Persons with this mentality try to control the outcome of Bible study by indicating in advance the interpretations that should result from the process. Accordingly, certain creedal presuppositions, including various theological systems or particular doctrines, are brought to the Scriptures and inevitably predetermine the outcome of the interpretation of texts.[1] The process is circular and self-confirming. In such cases, instead of hearing the text on its own terms, the interpreter tells the text what it should mean.

Still others have problems with the biblical worldview and consequently try to interpret the text so that it conforms to their own contrasting worldview. Thus, instead of focusing at the interpretive phase on the message being communicated through the text and leaving value judgments until later, they begin by imposing their own views on the text and reading it accordingly. For example, some people make an a priori assumption that the universe is closed and that miracles cannot happen, so they interpret miracle stories as “myths.” Others begin with the assumption that transcendent divine revelation is impossible; therefore they understand the text exclusively in terms of the history of religions, as a record of merely human thinking and striving after the Divine. Even social and political agendas—such as feminism, liberation theology, capitalism, or socialism—have been brought to the hermeneutical process in order to predetermine its outcome. Among the major concerns of the leaders at the beginning of the inductive Bible study movement were the so-called assured results of biblical criticism, which those who taught inductive Bible study recognized to be actually a set of assumptions (some of them better grounded than others, but all of them speculative) that often served as a prism through which to view the biblical text. One could cite many other examples of more or less unexamined views that have been used by those with a dogmatic, deductive spirit.

In contrast, the inductive spirit and the process by which it is implemented seek to be undogmatic. The inductively minded person welcomes discussion and even challenges; this eagerness is based on the desire to hear whatever the text has to say, whether one agrees or disagrees. Such an inductively minded person recognizes that at a later point one will have opportunity to make value judgments concerning the message communicated by the text. Furthermore, one who has this inductive spirit is willing to acknowledge one’s own fallibility and to begin any interpretation with the statement, “I may be wrong, but this is my understanding and the evidential reasons for it.” Such a person is open to changing one’s view if the evidence warrants it. In fact, the person with a truly inductive spirit will actively seek differing interpretations and the reasons for them. Even if one does not find grounds to justify a change in one’s own understanding of the text, at least one will have a better understanding and perhaps a better appreciation for differing points of view.

If what has been said above about the character of induction is valid, some of what passes as inductive Bible study is not truly inductive because this kind of spirit is lacking. One can mimic particular techniques of the inductive process while harboring a deductive spirit, thereby giving the appearance of induction without its reality. In such cases the deductive mentality takes over and becomes dominant at some point in the process.

Fortunately, one can begin with a deductive spirit and eventually adopt an inductive spirit through a direct study of the text. This transformation often happens when the inferential process—the process of reasoning from evidential premises to possible conclusions, which is often used subconsciously—is brought to the level of consciousness and the tests for its soundness are applied.

Conversely, one can begin with an undogmatic spirit and go awry because of the absence of a proper process to implement it; having a radical openness to the text is not sufficient. It is essential to identify a process that truly allows the text to speak for itself, which is the goal of the person with an inductive spirit. One must avoid divorcing an inductive spirit from an inductive process if one hopes to genuinely engage in inductive Bible study.

The discussion now turns to a focus on the second component of inductive Bible study—the inductive process. This process is the attempt to implement an inductive spirit. The reader must not lose sight of the indispensability of the inductive spirit, which gives rise to the process. Otherwise the process will become form devoid of the spirit that gives it meaning and purpose.

The inductive process is the test as well as the expression of the inductive spirit or attitude. In general, the inductive process is whatever is most effective and efficient in determining the meaning of the text and thus effectuating or implementing an inductive attitude. In the following pages, we propose a specific inductive process by which we intend to accomplish this goal. We set forth this process in an undogmatic, inductive spirit because this process too should be open to discussion and challenge. Readers do need to implement this process in order to understand it, but once they understand it, we urge readers to determine for themselves the inductive process that in their judgment best implements the inductive spirit.

Both the deductive spirit and the inductive spirit are expressed in a process of inferential reasoning that flows from them. Inferential reasoning—drawing conclusions from premises about the meaning of a passage—is inevitable and unavoidable in any understanding of the biblical text. The inferential reasoning may be subconscious or conscious, presuppositional or evidential, dogmatic or hypothetical, illogical or logical, invalid or valid. One thing is certain: inferential reasoning is always present when interpretation occurs.

One does not need to become skilled in proper inferential reasoning to gain what the community of faith considers to be a saving knowledge from the Scriptures; however, those who aspire to leadership in the community of faith should develop skills in inferential reasoning in order to gain a more accurate and profound grasp of the scriptural message.

In the process of inferential reasoning, some constants or essentials flow from both induction and deduction. Both deduction and induction contain two major components: one or more premises followed by an inference, sometimes called a conclusion. A premise is a statement or assertion from which one may causally derive an inference or conclusion. Thus “t...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Contents
• List of Figures
• Foreword by Eugene H. Peterson
• Preface
• Abbreviations
• Introduction
• Part 1 Theoretical Foundations
• Part 2 Observing and Asking
• Part 3 Answering or Interpreting
• Part 4 Evaluating and Appropriating
• Part 5 Correlation
• Epilogue
• Appendix A: General Discussion of Induction and Deduction
• Appendix B: Presuppositions in Contemporary Hermeneutical Discussion
• Appendix C: Selectivity
• Appendix D: The Use of Original-Language Resources
• Appendix E: Critical Methods in Inductive Bible Study
• Appendix F: Logical Outlines
• Bibliography
• Author Index
• Subject Index
• Notes