INTERPRETATION

          This page deals with the problem of  interpretation.  This problem is well stated by one writer (although he denies inspiration), "Their [Scriptures] interpretation by fallible humans would not be" error-free.  (John A. Creager, Theodynamics, 29--This does not constitute an endorsement of  this book.).  Recognition of  a problem does not of necessity result in a proper solution.  Though done by fallible men, interpretation is necessary to a correct understanding of the Scriptures.  As stated on the page BIBLE, the problem of  interpretation really is basically two kinds:  allegorism and literalism.  Much of  the variations in understanding of  the Scriptures among those who say they believe the Bible is due to a large extent how much they interpret the Bible literally and how much they allegorize.  This admixture of  the two methods has been the cause not only of much misunderstanding of  the Bible but also of  much of  the division in Christendom.  It is inconsistent to say that God is the Creator--even referring to Genesis 1--and denying the historicity of  Adam and Eve.  It must be understood the literal interpretation does not preclude metaphors, similes, symbols, and even allegories.  Thus, literal interpretation takes the words of  the Bible in their plain, ordinary meaning without seeking some hidden and/or mythical meaning.  Thus, literal interpretation uses the same basic method as one does in reading the newspaper or any piece of  writing.  The allegorical method of  interpretation, on the other hand, can make any part of  the Bible mean whatever the interpreter wants to make it mean.  To take an extreme example, by the allegorical method, this writer could make Moses to be his pastor.  It is this method that can deny the historicity of  Adam and Eve, making them out to be mere symbols of  male and female.  It is this method that denies the real existence of Satan and make him simply the personification of  evil.  It is this method that tries to make the resurrection something other than a bodily one.  This writer could go on with such examples.  Someone is bound to say that Paul allegorized (Cf. Galatians 4:19ff.--particularly verse 24). However, the Apostle Paul did not in any way deny the historicity of  Sarah and Hagar.  He used the historical incident to help better to picture the relationship between grace and law.  In effect he was making an application of  the historical event to that relationship.  This is a legitimate use of  Scripture since "all these things happened unto them [the Jews of  the Old Testament] for ensamples; and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of  the world are come." (1 Corinthians 10:11)  Thus, all Scripture is profitable unto us, but not all Scripture is either to or for us (except by way of analogy).  This writer must constantly remind you that, due to human limitations, no system of doctrinal teaching is exempt from error (including this one).  However, if  one diligently endeavors by God's grace to humbly study the Bible, he will come to an understanding of  its truths.  Six times the word search is used in the New Testament.  Those references are John 5:39 & 7:52; Romans 8:27; 1 Corinthians 2:10; 1 Peter 1:11; Revelation 2:23.  Three of  these are pertinent to to interpretation. Then, 1 Timothy 2:15 tells to study the Word of  God diligently.  This, of  course, requires effort, which many do not want to do.  Hermeneutics is the science of  interpretation, and its seven principles are the basis for correct interpretation.

1. The Bible as a whole considered.  The Bible is composed of  66 books written over several hundred years by between 45 and 50 writers and yet has a unity of  message and purpose as no other book in any other field has.  The Bible was written to men here on earth to reveal the Godhead and therefore does NOT tell what may or may not have happened on other worlds.  Yet there is not anything in the Bible that would contradict anything that might be yet discovered about outer space.  Furthermore, the Bible does not tell everything that can be known.  God has revealed that which He wanted man to know.  Any speculations about matters that the Bible does not address are futile, such as "How many angels can sit on the head of  a pin?"  Also, the Bible was written for the common man living common lives in every day common situations.  It is NOT "a treatise on natural science or history." (Chafer, Systematic Theology, I:115)  Nevertheless, where it touches on those areas it is accurate.  It is to be noted  that when the writers touched on non-religious matters they were prevented by the power of  the Holy Spirit from making statements that were either beyond the intelligence of  their time in the anticipation of  later discoveries, or from making statements in such a way as to cause absurdities compared with the later understanding.  This development of  knowledge was, however, predicted in Daniel 12:4.  Thus, it is imperative to the proper understanding of  the Bible to consider the book as a whole.  This means a person to properly interpret the Bible a person must have a basic understand of  the book in its entirety.  This takes time, of  course, and many repeated readings of the entire Bible.

2. The character & message of each book considered.  Each book of  the Bible must also be considered carefully as its specific character and message.  Perhaps the four gospels are a good example of  this.  Matthew presents Jesus as the King, primarily of   the Jews (hence the genealogy starts with David, and then jumps back to Abraham, the first Hebrew); Mark emphasizes Jesus as the Servant of  God (hence, no genealogy at all); Luke sets forth Jesus as the Son of  Man (thus, a genealogy traced back to Adam); and John proclaims Jesus as the Son of  God (thus, the genealogy begins with God). While each of  these have a particular approach, they all present Jesus in the other three aspects.  Each book contributes it part to the whole message of  the Bible.

3. The persons address in each book (and passage).  Careful consideration must be given as to the persons addressed.  Even in this case a wider application of  the message may be explicit in the passage (John 3:1ff. was address to Nicodemus, but it is clear in the passage that Jesus was presenting a truth for all men.).  Thus, it is imperative that the one interpreting Scripture must distinguish between primary and secondary application.   The former is to be applied to those addressed; the latter to others.  Therefore, this writer reiterates that "all Scripture is profitable unto us, but not all Scripture is either  to or for us (except by way of analogy)."  A good example of this principle is the Jewish Sabbath.  There are things about the Sabbath which can be applied to Christians.  However, if  the Sabbath were applied completely as belonging to Christians (as do the Seventh Day Adventists do--but not consistently), then there would be no Scriptural basis for Christians to observe the first of  the week which is certainly the case.  Furthermore, all the rules of  the Sabbath should be applied even to being stoned to death  for breaking it.  Not even the Seventh Day Adventists do this.  It is precisely in this area that false theological systems arise, namely, in the area of  primary and secondary  application.  Of course, this goes back to the more basic criterion of  allegorizing versus literalizing.  Admittedly, it is not always easy to determine what is to be taken literal and what not.  This why diligent study is needed in order to "rightly divide" the Word of  God.

4. The context of  a given passage or verse considered.  Words, phrases, sentences, and  even whole paragraphs are interconnected contextually.  This is true whether you are reading a newspaper,  a book on science, or even poetry. Though poetry may be greatly enriched with imagery and such things as metaphors, nevertheless, the words have their meaning in a context which flavors the basic meaning of  the word.  There are several examples of  this that could be given. The Transfiguration recorded in Matthew 17:1-8 is in the context of  Matthew 16:28 which seems to have no bearing.  The separation is due solely to the artificial divisions of  the chapters.  Another case in point is 1 Corinthians 9:27 where Paul speaks about the possibility of  being a "castaway" can not refer to a loss of  salvation being in a context which is dealing with rewards for Christian service.  Thus, the context of  words, phrases, sentences, and even whole paragraphs (and each book in relation to the others) must be carefully considered.  Some have tried to use the contextual argument to restrict a verse to something in the context whereas it is clear from both the immediate context and the larger context of  the book, that the verse has a more universal meaning than some try to imply from the context.  This writer thinks of Romans 1:26, 27 that some try to  restrict to idolaters (of course, they do not really consider the true nature of  idolatry) as they think are set forth in Romans 1:19-25.  This passage was discussed in conjunction with the discussion of  homosexuality. 

5. All Scripture on any given subject considered.  This consideration of  a given theme is a  study of  all pertinent passages on that subject.  The Bible does not present the entirety of  a subject all in one place.  A good example of  this is the subject marriage.  This writer has endeavored to consider all the pertinent verses on that subject on that page.  An important verse in this regard is 2 Peter 1:20--"Knowing this that no prophecy of  the Scripture is of  any private interpretation."  The Romanists use this to try to make the church as the authority on interpretation.  Prophecy in this verse is concerned with the forthtelling of  the message of  God rather than the foretelling aspect.  The real meaning of  this verse is that no one isolated verse of  God's Word is to be considered apart from the other verses on the same subject.  Along this same line must be the recognition that the presenting of  truth  in the Bible is progressive.  By this is meant earlier disclosures in the Bible do not stand alone, but are built upon by later revelation.  This does not mean that the earlier ones were faulty; it just means that they were not complete.

6. The exact meaning of  important words in a text considered.  Most of  the Bible can be properly understood and interpreted without the knowledge of  the original languages.  In the difficult passages, however, an understanding of  the Hebrew and Greek are necessary.  This does not mean we need a special group of  specialists to interpret the Bible; rather it is the recognition that many times difficult problems can be cleared up by such knowledge.  The history of  preaching shows this to be the case.

7. The avoidance of  personal prejudices considered.  As Chafer so aptly says, "It is exceedingly easy to twist or mold the Word of  God to make it conform to one's preconceived notions." (Ibid., 119)  2 Corinthians 4:2 warns against such wrong handling of  the Word of  God.  Unfortunately, fundamentalists are as guilty of  this as are liberals and other unbelievers.  Just because someone quotes a Bible verse does not mean the person speaks the truth.  Thus, one must be very careful that he does not allow opinions of  various kinds to color his interpretation.  It is equally wrong to judge someone of  doing this very thing.  This is the reason one needs to be extremely careful in criticising others viewpoint.  They may be wrong; you may be wrong; or it may be that both are wrong.  Furthermore, it is needful to be careful about one's daily life so that they reflect the truth of  God.

Thus, interpretation must use certain principles in interpreting the Bible.  Those principles have been presented here.  The basis of  all correct interpretation of  the Bible is the same as any other piece of  writing, namely, the use of  the literal method.

HOME PAGE