Richard Hooker suggests that Scripture presents the Gospel with an Evangelical simplicity, but he cautions against simplistic approaches to Scriptural interpretation. According to Charles Miller in “Richard Hooker and the Vision of God,” Hooker warns against simplistic Scriptural study approaches that fail to grasp the rich history, complexity of content, and hierarchy of laws given in Scripture.
Debating with Thomas Cartwright and other non-conformists, Hooker is concerned with a reliance upon illuminist approaches to Scripture that deny the use of reason or proper hermeneutical tools. In “Of Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity” (Book 1), Hooker writes,
“It is not therefore the fervent earnestness of their persuasion, but the soundness of those reasons whereupon the same is built, which must declare their opinions in these things to have been wrought by the Holy Ghost, and not by the fraud of that evil spirit, which is even in his illusions strong.” (p 151)
Hooker is not appealing to a modern/post-modern approach to reason that is not grounded in the work of God’s redeeming grace. Rather, he suggests that as we study Scripture, the Spirit “rightly-orders” our reason. He says rightly ordered reason and the testimony of the church “has Spirit-led, rational, evidential power in forming an accurate understanding of Scripture. Once a person steps into the Scriptural world, the truth in Scripture gains greater persuasive power.” (Book 1, 376)
As I read both Hooker’s writing and Miller’s analysis, I see what could look like a way of Torah that trains the heart of the person as they study, reflect, discuss and act. Miller comes up with at least five hermeneutical tools that he sees at work in Hooker. These include:
A. Promise and Fulfillment (letter and truth)
Hooker shows no sympathy with medieval fourfold allegorical method of interpretation. When it stands, the literal meaning is preferred. Hooker says that when Scripture acquires a metaphorical or symbolic meaning, the literal meaning should not be abrogated but fulfilled.
B. Relation Informs the Whole (hierarchy of intersecting senses)
The parts of Scripture are unified in their relation to the core (Christ the Word of God). The exegete is learning or becoming attuned to Scripture’s unique harmonics (the rich and varied hierarchy of meaning, truth and inspiration). I’m wondering how this fits with Von Balthasar’s ideas on attunement of the senses and Polanyi’s ideas on personal knowledge.
C. Teleology Joined to History
Even as Hooker asks the ultimate purpose of Scripture, he seeks to understand the historical context of a given passage in order to assess the aptness of application/relation to given questions of theology, praxis and polity.
D. Application of Equity and Common Law to Exegesis
Hooker drew upon legal concepts in his approach to exegesis. The concept of equity moves from the general to the specific. Laws that ‘continually and universally should be of force’ can be adjusted, restrained and applied in particular circumstances so as to practice ‘general laws’ ‘according to their right meaning.’ (Miller, p 95)
This is an aristotelian idea in regard to the application of justice. In one sense, this a yet another turn toward the teleological principle. The end purpose of the law should be kept in mind in application of that given law.
The common law moves from precedence (particular) to the general. This involves analyzing the given facts of a case, seeking to understand the underlying, applicable legal rationale. There is a reciprocal interaction between principle and facts. This requires intense study and experience as well as the exercise of reason and discernment. (Is this the hard work of articulation that Torrance speaks about?)
E. Positive and Negative Example
Hooker’s appreciation of common law theory leads him to value positive examples in Scripture when seeking for precedent. He says that we live our lives partly guided by rules and partly by examples. Hooker says that the challenge is to assess the example to determine if it is a fit example.
The non-conformists argued from negative example: what is not expressly ordered in Scripture can be understood as a negative argument not to do something. Hooker says that without proper qualification, this position is simply untenable.
Image by James Clark (used by permission via Creative Commons)
I'd love to hear your thoughts.