Journal: Conservative Theological Journal
Volume: CTJ 08:23 (Mar 2004)
Article: Enthroning the Interpreter: Dangerous Trends in Law and Theology, Part 1
Author: Andrew M. Woods

CTJ 8:23 (March 2004) p. 67

Enthroning the Interpreter:
Dangerous Trends in Law and Theology, Part 1

Andy Woods

Doctoral student
Dallas Theological Seminary

Section 1

The disciplines of law and theology have much in common. Perhaps the most significant similarity between the two entails the relentless quest for authorial intent through the vehicle of a literal method of interpretation. In other words, a literal hermeneutical procedure is the key toward understanding the author’s intended meaning when interpreting either legal documents or Scripture. These articles will demonstrate that the use of a literal method of interpretation in order to pursue the author’s meaning is a time-honored practice in both fields. In addition, these articles will also draw attention to disturbing interpretive trends well under way in both disciplines that have introduced a gradual shift in authority from the text to the interpreter. This section will focus on how literal interpretation is a foundational interpretive method within the American legal system.

Literal Interpretation and the Legal System

Using Literal Hermeneutics When Interpreting Simple Legal Documents

Using the author’s plain expression in order to arrive at his intended meaning is one of the bedrock principles of American jurisprudence. Such a hermeneutic is traditionally employed in order to arrive at the author’s intended meaning when interpreting simple legal documents. Take as an example the area of contract law. How is the original intent of a contract to be understood by the courts when a dispute over the meaning of the contract later

CTJ 8:23 (March 2004) p. 68

arises between the contracting parties? One member of the judiciary succinctly articulated the time-honored principle of contractual interpretation:

It is well established that the intent of the parties to a written contract is to be regarded as being embodied in the writing itself, and when the words are clear and unambiguous the intent is to be discovered only from the express language from the agreement … the rationale for interpreting contractual terms in accord with the plain meaning of language expressed is multifarious, resting in part upon what is viewed as the appropriate role of the courts in the interpretive process: This court long ago emphasized that the parties have the right to make their own contract, and it is not the function of the court to re-write it, or to give it a construction in conflict with … the accepted and plain meaning of the language used. … In addition to the justifications focusing upon the appropriate role of the courts in the interpretive process, the plain meaning approach to construction has been supported as generally best ...