Liberation Theology and

Hermeneutical
Preunderstandings

Larry D. Pettegrew
Professor of Systematic and Historical Theology
Central Baptist Theological Seminary, Minneapolis, Minnesota

"Liberation Theology," writes Raymond Hundley, "is quickly

becoming one of the most influential and controversial theological
movements in the world. Less than 25 years since its birth it has al-
ready made its presence known on every continent." 1 To some, this
has come as a surprise. Hundley continues,
When I first began my study of Liberation Theology I thought it might
be just another fad that would soon disappear like the "death of God"
theology and so many others Such was not the case If anything, the
Liberation Theology movement has expanded tremendously in the
past 10 years, converting seminaries, denominations and individual
Christians all over the world to its secularized version of the gospel It is
undoubtedly the fastest-growing theological movement in the world
today 2
Among other reasons for its popularity is its adaptability.
Though liberation theology is primarily a Latin American phe-
nomenon, it is mirrored somewhat in black liberation theology in
America, the worldwide feminist liberation theology, and the Black
African liberation theology in South Africa.
A major hermeneutical task for liberation theologians (as well

1
Raymond C Hundley, Radical Liberation Theology An Evangelical Response
(Wilmore, KY Bristol Books, 1987), introduction
2
Ibid
274
 Liberation Theology and Hermeneutical Preunderstandings 275

as any interpreter of the Bible) is to seek to fuse "two horizons"—

that of the original prophet or apostle, who formulated what he
wrote in a particular historical and intellectual context, and that of
the interpreter himself. 3 "We reinterpret the Bible," writes
Gutiérrez, "from the viewpoint of our own world—from our personal
experience as human beings, as believers, and as church." 4
How much should the interpreter be influenced by "his own
world"? Should he allow social conditions and theological preun-
derstandings to be determining factors in his hermeneutics? Key lib-
eration theologians such as Gutiérrez, Juan Luis Segundo, and Hugo
Assmann, have concluded that a biblical hermeneutic depends on a
preunderstanding that is shaped by praxis. The philosophical
values and mindset associated with the Western bourgeoisie, they
have argued, distort the message of the biblical text. "Why is it,"
asks Bonino, "that the obvious political motifs and undertones in the
life of Jesus have remained so hidden to liberal interpreters until
very recently?" 5 The response of these theologians is consciously to
interpret the Bible with a preunderstanding that includes Marxist
perspectives. Still these theologians claim that they are not asking
for a subjective hermeneutic. In Miranda's words, "I am not reducing
the Bible to Marx. . . . I only wish to understand what the Bible says.
. . . We want to take the Bible seriously." 6
This article presents a brief response to the hermeneutical
methodologies of liberation theology. Hermeneutics is the science of
interpretation, and biblical hermeneutics is the science of biblical in-
terpretation. Traditionally, biblical hermeneutics deals with the
rules of grammar and syntax, for the purpose of seeking to understand
the biblical text written centuries ago in cultures dramatically dif-
ferent from present-day cultures. The goal of such hermeneutics is to
interpret so that the sense of the scriptural text is reproduced. How-
ever, hermeneutics in recent years has given new recognition to the
fact that "the modern interpreter, no less than the text, stands in a
given historical context and tradition." 7 Thus the task of hermeneu-
tics has taken on a greater dimension. Not only is there the problem

0
See Anthony C Thiselton, The Two Horizons (Grand Rapids Wm Β Eerdmans
Publishing C o , 1980)
4
Gustavo Gutiérrez, The Power of the Poor in History, trans Robert R Barr
(Maryknoll, NY Orbis Books, 1983), ρ 4
5
J Miguez Bonino, Doing Theology in a Revolutionary Situation (Philadelphia
Fortress Press, 1975), ρ 91
" José Ρ Miranda, Marx and the Bible A Critique of the Philosophy of Oppression,
trans John Eagleson (Maryknoll, NY Orbis Books, 1974), pp 127-28
η
' Thiselton, The Two Horizons, ρ 11
276 Bibliotheca Sacra / July-September 1991

of the historical situation of the text; there is also the problem of

the cultural situation of the interpreter. To what extent, then,
should Bible students allow their own culture to guide their interpre­
tation of the Bible?
This article discusses the model of Juan Luis Segundo, which he
has entitled the "hermeneutic circle." This is a classic and concise
statement of liberation theologians' approach to biblical interpreta­
tion. Various implications from other liberation theologians are
presented as they apply to some part of this hermeneutical model.
Then the hermeneutical scheme of liberation theology is analyzed
from the viewpoint of conservative evangelicalism.

Liberation Theology and the "Hermeneutic Circle"

One approach to the issue of how one's own culture relates to bib­
lical interpretation is seen in Juan Luis Segundo's hermeneutic circle.
Segundo defines his herrneneutic circle as "the continuing change in
our interpretation of the Bible which is dictated by the continuing
changes in our present-day reality, both individual and societal." 8
"The circular nature of this interpretation," writes Segundo, "stems
from the fact that each new reality obliges us to interpret the word
of God afresh, to change reality accordingly, and then to go back and
reinterpret the word of God again, and so on." 9 Four factors are in­
cluded in the circle:
Firstly there is our way of experiencing reality, which leads us to ideo­
logical suspicion. Secondly there is the application of our ideological
suspicion to the whole ideological superstructure in general and to
theology in particular. Thirdly there comes a new way of experiencing
theological reality that leads us to exegetical suspicion, that is, to the
suspicion that the prevailing interpretation of the Bible has not taken
important pieces of data into account. Fourthly we have our new
hermeneutic, that is, our new way of interpreting the fountain-head of
our faith (i.e., Scripture) with the new elements at our disposal.10

0
Juan Luis Segundo, "The Hermeneutic Circle," in Third World Liberation
Theologies: A Reader, ed. Dean William Ferm (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1986),
p. 65.
9
Ibid.
υ
* Ibid., p. 66. Segundo's hermeneutic circle parallels Gutierrez's scheme for inciting
the church out of its subculture into identification with the poor of the world. Gutier­
rez's scheme begins with a need to come out, to listen, to share, to contribute, that is, to
make a commitment. This is followed by the need to adopt the vision of historical
rationality as guidance. Then there is the annihilation of the thought instilled into
the mind by the official culture, through a "madness," an epistemological rupture.
This results in the rebirth of theological thought, which leads to an encounter with
the condemned of the earth, and so forth all the way to a rejection of the exploiting
class. (This comparison between Segundo and Gutiérrez was made by Hernán Vidal in
his course on liberation theology at the University of Minnesota, October 1989.)
 Liberation Theology and Hermeneutical Preunderstandings 277

A CORRECTION TO MODERN THEOLOGY

Segundo's hermeneutical circle is meant to be a major corrective

to modern theology, which liberation theologians believe has failed
in at least three ways First, theology has traditionally been viewed
from the notion of philosophical idealism Theologians have be­
lieved that it was possible to pursue their intellectual, theological
study on a neutral, scientific basis, "independent of any particular,
n
personal, ecclesiastical, cultural or ideological conditionings " Her-
meneutically this meant that the continuity between a text's past
and present was primarily met on a common horizon of understand­
ing However, as Sobrino points out, this continuity "must be a com­
mon horizon of practice In this wise the current obsession with
'understanding' is deabsolutized in favor of a much more primary ur­
12
gency that of action, of doing " As Assmann writes, "Theology fol­
lows practice and forms part of it as a 'critical reflection on action '
13
It is the second act, action being the first, even for the theologian "
Second, proponents of liberation theology say theological study
has become divorced from the church's responsibility to fulfill
Christ's mission in the world Segundo emphasizes that theology
cannot be done in an ivory tower
Faced with these two alternatives (that is, theology as an academic pro­
fession versus theology as a revolutionary activity), I must confess that I
can understand those who refuse to do theology or to have anything to
do with it, because they feel it has no meaning or value for the libera­
tion process, much better than I can understand those who practice it
as an academic discipline in the security of some chamber immune to
the risks of the liberation struggle We are fortunate that our God
takes a stand in history, and our interpretation of God s word must fol­
low the same path 1 4
According to Sobrino, the hermeneutical choice is clear
Oppression is not just one of many hermeneutical situations from
which to approach faith in the Son of God It is the situation that is de
facto the most apt for the Third World today, and de jure the one that
appears throughout Scripture for understanding the message of salva­
tion Any Christian theology that is biblical, and therefore historical,
must take full account of the signs of the times in its reflection These
are many, but one recurs throughout history This sign is always the
people crucified in history ' 1 5

11
J Andrew Kirk, Theology Encounters Revolution (Downers Grove, IL InterVarsity
Press, 1980), ρ 116
1?
l/
- Jon Sobrino, Jesus in Latin America (Maryknoll, NY Orbis Books, 1987), ρ 66
1 3
Hugo Assmann, Theology for a Nomad Church, trans Paul Burns (Maryknoll, NY
Orbis Books, 1976), ρ 59
1 4
Segundo, The Hermeneutic Circle, ρ 82
1 5
Sobrino, Jesus in Latin America, ρ 159
278 Bibliotheca Sacra / July-September 1991

A third criticism given by liberation theologians is that theol­

ogy has chosen not to pick sides in economic and political issues Un­
less theology engages the most pressing ethical problems of present-
day culture, it will continue, they say, to be an ally of all the forces
m Western culture that are opposed to change Segundo (and other
liberation theologians) accept a modified form of Marxism as the
best system for unmasking "the reality of oppression in general, and
specifically its repercussions in theology " 1 6

A CULTURAL NORM

In Segundo's circle, the biblical interpretation changes reality,

and the new reality m turn produces another change in the interpre­
tation of Scriptures, and this process continues to repeat itself An
abiding dialectical process is thus set u p But is there any hermeneu­
tical norm for this unending succession of changes 7 In agreement with
James Cone (A Black Theology of Liberation [Maryknoll, NY Orbis
Books, 1986]), Segundo writes,
Unless I am mistaken, he [Cone] is asserting that orthodoxy possesses
no ultimate criterion in itself because being orthodox does not mean
possessing the final truth We only arrive at the latter by orthopraxis
It is the latter that is the ultimate criterion of the former, both m theol­
ogy and in biblical interpretation The truth is truth only when it serves
as the basis for truly human attitudes Doers of the truth is the for­
mula used by divine revelation to stress the priority of orthopraxis over
orthodoxy when it comes to truth and salvation 1 7
Obviously, therefore, "dogmatic formulas, whether m the strict
sense of conciliar formulas or m the broad sense of biblical formulas
expressing the reality of the Christ of faith, are not the point of de­
parture of the new systematic chnstologies, but their point of ar­
rival " 1 8
Using one's identification with and commitment to one's cultural
situation as the criterion for biblical interpretation is subjective, and
Segundo recognizes this as a danger Still, "partiality is justified be­
cause we must find, and designate as the word of God, that part of
divine revelation which today, m the light of our concrete historical
situation, is the most useful for the liberation to which God summons
19
us " Other parts of the Bible will no doubt be of help to the libera­
tion process m the future

Segundo, The Hermeneutic Circle, ρ 82

Ibid , ρ 87
Sobrino, Jesus in Latin America, ρ 56
Segundo, The Hermeneutic Circle, ρ 88
 Liberation Theology and Hermeneutical Preunderstandings 279

Evangelical Theology and the Interpreter's

Cultural Context
As with any system of hermeneutics, liberation theology's cul­
tural interpretation, as modeled by Segundo's hermeneutic circle, has
both strengths and weaknesses. These are determined to a certain
degree by the critic's theological viewpoint. The following analysis
of strengths and weaknesses of the hermeneutical procedures of lib­
eration theologians is given from the position of conservative evan­
gelicalism.

STRENGTHS OF LIBERATION THEOLOGY'S HERMENEUTICS

1. A demand for practical theology. Much of liberation theol­

ogy's protest against modern theology is valid. Kirk writes,
Since the Enlightenment, theology, like every other discipline, has
sought to gain independence from the control of the church in order to
pursue its studies according to its own canons and methods To do this
it unhesitatingly accepted the 19th-century emphasis on the inviolabil­
ity of the scientific method It isolated itself in the theological faculties
of the state universities (especially m Germany) and insulated its work
from the daily life and mission of the Christian community Critical
of the church's conservatism and anti-mtellectuahsm, it was totally un­
critical of its own positivist and liberal premises The situation did not
greatly change until the Marxist tradition of ideological suspicion be­
gan to influence European and Latin American political theologies 2 0
In light of this tendency toward making theology an academic
study it is significant that theology has regularly been defined, in
the last 200 years, in terms of a "science." Even conservatives, such
as Augustus Hopkins Strong, for example, writing at the beginning of
the 20th century, defined theology as "the science of God and of the
relations between God and the universe." 2 1 This kind of scientific
definition of theology is in marked contrast to the more life-related

ζ υ
Kirk, Theology Encounters Revolution, ρ 127
2 1
Augustus Hopkins Strong, Systematic Theology (Valley Forge, PA Judson Press,
1907), ρ 1 Other similar definitions are these "Theology, therefore, is the exhibi­
tion of the facts of Scripture m their proper order and relation, with the principles or
general truths involved in the facts, themselves, and which pervade and harmonize
the whole" (Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology [1885, reprint, Grand Rapids Wm
Β Eerdmans Publishing Co , η d ], 1 19) "Systematic Theology may be defined as the
collecting, scientifically arranging, comparing, exhibiting, and defending of all facts
from any and every source concerning God and His works" (Lewis Sperry Chafer, Sys­
tematic Theology [Dallas, TX Dallas Theological Seminary, 1947], 1 6) "Theology
is a science that is concerned with both the Infinite and Finite, with both God and the
Universe The material, therefore, which it includes is vaster than that of any other
science It is also the most necessary of all the sciences" (W G Τ Shedd, Dogmatic
Theology [New York Charles Scribner's Sons, 1889], 1 16)
280 Bibliotheca Sacra / July-September 1991

definitions of theologians writing before the Enlightenment.

William Ames, for example, the theology teacher of the American
22
Puritans, wrote, "Theologia est doctrina Deo vivendi."
Liberation theologians make an excellent point in affirming
that theology must not be done in an ivory tower on the basis of
philosophical idealism. Simplistic as it may seem, evangelical
theologians must define systematic theology, not only in its relation­
ship to the Scriptures, but also in relationship to Christ's commission
to all Christians. In the Apostle Paul's words, Scripture is prof­
itable not only for doctrine, but also for reproof, correction, and
training in righteousness (2 Tim. 3:16). As Rushdoony points out,
systematic theology "cannot be simply an exercise in thinking. . . . It
must be thinking for action in terms of knowing, obeying, and honor­
ing God by fulfilling His mandate to us. . . . It is related to what
happens in church, state, school, family, the arts and sciences, the
23
vocations, and all things else."
2. An awareness of preunderstandings. The hermeneutics of lib­
eration theology also reminds evangelical theologians that it is im­
possible to interpret Scripture in a vacuum, without any preunder­
standings. Modern hermeneuticians have emphasized that "all
readings take place within communities and start from presupposi­
tions which inform but do not determine the course of each read­
ing." 2 4 These preunderstandings may be harmful in themselves be­
cause they include "all kinds of prejudices, fears of change and igno­
rance, whether willful or otherwise, [which] continually frustrate a
really honest and obedient hearing of the gospel message." 2 5
Other presuppositions take the form of both doctrinal and
p h i l o s o p h i c a l beliefs, a n d are not necessarily harmful in
themselves. Doctrinally, when a Bible interpreter reads a Scripture
passage, he always has some preunderstandings, even of the most
basic nature. For example when a person reads, "God loved the
world," he has some previous theological understanding of what
"God," "love," and "world" mean. As the interpreter interacts with

1 1
William Ames, The Marrow of Theology (1629), trans John D Eusden (Boston
Pilgrim Press, 1968), ρ 77
2 3
Rousas John Rushdoony, The Necessity for Systematic Theology (Vallecito, CA
Ross House Books, 1979), ρ 57 As a beginning point, at least, theologians ought to in­
volve themselves m the worldwide ministry of the local church Also see John Jeffer­
son Davis, Foundations of Evangelical Theology (Grand Rapids Baker Book House,
1984), p p 43-73, and Robert L Saucy, "Doing Theology for the Church," m The Neces
sity of Systematic Theology, ed John Jefferson Davis (Grand Rapids Baker Book
House, 1980), p p 61-74
2 4
Roger Lundm, Anthony C Thiselton, and Clarence Walhout, The Responsibility of
Hermeneutics (Grand Rapids Wm Β Eerdmans Publishing Co , 1985), ρ 15
2 5
Kirk, Theology Encounters Revolution, ρ 10
 Liberation Theology and Hermeneutical Preunderstandings 281

biblical material, he should become more and more in tune with

scriptural teachings about these and other doctrinal concepts.
A potential problem arises if the theologian allows his "pre­
packaged doctrinal confessions to dictate the way in which Scripture
26
is understood." Though it would be wrong for a person to deny his
doctrinal convictions as he approaches Scripture, his doctrinal
convictions must never stand in the way of honest and serious inquiry
into the true meaning of a Bible passage. Doctrinal convictions, in
other words, must be continually refined to agree with the
Scriptures.
Carson has diagrammed the interaction between Scripture and
other doctrinal disciplines as follows:

Exegesis -•Biblical Theology ->Historical Theology -^Systematic Theology

In this system, though the line of control begins with exegesis, there
are feedback lines that inform exegesis and interrelate the various
disciplines. 2 7
Theologians also approach the task of interpretation with
philosophical presuppositions. Current scholarship has shown, for
example, that in epistemology, most American theologians of the
18th to the 20th centuries have been influenced by Scottish Common
Sense Realism. 2 8 Thomas Reid (1710-1796), the founder of the sys­
tem, believed that things really exist which one distinctly perceives
by his senses and are what one perceives them to be. A thinking per­
son may rely on his natural faculties to distinguish truth from error,
and things physically are basically much as they seem. 2 9

2 b
Ibid, ρ 11
2 7
D A Carson, "Unity and Diversity in the N e w Testament," m Scripture and
Truth, ed D A Carson and John D Woodbndge (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing
House, 1983), ρ 91
2 8
George Marsden, "Everyone One's Own Interpreter," m The Bible in America, ed
Nathan O Hatch and Mark A Noll (New York Oxford University Press, 1982), ρ
94
2 9
Most 19th-century religious colleges were dominated by this epistemology For
example John Witherspoon, a Scot, became president of Princeton College m 1768 and
brought this philosophy with him In an age when the Enlightenment was denying
biblical authority, Witherspoon and others responded with the apologetics of com­
mon-sense realism Mark Noll writes, "In fact, Scottish Realism seemed to provide
282 Bibliotheca Sacra / July-September 1991

In addition to epistemology, social and political preunderstand­

ings may make some impact on a theologian's interpretation. In
light of the liberation theologian's hermeneutic circle, therefore, it
is important that evangelical theologians consider seriously John­
son's question, "Will we allow social and theological issues to chal­
lenge our bourgeois and biased interpretations and drive us back to
the meaning of the Word?" 3 0
On the other hand this is not to say that the interpreter is
locked into his preunderstanding, unable to see the message of the
Scripture. Lundin writes:
To say this [that everyone has preunderstandings] is not to argue for a
form of determinism, a "you will discover only what you have assumed"
theory of reading To be sure, one of the most challenging things about
the reading experience is the way in which texts so often uproot the as­
sumptions of reading subjects But the very possibility of a reader be­
ing changed by a text would depend on that subject's being an active,
interested seeker rather than a totally dispassionate recipient 31
As Thiselton warns, the interpreter must guard against merely
hearing back "echoes of his own attitudes or prejudgments. . . . The
word of God always comes as adversarius noster, our adversary." 3 2
Preunderstandings do not therefore exclude the possibility of
understanding the text truly. As he understands the text more
accurately, the interpreter ought to amend his stance so that he is in
increasing agreement with the text.

the only means in the Age of Reason for retaining a belief in scriptural authority and
the usefulness of the church, since it could demonstrate their reality on the basis of
common-sense perceptions of the physical world and the transmissions of the internal
moral sense Through these means, the Scottish philosophy reestablished the valid­
ity of natural science, reconfirmed traditional morality, and demonstrated the con­
tinuing truthfulness of historic Christianity" (Mark Noll, "Introduction," in The
Christian College, ed William C Rmgenberg [Grand Rapids Wm Β Eerdmans Pub­
lishing Co , 1984], ρ 13) Some historians have argued that the doctrine of inerrancy
was based on this scientific approach to Scripture But in actuality, inerrancy was the
common view of conservative theology long before common-sense theology came along
(see John Woodbndge, Biblical Authority [Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing
House, 1982] for historical proof of this point) Common-sense realism did have an
impact on apologetical methodology as well as on hermeneutics

^ Cednc Β Johnson, The Psychology of Biblical Interpretation (Grand Rapids Zon­

dervan Publishing House, 1983), ρ 85
o l
Lundin, Thiselton, and Walhout, The Responsibility of Hermeneutics, ρ 27
ΟΔ
· Thiselton, The Two Horizons, ρ xx The term "preunderstanding" is sometimes
used to speak of viewpoints that are subject to change, but other times it is used of non-
negotiable convictions "To confuse these two uses of 'pre-understandmg' is to devas­
tate both theology and epistemology The one use helps us to be more careful, encour­
ages us to follow the 'hermeneutical spiral' to bring our horizon of understanding into
line with the horizon of understanding of the original author , but the second be­
comes a reason for transmuting the text into something else" (D A Carson, Biblical In­
terpretation and the Church [New York Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1984], ρ 13)
 Liberation Theology and Hermeneutical Preunderstandings 283

3. A certain biblical justification. Conservative theologians

who affirm the authority of the Scriptures also must admit there is
a certain biblical justification or precedence for interpreting a pas­
sage of Scripture out of one's cultural context. The New Testament
writers interpreted Old Testament texts within the culture of events
contemporary to them. This is not to say that their exegesis was ar­
bitrary or out of context, but it does mean that their reading of Old
Testament Scripture was applied, fulfilled, and understood within
the framework of their contemporary developments.33
However, the situation is not fully parallel between the
hermeneutical situation of the New Testament writers and modern-
day interpreters. First, the appearance of Jesus Christ on the scene to
fulfill, interpret, and apply the Old Testament was an infallible au­
thority unavailable in the same sense to theologians today (see, e.g.,
Luke 24:27 and Matt. 5:17). Second, the apostles were given a
special, miraculous guidance of the Holy Spirit to enable them to
write the New Testament documents and to explain accurately the
meaning of the Old Testament Scriptures for the Church Age (see,
e.g., John 14:26 and 1 Cor. 2:12-13).

WEAKNESSES OF LIBERATION THEOLOGY'S HERMENEUTICS

The hermeneutical scheme of liberation theology challenges

evangelical theology to do better in a number of areas. Still, evan­
gelicals cannot accept the liberation theologians' use of the Bible,
for several reasons.
1. The inadequacy of the model. Segundo's model, the
hermeneutic circle, is not fully satisfying. Hermeneuticians, espe­
cially from a more conservative position, have pointed out that the
hermeneutic circle, though not exclusive to Segundo, is inadequate.
Thiselton notes, "For although the center of gravity moves back and
forth between the two poles of the interpreter and the text, there is
also an ongoing movement and progressive understanding which
might have been better conveyed by some such image as that of the
34
spiral."
In other words the process of interpretation is not limited to the
subjective realm with the interpreter drawing his own distinct and
exclusive understandings of the text, while the text interprets the in­
terpreter at the same time. Instead there is a fusing of "the horizon
of understanding of the interpreter with the horizon of understand­
ing of the text so that true communication across the ages or from text

00
See Thiselton, The Two Horizons, ρ 18
3 4
Ibid , ρ 104 Also Lundin, Thiselton, and Walhout insist on a "hermeneutical
spiral" {The Responsibility of Hermeneutics, ρ 25)
284 Bibliotheca Sacra / July-September 1991

to interpreter is possible." 3 5 Thus a "hermeneutical spiral" would be

a more accurate model.
Moreover, there does not seem to be any method for justifying the
preunderstandings in Segundo's hermeneutic circle. As Fiorenza has
written,
Such a proposal also does not allow us to judge whether a text or inter­
pretation is appropriate and helpful to the struggle of the oppressed for
liberation The failure to bring a critical evaluation to bear upon the
biblical texts and upon the process of interpretation within Scripture
and tradition is one of the reasons [the biblical interpretation of] liber­
ation theologians often comes close to "proof textmg " 3 6
Filbeck is even more specific.
Marxism as the social hermeneutic of choice m liberation theology—a
hermeneutic that leads to social revolution as the function of its appli­
cation in oppressed situations—is an arbitrary selection Liberation
theology, at this point, could just as arbitrarily, and with as much justifi­
cation, have chosen the sociological model of structure-function, with
its emphasis on maintaining the status quo, as its social hermeneutic'
There is no a prion reason for choosing Marxism over structure-func­
tion or any other model available in the sociological market place 3 7
Most liberation theologians acknowledge this. Bonino admits,
"Nobody will claim, in fact, that his analysis of social, political
and economic reality is more than a rational exercise, open to revi­
sion, correction, or rejection. It is in this sense that we incorporate
the Marxist analysis of society." 38 Though there is no question about
the impossibility of a neutral reading of Scripture, there is "every
reason why particular preunderstandings should be clearly identi­
fied and justified."'09
2. The deterioration of scriptural authority. Some liberation
theologians do not regard the Bible as authoritative. They do not
hold that the Scriptures should have the final word on what Chris­
tians are to believe and how they are to live. Assmann, who may be
more radical than most other liberation theologians in this regard,

^ Carson, Biblical Interpretation and the Church, ρ 16

3
" Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza, "Toward a Feminist Biblical Hermeneutics Bibli­
cal Interpretation and Liberation Theology," m A Guide to Contemporary Hermeneu­
tics, ed Donald Κ McKim (Grand Rapids Wm Β Eerdmans Publishing C o , 1986), ρ
371
3 7
David Filbeck, Social Context and Proclamation (Pasadena, CA Wm Carey Li­
brary, 1985), ρ 126
3
° Bonino, Doing Theology in a Revolutionary Situation, ρ 95 José Miranda, how-
ever, does try to justify his choice of communism in his chapter, "Why Communism 7 "
in Communism in the Bible, trans John Eagleson (Maryknoll, NY Orbis Books, 1974),
pp 21-56
™ J Andrew Kirk, Liberation Theology (Atlanta John Knox Press, 1979), ρ 191
(italics his)
 Liberation Theology and Hermeneutical Preunderstandings 285

quotes with approval someone whom he calls a "committed Chris-

tian," who said, "The Bible? It doesn't exist. The only Bible is the
sociological bible [sic] of what I see happening here and now as a
40
Christian." Moreover, the Bible is not itself a "direct source of cri­
teria," but is only a "history of successive interpretations," coming
down to modern times "formed, deformed, reformed, and deformed
41
yet again by the actual history of Christianity."
Such a view of Scripture falls far short of the Bible's teaching
about itself, that all Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for
all aspects of life (2 Tim. 3:16). Jesus Himself insisted that "the
Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35). It appears, however, that
for liberation theologians, the importance of the Bible does not lie in
its presentation of absolute truth, but in its power to motivate.
Interpreting the Bible with one's culture in view can impact bib­
lical authority negatively. Carson warns,
There is a sense in which every theology will inevitably be shaped by
the culture in which it springs up, but this does not necessarily mean
that each contextuahzation of biblical theology remains true to the
Bible To appeal to the demands of the interpreter's cultural context is
legitimate, provided the intent is to facilitate the understanding and
proclamation of the Bible within that context, not to transfer the
authority of the Bible to conceptions and mandates not demonstrably
emerging from the horizon of understanding of the biblical writers
themselves 4 2
3. The questioning of the perspicuity of Scripture. In discussing
technical questions about hermeneutics, theologians must not forget
that the Scriptures in themselves are clear. Unfortunately Assmann
insists that it is "false to state that the whole biblical framework,
with its infinite variety of paradigms and situations, is an adequate
basis for establishing a satisfactory complex dialectic of hermeneu­
tical principles." 4 3 Grudem responds to this assertion,
The Bible repeatedly reminds us of its own clarity, its own ability to be
understood rightly, not only by scholars or specialists, but by all believ­
ers Not once do we hear Jesus saying anything like the following. "I
see how your problem arose—the Scriptures are not very clear on that
subject " Instead, whether he is speaking to scholars or to untrained
common people, his responses always assume that the blame for
misunderstanding any teaching of Scripture is not to be placed on the
Scriptures themselves but on those who misunderstand or fail to accept
what is written **

4U
Assmann, Theology for a Nomad Church, ρ 61
4 1
Ibid
4 2
Carson, Biblical Interpretation and the Church, pp 17-18
4 3
Assmann, Theology for a Nomad Church, ρ 104
4 4
Wayne A G r u d e m , "A Response to Contextuahzation and Revelahonal
286 Bibliotheca Sacra / July-September 1991

This is not to say that all Scripture is equally clear, of course. But
the Bible is not occult, hidden, or mysterious. The essence of its mes­
sage is available for all who will accept it in faith.
4. The absence of the doctrine of spiritual illumination. In most
expressions of liberation theology, the active ministry of the Holy
Spirit in the process of interpreting the Bible is not acknowledged.
Because of the supernatural, infinite nature of the Bible, and because
of the finiteness and sinfulness of mankind, there must be a special
work of God before the hermeneutical circle can be fruitful. This
ministry of the Holy Spirit through which the historical, objective
revelation of God in the Bible is perceived and personalized by the
interpreter has been called "illumination."
Illumination involves the self-attestation of the Scriptures.
That is, the interpreter must recognize that the Bible claims divine
authority for itself. Beyond this, there is a certainty of this author­
ity and a willingness to submit one's mind to it that are based on the
Holy Spirit's inner conviction. The Reformers and their successors
have entitled this ministry "the internal testimony of the Holy
Spirit," and it consists essentially in the regeneration of the mind.
Without this ministry, faith in the Scriptures as absolute divine
truth is impossible, and interpretation will confront major obstacles.45

Conclusion
The following points have been made throughout the study:
1. Students of the Bible must interpret the Scriptures with a
view toward the real world in which they live and in fulfillment of
Christ's commission to all Christians.
2. Biblical interpreters must be aware of their own doctrinal,
philosophical, and cultural preunderstandings. Though hermeneuti­
cal neutrality is a myth, they must allow the Scriptures to have
their corrective impact on them and to bring them into greater har­
mony with the passage's teaching and practice.
3. Theologians must not interpret Scripture in a way that disal­
lows the Bible to be the final authority in the hermeneutical pro­
cess.
4. Interpreters must remember that the Scriptures are clear in
themselves.

Epistemology," m Hermeneutics, Inerrancy, and the Bible, ed Earl D Radmacher and

Robert D Preus (Grand Rapids Zondervan Publishing House, 1984), p p 755-56
(italics his)
4 5
See Paul's commentary on this hermeneutical prerequisite m 1 Corinthians 2 14-15
Also see Roy Β Zuck, "The Role of the Holy Spirit in Hermeneutics," Bibliotheca
Sacra 141 (April-June 1984) 120-30
 Liberation Theology and Hermeneutical Preunderstandings 287

5. The hermeneutical process, contrary to the hermeneutic cir-

cle of liberation theology, must start with a serious examination of
the biblical text. This involves a determination of the literary form
of the passage, a study of the historical situation in which the text
was given, an exegesis of the meaning the words had for the original
author and hearers or readers, and an application of the passage to
the interpreter's world.
6. Theologians must not forget the importance of the illuminat-
ing ministry of the Holy Spirit in the hermeneutical process. The
application of the biblical message to the modern world is an ex-
tremely serious task for Christians. This task will be successful only
as the integrity of Scripture is maintained and the Bible is allowed
to speak for itself.
 ^ s
Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission
from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal
typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American
Theological Library Association.