Interpretation

Methods of Bible study are only of relative importance; but the spirit in which it is studied is all-important . . . Something more than intellectual training is required: the heart must be right as well as the head. Only where there is honesty of soul and spirituality of heart will there be clearness of vision to perceive the Truth; only then will the mind be capable of discerning the full import of what is read, and understand not only the bare meaning of its words, but the sentiments they are designed to convey, and a suitable response be made by us. -A.W. Pink

General Rules of Interpretation

For every text, there is only one proper interpretation. Many people treat scripture as if it has a wax nose that may be molded into any shape. This is simply not true. Others will, with a wave of the hand, suggest that even though there is only one interpretation, it is impossible to know what that is for sure. In this way they technically acknowledge only one right interpretation, but in practice they allow for a multitude of interpretations. I can appreciate this kind of thinking on one hand, because there are times where we simply need to exhibit some humility and acknowledge that we don't know. However, far and away the larger problem is that people simply aren't doing their homework. The problem in the church of America is not that we have done all we can but are still confused, the problem is that we abhore work and study, and so wave off as unknowable many profound truths that are there for the harvesting if only we will search for them.

Observation is absolutly foundational to proper interpretation. At times it is impossible to discern the difference between the two. And although we cannot separate them, distinguishing between observation and interpretation is of great use. In gereral, in observation we simply asked, "What do I see?" We identified what was in the text. Now we are piecing the puzzel together and asking, "What does this mean?"

Principle: Since the Bible was written by humans, read it as any other book in determining the intent of the author. This is called the Literal Interpretation Principle. By "literal interpretation" we do not mean that we interpret things in a wooden fashion. The Reformers, when they argued for literal interpretation, meant that one should interpret a passage according to its literary genre. Thus, poetry would be interpreted as poetry, history as history, etc. Thus they were not contrasting literal with figurative, but literal with spiritual. The Catholic church at the time tried to find hidden meanings in the text. The Reformers argued against this by saying that the only message in the text was what the author actually wrote down. We will look at some specific rules for interpreting each genre next week, for now we will confine ourselves to general rules that are applicable to all parts of the Bible. Flowing from this literal principle are the following guidelines:

Guideline: Take a passage in its most simple, direct, ordinary meaning unless there is compelling evidence to take it otherwise. Consider, in Isaiah 41 we have the beginning of the trial of the gods. Here God calls forth all the idols and false gods of the world to present their case for divinity. The Lord challenges them in verses 22-23 and 26 saying:

Let them bring forth and declare to us what is going to take place; As for the former events, declare what they were, That we may consider them and know their outcome. Or announce to us what is coming; 23 Declare the things that are going to come afterward, That we may know that you are gods; Indeed, do good or evil, that we may anxiously look about us and fear together…Who has declared this from the beginning, that we might know? Or from former times, that we may say, "He is right!"? Surely there was no one who declared, Surely there was no one who proclaimed, Surely there was no one who heard your words.

Then in 42:9 God says, "Behold, the former things have come to pass, Now I declare new things; Before they spring forth I proclaim them to you." Some try to interpret this passage to say that God knows some of the future like where all the stars and planets will be tomorrow, but he does not have definite foreknowledge of the actions of volitional creatures like people. The most straightforward reading of this passage suggests that God alone knows the future. If God only knows about predictable things like the motion of the stars, then how is his foreknowledge a test of deity? It does not seem that there is compelling enough evidence to limit this foreknowledge to merely predicting the future state of non-volitional creatures.

Guideline: Always consider the context. Consider the larger context of the passage from Isaiah above. The context reveals that many of the things the Lord is prophesying include the acts of volitional creatures. Clearly then, such future choices are not beyond God's knowledge.

Psalm 51:5 is sometimes interpreted to mean that David's mom was sinning when she conceived him. But the broader context reveals that this is a psalm of lament. This is David confessing his own sins to God. This is not a Freudian foreshadowing where David is blaming his mom for things. David is acknowledging his own sinfulness, and that he has been sinful from birth.

Guideline: Research each unclear or important word.

We lapsed a bit into interpretation earlier when we looked at how to do word studies. From that lesson, another guideline would be that greater importance is placed upon those words which occur closer to the context of the word in question. Thus the further removed you are from the context (whether in literature, culture or history) the less sure the results are.

In word studies one may proceed out of the concentric circles in any direction. It does not matter a great deal whether you go 20 years ahead or 20 years before the text as long as you give greater weight to the 20 year mark than usage 100 years removed.

Guideline: Base your study in the historical setting.

Psalm 51:4 states, "Against You, You only, I have sinned And done what is evil in Your sight." When we consider the historical situation that prompted this confession, we gain a fascinating insight. Most scholars agree that this confession was in regards to David's sin against Uriah and Bathsheeba. This was not simply an evil thought that David had which went no further than his head. Rather, this was a sin that directly and deeply affected other people. Thus when David says, "Against You, You only, I have sinned" it is a profound statement. All sin, it appears, is ultimately and principally against God. The people sinned against are only peripherally affected in comparison to the offense against God!

Guideline: Analyze the structure of the text.

Here again, our observations are foundational. In our observation we simply noted that there was structure, and we tried to identify what form the structure took. Now we are asking, "What is the significance of the structure?" Unlike word studies, the text itself has a definite directionality to it. So read a text in the order it was written. Don't interpret vs 23 and then interpret vs 19 in light of 23. The structure develops over the course of the book, and it is meant to be read from beginning to end and not from end to beginning.

Principle: Since the Bible was written by God, it contains no errors, thus we must seek unity among all the parts.

Guideline: Determine the range of possible meanings for a text before cross-referencing. Do not be too quick to cross reference to another passage for insight, because the immediate context holds sway over anything that may be cross-referenced in. Cross-referencing may shed light on an issue, or it may help decide among a few possible interpretations. However, never can a cross-reference overturn the meaning of the text. Thus we first need to know what the possible interpretations are before we can say whether a cross reference has decided among possible ones, or overturned a real one.

Guideline: Scripture Interprets Scripture. At this point, we have done all our observation and interpretation in an existing context, now to gain a fuller understanding we can cross reference to other parts of scripture.

Guideline: Parallel passages by the same author often provide the best clarification. Eph 6:5-9 is parallel with Col 3:22-4:1. Also, Eph 5:18 is parallel with Col 3:16. Observe:

We can see here that Paul puts in parallel the ideas of letting the "word of Christ richly dwell within you" and being "filled with the Spirit."

Beyond the parallel passages of a single author, different authors can record the same event. Reading both accounts will give us a more complete picture. An obvious example of this would be any place where the gospels overlap. Other parallel accounts can be found in 1 & 2 Samuel, 1 & 2 Kings, and 1 & 2 Chronicles.

Guideline: Cross reference to similar or contrasting themes. The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge is a good resource for this. Most study Bibles also contain a limited section that one can uses to cross reference.

Guideline: Every teaching of scripture is to be received universally unless the Bible itself limits the audience, either in the context of the passage itself, or in other biblical teaching.

Matt 5:3, "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven"

Matt 19:12, "For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother's womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it."

1 Cor 7:8, "Yet I wish that all men were even as I myself am. However, each man has his own gift from God, one in this manner, and another in that."

In each of these instances the audience is limited. We will examine in more detail in a few weeks the problem of determining whether a command is culturally limited or not.

Guideline: It is not legitimate to set aside any Old Testament teaching without the authorization of subsequent revelation in the NT. It is a popular line of thinking today that you don't have to pay attention to the Old Testament unless the New Testament repeats an OT law. While this is a convent way to deal with some issues, it is simplistic and has no warrant. We need to be able to wrestle with the relationship between the Old and New Testaments.

Guideline: Use Commentaries to check your findings. After you have done all of your work in a text, and after you have done your cross-referencing, then go to a trusted commentary. Here are a few good ones that are online:

Matthew Henry

IVP New Testament Commentaries

John Gill's Complete Commentary

Calvin's Commentaries

Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown

We will fine tune some of these principles a little further in a couple weeks when we do "Guidelines for Building a Systematic Theology."