THIS IS NOT MY WORK BUT WAS DOWNLOADED FROM AN EVANGELICAL WEBSITE SOME YEARS AGO. I no longer have the original document but would love to hear from the author some day

This study does not cover it all but I consider this one of the best less-than-book size introductions to Historical-Grammatical interpretation that I have come across. The illustrations are sometimes a little involved but are well worth thinking through. ENJOY !!

****************************************************************************

Necessity For The Laws Of Interpretation

ALL NORMAL intelligent individuals are able to speak and to express themselves by means of language. In our association with others and in our constant use of language, we seldom think of the laws, the basic principles, involved in the speech which we are employing constantly.

Most people use language very loosely and lack accuracy of expressions. On account of insufficient mental discipline and inattention to what others say, we frequently misunderstand what is said. All too often we act upon the misinterpretation of what is expressed and make mistakes. Just a moment’s consideration of these vital facts leads one to see the importance of our knowing the basic principles of language.

There are reflected in our language the logical processes of the mind. Psychologists tell us that there are certain definite fixed laws of the mind according to which all normal persons think and act. Thus a document, the expression of the working of an orderly mind, bears the imprint of the laws of thought and can only be understood properly and adequately by one who knows the normal, logical working of the mind. The importance of our knowing these laws may be illustrated by the laws of nature in the material, physical world. There are many laws governing the materials which are built into an automobile. Among them are those governing the different metals used; those controlling gases and the explosion of the same; and those directing electrical energy. No manufacturer could produce an automobile that would run and serve the purchaser, who does not understand all these laws, and who does not conform his workmanship thereto. There are many laws involved in the construction and the operation of the ediphone into which I am now speaking. If something goes wrong with the electronic part of this machine, it will not record what I am speaking. Then the repair man must come out and make the proper adjustment in order that the machine may operate normally. Language has definite, specific laws of thought that are just as real as the laws governing physical matter. These must be understood, therefore, if we are fully to enjoy the blessings of the language which we are using, and which we are endeavoring to understand. I may further illustrate this necessity by calling attention to the Greek. In college and seminary I devoted seven years to the study of that language. Since then I have been studying it. In fact, there are very few days which pass during which I do not consult my Greek New Testament or the Greek grammar. I have thus put thousands upon thousands of hours into the study of the language, not only the words, but the syntax, and the various shades of ideas that are expressed by the delicate shades of the grammar. I have done this in order to get at the exact thought of the original, inspired writers. No one can adequately understand the Greek New Testament or the Hebrew Bible unless he is willing to study hard and long to master the principles of those languages.


The Bible is God’s revelation to man. We have every reason to believe that, not only the thoughts were inspired, but also the very words by which the ideas were expressed in the original tongues were given infallibly by the Spirit. Thus the sacred writers combined spiritual thoughts with spiritual words. The Lord said exactly what He meant and meant just what He said. The prophets and the Apostles spoke in the language of the people to whom they ministered. At the same time their messages were poured into the moulds of the thought forms of the messengers and those to whom they ministered. The Lord had a very definite idea to convey whenever He made a statement. For instance, let us read the first verse of the Scriptures:
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” In the phrase “In the beginning,” the time element of the creation is given. God the Creator is mentioned in the noun, the subject of the verb. What He did is expressed by the word, created–the bringing into existence that which prior to the act, had no form or substance. The heavens and the earth are the things that are said to have been created in the beginning. This is one of the most profound statements to be found anywhere. It is exact and definite. It is crystal clear, so very much so that it refutes the basic assumptions of most modern philosophies.

We could take any statement found in the Scriptures and see that it has a definite, specific meaning. The purpose which we should cherish is to learn exactly what is said, to arrive at the precise idea of the inspired writer.

It is apparent from all the contradictory teachings of the many denominations and cults of Christendom, that they all cannot be right. For the most part, each claim to use the Bible as the source of their teachings. For example, most evangelical churches teach that salvation is by one’s faith through God’s grace apart from works. However, some churches emphatically teach that works such as baptism is necessary for salvation. Both may claim the Bible as the source of their belief. Most Protestants practice baptism by sprinkling whereas Baptists baptize by immersion. The Roman Catholic Church teaches it is the only true church, and that Peter was the first pope based on their interpretation of Matthew 16:18. No one else outside Catholicism accepts this interpretation.

Even the “Christian” cults such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses use the Bible to deny the deity of Jesus Christ, the existence of Hell, and most cardinal doctrines of the Christian faith. The Mormons, another cult, uses the Bible verses such as 1 Corinthians 15:29 as the source for their practice of baptisms for the dead. No one else accepts this interpretation. Seventh Day Adventists have their church services on Saturday, the Jewish “Sabbath Day.” They teach this based on their understanding of the Bible’s instruction concerning the Sabbath. Pentecostal churches and the modern Charismatic movement teach speaking in “tongues” and miracle healings are valid gifts of the Holy Spirit today. All fundamentalists and most other Christian denominations strongly disagree.

It is easy to see then, that many different sects of “Christendom” use the Bible to prove contradictory teachings. Considering all the contradictions in the various teachings all supposedly based on the Bible, one must ask the question, “Who is right?” Surely, God is not teaching, for example, that one is saved by earning salvation by good works and also teaching man is saved by God’s Grace without works. God cannot contradict Himself nor can He lie. The question is then can God’s truth be determined with absolute certainly? Hanging in the balance is the very souls of men and their eternal destiny.

Where then is the problem? God says in 1 Corinthians 14:33, He, “God, is not the author of confusion.” So the problem is not with God, but with finite men. Clearly, men have taken great latitude in the interpreting what the Bible says. God did not give us His written word to be a source of confusion or contention. God gave us His word in written form, whereby it would be available so that everyone could know His truth. Further, He wrote it in such a way as to be clear and not be complicated nor misleading. He said in 2 Peter 1:20, “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.” That simply means that no one person, church or group has a lock up on the God’s word. The Scriptures can be understood by all.

Scripture is not what we think it says or what it means to us, but rather what God plainly stated. In other words, truth is what God literally said when He communicated His word to those He chose to record it. Sadly, erroneous thinking has caused great confusion among believers and caused division among those seeking to know the Lord. The tragedy is that it need not be so!

It would make no sense for God to give us His written word if we could not clearly and accurately know the truth it teaches. That would mean that God authored confusion which He absolutely denies. It would also mean that man cannot truly know what is right or wrong concerning God. Worse, this would put knowing the truth at the mercy of human thought. That too is not acceptable, as God is a perfect and omniscient. He does not make mistakes.

The Bible was written in the language of men and can be easily understood if we follow the rules of language. Nothing is cryptic in the message and understanding of God’s word. It is not complicated and in fact written very simply and all men can understand it correctly. God states in Romans 10:17, “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” The question that begs an answer is how can a man have faith, which comes from hearing the word of God, if he cannot absolutely know what that word is? God made sure that men would able to read and understand His word in order to be saved and live for the Him.

God plainly states “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” If we cannot accurately know what is God’s word then how can a man accept that the Bible is “. . .profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” The answer is plain….we can know and those who correctly apply the rules of language do know, and they follow the Lord in truth. The Lord Jesus Himself said in John 8:32 “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” God’s word, properly interpreted, frees us from distortions.

The great need today then, in determining what the Bible really teaches, is a correct and biblical method of interpretation. If the Bible is the Word of God and God’s revelation to man, then surely God would not give us His revelation without a way to accurately discern what He meant. For God not to give us a way to interpret the Bible is to leave the interpretation of Scripture to human wisdom that is at best faulty. To have the interpretation of Scripture rest on man’s wisdom is to have “flesh” interpreting that which is spiritual.

The word “interpretation” means to arrive at the original meaning the writer intended when he penned the words. The original meaning the author intended is the interpretation and must be found before you can understand, apply or make the application of the passage. A faulty interpretation will produce a faulty application and therefore it is vital to correctly interpret the Scriptures. Here lies the problem. Man has for various reasons misinterpreted God’s word and left many in a state of confusion. Some out of ignorance teach erroneous doctrines. Others, who claim to teach God’s word, are dishonest and use the Bible for their personal gain. Their purpose is not to teach truth, but rather to use it to deceive and influence men for their purposes. These false teachers deceive many people, but not those who make the effort to correctly know what God has said. It is my belief that the leaders of false churches and cults know they are in error, but are afraid the truth would destroy their churches or groups and they would lose power, influence and the money that receive. False doctrine is very profitable.

Do the details and specific instruction of the Bible really matter with God? The only place find the answer is to ask God Himself and the only non subjective place to seek the answer is His written word. Therefore, to resolve the matter and find what God wants we must determine what “thus saith the Lord” is because God is the Authority. It is His word! This makes it paramount that one be able to interpret the Bible and determine its absolute meaning. It is a cunning trick of the Devil, that has convinced some man that we cannot know accurately God’s truth.

The Grammatical-Historical method interprets Scripture by taking into consideration the context of a passage, the grammatical uses of the words, and the historical setting in which they were written. The literal method, therefore, “lets Scripture interpret Scripture.” It is not a new method in any sense of the word, and is the only method in which the Scriptures interpret the Scriptures.

The literal method is letting God interpret what He has said. Surely, God is best qualified to tell us what He means. The Bible is the complete word of God to man. Revelation 22:18, says man is not to add to or subtract from the Word of God, the Bible. 2 Timothy 3:16-17, clearly states that God gave us the Bible. The verses tell us that the Bible is ” . . . profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” When God “breathed” on the writers of Scripture they literally produced the Word of God, completely and accurately. God explains this saying,

The doctrine of “verbal plenary inspiration,” means God chose each word for its specific meaning. He verbally, fully (plenary) inspired the recording of His written word. God inspired or superintended the writers to use each word because that word conveyed a certain and specific meaning. The words God inspired were given to communicate a certain meaning to those who read it. This means that if we find what was the correct meaning of the word, considering its context, normal and customary usage at the time it was used, we can know the correct interpretation. The interpretation is the meaning God wanted His words to convey.

One does not have to be a scholar or expert to understand and properly know God’s truth. Anyone can learn to apply the simple and proper biblical principles of interpretation and accurately understand what God has said.

Anyone can discern what are right and wrong and false teachings from God’s truth. He can positively know if what his church or teacher is presenting is God’s word or the word of man. It is certainly not the mystery that so many try to make it out to be. It is therefore the responsibility of every person who claims the name of Christ to know what “thus saith the Lord” is that he not be misled.

MAKE CHRIST CENTRAL IN ALL INTERPRETATIONS.

In John 5:38, Jesus said, “Search the Scriptures for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they that speak of me.” The whole Bible is about the Lord Jesus Christ, the Messiah. Christ is the central theme in all Scripture. An example of not taking this principle into consideration would be to say that God had a plan of salvation in the Old Testament, but in the New Testament Christ came with a new plan. It would be saying the Old Testament saints were saved by the Law and the New Testament by Grace. The Book of Hebrews clearly says that the Law and all the sacrifices did not atone for sin. Hebrews 11, states that all the Old Testament saints through faith received the promises of God. Their faith was in the future coming of the Messiah and Savior who would atone for sin. Thus, Christ was central in salvation in the Old Testament as He is in the New Testament. It was Christ’s death on the Cross that saved the Old Testament saints. They believed and accepted God,s promise of the Messiah by faith. They trusted in Him as their coming Messiah, before the fact of His birth, death, burial and resurrection. Therefore they were saved by God’s grace, through faith just like Christians in this the Church Age.

The appearance of the Angel of the Lord in the Old Testament called “theophanies”4 were actually “Christophanies”5 and were all pre-incarnate appearances Christ. The title “Angel of the Lord” occurs 52 times in the Old Testament and 27 times the appearance of the Lord is recorded by the phrase “the LORD appeared.” The word translated in our English Bibles “LORD” is the Hebrew word “Jehovah.” The significance of this truth is that Jesus their Messiah had appeared many times to Israel prior to His incarnation. Regretfully, their sinful hearts blinded them to the One they had been expecting for 2000 years.

FIRST PRINCIPLE

Commit No Historical or Cultural Blunders

This rule may be stated as follows: The firststep in interpreting the Scriptures is to discover the author, thepeople addressed, and the life and times of the people involved ina given case.


One person writes to another and promises to give him ten thousand dollars. Should that letter fall into my hands, I would have no right in claiming the ten thousand dollars; because the letter was not addressed to me. The same thing is true with reference to the Scriptures. The sacred writers wrote to different individuals and groups of people. They made various promises in behalf of the Lord to certain ones. Before I can claim such a promise, I must know that that document was written to me directly or to someone or ones occupying a position in relation to God such as I likewise sustain to Him. If therefore I have the same standing before God that the one to whom a special promise has been made, I can claim the same promise upon the principle that the Lord is no respecter of persons and that what He would do for a certain one in my exact position He would do for me.

God spoke certain things to the people in the Patriarchal Age. His revelations met the conditions then existing. It seemed that the Lord dealt with the individuals and tribes or clans during those primitive times. Finally, when Israel developed into a nation, He delivered her from Egyptian bondage and delivered unto her the Mosaic Code together with her sacrificial and ceremonial worship. Thus Moses and the prophets spoke directly to Israel and their outlook as a rule was from the legal standpoint.

WHEN the fullness of the time came, God brought His Son into the world who suffered and died in order that we might have redemption full and free through Him. He has thus opened up a new and living way by means of the veil of His flesh, which was rent on the cross. He has thus entered into a new covenant with all believers who will accept His invitation to come and find rest. Thus what was spoken to Israel nationally is not necessarily applicable to the church of God today and vice versa.

 

Thus in our study of the Scriptures we must learn who is the speaker, to whom he speaks, under what conditions, at what time, and for what purpose.

A. The Bible was written over a period of about 1400 years. During that time many historical and cultural changes have taken place. To arrive at the correct meaning of a passage you must consider when the statement was made and the historical and cultural situation surrounding the passage. <br><br>

B. Interpreting God’s commands and Law in the Old Testament. God law required Israel to stone false prophets in Deuteronomy 13:5. The passage dealing with false prophets in Israel, states that false prophets were to be put to death by stoning. That is clearly what the passage says and what God commanded Israel to do so it the proper interpretation is that Israel was to put false prophets to death.

How then are we to understand that passage today? Does this mean that Christians today are to put false prophets to death? Obviously, we would not because we live in a different time in history, a different culture and different dispensation. We live in the Church Age. God gave the Law to the Nation of Israel in the Age of Law. God gave the Law to the “Nation” of Israel. Paul said, “For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.” (Romans 6:14. The Law was the Constitution, Bill of Rights and system of judicial laws for the nation of Israel. There is a vast difference between the Nation Israel in the Old Testament and Christians assembled in churches in the New Testament. Churches are not a “nation” and do not have any political or civic authority over its members, nor anyone else. Christians today meet voluntarily in the local assemblies and obey the Lord in the liberty of loving God and willingly living for Him.

In Deuteronomy 13:5 there is a principle we can learn from this instruction given to Israel and Christians can apply the principle on which the commandment was given. The basis of this law was the principle that God wanted to teach Israel, which was that they were to be separated from and not follow false prophets, and teachers. The churches can apply the principle that law was based on and keep themselves free from false teachers. Therefore Christians today can apply the principle behind the law today by preaching and teaching correctly God’s truth and denouncing false prophets and remaining separate from them. It would be a wrong application of the passage for Christians today to practice putting false prophets to death. That would be a grave historical blunder.

C. For example look at the historical setting of the Book of Daniel. In interpreting the Book of Daniel, one must consider that Daniel was a captive in Babylon in 527 B.C. All the events of his life take place there. This historical information would be essential in understanding the Book of Daniel.

D. Another example that could be confusing is the use of the names “Judah” and “Israel.” Historically, the twelve tribes of Israel divided after the death of King Solomon. It is necessary to understand who the names “Israel” and “Judah” identify when we find them in the Bible. The ten tribes, that occupied the northern area of Palestine, were called Israel. Most times the name “Israel” is referring to the nation as a whole or the twelve tribes. However, other times it refers only to the ten northern tribes after the tribes separated after Solomon’s death. The Bible addresses the tribes of Judah and Benjamin in the south as “Judah.” The name “Judah” can refer to the Southern Kingdom (the two tribes of Judah and Benjamin). Or it may be referring to Judah alone, as the name of the tribe of David. You must consider the historical setting of the word’s use to know what it refers to.

E. Often the name Edom is misunderstood. Esau was Isaac’s oldest son and the brother of Jacob. However, he sold his birthright to Jacob for a bowl of pottage and from then on he was also called Edom. (Gen. 25:30) Esau, married a Canaanite woman and settled in Seir which is in southern Jordan. This land was named after Esau and called Edom. Edom therefore referred to Esau, to the land he settled and to his descendants. Edom was the bitter enemy of Israel. Over four hundred years later Moses sought to lead the Children of Israel through the land of Edom, but the Edomites refuse passage. Therefore God condemned Edom and said Edom would become a wasteland and all the Edomites would be destroyed which is what happened. Therefore when reading the Old Testament it is vital to know who and in what time the name Edom was used.

F. Cultural Errors. The oriental marriage is completely different than the occidental marriages of Western civilization. Marriages in the eastern culture were arranged by the fathers of the bride and groom. In pre-Mosaic times, when the families agreed to the marriage proposal a price was given and the bridegroom could come at once and take away his bride to his own house (Gen. 24:63-67). Later, the first stage of an oriental marriage was the betrothal in which a friend of the bridegroom or his parents presented the proposal to the family of the bride. If the proposal was accepted there was a period of time between the betrothal and the next event the wedding ceremony. When the proposal was accepted the bride was considered married. (Matt. 1:19, John 3:29) At a later time the bridegroom would come to the home of the bride and the bride’s family would put on a feast. During the feast the bridegroom would take his bride to his home the bridal chamber and consummate the marriage. It would be a serious error to try interject western marriage procedures in interpreting marriage in the Old Testament.

SECOND PRINCIPLE

Follow Customary Usages of Language

The next rule for the interpretation of language as it pertains to the Scriptures may be stated thus: The second step in interpreting, the Scriptures is to discover the facts and the truths presented in a given passage and to note the exact wording of the text.

We have dictionaries that are lists of words with their definitions. A word can have several meanings. But a word does have a limited meaning. As an example take the word “mountain.” It could be referring to many types of hills of various heights and compositions, but it would NOT be referring to a “tree.” The customary, and grammatical meaning of the word “mountain” is a geographical mound or hill of some sort. It would be improper to imply that when the writer used the word “mountain,” but he was referring to tree or anything else. It could be used figuratively for example a person could say “He was a mountain of strength.” But if used in this manner would be clearly apparent in the sentence that this was not a literal mountain but was a metaphor. A metaphor is a tool of writing that uses the characteristics on one thing to describe this trait in something else. For example: “John was a tower of strength.”

Often, Bible interpreters give Scripture an allegorical or “spiritual” meaning. One interpreter allegorically interpreted the biblical account of the journey of Abraham from Ur to Haran as an imaginary trip of a Stoic philosopher who left his sensual understanding and after a time arrived back at his senses. This allegorical interpretation has absolutely nothing to do with Abraham’s journey. Another example of misusing allegory would be to teach that the two pence given to the inn keeper in the parable of Good Samaritan, represented Baptism and Lord’s Supper.3 The only proper time to use allegory in interpreting God’s word is when the Scripture itself instructs us to do such as in Galatians 4:24. There is no mystical or hidden meaning in Scripture. There can be symbolism in God’s word, but it will be clear.

Accepting what the words in the Bible literally mean is vital. Unless the passage says otherwise, or is clearly using metaphorical language we must give the Scripture a literal meaning. It is a well stated rule, “If the literal sense makes sense, seek no other sense.

 

A. Note carefully every statement that is made and every fact that is stated, regardless of whether or not it is an historical fact or a scientific truth or principle. Facts are facts–things that have actually taken place. Facts always overthrow theories that are not in harmony with truth. Whenever, therefore, there is a conflict between theories and facts, we must throw the theories into the discard and hold to the facts.

Every word and every group of words set forth a definite, specific meaning. This statement is especially true with reference to the Scriptures, which are the profoundest writings and which are more than the writings of uninspired men. God has preserved this information for us. We should therefore endeavor to discover the facts that are stated and to take note of the principles and truths set forth.

 

B. A sentence consists of various parts of speech. In some of the more involved sentences every part of speech is used. In many of them the same part occurs over and over again. In a well-written paragraph each sentence is properly related to the general thought which is being set forth in such a section of a document. As we analyze a sentence or a paragraph, it is most important that we notice the time element, if any be given. We must take note of the type of sentence used: whether it is a declaration, an interrogation, or a command. It is likewise imperative that the reader note the subject of the sentence or the theme of the paragraph or composition. Is the subject of the sentence acting or is it being acted upon? What motive, if any, may be discovered prompting the act? Is anyone affected by what is said or done? The facts that are discovered must be related and classified–those that pertain to the physical phenomena as well as those that are operative in the sphere of psychology or the spiritual realm.

 

C. Noting the Exact Language. A little further caution is necessary: A person must look at the exact words that are used. If possible, he should know the original meaning of the words in English. There is a fundamental thought that is enshrined in every word. Usage, however, frequently modifies terms and adds additional ideas. In this connection let me say that it is most important to notice the small words. They are frequently of as great importance as the larger ones. Sometimes, on account of the fact that prepositions are small, short words, we ignore them. But they indicate the exact relation between words. Conjunctions are no less important. Certain particles lend shade and color to thought.

 

THE GOLDEN RULE OF INTERPRETATION

When the plain sense of Scripture makes commonsense, seek no other sense; therefore, take everyword, at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaningunless the facts of the immediate context, studied inthe light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise.

The sum and substance of this most important rule is that one should take every statement of the Scriptures at its plain face value, unless there are indications that a figurative or metaphorical meaning was intended by the original writer. In other words, one is to take the Scriptures as they are written and is not to attempt to read into the Sacred Writings his own ideas or the thoughts of men. Since this golden rule of interpretation is such a very important one, it becomes necessary for us to look at it more minutely.

 

According to our rule we are to take the primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning. The adjective primary emphasizes the original, inherent idea in the term. Ordinary and usual are practically synonyms, especially in this definition, “usual” being employed for the sake of emphasis. The word literal is used to emphasize the thought that every word must be taken as referring to the actual thought of the time when it used. Literal, therefore, is opposed to figurative or symbolic.

Following the Customary Use of the Words. When God used a particular word He did so to convey a particular meaning. You cannot ignore the customary and grammatical meaning of a word, in its historical setting and arrive at a proper interpretation of the passage or God’s meaning in His statement. God did not give us a subjective and confusing method of understanding His Word. God chose each and every word for its precise meaning and recorded it and reserved it so there would be no confusion.

A. The Bible makes statements that are to be taken literally..

 

1. Revelation 20:6 is a good example and states that Christ will reign for one thousand years after the Great Tribulation. This thousand years is called the “Millennium” and the verse “literally” states that the time period is one thousand years. Amillennialists assert that this thousand years is only figurative and does not refer to any specific period of time. They do this to support their belief that there will not be a thousand year reign of Christ on earth or a Millennial Kingdom. The question then is why would God say one thing and mean another?

2. Here lies the problem. If it does not mean a literal one thousand years then how do we go about determining its “real” meaning? Often we are told to let the Bible commentator or scholar tell you, because he has education and insights that ordinary Christians do not have?! The problem with this answer is then, which Bible commentator, church or teacher should you trust to have the correct answer? With what criteria do you test each commentator to see who is correct. Do you see the problem? When you leave the literal method of interpreting Scripture you have no means to determine what the passage says! It is left up to each person to determine for himself what it means without any standard or system of rules to follow.

3. From reading Revelation 20, the thousand years is literal and not figurative. If nothing in the passage that would indicate that the period of time is figurative. Thus if we accept literally what the Bible says we are letting the Bible interpret itself. The literal meaning of the words tell us what God said.

 

B. Seek Figurative Meaning Only When Facts Demand Such an Interpretation. If a person can take a plain passage of Scripture, close his eyes to its real meaning, and read into it a figurative or symbolic meaning, he will be forced to do the same thing with related passages–if he is logical. In doing this, he is forced to reconstruct large sections of the Scripture and to impose upon them a meaning foreign to that of the original writer. When one has once adopted this method, one has no place to stop

 

Often the Bible does use figurative speech. The art or skill of an interpreter, using the proper rules of interpretation combined with good sense, can easily understand an interpretation. In 2 Peter 3:8, Peter says that one day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day. Here the time period is clearly figurative. Note that the verse says one day “is as” a thousand years. It does not say one day is exactly one thousand years. God using the word “as” lets us know this is figurative language. It would be wrong to take this figurative statement as meaning absolutely that a day in heaven is one thousand years. It would also be wrong to use this verse to say that a when the word day is used in Scripture it always means one thousand years. Note that the proper application of language gives the proper interpretation and the Bible (its wording) is interpreting the Bible.

1. In the Bible, when a verse is not to be interpreted literally it is clearly indicated. By examining the passage we know that Peter in 2 Peter 3:8, used a simile. A simile is figure of speech in which one thing is liken to another. Also, the context of this verse presents further evidence that supports this view. Peter is addressing scoffers who rejected the truth that Christ would return to earth. He was telling them that God does not operate on our time schedule. A thousand years to Him would be “like” just one day with us or only a short period of time. The point is that God exists outside of time.

2. Many have tried to use this verse to fix the purported long ages of evolution into the Genesis account of Creation. They believe that this verse allows for great latitude in interpreting the word “day” in Genesis 1 and 2. But if we apply sound rules of interpreting Scripture to the passages in Genesis it too shows that this is a erroneous interpretation. Let’s look at this passage closer.

3. The word for “day” is the Hebrew word, “yom.” It can mean:

(1) The period of light (contrasted from the period of darkness).
(2) A twenty four hour period.
(3) A general vague “time”.
(4) A point in time.
(5) A year.

4. Some want to believe the “days of creation” were long periods of time, which would support evolution. They would suggest the meaning of the word “yom” is “long ages.” They point to verses such as Psalm 102:2, which use the word in a general sense. “Hide not thy face from me in the day when I am in trouble…” This could mean the day was one twenty hour period or it could mean any length of time of trouble. However, to understand what the word means you must look at the word in all the contexts it is used. Look at verses such as Gen. 7:11, 27:45 Ex. 20:10 Lev. 22:277 Num. 7:24, 30, 36, 40, 48, 54, 60, 66, 72, 77-78 Psa. 88:1, 139:12, Eccl. 8:16. These verses illustrate an unfailing principle found in every use of the Hebrew word, “yom.” Whenever “yom” is modified by a number, or whenever “yom” is used in conjunction with the idea of day and night, or light and darkness, it ALWAYS means a normal twenty four hour day.

5. The use of a number with the word “yom” is conclusive evidence that the “Days of Creation” were twenty four hour periods of time. The Bible literally says, “. . .the evening and the morning were the first day.” The use of the words, evening, morning and first, limit the meaning of the word “day” to a twenty four hour period of time. That is the normal use of the word and exactly what is says.

6. Further evidence is found in Exodus 20:11. The wording of this verse supports the conclusion that the days in Genesis 1, are twenty four hour period of time. Note the statement of Moses, “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day: therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.” This is as clear a statement of the time frame of Creation as can be had. Moses in connecting the six day Creation with instructions concerning the Sabbath day gave us conclusive evidence that the Creation was accomplished in six literal twenty four hours periods.

7. Peter, in 2 Peter 3:8, is assuring believers that God will keep his promises to us. It is pointing out that God is not confined to time as we know it. The use of the phrase “a thousand years is as but a day with the Lord” is understood as being a metaphorical reference to fact God is not limited by time. He is says what we might perceive as a delay in time is within the structure of God’s plan for the world.

8. If you interpret 2 Peter 3:8, literally, then you would still have only seven thousand years for God to complete the Creation. You would still not have the billions of years the evolutionist insists it took to create the world and life as we know it.

C. Always accept the literal meaning of the words of the passage unless there is strong evidence to do otherwise. As stated earlier, “If the literal sense makes, sense, seek no other sense.” We are very fortunate to live in this age. Excellent Bible helps are available to help us find the original meaning of a word. Word study books such as Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, enables anyone to research a word without knowing the language and find its original meaning.

 

SYMBOLIC LANGUAGE

AS A PERSON studies the Scriptures or any other writings, he is to assume that everything is to be taken literally unless there is some indication that there is a departure from the normal, usual, literal meaning. The principle stated in full is as follows; How may I determine whether or not a certain citation is symbolic? Fundamentally I am not to assume that a passage is symbolic unless there are indications which point in that direction. Whenever such positive evidence is apparent, I am to look at the facts as they appear in the text. As an illustration of this type or language note the follow passage:


Interpreting Symbolic Language

In Daniel chapter 7, we have a very fine illustration of symbolic language. The prophet saw in the night-visions the great sea which was at various times agitated by stormy winds. When the water was first churned into a raging fury, there emerged from it and came upon the land a lion-like beast. At a subsequent time, when the water was again agitated, there emerged a bear-like beast, which came upon the land and was master of that which he surveyed. A third time the water was churned into a raging tempest. On this occasion there came forth a leopard-like beast, which came upon the land and did as its predecessors. On the next occasion when the waters were agitated, another one that was horrible, terrible, and different from all the rest came forth and exercised authority in place of its predecessor. He extended his boundaries to include the entire world and became master of all peoples, tribes, tongues, and languages. The account of these visions is found in Daniel 7:1-8.


When anyone reads this passage he is impressed with the fact that it is not a description of a literal occurrence. Lions as we know do not live in water. Bears do go into water at times, but that is not their natural habitat. Leopards certainly do not live in water. The impression which the reading of these verses makes upon one’s mind is that this is not literal language. Evidently, then, it is figurative or symbolic. How are we to determine its meaning? The answer is found in verses 17 and 23. “These great beasts, which are four are four kings, that shall arise out of the earth.” The interpreting angel informed Daniel that the four beasts which he had seen in vision are four kings that arise out of the earth. These beasts cannot be literal kings. The only way to understand this language is to interpret it as indicating that the beasts are used

 

symbolically. God chose these animals to represent four different kings. But in verse 23 we learn that the fourth beast is likewise a symbol of a kingdom:

 

“Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be a fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all the kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down and break it in pieces” We are logical in concluding that all four of the beasts not only are symbols of kings, but also of kingdoms over which they reign.

D. It should be understood that this does not mean we are to take metaphorical language literally. For example: Deuteronomy 32:4 states, “He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.” Certainly God is not literally a rock. And the statement is referring to God immutability (unchanging) or absolute trustworthiness.

The Mormons teach that God is a physical man of “flesh and bone” the same as any human on earth. They refer to the Scriptures which refer to the hand of God a proof that God has a physical body. They proudly claim that they are simply interpreting God’s word literally. However, God says in John 4:24 that He is Spirit. He says He is not a man nor ever was a man. So, it is incorrect to literally say that God is a god of flesh and bone because the Bible uses metaphorical language to describe the actions of God.

Psalm 17:8 says, “Keep me as the apple of the eye, hide me under the shadow of thy wings.” If we applied the Mormons method of interpretation one would have to conclude that God is a bird also. Clearly, the statements are metaphorical and not to be taken literally.

E. The Importance of Syntax in Interpreting Scripture. Important to arriving at the correct meaning of a word is the study of syntax. Syntax is the study of the word in its grammatical setting. It deals with understanding the word’s grammatical use as a verb, noun, adjective, adverb or part of speech. It also seeks to decide the tense, mood, voice, and case of a word.

F. Paronomasia: Play on Words. In all languages there are literal terms and figurative expressions. There are all types of figures of speech and metaphorical language. Unless a person realizes this fact, he will run into difficulty in interpreting the Scriptures. Moreover, the student must be familiar with the various figures of speech.

 

What is Paronomasia? Laying aside the rigidity of the etymology of the term, we would say that paronomasia consists of our laying down beside one word or idea that has been used– a similar one with a little variation or change. The point or force of the word or idea thus employed is contingent upon our understanding of the word or idea upon which it is a pun.

G. Studying Obscure Passages in the Light of Related Texts and Axiomatic and Fundamental Truths.

Frequently one comes across a statement which is made with little detail. It is therefore difficult to study it simply in the light of its context. Whenever we come to such a passage as this, it becomes necessary for us to lay such a text beside a related one about which there can be no doubt, and concerning which there are full details. But we must be absolutely certain that the passage from which we hope to get light on the obscure one is dealing with the same subject and is relevant. False identification always brings confusion.

That part of our rule which we have under consideration says that we should study an obscure passage in the light of related ones and axiomatic and fundamental truths. God is the author of all axiomatic principles. We may be certain that whatever utterances are found in the Word are to be interpreted in the light of these axiomatic and fundamental truths. Usually there are related passages from which we can get light on obscure texts. But we can always be certain that no statement of Scripture sets aside axiomatic and fundamental principles. Hence we shall interpret all Scripture in the light of these axioms.

 

THIRD PRINCIPLE

Context

 The context of a text or verse refers to its setting within a larger portion of Scripture. It refers to the verses or statements that occur before and after the text. This would include the paragraph, chapter and book. The situation surrounding the text is relevant in understanding its meaning. The writers of Scripture wrote in the environment in which they lived and this is why knowing the background, culture and current situation of a Scripture passage is so important. Further, the writers were being inspired by God to present biblical truth. This truth is learned “Line upon line, precept upon precept” and therefore the correct interpretation of a verse or phrase is absolutely dependent on the whole of the context in which it is stated.(Isa. 28:20)

 

For an example look at 1 Corinthians 15:32: The verse ends with the words, “let us eat, drink for tomorrow we die.” Without considering the context of this phrase quoted by itself would appear to be saying that Paul was teaching a person is to live a carefree life, eating and drinking, getting all the “gusto” they can. A look at the context of the statement shows that Paul was teaching quite the opposite. The statement is a reference to worldly philosophy that one only lives for the moment and ignores the future. Paul was instructing the Corinthians that there is certainly life after death. Man will be judged and held accountable for his deeds. The point Paul made was that if there was no resurrection of the dead there was no reason to live a righteous life. In verse 34, Paul is rebuking the Corinthians for the way they were living “eating and drinking” without any regard for the coming resurrection and judgment. They were living as if there was not going to be a resurrection and this was to their shame! So we see that the context of a verse is very important and absolutely necessary for understanding or interpreting the verse.

Many false teachings and beliefs, that are so prevalent today, can be traced to ignoring of the context of a passage. Mistakes can be made by sincere men. Other times false teachers, who have no fear of God, deliberately deceive their followers for their personal gain.

The Mormons quote 1 Corinthians 15:29, as their text verse in establishing their practice of baptizing the living for the dead. However, Paul in making this statement was not teaching a doctrine. He was using the practice of some pagan religions of baptizing for the dead as an illustration of the universal belief in life after death. How do we know that this is what he meant? Look at the context of the statement. From the context of the statement we can see that the subject of the passage is the resurrection of the dead. Verse 12, establishes the theme Paul is addressing, “Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead.” Contextually, verse 29 is a part of Paul’s answer to this question. You cannot honestly say what this verse means without considering the context and everything said in conjunction to this statement. The Bible nowhere teaches that baptisms for the dead are a Christian practice or Biblical doctrine. This is the only reference to such a practice in the Bible and there is no biblical or extra biblical record of Christians ever baptizing for the death. Note what Paul said, “Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?” (1 Corinthians 15:29) The “they” of the verse is not referring to Christians, but pagans who practiced did this unbiblical practice, but did believe in the resurrection of the dead.

1. The following statement illustrated the importance of context in understand what a statement means or its interpretation:

“If the Egyptians did not believe in life after death why did they go to such great lengths in preparing their dead for the hereafter?”

2. In making this statement, one would not be establishing the validity of their practices in preparing the dead for the afterlife. Its validity of life after death is not being addressed. Only the fact of their belief in the practice is addressed. There is no hint in the statement that the person condoned the practices of the
Egyptians. The point the writer is making is that they must have believed in an after-life because of how they prepared their dead. Likewise, Paul was not establishing a doctrine or telling the Corinthians to do this. He does not even say that they were doing this. But he knew they were aware of pagan religions that did baptized for the death. He then referred to something that was known to them and used they practice as an illustration of the universal belief in life after death even among non-believers. There can be no confusion in understanding the statement if you take into consideration the context in which the statement was made. He absolutely was not teaching that Christians are to be baptized for dead people.

3. Let’s look at another example of the importance of the context of a statement in the following:

“Police today arrested Bill Smith for the murder of his wife Jane Smith. The Police reported that Bill Smith later changed his story. In an earlier statement he claimed that John Doe had murdered his wife. He now has made a full confession.”

4. Suppose in reading this statement to you someone would only read the partial statement: “John Doe murdered his wife.” This statement by itself would lead you to believe John Doe had murdered his wife. However, if you read the whole paragraph you would see that this was not what the article meant at all.

You can see in this illustration the importance of the context of a statement. Context helps determine what happened, and what is the correct interpretation of the written statement.

5. A good rule is: “A text without a context is only a pretext.” The definition of the word “pretext” means a false reason or motive put forth to hide the real one.6 It is impossible to understand any statement without considering its context.

E. We must consider the following aspects of context in researching a passage.

1st. Immediate Context
2nd. Broad Context
3rd. Parallel Context
4th. Historical Context
5th. Analogical Context

 

1. The Immediate Context of the verse means the verses just before and after the verse.

2. The Broad Context of a verse addresses the verse’s place within the chapter and the entire book.

3. The Parallel Context of the verse refers to other places the word or text is found. It may be in the same book or a different place in Scripture.

An example of studying a parallel context would be consulting a “Harmony of the Gospels” to find other Scriptures where accounts of an event in the life of Christ are found. In studying the parallel context, if the New Testament quotes the Old Testament, you would study the context of the Old Testament passage. This would help you decide why the New Testament writer quoted it and what it means.

For an example you will find three accounts of the Temptation of Christ. (Matt. 4:1-11, Mark 1:12-13, and Luke 4:1-13) Seeking a parallel context could give a greater understanding of a statement or event, as one writer may give information another would omit. Further each of the Gospels was written to a particular audience. Matthew was written to the Jews; Mark to the Romans; and Luke to the Gentiles. Read the account from these three perspectives would aid one in understanding a single account.

4. Seeking the Historical Context would lead to consulting history to find the setting of the statement. The Historical Context can be found from several places. First would be from the Book that the passage of Scripture is found. Next, you could consult one or several of study helps or reference works. Books on archaeological discoveries made in the Bible lands have shed light on many Biblical events. All these findings together would

 

show the current traditions or political situations of the passage. In language studies how a word was used in the past helps reveal what was original meaning. A Bible dictionary, or commentary could also provide information as to the historical context.

 

5. The Analogical Context is vital to arriving at the proper interpretation of a passage of Scripture. The analogy of a passage of Scripture deals with its resemblance or similarity with the rest of the Bible. This is discussed in detail in the next section. Briefly it means that Scripture does not contradict itself. If the passage you read seems to contradict some other Scripture, then you must study further to understand the passage to resolve the seeming conflict. If your interpretation seems to be in conflict with other scriptures your interpretation is false.

 

Illustration: The great error today of the Pentecostal and Charismatic movements of today that they ignore the context of what the New Testament says about speaking in unlearned languages (tongues). They fail to see the historical setting of who in the New Testament spoke in unlearned languages and why they did so. The also ignore 1 Corinthians 13:8-10, which emphatically states that when the Bible was complete “tongues ” would cease and therefore ignore the broad context of this early church sign gift.

Every Scripture is interconnected to all other Scriptures. You cannot take a verse or passage out of its context, a way from the other Scriptures and interpret it correctly. This leads us to the next principle of interpretation.

 

THE LAW OF THE CONTEXT OF QUOTATIONS

A thought is first expressed by one of the prophets, for instance, in a certain section in which he is developing a specific theme. A later prophet, or a New Testament writer, lifts that quotation from its context and put it into another one and weaves it into his thoughts. This process I might compare to the gardener who plants seeds in a bed which spring forth into plants. Then some of the plants are taken out of the bed and are placed in an entirely different environment where they grow to maturity. Quotations found in the New Testament, taken from the Old, are like these plants that were sown in the original bed, but are taken up and transplanted to another environment. We want to see the original environment and likewise the final surroundings of these quotations.
Each quotation has a very definite meaning in the original context. Thus one must study the entire connection of any quotation in the original setting, in order to get its full import. When this quotation is removed and is put over into a New Testament environment, the entire context of the New Testament must be sought and the bearing of the quotation upon the thought of the New Testament writer must be studied. When this is done, sometimes it is found that that to which the quotation from the Old Testament is applied in the New fills out the entire picture as it is presented in the original quotation. In other instances it is not the complete fulfillment, but is only a partial or a limited accomplishment of the original prediction. Moreover, it may be the literal fulfillment plus a typical signification. Or it may be the literal fulfillment plus an application to a similar circumstance. Then again it may be the literal fulfillment plus a summation of a given situation. These various phases of the truth will develop as we proceed with the study. These statements being true, one can see how very important it is to study both the original context and the one into which the quotation is transplanted, in order to get the full scriptural picture of a given prediction. A failure to comply with this principle has led to endless confusion and difficulty.

 

THE LAW OF RECURRENCE

As the word, recurrence, indicates, we may expect this principle of scriptural interpretation to involve the record of an occurrence of an event and the repetition of the account. A thing occurs and then, if it is repeated, it recurs. It is by repetition that we learn things. We must have experience after experience in order to appreciate or to understand fully certain things.

In order to gather all facts on a given subject–if a person wishes to get a complete and a clear picture of a subject–he should have a good concordance; but should know how to use it. Of course, the references in a good reference Bible are often of great advantage to the student. A very grave error is frequently made by considering a verse as being related to a given one because of the same words in both passages.

THE LAW OF COMPARING SCRIPTURE WITH SCRIPTURE

ONE OF the characteristics of the present era is that it is imbued with what is called the scientific spirit. The word science comes from the Latin word which means “to know.” Science, then, according to definition, is that which is known. In order to know anything properly, a person must have all the facts that pertain to the subject in hand. He must, not only gather the facts, but must correlate his data, and place it in proper relation in its environment.


If a person, therefore, is endeavoring to study any passage or text in a scientific manner, he must gather all the facts that bear upon the subject of the special passage, must relate them to kindred thoughts, and give them their proper place in the scheme of things. I might illustrate this process by the use of the jigsaw puzzle. The component parts are laid out for one to use in reconstructing or building all the pieces into a complete unit. When each single part is placed in its proper position with relation to others without being forced, a picture or map is thus constructed–figuratively speaking, a mosaic is formed, which presents some pattern or scene.

Whenever a person studies the Scriptures by comparing one passage with another, he assumes that all truth harmonizes. Since the Bible is the inerrant inspired Word of God, all of its statements must harmonize. Should there appear to be, on the surface, a contradiction, let us conclude that the discrepancy is only apparent and not real. Any such variance is to be accounted for upon the basis of our lack of knowledge or comprehension to understand the real situation which appears as inharmonious. Truth and facts, whether in the physical, material universe, or in revelation, are in perfect accord. The God who created the universe likewise made the revelation that is contained in the Scriptures. He being the God of reality, stamps truth on His material universe and states it in His Word.

It is of paramount importance that, whenever we attempt to compare scripture with scripture, we must be certain that the passages under consideration are indeed talking of the same things, persons, or events. Sometimes, upon the surface, there appears to be a connection between two passages.

 

THE LAW OF FIRST MENTION

I. The Simple Preceding the Complex. Life and experience teach us that the only proper way to study or investigate anything is to begin with the simple and go to the complex; to start with the fundamental, basic principle and then to develop the subject in its complexities. A glance at the history of the development of anything shows that everything which we have now in our modern life sprang from something in the very simplest form.

 

The growth and development of ideas and doctrines might be illustrated by some simple word. An examination of a lexicon or a dictionary shows the root, fundamental meaning of the words. Throughout the history of a term it has increased its meaning and has changed certain shades of ideas. Yet the basic, original fundamental thought is seldom ever lost.

 

II. The Meaning of the Law of First Mention

The law of first mention may be said to be the principle that requires one to go to that portion of the Scriptures where a doctrine is mentioned for the first time and to study the first occurrence of the same in order to get the fundamental inherent meaning of that doctrine. When we thus see the first appearance, which is usually in the simplest form, we can then examine the doctrine in other portions of the Word that were given later. We shall see that the fundamental concept in the first occurrence remains dominant as a rule, and colors all later additions to that doctrine. In view of this fact, it becomes imperative that we understand the law of first mention.

 

THE LAW OF DOUBLE REFERENCE

I. Statement of the Law

The law of double reference is based upon one of the fundamental laws of psychology: the principle of the association of similar or related ideas. Similarities always suggest comparisons. Thus the prophets constantly depicted that which was as a rule in the immediate future or present. Since history repeats itself, as all admit, the prophets looked out into the future and saw similar situations arising like those which were confronting them or immediately in the future. Thus the transition from describing that which was immediately before them to that which was in the remote future was very easy, normal, and natural.

We are never justified in interpreting a passage as an illustration of the law of double reference unless there are facts that show positively that the speaker ceased to talk about the thing immediately before him and began to describe something in the distant future. The facts of the context alone are to guide one in this particular. When the student sees that the prophet went far beyond his own day and time and was describing a second scene but a different one, then and only then, must he call to his aid the principle of the law of double reference or a manifold fulfillment of prophecy. A careless observance of this rule will only lead to endless confusion and misunderstanding.

 

FOURTH PRINCIPLE

Grant One Interpretation to Each Passage

When the words of Scripture were penned they had only one meaning. We should search for that one meaning. To accept multiple interpretations for one scripture passage causes confusion and is inaccurate. Scripture itself does not allow for multiple interpretations of a verse. Note that we are talking about the interpretation of a passage and not about application. A passage can have several applications, however in its historical and grammatical setting it can have only one interpretation or meaning.

 

God promised the Nation of Israel would inherit the area of land from river in Egypt in the south to the Euphrates in the north. (Genesis 15:18) In is incorrect to interpret this verse in any other way, but to say God literally promised this land to Abraham’s descendants. It does not mean God gave His promises to the churches or anyone else. The Euphrates River does not mean the Persian Gulf or any other body of water, nor does it have a mystical meaning. It has only one meaning. That meaning must govern the interpretation of a verse or passage.

This rule of granting only one interpretation to a passage is violated most often in the studying the parables. A parable is a simile and metaphor which is used to illustrate a particular point or truth in a discourse. Jesus used sixty parables in His preaching to illustrate the principles he was teaching. A good example of the improper interpretation of a parable is the allegorical interpretation of Augustine (355-430 AD) of the parable of the Good Samaritan. Augustine said the man who was attacked stands for Adam; Jerusalem, the heavenly city from which he has fallen; the thieves, the devil who strips Adam of his immortality and leads him to sin; the priest and Levite, the Old Testament Law and ministry which was unable to cleanse and save anyone; the good Samaritan who binds the wounds, Christ who forgives sin; oil and wine; hope and stimulus to work, the animal, the incarnation; the inn, the church; and the innkeeper, the apostle Paul.(http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=2114#P12_1242) The question one should ask is on what basis did Augustine come up with this elaborate interpretation? He used his own imagination to allegorize the parable.

How then should this parable be interpreted? The answer is let the Bible interpret itself! In giving the parable of the Good Samaritan recorded in Luke 10:30-37, Jesus was answering the question asked by a lawyer to tempt Him. The lawyer asked what should he do to inherit eternal life? (Luke 10:25) Jesus asked the lawyer what was written in the Law meaning the Old Testament scriptures. The lawyer quoted Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18. Jesus replied that the lawyer’s answer was correct and for him to do this and live. The lawyer seeking to justify himself asked who was his neighbor? The pious and proud Jews excluded Samaritans and Gentiles from being their neighbors. Jesus knew this and used the parable to expose the hypocrisy of the lawyer. In Luke 10:36, after concluding the parable, he asked the lawyer who did he think was the neighbor in the parable. The lawyer replied “he that showed mercy on him.” Jesus then told the lawyer “Go and do likewise.” There is no hidden meaning in this illustration. It was given to present one meaning. The lawyer understood this and correctly responded to Jesus’ question. To allegorize this parable or use it to teach anything else other than to answer the question “who is my neighbor” is a false interpretation.

Therefore grant a parable only one interpretation. A parable is given to illustrate one point or truth and should not be made to “walk on all fours.”

FIFTH PRINCIPLE

Choose the Simplest Alternative

In a very few instances the correct interpretations is not clear. This is a rare occurrence. There is a classic example of this found in Judges 11:30-40. Jephthah, made a vow that if God would grant him victory in battle, whatever met him coming out of the doors of his house when he returned home, he would sacrifice in a burnt offering to the Lord. When He returned home he was met by his daughter! In Judges 11:39 states that he honored his vow. Some interpret that verse to mean he offered up his daughter to service for the Lord in the temple and others that she was literally sacrificed as a burnt offering. Both sides of this debate have valid reasons to accept their view. The Bible says the daughter went into the mountains for two months of mourning to “bewail her virginity” with her friends. Afterward the vow was carried out and the women in Israel each year went for four days to the lament in honor her loyalty and sacrifice. How then is this passage to be interpreted?

First, considering the analogy of the faith, it must be considered that God would never condone human sacrifice. It is a simpler explanation is that Jephthah gave her up to temple service to be a perpetual virgin. Judges 11:37 says his daughter went for two months into the mountains to “bewail her virginity.” This statement is vital to understanding the interpretation of the event. The daughter was his only child, and now Jephthah would have no descendants. This was a serious matter in eastern culture, the tragedy was that Jephthah’s lineage would end. What he sacrificed was having grandchildren and future descendants. In this example we can see that historically both views cannot be right. She either lived or died, and one or the other is true, but not both. Judges 11:39, says the vow was kept and “And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned unto her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed: and she knew no man. And it was a custom in Israel.” In other words she never married and was a virgin the rest of her life. God would never condone human sacrifice for any reason.

We can honesty only allow one interpretation, because it can have only one. The simplest alternative is that she lived. This interpretation fits the culture of the time and does not violate the analogy of the faith. Thus, the proper understanding is she was not killed and sacrificed, but rather the sacrifice was she gave her father no children and his lineage ended.

 

 

SIXTH PRINCIPLE

Never Invent Explanation to Silent Areas of Scripture

A. Simply stated it means do not make up explanations to areas of Scripture that are silent and where God has not given us all the information about some topic of Scripture.

 

B. For example, the Bible does not say where Heaven is. The Bible only indicates its direction is up. It is foolhardy to speculate that it is in some specific area of Space. Some state they believe Heaven is in the northern area of space where astronomers report there are few stars. This speculation serves no valid purpose. If the Bible is silent we then too are to be silent.

 

Illustration: Jesus said, only the Father knew when He would return. Jesus said referring to the time of heaven and earth passing away, “But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.” (Matthew 24:36) Yet, many foolish men had sought to calculate the date of the end. Clearly such speculation would indicate they apparently do not believe Jesus knew what He was saying. Literally, hundreds of dates have been proposed and every one of them have been wrong.

 

SEVENTH PRINCIPLE

Interpret by the Analogy of the Faith

A. The Bible does not contradict itself. God did not make the Bible to be contradictory. If a passage of Scripture seems to contradict other Scriptures the problem is not in the Bible, but with the interpreter.

B. Some may object to the premise that the Bible does not contradict itself. However, at the heart of understanding the Bible is understanding what the Bible says about itself. The Bible claims to be the Very Word of God! To attack and discredit the Bible is to attack and discredit God. God is totally capable of giving us this revelation accurately and did so when He inspired each word, paragraph, chapter, and book of the Bible.

C. The term “inspiration” is the theological term taken from the Bible which expresses the truth that the Bible is God’s Very Word. To understand inspiration we must look at two classic Scripture verses:

1. The first passage is 2 Tim. 3:16-17 “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.”

2. The word “inspiration” can be literally interpreted “God-breathed.” The Greek word is “theopneutos“, which means “theo” = God, and “pneutos” = breathed. The Hebrew word is “nehemiah” and is used only once in the Old Testament in Job 32:8. The verse is saying God breathed on the writers of the Bible and the wrote His Very Word. In other words, God superintended the writing of His word so that the author was God Himself and the writer wrote exactly word for word what God intended.

3. The next passage is 2 Peter 1:21, “For prophecy came not in old times by the will of man but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.”

4. Literally the verse is confirming 2 Timothy 3:16-17, that inspiration is the process by which the Holy Spirit supernaturally moved on the writers of Scripture and what they wrote was not their words, but the very word of God. God superintended each and every word of Scripture and it accurately reflects what He intended to say. Heb. 1:1 says, “God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spoke in time past unto our fathers.” Therefore God has at different times in the past, and in many ways has spoken through men to reveal Himself to mankind. Paul and Peter state that what these men wrote was God’s word.

D. Examples of how God spoke to man or revealed Himself and His will. Hosea 12:10 “I have also spoken by the prophets, and have multiplied visions, and used similitudes, by the ministry of the prophets.” A literal translation of the verse says, “I spoke to the prophets, gave them many visions.”

1. God spoke by angels to Abraham and Lot in Genesis 18-19. To Daniel, in Dan. 10:10-21.
2. In visions. Isa. 1:1, Ezek. 1:1, 8:3, 11:24, 43:3, Dan. 7:1, 8:1, 10:1.
3. By miracles. Ex. 3:2, Moses and the burning bush. Judges 6:37-39, Gideon’s wool fleece.
4. By voice directly. Ex. 19, to Moses I Sam. 3, to young Samuel.
5. Through an inner voice. Jer. 46:1
6. By chasing lots. Jonah 1:7, Prov. 16:33

E. David said, “The spirit of the Lord spake by me and his word was in my tongue” (2 Sam. 23:2). God used men to speak to other men. When the prophets spoke what God had revealed to them, they used phrases such as “thus saith the Lord“, or “the Word of God cam to me saying.” They made it clear that what they were saying was from God.

F. To look at the matter in a practical way, what was happening was that as the writer sat down and wrote, God “breathed” on him by the ministry of the Holy Spirit. As he wrote the Spirit guided his thoughts so that what he produced was from God without error or omission. It was literally, word for word, what God wanted written.

G. In theological terms, the doctrine that God wrote the Scriptures and that every word of Scripture is inspired of God is called, “verbal plenary inspiration.” This is the view of Scripture which the Bible itself teaches.

1. Definitions of the words are: VERBAL = “WORDS” and PLENARY = “FULL”. It means that God-breathed the very word of God in full expression of His thoughts in what the writer of Scripture wrote. This means that every word that was written was the mind of God without error. In other words, although the Bible was penned by men, it was really God who is the author.

2. God guided them in the choice of every word and expression. This does not mean God did not allow for personality and cultural background of the writer to be used in expressing God’s Words. God allowed the writers to express His thoughts in their own way.

3. This is why we must conclude the Bible is without error. God wrote it and preserves it and not man. It is the product of God, and His very Word to man. It then is without error or contradiction.

4. When there seems to be an error or contradiction the problem is in the interpretation of the verse or passage not the Scriptures. If your passage appears to be a contradiction then your course of action is to continue studying until you arrive at the correct interpretation. Often arriving at the correct interpretation of a passage of Scripture will take a great deal of study.

H. For example lets look at one “so called” problem passage. 1 Peter 3:19 says, “By which also “He” (referring to Christ) went and preached unto the spirits in prison.” At first, reading the verse appears to say that Christ after His crucifixion went into Hell and preached salvation to the lost pre-flood peoples giving them a second chance for salvation.

This presents the interpreter of Scripture with a serious problem because other Scriptures clearly state man does not have a second chance to be saved. After death comes a man’s judgment.

Job 21:30, states the “The wicked is “reserved” to the day of destruction.”
Hebrews 9:27 “It is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment.”
Luke 16:22, The rich man in Hell, begs for mercy, but was denied even a drop of water.

If you consider the verse in the analogy of the faith, saying that this verse teaches that Jesus gave those who lived before the flood a second chance is a contradiction of other Scriptures. This alerts you to the problem! In considering what the verse means you must consider the analogy of the faith. In other words, does this interpretation contradict other Scripture? Clearly this interpretation does, so you would be alerted to look for another possible meaning.

I. The next step to resolve the problem would be to take into consideration the other principles of interpretation. Using these principles you attempt to arrive at an interpretation that is not contradictory. The principle of interpreting within a verse’s context would lead to you to read the verses before and after this one. The context of the verse would show you that Peter is writing about Christ’s suffering and death for the sins of the world. This is the subject of these verses. (See verse 18) Verse 20, gives us the time of the preaching to the pre-flood people. It says, “When once the long-suffering of God, waited in the days of Noah.” So the verse tells us this preaching was done in the days of Noah, not at the death of the Lord Jesus.
J. From the passage the explanation becomes clear. The pre-flood people were offered salvation, by Noah, who preached to them before the flood. The principle, that we are to make Christ central to the Scriptures, points us to understand Christ made possible the salvation that God offered to the pre-flood people. Noah, in preaching salvation was preaching Christ! The “spirits” or the pre-Flood people who rejected Noah’s warning and offer of redemption are in “prison” or in Hades awaiting judgment of Revelation 20:11-15. This interpretation does not violate any doctrine of Scripture and is not contradictory. It then is the better, and correct interpretation. You see then that we are letting the Scriptures interpret the Scriptures.

K. The rule is a simple one: In interpreting Scripture you must always consider the fact that the Bible does not contradict itself. If a proposed interpretation conflicts with other Scripture then your interpretation is not correct. You then must continue your study and arrive at an interpretation that is not contradictory.

 

 EIGHTH PRINCIPLE

Recognize the Progress of Revelation

A. In the proper interpretation of Scripture it must be understood that God gave His revelation, the Bible, to man over many centuries. This is the doctrine of “Progressive Revelation.”

 

B. For and example, when God gave the first prophecy of the coming of Christ, He revealed very few of the details. God only revealed that, “I will put enmity between thy seed and her seed it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.” All Adam and Eve knew was that God was promising them a Redeemer, who would overcome Satan and bring an end to the cursed caused by their sin. God progressively revealed His Plan of Salvation over the whole period of the Old Testament. Over time, as God worked with man, He revealed more about the Messiah and gave more details. This process took place over hundreds of years. Four hundred years before Christ’s coming, the Old Testament was completed and God had revealed, the Savior’s name, place of birth, He would be from the tribe of Judah, year of birth, that His death would atone for sins, the virgin birth and a total of over 300 prophecies concerning Christ’s coming.

C. Another example is the giving of the Law. Abraham, the Father of the Nation of Israel, died having never heard of the Law. When Israel became a nation and needed laws to govern them, over four hundred years later, God used Moses and gave him the Law at Mt. Sinai for Israel. The Law given was the “Constitution” of the Nation of Israel. It set forth principle and specific instruction as to what was right and wrong in all spiritual and civil matters. It set penalties for crimes against God and individual Israelites. It addressed everything from cleanliness to relations with other nations.

D. We live now in the age of Principles. Christians are not under the Old Testament law.(Rom. 6:14) Christians live by a higher rule, that being the principles of God. We obey God out of love. The law defined right and wrong and commanded men to do what is right. You do not have to command people to do right when that is what they want to do. When God gave commandments to the Christians they were given to define correct actions.

E. When the Old Testament Laws were broken by the Israelites, the priests administered justice. In the Age of Grace, every believer is indwelled by the Spirit of God who brings conviction. We also have the Word of God to instruct us in righteousness. When we sin the Holy Spirit convicts us. It is God that chastens each believer.(Heb. 12:6-11) No civil authority has that right in this age. Our civil government does not punish us when we disobey God’s commandments. Further, Christians have no authority to administers civil laws.

F. When the canon of Scripture was completed, about 90 AD to 95 AD, God had completely revealed all that man needed to know to be saved, and live for God. He even stated in Revelation 22:18, that no man should ever add to or subtract from the Scriptures.

 

G. Another important principle to understand is that when God revealed a principle in the Old Testament, it was never invalidated by later revelation. Take for example the Law given at Mt. Sinai. Today Christians do not live by the letter of the law, but the principles on which the laws were based. Are the principles of the Law given at Mt. Sinai valid today? Surely they are!

1. The Law says we are to “have no other God before thee.” (Deut. 5:7) That is a true now as it was then.

2. It is important to understand the Bible’s principles do not change in time. Customs, culture, political situations may change and this in turn may change the way the principle is applied, however the principle itself does not change.

3. For an example, in Deut. 7:1f, God instructs Israel to be separated from the wicked peoples of Canaan. In 2 Cor. 6:14, the same principle is being applied to the Christians being unequally yoked with unbelievers. In both passages, God is teaching us the Doctrine of Separation. Time changed the people involved, the manner of separation, and a host of other details. Yet it is the same principle in both the Old and New Testaments. The principle is clear that a passage of Scripture can only have one meaning or interpretation, but in different circumstances can have different applications. When interpreting God’s word, we must understand that God revealed His word over a long period of time. The interpretation of a passage to be accurate must consider when the scripture was penned and what God was revealing at that time.

NINTH PRINCIPLE

Never Theorize to Accommodate Man’s Views of Religion or Science

A. This principle is closely aligned with the ninth principle. In interpreting Scripture we should never invent explanations to areas where the Bible appears vague. We may not have the knowledge to understand some teaching or event in the Bible. The limitation is in our knowledge, not in the truth of the Word of God. The best approach is not to invent explanations, but honestly say we do not know!

B. Examples of man trying to harmonize science and the Bible is seen in the theories such as “Theistic Evolution” and once popular “Gap Theory. “Theistic evolution is the product of man’s trying to fit into the Bible the false teachings of the so called “science of evolution.” In truth, evolution contradicts the Biblical account of Creation. There is not even one demonstrative evidence of evolution in true science.

To suppose that God used evolution to create the world is to deny the literal meaning of Genesis Chapter One and Two. Word is perfect and without error. It is inerrant, and infallible. When God said He created the universe and the earth in six days, by speaking it into existence out of nothing, then that is the Word of God on the matter and the truth. If science disagrees, then science is wrong! Science is the product of man’s wisdom which is often proven faulty. The Bible is the very Word of God who is never wrong!

C. We are to take the Bible and examine everything by it. We look at the world through the Bible. It is the ONLY true standard. It is the only pure source of truth on earth. The world’s way is the opposite. Man starts out with a distorted view and can only come to a distorted conclusion. God explains this saying, “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” (1 Corinthians 2:14)

D. Such theories as the Gap Theory, in no way have any value within themselves. This “theory” states that between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, there is a gap in time in which the fossil record is placed. Its explanation is that the fossils are the remains of another race of man and a world that was destroyed when Lucifer rebelled in heaven, before the present world was created. Men under attack by modern science, tried to accommodate the popular teachings of the then new “science” of evolution. Today, we can easily explain the fossil record. It was created by the Flood when God destroyed all life on earth saving only Noah and his family and the animals in the ark. The fossils are the remains of the pre-flood world, not some world created and destroyed by God before the current Earth. All fossils are found in sedimentary rock deposits. Sedimentary rock is formed by water action such as would be caused by a world wide flood.

E. Today, evolution is fast falling into disfavor and even secular science is questioning the teaching of Darwin. Yet, today the Gap Theory is still being taught by a few proponents as fact, and yet it was never anything more than a man’s theory or speculation. Today, few theologians hold or teach the view, but it will probably be many years before it completely disappears.

F. God said He spoke the Universe into existence “ex nihilo,” meaning out of nothing. God says “In the beginning” meaning there before time there was nothing and the universe and the earth had a beginning. The gap theory in reality instead of clarifying the matter of Creation caused confusion.

The rule of correctly interpreting God’s word is to let the Bible interpret itself. We should never invent supposed solutions areas where the Bible is silent.

Definitions:

Allegory. Taking the literal meaning off story, discourse, or something written and giving it another spiritualized or non literal meaning.

Analogy. Similarity between things partial resemblance. Comparing something point by point with something else noting its similarity . As applied to Bible study, it means the scriptures are alike and do not contradict each other.

Context. The parts of a book, passage or verse, which shows the whole situation and relevant environment in which it is found.

Expository. Setting forth facts, ideas, and an explanation from a detailed examination of a passage.

Exegesis. Critical analysis or interpretation which seeks the meaning from the passage and does not impose meaning on the passage.

Interpretation. To arrive at the original meaning the writer intended when he penned the words.

Syntax. Syntax is the study of the word in is grammatical setting showing it relation to other words.