Hermeneutics
- A
Guide To Basic Bible Interpretation*
By Darryl M.
Erkel
(1999)
I.
Introduction
II.
What is 'Hermeneutics' & Why is it Important
III.
Presuppositions & Necessities of A Sound Bible Interpreter
IV.
Why Are There So Many Different Interpretations?
V.
The Basics of Bible Interpretation
VI.
A Brief Word on the Place & Value of Bible Commentaries
VII.
Interpretation of Parables
VIII.
Interpretation of Prophecy
IX.
New Testament Uses of the Old Testament
X.
Resolving Alleged Discrepancies
Recommended
Reading:
1.
This study is a
basic survey of Biblical interpretation and is not intended to be
exhaustive. It has been
designed for the average or beginning Bible student and,
therefore,
some matters of a more
advanced nature have not been included.
2. As
evangelicals, it is not enough to merely
affirm
the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible. We must also implement
its
authority in
practical ways by being careful to interpret it properly.
Unfortunately, many evangelicals
who would die for the doctrine of inerrancy, deny its authority in
practice when they are
careless in biblical interpretation.
We
must never
forget that we have, within our hands, the infallible Word of the
Living God and,
therefore, it is imperative that we treat it as such when seeking
to
understand its
contents. Such godly men as William Tyndale, John Wycliffe, and a
host
of others labored
diligently often in face of great persecution and the threat
of
death in
order to bring us God's Word in the common language. Why, then,
would
we treat it
flippantly when others paid so dearly to bring its message to us?
3.
Although it is
true that each of us has prior assumptions when approaching the
Bible
and, thus, no person
is completely neutral. Nevertheless, we must try to be as
objective as
is humanly possible
and not allow our preconceived opinions to blind us from the clear
meaning of Scripture.
4.
While it is true
that the Bible was not written for the scholar per se, neither was
it
written for the lazy
or undisciplined person who is unwilling to apply the time and
effort
needed to better
understand Scripture. The Bible urges us to "Study to show
yourself
approved to God
as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, handling accurately
the
word of truth"
(2 Timothy 2:15).
The Bible is
not designed for
lazy people. Truth has to be bought (Proverbs 23:23), but the
slothful
and worldly minded
are not willing to pay the price required. That 'price' is
intimated in
Proverbs
2:1-5: there must be a diligent applying of the heart, a crying
after
knowledge, a seeking
for an apprehension of spiritual things with the ardour and
determination that men employ
when seeking for silver; and a searching for a deeper and fuller
knowledge of the truth
such as men put forth when searching for hid treasures if
we
would
really
understand the things of God. Those who complain that these
articles
are 'too
difficult' or 'too deep' for them, do but betray the sad state
of their
souls and reveal how little
they really value the truth; otherwise they would ask God to
enable
them to concentrate,
and reread these pages perseveringly until they made their
contents
their own. People are
willing to work and study hard and long to master one of the
arts or
sciences, but where
spiritual and eternal things are concerned it is usually
otherwise
(A.W. Pink; cited in
Iain H. Murray, The Life of Arthur W. Pink, p.235).
1.
The word "hermeneutics" comes from the Greek word hermeneuo which
means "to
interpret" and is derived from Hermes, the Greek god who brought
the
messages of the
gods to humans as well as interpreted it
for
them.
Thus, the word hermeneuo came to refer to bringing someone to an
understanding of
something in his language.
"Hermeneutics,"
therefore, is the science and art of interpreting the Bible. By
means
of various
recognized and established principles, it seeks to discover the
precise
meaning of the
original authors of Scripture. Although the Bible is not a
textbook on
hermeneutics, there
are several passages within it that suggest the importance of
proper
interpretation in
order to arrive at a true understanding:
"And they read
from the
book, from the law of God, translating to give the sense so that
they
understood the
reading" (Nehemiah 8:8).
"And He said to
them, 'O foolish men and slow
of heart to believe in all that the prophets
have spoken! Was
it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to
enter His
glory?' And
beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to
them
the things concerning
Himself in all the Scriptures" (Luke 24:25-27).
"Now these were
more
noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the
word
with great eagerness,
examining the Scriptures daily, to see whether these things were
so"
(Acts 17:11; see
also Acts 8:27-35).
" . . . as also
in all
his [Paul] letters, speaking in them of these things, in which
are some
things hard to
understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do
the
rest of the
Scriptures, to their own destruction" (2 Peter 3:16).
As a
theological discipline
hermeneutics is the science of the correct interpretation of the
Bible.
It is a special
application of the general science of linguistics and meaning.
It seeks
to formulate those
particular rules which pertain to the special factors connected
with
the Bible. It stands
in the same relationship to exegesis that a rule-book stands to
a game.
The rule-book is
written in terms of reflection, analysis, and experience. The
game is
played by concrete
actualization of the rules. The rules are not the game, and the
game is
meaningless
without the rules. Hermeneutics proper is not exegesis, but
exegesis is
applied
hermeneutics. Hermeneutics is a science in that it can determine
certain principles for
discovering the meaning of a document, and in that these
principles are
not a mere list of
rules but bear organic connection to
each other. It is also an
art as we previously indicated because principles or rules can
never be
applied
mechanically but involve the skill of the interpreter (Bernard
Ramm,
Protestant Biblical
Interpretation, p.11).
Hermeneutics is the science of
interpretation. The word is usually applied to the explanation
of
written documents, and
may therefore be more specifically defined as the science of
interpreting an author's
language. The science assumes that there are divers modes of
thought
and ambiguities of
expression among men, and, accordingly, it aims to remove the
supposable differences between
a
writer and his
readers, so that the meaning of the one may be truly and
accurately
apprehended by the
others (Milton S. Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics, p.17).
2.
Another term
that will be used throughout this study is "exegesis." Exegesis is
the
application of hermeneutics which seeks to extract from the
Scriptural
text that meaning
which is already present. The exegetical student examines closely
the
words of Scripture,
and by the means of hermeneutical principles, defines their
meaning,
elucidates the scope
and plan of each writer, and brings forth the
historical-grammatical
sense of what each
book or chapter contains. "Hermeneutics is like a cookbook.
Exegesis is
the preparing
and baking of the cake, and Exposition is serving the cake" (Roy
B.
Zuck, Basic Bible
Interpretation, p.22).
The
opposite of
exegesis is the error of eisegesis, which is not concerned with
extracting the meaning of
the original text, but with reading into Scripture one's own ideas
or
preconceived
theology. Such an approach to Scripture, however, leads us to
replace
God's truth and
wisdom with human inventions, in addition to robbing us of the
blessing
which comes when
we obey what the Bible actually teaches. As the Protestant
Reformer,
Martin Luther, once
said: "The best teacher is the one who does not bring his meaning
into
the Scripture,
but gets his meaning from the Scripture."
3.
How important is
hermeneutics compared to other theological disciplines or studies?
Its
importance is
immense since a proper understanding of Scripture is the basis of
a
sound systematic
theology or any other study connected to God's Word. In fact, our
Christian
sanctification would be greatly hindered if we could not decipher
the
meaning of
Scriptural passages particularly since a major part of our
obedience
is predicated
upon a sound understanding of God's truth.
The rank and
importance of
Biblical Hermeneutics among the various studies embraced in
Theological
Encyclopedia and
Methodology is apparent from the fundamental relation which it
sustains
to them all. For
the Scripture revelation is itself essentially the center and
substance
of all theological
science. It contains the clearest and fullest exhibition of the
person
and character of
God, and of the spiritual needs and possibilities of man. A
sound and
trustworthy
interpretation of the Scripture records, therefore, is the root
and
basis of all revealed
theology. Without it Systematic Theology, or Dogmatics, could
not be
legitimately
constructed, and would, in fact, be essentially impossible. For
the
doctrines of
revelation can only be learned from a correct understanding of
the
oracles of God (Terry,
Biblical Hermeneutics, pp.21-22).
4.
The study of
hermeneutical principles is an important and relevant subject for
every
Christian because:
A. The
Bible, which was completed approximately
two-thousand years ago, is widely separated in its language,
culture,
customs, and
topography from ours in the twenty-first century and,
therefore,
there is the need
to bridge that gap by seeking to understand those principles which
help
modern readers to
grasp ancient languages, customs, and how to interpret antiquated
documents in order to
gain comprehension of its original meaning.
Moreover,
the
diversity of the kinds of literary genres found in the Bible
(e.g.,
poetry, prophecy,
parables, ancient figures of speech) makes hermeneutics mandatory
for
the Christian who
takes the Scriptures seriously.
B. Every
Christian, to some extent, engages in
hermeneutics since none of us comes to the Scriptural text
mindlessly.
Each one of us
brings his/her presuppositions or theological baggage when
attempting
to understand the
Bible's message. The real question is: Are we following sound
guidelines that will
help us to comprehend the text or Are we reading the
Bible
with no
real
direction or employing faulty rules of interpretation?
C. As
noted earlier, proper hermeneutical
principles
serve as the foundation for systematic theology. A true
understanding
of the Bible's
message (via hermeneutics) forms the basis out of which Christian
theology can be
developed.
Exegesis is
prior to any
system of theology . . . We can only know the truth of God by a
correct
exegesis of
Scripture . . . Great mischief has been done in the church when
the
system of theology or
its framework has been derived extra-biblically . . . If the
grounds of
Christian theology
is the revelation of God, then theology must be grounded in
revelation
and not in
philosophy. The historic Protestant position is to ground
theology in
biblical exegesis. A
theological system is to be built up exegetically brick by
brick. Hence
the theology is no
better than the exegesis that underlies it. The task of the
systematic
theologian is to
commence with these bricks ascertained through exegesis, and
build the
temple of his
theological system. But only when he is sure of his individual
bricks
is he able to make
the necessary generalizations, and to carry on the synthetic and
creative activity that is
necessary for the construction of a theological system (Ramm,
Protestant Biblical Interpretation, pp.168-169).
D. A
sound hermeneutic will keep us from drifting
into heresy or falling prey to a religious cult. The vast majority
of
people who join a
cult or an apostate religious system (such as Rome) are not
persons who
possess a strong
grasp of Scripture and its intended meaning, but persons who are
woefully ignorant of
God's Word as well as those hermeneutical principles which would
have
kept them from
twisting God's revelation. As James Sire has noted, "If
traditional
Christianity
affirms the Bible as its sole authority Sola Scriptura, as
the
Reformers said how can these very different religious
movements
[i.e., Jehovah's
Witnesses,
Mormons, Christian Science] claim Scripture for their own? The
obvious
answer is the right
one, I believe. They can only do so by violating the principles of
sound literary
interpretation" (Scripture Twisting, p.12).
E. A
sound hermeneutic, especially a clear
understanding of redemptive history and the differences which
exist
between the Old and
New Covenants, will help us to avoid making wrong deductions from
the
Old Testament (a
common mistake throughout church history that has led to all sorts
of
abuses and
atrocities in the name of Christ).
Because
Scripture has not been
properly interpreted the following has been urged as the voice
of God:
in that the
patriarchs practiced polygamy we may practice it; in that the
Old
Testament sanctioned the
divine right of the king of Israel, we may sanction the divine
right of
kings everywhere;
because the Old Testament sanctioned the death of witches, we
too may
put them to death;
because the Old Testament declared that some plagues were from
God, we
may not use methods
of sanitation, for that would be thwarting the purposes of God;
because
the Old Testament
forbade usury in the agrarian commonwealth of Israel we may not
employ
it in our economic
system; because the Scriptures make certain remarks about the
suffering
of women in
childbirth we may not approve any method of easing the pain;
because
tithing was a law (de
jure) in Israel, it is a law to the Church . . . A sound hermeneutics would
have prevented all of this. It would prevent an uncritical and
unrealistic application
of the
Old Testament to
Christian
morality. It would prevent an expositor from using some mere
phrase as
an eternal
principle of morality. It would prevent the effort of trying to
force
some binding
principle upon contemporary life from an obscure Old Testament
incident. It would prevent
the justification of ritualism and priestcraft from an improper
extension of the
Tabernacle worship and sacrificial system. The result of an
erratic
hermeneutics is that
the Bible has been made the source of confusion rather than
light
(Ramm, Protestant
Biblical Interpretation, pp.2-3).
F. Proper
hermeneutical principles are essential
for
those who are teachers of God's Word for if they are poor at
interpretation,
the saints are not likely to be edified and brought to greater
spiritual maturity.
G.
The goal of
hermeneutics is not to feed our intellectual pride or mere
academic
interests, but so that
we might be better interpreters of Scripture and, thereby, kept
from
doctrinal error and
many other abuses that arise from a mishandling of Holy Writ. But
perhaps the greatest
reason is so that we might discern God's will on any matter
confronting
us and, as a
result, glorify our Triune Creator.
H.
Hermeneutics is
vital for our development in the Christian life since a proper
application of biblical
truth is dependent upon a correct interpretation of it as
John
Balchin has said, "Interpreting the Bible is one of the most
important
issues facing
Christians today.
It lies behind what we believe, how we live, how we get on
together,
and what we have to
offer to the world."
1.
Spiritual
regeneration is a necessary prerequisite in order to properly
understand and apply
Scripture. The Bible is a divine and spiritual book and,
therefore,
requires that its
interpreters be spiritually regenerate in order to fully
comprehend and
maximize its
message of redemption for "a natural man does not accept the
things
of the
Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot
understand them, because
they are spiritually appraised. But he who is spiritual appraises
all
things, yet he
himself is appraised by no man. For who has known the mind of the
Lord,
that he should
instruct Him, But we have the mind of Christ" (1 Corinthians
2:14-16).
We
are not
suggesting that unbelievers are unable to decipher the historical,
contextual, or
surface-level meaning of Scripture. In some instances, they may
even
surpass evangelical
interpreters at this. Instead, we are pointing out that the
unregenerate mind, which is at
enmity with God (Romans 8:7-8), cannot grasp the true significance
of
divine revelation;
he is oblivious to its deeper meaning, redemptive theme, and
connection
with other
doctrines in the Bible (this may help to explain why liberal
theologians have been so
adverse to systematic theology and a cohesive presentation of it);
he
might be able to
comprehend the Bible's message of the necessity of a blood
sacrifice in
order to
obtain peace with God, but he will be puzzled by this Scriptural
insistence because he
does not first understand the nature and penalty of sin nor the
holy
character of God; and
finally, he is unable to fully implement God's Word within his
life
because he lacks
both the right motive and power to obey. Although he is able to
intellectually comprehend
Scripture within certain limits, he is unable to sufficiently
appropriate its truth.
For
example, when
Herod inquired of the chief priests and scribes as to where the
Messiah
was to be born
(Matthew 2:3-4), they were able to correctly point him to the
prediction of Micah 5:2
which foretold that the King of Israel would be born in Bethlehem,
but
were blinded and
apathetic to the possibility that the Messiah might have now
appeared
especially
when others, such as the Magi who had claimed to see His star in
the
east (v.2), were
obviously interested and some of the populace were even troubled
(v.3).
To
the Sadducees,
who possessed the religious rule within Israel and, therefore,
should
have known better
than to publicly ask such a foolish question on the resurrection
(Matthew 22:23-28), Jesus
replied, "You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures, or
the
power of
God" (v.29). Later, the Pharisees were also stumped and silenced
when
they, at the
request of Jesus, were unable to answer the interpretation and
Christological meaning of
Psalm 110:1 (vv.41-46).
Jesus
repeatedly
rebuked the Pharisees for failing to see Him in the writings of
Moses "for he
wrote of Me" (John 5:46). In fact, so clear was Jesus predicted in
the
Mosaic
documents that Moses himself, at the last judgment, will
personally
accuse them (v.45).
Thus, we see that while the unregenerate are held responsible for
knowing Scripture's
meaning and primary focus, they remain blinded as to its true
message
and like the
unbelieving Jews, "Their minds were hardened; for until this very
day
at the reading
of the Old Covenant the same veil remains unlifted, because it is
removed in Christ. But
to this day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their heart;
but
whenever a man turns
to the Lord, the veil is taken away" (2 Corinthians 3:14-16; see
also
2
Corinthians
4:3-4; 1 Timothy 1:3-7; 2 Timothy 2:24-26; 2 Peter 3:16).
2.
The sound
interpreter of Scripture must rely upon the Spirit of God to
illumine a
text's
original meaning as well as provide insight as to how that
discovered
meaning may be
practically applied.
"Open my eyes,
that I may
behold wonderful things from Thy law" (Psalm 119:18).
"Give me
understanding,
that I may observe Thy law, and keep it with all my heart"
(Psalm
119:34).
"Give me
understanding,
that I may learn Thy commandments" (Psalm 119:73).
"I am Thy
servant; give
me understanding that I may know Thy testimonies" (Psalm
119:125).
"Then he said
to me, 'Do not be afraid,
Daniel, for from the first day that you set your
heart on
understanding this and on humbling yourself before your God,
your words
were heard, and I
have come in response to your words'" (Daniel 10:12).
If
we rely solely
upon our own intellectual or creative abilities, we will miss many
of
the deeper lessons
which the Holy Spirit has in store for us. A prayerful attitude,
therefore, is necessary
from the very outset of the interpretive process and must continue
until the task of
exegesis and application is completed. Moreover, a mature student
of
Scripture bathes his
exegetical studies in prayer because he knows his own limitations
and
frailties when
engaged in divine pursuits.
3.
An open mind is
another prerequisite for the biblical interpreter. The assiduous
student must not only be
aware of his own presuppositions which he brings to the text, but
he
must fairly evaluate
what others, from various theological traditions, have said about
its
meaning. We need to
be careful that we do not limit our avenues for learning by
reading
only those who support
our preconceived opinions.
This
means, for
example, that Dispensationalists should read beyond those in their
own
camp and
thoughtfully consider what Reformed or Covenant theologians have
written on any given
passage and vice versa. This does not necessarily mean that
we
have
to agree with
those in opposing theological parties, but only that other
interpretive
options should be
examined before reaching a settled conclusion.
I soon began to
find out that
there was a good deal to be said, after all, concerning some
matters
that Dr. Gill and
John Calvin did not mention, and I found that I was obliged
somewhat to
stretch my
charity, and to take to my heart some brethren who did not quite
see
all things which
those enlightened men saw. And, moreover, I found out that I did
not
know everything, and
that I had a good deal still to learn, and I find the same thing
every
day. I hope at all
times to hold firmly all the truth I have received. I intend to
grasp
tightly with one
hand the truths I have already learned, and to keep the other
hand wide
open to take in
the things I do not yet know (Charles H. Spurgeon).
4.
The sound
interpreter of Scripture will commit himself to the full inerrancy
and
divine authority of
God's Word. In the same way that "without faith it is impossible
to
please Him
[God], for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that
He is
a rewarder of those
who seek Him" (Hebrews 11:16), so also must the person who
undertakes
the study of
Scripture presuppose that the Bible is God's inspired revelation
to
man. Without such
a presuppositional starting-point (particularly when one is
already
persuaded that the
Bible is merely the written opinions of primitive men), we will
make
very little headway
in our understanding of Scripture and, in the end, the Bible will
appear mostly enigmatic
and confusing to us.
5.
The wise
interpreter of Scripture must also presuppose that the Bible is
intelligible and,
therefore, God desires that we truly understand the contents of
its
pages. If God has
indeed given His people a complete and sufficient revelation of
Himself
and our duties,
then it is proper for us to believe in the clarity and
intelligibility
of the Bible
for even the simple can understand God's Word (Psalm 119:130); in
some
instances,
even more than the aged (Psalm 119:99-100).
I believe that
the Bible is to
be understood and received in the plain obvious meaning of its
passages, since I cannot
persuade myself that a book intended for the instruction and conversion of the whole world
should cover its meaning in any such mystery and doubt that none
but
critics and
philosophers discover it (Daniel Webster).
This
is not meant
to imply that the Scriptures contain no difficulties, apparent
contradictions, or hard
sayings for we must frequently confess that "we see in a
mirror
dimly" (1
Corinthians 13:12) and that some Biblical authors are "hard to
understand" (2
Peter 3:16). Following the ancient Talmudic rule, we must learn to
"teach thy tongue
to say, I do not know." Nevertheless, the clarity of the Bible's
central message
of redemption for lost sinners remains coherent and discernable
(Reformed theologians have
termed this the "Perspicuity of Scripture").
6.
After the
interpreter has done his exegetical homework, particularly if he
comes
to a novel
interpretation of a given passage not discovered by other
scholars, it
would be wise to
lay out one's conclusions before others for their evaluation. This
helps to prevent
us from forming incorrect views of the passage or chapter under
examination as well as
safeguards the local church from receiving false doctrine.
Along
the same line
of thought, we should also follow the "checking principle," which
means
that we
carefully check whatever scholarly reference sources stand the
best
chance of providing us
reliable information on a passage or subject.
For
example, if we
are studying a matter that touches on Bible history, we should try
to
find a reliable
book(s) that deals with such history (such as Alfred Edersheim,
Old
Testament Bible
History, Walter C. Kaiser, A History of Israel, F.F. Bruce, New
Testament History, and
others). When "checking" a commentary, don't limit yourself to
one,
but
survey several commentators before deciding an issue. Some of the
best
commentaries and
commentators that you should be aware of are: Baker Exegetical
Commentary on the New
Testament by various authors; New Testament Commentary Series by
William Hendriksen and
Simon Kistemaker; The New International Commentary on the Old
Testament
& New
Testament by various authors; The New American Commentary on the
Old
Testament & New
Testament by various authors; Commentaries on the New Testament by
R.C.H. Lenski; and The
Expositor's Bible Commentary Series: Old Testament & New
Testament
by various
authors.
The
"checking
principle," rightly used, will help us to avoid making dumb
mistakes
and reaching
shallow assumptions as well as expand our understanding of God's
Word.
7.
The interpreter
must also practically apply what is discovered in the interpretive
process. It is not
enough to merely know, we must go on to do for all knowledge
gained
from the Divine
Word brings accountability.
"For Ezra had
set his
heart to study the law of the Lord, and to practice it, and to
teach
His statutes and
ordinances in Israel" (Ezra 7:10).
"I have
inclined my heart
to perform Thy statutes forever, even to the end" (Psalm
119:112).
"But prove
yourselves
doers of the Word, and not merely hearers who delude themselves"
(James
1:22).
1.
Many people are
lazy and less than diligent when studying the Bible. Others would
rather be spoon-fed the
opinions of their pastor or Bible study leader, instead of coming
to
interpretive
conclusions based upon their own hard work. Thus, such persons
tend to
arrive at rash,
simplistic, and wrong interpretations of the Bible.
Like
the mass of
Roman Catholics, many Protestants are content to allow others to
do
their thinking for
them, rather than invest the time and sweat needed to come to the
original thought of the
biblical writer. In a real sense, then, we end up producing our
own
version of a "Teaching Magisterium" or "Protestant Popery."
This
should not be
misconstrued as legitimizing the opposite extreme of those who
ignore
the general
consensus of Bible scholars and arrive at completely novel or
bizarre
interpretations of
the Scriptures an error that should be equally castigated!
2.
Some Christians
lack the gifts or intellectual acumen to be mature interpreters of
Scripture. The problem
of different interpretations is then exacerbated when such
unqualified
persons are given a
platform in which to espouse their distorted views. In this way,
wrong
opinions of the
Bible's meaning are perpetuated among the general populace and
within
local
assemblies.
3.
Another major
contributor is false tradition. Many Christian denominations are
held
together by a
tenacious attitude which, in effect, says, "That's what we have
always
believed," rather than a firm conviction that such views have been
carefully exegeted
from Scripture. This precarious reliance upon human tradition does
much
to foster
incorrect interpretations of the Bible.
4.
The presence of
false teachers among the visible church helps to contribute to
wrong
views of the
Bible's message. Had the members of our churches been careful
Bible
students
(including church leaders), the popularity of such doctrines as
Word-Faith theology would
have been less devastating within evangelicalism. It is only among
an
ignorant and
Scripturally illiterate church that such heretical movements can
flourish.
5.
Some Christians
are not sovereignly granted the insight needed in order to better
understand
Scripture's message. For a variety of reasons -- such as pride,
hardness of heart
[Mark 6:52], or worldly distractions (some of which are known only
to
God) He has
chosen not to give every believer the same level of biblical and
spiritual understanding.
In some cases, we may not yet be able to bear such Divine truths
(John
16:12). Thus, God
waits until we progress further in our sanctification.
6.
Many churches do
not offer a class on hermeneutics and far too many pastors are
convinced that such a study
would be irrelevant or impractical. The common assumption seems to
be
that the study of
hermeneutics should be left to seminary students and, that such a
course, would prove to
be far too intellectual for the average church member. But such
thinking is misguided at
best. It fails to realize that since Bible study is going to be a
life-long pursuit for
any Christian (or should be), it is imperative that they be taught
how
to properly
interpret and apply it. But, let's face it: How many churches
(even
so-called "Bible churches") practice this or would even dare to
teach
hermeneutics during
the corporate meeting time?
1.
When
studying through
a text of Scripture, learn to ask the right questions:
A.
Who are the
central figures in this passage or account? Who wrote this book?
Who is
the audience?
B.
What is the
central message? What is the primary intent of the writer? What is
the
context and
historical setting? What is God trying to teach me?
C.
When did this
event take place? When was it written or recorded?
D.
Where did it
take place? Where was the author when he wrote this book or
recorded
this event?
E.
Why did it
occur? Why did the writer choose to include this narrative and how
does
it fit into his
particular theme or purpose?
F.
How did this
happen? How does this narrative relate to other events within the
same
book? How can I
apply this to the circumstances of my life?
By
asking the right
questions, we help to flesh out the author's original meaning as
well
as comprehend
the historical circumstances in which the narrative is cast. The
problem with many novices
who engage in exegesis is that they arrive at conclusions about
the
meaning of a passage
without having first asked the appropriate questions and,
consequently,
they commit the
fallacy of eisegesis (i.e., reading into the text of Scripture
foreign
ideas that were not
originally present).
2.
Always examine
closely the context of any given passage. All literature,
including the
Bible, must be
read or studied in light of its context. To do otherwise, will
only
cause confusion and
misunderstanding on the part of the reader.
For
example, when
reading an article in the local newspaper, is it wiser to begin in
the
middle of a
paragraph halfway through the story or is it wiser to
start
at the
beginning
and follow closely the writer's logic or flow of thought?
Obviously, it
is the
latter. Likewise, when interpreting the Bible, we must track the
author's meaning by
carefully studying both the immediate and surrounding context of
the
passage. Only then,
can we begin to decipher the intended meaning and thereby apply
the
instruction.
The word
context, as the
etymology intimates (Latin, con, together, and textus, woven),
denotes
something that is
woven together, and, applied to a written document, it means the
connection of thought
supposed to run through every passage which constitutes by
itself a
whole. By some writers
it is called the connection. The immediate context is that which
immediately precedes or
follows a given word or sentence. The remote context is that
which is
less closely
connected, and may embrace a whole paragraph or section (Terry,
Biblical Hermeneutics,
p.210).
This
same rule also
pertains to words: The meaning of any word is always determined by
its
context. In some
cases, it may be necessary to examine not only the immediate
context of
the chapter, but
also the entire book in which the particular word occurs.
For
example, during
an encounter with a Jehovah's Witness, I appealed to Hebrews 1:6
(which
speaks of the
angels worshipping the Son of God) as proof of Jesus' deity. My
opponent immediately
took me to Revelation 3:9 which pictures apostate Jews
"worshipping"
the saints.
He sarcastically retorted, "Does this now mean that they're
members of
the
Trinity also?" He went on to point out that the Greek word
"worship"
(proskuneo) does not always mean worship to God, but may simply
denote
a general respect
or obeisance.
While
it is true
that proskuneo does not always denote the kind of worship that
belongs
to God alone and,
as clever as this argument may at first appear, it wrongly assumes
that
the word "worship" in both contexts are identical. Nothing could
be
further from
the
truth.
By
simply reading
the context of Hebrews chapter one wherein the word "worship"
occurs,
it becomes
obvious that the writer of Hebrews intended to denote the kind of
worship reserved only
for God. For instance, the Son is spoken of as "the exact
representation of His [God]
nature," who "upholds all things by the word of His [Jesus] power"
(v.3);
He is distinguished from the angels in vv.4-13 which means that He
could not be Michael
the Archangel as Jehovah's Witnesses claim; the Father Himself
calls
Jesus "God" (v.8) and "Lord" (v.10), telling Him that "the heavens
are
the work of Thy hands" (v.10); and finally, the Father praises the
Son
for His
eternality and immutability (vv.11-12). Is it not, then, clear
what
kind of "worship" the writer of Hebrews had in mind?
In
the Summer of
1994, I engaged in a formal debate with a local church pastor on
the
question of the
extent of Christ's atonement (I defended the view that Christ died
a
substitutionary
death on behalf of the elect only). My Arminian opponent
repeatedly
cited passages where
Jesus' death is connected to phrases such as "world," "whole
world," "all", and "all men" without first explaining in what
sense those terms were used by the New Testament writers. He
wrongly
assumed that "world" and "whole world" referred to every person
without exception.
For him, it was enough to simply cite a passage where such words
occur
and move on to the
next text without any explanation or exegesis bothering to
prove
that
the term "world" must refer to all men universally!
But
this was a
fatal flaw in his argument and demonstrated his ignorance of that
important principle
which says that the meaning of any word should be determined by
its
context. Had my
theological opponent bothered to investigate the terms "world" and
"all," he would have discovered that the New Testament gives a
multiplicity of
meanings to these terms most of which are used in a
restricted
sense
and,
therefore, cannot denote every person without exception. The
following
is a small sampling
where such terms are used to include some or "all kinds of," but
not
all without
exception:
Matthew
10:22
Jesus' words should not be pressed, since there have always been
and
will continue to
be people who refuse to exhibit hatred toward Christians. Jesus
is
speaking of most, but
not all persons.
Mark 1:5
This cannot
mean each and every person, for both the Romans and Israel's
religious
leaders had
very little interest in John's call to repentance.
Luke 1:21
Rome did not
tax all the inhabitants of this planet, but only those within
her
jurisdiction.
John 1:9
Not every
person has been enlightened, since the vast majority of mankind remains in darkness (1
John 5:19).
John 1:10
Within this
one passage there are three different uses of "world," which
should
cause
Arminians to be more cautious in their claims.
John
12:19 Certainly
not everyone in the world has gone after Christ, for the
majority of
the Pharisees refused
to.
Acts 2:17
The phrase "all mankind"
cannot refer to the
entirety of the human race, but must mean people of every sort;
not
just the Jews, but
also the Gentiles (Acts 10:45).
Acts
10:12 The Greek
says, "all four-footed animals," but clearly means "all kinds
of" as
the NASB renders it (for other instances of the same, see
Matthew 9:35; 10:1; Luke
11:42; 1 Timothy 6:10).
Acts 17:6
This cannot
mean every person since the Gospel had not yet reached every
region on
the earth, nor did
the apostles upset eveyone they preached the Gospel to (Acts
13:48-49;
17:10-12).
Romans
1:8 "Whole
world" cannot be taken to mean every place on earth or every
person
but, instead,
refers to most of the regions that were occupied by Rome.
Romans
5:18 The latter
usage of "all men" can hardly mean every person, but must be
interpreted in a
restricted sense to denote all those in Christ.
Romans
11:26 "All
Israel" cannot mean every Israelite, but the majority or a large
number
of
Israelites.
2 Corinthians
5:14 "All died" cannot
mean every person, for not all have died to sin
(Romans
6:3-11; Colossians 3:3).
1 John
5:19 "Whole
world" cannot possibly mean every single human, since Christians
have
been freed from
Satan's control (Acts 26:18; 1 John 5:18).
Revelation
3:10 "Whole world" cannot
be interpreted to mean every person without
exception,
since Christians will be kept "from the hour of testing."
Revelation
12:9 "Whole world" cannot
refer to all living persons, since Christians will
not be
ultimately deceived by Satan.
Revelation
13:3 "Whole earth" cannot
mean each and every person, since Christians will
not
follow after the beast.
A
similar problem
happens when Bible students assume that every occurrence of the
term
"law"
(nomos) within the Pauline writings denotes the Mosaic law. But
this is
surely misguided
since Paul employs a variety of different meanings for nomos
within his
assorted epistles
(see Douglas J. Moo, "'Law,' 'Works of the Law,' and Legalism in
Paul," Westminster Theological Journal, 43 [1983], pp.73-100).
3.
The
Historical-Grammatical method of interpretation is necessary if
one is
going to rightly
interpret the Bible. This means that the interpreter must be
sensitive
to the historical
context and setting of the passage under examination as well as
its
grammar or word usage.
Another
term
frequently used by theologians is "literal interpretation." It is
commonly
employed in its dictionary sense: " . . . the natural or usual
construction and
implication of a writing or expression; following the ordinary and
apparent sense of
words; not allegorical or metaphorical" (Webster's New
International
Dictionary). Thus, when we adhere to the literal interpretation,
we do
not mean a crass,
wooden literalism, but the usual, customary, or normal sense of
words.
Neither do we mean
letterism which fails to recognize nuances, hidden metaphors,
hyperbole, plays on words,
or the various figures of speech which the biblical writers
frequently
used.
Further, in
common life, no
prudent and conscientious person, who either commits his
sentiments to
writing or utters
anything, intends that a diversity of meanings should be
attached to
what he writes or
says; and, consequently, neither his readers, nor those who hear
him,
affix to it any
other than the true and obvious sense . . . The Literal Sense of
any
place of Scripture is
that which the words signify, or require, in their natural and
proper
acceptation, without
any trope [figure of speech], metaphor, or figure, and
abstracted from
mystic meaning
(Charles Horne; cited in Ramm, Protestant Biblical
Interpretation, p.
121).
Some,
however,
prefer the term "normal" or "historical-grammatical"
interpretation
because the term "literal" is too often confused with literalism
or
letterism and there is, perhaps, some warrant in this
criticism.
Moreover, as
the late Old
Testament scholar, Oswald T. Allis, has written: "No literalist,
however,
thoroughgoing, takes everything in the Bible literally. Nor do
those
who lean to a more
figurative method of interpretation insist that everything is
figurative. Both principles
have their proper place and their necessary limitations" (Prophecy
& The Church,
p.17). Whatever word one chooses to use, it is imperative to
qualify
our terms so that our
hearers do not misunderstand what is intended by the phrase
"literal
interpretation."
The
advantages of
the "literal" or "historical-grammatical" interpretation is seen
in
that: (1) This method is the usual practice in the interpretation
of
literature, whether
ancient or modern; and (2) This method controls the exegete from
falling prey to common
abuses of Scripture, such as the mystical and allegorical form of
interpretation.
4.
Allow clear or
plain passages of the Bible to explain those which are obscure or
doubtful. In fact,
without the help of clearer or parallel passages, some words and
sentences in Scripture
would hardly be intelligible. In a real sense, then, Scripture
interprets Scripture
meaning that by a careful comparison of one verse with another
(making
certain that there
is a legitimate parallel in thought or doctrine and not merely a
verbal
one), we are able
to elucidate that passage which was previously shrouded in
mystery.
The
Protestant
Reformers spoke of this principle as the "analogy of Scripture"
(analogia
Scriptura), meaning that since the Bible does not contradict
itself, we
must look to other
passages in Holy Writ to help illumine those which are less clear.
As
J.I. Packer has
stated, "The Bible appears like a symphony orchestra, with the
Holy
Ghost as its
Toscanini; each instrumentalist has been brought willingly,
spontaneously, creatively, to
play his notes just as the great conductor desired, though none of
them
could ever hear
the music as a whole . . . The point of each part only becomes
fully
clear when seen in
relation to all the rest" (God Has Spoken, p.74).
5.
Be alert to the
historical background. The Bible was written within human history
and,
therefore, the
interpreter must seek to inform himself as to the historical
events,
culture, geography,
archeology, and other pertinent information surrounding the
passage or
book under study.
Thankfully, there is an abundance of Bible study tools and other
resources which help
Bible students to bridge the historical and cultural gap between
the
ancient biblical
world and ours in the twenty-first century.
A religion
which is thus
rooted and grounded in history cannot ignore history. Hence a
historical understanding of
the Bible is not a superfluity which can be dispensed with in
biblical
interpretation,
leaving a body of ideas and principles divorced from the process
out of
which they were
born (H.H. Rowley; cited in Ramm, Protestant Biblical
Interpretation,
p.154).
6.
Recognize the
principle of progressive revelation. The failure to grasp this
important rule has brought
much harm to the church historically when well-meaning, but
misguided,
theologians have
forced upon the conscience of New Covenant believers practices
that
were limited to the
Old Covenant era.
By progressive
revelation we
mean that the Bible sets forth a movement of God, with the
initiative
coming from God and
not man, in which God brings man up through the theological
infancy of
the Old Testament
to the maturity of the New Testament. This does not mean that
there are
no mature ideas in
the Old Testament nor simple elements in the New Testament.
Progressive
revelation is the
general pattern of revelation . . . The law was proper as far as
it
went, but it did not
go far enough. It taught a basic morality for the children of
Israel,
but our Lord
elevates the law to a higher level of motivation and
spirituality . . .
The morality of
the Ten Commandments was a necessary point of beginning in man's
ethical, spiritual,
and theological development, but the Sermon on the Mount summons
believers in God to a
much higher level of ethical conduct . . . This perspective of
progressive revelation is
very important to the interpreter. He will expect the full
revelation
of God in the New
Testament. He will not force New Testament meanings into the
Old, yet
he will be able to
more fully expound the Old knowing its counterparts in the New.
He will
adjust his sights
to the times, customs, manners, and morals of the people of God
at any
given state in the
Old Testament period of revelation, and he will be aware of
partial and elementary nature
of the Old Testament revelation. He will take Augustine's words,
"distinguish
the times and you will harmonize Scripture," as a guide so as
not to
create a
contradiction in Scripture by forcing a New Testament standard
of
morality or doctrine
upon an Old Testament passage (Ramm, Protestant Biblical
Interpretation, pp.102-104).
7.
Distinguish
between what the Bible records and what it approves. Bible readers
frequently make the
mistake of assuming that because the Scripture records the
particular
actions of a
biblical character, therefore, that action is endorsed by God. The
Bible, however, is a
record of redemptive history which records a variety of deeds on
the
part of humans (both
good and bad); and every instance noted within its pages is not
morally
evaluated in
explicit terms. Thus, we may have to consider other hermeneutical
factors in order to
arrive at a settled conclusion concerning the morality of the
incident
set forth.
For
example, 1
Samuel 25 records an incident when David was prepared to slaughter
Nabal and all his
household (v.17) because of Nabal's lack of hospitality and
disrespectful words
toward David and his servants (vv.3,10-11). The only thing that
spared
David from
committing this deed was the gracious words of Abigail, Nabal's
wife
(vv.23-35).
There is, however, no indication that David's original intention
was
the will of God.
More than likely, David's hand was sovereignly spared from
carrying out
such a
foolish and unnecessary act (regardless of how discourteous Nabal
may
have spoken).
Another
instance is
the tragic account recorded in Judges 11:30-39 when Jephthah
presumably
sacrificed his own
daughter in order to fulfill his vow unto the Lord (vv.30-31). In
no
way, however, should
Jephthah's vow and subsequent action be viewed as normative for
believers today, nor
does it justify "sticking to our guns" when we make a rash or
foolish
promise to
God. Once again, just because something is described in Scripture
does
not mean God
prescribes us to follow it.
8.
Incidental or
rare events within Scripture should not necessarily be taken as
normative for Christians
today. For example, Acts 1:26 says that the early apostles drew
lots in
order to find the
Lord's will on who would replace Judas (whether Joseph or
Matthias).
But it is less
than likely that this should be our approach when confronted with
important decisions especially since the drawing of lots
occurred
at the beginning stage
of early
church history and was, apparently, discontinued soon after (the
New
Testament records no
other instances of drawing lots).
In
Acts 21:22-26
Paul took upon himself a vow in which he shaved his head, purified
himself according to
Jewish custom, went into the temple, and even offered a sacrifice
in
order to demonstrate
that he was not hostile to the law or his Jewish heritage. This
particular incident,
however, can hardly be normative for contemporary Christians. In
fact,
there's no
evidence that this was even considered normative for Jewish
Christians
living in the first
century, since it was only Paul and four other companions which
undertook that vow.
What
factors help
us to discern whether an early apostolic church practice is
normative
for modern
Christians? How can we tell if something recorded in the New
Testament
is merely cultural
or a distinctive apostolic practice which is normative for
Christians
of all ages?
Admittedly,
this is
not always an easy question to answer and Christian theologians
have
not always found
agreement. But the following points may help the Bible student to
effectively separate
those early church practices which were clearly cultural or
limited to
the customs of the
first century era and those which were intended by God to be
implemented by all the
assemblies throughout church history.
To
begin with, we
ought to separate those church practices which were clearly
cultural
(such as using
candles to light our meetings, wearing tunics, writing on
parchments,
etc.) and those
which were the distinctive practices and ministry patterns of the
early
church. But what
is meant by "distinctive" apostolic patterns? And how can we tell
what
is "distinctive" and what is not? Briefly, a distinctive apostolic
church
pattern
is a practice that:
A.
Often goes
contrary to the culture of the day (e.g., Jews and Gentiles
meeting and
eating together as
one body [Ephesians 2:11-16]).
B.
Goes contrary to
the religious custom of the day. In other words, it is those
religious
practices or
apostolic traditions which went counter to the pagan religions
then
prevalent in the
Greco-Roman world (e.g., the early Christians, in contrast to
Judaism
and the pagan
mystery religions, had no need for temples or shrines; nor did
they
have any need for
special "holy men" or priests who would perform religious
exercises on
their
behalf).
C.
Is usually
(though perhaps not always) repeated within the New Testament and
which
seems to have been
the normative practice of the early Christian assemblies. A
uniformity
in basic church
structure and practice appears to have been the mark of all
apostolic
churches. For
example, the pattern of multiple participation is found in Romans
(12:4-8), 1 Corinthians
(14:26), Ephesians (4:11-16; 5:19), Colossians (3:16), Hebrews
(10:24-25), 1 Peter
(4:10-11), and most books of the New Testament indicating,
of
course,
that there
was a distinctive apostolic practice common to all the churches
regardless of their
geographical location (1 Corinthians 4:16-17; 11:16; 14:33).
D.
Distinctive
apostolic practices are rooted in theology. In other words, New
Testament church forms
were not meaningless or merely cultural, but instead, reflective
of
theological truth
(such as celebrating the Lord's Supper in conjunction with a full
meal
which
prefigures the Marriage Supper of the Lamb [Matthew 8:11;
Revelation
19:9]; using one cup
and one bread in the Lord's Supper which symbolizes our oneness in
Christ [1
Corinthians 10:16-17]; and allowing mutual participation in the
assembly which is the
practical outworking of Paul's theology of the Body [1 Corinthians
12:12-27;
Ephesians 4:16]).
E.
A distinctive
apostolic practice does not need to be explicitly commanded in
order to
remain
authoritative for church practice. In fact, most church practices
which
we deem necessary
to have if we are going to be faithful to apostolic teaching, are
not
even commanded in
the New Testament! For example, there is no direct command to
gather
weekly every Sunday;
there is no direct command to celebrate the Lord's Supper weekly;
and
there is no
direct command that every congregation have a plurality of elders
and
deacons. Granted,
these were clearly the distinctive apostolic patterns of the early
church and, therefore,
should be practiced by our churches, but there is no direct or
explicit
command that such
patterns be followed. Yet, many churches would feel that they have
been
less than faithful
to the New Testament if they did not implement such ministry
patterns
(and rightly so).
This is because we all instinctively know that the apostles of our
Lord
did not need to
explicitly preface all their words with direct commands; most
often the
example or model which they set
before us
and encourage us to
imitate is sufficient (1 Corinthians 4:16; 11:1-2,16; 14:33;
Philippians 3:17; 4:9; 1
Thessalonians 1:6-7; 2 Thessalonians 2:15).
F.
It must be made
clear that we are not exalting first-century Christianity and
everything which transpired
as the supreme example for churches today (except in those cases
where
a distinctive
apostolic pattern is established). No period of church history is
infallible and to be
emulated without question. In fact, we know that the early
churches had
many problems and
could behave quite carnal at times (think of the Corinthians and
their
numerous divisions
and strife; the Galatian churches which were duped by the
Judaizers;
and our Lord's
stern warning to the seven churches of Asia in the Book of
Revelation).
Furthermore,
later
periods of church history, because of the long span of time which
allowed greater insight
and theological understanding to develop, probably had more
intellectual maturity than did
the first-century church when Christian doctrine was not as
clearly
organized. Thus, we
must be faithful to apostolic ecclesiology and yet appreciative
for
those advances or
contributions which Christ has brought to His church through His
servants (e.g., such men
as Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Edwards, and others).
9.
Don't build
a doctrine upon an uncertain textual reading. In other words, we
should
not erect an
entire teaching or system of theology upon a verse which has
dubious
textual support.
Christian theology should be built upon passages which exist in
the
original manuscripts
and can be confirmed through the science of textual criticism.
For
instance, it
would be wrong to defend the doctrine of the Trinity from the KJV
reading of 1 John 5:7
("For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the
Word,
and the Holy
Ghost: and these three are one") since no known ancient manuscript
can
attest to this
reading. Neither should we build a case for contemporary tongues
and
miraculous signs
based upon Mark 16:15-18 since our oldest and most reliable
manuscripts
do not contain
this ending (although some scholars, admittedly, have attempted to
present an apologetic
for its inclusion).
10.
Recognize the
Christocentric focus of the Bible. The New Testament writers
primarily
viewed the Old
Testament as Christological documents. In other words, they
understood
the Hebrew
Scriptures as ultimately pointing to the person of Christ and the
redemptive-historical
fulfillment that He would bring. As Martin Luther once said, "If
you
will interpret
well and securely, take Christ with you, for He is the man whom
everything concerns."
"And He took
the twelve
aside and said to them, 'Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem,
and all
things which
are written through the prophets about the Son of Man will be
accomplished'"
(Luke 18:31).
"And beginning
with Moses
and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things
concerning
Himself in all the
Scriptures" (Luke 24:27).
"Now He said to
them, 'These are My words
which I spoke to you while I was still with you,
that all things
which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets
and the
Psalms must be
fulfilled'" (Luke 24:44).
"Philip found
Nathanael
and said to him, 'We have found Him of whom Moses in the Law and
also
the Prophets
wrote, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph'" (John 1:45).
"For if you
believed
Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote of Me" (John 5:46).
"And so,
because he
[David] was a prophet, and knew that God had sworn to him with
an oath
to seat one of his
descendants upon his throne, he looked ahead and spoke of the
resurrection of the Christ,
that He was neither abandoned to Hades, nor did His flesh suffer
decay"
(Acts
2:30-31).
"But the things
which God
announced beforehand by the mouth of all the prophets, that His
Christ
should suffer, He
has thus fulfilled" (Acts 3:18).
"Of Him all
the prophets
bear witness . . ." (Acts 10:43).
"And according
to
Paul's custom, he went to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned
with
them from the
Scriptures, explaining and giving evidence that the Christ had
to
suffer and rise again
from the dead, and saying, 'This Jesus whom I am proclaiming to
you is
the
Christ'" (Acts 17:2-3).
"And all drank
the same
spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock
which
followed them; and the
rock was Christ" (1 Corinthians 10:4).
"For I
delivered to you
as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died
for our
sins according to
the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised
on the
third day according
to the Scriptures" (1 Corinthians 15:3-4).
"As to this
salvation,
the prophets who prophesied of the grace that would come to you
made
careful search and
inquiry, seeking to know what person or time the Spirit of
Christ
within them was
indicating as He predicted the sufferings of Christ and the
glories to
follow" (1
Peter 1:10-11).
In
light of this,
we should view the Old Testament not as Israel-centered (as
Dispensationalists mistakenly
assume) nor as law-centered (as Covenant theologians think), but
as
having its focus on
the person of Christ and His redemptive mission for "of Him
all
the
prophets
bear witness" (Acts 10:43). This doesn't mean that every text of
Scripture in
the Old Testament speaks directly or explicitly of Him; rather,
that
every text of
Scripture within the Hebrew Bible is part of the one story which
has
its ultimate focus in
Him. As the late New Testament scholar, F.F. Bruce, has written:
In Jesus the promise is
confirmed, the covenant is renewed, the prophecies are
fulfilled, the
law is vindicated,
salvation is brought near, sacred history has reached its
climax, the
perfect sacrifice
has been offered and accepted, the great High Priest over the
household
of God has taken
His seat at God's right hand, the Prophet like Moses has been
raised
up, the Son of
David reigns, the kingdom of God has been inaugurated, the Son
of Man
has received
dominion from the Ancient of Days, the Servant of the Lord,
having been
smitten to death
for His people's transgression and borne the sin of many, has
accomplished the divine
purpose, has seen light after the travail of His soul and is now
exalted and extolled and
made very high (New Testament Development of Old Testament
Themes,
p.21).
11.
Recognize the "sensus plenior" of Scripture. The term sensus
plenior
("fuller
sense") has been used by Christian theologians in order to teach
that
Israel's
Old Testament history has a deeper and far-reaching meaning than a
purely
historical-grammatical exegesis can exhaust or bring to light.
"Sensus
Plenior,"
by definition, denotes God's intended meaning in Scripture, which
may
or may not have
been discerned by the human author, but which is made clear by the
subsequent revelation
of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament. As William LaSor points
out,
"In either
event, the author does not intentionally convey the sensus plenior
to
his hearers. But at
a later date, in the light of further revelation, the fuller
meaning
becomes clear to
readers under the influence of the Spirit who inspired the
original
author"
("Interpretation of Prophecy," Hermeneutics, ed. Bernard Ramm,
p.108).
This
should not be
seen as a denial of the validity of the historical-grammatical
method
nor as an
endorsement of allegorical or mystical exegesis. Instead, when
guided
by proper controls,
the principle of sensus plenior helps us to see the Divine
intention or
deeper theological
purpose behind certain events and persons within the history of
Israel.
Moreover, these
are not arbitrary meanings discovered by a creative interpreter,
but
are the insights of
the New Testament writers who were uniquely granted such insight
by the
Holy Spirit. As
the Reformed theologian, Louis Berkhof, has stated:
The real
meaning of Scripture
does not always lie on the surface. There is no truth in the
assertion
that the intent of
the secondary authors [God being the primary author], determined by the
grammatical-historical method, always exhausts the sense of
Scripture,
and represents in
all its fullness the meaning of the Holy Spirit (Principles of
Biblical
Interpretation,
pp.59-60).
For
example, King
David's shocking betrayal by a close friend, as recorded in Psalm
41:9,
was not a
literal prediction or direct Messianic prophecy. Nevertheless,
Jesus
applied this historic
experience and cultic lamentation to Himself (John 13:18), and
thereby
elevated
David's unfortunate betrayal to a type which was "fulfilled" in
Christ.
Just as David was betrayed by a close friend, so also the greater
David, the true King of
Israel, is likewise betrayed. Thus, our Lord unfolded Psalm 41:9
in a
deeper,
Christological sense that is not discovered by a
historical-grammatical
exegesis.
Would
a purely
historical-grammatical exegesis lead one to interpret Hosea 11:1
("Out
of Egypt I
called My Son") as a future reference of the Messiah
particularly
when the
prophet is not looking forward to the distant future, but to the
past
when God brought the
nation of Israel out of their Egyptian bondage? Yet Matthew, in
chapter
2:15, understands
Hosea 11:1 as having its ultimate reference and fulfillment in
Jesus
who, as the true Son
of God, not only represents Israel before God, but also
recapitulates
Israel's
history in His own life. Thus, Matthew, under the guidance of the
Holy
Spirit, who sees
the deeper significance and Christological sense of Hosea 11:1,
tries
to teach us that the
meaning of Israel's history is fully revealed in the life and
mission
of Jesus
Christ.
Take,
as another
example, the words of Jeremiah 31:15 ("Thus says the LORD, 'A
voice is
heard in
Ramah, lamentation and bitter weeping. Rachel is weeping for her
children; she refuses to
be comforted for her children, because they are no more'") which,
in
its
historical context, refers to the deportation of the Jews to
Babylon.
Symbolically,
Rachel, as the mother of Israel, is pictured weeping. However,
Matthew
sees this weeping
as "fulfilled" in the wailing of those mothers whose children were
slaughtered
in Bethlehem by Herod (Matthew 2:17-18). Thus, Matthew understands
the
words of Jeremiah
31:15 as having its ultimate and fuller meaning in the events of
Jesus'
early life for it is He, as Messiah, who recapitulates many
of
the
redemptive-historical
events which occurred in the stages of Israel's life. According to
Hans
K. La
Rondelle:
Matthew
interprets many
crucial events in Israel's history as a foreshadowing of
Messianic
fulfillments. In
the life of Christ the fuller meaning of Israel's sacred history
is
brought to light.
In this way, Matthew tries to confirm the Christian faith that
Jesus is
the Messiah of
Israel and that God has achieved His goal in His
salvation-history with
Israel . . . In
summary, the New Testament reveals a multiplex, Christ-centered
approach to the Old
Testament, which is theologically richer and more comprehensive
than
the hermeneutic of
literalism (The Israel of God in Prophecy, pp.74,77).
It
should be noted
that not all scholars accept the notion of sensus plenior as
valid.
Many see such New
Testament uses of the Old Testament as analogies, parallels, or
implications from the
Hebrew text which have a unique and limited correspondence to
events in
the life of Jesus.
They would argue that the Gospel writers were not attempting to
draw
the "fuller" or "deeper" meaning from the verses they cited and
applied to
Jesus. Instead, they were merely showing analogies or similarities
between Old and New
Testament events a practice, for instance, which would have
been
appreciated by
Matthew's Jewish readers.
Although
there is
some truth to this objection (since the New Testament writers do,
in
fact, make analogies
and parallels between important Old Testament incidents and their
correspondence to
certain events in the life of Christ), it still appears that the
New
Testament writers
brought forth the fuller meaning of certain verses which were
Divinely
intended to have a
broader range of meaning than what the historical-grammatical
approach
could discover. For
instance, the promise spoken to Abraham in Genesis 22:18 had a
much
broader significance
than at first appears, and which later revelation would eventually
discover (Galatians
3:16). The words of Caiaphas in John 11:49-50, according to the
apostle, also had a much
deeper meaning and significance than at first appeared (see
vv.51-52).
Under the
inspiration of the Holy Spirit, He was able to see the Divine
intention
in Caiaphas'
proposed solution to deal with Jesus.
Furthermore,
it is
not the modern exegete who employs the sensus plenior of
Scripture, but
solely the New
Testament authors who were Divinely guided to see the Holy
Spirit's
meaning in
specific Old Testament passages. As Robertson McQuilkin states,
"Whatever position a
person takes on the question of a hidden, secondary meaning in
prophetic utterances or a
fuller meaning intended from the beginning, Jesus Christ or the
inspired writers are the
only ones who can designate that secondary or fuller meaning. When
Christ spoke, He had
every right to interpret the author. The same may be said of those
apostles He authorized
to reveal God's will through the New Testament" (Understanding and
Applying the
Bible, p.46).
12.
Be alert to the
presence of Hebrew parallelism/poetic parallelism. Contrary to
what
some might believe,
the biblical writers were not dispassionate authors who merely
transcribed information.
Instead, their world was one in which people (similar to ours in
the 21st
century) sought to express their thoughts using emotive and
picturesque
language. One of
the more common forms of expression is known as Hebrew parallelism
or
poetic parallelism.
Although
there
exists different types of poetic parallelism (e.g., synonymous
parallelism, antithetical
parallelism, climactic parallelism, and chiasmic parallelism),
they are
usually observed
in a passage where the second line repeats or contrasts the
thoughts of
the first line.
The purpose of parallelism is to give intensity and force to the
subject under discussion.
By repeating or contrasting the second line from the first, the
reader
becomes more deeply
impressed with the author's argument or flow of thought. Here are
some
basic examples
of poetic parallelism:
A.
(synonymous
parallelism)
"Because
I
called you, and you refused;
I
stretched out My
hand, and no one paid attention;
And
you neglected all
My counsel,
And
did not want My
reproof;
I
will even laugh at
your calamity;
I
will mock when your
dread comes,
When
your dread comes
like a storm,
And
your calamity
comes on like a whirlwind,
When
distress and
anguish come on you.
Then
they will call
on Me, but I will not answer;
They
will seek Me
diligently, but they shall not find Me" (Proverbs 1:24-28)
"If
you have
been snared with the words of your mouth,
Have
been caught with
the words of your mouth" (Proverbs 6:2)
"Ask,
and it
shall be given to you;
Seek,
and you shall
find;
Knock,
and it shall
be opened to you.
For
everyone who asks
receives,
And
he who seeks
finds,
And
to him who knocks
it shall be opened" (Matthew 7:7-8)
B. (antithetical
or
contrasting parallelism)
"The
memory of
the righteous is blessed,
But
the name of the
wicked will rot.
The
wise of heart
will receive commands,
But
a babbling fool
will be thrown down.
He
who walks in
integrity walks securely,
But
he who perverts
his ways will be found out.
The
mouth of the
righteous is a fountain of life,
But
the mouth of the
wicked conceals violence" (Proverbs 10:7-9,11)
"Better
is a
dish of vegetables where love is,
Than
a fattened ox
and hatred with it" (Proverbs 15:17)
"Everyone
therefore who shall confess Me before men, I will also
confess
him before My
Father who is in heaven.
But
whoever shall
deny Me before men, I will also deny him before
My
Father who is in
heaven" (Matthew 10:32-33)
13.
Be alert to
figurative language. The Bible is filled with figurative language
and,
because of its
presence in the Scriptural text, it should cause the interpreter
to be
even more careful
in his treatment of the Bible, making certain to not interpret
literally that which was
intended to be understood metaphorically or figuratively.
When
a word is
employed in another way than its primary meaning, or applied to
some
object different from
that to which it is appropriated in normal or common usage, we
call
this figurative
language (also known as "trope," derived from a Greek word which
means
a turn or
change of language; that is, a word turned from its primary usage
to
another meaning).
Figurative
language, however, is not merely limited to the biblical writers,
but
has been universally
discovered in every language and culture throughout human history.
In
fact, figurative
language provides depth, richness, and imagery in our
conversations
with others and is
generally necessary to effective communication. In 1937, W.
MacNeile
Dixon, the
distinguished professor of English literature at the University of
Glasgow, wrote:
If I were asked
what has been
the most powerful force in the making of history . . . I should
have
answered . . .
figurative expression. It is by imagination that men have lived;
imagination rules all our
lives. The human mind is not, as philosophers would have you
think, a
debating hall, but a
picture gallery . . . Remove the metaphors [i.e., figurative
expressions] from the Bible
and its living spirit vanishes . . . The prophets, the poets,
the
leaders of men are all
of them masters of imagery, and by imagery they capture the
human soul
(cited in Roy Zuck,
Basic Bible Interpretation, p.143).
To
show how common
figurative language is, note the following examples from both
modern
usage and ancient
biblical usage:
A.
(modern usage)
"It's
raining cats and dogs."
"That
argument
doesn't hold any water."
"He
was so angry
that he started to boil."
"I
was tickled
to death."
"When
I heard
the joke, I started to crack up."
"Now,
that's a heavy thought!"
B. (biblical
usage)
"Behold,
the
Lamb of God" (John 1:29)
"Where
will you
be stricken again, as you continue in your rebellion? The whole
head is
sick, and the
whole heart is faint. From the sole of the foot even to the head,
there
is nothing sound
in it. Only bruises, welts, and raw wounds, not pressed out or
bandaged, nor softened with
oil" (Isaiah 1:5-6)
"I
am weary with
my sighing; every night I make my bed swim, I dissolve my couch
with my
tears" (Psalm
6:6)
"Truly,
truly, I
say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink
His
blood, you have no
life in yourselves. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has
eternal life, and I will
raise him up on the last day. For My flesh is true food, and My
blood
is true drink"
(John 6:53-55)
"You
blind
guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!" (Matthew
23:24)
C.
What is the
purpose of figurative language/figures of speech?
-
Figures
of speech add
color or vividness to language.
-
Figures
of speech
make abstract or intellectual ideas more concrete.
-
Figures
of speech aid
in retention and make indelible impressions.
-
Figures
of speech
abbreviate or condense an idea.
-
Figures
of speech
encourage deeper reflection upon what is said.
D.
Basic types of
figurative language:
-
Simile
A
simile is a comparison in which one thing resembles another,
usually
with the expression "like" or "as". Terry defines it thus: "When a
formal comparison
is made between two different objects, so as to impress the mind
with
some resemblance or
likeness, the figure is called a simile" (Biblical Hermeneutics,
p.254). See Isaiah
55:9-11; Jeremiah 23:29; Matthew 7:24-27; Mark 1:10; 1 Peter 1:24.
-
Metaphor
A
metaphor is a comparison in which one thing is, acts like, or
represents another, although
the two are basically unalike. See Jeremiah 50:6; Matthew 5:13;
John
6:48; 10:7,9.
-
Metonymy
A
metonymy is the substituting of one word for another. For example,
when
we refer to a
decision being made by the White House, we actually mean the
President
of the United
States. We have simply substituted the residence of the President
for
the President
himself. See Proverbs 15:12; Jeremiah 18:18; Matthew 3:5; Mark
3:25;
Hebrews 13:4.
-
Hyperbole
A
hyperbole is a deliberate exaggeration, in which more is said than
is
literally meant, for
the purpose of adding emphasis, attention, or force. See
Deuteronomy
1:28; 2 Samuel 1:23;
Psalm 6:6; Matthew 5:29-30; 19:24; 23:24.
-
Irony
Irony is
a kind of ridicule expressed indirectly in the form of a
compliment.
Irony is often
conveyed by the speaker's tone of voice (as in sarcasm) so that
the
hearers know
immediately that irony is intended. See 2 Samuel 6:20; 1 Kings
18:27;
Mark 7:9; 1
Corinthians 4:8,10. According to Grant R. Osborne, Professor of
New
Testament at Trinity
Evangelical Divinity School: "Irony is an important rhetorical
device
that consists
of stating one thing while meaning the direct opposite. It is
frequently employed in
polemical contexts and is accompanied by sarcasm or ridicule, as
in
Michal's retort to
David, 'How the King of Israel has distinguished himself today' (2
Samuel 6:20),
with open contempt for his dancing before the ark . . . In such
cases
irony becomes biting
sarcasm" (The Hermeneutical Spiral, p.107).
-
Personification
This is the ascribing of human characteristics or actions to
inanimate objects or
ideas or to animals. See Isaiah 55:12; 35:1; 1 Corinthians 15:55.
-
Anthropomorphism
This is the ascribing of human characteristics or actions to God.
See
2 Chronicles
16:9; Psalm 8:3; 31:2.
-
Anthropopathism
This is the ascribing of human emotions to God. See Genesis 6:6;
Zechariah 8:1.
Special
note should
be given to the comprehensive work of E.W. Bullinger, Figures of
Speech
Used in the Bible
(Grand Rapids: Baker Book House Reprint, 1968; 1104pp.), which is,
perhaps, the best
overall treatment of the numerous figures of speech employed in
the
Scriptures.
14.
While meaning
is primarily one, application is many. This means that while any
given
passage may have
only one meaning in light of its historical-grammatical context
(unless
we have an
instance of "sensus plenoir"), there may exist a multiplicity of
ways
in which
the text can be practically applied by the modern reader. For
instance,
numerous sermons
could be preached from the words of Jesus in Mark 7:9 ("Neglecting
the
commandment of
God, you hold to the tradition of men") or the words of Paul in
Philippians 4:11
("I have learned to be content in whatever circumstances I am")
and
applied to a
wide range of contemporary problems or issues. However, the
interpreter
must always
distinguish between the initial meaning of the text from any
particular
application that
is made of it.
15.
Learn to chew
on a text of Scripture. In order to more fully understand a text
or
portion of Scripture,
the interpreter should spend time slowly chewing, mulling over,
regurgitating, or
meditating on, the passage under examination. One has not
reasonably
exhausted the meaning
of a text or its implications simply because the historical and
lexical
preliminaries have
been completed. The interpreter must additionally proceed to think
deeply about its
meaning, rethink prior assumptions, and ask more penetrating
questions.
Within
time, the
reader will discover not only its original meaning and its
application
to contemporary
life, but also how the text relates to other passages in the
Bible
leading the
interpreter to eventually correlate a full-orbed systematic
theology.
16.
Doctrine must
be squarely built upon Scripture. Our theology must be erected
from a
proper
interpretation of Scripture or a legitimate inference from
Scripture,
and not from
cherished traditions, human creeds or confessions. While there is
a
place for creeds (and
some are clearly more biblically-based than others), the
Christian's
conscience is
ultimately bound to Scripture alone.
Thus,
we must be
careful to distinguish between human creeds which seek to
summarize
Christian doctrine
(even the best ones!) and the authoritative, inerrant Word of God.
Although most
evangelicals would, in principle, agree with this, the history of
the
Christian Church has
sadly proven that we have too often been concerned to defend our
ecclesiastical creeds even treating them at times as if they
were
on par with Scripture!
than with
openly admitting the fallibility of our creeds and that Scripture
alone
is the final
arbiter of any theology or practice (sola Scriptura).
1.
Commentaries are
important for the serious student of Scripture since they not only
help
to explain the
meaning of the passage(s) under discussion, but provide valuable
background information
(e.g., authorship, date and setting of the book, the flow of the
writer's argument,
major themes developed in the book, textual issues), practical and
homiletical
encouragement, and offer assistance in dealing with apparent
contradictions or Bible
difficulties. Thus, to reject the insight which commentaries bring
under the guise of a
false piety (e.g., "I don't need commentaries, the Holy Spirit
teaches
me")
is to reject the wisdom of those godly teachers whom Christ
Himself has
placed in the
Church for our spiritual benefit and edification.
2.
In purchasing
commentaries, purchase only the best. Don't waste your money and
time
on commentaries
that are excessively brief, overly devotional, or those which are
consumed with chasing
after every higher-critical theory that very little space is
devoted to
explaining clearly
the text's meaning. If you are not sure which commentaries to add
to
your growing
library (and every Christian, to some extent, should seek to have
a
solid,
biblically-based library), start with the following Bible
commentary
survey's:
-
Jim
Rosscup,
Commentaries for Biblical Expositors (Sun Valley, CA: Grace Book
Shack,
1993; 314pp.).
-
D.A.
Carson, New
Testament Commentary Survey (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1986
[Third Edition]; 79pp.).
-
C.H.
Spurgeon,
Commenting and Commentaries (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications
Reprint,
1988; 288pp.).
3.
When working
through a text or portion of Scripture, don't make the mistake of
immediately
consulting your commentaries. Wait until you have completed your
initial reading and
lexical studies. Allow the Spirit of God to teach you what He may
and
then, as you peruse
your commentaries, you will be in a much better position to
discern
whether the
commentator has properly interpreted the passage(s).
4.
Don't limit
your commentaries to only those which agree with you. Try to
purchase
the best
commentaries which represent different theological or
denominational
camps (Calvinists,
Arminians, Lutherans, etc.) since it will help to inform you (in
some
cases, even correct)
on how others within the Body of Christ have arrived at their
exegetical conclusions. This
will help to broaden your thinking as well as give you an
appreciation
for how others have
grappled with Scripture's meaning.
5.
Always remember
that a commentator is only human. Like all of us, he often brings
his
presuppositions and
theological grid to the text of Scripture. We must be careful,
therefore, to not make our
favorite commentator a paper Pope whose decisions are considered
infallible. After many
years of using commentaries, I have not yet found a commentator
with
whom I agree in
everything. But this is as it should be if we are critically
evaluating
what we read,
following closely the biblical text, and developing our own
thoughts as
to what God is
saying. J.C. Ryle has said:
In fact, the
conclusion I
arrive at, after a diligent examination of many commentators, is
always
one and the same.
I trust none of them unreservedly, and I expect nowhere to find
perfection. All must be
read with caution. They are good helps, but they are not
infallible.
They are useful
assistants, but they are not the pillar of cloud and fire. I
advise my
younger readers to
remember that. Use your own judgment prayerfully and diligently.
Use
commentaries; but be
a slave to none. Call no man master (Expository Thoughts on the
Gospels
[Vol.4] p.ix-x).
6.
A commentary
should not necessarily be rejected because the author follows an
interpretation that is
different from our own, since on many other passages he may have
valuable insight. As
noted above, there is rarely a commentator that you will agree
with on
everything. Even
those Arminian commentators with whom I find myself in complete
theological disagreement
with particularly on those passages which are the crux of
the
Calvinist-Arminian
controversy (e.g., Romans 8:29; 9:22; Hebrews 6:4-6) I have
still
discovered a
wealth of helpful information on other verses which are less
polemically treated.
7.
The question is
sometimes raised whether it is better to buy individual
commentaries or
a commentary
series. While there is no definite rule in this matter (since some
commentaries within a
particular series have proven to be quite insightful for
example,
D.A.
Carson's commentary on Matthew in The Expositor's Bible Commentary
[Vol.8]
series), it is probably better to purchase individual commentaries
on
each book of the
Bible. The problem of buying an entire series is that the
commentaries
tend to be uneven,
brief, and rather mediocre. This is especially true in purchasing
a
one-volume commentary
on the whole Bible a mistake that many new converts make
when
setting
out to secure
their first commentary!
One
of the more
common ways that Jesus taught spiritual truth was through the use
of
parables. But what
exactly is a parable? According to Zuck, "A parable is a form of
figurative language
involving comparisons. But rather than using a single word or
phrase to
make the
comparison or analogy, as in a simile, metaphor, or
hypocatastasis, a
parable is an
extended analogy in story form. A parable is a true-to-life story
to
illustrate or
illumine a truth. It is true to life though it may not have
actually
occurred in all the
details as the story is presented. Historic events may serve as
illustrations; but
parables are special stories, not necessarily historic events,
that are
told to teach a
particular truth. Since parables are true to life, they differ
from
allegories and fables
. . . . The word 'parable' comes from the Greek para ('beside or
alongside') and ballein ('to throw'). Thus the story is thrown
alongside
the truth to illustrate the truth" (Basic Bible Interpretation,
p.194).
1.
Why did Jesus
speak in parables?
A.
To reveal
spiritual truth to His disciples and to conceal it from those
whose
hearts were hardened
to the message of the Kingdom (Matthew 13:10-17).
B.
Parables helped
to illustrate truth as well as spark interest in those who heard
Jesus.
All humans can
relate to a good story and, by seizing upon parabolic stories or
illustrations, Jesus was
able to capture and sustain the interest of the crowds.
C.
Parables
encouraged the listeners to ponder or think deeply upon what Jesus
said and, by
thinking upon the parable's spiritual lesson, the listeners would
more
dramatically
understand and apply its meaning. In addressing the general use of
parables, Terry notes:
The general
design of
parables, as of all other kinds of figurative language, is to
embellish
and set forth
ideas and moral truths in attractive and impressive forms. Many
a moral
lesson, if spoken
in naked, literal style, is soon forgotten; but, clothed in
parabolic
dress, it arouses
attention, and fastens itself in the memory. Many rebukes and
pungent
warnings may be
couched in a parable, and thereby give less offence, and yet
work
better effects than open
plainness of speech could do. Nathan's parable (in 2 Samuel
12:1-4)
prepared the
heart of David to receive with profit the keen reproof he was
about to
administer . . . It
is easy, also, to see that a parable may enshrine a profound
truth or
mystery which the
hearers may not at first apprehend, but which, because of its
striking
or memorable form,
abides more firmly in the mind, and so abiding, yields at length
its
deep and precious
meaning (Biblical Hermeneutics, pp.277-278).
2.
According to the
Gospel narratives, Jesus told at least thirty-five separate
parables
which can be
generally classified as follows:
Seed
parables
e.g., the Sower (Matthew 13:3-8); the Weeds (Matthew 13:24-30);
the
Mustard Seed (Matthew
13:31-32).
Nature
parables e.g., the Pearl of Great Price (Matthew 13:45-46);
the
Fishing Net
(Matthew
13:47-50); the Barren Fig Tree (Luke 13:6-9); the Lost Sheep (Luke
15:4-7).
Servant
parables e.g., the Two Servants (Matthew 24:45-51); the
Unforgiving Servant
(Matthew
18:23-35); the Shrewd Manager (Luke 16:1-9); the Servant's Reward
(Luke
17:7-10).
Father
parables e.g., the Two Sons (Matthew 21:28-32); the Prodigal
Son
(Luke
15:11-32).
King
parables
e.g., the Wedding Banquet (Matthew 22:1-14); the King's Rash War
(Luke
14:31-33).
Money
or Treasure
parables e.g., the Hidden Treasure (Matthew 13:44); the
Talents
(Matthew 25:14-30);
the Shrewd Manager (Luke 16:1-9); the Lost Coin (Luke 15:8-10).
Harvest
parables e.g., the Wicked Vinegrowers (Matthew 21:33-46);
the
Seed Growing
Secretly (Mark
4:26-29).
Women
parables
e.g., the Ten Virgins (Matthew 25:1-13); the Unjust Judge (Luke
18:1-8).
Social
or domestic
parables e.g., the Great Banquet (Luke 14:15-24); the
Doorkeeper
(Matthew
13:34-37); the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37).
Compassion
parables e.g., the Lost Sheep (Luke 15:4-7); the Prodigal
Son
(Luke 15:11-32);
the Good
Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37).
Kingdom
parables e.g., the Mustard Seed (Matthew 13:31-32); the
Pearl of
Great Price
(Matthew
13:45-46); the Net (Matthew 13:47-52); the Wedding Banquet
(Matthew
22:1-14).
Judgment
parables e.g., the Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31); the
Wicked
Vinegrowers or Farmers
(Matthew 21:33-41).
3.
How
should we
approach parables and their interpretation?
A.
When
interpreting a parable, it's important to recognize the
Christological
nature of
Jesus' parables. This means that when Jesus employed parables, He
was
not merely
attempting to illustrate a spiritual reality (as even many of the
Rabbis did during the
first century era), but primarily a spiritual truth concerning
Himself.
Thus, in
approaching parables we must ask ourselves: How does this parable
relate to Christ? This
is what makes Jesus unique from others, since His parables not
only
portrayed spiritual
and heavenly realities, but many of them pointed directly to His
person.
B.
Another
important principle is the kingdom principle. One of the major
themes
that Jesus
frequently addressed was the kingdom, its nature, its inhabitants,
its
nearness, and its
consummation. Thus, when interpreting parables, we must also ask
ourselves: What does it
say about the kingdom of God? What is the central lesson in the
kingdom
narrative?
C.
Determine the
one central truth which the parable is attempting to teach.
According
to C.H. Dodd, "The typical parable presents one single point of
comparison. The
details are not
intended to have independent significance" (The Parables of the
Kingdom, p.18). If
you try to hunt for distinct meanings in every detail within a
parable,
you will most
likely turn the story into an allegory. One well-known example of
violating this principle
is Augustine's allegorization of the parable of the Good Samaritan
in
Luke 10:25-37:
The man who
fell into the
hands of robbers is Adam. Jerusalem is heaven, and Jericho
signifies
man's mortality.
The robbers are the Devil and his angels who stripped man of his
immortality. In beating
him they persuaded him to sin, and in leaving him half dead the
Devil
and his angels have
left man in a condition in which he has some knowledge of God
but is
yet oppressed by sin.
The priest represents the Law, and the Levite represents the
Prophets.
The Good Samaritan
is Christ who, in bandaging the man's wounds, seeks to restrain
sin.
Oil is hope and
wine is a fervent spirit. The man's donkey is Jesus'
incarnation, and
the man
being placed on a donkey pictures his belief in the incarnation
of
Christ. The inn is the
church. The next day pictures the Lord's resurrection, the two
coins
represent either
the two precepts of love or this life and the life to come. The
innkeeper is the Apostle Paul
(Augustine,
Quaestiones
Evangeliorum 2, p.19).
D.
Determine how
much of the parable is actually interpreted by Jesus Himself. For
instance, the Parable of
the Sower (or Soils) in Matthew 13:3-8 is interpreted for us in
verses 18-23.
E.
Look for clues
within the immediate and surrounding context concerning the
parable's
meaning. In
some instances, the meaning will become obvious by simply
examining the
context in order
to see what prompted the parable in the first place.
F.
Compare the
parable with any possible Old Testament association. Since both
our
Lord and His listeners
were familiar with much of the Old Testament Scriptures, we must
attune
our thinking to be
sensitive to any possible Old Testament references in the
parables
such things as
vineyards, fig trees, harvests, and feasts.
G.
It is wise not
to build entire doctrinal systems from parables. This doesn't mean
that
parables do
not contain doctrine, but only that we must be very careful in our
interpretation and
always make sure that any doctrine which is gleaned from a parable
is
in accord with the
rest of the New Testament. If proper cautions are followed,
parables
may be used to
illustrate doctrine, illumine Christian experience, and to teach
practical lessons.
1.
Many people
assume that prophecy or the prophet's ministry was primarily
concerned
with
predicting future eschatological events, but the Old Testament
reveals
that prophetic
revelation was much broader than this. The prophet was understood
more
as a forthteller of
God's message (i.e., declaring God's message of judgment upon an
unrepentant
people existing during the historical period in which the prophet
lived) than a foreteller
of future events. This is not meant to suggest that predictive
elements
were completely
missing from the prophet's oracle (for indeed they often spoke of
the
future
eschatological reign of the Messiah and His kingdom), but only
that he
was not exclusively
concerned with future events which had no real significance to his
own
generation. Berkhof
defines prophecy in the following manner: "Prophecy may simply be
defined as the
proclamation of that which God revealed" (Principles of Biblical
Interpretation,
p.148).
2.
Recognize that
in interpreting prophetic portions of Scripture it is the central
or
primary meaning that
is significant, and not the relatively minor details which
accompanies
the prophet's
message. In the same way that we interpret the parables of
Scripture,
so also we must
guard ourselves from deriving separate or obscure meanings from
the
various details in
which the prophecy is cast and, instead, fix our attention on the
central thrust of the
prophet's discourse.
For
example, in
Isaiah 11:6-9 the prophet describes the universal peace which
shall
exist during the
Messianic age in terms of wild animals living peaceably with the
rest
of creation. Yet,
later in Isaiah 35:8-10, this same period is described as having
no
wild animals present.
Is there a contradiction? Not at all. Once again, while the
metaphorical details may
change in each respective narrative, the central message of
universal
peace in the
Messianic age remains the same. Thus, our focus must be on the
primary
intended meaning,
and not upon the details per se (which may change).
To
give another
example, most Dispensationalists have interpreted Ezekiel chapters
40-48 as describing the
future Millennial temple and its worship. The elaborate
description
given of the temple
and its measurements, particularly of the various sacrifices that
are
to be offered at the
temple (45:15-20), have lead them to interpret these chapters
literally. Thus, in their
thinking, not only will a literal and physical temple be rebuilt
in
Jerusalem during the
Millennial age, but so also will the sacrificial system
although
the
animal
sacrifices are alleged to be "memorial sacrifices," without
expiatory
value.
Aside from the fact that the Old Covenant sacrificial system has
been
abolished with the
coming of Christ (and thus it would be retrogressive to return to
such
types and shadows),
what would be the point of doing so when the Lord Jesus has
already
given us a memorial of
His death in the Lord's Supper? By failing to understand the
figurative
nature of
prophecy as well as ignoring the central meaning that the prophet
is
attempting to convey,
Dispensationalists have misunderstood these important chapters and
erected a theology
which, ultimately, contradicts the fuller revelation of God found
in
the New Testament. In
contrast to the Dispensational understanding, Ezekiel is simply
describing the glorious
worship of God's people in the age to come in terms and ideas
which the
Jews of that
period would have recognized as the late Anthony Hoekema has
written:
Ezekiel gives
no indication in
these chapters that he is describing something which is to
happen
during a millennium
preceding the final state. An interpretation of these chapters
which is
in agreement with
New Testament teaching, and which avoids the absurdity of
positing the
need for memorial
sacrifices in the millennium, understands Ezekiel to be
describing here
the glorious
future of the people of God in the age to come in terms which
the Jews
of that day would
understand. Since their worship previous to their captivity had
been
centered in the
Jerusalem temple, it is understandable that Ezekiel describes
their
future blessedness by
picturing a temple and its sacrifices.
The details
about temple and sacrifices are to be understood not literally
but
figuratively . . . What
we have in Ezekiel 40 to 48, therefore, is not a description of
the
millennium but a
picture of the final state on the new earth, in terms of the
religious
symbolism with
which Ezekiel and his readers
were familiar (The Bible
and the
Future, pp.204-205).
3.
Recognize the
figurative or non-literal nature of prophecy. Much of the
prophetic
portions of Scripture
are couched in figurative language, symbolism, and dramatic
imagery for
the express
purpose of emphasizing the gravity and imminence of God's
judgment.
Such picturesque
language, however, was clearly understood by the prophet's
audience as
a way of
describing God's intervention into human history. Perhaps the
following
examples
taken from Scripture will help to elucidate this point:
-
Isaiah
13:9-11 uses
cosmic imagery (which too many would appear to describe the end of
the
world) in
connection with God's judgment upon the Babylonian empire
approximately
six-hundred
years before the birth of Christ (see Isaiah 13:1,19).
-
In
Acts 2:14-21,
Peter interprets the prophecy and cosmic imagery of Joel 2:28-32
as
having its fulfillment
on the day of Pentecost. Although such cosmic signs as expressed
by the
prophet Joel did
not literally occur at Pentecost, what the author willed to convey
by
those signs did.
Some have objected by positing the view that Joel's prophecy was
only
partially
fulfilled at Pentecost, and that its final fulfillment will take
place
when Christ
returns. But, as Robert H. Stein notes, this interpretation does
not
satisfy the words of
Peter:
There have been
attempts to
deny that the prophecy of Joel 2:28-32 was fulfilled at
Pentecost.
Usually this is due to
a misunderstanding of the figurative nature of this cosmic
terminology.
Some have
suggested that Luke and Peter believed that Pentecost was 'kind
of
like' what
Joel prophesied but not its actual fulfillment. Such a
manipulative
interpretation of this
passage of Acts, however, is impossible in light of Peter's
words in
Acts 2:16: 'this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel.'
Furthermore
such
interpretive
gymnastics are unnecessary when we are willing to accept what
the
author meant by the use
of such terminology. We need only note other passages to see how
widespread the use of
such cosmic terminology is in the Bible (Isaiah 24:23; Jeremiah
4:28;
13:16; 15:9; Ezekiel
32:7-8; Joel 2:10,31; 3:15; Amos 8:9; Habakkuk 3:11; Matthew
24:29;
Mark 13:24-25; Luke
21:25; Revelation 6:12). Attempts to see Mark 15:33; Matthew
27:45;
Luke 23:44-45 as the
fulfillment of this prophecy err. They do not explain the signs
of Acts
2:19 and most of
2:20. Second, and more important, they err because Peter and
Luke
associated the
fulfillment of these signs with what is happening then and there
on the
day of Pentecost
(Playing by the Rules, p.93).
4.
When
interpreting prophetic accounts in Scripture, consider first the
possibility that the
words may apply to and have their fulfillment in the historical
period
in which they were
announced. By doing so, we will avoid the common abuse of many
Dispensational preachers
who engage in a sort of "newspaper exegesis" because they have
wrongly
interpreted prophetic passages which, in their historical context,
referred to events and
fulfillment's in the life of Israel, and projected them to a
distant
future (most
notably ours in the twenty-first century) that had no relation to
the
prophet's own
generation. Osborne warns us against such mistaken notions:
I would add a
fifth type of
erroneous preaching, the 'newspaper' approach of many so-called
prophecy
preachers today. This school assumes that the prophecies were
not meant
for the ancient
setting but rather for the modern setting. Amazingly, that
setting is
often post-1948
(after Israel became a nation) America. Such preachers ignore
that fact
that God chose all
the symbols and passages to speak to Israel and that modern
people must
understand them in
their ancient context before applying them today . . .
'Newspaper'
preachers
instead take prophetic passages out of context and twist them to
fit
the modern situation.
This is dangerous for it too easily leads to a subjective
'eisegesis'
(reading
meaning into a text), which does anything one wants to the
Scriptural
text . . . Many
today leap too quickly into a futuristic interpretation of
passages
that were more likely
meant to speak to the
author's
own day
(The Hermeneutical Spiral, pp.217-218).
5.
Recognize the
non-systematic character of prophecy. The prophetic portions of
Scripture are not always
as organized or presented as systematically as we might wish.
Instead,
as Ramm points out: "The future may appear present, or nearby, or
indefinitely remote.
Widely separated
events on the actual calendar of history may appear together in
the
prophetic sequence.
The Jewish scholars unable to decipher pictures of Messianic
suffering
and Messianic glory
were not properly prepared for the advent of the humiliation of
our
Lord. Only in the
pages of the New Testament are these two pictures properly related
in
terms of two advents
of the Messiah (cf. 1 Peter 1:10-12 and Hebrews 9:28)" (Protestant
Biblical
Interpretation, p.249).
There
are
approximately three hundred instances in which the New Testament
quotes
from the Old
Testament. Some are introductory formulas (e.g., "As it is
written")
and exact
citations, while others are summaries or loose paraphrases of Old
Testament passages.
Since the New Testament revelation of Christ fulfills the Old
Testament
promises and
types, this should not surprise us for there is indeed great
continuity
between the two
Testaments.
The
problem arises
when New Testament writers fail to quote verbatim from the Hebrew
Bible
or when they
discover meanings from an Old Testament passage which seems to run
counter to its original
design. Does the New Testament, then, distort the Old Testament?
Were
the apostles of
Christ taking undue freedom by reinterpreting certain Old
Testament
passages? Can we, as
evangelical believers, legitimately adhere to the doctrine of
inerrancy
in light of such
apparent abuses of the Old Testament? While this is not a
particularly
simple matter to
resolve, there are indeed answers to such questions which, in the
end,
vindicates the
doctrine of inerrancy and proves that the New Testament writers
did not
abuse their Old
Testament Scriptures. Carefully consider the following points.
1.
Exact, verbatim
quotations were not as common in the Greco-Roman world of the
first
century A.D. as in our
modern era of the twenty-first century. Usually, a summary or
paraphrase was sufficient to
make one's point, and this especially true in the case of the
ancient
Rabbis who
quoted the Old Testament extensively, yet not always with exact
verbal
precision. The
intended meaning was the important thing. Thus, to hold the New
Testament writers to a
level of precision which was rarely practiced in their time
period, is
unfair at best. In
fact, there are several instances when later portions of the Old
Testament quotes from
earlier ones and, yet, does so without adhering to an exact verbal
procedure.
2.
Many Christians
wrongly assume that when a Gospel writer cites an Old Testament
verse
and applies it to
Jesus particularly if it is introduced by the phrase, "Thus
it
was
fulfilled" that such passages were understood as literal or
direct
predictions
which, in turn, were literally fulfilled. This doesn't mean that
the
concept of a
direct Old Testament prediction with its corresponding fulfillment
in
the life of Jesus is
completely absent from the Gospel writers' thinking (Isaiah 53 is
one
such example),
but only that Messianic prophecy was much broader than this.
In
fact, contrary
to much of the popular books dealing with Messianic prophecy
(where,
for instance, we find
such extravagant claims as Jesus fulfilling three hundred literal
Old
Testament prophecies
in His first coming!), the majority of New Testament uses of the
Hebrew
Bible follow a
non-literal interpretation as New Testament scholar, Donald
A.
Hagner, makes clear:
But such clear
predictive
prophecy and fulfillment is seldom found in the New Testament;
it is
the exception rather
than the rule. Instead, . . . the New Testament writers looked
for the
meaning of the Old
Testament as contained in its sensus plenior (full meaning). In
so
doing, they found
varied correspondences, analogies, and suggestive
similarities
some
more
substantial, some less substantial but all based on the
underlying
presuppositions
of the sovereignty of God in the affairs of history; the unique
character of the
Scriptures as divinely inspired; and the identity of Jesus as
the
telos, or goal, of the
history of salvation ("The Old Testament in the New Testament,"
eds.
Samuel J.
Schultz & Morris A. Inch, Interpreting the Word of God,
p.103).
The
esteemed Bible
teacher, S. Lewis Johnson, Jr., similarly writes:
It is a common
misconception
of casual Bible readers that when the New Testament states that
a text
from the Old
Testament is fulfilled in the New, the use of the Old Testament
text is
that of precise
predictive fulfillment. Thus readers are puzzled when they
discover
from a careful reading
of the Old Testament that the Old Testament passage does not
seem to
speak precisely of
what the New Testament seems to suggest. They fail to bear in
mind the
philosophy of the biblical
authors. The writers of Scripture believed that God controlled
history.
Therefore, history
of all kinds, especially the sacred record, spoke ultimately of the activities of the triune God.
They did not think it necessary to define the precise kind of
fulfillment found in New
Testament texts, for it was God who controlled the prophets who
wrote
direct predictive
prophecy and the other authors of Scripture who wrote of people,
events, and institutions
as types or foreshadowings of the future. Thus both kinds of
material
were fulfilled in
the New Testament, although in a slightly different way (The Old
Testament in the New,
p.76).
3.
The New
Testament employs the Old Testament Scriptures in a variety of
ways to
demonstrate that,
in Jesus, the biblical prophecies, types, and shadows have all
found
their divinely
appointed fulfillment:
A.
Direct Prediction
and
Fulfillment. Specific verses from the Old Testament were
understood as
directly predicting
the person and work of Christ (e.g., Isaiah 53; Micah 5:2
Matthew
2:4-6). In such
instances, there is a one-to-one correspondence between an Old
Testament prediction and
its New Testament fulfillment.
B. Typology. In many instances, the New Testament writers used the Old Testament in a typological manner. Typology, according to Terry, is defined in the following manner: "In the science of theology it properly signifies the preordained representative relation which certain persons, events and institutions of the Old Testament bear to corresponding persons, events, and institutions in the New" (Biblical Hermeneutics, p.336). Thus, types are pictures or object lessons by which God taught His people concerning His grace and the redemption which He would provide through the Messiah. Such typology can be seen in the following passages: Hosea 11:1 Matthew 2:15; Isaiah 7:14 Matthew 1:23; Melchizedek in Hebrews 7:1-25; King David (Psalm 16:9-10; 22:11-18); and the entire sacrificial system which typified the ultimate sacrifice of God's Lamb (John 1:29)
C.
Analogical. In
several places, the New Testament writers interpreted Old
Testament
persons and events in
an analogical sense (i.e., the New Testament circumstances being
like
an Old Testament
one). In this way, important events within the history of Israel
are
recapitulated in the
life of Jesus (e.g., Rachel weeping for her children in Matthew
2:16-18) and help to
demonstrate the close identification which exists between the
Messiah
and those whom He
came to redeem (consider, for example, Jesus' baptism in Matthew
1:13-15; and His
words to Saul on the road to Damascus in Acts 9:4-5). This is
often
termed "corporate
solidarity." It might be easy to accuse Matthew or any other New
Testament writer of
twisting Old Testament passages but, as the prolific Bible
commentator,
D.A. Carson, has
said:
Matthew is not
simply ripping
texts out of Old Testament contexts because he needs to find a
prophecy
in order to
generate a fulfillment. Discernible principles govern his
choices, the
most important
being that he finds in
the Old
Testament
not only isolated predictions regarding the Messiah but also Old
Testament history and
people as
paradigms that, to those with
eyes to see, point forward to the Messiah (The Expositor's Bible
Commentary: Matthew
[Vol.8], p.77).
D.
Thematic Parallels.
The Gospel writers and even Jesus Himself frequently enlarged or
built
upon Messianic
motifs that were present in the Old Testament (e.g., such concepts
as
"Son of
David" and "Son of Man; the "Servant" idea in the Book of Isaiah).
Such thematic parallels would have been clearly discerned and
appreciated by the early
Jews whose minds were steeped in the Hebrew Scriptures and who
understood the Messianic
implications of redemptive history.
4.
In other
instances, an inaccuracy may seem apparent because the New
Testament
author is citing the
Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament), rather
than
the Hebrew text. This
is, however, not much different from contemporary Christians who
might
quote from a modern
English translation in order to express a Scriptural point. It's
only
natural that
the Septuagint would be quoted as frequently as it is in the New
Testament, since it was
the most widely used translation in the Greek-speaking world of
the
first century period.
The New Testament writers, then, employed a translation that was
familiar to their readers
thereby alleviating any unnecessary confusion which most certainly
would have come had
they used exclusively Hebrew manuscripts which very few would find
accessible. In fact,
the Septuagint, in some cases, has proven to more accurately
reflect
the thought of the
original autographs than even the Masoretic text.
5.
Before we accuse
the New Testament writers of error, it is important to first
ascertain
their purpose in
citing an Old Testament text. In other words, before we accuse a
Gospel
writer, such as
Matthew, of misapplying verses from the Old Testament by
interpreting
them as literal
predictions of Jesus, we ought to first consider the possibility
that
such passages were
not actually understood by him as direct prophecies.
There
exists, in
fact, a multiplicity of reasons or purposes for citing the Old
Testament (some of which
have been explained previously). Among the many reasons, the New
Testament author may wish
to confirm that a New Testament incident is in agreement with an
Old
Testament principle;
to explain or clarify a point given in the Old Testament; to
illustrate
a New Testament
truth; to provide the general sense of what the Old Testament said
concerning the Messiah;
to summarize an Old Testament concept; to draw parallels between
Israel
and the Church; to
provide warnings to New Covenant believers; to show the progress
of
redemptive history;
and, of course, to demonstrate that Jesus is indeed the Messiah
predicted in the Old
Testament Scriptures.
Any
person who
studies the Scriptures seriously must, eventually, face the claim
of
unbelieving critics
who charge the Bible with numerous internal contradictions and
factual
errors. The
faithful student, rather than avoiding such thorny questions,
faces
them head-on with full
confidence that the Bible is God's inerrant Word and wisely
reasons
that, since God
is a God of truth, He will not allow genuine contradictions or
historical blunders to
corrupt its veracity. The following are some basic guidelines to
aid
the interpreter in
resolving or harmonizing Bible difficulties.
1.
Contrary to the
opinions of some, seeking a plausible solution or harmonization to
a
difficult set of
texts is not scholastic dishonesty. In fact, harmonization is
something
which every
literary critic engages in when studying texts of antiquity,
whether it
be the writings of
Homer, Josephus, or the Bible. According to Craig Blomberg,
Associate
Professor of New
Testament at Denver Seminary, "All historians, whether they employ
the
term or not,
practice some kind of harmonization as they seek to reconstruct
the
truth of past events .
. . [It is a] standard practice among secular historians of both
written and oral
traditions" ("The Legitimacy and Limits of Harmonization," [eds.
D.A.
Carson & John D. Woodbridge] Hermeneutics, Authority, and
Canon,
pp.139,144). Thus,
harmonization is not, of itself, wrong or an intellectually
dubious
practice. The
legitimacy of one's attempt at harmonizing a difficult passage is
not
dependent upon
whether it succeeds at cleverly answering the problem, but in
whether
the harmonization
comports with the author's intended meaning and contextually
resolves
the seeming
discrepancy. Stein urges his readers to not reject such a practice
simply because it is an
attempt to harmonize conflicting verses:
The terms
harmonize and
harmonization have fallen into disrepute. Some of this may be
due to
the farfetched and
unconvincing harmonizations made in the past by certain
scholars. This
writer still
remembers attending a graduate seminar at a famous German
university
where a
student's explanation was rejected on the grounds that "Das ist
nur
Harmonizierung!" ("That is simply a harmonization!"). To reject
an
explanation because it harmonizes difficult gospel passages is
certainly as prejudicial as
to accept an explanation on the grounds that it harmonizes these
passages. The correctness
or incorrectness of an explanation is not dependent on whether
or not
it harmonizes the
disputed passages. It depends on whether that explanation
correctly
interprets the
authors' meanings and logically illustrates that these meanings
do not
conflict with
each other (Difficult Passages in the Gospels, p.13).
2.
Recognize that
in the vast majority of cases (if not all), direct answers or
reasonable solutions exist
to problem passages. Such answers or harmonizations are primarily
found
in conservative
Bible commentaries and specialized works which treat Bible
difficulties, such as:
-
Gleason
L. Archer,
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1982).
-
Robert
H. Stein,
Difficult Passages in the New Testament: Interpreting Puzzling
Texts in
the Gospels and
Epistles (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1990).
-
Walter
Kaiser, F.F. Bruce, Manfred Brauch, Peter Davids, Hard Sayings of
the
Bible (Downers
Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1996).
-
John W.
Haley, Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan,
1977).
-
David E.
O'Brien, Today's Handbook for Solving Bible Difficulties
(Minneapolis:
Bethany
House Publishers, 1990).
3.
When working
through an apparent discrepancy, remember to apply such
hermeneutical
basics as in
carefully studying the context, historical background, and
framework of
the verse in
dispute; its grammar; and its relation to other passages in the
Bible
which treat the same
subject or doctrine.
4.
Recognize that a
large proportion of alleged discrepancies in the Bible are
traceable
not to actual errors
in the original manuscripts, but to transmissional errors in the
numerous manuscripts that
we possess, including "the variety of names applied to the same
person
or place;
different methods of reckoning times and seasons; different local
and
historical
standpoints; and the special scope and plan of each particular
book.
Variations are not
contradictions, and many essential variations arise from different
methods of arranging a
series of particular facts. The peculiarities of oriental thought
and
speech often involve
seeming extravagance of statement and verbal inaccuracies, which
are of
a nature to
provoke the criticism of the less impassioned writers of the West.
And
it is but just to
add that not a few of the alleged contradictions of Scripture
exist
only in the
imagination of skeptical writers, and are to be attributed to the
perverse
misunderstanding of captious critics" (Terry, Biblical
Hermeneutics,
p.514).
5.
Remember that
the Bible itself mentions that some of its contents are, by
nature,
hard or perplexing (1
Corinthians 13:12; 2 Peter 2:16). Thus, it should not surprise us
when
we come across
difficult portions of Scripture which challenges our thinking.
Instead
of throwing up our
hands in frustration, the interpreter must gird up the loins of
his
mind, laboring
diligently and prayerfully for the correct solution. The good
news, as
Gleason Archer
advises, is that there "is very little that God will long withhold
from
the
surrendered heart and mind of a true believer" (Encyclopedia of
Bible
Difficulties,
p.15).
6.
One of the major
reasons why God has allowed apparent discrepancies to exist in
Scripture is to compel His
children to grapple with its meaning; to dig deeper into a text
and
thereby arrive at a
mature understanding of His Word. The true believer, then,
rejoices at
the presence of
difficulties in Scripture since it is one of the many God-ordained
ways
of bringing him to
an advanced knowledge and appreciation of the Bible.
7.
Finally, God in
His infinite wisdom and providence allows biblical difficulties to
exist for the express
purpose of testing one's moral character, thus providing
stumbling-blocks for those
who might wish to intellectually "justify" their unbelief in His
revelation. We
must remember, however, that the unbeliever is not neutral in his
rejection of Christ, and
seeks to the best of his ability (frequently under the guise of a
pseudo-intellectual
veneer) to avoid the claims of God upon his life. For such people
who
refuse to receive
the truth so that they may be saved, God permits the presence of
difficulties and apparent
errors so that their supposed intellectual superiority might
condemn
them. In many
instances, even when they know that reasonable solutions exist,
choose
to ignore them and
defiantly hold on to their foolish assumptions. Think of all the
unbelieving critics and
infidels (e.g., Voltaire, Thomas Paine, John Shelby Spong) who
have
sought to excuse their
unbelief because of apparent contradictions in the text of
Scripture,
yet have
conveniently forgotten or willfully ignored the many books written
by
Christians scholars
who have pain-stakingly answered such "contradictions." One such
example, as
noted by Haley, is the "Swedish traveler, in looking through
Voltaire's
library,
found Calmet's Commentary, with slips of paper inserted, on which
the
difficulties
noticed by Calmet were set down, without a word about the
solutions
which were given by
him" (Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible, p.27).
The biblical
discrepancies
were plainly appointed as a test of moral character; and,
probably, to
serve an important
judicial purpose. They may be regarded as constituting no
insignificant
element of the
means and conditions of man's probation. There is a peculiar and
striking analogy and
harmony between the external form and the interior doctrines of
the
Bible. Both alike
present difficulties sometimes formidable to the
inquirer.
Both
alike put
his sincerity and firmness to full proof. Hence, as Grotius has
fitly
said, the Gospel
becomes a touchstone to test the honesty of men's dispositions.
Our
Savior's
teachings were often clothed in forms which to the indifferent
or
prejudiced hearer must
have seemed obscure, if not offensive. To the caviling and
skeptical
Jews He spoke many
things in parables, that seeing they might see and not perceive,
and
hearing they might
hear and not understand [Mark 4:12]. When He said, 'Except ye
eat the
flesh of the
Son of Man, and drink His blood, ye have no life in you' [John
6:53],
he
intentionally used such phraseology as would be repugnant to
insincere
and squeamish
hearers. He thus tested and disclosed men's characters and
motives, and
sifted out
the chaff among His hearers. 'From that time, many of His
disciples
went back, and
walked no more with Him' [John 6:66]. The seeming harshness and
obscurity of His sayings
served to rid Him of those followers who were not of teachable
spirit,
and thoroughly in
earnest, and who would not look beneath the surface. The
indolent and
superficial, the
proud and fastidious, were discouraged and repelled by the rough
husk
in which the
doctrinal kernel was encased. In an analogous manner, the
apparent
contradictions of the
Bible afford opportunity to an unfair mind for explaining away
and
deceitfully hiding from
itself that evidence which it might see . . . Those who are
disposed to
cavil do, in the
wise arrangement of God, find opportunities for caviling. The
disposition does not miss
the occasion . . . There is light enough for those whose main
wish is
to see; and darkness
enough for those of an opposite disposition . . . Those persons
who
cherish a caviling
spirit, who are bent upon misapprehending the truth, and urging
captious and frivolous
objections, find in the inspired volume, difficulties and
disagreements
which would seemed
to have been designed as stumbling-stones for those which
'stumble at
the Word, being
disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed' [1 Peter 2:8].
Upon
the willful
votaries of error God sends 'strong delusions, that they should
believe
a lie'
[2 Thessalonians 2:11], that they might work out their own
condemnation
and ruin (Haley,
Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible, pp.38-40).
Dan
McCartney &
Charles Clayton, Let
the
Reader Understand: A Guide to Interpreting and
Applying the Bible
(Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1994). A clearly written and helpful
introduction to the study
of hermeneutics (Reformed).
Roy
B. Zuck, Basic
Bible Interpretation (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1991). A
practical and
generally reliable
guide (Dispensational).
Louis
Berkhof,
Principles of Biblical
Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House,
1950). An older,
but generally reliable work on hermeneutics (Reformed).
Milton
S. Terry,
Biblical Hermeneutics
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan Reprint, n.d.). A
comprehensive and older
treatment of hermeneutics, but considered by many (including
myself) to
be the finest on
the subject (Moderately Calvinistic).
Robertson
McQuilkin, Understanding
and
Applying the Bible (Chicago: Moody Press
[Revised], 1992). A
good book to give to beginning Bible students because of its
simple
style and practical
guidelines (Moderately Calvinistic).
Bernard
Ramm,
Protestant Biblical
Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House
[Third Revised
Edition], 1970). A generally sound approach to hermeneutical
issues and
which, for many
years, served as the primary textbook in most conservative
theological
institutions
(Dispensational).
Gordon
D. Fee &
Douglas Stuart, How to
Read
the Bible for All its Worth (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan [Second
Edition], 1993). A well-written and popular book on Bible
interpretation from two leading
evangelical Bible scholars (Arminian).
Grant
R. Osborne,
The Hermeneutical Spiral
(Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press,
1991). A comprehensive
and partly technical work on hermeneutics from a prominent
evangelical
New Testament
scholar. While there are some questionable assumptions in this
book,
there is still much
that can be read with profit (Arminian).
R.C.
Sproul,
Knowing Scripture
(Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1977). An
easy-to-read and
practical guide for Bible interpretation (Reformed).