Journal: Bibliotheca Sacra
Volume: BSAC 150:598 (Apr 1993)
Article: Audience Analysis and Validity in Application
Author: Daniel J. Estes

BSac 150:598 (Apr 93) p. 219

Audience Analysis and Validity in Application

Daniel J. Estes

[Daniel J. Estes is Associate Professor of Bible, Cedarville College, Cedarville, Ohio.]

The provocative analysis by Hirsch1 of the question of objectivity in literary interpretation focuses on the knotty problem of validity. Hirsch maintains that a probable meaning of a text can be ascertained by careful observation. He distinguishes between the unchanging meaning of the author, which can be determined objectively, and the manifold significance of the text for its various readers.

Hirsch has discussed validity in interpretation; the concern of this article is validity in application. Given the premise that a particular literary work is regarded by an individual or a group as an authoritative document, how can that document, which is fixed by temporal and literary specificity, be applied with compelling force to a wide range of diverse situations? For nearly 2, 000 years the Bible has been regarded in varying degrees as authoritative for faith and practice by the church.2

The Need for Valid Application

The subject of validity in application of the Bible is as relevant to the layperson as it is vexing to the literary scholar. The fundamental question is articulated in numerous ways. The assertion, “It all depends on how you interpret it,” implies that one understanding of a text is as valid as the next. The claim that

BSac 150:598 (Apr 93) p. 220

“everyone has a right to his or her own interpretation” appropriates the language of egalitarianism to justify interpretive subjectivity. On the other hand denominational particularity implies (and homiletical rhetoric often argues explicitly) that one understanding of the Bible is right and others are necessarily fallacious. Individuals reading the Bible come to widely disparate conclusions about both doctrine and personal ethics.

Is it possible for one to say with validity, This is what the Bible says to me and to my situation today? Is there a credible base for teaching and preaching that expounds the text of Scripture in specific contemporary contexts, or must proclamation be limited to an explanation of the Bible only in its original time and place? Are there legitimate grounds for evaluating disparate applications of the Bible, so as to assess specific theological claims and practical actions, or is application necessarily skewed by subjectivity? As Poythress asks, “There are many possible ‘significances,’ even for a single reader. There are many possible applications. What then distinguishes a good from a bad application of a passage of the B...