 Hermeneutics Part 1 The art of interpreting Scripture The need, tools and principles of Biblical interpretation by William Dicks
2. The need to
interpret the Scriptures 2.1 We are already interpreters 2.2 The nature of the Scriptures 3.2 Other important Bible study tools 3.3 Qualifications of an interpreter 4. Principles of
interpretation 4.1.1 Assume that the
Bible is authoritative 4.1.2 Scripture
interprets Scripture 4.1.3 Personal
experience must be interpreted in light of Scripture 4.1.4 Examples from
the Bible are authoritative only when backed by a command 4.1.5 Exercise great
care in applying Biblical promises 4.1.6 The Bible’s
primary purpose is to change us, not increase our knowledge 4.1.7 Each Christian
must interpret the Bible for himself 4.1.8 Church history
is important 4.2.1 Scripture
should be taken literally and has only one meaning 4.2.2 Words must be
interpreted in harmony with their meanings at the time of being written 4.2.3 A word needs to
be interpreted in its context 4.2.4 A passage needs
to be interpreted in its context 4.2.5 Inanimate
objects used to describe living beings may be interpreted as figurative 4.2.6 Expressions out
of character for the described object may be considered as figurative 4.3.1 Scripture was
written in a historical context 4.3.2 Historical
facts as symbols of spiritual truth 4.4.2 Exegesis before
theology 4.4.3 A doctrine is Biblical
only when it includes and sums up all that the Bible says about it 4.4.4 “Seeming”
contradictory doctrines should not be denied 4.4.5 Our theology
should rest mainly on the New Testament 4.4.6 Theology
strives toward a system
Many times when studying the Bible people get to a point where they just cannot make sense of the passage in question. With the proper hermeneutical skills, many such difficulties could be solved.
Hermeneutics
is the science and art of Biblical interpretation. It is a science because it
is guided by rules within a system; and it is an art because the application of
the rules is by skill, and not by mechanical imitation.
Admittedly, skill in the area of hermeneutics is not gained in a week or a month. It takes time and dedication. It takes hours and hours of thinking and rethinking. In order to do honest hermeneutics it may become necessary to throw out preconceived ideas, until such ideas are confirmed by the proper study of God’s Word. And, such study is not achieved by a superficial glimpse into the riches of God’s Word. Once artificial study of God’s Word becomes a habit, one will almost never get to the point where Biblical knowledge becomes part of who we are.
The study of God’s Word is not to become clever, but to live in truth and to have changed lives.
Our aim in interpreting the Bible is not to be unique and different to everybody else. In fact, chances are good that the unique interpretation is wrong. The aim of the interpreter is to get to the plain meaning of the text. In the end, the litmus test of good interpretation is that it makes good sense of the text at hand.
Whether we like it or not, each one of us is an interpreter. Everything we read or hear is interpreted by us. When we approach any text—Biblical or not—we bring a whole lot of baggage to the text; and it is that baggage—not necessarily all bad—that influences us when we interpret the text. Since we already interpret what we hear, see and read, we may as well make sure that we become good interpreters of the Word while we are at it. Learning to be actively involved in proper hermeneutics will safeguard us against “every wind of doctrine.”
The Bible is at the same time human and divine. The Bible was given to us in the words of the people of history. The Bible is not written outside the scope of history and the context of that history. This alone suggests to us that some interpretation will be needed to understand the Bible.
However, since God was the One who spoke through these writers, and the Bible is His Word to us, it certainly has eternal relevance. The best tool still for good interpretation is a good translation of the Bible. The translation you choose will determine how much truth you will receive in your study of God’s Word. However, no matter how good a translation is, it was still influenced by the translation skill of the translators who are not flawless in their work.
It is good to use mainly one good translation for one’s study, but use it in conjunction with several other well-chosen translations. Currently, my main study Bible is the NASB. I then use it in conjunction with the ESV, NIV, ISV and the RSV. Every now and again I will also consult a free translation such as the J.B. Phillips New Testament. Translation from one language to another certainly is a science. Many things need to be considered before translation work can begin. Translators must make sure that the Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek texts are as close as possible to the original. However, no original copies exist. There are thousands of copies or fragments that exist (5000+ for the New Testament alone). It is a painstaking process to go through all these copies and fragments to come to the point of having a text as close as could be expected to the original. To study more about this subject one can read Biblical Criticism: Historical, Literary and Textual by Harrison, Waltke, Guthrie and Fee, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1986; and The Text of the New Testament Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, Third Enlarged Edition, Bruce M. Metzger, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, 1992. This painstaking process is known as textual criticism.
First, textual criticism is carefully guided by scientific controls. The evidence for a text is guided by two controls. (a) External evidence is controlled by the age and quality of a given text or variant. (b) Internal evidence has to do with the authors and the copyists of variants. External evidence, combined with internal evidence, gives us a high degree of certainty concerning the original text.
Second, textual criticism is not an exact science since it deals with a multitude of human variables. This can be seen on translation committees when different translators disagree on which textual variant to use.
Third, even though the KJV is the most widely used version—closely
followed by the NIV—the only Greek text available for use in 1611 was of very
late manuscripts “which had accumulated the mistakes of over a thousand years
of copying.” Words and ideas need to be transferred from one language to another. In this case from the Biblical languages to English. Translation from one language to another needs to think of several factors.
First, we have the source language. This is the language or languages of the Bible. They are Hebrew and Aramaic for the Old Testament and Greek for the New Testament.
Second, we have the destination or receptor language. In our case it is English.
Third, there exists an historical distance between the source and destination languages (words, grammar, idioms, culture, history).
Fourth, there needs to be a theory of translation. How literal or how free will we be in our translation. There are basically three theories of translation. (a) The Literal theory attempts to keep as close as possible to the words and word order of the original language as long as it still makes sense. The Literal theory attempts to keep the historical distance between them intact. Examples are KJV, NASB, RSV, ESV. (b) The Free theory translates ideas from the source language to the destination language. Exact words are not that important. Also known as a paraphrase, it attempts to get rid of as much as possible of the historical distance. Free translations are also known as paraphrases. Examples are the Living Bible(LB), The Message (TM). (c) The last theory is that of Dynamic Equivalence. This theory searches for equivalents of words, phrases, idioms and grammar of the source language in the destination language. It keeps the historical distance but updates the language. Examples are NIV, NLT, TEV.
Table 1 : Translations and their translation theories
The best way to study the Bible is still in the original languages. That means learning Hebrew and Greek for such a study becomes essential. However, what would be the next best tool to study the Bible if we do not know the original languages of Hebrew and Greek? It has to be a literal translation. The dominating concern for literal translations is closeness to the original. One of the most literal translations of the Twentieth Century is the American Standard Version. However,
its
disadvantage [of the ASV] is that it retains an early style of English that is
hard for some to comprehend [being published in 1901].
Gordon Fee feels that the basic translation
one should have for reading is a dynamic
equivalence translation such as the NIV.
ASV whom God put forward as
an expiation by his blood
KJV Whom God hath
set forth to be a propitiation
through faith in his blood,
NASB whom God
displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith.
RSV whom God put forward as
an expiation by his blood, to be received by faith.
ESV whom God put
forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith.
ISV whom God offered as a place where atonement by Christ's blood could occur through faith.
NIV God presented
him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood.
TEV God offered him, so that
by his sacrificial death he should become the means by which people's sins are
forgiven through their faith in him.
NLT For God sent Jesus to take
the punishment for our sins and to satisfy God’s anger against us. We are made
right with God when we believe that Jesus shed his blood, sacrificing his life
for us.
The
Message God sacrificed Jesus on
the altar of the world to clear that world of sin. Having faith in him sets us
in the clear.
LB For God sent Christ Jesus
to take the punishment for our sins and to end all God’s anger against us. He
used Christ’s blood and our faith as the means of saving us from His wrath.
The word propitiation means
a
sacrifice that bears God’s wrath to the end and in so doing changes God’s wrath
toward us into favor.
As a
Biblical doctrine, propitiation embodies the concept that the death of Christ
fully satisfied the demands of a righteous God in respect to judgment upon the
sinner.
If we look at the word propitiation in regards to the one translation that Fee suggests should be one’s primary translation—the NIV—we have to conclude that “sacrifice of atonement” is perhaps not such a good translation after all! Who today—even within the modern church—will understand that phrase in relation to Biblical theology anyhow? If we are teaching our people to do proper Bible study and base that on solid doctrinal teaching, then the word “propitiation” will have a wealth of meaning for them. Do not get me wrong, the NIV is a good translation, but I believe that the closer to the originals one can get—without having to sift through theological bias in a translation—the better.
The more a translator deviates from the original, the more his opinion dominates in interpretive matters.
A literal
translation provides a reliable tool for studying
the text, because it is close to the original text. The more remote a
translation is from the original, the less it reflects the precise meaning of
the original and the more it reflects the interpretations of the translator(s).
The remoteness entails a hindrance if one’s purpose is to discover the meaning
of the Bible.
For those who love the Amplified Bible, the following is important:
One should
probably also include here the Amplified
Bible, which has had a run of popularity far beyond its worth. It is far
better to use several translations, note where they differ, and then check out
those differences in another source, than to be led to believe that a word can
mean one of several things in any given sentence, with the reader left to
choose whatever best strikes his or her fancy.
In the study of the Bible, there are many tools that can help us discover the meanings of the text. However, we do not always have all these tools at our disposal.
It is
often asserted by devout people that they can know the Bible competently
without helps. They preface their interpretations with a remark like this:
“Dear friends, I have read no man’s book. I have consulted no man-made
commentaries. I have gone right to the Bible to see what it had to say for
itself.” This sounds very spiritual, and usually is seconded by amens from the audience. But is this the
pathway of wisdom? Does any man have either the right or the learning to
by-pass all the godly learning of the Church? We think not. First, although the
claim to by-pass mere human books and go right to the Bible itself sounds
devout and spiritual it is a veiled egotism…
Secondly, such a claim is the old confusion of the inspiration of the Spirit
with the illumination of the Spirit.
Whatever tools you do not have, you will have to simply do without, or at least try to get it. These tools are:
First, the interpreter must be born again.
For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. (1 Cor 1:18 ESV)
The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. (1 Cor 2:14 ESV)
Second, the interpreter must have a passion to know God’s word. One cannot love God without wanting to know more about God and His word to us. This comes only from the Scriptures. The Bible is our only rule for faith and practice.
Third, the interpreter must have a deep reverence for God.
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom; all those who practice it have a good understanding. His praise endures forever! (Ps 111:10 ESV; Pr 9:10)
If we do not fear the Lord, we will not bother with wanting to know His will and ways for our lives. We will not change!
Fourth, the interpreter must depend on the Holy Spirit to guide and direct. The Holy Spirit inspired the Scriptures. He knows best. However, the Holy Spirit will never be as crystal clear as the original inspiration of the Scriptures. Many have claimed that the Holy Spirit has given them interpretations and words; yet, they differed greatly from others who have claimed the same. There is confusion between inspiration and illumination. The inspiration of the Scriptures is infallible. Illumination of the Scriptures is not. No man today can claim infallible illumination of the Scriptures.
The
illumination of the Spirit is not the conveyance of truth for that is the
function of inspiration. The Holy Spirit influences our attitudes and spiritual
perception.
If we do not regard the Bible as authoritative, we will not let it dictate our beliefs or our lifestyle. The first law of interpretation informs us that the Bible is our final court of appeal.
This authority is shown in several ways: First, a Biblical character acts in a certain way and the passage in question shows whether this action was approved or disapproved. Second, the same as in the first point, but no indication is given as to whether this action was approved or disapproved. In this case the rest of the Bible must be used to indicate whether such an action is approved or disapproved of. Third, God or someone who represents Him—priest, prophet, apostle—reveals the mind and will of God.
The whole of the Bible interprets the part. Whenever obscure passages are encountered they must give way to clear passages. Context is very important. Any verse or passage has a context to consider. A verse or passage cannot stand by itself, but should be considered by its context which would include the rest of the chapter, book, testament it is found in, historical and cultural background. Even today we do not speak or write within a vacuum.
When studying the Bible, do not add or subtract from it. We need to do proper exegesis—letting the Bible speak for itself—rather than eisegesis—enforcing our thoughts and ideas onto the Bible. Eisegesis would be like putting words in God’s mouth.
Many of today’s Christians would rather interpret Scripture in light of their experience. This would be like “barking” like a dog or “hissing” like a snake and calling that acts of God, but totally disregarding how the Bible uses the words “dogs” and “snakes” and what it says about them.
A good example would be when Abraham gave a tenth of his spoils to Melchizedek. In this case, nowhere in the text did God command Abraham to give a tenth to anyone. In fact, we are never told anywhere in Scripture that Abraham ever did this again, nor that he made it a “principle” in his life from that point on. Yet, many want to use this event to show that tithing is a timeless principle!
When it comes to examples, we must first differentiate between that which the Bible simply records and that it approves of. Simply because something is recorded in the Bible does not mean that we have to follow suit. Second, we may apply those incidents the Bible directly condemns or approves. Third, commands directly to individuals are not God’s will for us, but for them alone. Fourth, determine what the principle is in the lives of the characters in the Bible.
“Every
promise in the book is mine” is one of the overstatements of the century. Few
Bible promises partake of such universality. In applying the promises of the
Bible to our specific situations we need to exercise great care. If we apply
promises to ourselves that are not for us, we may suffer severe disappointment.
Also, promises must not be used to tempt God. A reserve and a patience should
temper all our usages of promises.
We need to take care in our uses of promises in the Bible as follows: First, ascertain whether the promise is a personal promise to a person in the Bible. Promises like these may not apply to us today. Second, is this promise conditional? One thing must be fulfilled before another will become true. Third, is this promise universal in extent. Does it apply to everybody? Fourth, is this promise valid for today? Promises not meant for today can obviously not be claimed.
We are to apply what the Bible teaches us. However, the Bible is primarily Christological and not anthropological. That is, the Bible is primarily about Christ and not man. The Bible tells us who God is and how He accomplished the redemption of His people. It is no use basing our changed lives on a God that does not exist and a work He did not do. Therefore, correct doctrine is important, for it helps us relate to the one true God and also to understand His message of redemption.
In the final analysis, each one of us will one day stand before God when He hands out rewards. We cannot stand before Him and tell Him that we did not know. We cannot tell Him that someone else taught us wrong. You are responsible for your walk and doctrine before God.
Although church history is important for us as Christians, it is not decisive as to the correct interpretation of the Bible. It can show us how the church got to certain doctrines and also the mistakes the church has made over the centuries. The Bible determines what the church teaches and not vice versa.
No person who wants to communicate accurately with others intends his messages to have more than one meaning. Why should this then be true of God and His word, the Bible? We should ask ourselves the following two questions:
Am I questioning this passage being literal because I do not want to obey it?… Am I
interpreting this passage figuratively because it does not fit my preconceived
theological bias?
An example of this follows. If God is in control of our lives, what is God’s relation to sin in this world? Does God cause the sin that people do? There are many Scriptures where it seems that God is the instigator of evil.
we must
remember that in all these passages it is very clear that Scripture nowhere
shows God as directly doing anything
evil, but rather as bringing about evil deeds through the willing actions
of moral creatures. Moreover, Scripture
never blames God for evil or shows God as taking pleasure in evil, and
Scripture never excuses human beings for the wrong they do. However we
understand God's relationship to evil, we must never come to the point where we
think that we are not responsible for the evil that we do, or that God takes
pleasure in evil or is to be blamed for it. Such a conclusion is clearly
contrary to Scripture.
Have you ever thought of Joseph’s life? His brothers were jealous of him (Gen 37:11), hated him (Gen 37:4-5, 8) and even wanted to kill him (Gen 37:20). They then did wrong when they cast him into a pit (Gen 37:24) and sold him into slavery (Gen 37:28). However, when Joseph spoke to them after years in slavery and then becoming second in command of Egypt, he said
As for you,
you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about
this present result, to preserve many people alive. (Gen 50:20 NASB)
Joseph clearly puts the blame at their feet, “you
meant evil against me,” yet he acknowledges God’s dominant providential control
over his life.
When the Israelites wanted to leave Egypt, it is
clear that God hardened Pharoah’s heart! (Ex 4:21). God did this several times
(Ex 7:3; 9:12; 10:20, 27; 11:10; 14:8). Scripture also tells us that Pharoah
hardened his own heart (Ex 8:15, 32; 9:34). Many use this to speculate that God
simply hardened the heart of Pharoah in response to his own initial hardness
and rebellion. However, it must be noted that we are told that God hardened the
heart of Pharoah before we are told that Pharoah hardened his own heart.
According to our doctrine of concurrence, even when God and man cause the same
event, both factors can be true at once. It is not inconsistent to say that God
caused Pharoah to harden his own heart, and so God hardened his heart. God had
a purpose to all this.
But I have
raised you up for this very purpose, that I might show you my power and that my
name might be proclaimed in all the earth. (Ex 9:16 NIV)
Paul quotes this verse in Rom 9:17 and follows it
with a general truth.
So then he
has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. (Rom 9:18
ESV)
God not only hardened the heart of Pharoah, but also that of his people to the extent that they would follow after the Israelites into the Red Sea (Ex 14:17; Ps 105:25).
Other narratives where God hardened the hearts of people can be found in the Canaanites.
For it was of
the LORD to harden their hearts, to meet Israel in battle in order that he
might utterly destroy them, that they might receive no mercy, but that he might
destroy them, just as the LORD had commanded Moses. (Josh 11:20 NASB; see also
Judg 3:12)
Samson’s decision to marry a Philistine was not
his own (Ex 14:4), but came from the Lord.
Why would Eli’s sons not listen to him?
His sons,
however, did not listen to their father's rebuke, for it was the LORD's will to
put them to death. (1 Sam 2:25 NIV)
Saul—after his pride got the most of him—was
tormented by an evil spirit … from the Lord!
Now the
Spirit of the Lord departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the Lord
tormented him. (1 Sam 16:14 ESV; see also Judg 9:23)
When David sinned, the Lord sent Nathan the prophet to him to deliver a message that will stop most of us cold in our tracks.
[11] Thus
says the LORD, "Behold, I will raise up evil against you from your own
household; I will even take your wives before your eyes and give them to your
companion, and he will lie with your wives in broad daylight. [12] "Indeed
you did it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel, and under the
sun.' (2 Sam 12:11-12 NASB; this was fulfilled in 16:22)
David was punished further. Even though he
repented of his sin in verse 13, the Lord’s punishment would stand as follows:
[14] However,
because by this deed you have given occasion to the enemies of the LORD to
blaspheme, the child also that is born to you shall surely die. [15] So Nathan
went to his house. Then the LORD struck the child that Uriah's widow bore to
David, so that he was very sick. [16] David therefore inquired of God for the
child; and David fasted and went and lay all night on the ground. [17] The
elders of his household stood beside him in order to raise him up from the
ground, but he was unwilling and would not eat food with them. [18] Then it
happened on the seventh day that the child died. (2 Sam 12:14-18 NASB)
When David called a census of the people God was
angered against David’s sin (2 Sam 24:1). David recognized the fact the he
sinned so he repented (2 Sam 24:10). However, the Lord gave him one of three
choices that would befall him or his people: (1) Seven years of famine, (2)
three months of fleeing before his enemies, or (3) three days of pestilence
over his people. David chose the latter (2 Sam 24:11-16).
Why did God do this in the first place? God was
angry with Israel, and so incited David to sin, in order to bring that
punishment on Israel. However, what was the means by which God did this inciting?.
Satan rose up
against Israel and incited David to take a census of Israel. (1 Chron 21:1 NIV)
In this one
incident the Bible gives us a remarkable insight into the three influences that
contributed in different ways to one action: God, in order to bring about his
purposes, worked through Satan to incite David to sin, but Scripture regards
David as being responsible for that sin.
After Solomon’s sin of turning away from the Lord
by taking foreign wives, God raised up evil kings against him (1 Ki 11:14, 23).
Look at Job’s circumstances. The Lord gave Satan
permission to bring great harm to Job’s belongings and to his family. This harm
came via the evil Sabeans, the Chaldeans and even a windstorm (Job 1:12, 15,
17, 19). Even though this happened, Job saw beyond the second causes, and sees
all of it as from God’s hand.
And he said,
"Naked I came from my mother's womb, and naked shall I return. The Lord
gave, and the Lord has taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord." (Job
1:21 ESV)
In all this Job did not sin, and he did not blame
God for his circumstances (Job Job 1:22).
During the time that Jehoshaphat was king of
Judah, God put a lying spirit in the mouth of the prophets of Ahab, the king of
Israel (1 Ki 22:23). God also used the Assyrians as the rod of His anger to
punish Israel (Is 10:5), and brought the Babylonians against Israel (Jer 25:9).
Then when God finished using the Babylonians and Chaldeans in His anger against
Israel, He punished those same Babylonians and Chaldeans for their wickedness
(Jer 25:12).
In many of
the passages mentioned above, God brings evil and destruction on people in
judgment upon their sins: They have been disobedient or have strayed into
idolatry, and then the LORD uses evil human beings or demonic forces or
"natural" disasters to bring judgment on them. (This is not always
said to be the case--Joseph and Job come to mind--but it is often so.) Perhaps
this idea of judgment on sin can help us to understand, at least in part, how
God can righteously bring about evil events. All human beings are sinful, for
Scripture tells us that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of
God" (Rom. 3:23). None of us deserves God's favor or his mercy, but only
eternal condemnation. Therefore, when God brings evil on human beings, whether
to discipline his children, or to lead unbelievers to repentance, or to bring a
judgment of condemnation and destruction upon hardened sinners, none of us can
charge God with doing wrong. Ultimately all will work in God's good purposes to
bring glory to him and good to his people. Yet we must realize that in
punishing evil in those who are not redeemed (such as Pharoah, the Canaanites,
and the Babylonians), God is also glorified through the demonstration of his
justice, holiness, and power (see Ex. 9:16; Rom. 9:14-24).
It is sometimes not comfortable for us to hear about some of the things that God does, simply because we have always been taught otherwise. Yet, when the Bible tells us that God makes peace and creates evil, we need to teach the whole counsel of God, not just half if it.
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things. (Is 45:7 KJV)
Other
translations render the Hebrew word rã’, "evil," as "disaster" (NIV) or "woe'
(RSV) or "calamity" (NASB), and indeed the word can be used to apply
to natural disasters such as these words imply. But there is no compelling
reason to restrict it to natural disasters, for the word is an extremely common
word used of evil generally: It is used of the tree of the knowledge of good
and evil (Gen. 2:9), of the evil among mankind that brought the
judgment of the flood (Gen. 6:5), and of the evil of the men of Sodom (Gen. 13:13). It is used to say,
"Depart from evil and do
good" (Ps. 34:14), and to speak of the wrong of those who call evil good and good evil (Isa. 5:20), and of the sin of those whose "feet run to evil" (Isa. 59:7; see also 47:10,
11; 56:2; 57:1; 59:15; 65:12; 66:4). Dozens of other times throughout the Old
Testament it refers to moral evil or sin. The contrast with “peace” (shãlôm) in the same phrase in Isa. 45:7 might argue that only "calamity”
is in view, but not necessarily so, for moral evil and wickedness is certainly
also the opposite of the wholeness of God's "shalom" or peace. (In
Amos 3:6, rã’ ãh is a different but
related word and has a similar range of meanings.) But Isa. 45:7 does not say
that God does evil.
The greatest evil deed ever certainly was that of the crucifixion of Jesus. Yet, it too was ordained by God. He did not just ordain the fact of its future eventuality, but also the individual actions related to it.
[27] For
truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant
Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the
Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, [28] to do whatever Your hand and Your
purpose predestined to occur. (Ac 4:27 NASB)
God predestined
all the actions of the participants in the crucifixion of Jesus in order to
fulfill His purpose. However, the apostles never lay moral blame before God,
for the evil acts of willing human beings.
this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. (Ac 2:23 ESV)
God, through His eternal wisdom, brought about His plan through the willing choices of men.
In the end-times people will become more and more evil. Based on this God will send
[11] them a
powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie [12] and so that all will
be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.
(2 Thes 2:11-12 NIV)
and, A STONE
OF STUMBLING AND A ROCK OF OFFENSE; for they stumble because they are
disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed. (1 Pet 2:8
NASB)
How do you treat these passages? Do you allegorize
them because they do not fit into your doctrinal framework?
When studying words in the Bible it needs to be ascertained how the author used it first. Second, the word’s relation to its own context needs to be found. Third, what was the use of the word in the time of the writing? Fourth, the word’s root meaning must be ascertained. This means that words may be studied etymologically. However, this does not always help us in our search for meaning in the Bible. Fifth, words may be studied comparatively by using a Hebrew or Greek concordance to determine all occurrences of that word in the Bible. Such a comparative study could also be very useful in studying synonyms. The study of agaph (agapē) and filew (fileō), and also logoV (logos) and rhma (rhēma) will present an interesting study of synonyms.
“He is bloodthirsty.” What does this mean to you? If I told you it was Idi Amin you would think that he just liked to have people killed for opposing his regime. If I told you that it was a T Rex you would think that he actually killed animals to eat them.
A study of the word “world” will show that it could have several meanings depending on the context.. It could mean the physical world we call “earth.” It could also refer to this world system of thought and its evil ways. It could even mean a smaller part of earth such as the Roman Empire. Finally, it could even mean the Gentiles as opposed to the Jews.
A passage needs to be interpreted in its context as follows:
These differing contexts could help solve difficult passages.
The Roman Catholic Church fell into this trap when they interpreted the bread and the wine of Lk 22:19-20 as literally becoming the body and blood of Jesus when the priest blesses it. However, they never interpreted Jesus literally being a door (Jn 10:7) or bread (Jn 6:35).
Inanimate objects cannot have life and action of its own. Therefore, in situations such as these, they should be interpreted figuratively.
Look out for the dogs, look out for the evildoers, look out for those who mutilate the flesh. (Phil 3:2 ESV)
Is Paul really talking of dogs? No!
Attempt at all times to interpret passages literally. However, if it will not make sense that way, then perhaps it should be interpreted figuratively.
Another important point to remember is that a word cannot have more than one meaning in its context (the Amplified Bible suggests that this is a possibility). The meaning cannot be literal and figurative at the same time.
The following questions can be answered by any passage: To whom? From Whom? Why? When? How? What?
Historical facts may only be interpreted as symbols of spiritual truths when they have been designated in such a way by Scripture. This can be seen in the way Paul allegorises Hagar and Sarah (Gal 4:21-31). We must understand the Bible grammatically before we can understand it theologically. What does this really mean? Before we can understand what the Bible means, we need to understand what it says!
The Bible is the self-revelation of God and not any system of theology. Our theology should be based on good exegesis of the Bible and not the other way round. Correct exegesis will provide us with the knowledge of the truth of God’s word.
A jury in court cannot make a proper judgement unless they have heard all the arguments and have all the facts. This means that when we study any topic in the Bible we need to study all the passages related to it in the Bible.
This also means that our theology should go no further than the Biblical evidence.
Doctrines that “seem” to contradict one another usually solve themselves into a higher unity. This is apparent with doctrines such as the “Trinity,” the dual nature of Christ or the origin and existence of evil.
The capstone of God’s revelation to man is the New Testament and the One who brought us the New Testament, Jesus Christ. The Bible is undeniably Christological and that Christology is revealed to us in the New Testament.
Because
[the New Testament] is the final, full and
clear revelation of God, it would be
foolhardy to make the New revolve around the Old.
To have a system in studying the Bible that provides us with relevant formulations of the Biblical data is not only beneficial, it is also necessary. It is necessary to build up a system in order to understand what the whole of the Bible says about a particular doctrine. This is what we call a systematic theology. It takes each individual doctrine and formulates an intelligent statement regarding each of the doctrines of the Bible. The next step would be to interrelate each of these doctrines into a congruous systematic theology.
How we
understand the divine Person bears directly on how we think of the plan of
redemption. Our doctrine of sin in many ways determines how we formulate our
notion of salvation.
Copyright © 2002-2007 [Sovereign Truth].
All rights reserved. Revised: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||