Calvin and His Interpretative Method
By Michael Mewborn
Introduction
Interpretation and the Mind
The process of perception and comprehension is rooted in the way in which our minds
receive and handle information. The mind does not merely catalog and store information in a
simplistic format as we generally assume. We must rethink what the mind does when it
¡°catalogs¡± and ¡°stores¡± information. The mind actually takes a hands-on approach to
information (events, writings, media, etc.) that is encountered by developing and influencing all
information encountered. Interestingly, the mind and the human faculties, which are conscious,
distinct and dynamic, are in many ways influencing and effecting information as it is
immediately encountered. Information that is newly encountered immediately meets with a
plethora of known information which has been pondered and weighted for its importance and
influence; associations and relationships are formed between new and old information. The
newly encountered information faces mental categories which are not static but are changing and
dynamic. Our brains look and act like a sponge and when information enters, it gets mixed with
everything else inside and when we are ¡°squeezed¡± or respond to questions, statements,
problems, events, etc., that information which departs is not identical to that which entered.
Additionally, the mind perceives and interprets all information within given contexts: the
context of the reader (ourselves), author and text; these also are the three distinct aspects of
interpretation. Therefore, we interpret all information encountered whether it is in textual
communication or verbal dialogue within its given contexts.
Therefore, we do not merely encounter and store information. Or rather, we must rethink
the meaning of these processes. The processes of evaluation and information intake are complex
processes which involve our entire personhood in large part because our faculties are
interrelated. Newly encountered information garners feelings, thoughts, attitudes, preferences,
etc.; we weigh and categorize new information not only based on the nature of that information
but on the basis of everything else we know; categories for memory are determined not only by
the information encountered but by the nature and associations of our personhood. Hence
interpretation, which is the perception and understanding of information, is inherently personal,
requires a comprehensive action and response of our entire person and is innate to human
existence.
The Fundamental Question
Each of us approaches the text with a particular disposition and intuition toward
knowledge, i.e. basically a certain way of understanding and comprehending which is most
personal. Each has a certain way of acknowledging and associating with information.
Therefore, each Christian approaches the text with a certain procedure or course of action for
textual understanding, a certain way of grasping Scriptural meaning. The basic question of this
work is: How did Calvin exposit the text, what was his method, his procedure for textual
understanding? The question is broad but nonetheless relevant. One¡¯s approach surely involves
certain systems and rules per se, but when one approaches Scripture, they bring not merely rules,
but their entire selves. So the term ¡°approach¡± entails all of one¡¯s personality and abilities, all of
one¡¯s ways of understanding information and acknowledging meaning. We cannot ask the
2
question of Calvin without also asking it of ourselves so this work begs the question, ¡°How do
we approach Scripture?
These questions, as this work will affirm, again have significant relation to all of our
existence, and do not merely address which commentary or lexical aid we pull from the shelf.
This work does not treat these questions comprehensively and hence is not designed to wholly
critique Calvin¡¯s exposition. Even though the present question focuses primarily on the ¡°text¡±, I
do not believe the biblical author or reader to be insignificant or less important than the concept
of textuality, but they are rather the other two vital aspects of interpretation and could and should
be dealt with at equal depth. Although, this work deals with significant factors and aspects
involved mainly in Calvin¡¯s approach to the text, the other two aspects of interpretation are
necessarily interrelated to exegesis.
Admissions of the Author
This work is in large part a synopsis of some major factors and aspects in Calvin¡¯s
exposition; it is designed to bring clarity to the question of why and how Calvin performed
exposition. But the writer must respectfully submit that this question proves in some ways
elusive due to its profundity and breadth. The writer also humbly admits that even though this
work attempts to maintain a certain conciseness and clarity on all points mentioned, it is apparent
that multiple factors (some not stated) contribute to the major points discussed.
Why I am Writing
Importantly, this work is not based on the existing dichotomy between the infallible God
and the fallible human. In other words, the exegete¡¯s views on the practice of interpretation or of
his personal interpretations do not need to be modified and enhanced only because we are sinful
and God is holy. This work does not ¡°piggyback¡± on this dichotomy. Interpretation as a human
activity needs to be examined due principally to the nature of interpretation and meaning. In
other words, I am not writing to make my interpretations better because I am innately sinful and
God is inherently holy, even though this is a wise truth and has been the backbone of many such
efforts. However, I am writing to understand the nature of interpretation and meaning because it
is an aspect of God¡¯s communicative actions and knowledge; it is an aspect of God¡¯s creation.
Hopefully, this point will be elucidated.
The Usage of the Term ¡°Interpretation¡±
This work employs the term ¡°interpretation¡± inclusive to the other related termsexposition,
hermeneutics and exegesis unless specifically defined otherwise. I do this for
simplicity sake knowing that with a more in-depth study, particularly related to interpretation,
these terms would prove distinct. Furthermore, the broadness of the topic of Calvin¡¯s approach
and the interrelatedness of the interpretive process necessitate that one conceptualize the whole
of Calvin¡¯s expository activities, from beginning study to final proclamation, but particular
emphasis is placed upon his exegesis prior to public proclamation.
So this work addresses particular factors and aspects of his thought in exposition. The
word ¡°exposit¡± when used loosely would describe the method of the mass of preachers. But the
question of exposition even in its broadness sheds specific knowledge and insight on one¡¯s aims
and practices in interpretation; it is a reflection of one¡¯s awareness and consciousness of God, the
text and himself; it is a procedure or trajectory, a means to an end. Importantly, exegesis
communicates about its user and is not merely a tool or method for communication; it articulates
and critiques its user as it is being used.
The Current Relevance of this Study
3
This work not only gives a brief summary of Calvin¡¯s exposition, it more importantly
turns a critical eye to the hermeneutic process and various aspects of interpretation. So I
communicate pertinent questions that arise involving exegesis. Calvin¡¯s hermeneutic provides a
frame of reference which both reinforces the evangelical base of interaction regarding exegesis
and more importantly rouses further critical questioning.
One may pose the question, ¡°Why write on interpretation when it appears as though
evangelicals and particularly reformed individuals have met with fairly comprehensive doctrinal
and exegetical agreement?¡± Or ¡°Why write on interpretation when the lines among evangelical
disagreement are clearly outlined down to the Scripture verse?¡± Hermeneutics is still a relevant
topic among other reasons because: (1) although we may have agreement, we may be arriving at
agreement in different ways, or from different paths; (2) interpretation is rooted in how the
exegete views God, revelation and himself both conceptually and in relation to each other; hence
exegetical rationale is often subtle and can provide insight when examined; (3) the exegete is a
work in progress (not merely because he is sinful but because he was created to interpret and
learn; the human exercises of interpreting and learning are not the result, effect or extension of
humanity¡¯s sinfulness) and hence must continually insist on increasing his awareness and
sensitivity to relationships within interpretation; (4) although there is a fairly mutual
understanding on biblical themes, motifs and doctrines, the way in which themes, motifs and
doctrines are applied to other areas of Scripture may be distinct; (5) within the framework of a
conversation, language exchange or point of agreement, often that which is critical goes unstated
due to assumption or pre-understanding; such pre-understanding is not only remains unexpressed
but it may or may not completely overlap between language participants; (6) exegesis not only
involves our usage of particular study books but really our entire personhood; (7) often exegesis
is inordinately weighted toward individual and private study and the collective and communal
aspects involving interpretation are limited and often remain unutilized.
The evangelical Kevin Vanhoozer provides an astute comment, ¡°¡¦the canon provides an
interpretive framework by which the past can illumine the present. The canon generates not an
absolute, unchanging static tradition but rather a dynamic tradition of critical reinterpretation.¡±1
Another evangelical John Frame also provides insight:
¡°We gain a rational understanding of Scripture in the same way we gain a rational understanding of
anything else: by correlating Scripture, world and self; by receiving from the Holy Spirit the grace to
understand; by recognizing the richness of scriptural pedagogy and the corresponding richness of the
response demanded (a response of the whole person, involving all his capacities).2
Calvin¡¯s approach and conception of interpretation is a springboard but only a beginning
on which to find support for an evangelical interpretive framework and pursue further discussion
regarding interpretation. In certain ways, Calvin¡¯s method provides the foundation of our
interpretive exercises. Once we confirm that which we do know, we can extend to and confront
that which is less certain or not overt in appearance. As we increase our understanding of the
interpretive framework, we are better suited to adjust and apply the ¡°dynamic tradition of critical
interpretation¡± of the canon to our hearts and lives.
The Human Being and the Act of Interpretation
We interpret to the extent that we live, breath and experience life and all its complexities.
Interpretation is as much an activity of the human being as any other aspect of life. Vanhoozer
writes, ¡°Hermeneutics is relevant not only to the interpretation of the Bible, but to all of life,
insofar as everything from a Brahms symphony to a baby¡¯s cry is a ¡°text,¡± that is, an expression
of human life that calls for interpretation.¡±3 As humans interpret, they engage the complexities
and depth of their humanity and being. All interpretation, whether biblical or otherwise, is a
4
most in-depth engagement involving one¡¯s personality, existence and divine revelation;
interpretation flows from the inherent livelihood and vitality of God¡¯s image, man, and is an
innate and distinctive expression bestowed to humanity.
It is vital to understand the reality of the interpretive process, i.e. that which we are doing
and how it influences us, etc. Exegetical method is a decision, a choice to approach the text in a
certain fashion. Also, as we study the text, we exposit with ourselves in mind, i.e. exegesis is not
an out of body experience but we interpret with consciousness, awareness, desire and preunderstanding.
Therefore exposition is an intensely personal and revealing experience that in
turn communicates much about us.
Undoubtedly our discussion on Calvin¡¯s method will aid in confirming an evangelical
foundation for further study. From this base, we can then realize that the interaction between
one¡¯s personhood and the multitude of complexities involved in human existence and one¡¯s
striving for understanding in Scripture, indeed give way to a dynamic interpretive framework.
But perhaps, before entering into such discussion, let us attempt to become more conscious of
the interpretive process from Vanhoozer¡¯s brief questioning. As he questions us, lets us question
ourselves.
¡°Can we read in such a way as to avoid seeing ourselves-that is, those images that we project-in the mirror of
the text? Can we by reading find out God? What exactly is reading? What is the point of this optical exercise
of moving one¡¯s eyes from left to right down one page after another? How is it that black marks on white paper
can inform us (e.g., make us more knowledgeable) and move us (e.g., to laugh, to cry or to go and sell all our
goods and give the proceeds to the poor)? Why is there something rather than nothing in the texts? Is there a
wrong way to read a book?¡±4
Writing is a form of communication; communication is interpretation. Interpretation is
the essence of expression. The relation between the interpreted (author) and the interpreter
(reader) is the text. The Bible is a text and thereby an expression of something or someone, from
one to another.
Interpretive expression is the material and substance of the Biblical text. For example,
the author¡¯s previous careers and other aspects of their background, their beliefs before and at the
time of writing and the cultural and spiritual context of their situations are influential factors and
conduits for communication. Authors selectively omit or include certain information based on
context in order to enhance communication. The presentations of the Gospels illustrate many of
the same events but are communicated in 4 distinct ways or paths, arriving at the same truths.
Similarly, two preachers will expound the same text arriving at the same truth but by differing
paths. As preachers interpret the text, so were the biblical author¡¯s interpreting information
(events, actions, etc.) in ways suitable to them, understandable to their audience and according to
God¡¯s intention.
Methodology and Exposition
The Question of Method
The question of method is a question of trajectory, or a path or course one takes to
meaning. Method is not merely an inquiry into what rules and principles are used in study or
which commentaries are browsed; method involves all the aspects of the exegete¡¯s existence.
Hence, method is a shallow stream flowing into an ocean. Method and interpretation are not
merely defined by what one studies at his desk, but also by one¡¯s life and experiences. Because
the Bible does not delineate an explicit method of exegesis or a hermeneutical system, our
method of exegesis is developed from human existence, an aspect of which is bible study. The
multiple aspects of our life are interrelated but are our exegetical method and interpretation
exempt or disconnected from the other aspects of our existence?
5
What methodology is evident in Calvin¡¯s exposition and how is his method similar to our
expositions today? Again, this work will focus primarily on points at which Calvin and the
evangelical exegete meet, in order to provide a stable foundation for further study on
interpretation. The broadness of this question is implicit in its asking, but nonetheless of
fundamental importance.
The Exegetical Environment in Calvin¡¯s Day
Hunter comments on the general nature of interpretation in Calvin¡¯s day, ¡°The field of
the Bible had come to be treated too much as a playground for ingenuities of interpretation or as
an area rich in deposits of hidden treasures of mystery. Exposition was an exercise in fanciful
conjecture and the excavation of meanings juggled in and then triumphantly unearthed.¡±1 Hunter
articulates Calvin¡¯s environment, ¡°¡¦medieval commentators reveled in discoveries which
dishonored the Bible¡¦Calvin rescued faith from a precarious condition of extreme vulnerability
to the new renaissance spirit which looked at things immemorially sacred with shrewd, searching
eyes¡¦.¡±2 How did this environment affect Calvin¡¯s approach to Scripture?
Calvin and Humanism
In what was Calvin trained that greatly impacted his expository method? Calvin had
been trained in humanism. Richard Pratt writes, ¡°This shift [from allegorical to a more literal
approach to Scripture] was deeply influenced by Renaissance studies of newly discovered
classical Greek and Latin texts. As techniques for interpreting these classical documents grew,
scholars rejected allegorical methods in favor of meticulous philological and historical
methods.¡±3 Vanhoozer writes, ¡°Calvin¡¯s concern for the literal sense [as opposed to the
allegorical sense] was partly a product of his training as a Renaissance humanist. Fifteenth
century humanists shared a passion for recovering the language and literature of Greece and
Rome. The humanists worked to arrive at the original and genuine meaning of classical
literature, which meant recovering the mind of the author.¡±4 This is in part, as we will see later,
why Calvin diligently sought the meaning as intended by the biblical author and gave particular
notice to the context of the author¡¯s writing. In this manner, some of the principles of humanism
were transferable to biblical study. Calvin¡¯s method and exegesis is in large part therefore
shaped by humanism.
Humanist training did not produce in Calvin a ¡°flat¡± or ¡°wooden literalism¡±, or a reading
of the text that negates particular genre, symbolism or ignores the nature of redemptive history.
However humanism prioritized aspects of interpretation that were at that time uncharacteristic
and insignificant facets of exegesis and its focus, authorial intention, meaning and context.
Calvin and Method
Calvin¡¯s method was rooted in finding the textual meaning for edification of the audience
and glorification of God. Gamble quotes Battles: ¡°He [Calvin] saw the task of the theologian no
longer as speculative, primarily philosophical, but rather as pastoral, pedagogical and making
large if guarded use of the rhetorical discipline.¡±5 Hence, Calvin¡¯s exegetical method is
characterized by instructive not speculative thought, persuasion rather than demonstration and
clarity rather than verbosity.
Alister McGrath writes, ¡°Reformers such as Luther and Calvin had relatively little
interest in questions of method. For them, theology was primarily concerned with the exposition
of Scripture.¡±6 For this reason, Calvin¡¯s method is relatively unsophisticated and
straightforwardly summarized. John Leith writes, ¡°For the Reformers, generally, method grew
out of the reality of what they were doing.¡± He then associates Bullinger¡¯s statements on method
as being reticent in Calvin¡¯s hermeneutical principles, ¡°His principles were (1) the rule of faith;
6
(2) love of God and neighbor; (3) the historical situation; (4) scripture interpreted in the context
of scripture; (5) a heart that loves God and continually prays to God for his Holy Spirit.¡±7
Method as Brevitas et Facilitas
Calvin did have a basic approach to Scripture which is oft described as brevitas et
facilitas (i.e. in derivative form-brevitas-to be brief and relevant and facilitas-to be simple or
easily understood), brevitas for short. Brevitas is an assent to clear and concise interpretation.
Even though the Latin terminology may paint Calvin¡¯s approach as irrelevant or archaic, the
heart of this method is the basis of evangelical interpretation today. Richard Gamble writes of
brevitas, ¡°[it] may be understood as an attempt to communicate the message of the biblical
author in as concise, clear, and accurate a manner as possible¡¦.¡±8 ¡°That brevitas et facilitas¡¦is
a good summary of Calvin¡¯s exegetical methodology is hardly disputed; Battles, Kraus, Higman,
Steinmetz, Girardin, Ganoczy/Scheld, and Parker among others have written recently about it.¡±9
Brevitas describes Calvin¡¯s prevailing disposition toward interpretation.
Method and Calvin¡¯s Commentaries
Richard Muller rightly notes that brevitas tended to describe more Calvin¡¯s commentaries
than his sermons. This point is well taken and suggests even more convincingly that brevitas
characterizes Calvin¡¯s approach to exegesis as he discerns biblical meaning in his study, apart
from oratorical influence. Calvin was more apt to say less when writing than when speaking.
Muller writes, ¡°¡¦whereas the commentaries held to the model of brevitas, the sermons tended
toward a more amplificatory model of oratory, often reaching three or four times the length of
the comment on the same text¡¦.¡±10
But less we assume that Calvin victimized the text or at least his interpretations by
verbalizing in excess of textual warrant or study, Muller notes that during oratory he was,
¡°drawing on more collateral texts for the sake of broader hortatory, topical, and polemical
development.¡±11 It is a lesson to the exegete that the Holy Spirit does not dispense textual
understanding only in our study rooms, but that he gives us textual understanding, even when we
are without material aid.
Brevitas and Authorial Intention, Meaning and Context
Calvin¡¯s method is similar to the evangelical¡¯s disposition today fundamentally in its
utmost concern for authorial intention, inherent meaning and context. Calvin held that authorial
intention was the primary way to Scriptural meaning and that Scripture had a particular and
determined meaning; he also asserted that the author¡¯s contextual situation had to be discerned in
order for meaning to be reached. McKim writes that the humanist studies, ¡°gave them a direct
understanding of the intentions and meanings of the legal text. Calvin applied a similar concern
for context to his work with Scripture.¡±12 Calvin states, ¡°Let us know, then, that the true meaning
of Scripture is the natural and obvious meaning; and let us embrace and abide by it resolutely.
Let us not neglect as doubtful, but boldly set aside as deadly corruptions, those pretended
expositions which lead us away from the intended meaning.¡±13 Broadus writes of Calvin, ¡°Such
careful and continued exposition of the Bible, based in the main upon sound exegesis¡¦could not
fail of great results, especially at a time when direct and exact knowledge of Scripture was a
most attractive and refreshing novelty.¡±14 One of the earliest translators of Calvin¡¯s day stated,
¡°none had dealt more sincerely in expounding the Holy Scriptures, and more faithfully in
drawing forth the true sense (emphasis mine) of deep mysteries than Mr. Calvin.¡±15 Hunter
articulates Calvin¡¯s aim in the commentaries, ¡°His [Calvin] whole business is to show forth the
mind of the writer¡¦.¡±16 Calvin states regarding context, ¡°In order to understand correctly, it is
necessary to understand the occasion which prompted Him to speak as He did.¡±17
7
Method and Subtle Discussion
In Calvin¡¯s attempt to discern textual meaning, he did strive to limit ¡°subtle discussion¡±
or allegory and verbosity and thereby embrace brevitas, or conciseness and accuracy in textual
explanation. He writes, ¡°To treat the subject with more length, would not be consistent with the
brevity at which I aim.¡±18 And ¡°It would be superfluous¡¦to enter into subtle discussion¡¦for he
[the author] did no intend to occupy us with such cunning (emphasis mine)¡¯.¡±19 Again, these
quotes concerning verbosity and superfluous speech pertain to that which Calvin attempted to
limit in his interpretive style and method. His method was to form suppositions that adhered to
the authorial intent and text, not speculative or philosophical conjecture. Brevitas, Calvin
thought, was the safest and most responsible way to meaning.
Rightly, the exegete does attempt to paraphrase and explain the text and base
interpretations largely on those paraphrases. To the extent that this is practiced, irrelevant
discussion may be limited. This is reasonable in its aim however larger issues arise.
Accuracy and Limitation in Interpretation
The difficulty with attempts at brevity or briefness, conciseness and correctness in
interpretation lie in our desires to (1) be accurate in evaluating and articulating textual meaning
and (2) limit our textual deductions to that which we think is relevant to the text. In other words,
the exegete makes decisions regarding what he thinks is accurate in relation to the meaning of
the text and he also decides how and where to limit interpretations based on the text.
If another exegete, claiming to ¡°see more or less¡± in the text (lesser or greater fulfillment
or significance, more applicability, more relevance, etc.) makes assertions which stop short or
extend beyond another¡¯s interpretive limitation, that exegete¡¯s interpretation may be perceived as
insufficient or excessive, i.e. falling short or going beyond the bounds of textual warrant. And
hence, both exegetes, who may be both reformed, may consider one another¡¯s interpretations
inaccurate due to their own personal conception of textual accuracy and their own system of
limitation. This situation is widespread and common and in many instances not particularly
disparaging; it is often okay to agree to disagree.
Fortunately, most exegetes understand and admit that their own interpretations are limited
in scope and discernment and recognize the possibility of additional meaningful aspects
involving the text than meet their mind¡¯s eye. Difficultly arises when exegetes refuse to make
this admission or even worse, do not recognize its possibility. Discernment in interpretation is
made more likely for various reasons one of which being that the exegete¡¯s interpretive system
may allow for greater Scriptural relevance and meaningfulness and not seek to affirm absolute
limitations on textual illumination. However, often, discernment is measured not as much by
one¡¯s interpretive system but by the character and intent of their work
A Working Definition of Interpretation
Importantly, attempts at accuracy and limitation in interpretation are judgment calls,
personal decisions, based in some way on the biblical text encountered. Evangelicals believe in
accurate interpretation, i.e. interpretation that agrees with the author¡¯s intentions, but do some
embrace precise interpretation? Biblical interpretation can be defined as the endeavor to
understand the aspects and relevance of Scriptural truth. That which is critical to remember is
not merely that one¡¯s interpretation can be right or wrong, but that one¡¯s interpretation is just
that, one¡¯s interpretation; interpretations can and must be continually modified and enhanced due
to the insights of others and the revelation of God in every aspect of life. God does not desire
that we understand the Bible perfectly or completely but that we learn and therefore glorify Him.
Vanhoozer writes, ¡°What we are after as readers is not an interpretation that perfectly
8
corresponds to the text (whatever that might mean), but rather an interpretation that adequately
responds to it.¡±20
Also, the in-depth and comprehensive nature of revelation and biblical knowledge do not
align with a concept of interpretation that is absolute and precise in nature. What part do
revelation, redemptive history, interpretive systems and the nature of meaning and interpretation
and a multiplicity of other aspects of interpretation play within the framework of our exegesis?
Method and Allegory
Let us establish the evangelical view of allegory and examine brevitas in relation to it.
Calvin¡¯s judgment on allegory is the basis of the evangelical¡¯s view. Note again Calvin¡¯s
statement: ¡°¡¦It would be superfluous here to enter into subtle discussion¡¦for he did no intend
to occupy us with such cunning.¡±21 He is addressing allegory. For Calvin, allegory denies the
unity of Scriptural meaning. He writes,
¡°I know of the plausible nature of allegories, but when we reverently weigh the teachings of the Holy
Spirit, those speculations which at first sight pleased us exceedingly, vanish from our view. But I am not
captivated by such enticements myself¡¦We ought never to fetch from a distance a subtle explanation, for
the true sense will¡¦flow naturally from a passage when it is weighed with deliberation.¡±22
Allegory is opposite of brevitas in its attempts at speculation resulting in unfounded
interpretations. Allegory elevates ¡°the sign¡± above ¡°the Signified¡±, God. In allegory, the
expositor is captivated by the sign but fails to reveal the Signified. Calvin affirms the literal
meaning of Scripture in stating regarding Galatians 4:22,
¡°Scripture, they say, is fertile and thus bears multiple meanings. I acknowledge that Scripture is the most
rich and exhaustible fount of all wisdom: but I deny that its fertility consists in the various meanings that
anyone may fasten to it at his pleasure. Therefore let us know that the true meaning of Scripture is the
genuine and simple one, and let us embrace and hold it tightly. Let us not merely neglect as doubtful, but
boldly set aside as deadly corruptions, those fictitious expositions which lead us away from the literal
sense.¡±23
Allegory was antithetical to brevitas, which sought the original sense of the passage.
Allegory fails to recognize the meaning extending from the passage and the necessary and
resulting application.
The Origin of Brevitas
Interestingly, as stated at the beginning, the exegetical environment surrounding Calvin
influenced his exegetical method. The basic elements involved in evangelical interpretation stem
from the Reformers¡¯ rejection of allegorical interpretation¡¦.¡± Richard Pratt writes, ¡°This shift
[from allegorical to a literal approach to Scripture] was deeply influenced by Renaissance studies
of newly discovered classical Greek and Latin texts. As techniques for interpreting these
classical documents grew, scholars rejected allegorical methods in favor of meticulous
philological and historical methods.¡±24 Calvin¡¯s humanistic training did rightly lead him to focus
on the text¡¯s authorial intention, meaning and context, as opposed to fanciful gestures.
The Influence of Brevitas
This heightened emphasis on the text per se also did lead to a focus on the etymology,
syntax and grammar of the text. Brevitas birthed an intensely rational and methodic approach to
Scripture. Brevitas is the foundation for an interpretive framework that attempts to apply intense
hermeneutic rationality and objectivism. Logical and factual aspects of the text were emphasized
and joined to form observations, hypotheses and objective knowledge. Although interpretation
was stabilized in certain ways by brevitas, it deemphasized certain critical aspects of
interpretation. Unfortunately, brevitas influenced interpretation in that it dictated a prescriptive
analysis of the text, i.e. informing people on how they should read, and deemphasized descriptive
9
analysis, i.e. describing and informing people on what happens as they read texts; both are
needed.
Conclusion
I have broadly assessed the nature of interpretation and provided an evangelical
foundation for further study. Brevitas, Calvin¡¯s fundamental method and disposition, is in many
ways the foundation of evangelical Bible study. Because interpretation is innate to us and is
done with the frequency with which one takes breath, it is as delicate as it is meaningful. Again,
our interpretations do not need to be modified and enhanced merely because of a dichotomy
between the infallible and fallible. This existing dichotomy is not being addressed.
Interpretation needs to be examined, among other reasons, due to its nature, the nature of
meaning and the nature of knowledge. The following works will (1) weigh the present-day
influences of brevitas in light of the nature of interpretation and literary knowledge and (2)
provide assessment where possible in the extensive area of interpretation.
Michael@reformedblacksofamerica.org
www.reformedblacksofamerica.org