Truth
On
Tough
Texts
ISSUE 26 –
September/2007
Principles
of Biblical Interpretation (1)
II
Timothy 2:15
STUDY TO SHOW THYSELF
APPROVED unto God, a workman that needeth not to be
ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.”
Much has been said and
written about interpreting the Bible. We have all heard
more than one person say, “Oh, that’s just your
interpretation of the Bible,” or “The Bible can be
interpreted in different ways.” Naturally, such
statements are made by the skeptic and the infidel so
that he can ignore the Scriptures.
If I may humbly
submit, however, that is not only true of lost people,
for professed Christians are also guilty of the same
tendency. We sometimes “reevaluate” or “reinterpret”
those parts of Scripture that we don’t want to face. We
sometimes justify our actions and attitudes with such
statements as: “Well, that passage of Scripture was
written in a different time and place; things are
different now,” or, “That is in the Old Testament, which
never applies to the New
Testament believer.”
A vital key to
understanding Biblical authority is
understanding Biblical interpretation. How are we to interpret Scripture? The story
has often been told of the man who wanted to be guided
by Scripture, so he closed his eyes, opened his Bible,
and pointed to a verse, which read, “And he [Judas] cast
down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed,
and went and hanged himself” (Mat 27:5). He thought he
should try again, so repeating the process he came upon
Luke 10:37, “Go and do thou likewise.”
Obviously, that is a
ridiculous story, but in some ways it is characteristic
of exactly how some people interpret Scripture. People
rip verses from their context, ignore to whom the words
were written, ignore the historical setting of the verse
or passage, ignore the grammar used in the verse, and in
general violate
every rule of interpreting
literature.
Please notice those
last six words. As I present some principles of Biblical
interpretation in this two-part article, some people
might accuse me of simply creating principles that fit
my viewpoint, but that is not the case. In fact, in the
final analysis, interpreting Scripture is little
different than interpreting any literature. Now please
do not misunderstand me here; I am not equating the Bible with all other literature.
“God forbid!” The Bible is inspired, infallible, and
authoritative literature, but It is still literature and
is to be interpreted by certain rules that are universal
to literature.
While the Word of
God is deep, It is not complex. It says what It means
and means what It says. God is not the One Who has
muddied the waters of His Word, rather it is man who has
done so. He has complicated the Scriptures so much that
it is no longer clear, no longer means what the words seem to say.
Again, Scripture
cannot rule in our lives if we do not know what it says.
Therefore, in a moment we will examine twelve principles
for proper Biblical interpretation. Before doing so,
however, there is one general truth concerning Biblical
interpretation on which the other principles are built:
Scripture
interprets Itself. As The Westminster
Confession of Faith (1646) puts
it:
The infallible rule
of interpretation of scripture is the scripture itself:
and therefore, when there is a question about the true
and full sense of any scripture [which is not manifold,
but one], it must be searched and known by other places
that speak more clearly (Acts 15:15, 16; John 5:46; see
II Pet. 1:20, 21). [Note: The London Baptist
Confession of 1689 is virtually
identical.]
While the
aforementioned statement, “Oh, that’s just your
interpretation of the Bible,” is often true of some
interpreters, proper Biblical interpretation simply
allows the Bible to interpret Itself. In other words, we
simply allow the Word of God to tell us what It means.
There is nothing mystical or magical about
interpreting the Bible. If we just get out of the
way, It will make Itself clear.
Let us turn now to twelve
basic principles of Biblical interpretation. (This will
be followed in a subsequent issue of TOTT by a
representative example of using all twelve principles to
develop the Biblical teaching on a specific
subject.)
I. The Reverence Principle
Of all the principles of
Biblical interpretation, none today is violated more
than this one. No longer is the Bible revered. It has
been diluted, added to, subtracted from, treated
flippantly, and generally considered by many as
irrelevant. Often it is not consulted at all, but when
It is, it is usually just added to the list of opinions
collected from other sources.
This is not only true of
Liberalism, but is true of Evangelicalism and
Fundamentalism as well. Liberals attack the Bible by
denying its truth. Other groups undermine the authority
of Scripture by claiming new revelation through visions
and other experiential means. We submit, however, that
evangelicals and fundamentalists often undermine the
Word of God as well. One way is in their failure to
exposit the Word. Many preachers, while saying they
believe in Biblical authority, nonetheless stand in
their pulpits every Sunday and fail to boldly and
authoritatively expound on the truth of the Scripture in
depth and then apply It to people’s lives.
Another way the holiness
and seriousness of God’s Word is undermined is by what I
call “Biblical Humor.” By this I mean making a joke at
the expense of the Bible. Why is it that we teach our
children not to make a joke at someone else’s expense,
but then turn around and do this with God’s holy
Word?
This practice is common
today in cartoons. I was appalled, for example, at the
cartoon of two doctors talking about a man they had just
put in cryogenic freeze. The caption read, “In his will
he said he wanted to be frozen until someone can see if
his name’s in the Book of Life; if it’s not, leave him
frozen.” How can any Christian think something that
blasphemous is funny?”
And what does this
say about the “Christian comedians” that characterize
“preaching” today? The argument that says, “Well, if you
keep people laughing, you can get your point across” is
worldly nonsense. Truly spiritual people will desire
spiritual Truth. I certainly don’t mind the
occasional humorous comment or illustration, and use
them on occasion myself, but “stand up comedy” has no
place anywhere near the pulpit. We are dealing with
holy, sacred things, and we had better treat them as
such. That is God’s demand. So-called “Christian comedy”
is one of the most serious errors of our day and is a
scourge that should be excised. The pulpit is a place of
solemnity, not slapstick. The man who God esteems is “him that is poor
and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word” (Is.
66:2). How many men in pulpits today tremble at the Word
of God and teach their people to do the
same?
So, first and
foremost,
we must approach the Bible with reverence and the
utmost respect. Note the psalmist’s declarations (for
the sake of space, we mention only the references): Ps.
138:2; 119:72, 127, 161. Note also Job’s conviction in
Job 23:12.
How can we treat something
that is this holy and highly esteemed
flippantly?
II. The Diligence Principle
The second principle of
Biblical interpretation is found in our text, II Timothy
2:15. This pivotal verse reveals four things concerning
proper Biblical interpretation.
The Method
of Proper Biblical Interpretation
Study is
the Greek spoudazo, which
speaks of being diligent or eager. Some think that a
newer translation of the Bible that says “Be diligent”
(NASB) or “Do your best” (a terrible translation in the
NIV) is better here. One popular commentary says,
“‘Study,’ (KJV) is obviously too narrow a term, usually
referring today to the studying of
books.”[i] On the contrary, the
beauty of the Old English here actually says more. After
all, in his unabridged dictionary, Webster says that
study, to be diligent, and to be eager are all “akin,”
and then defines study as, “A state of absorbed
contemplation.” Now, in all honesty, isn’t that
better?
Indeed, our attitude and
approach to the interpretation of Scripture must be one
of “absorbed contemplation.” How much slip-shod,
shallow, and sentimental Biblical interpretation there
is today! Many think they can just sit down, read a few
verses, make a quick “application,” and then hurry on to
their next activity. Many preachers do likewise in their
sermon preparation, spending an hour or two in the Word
and coming away with a shallow, topical “sermonette for
Christianettes” consisting of three points and a poem.
Many Bible colleges are the guiltiest because that is
the approach they teach.
Another deadly
danger to honest interpretation is the common practice
of approaching the Scriptures with preconceived ideas.
In other words, there is always the danger of
formulating an idea, opinion, or position and then going
to the Bible to defend it. The story is often told of
the preacher who said, “I’ve got a really good sermon in
mind; all I need is a Scripture verse to go with it.”
That might be humorous, but it is more common than you
think. It is also common among folks who have been
taught a certain position all their lives and refuse to
consider any other teaching. If we may say it as frankly
as possible: get out of the way and allow God to speak.
Lay aside whatever you think, and
then go to the Scripture to find what God
says.
Our text goes on to say
that the pastor (and by application, every Christian) is
a workman,
one who labors over the Word of God, one who works at
his study and interpretation. The words to
show thyself approved unto God reemphasize this
fact by showing that the workman is totally dedicated to
God and God’s Word. This is first and foremost the
responsibility of the pastor, since this Epistle is
written to a pastor, who is called by vocation to do
this and has the time to devote to this. By application,
however, all Christians can (and should) study the Word
under the guidance of their pastor.
The Goal of Proper
Biblical Interpretation
Often we incorrectly
think that the reason and goal for studying the
Scriptures is knowledge. While it is true that we want
knowledge (“Truth”), our chief goal should be to “rightly divide
the Word of Truth.” The Greek word used here for rightly
dividing (orthotomeo) is
actually comprised of two words, orthos, meaning
“straight” (as an orthodontist straightens teeth), and
temno, which means “to cut or divide.” The word was
used in ancient times for cutting a straight furrow,
something that a farmer is always concerned about as he
plows. Similarly, a carpenter is concerned about making
a straight cut on a board, and a seamstress is concerned
about sewing a straight seam.
This, then, is the goal of
the interpreter of Scripture, to cut It straight, to
rightly divide It so that It is clearly understood and
plainly applied. Our goal is spiritual, not
intellectual. How, then, do we accomplish this? Again,
it takes work, hours of laborious study. We will not
properly interpret if we grab a verse here and a
principle there. We must labor to rightly divide. That
is our goal.
The Difficulty of Proper
Biblical Interpretation
This rightly dividing will
inevitably and unavoidably cause problems from time to
time. In other words, we will at times run into either
textual or practical problems. Tragically, what often
happens nowadays is that when problems occur, they are
simply ignored. A commentator, for example, might simply
skip over a textual problem. Or a pastor might just
avoid dealing with an issue so as not to upset
anyone.
This practice,
however, is not only dishonest, but it also violates the
clear admonition of Paul to the Ephesian elders, “For I
have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God” (Acts 20:27). He goes on to
say that the shepherd is to “oversee” (v. 28), “feed,”
and “warn” (v. 31) the sheep, all of which might “step
on toes” once in awhile.
Diligent study, therefore,
demands that we deal with problems. For example, some
Bible students have problems with the verse that
instructs older women to teach the younger women to be
“keepers at home” (Tit. 2:4-5). Does that mean a women
can never go out of the house? Or what does Paul mean
when he speaks of being “baptized for the dead” (I Cor.
15:29)? Or what does the Bible mean when It says that
“God repented?” (Gen. 6:6 and Jon. 3:10).
Using the proper
principles of Biblical interpretation will reveal the
solution to these problems and all others, but only if
we are committed to diligence.
Finally, Paul
assures his pupil of the result of this kind of
diligence. What will be the result of diligent study? We will never be
ashamed (needeth
not to be ashamed). This assurance is really
twofold. First, our diligent study of the Word of God is
a testimony to others that we are not ashamed of It,
that we are not ashamed to stand on Its authority.
Second, since we are diligent
laborers in the Word, we won’t be ashamed when our Lord inspects our
works.
III. The Plain Principle
There have been Bible
interpreters through the ages who interpret the Bible
with an allegorical approach. This type of approach
doesn’t take the words of Scripture as they are, rather
it looks for some deeper “spiritual” meaning. This
approach is often used by those who want to escape some
theological or practical difficulty or by those who want
to teach some far out religious view. One of the most
notorious of this type of interpreter was the 3rd
Century scholar Origen. His allegorical approach to
Scripture and “spiritualizing” of It is well-known,
going so far as to turn the entire Law and the Gospels
into an allegory; in his own words, in fact, he said,
“The Scriptures are of little use to those who
understand them as they are written.”
But does this
approach make any sense? Do we take this approach with
other types of literature? Do we just automatically
assume a book or magazine article is allegorical? On the
contrary, if a piece of literature is supposed to be
allegorical, does it not plainly tell you so as you
begin to read it? Likewise, as we’ll see, the Bible
is to be taken in its plain meaning unless it makes it
clear that It is to be taken otherwise.
The chief danger of the
allegorical approach is obvious. Using this approach,
Scripture no longer means what It says, and therefore,
for all practical purposes, is no longer authoritative.
Interpretation of Scripture now depends upon the mind of
the interpreter, not God.
In contrast to allegorical
interpretation, there is what is commonly called
“literal interpretation.” In regard to this term,
however, Charles Ryrie makes a very important
distinction: “Since the word “literal” has connotations
which are either misunderstood or subjectively
understood, labels like “plain” or “normal” serve more
acceptably. “Literal” is assumed to preclude figures of
speech, etc. (which is not the case).”[ii] To interpret plainly is
to explain the original sense of the speaker or writer
according to normal, customary, and proper usage of
words and language.
There is actually more
allegorical interpretation among evangelicals than one
might think. One of the chief areas in which we find
this is in the interpretation of prophecy. One example
is how some fancifully interpret Revelation 9, where we
find the description of the plague of locusts that sting
like scorpions, which will inflict mankind during the
Tribulation Period. One commentator writes about his
Vietnam veteran friend who thought this has to be
describing Cobra attack helicopters and that the torment
of the sting will be nerve gas sprayed from the
aircraft’s tail. The commentator admits that this might
be “conjecture” but that it does “fit the composite
description.”[iii]
Another commentator writes
that these locusts may be of the insect or animal
variety, but that they might be men with jet packs
strapped to their backs, who emit a chemical substance
from a canister that inflicts a painful sting.[iv]
Still another commentator
says that the old opinion of this being B-29 bombers
that sting from their tail (because of the tail guns) is
“fanciful,” but then turns right around and says they
are “spirit-beings who probably will not be seen by men,
but whose effects will be strongly felt.” He continues
by saying that “they are not to be taken literally, nor
symbolically, but spiritually.”[v]
May we ask these men,
what’s wrong with the plain interpretation that this
plague will be a literal plague of locusts that sting
like scorpions? Why ignore Revelation 9:5 that plainly
says the plague will last five months, which is the natural
life-span of locusts? Compare these fanciful
interpretations with that of rock solid expositors, such
as William Newell, who not only brings out what we’ve
noted here, but who also has this to say about other
“interpretations”: “Now no one who believes the Bible
has any trouble believing the record of that last
plague. Nor has any one any right to have
any difficulty about the terrible locust plague of
Revelation 9. It is because of the fog of
unbelief, and the super-fog of
“historical interpretation,” that this passage has
been considered “hard to understand.” If we do not believe that God
means what He so plainly and explicitly says in
Revelation 9, let us say we do not
believe it, and be honest. But let us not dare to bring
in vain imaginations and call them interpretations of
Scripture.”[vi]
All this is a vivid
illustration of allegorizing and spiritualizing
Scripture. This kind of Biblical interpretation is
dangerous because it allows every person to think of
something different. Was this God’s intention? Certainly
not! It matters not what we think Scripture
means, rather what It really does mean according to the plain language of
Scripture.
Spiritualizing Scripture
is also a common practice among preachers. I recently
read about the pastor who preached on Jericho. He told
how God gave the Israelites the city, how they marched
around the city seven times, and how the walls fell
down. His “application” of this truth was that if a
young man believed God had given him a girl, he could
claim her, march around her seven times, and the walls
of her heart would fall down! Believe it or not, that
couple (and other couples) got married on that basis,
but as you might expect, marital problems came soon
after.[vii] Other preachers are
“hyper-typers,” teaching such things as each pillar of
the temple having a deeper symbolic meaning.
Another result of
non-literal interpretation is the total rejection of a
literal 1,000-year reign of Christ on the earth, that
is, Premillenialism,. With a wave
of an allegorical hand, Postmillennialists and
Amillennialists dismiss countless Old Testament
prophecies that speak of a literal
Kingdom. Inexplicably, while they take
non-prophetic subjects literally—the virgin
birth, the cross, the resurrection, salvation, etc.—they
view the millennium as non-literal. Such an arbitrary
departure makes no sense whatsoever, especially when
they teach that some prophecies—Christ’s Second
Coming, the Great White Throne judgment, and the new
heavens and the new earth—are
literal.
Does this mean that
the Bible never speaks figuratively? Of course not. But when Scripture
is used figuratively, It makes it plain that It is doing
so. When Paul writes about
putting on the “armor of God” (Eph. 6:11-17), for
example, he makes it clear that this is figurative,
illustrative language. Certainly, the Word of God is not
a literal sword, but It is our only offensive weapon (as
was the soldier’s sword), and It is used in much the
same way. Hebrews 4:12 gives us the same analogy, saying
the Word of God is sharper than a two-edged sword,
cutting through pretense, and discerning not only our
thoughts but even our very intentions.
The late Dr. David Cooper
summed up the matter very well when he said: “When the
plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no
other sense; therefore; take every word at its primary,
ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the
immediate context, studied in the light of related
passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicated
clearly otherwise.”[viii]
Again, the main reason
many shy away from a plain interpretation of the Bible
is to escape what It demands. Taking the Bible plainly
is, indeed, demanding. The Word of God has something to
say about every aspect of human life; It leaves nothing
to chance and never leaves us to “decide for
ourselves.”
IV. The Grammatical Principle
Just as grammar and word
usage is vital to understanding any literature or spoken
word, it is likewise indispensable in interpreting
Scripture. I once heard a well-known speaker and author
speak on Jude 3. He read the verse (“ . . . earnestly
contend for the faith”) and then proceeded to speak
about subjective
faith, that is, our personal faith. While much of what
he said was true, this verse has nothing whatsoever to
do with subjective faith or the action of faith.
Because of the definite article, the words “the faith”
refer to the body
of revealed truth that makes up historical, evangelical
Christianity. This meaning is further emphasized by
the words “once delivered,” which refer to the preaching
and teaching of the Apostles as the historical basis of
our faith. In fact, “deliver” (paradidomi)
means “to hand down, pass on instruction from teacher to
pupil”[ix] (see I Cor. 11:2, 23;
15:3).
Countless errors
have resulted from improper grammatical interpretation.
The modern Charismatic Movement builds much of its
foundation on a glaring grammatical error. It teaches
that the “baptism of the Holy Spirit” is something we
must seek now. But I Corinthians 12:13 plainly says
that all
Christians (even the appallingly carnal Corinthians)
have been baptized (past tense) into the Body of Christ, that is, placed into
His body. The grammar is absolutely
inarguable.
Speaking of “baptism,” the
entire doctrine of baptism has been perverted due to
improper grammatical interpretation. The Greek baptizo means
“to dip, immerse, or plunge” and was used to describe
the dying of clothes.[x] The whole point of
baptism is being placed into something to show identification.
Baptism pictures our being placed into Christ and our
identification with His death, burial, and resurrection
(Rom. 6:3-6). Other modes of baptism (sprinkling and
pouring) are wrong because they do not properly picture
this identification, this placing into.
After all, how many of us would
dye a piece of clothing by sprinkling or pouring the dye
on it?
It is also extremely
significant that there is absolutely no doubt
whatsoever, and non-immersionists admit, that immersion
alone was the universal practice of the Apostolic
church, a fact John Calvin points out in his Institutes.[xi] In a footnote,
Calvin even admits that deviation from immersion is seen
in the Didache (Teaching of the
Twelve), a second century apocryphal book. It says
that if running water was not available, “Pour water on
the head three times.” That is clearly unscriptural and
serves as an excellent example of how men add to the
Word of God by saying, “Well, this a special
circumstance, so we can add this practice to meet the
need of the moment.” What men need to do is obey the Word of
God not add to it.
One of the most beautiful
illustrations of this grammatical principle appears in
Nehemiah 8:7-8, where we are told that Ezra and the
Levites read from the Law, “gave the sense, and caused
the people to understand.” After the Babylonian
captivity, Hebrew had been largely replaced by Aramaic
as the spoken language of God’s people. So when the Law
was read in Hebrew, few understood It; It had to be
explained in their own language. How this is needed
today! Preachers need to know the language and must be
able to exposit the deep truth of the Word.
Several years ago I was
preaching this principle in a church, strongly
emphasizing the need for pastors to know something about
the Biblical languages. Without having any knowledge of
the pastor of that church, I made it clear that a pastor
does not have to be a Greek scholar, but that he at
least needs to know how to use the Greek tools that are
readily available today and how to present the Word with
grammatical accuracy. The pastor was offended by this
and later said to me, “If you’re right, I’m not even
qualified to be in the ministry.” It is sad, indeed,
that he is not the only one of whom that is true; there
are many men in pulpits today who simply do not
adequately study the Scriptures and, therefore,
disqualify themselves from the very office they
occupy.
Dr. J. D.
Watson
Pastor-Teacher
Grace Bible
Church
NOTES
[i]
Frank E. Gaebelein (General Editor), The Expositor’s
Bible Commentary, Vol. 11 (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1978), p.
402.
[ii] Basic
Theology, p.
111.
[iii] Hal Lindsay,
There’s a New World Coming
(Santa Ana: Vision House Publishers, 1973), pp.
138-139.
[iv] Salem Kirban and
Gary Cohen, Revelation Visualized (Chicago: Moody Press, p.
201.
[v] Tim F. LaHaye,
Revelation: Illustrated and Made
Plain (Grand Rapids: Zondervan
Publishing House, 1974), p. 185.
[vi] William Newell,
The Book of the Revelation (Chicago: Moody Press, 1935), p.
129-131.
[vii] Cited in John
MacArthur’s Charismatic Chaos, p. 90.
[viii] Cited in J. Vernon
McGee’s Guidelines for the Understanding of the
Scriptures (Pasadena: Thru the
Bible Books), p. 20.
[ix] Colin Brown
(Editor), The New International Dictionary of New
Testament Theology (Zondervan),
Vol. 3, pp. 772-773.
[x] Kittel,
Theological Dictionary of the New
Testament.
[xi] Calvin,
Institutes, Book IV, Chapter
XV, Section 19 (abbreviated,
IV.15.19).
