hermeneutics

A Brief Introduction to Bible Interpretation

(Hermeneutics)

2 BIBLE INTERPRETATION

Hermeneutics, Second Edition Copyright © 1998-2005 by Glenridge Church International Revision: 10 February, 2005 Print Date: 10 February, 2005 This manual may be duplicated whole, or in part, in any form (written, visual, electronic or audio) without express written permission, providing it is not used for commercial purposes. Printed by Glenridge Church International +27 31 304 8841 [email protected] Set in Book Antiqua (print) or Arial (screen). Scripture taken from the HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan Publishing House. Scripture taken from the North American Edition of the NIV Bible, unless otherwise indicated.

BIBLE INTERPRETATION 3

BIBLE BOOK ABBREVIATIONS

Ge Genesis Ex Exodus Lev Leviticus Nu Numbers Dt Deuteronomy Jos Joshua Jdg Judges Ru Ruth 1Sa 1 Samuel 2Sa 2 Samuel 1Ki 1 Kings 2Ki 2 Kings 1Ch 1 Chronicles 2Ch 2 Chronicles Ezr Ezra Ne Nehemiah Est Esther Job Job Ps Psalms Pr Proverbs Ecc Ecclesiastes SS Song of Songs Isa Isaiah Jer Jeremiah La Lamentations Eze Ezekiel Da Daniel Hos Hosea Joel Joel Am Amos Ob Obediah Jnh Jonah Mic Micah Na Nahum Hab Habakkuk Zep Zephaniah Hag Haggai Zec Zechariah Mal Malachi

Mt Matthew Mk Mark Lk Luke Jn John Ac Acts Ro Romans 1Co 1 Corinthians 2Co 2 Corinthians Gal Galatians Eph Ephesians Php Philippians Col Colossians 1Th 1 Thessalonians 2Th 2 Thessalonians 1Ti 1 Timothy 2Ti 2 Timothy Tit Titus Phm Philemon Heb Hebrews Jas James 1Pe 1 Peter 2Pe 2 Peter 1Jn 1 John 2Jn 2 John 3Jn 3 John Jude Jude Rev Revelation


BIBLE TRANSLATION ABBREVIATIONS

ASV or ASB American Standard Version« CEV J Contemporary English Version ESV English Standard Version GW God’s Word HCSB J Holman Standard Christian Bible JB Jerusalem Bible (Roman Catholic)« JBP or PME J J B Phillips Translation1 KJV or AV King James Version or Authorised Version« LB Living Bible« NAB New American Bible (Roman Catholic) NASB New American Standard Version NCV New Century Version NEB New English Bible« NiRV New International Readers’ Version NIV New International Version« NJB New Jerusalem Bible (Roman Catholic) NLT J New Living Translation NRSV New Revised Standard Version NWT X New World Translation (Jehovah’s Witnesses) REB Revised English Bible RSV Revised Standard Version« TEV or GNB Today’s English Version (Good News Bible)« TMSG J The Message TNIV J Today’s New International Version WEB or ASV97 World English Bible NKJV New King James Version Bibles marked « have been replaced with updated editions (NLT replaces LB, TNIV replaces NIV, NRSV replaces RSV, REB replaces NEB, NJB replaces JB, NASB replaces ASV/ASB, NJB replaces JB, KJV replaced by RSV [UK] and ASV [USA] [NKJV is a modern-language update of the KJV and is not a proper update—the faulty texts still remain in it even though the translation teams

1 This is available as two books, the New Testament in Modern English and Four Prophets. The entire Bible wasn’t completed. It is sometimes called the PME (Phillips, Modern English).


are aware the KJV was translated from the poor TR1551 etc.]), although the older editions are often still available if popular. Bibles marked J are pleasant to read and considered true to the original meaning (not saying that others are not, but these are very good). The Bible marked X is purposefully mistranslated. The above list is not exhaustive.


Hermeneutics

The Bible is both easy and difficult to interpret. On the one hand, unlike many of the writings of men, especially the obtuse mystical and religious writings of men trying to be profound, the Bible is simple, accessible, concrete and vivid. On the whole it can be understood and enjoyed by ordinary men. On the other hand there are some parts difficult to understand or to reconcile with other parts: religious worldviews, cultural practices and literary conventions many times removed from us can be confusing. Certainly almost every part is capable of being misinterpreted and misused when sound hermeneutics are not employed. Every imbalance, heresy and cult that has appeared in the course of Church history owes its origin, or at least its self-justification, to the misinterpretation of one or more biblical texts. That the Bible is in some places difficult to interpret and in many places easy to misinterpret (whether intentionally or unintentionally) should not surprise us: not only are we seeking to apprehend divine truth in finite language and with a finite (and fallen) mind but we are seeking to understand a collection of books written by over forty human authors, living in different ages and places, belonging to difficult cultures, speaking different languages, possessing different personalities and backgrounds, writing with different purposes, and employing a large range of linguistic devices and literary genres and forms, most of which are unfamiliar to us.


Conner and Malmim in their foreword to their book, Interpreting the Scriptures, state the following: “It is recognized by Christians around the world that God has spoken in his Word, the Sacred Scriptures. However, what is not so clear is what he meant by what he said. One of the root causes of theological differences lies in the field of hermeneutics. Since all proper doctrine arises out of the interpretation of Scripture it is logical that at the root of doctrinal differences lies hermeneutical differences. Hermeneutics and its application becomes, then, the central issue of doctrinal divisions. Bible-believing Christians are united in accepting the facts of revelation and inspiration. The problem is not over revelation and inspiration so much as it is over interpretation and application.”2 Kuzmic states it simply: “You cannot apply the Scriptures to yourself or your hearers unless you understand them and there is no understanding without interpretation.”3 For all of these reasons, sound and consistent interpretation of the Bible is vital—for godly discipleship, the preservation of truth and the prevention of heresy.

2 K J Connor and Malmin, Interpreting the Scriptures, page ix. 3 P Kuzmic, Hermeneutics: A Study Guide, page 14.


Contents

I: An Introduction _______________________11

A. Biblical Hermeneutics____________________11 A.1. The Context of the Bible ___________________ 11

A.1.i Amongst other Christian Revelation _______ 11 A.1.ii The Claim to Inspiration ________________ 12 A.1.iii Infallibility, Inerrancy and Authority________ 13 A.1.iv Characteristics of the Bible______________ 14

A.2. The Context of Hermeneutics _______________ 16

B. The Need to Interpret Scripture ____________18 B.1. The Reader as an Interpreter _______________ 19 B.2. The Nature of Scripture ____________________ 21

C. A Good Translation: the Basic Tool ________24 C.1. The Source Documents ____________________ 24

C.1.i Old Testament Texts___________________ 25 C.1.ii New Testament Texts__________________ 26

C.2. Overview of Translations ___________________ 27 C.2.i Date and Availability of Manuscripts _______ 27 C.2.ii Objective of the Scholars _______________ 29

C.3. Choosing a Translation ____________________ 29 C.4. Exercise ________________________________ 37

D. The Process of Interpretation _____________37 D.1. Application of Principles____________________ 37 D.2. Interpretation of the Spirit __________________ 38 D.3. Approach of Heart ________________________ 39 D.4. Insights of Others_________________________ 40

E. Schools of Interpretation _________________41

II: Interpretation Part One ________________44

A. The Plain, Natural Meaning _______________44 A.1. Defining the Plain, Natural Meaning Principle ___ 44 A.2. Heretical Methods of Interpretation ___________ 47

A.2.i The Allegorical Approach _______________ 47 A.2.ii The Mystical Approach_________________ 49 A.2.iii The Devotional Approach _______________ 50 A.2.iv The Rationalistic Approach______________ 51 A.2.v The Excessively-Rigid, Literal Approach ___ 52

A.3. Exercises _______________________________ 54

B. The Historical Background _______________55


B.1. Defining the Historical Background Principle____ 55 B.2. Invisible Historical Factors __________________ 57

B.2.i The Covenantal Principle _______________ 58 B.2.ii The Breach Principle __________________ 60 B.2.iii The Ethnic Principle ___________________ 62

B.3. Exercises _______________________________ 63

III: Interpretation Part Two________________64

A. Self-Interpretation of Scripture ____________64 A.1. Defining the Principle of Self-Interpretation _____ 64 A.2. The Value of Topical Study _________________ 67 A.3. Exercises _______________________________ 68

B. Literary Context_________________________69 B.1. Defining the Principle of Literary Context ______ 69 B.2. The Value of Textual Study _________________ 71 B.3. Exercises _______________________________ 72

C. Comments on Theological Tools___________72 C.1. Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance____________ 72 C.2. Young’s Analytical Concordance of the Bible ___ 73 C.3. The NIV Exhaustive Concordance____________ 73 C.4. Vine’s Complete Expository of OT/NT Words ___ 74 C.5. The Hebrew/Greek Key Study Bible __________ 74 C.6. The Amplified Bible _______________________ 75 C.7. Bible Dictionaries _________________________ 75 C.8. Computer Bible Software___________________ 75

IV: Literary Styles _______________________76

A. Wisdom Literature_______________________76 A.1. The Nature of Wisdom_____________________ 76 A.2. Principles for Interpreting Wisdom Literature ___ 77

A.2.i Ecclesiastes and Job __________________ 77 A.2.ii Proverbs ____________________________ 78

B. Poetry_________________________________80 B.1. The Nature of Poetry ______________________ 80 B.2. A Note on Parallelism _____________________ 81 B.3. Principles for Interpreting Poetry _____________ 82

B.3.i Don’t Extract a Truth from Each Line ______ 82 B.3.ii Do Not Allegorise _____________________ 82 B.3.iii Be Aware of Compound Parallelism_______ 82

C. Prophetic Literature _____________________82 C.1. The Nature of Prophetic Literature ___________ 83 C.2. Principles for Interpreting Prophetic Literature __ 84


D. The Epistles____________________________88 D.1. Occasional Nature ________________________ 88 D.2. Context Peculiar to the Epistles______________ 90

D.2.i Rule 1: Use Common-sense_____________ 90 D.2.ii Rule 2: Check the Original Understanding __ 91 D.2.iii Rule 3: Examine Comparable Particulars___ 92

D.3. Four Areas Requiring Specific Attention _______ 92 D.3.i Extended Application __________________ 92 D.3.ii Particulars That are Not Comparable______ 94 D.3.iii The Problem of Cultural Relativity ________ 94 D.3.iv The Problem of Task Theology __________ 96

E. Biblical Narratives_______________________97 E.1. The Nature of Narratives ___________________ 97 E.2. Old Testament Narratives __________________ 98

F. Narratives and Biblical Precedents _________99

G. The Gospels __________________________102 G.1. The Nature of the Gospels_________________ 102 G.2. The Nature of Parables ___________________ 103 G.3. Principles for Interpreting Parables __________ 104

G.3.i What was Originally Understood?________ 104 G.3.ii What is the Main Point? _______________ 105 G.3.iii Examine the Required Response________ 105


I: An Introduction

A. Biblical Hermeneutics

General hermeneutics is the science of interpreting the communication of man to man. Biblical hermeneutics is the science of interpreting the communication of God to man (through man, since man wrote the Bible). This divine communication has come to man in the form of sacred literature: the Bible. It is certain that God has spoken to man in his Word: Jesus (the living Word) and the Bible (the written Word). But what has he said? The primary purpose of biblical hermeneutics is to ascertain what God has said in the Scriptures and to determine its meaning. We derive no benefit from the fact that God has spoken unless we understand what is meant by what he has said. Before looking at how to interpret is necessary to know why we need to interpret the Bible and, preceding that, what the Bible is and what we believe about the Bible (its attributes and characteristics).

A.1. The Context of the Bible

A.1.i Amongst other Christian Revelation “Scripture” and “the Bible” are not synonymous with “revelation” or “the word of God.” The Bible is only one of God’s words4 (that is, message, communication or his revelation to us). When we

4 That it why the Bible is “the word of God”.


use the term, “revelation,” as opposed to words like knowledge, learning, illumination or discovery, we are referring to that which we could not and would not know had God not, in his sovereignty, chosen to reveal it to us. In Christian theology, God’s means or channels of revelation are normally divided into two groups: general revelation and special revelation. General revelation refers to God’s revelation of himself through creation, conscience and secular history. General Revelation is partial and fallible. Special revelation refers to God’s revelation of himself through Israel (as recorded in the Old Testament), Jesus Christ and (the rest of) Scripture. Special revelation is complete and infallible. Jesus and the Bible are God’s supreme revelations: the living and the written Words. But, since we only know of God’s revelation through Jesus (and of that through Israel) by means of the inspired, trustworthy records of these revelations found in Scripture, the Bible becomes the normative5 revelation of God by which all other revelations are measured.

A.1.ii The Claim to Inspiration Perhaps the most important fact about the Bible is that it is inspired. By this is not meant inspiration in the vague sense of elevated wisdom or unusual beauty. Nor does it refer to an inspiration

5 By “normative” we mean it is the one-and-only, definitive standard.


grounded in the subjective experience of the writer (“I felt inspired from without”) or the reader (“It inspired me”). The Bible’s inspiration is grounded in the objective fact that God has inspired it, whether we believe it to be inspired or not. The Bible, over and over again, makes this claim of itself and nowhere more powerfully than in 2Ti 3:16: “All Scripture is God breathed6.” The difference between the Bible and other inspired Christian writings is like that between the image of God in Jesus (complete and perfect) and other men (partial and corrupted). See: “The Doctrine of Revelation,” of the Glenridge Doctrine Survey as well as “Lecture 1” of the Glenridge Bible Survey for a complete treatment of this material.

A.1.iii Infallibility, Inerrancy and Authority We now consider the consequences of inspiration. There are two particularly important consequences of the fact that Scripture is inspired: Infallibility (inerrancy): Because the whole Bible is wholly inspired it follows that it is infallible (cannot be proved false) and inerrant (without error). It is thus also wholly reliable and trustworthy as a revelation of the true God and of the true way of salvation. Authority: Because the Bible is God’s word to us it is authoritative: we must listen and obey. The Bible represents absolute “truth, value and rightness.” It is our final authority for all matters of life and doctrine, against which everything else must be measured. The Scriptures therefore have

6 Greek: theopneustos.


a higher authority than any individual leader, group of believers, church, Christian organization or government.7

A.1.iv Characteristics of the Bible Having asserted, against Rome, that Scripture and not the church hierarchy was the final authority for any matters of life and doctrine, the Reformers (A.D. 1517-1600) went on to assert five further characteristics of Scripture. Inherent trustworthiness: Rome held that the Bible was trustworthy (only) because the Church said it was so. The consequences of this position are that Scripture derives its authority from the Church (not vice versa) and that accordingly the Church can introduce ecclesiastical tradition as another authority alongside (and even over) Scripture. Against this the Reformers asserted that the Bible is inherently trustworthy, that is, trustworthy in itself, because it contains within itself the evidences for this. It is, moreover, a trustworthiness attested to by the witness of the Spirit, who convinces us that it is God’s word when we read it. Necessity (indispensability): Rome asserted that the Church, as the able custodian of truth, was all that was necessary to bring men to salvation. At the other extreme, Spiritism asserted that spiritual experience (particularly revelation via the gifts of the Spirit) was all that was needed for us to know and dispense saving truth. Against

7 It was the work of the Reformers that restored Scripture to its correct place of authority.


both, the Reformers contended that Scripture alone reveals and preserves the truth without corruption, and therefore that without the Bible men cannot be saved. Sufficiency (completeness): Rome asserted that the Bible did not contain everything we need to know for salvation and discipleship. Consequently, the Church was free (indeed, duty bound) to impose teaching concerning faith and morals as binding on her people and necessary for salvation, even if these did not have warrant from Scripture. Against this, the Reformers asserted that Scripture gives a complete revelation of everything required by God for salvation and discipleship. The Church cannot impose any belief or practice as an obligation of faith without direct Scriptural authority. Clarity (perspicuity): Rome held that the meaning of Scripture was obscure and inaccessible to the layman.8 The layman needed the Church, particularly its trained clergy, to interpret it to him. Indeed, he was not to be allowed access to the Bible because he might distort its meaning to his and others’ damnation. The Reformers did not deny the existence of difficult passages but did deny that these dominated. It would be self-defeating, they rightly argued, for God to give man an incomprehensible, saving revelation! They asserted that the main thrust of Scripture is plain and clear to every

8 Some of these views have now changed in Roman Catholic circles.


genuine reader and therefore claimed that the Bible could be read by everyone. Relevance: Rome also justified its keeping of the Bible from the laity with the argument that the Bible dealt with issues theological, the realm of the Church’s theologians, and not everyday matters that concerned the people. The Reformers argued that the Bible was gloriously relevant to the common man meeting the spiritual, mental, emotional, physical and social needs of every man in every place in every time!

A.2. The Context of Hermeneutics

Hermeneutics, being the science of interpretation of the Scriptures (Bible), obviously assumes the existence and finality of the work to be interpreted. The process of determining the standard to which the contents must be measured, (and the subsequent evaluation of candidate writings against that standard) is called canonology and falls outside the scope of this course (see the Glenridge Bible Survey for more details). There are a further two disciplines that are applied to the texts that measure up to the required standard: historical and textual criticism. It is thereafter that hermeneutics is positioned: the books have been chosen (canonology), their authenticity been verified (historical criticism) and their original wording determined as accurately as possible (textual criticism). Having determined the principles necessary to interpret the Scriptures (hermeneutics) we begin the process of exegesis (expounding and explaining a text) from which we build our biblical theology.


We can thus define these words as follows: Canonology: This science has to do with determining which sacred books measure up to the standard of divine inspiration. Historical criticism: This science deals with the authorship, date, authenticity of contents and literary unity of the books. Textual criticism: This science has to do with determining as accurately as possible the original wording of the inspired text. Hermeneutics: The science of determining the principles by which the books must be interpreted. Exegesis: This science involves the application of the rules of hermeneutics. From exhegesisthai (Greek) meaning “to guide or lead out.” Biblical theology: The compilation and summarisation of biblical doctrines. From “theos” (God) and “logos” (word).


For further information on these topics consider Answers to Tough Questions or Evidence that Demands a Verdict, both by Josh McDowell, Hermeneutics by Virkler and How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth by Fee and Stuart.

B. The Need to Interpret Scripture

Why is there a need to interpret Scripture? Why not just read it and do what it says? Isn’t the root of the problem often that preachers and teachers dig around so much that they muddy the waters causing what used to be clear and straight forward to be not so clear anymore? Isn’t it true that God can even bless “a poor exegesis of a bad translation of a doubtful reading of an obscure verse of a minor prophet”? There is a lot of truth in these protests. Christians should learn to read, believe and obey the Bible, and the latter should certainly not be an obscure book if read and studied properly. It must be stated that the aim of a good interpretation is not uniqueness but to get at the true (plain and natural) meaning of the text with the most important ingredient being enlightened common sense. John Calvin stated it admirably: “Let us know, then, that the true meaning of Scripture is the natural and obvious meaning; and let us embrace and abide by it resolutely. Let us not only neglect as doubtful, but boldly set aside as deadly corruptions, those pretended


expositions which lead us away from the natural meaning.”9 So, if plain meaning is the goal of interpretation then why interpret? Why not just read? Surely the plain meaning comes from simply reading? In a sense, yes, this is true. However, the “literal meaning” is not necessarily the plain meaning. There are two factors that cause this difference in meaning, and render an argument in favour of “just reading” both naïve and unrealistic: the nature of the reader and the nature of the text.

B.1. The Reader as an Interpreter

Whether one likes it or not every reader is at the same time an interpreter. Most of us assume that as we read, we also understand what we read and, further, that our understanding is the same as the Holy Spirit’s intent (or the original human author’s intent). The reality is that we bring to the reading of the text our experiences, culture and frames of reference (for example, education, reading habits and methods, grammar and colloquialism). These influences can often lead us astray (either seriously astray or not-so-seriously astray). Consider this example:

What does the word “cross” mean to you? Was Jesus crucified on the first cross or the second?

9 Comment on Galatians 4:22, William Pringle’s translation (Calvin Translation Society), 1854, page 136.


Many may think the first yet he quite possibly was crucified on the second cross in the above diagram. What does the word “flesh” mean to you (from Ro 13:14, KJV)? Does it mean body? Does it mean (legitimate) bodily appetites and needs? Does it mean sinful nature? Every reader of an English Bible10 is already involved in interpretation because translation is in itself a necessary form of interpretation. Whatever translation you are using, which is your beginning point, is the end point of much scholarly work by others. The decisions taken by the translators with regard to choice of words affect your understanding. For example, the KJV and NASB use the word “flesh” in Ro 13:14 but the NIV and TEV use the term “sinful nature,” assisting you in understanding what is meant. The differences in the contemporary Church clearly demonstrate that not all “plain meanings” are equally plain to all. Consider 1Co 14:5 and 1Co 14:34-35 from the TNIV: “I would like every one of you to speak in tongues, but I would rather have you prophesy. Those who prophesy are greater than those who speak in tongues, unless they interpret, so that the church may be edified.” “Women should be silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their

10 Or any other translation.


own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.” Most who argue that women should be silent also deny the validity of speaking in tongues! Why? Consider 1Co 11:2-16. Most who affirm women (and men) should pray and prophesy deny that their heads should he covered! Yet the objective of each interpreter “is to be obedient to the ‘plain meaning’ of the text.” Notwithstanding these differences, the antidote to bad interpretation is not no interpretation, but good interpretation, based on commonsense guidelines.11

B.2. The Nature of Scripture

Historically, the Church has understood the nature of Scripture much the same as it has understood the person of Christ: the Bible is at the same time both human and divine: the word of God given in the words of man in history. Thus Scripture has a dual nature:

• The Bible, as God’s word, has eternal relevance: it is absolute, relative neither to time nor space, and therefore is applicable to

11 Out of interest, compare the above 1Co 14:5 to the translation in The Message: “I want all of you to develop intimacies with God in prayer, but please don’t stop with that. Go on and proclaim his clear truth to others. It’s more important that everyone have access to the knowledge and love of God in language everyone understands than that you go off and cultivate God’s presence in a mysterious prayer language—unless, of course, there is someone who can interpret what you are saying for the benefit of all.”


all mankind, in every age, culture and geographical setting; but,

• God spoke through human words in history, causing every book to have historical particularity: each document is conditioned by the language, time and culture in which it was originally written (and sometimes the oral history before it was recorded).

It is crucial to the task at hand that tension be held between the eternal relevance of Scripture and its historical particularity. The method by which God chose to communicate to us should be seen as a source of hope and not frustration. The latter could result if we desired God to merely present to us a series of propositions and imperatives. But it is precisely because God chose to speak to us through the context of real human history that we are encouraged that by these same words he will continue to speak to us again and again in our “real” history just as they (the words) have done throughout the history of the Church. But the human side also increases our challenge: God’s word to us was first his word to them. Therefore if the original bearers were going to hear the word it must have been in the vocabulary and patterns, culture and circumstances that they could have understood over the 1500+ year period that the Bible was written—which for us is at least 1900 years past! A further challenge is that God chose to use all sorts of available kinds of communication: narrative history, genealogies, chronicles, laws of various kinds, poetry of various kinds, proverbs, prophetic oracles, riddles, drama, biographical


sketches, parables, letters, sermons and apocalypses. Such is the challenge before us: how do we move from the “then and there” of the biblical texts to the “here and now” of day to day application? The following diagram illustrates the problem.

(In this diagram the ovals indicate things like religious tradition and political conviction.) This then begs the question, “Which translation or version should be used?” What is the difference between the New Living Bible (NLT) and the King James Version (KJV)? Why is the Good News Bible (known as the TEV, Today’s English Version) hardly ever quoted in doctrinal study? Why is the New International Version (NIV) so popular today and yet it was never heard of in the 1960’s?


C. A Good Translation: the Basic Tool

The sixty-six books of the Protestant Bible were originally written in three different languages: Hebrew (most of the Old Testament), Aramaic (a sister language to Hebrew used in half of Daniel and two passages in Ezra), and Greek (all of the New Testament). Most of us do not know these languages (not to mention that modern Greek is very different to ancient Greek!). The result is that for us the basic tool for reading and studying the Bible is a good English translation, or, as will be suggested, several good English translations. Remember that the very fact that you are reading God’s word in translation means that you are already involved in interpretation—and this is the case whether you like it or not. But to read translations is not a bad thing—it is reasonable, sensible and simply inevitable (and it is worth noting that the apostles themselves quoted from the Greek translation of the Old Testament). What this does mean, however, is that in a certain sense, the person who reads the Bible only in English is at the mercy of the translator(s), and translators have often had to make choices as to what in fact the original Hebrew or Greek was really intending to say.12

C.1. The Source Documents

Before looking at various translations of the Bible it is necessary to have a brief overview of what manuscripts were available to the different

12 Most of the Bible is relatively simple to translate. Where there are significant disagreements they are relatively rare and do not change the overall message of the Bible.


translators at the time that they produced their work. (Further information is also available in the Bible Survey.)

C.1.i Old Testament Texts A text refers to an ancient copy of all or part of the Old (or New) Testament in the original language. Subsequent translations into other languages are obviously based on one or more of these texts. There are extremely few extant Hebrew texts as the Jews always destroyed the old text once they had copied a new one off it. This was because of their extreme appreciation of the value of the Scriptures: once a text got too old it had to be copied and destroyed because the fading ink or cracking parchment might cause the Word of God to be lost, corrupted or distorted. We now examine some of these texts. Masoretic Text: Until recently, the oldest Old Testament manuscripts we had were A.D. ninth century copies of the Masoretic Text: an excellent and reliable version of the Old Testament edited into a fixed form around A.D. 500. All the copies of this text that we have, both from the ninth century and later, are in remarkable agreement. Dead Sea Scrolls: With the discovery (in 1947) of the first century B.C. Dead Sea Scrolls (which include a few complete books and portions of all the others bar one) our possession of the Old Testament was taken back 1,000 years. The scrolls agreed remarkably with the Masoretic Text demonstrating the accuracy of copying in ancient times and assuring us that the manuscripts from


which our Bibles are translated are extremely close to the originals. Septuagint: We also have many early copies of the Septuagint, the second or third century B.C. Greek translation of the Old Testament, that takes us back to what the Old Testament looked like over a millennium ago (although in a language once removed from the original). Some of the Dead Sea Scrolls are in Greek and these also agree remarkably with the Septuagint.

C.1.ii New Testament Texts In contrast to the Old Testament there are over 5,000 complete or partial extant manuscripts of the New Testament (twelve from before A.D. 500) in Greek or the languages of very early translations. Amongst the most important of these are (in order of age): Rylands Papyrus*: the book of John only, dated A.D. 125, discovered in the early twentieth century. Bodmer Papyrus*: dated late A.D. second century, discovered in the early twentieth century. Chester Beatty Papyri*: dated early third century, discovered in the early twentieth century. Codex Sinaiticus: a complete New Testament, dated fourth century, discovered in 1859. Codex Vaticanus: the entire New Testament up to Heb 9:13, dated fourth century, discovered in 1868. Codex Beza**: a complete New Testament, dated fourth century, discovered in 1581.


Codex Alexandrinus**: a complete New Testament, dated sixth century, discovered in 1627. * Together, these three give us all of the New Testament, except James and John’s letters, within 200 years of it having been written. ** These copies are of a standardised fifth century text on which many subsequent translations were based but have since been rejected as containing too many errors.

C.2. Overview of Translations

From these texts the Bible has come down to us through a series of translations, each translating from previous translations and/or the original language manuscripts available to it.

C.2.i Date and Availability of Manuscripts Contrary to the popular conception that the older a translation the better (because it is closer in time to the originals and therefore supposedly less corrupt) the more recent translations are almost always the superior ones. There are several reasons for this:

• Older translations tended to go back only to earlier translations in that language (or at most to the Latin Vulgate), whereas more recent translations go back to original language manuscripts;

• as archaeology makes ground more and more manuscripts are discovered and so newer translations are able to draw on both


more and older original language manuscripts; and

• advances in archaeology and history reveal more and more about ancient societies, events, customs, languages and literature and newer translations are thus able to draw upon knowledge not available to translators before them.

The first noteworthy English translation, the King James Version (KJV), was a distinct improvement on its predecessors. By the time of this translation in 1611 the Codex Beza (mentioned above) had been discovered and so, apart from drawing on the Vulgate and existing English translations, the translators went back to the Septuagint for the Old Testament and to this Codex for the New. However, as we have seen, the fifth century text, of which this manuscript was a copy, has since been rejected as containing too many errors and emendations. Thus apart from its archaic language which alienates, obscurities and distorts (because words are used that today have a different meaning) the KJV has against it that it does not go back to original language texts in translating the Old Testament and that, while it does so for the New, it uses an inaccurate and discredited text. And, of course, it was not able to make use of the older and better texts discovered since. Only translations from the second half of this century, however, have been able to make use of the oldest Greek (New Testament) manuscripts we possess: the Rylands, Bodmer and Chester Beatty papyri. It is only the New International Version (NIV) (translated in 1978)


and other very new translations that have so far made use of the oldest Hebrew (Old Testament) manuscripts we possess: the Dead Sea Scrolls.

C.2.ii Objective of the Scholars Bearing in mind that, by definition, to translate one must interpret, the parameters regarding the choice of word by the translators is of great importance to us as the readers. The objective (as well as the influencing theological belief) of the scholars can produce either a conservative or liberal translation, literal or free translation, or anything in-between (not forgetting the third and forth dimensions of date of translation and discovery of source documents).

C.3. Choosing a Translation

A great factor in translation theory is whether a word-for-word approach is used or whether a thought-for-thought approach is used. The word-for-word approach is also called the literal approach. It translates the text as closely as possible to the original wording—it does not factor in that you may not be aware that the sentence being translated is actually a figure of speech that may be misunderstood. The thought-for-thought approach factors in these things. A typical example used to illustrate this is the Bibles distributed in parts of Africa that are very hot and tropical. Instead of using “white as snow” (meaning absolutely nothing to the readers since they have never heard of snow) they use “white as coconut.” The thought is conveyed more accurately by changing the wording. A word-for-word (literal) approach strictly uses “snow” while


the thought-for-thought approach (also called a free or paraphrase approach) helps the reader along. Both approaches are valuable, depending on the application. Obviously for “casual reading” by the average Christian the thought-for-thought Bibles are more appropriate. Now, the trouble with using only one translation, be it ever so good, is that you are thereby committed to the exegetical choices of that translation as the word of God. The translation you are using may be correct, of course; but it may also be wrong. For example, 1Co 7:36: KJV: “If a man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin….” NASB: “If a man think that he is acting unbecomingly toward his virgin daughter….” NIV: “If anyone thinks he is acting improperly toward the virgin he is engaged to….” The KJV is very literal, but not very helpful, since it leaves the term “virgin” and the relationship between the “man” and “his virgin” ambiguous. Of one thing we may be absolutely certain: Paul, the original author, did not intend to be ambiguous. He intended one of the other three options, and the Corinthians, who had raised the problem in their letter, knew which one. Without any doubt, they knew absolutely nothing of the other two possible meanings that we are now faced with. Only one of them can be the “correct” translation (because they conflict in meaning).


The problem is: Which one? For a number of reasons, the NIV reflects the best exegetical option here. This kind of thing can be illustrated a thousand times over. So, what is our solution? First, it is probably a good practice to use mainly one translation, provided it really is a good one (the most popular good ones are the “NASB Update,” the “NIV” and “The Message”). However, for the study of the Bible you should use a number of well-chosen translations. The best thing to do is to use translations that you know in advance will tend to differ. This will highlight where many of the difficult exegetical problems lie. To resolve these problems you will usually want to have recourse to your commentary. But which translation should you use for everyday use and which of the several should you study from? To make an intelligent choice you need to know some things both about the science of translation itself as well as about some of the various English translations. Although the details of the problems of text in the Old and New Testaments differ, as discussed above, the basic concerns are the same:

• No original copies (manuscripts) exist; • what does exist are thousands of copies

(including copies of very early translations), produced by hand, and copied by hand repeatedly over a period of about fourteen hundred years; and

• although the vast majority of manuscripts (which for both testaments come from the later medieval period) are very much alike these later manuscripts differ significantly


from the earlier copies and translations. In fact, there are over five thousand Greek manuscripts of part or all of the New Testament, as well as thousands in Latin, and no two of them anywhere in existence are exactly alike.

Our choice of translation is influenced by the translators’ choice of text. There are two kinds of evidence that the translator considers in making textual choices: external evidence (the character and quality of the manuscripts) and the internal evidence (the kinds of mistakes made by copyists). Scholars sometimes differ as to how much weight they give either of these strands of evidence, but all are agreed that the combination of strong external and strong internal evidence together makes the vast majority of choices somewhat routine. But for the remainder, where these two lines of evidence seem to collide, the choices are more difficult. Here is an illustration of the work of textual criticism from 1Sa 8:16: KJV: “…your goodliest young men and your asses….” NIV: “…the best of your cattle and donkeys….” The text of the NIV (“your cattle”) comes from the Septuagint, the usually reliable Greek translation of the Old Testament made in Egypt around 250-150 B.C.. The KJV follows the medieval Hebrew text, reading, “young men,” a rather unlikely term to be used in parallel to “donkeys.” The origin of the miscopy in the Hebrew text, which the KJV followed, is easy to understand. The word for


“your young men” in Hebrew was written bhrykm, whilst “your cattle” was bqrykm. The incorrect copying of a single letter by a scribe resulted in a change of meaning. The Septuagint was translated some time before the miscopy was made so it preserved the original “your cattle.” The accidental change to “your young men” was made later, affecting medieval Hebrew manuscripts, but too late to affect the pre-medieval Septuagint. (These relatively trivial issues never change the overall message of the Bible—but they are worth pursuing in the quest for an accurate translation.) Having chosen the text the next two kinds of choices—verbal and grammatical—bring us to the actual science of translation. The problem has to do with the transferring of words and ideas from one language to another. To understand what various theories underlie our modern translations, you will need to become acquainted with the following technical terms: Original language: The language that one is translating from. In our case this is Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek. Receptor language: The language that one is translating into. In our case this is English. Historical distance: This has to do with the differences that exist between the original language and the receptor language, both in matters of words, grammar, and idioms, as well as in matters of culture and history. Theory of translation: This has to do with the degree to which one is willing to go in order to bridge the gap between the two languages. For


example, should lamp be translated “flashlight” or “torch” in cultures where these serve the purpose a lamp once did? Or should one translate it “lamp” and let the reader bridge the gap for himself or herself? Notice how these three terms apply to the following basic theories of translation: Literal: The attempt to translate by keeping as close as possible to the exact words and phrasing in the original language yet still make sense in the receptor language. A literal translation will keep the historical distance intact at all points. Free: The attempt to translate the ideas from one language to another with less concern about using the exact words of the original. A free translation, sometimes also called a paraphrase, tries to eliminate as much of the historical distance as possible. Dynamic equivalent: The attempt to translate words, idioms, and grammatical constructions of the original language into precise equivalents in the receptor language. Such a translation keeps historical distance on all historical and most factual matters, but “updates” matters of language, grammar, and style. The several translations of the whole Bible that are currently easily accessible might be placed on a historical-distance scale in the somewhat arbitrary way, as shown in the next diagram.


The best translational theory for mixing study and casual reading is dynamic equivalence. A literal translation is often helpful as a second source: it will give you confidence as to what the Greek or Hebrew actually looked like. A free translation is also very helpful to stimulate your thinking about the actual meaning of a text (and the meaning is really what you want). That is why the basic translation for reading and studying should he something like the NIV or TNIV. In response to the question, “Which translation, then, should I read?” Fee and Stuart respond: “We would venture to suggest that the NIV is as good a translation as you will get. The GNB [that is, the TEV] is also especially good. One would do well to have both. The NIV is a committee translation by the best scholarship in the evangelical tradition. The GNB is an outstanding translation by a single scholar, Robert G Bratcher, who regularly consulted with others, and whose expertise in linguistics has brought the concept of dynamic equivalence to translation in a thoroughgoing way.” A committee translation involves a team of translators. The advantage is that a group of translators work simultaneously on the text and


that the work is less influenced by the opinions of an individual. The committee has the added benefit that there may be a difference of opinion and then usually the majority choice will be found in the actual translation whilst the minority choice will be found in the margin. However, even where a single person has completed the translation they have usually had consultants to assist them (as in the case of The Message by Eugene Peterson). Some of the modern translations have their own drawbacks.

• The RSV and the NEB were translated by liberal scholars and thus have a “liberal slant.”

• The Amplified Bible is not strictly a translation per se but a compilation of various individual readings of texts (it is far better to use several translations, note where they differ, and then check out those differences in another source, than to be led to believe that a word can mean one of several things in any given sentence, with the reader left to choose whatever best strikes his or her fancy). That is not to say it is not a helpful resource but it certainly not practical to read.

• The NKJV updates the language of the old rather than actually fully retranslating.

• The NASB Update is one of the better strict word-for-word translations from the Hebrew and Greek and is ideal for detailed Bible study.

• At the other end of the spectrum are free translations aimed at easy reading. The New


Living Translation (NLT) and The Message are good.13

• The NIV falls neatly between the two translation theories and is ideal for both study and reading if you only have one Bible (and most Christians start out with only one translation for practical reasons).

C.4. Exercise

Compare this translation (from The Message) of 1Co 14:34-35 to the TNIV’s translation previously mentioned. What do you notice? “Wives must not disrupt worship, talking when they should be listening, asking questions that could more appropriately be asked of their husbands at home. God’s Book of the law guides our manners and customs here. Wives have no license to use the time of worship for unwarranted speaking.”

D. The Process of Interpretation

D.1. Application of Principles

As with the interpretation of texts in any field, especially of texts from a different age and culture, the true interpretation of biblical texts depends (at least in part) on the careful and consistent application of sound interpretative (hermeneutical) principles. It is with this aspect of the total 13 The Living Bible is not really a translation—it was not translated from the original manuscripts: it is a rephrasing of other English Bibles. The New Living Translation (NLT) is thus a better choice than the Living Bible as the NLT is a real translation.


process of interpretation that we are chiefly concerned in this course. The four principles to be covered in this manual are historical context, plain meaning, literary context and the self-interpretation of Scripture. This aspect of interpretation demands sustained effort and is a skill developed only through experience. Nevertheless, one is equipped immediately to set out on that road by knowing these principles and applying them. Initially their application is conscious and consecutive but it quickly becomes subconscious and simultaneous—just like riding a bicycle. Eventually you do it without any significant effort. Consider 2Ti 2:15: “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.” This teaches us that it is also possible to handle the word of God wrongly—something none of want to do.

D.2. Interpretation of the Spirit

However, as has already been noted, because the Bible is not merely a human text there is more to its interpretation than the application of scientific principles. Two more “spiritual factors” are involved. First, we must ask—and allow—the Holy Spirit to bring revelation and understanding to our finite minds with the infinite truth of the revelation we are reading, as well as to guide our use of the hermeneutical principles and to continuously change and prepare our hearts to receive the truth. Consider:


• “As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you ... his anointing teaches you about all things.” (1Jn 2:27)

• “The Holy Spirit ... will teach you all things.” (Jn 14:26)

• “The Spirit of truth ... will guide you into all truth.” (Jn 16:13).

D.3. Approach of Heart

Second, we must approach Scripture with the right attitude of heart, mind and spirit (that is, one of openness, teachability and submission). “Humanism’s approach” to truth it that we must first completely understand (or be persuaded of something) before we will submit to or obey that thing. But God reverses this process: “If anyone chooses to do God’s will, he will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own.” (Jn 7:17) Only by coming to Scripture with an attitude of submission and obedience (already accepting it as God’s word by faith and being prepared to obey it whatever it says)14 can we hope to “hear God’s voice” in it—that is, both know that it is God speaking and understand what he is saying. The critic or sceptic, indeed anyone not in relationship with God (and so without the illumination of the indwelling Spirit), can neither discern God’s authorship of Scriptures nor understand what he is

14 That is not to say that we don’t use our minds—indeed we do, we love God with our minds by using our minds for his glory. The realm of apologetics shows that it is reasonable to take the step of faith in believing the Bible to be God’s word.


saying in it because they do not approach it with this attitude of submission and obedience.

• “In the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him.” (1Co 1:21)

• “The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.” (1Co 2:14).

Further, as we read Scripture we need to ask the Holy Spirit to continually renew our minds, prepare our hearts and purify our wills so that we will both see and embrace difficult and offensive things that we might otherwise consciously or unconsciously close our eyes to.

D.4. Insights of Others

Drawing on the insights of others is not, strictly speaking, a principle of interpretation so much as making use of others’ application of the principles. However, it is like the other principles in that it is one of the conscious steps that can be taken when trying to determine the meaning of a text. This important component of the overall process of interpretation shall be discussed under in more detail later in the course. (Additional information and charts that will help you are available with the You and Your Bible course and the Bible Survey.) We can thus summarise the process of interpretation with the next diagram.


E. Schools of Interpretation

Christians in various church groups interpret Scripture according to a certain pattern on the basis of a certain approach to (belief about) Scripture because of their theological and ecclesiastical position in Church history. In doing so it may seem that their approach is self-evident, obvious and the only one. There have, however, been various “schools” of interpretation over the centuries and in different places, each one influenced to some extent by the current secular philosophies of their time. We briefly summarise the most important of these.

• The old Midrash, Pesher and other methods of interpretation in inter-testamentary Judaism. (These formed a background to the approach of Jesus and the New Testament writers.)


• The unique approach to the Old Testament adopted by Jesus and, following this, the approach of the New Testament writers.15

• The Antioch school: the historical-literal-grammatical method of the church at Antioch in the early centuries (until A.D. 500).

• The “rival” Alexandrain school: the church at Alexandria in these centuries adopted an allegorical method strongly influenced by Platonic dualistic philosophy (“every real element in the material world had an ideal counterpart in the spiritual world”).

• Medieval exegesis (A.D. 500-1500) developed further supposed “levels” of meaning in the text, all non-literal in nature—somewhat mystical. This period also saw the interpretation of Scripture subjected to the authority of Church tradition and hierarchy.

• The fresh departure of the Reformation and its legacy (A.D. 1500-2000) influenced by the Enlightenment (the application of common-sense reason to texts and an appreciation of their historical origins and setting) but also returning to the tradition of Antioch.

• Various modern approaches that have competed with the Reformers during this period.

Among the modern approaches we find the following:

15 Further discussion on this topic is beyond the scope of this course.


• Excessive historical-critical exegesis (also called “excessive higher criticism”): this takes the Enlightenment’s influences to extremes and is the root of liberal theology.

• Existentialist hermeneutics (sometimes known as the: “new hermeneutic”): the application of existentialist philosophy to the Bible.

• Marxist-Hegelian exegesis, a sociological reading of Scripture informed by the theories of Marx and Hegel.

• Structuralist interpretation, influenced by the philosophy and literary theory of structuralism.

(A full discussion of all these are well beyond the scope of this course—or any other average hermeneutics manual.) We, as so-called “evangelicals,” fall firmly within the historical-literal-grammatical tradition of exegesis adopted by the early church at Antioch and by the Reformers. This method is, we believe, the most sensible. It gives greatest recognition to the nature of scripture as a historical record on the one hand and as an inspired, infallible and authoritative revelation from God to man on the other.


II: Interpretation Part One

A. The Plain, Natural Meaning

A.1. Defining the Plain, Natural Meaning Principle

This principle is also called the principle of simplicity. As already mentioned in the first chapter, we believe that the Creator, God, has chosen to reveal himself and his salvation plan to his creation through the Scriptures. Thus the Bible is the inspired record of God’s revelation of himself and his salvation plan to mankind. Since the purpose of revelation is to be understood it would be self-defeating for God to give us a revelation of himself that we could not understand (or that demanded a super-human intellect to unravel). No, God has revealed himself in order to be known and understood not to create confusion. We therefore adhere to the “principle of simplicity,” meaning that the Bible is a basically simple record of the revelation of God and that it was intended to he understood by ordinary men and women. Bearing in mind that much of the Bible contains sermons preached to ordinary people by ordinary men and women (and these sermons were recorded by scribes) we can ask, “How can ordinary sermons preached to ordinary men and women be designed to be unintelligible?” One of the five major characteristics of the Bible which the Reformers (A.D. 1517-1600) fought for was its clarity, perspicuity or simplicity.


They did not deny the existence of difficult passages in the Bible but did deny that these dominated. They asserted that the main thrust of Scripture is plain and clear to every genuine reader (and therefore that the Bible should be read by all). Because God used human language to reveal himself to man in the Bible it follows that the regular laws that guide and govern human language would remain intact. Thus the usual grammar and all the regular linguistic features should be expected. So far we have very briefly laid two very important foundations. We have defined the principle of simplicity and mentioned the principle of divine revelation in normal human language. Based on these two foundations we can build a definition of the plain, natural meaning: “Unless linguistic features are pointing to a figurative, non-literal interpretation we always take the plain or natural meaning as the true and intended meaning.” Or, even more simply put: “The text means what those words would have meant to their original recipients.” Or, stated differently: “We read the Bible like we would any other historical document.”


At this point it might be helpful to mention that we must keep in mind the difference between interpretation and application. In Jn 9:6-7 the interpretation is clear: Jesus commanded the blind man to go and wash in the pool. However, this does not mean that all blind people should do the same: this would be an unfounded application because Jesus only intended that specific command to that specific blind man. In the same way, Jos 1:3 has often been applied to modern believers without much thought given to proper interpretation. In application we need to be mindful of the difference in contexts between the text and ourselves. This necessitates an understanding of historical context, something we deal with shortly. The principle of simplicity and that of the plain, natural meaning (as well as the context principle) are clearly stated in the following quotation of John Knox (the great Scottish Reformer) during a private debate with Mary the Queen of Scots. The Queen asked John Knox: “Ye interpret the Scriptures in one manner and they [the Church of Rome] in another; whom shall I believe, and who shall judge?” John Knox replied: “Believe God that plainly speaketh in his Word: and further than the Word teacheth you ye shall neither believe the one nor the other. The word of God is plain in itself; and if there appear any obscurity in one place the Holy Ghost, who is


never contrarious to himself, explains the same more clearly in other places.”16 The plain, natural meaning principle was powerfully stated by one of the great Reformers, John Calvin: “Let us know, then, that the true meaning of Scripture is the natural and obvious meaning; and let us embrace and abide by it resolutely. Let us not only neglect as doubtful, but boldly set aside as deadly corruptions, those pretended expositions which lead us away from the natural meaning.”17 Let us now overview some of the approaches to biblical interpretation that John Calvin calls “deadly corruptions” and “pretended expositions” that “lead us away from the natural meaning.”

A.2. Heretical Methods of Interpretation

Also called hermeneutical heresies we now examine methods of interpreting the Bible that lead us into error:

A.2.i The Allegorical Approach The allegorical approach, which originated through the union of Greek philosophy and religion, presumes that the true meaning of Scripture lies beneath the plain, natural meaning. Those who use this method believe that what the words of the

16 The History of the Reformation of the Church of Scotland (John Knox, Book 4, page 314, 1644). 17 Comment on Gal 4:22. William Pringle’s Translation (Calvin Translation Society), page 136, 1854).


Bible literally say are only external “chaff” that hide the true spiritual “wheat” of the Word. Thus any passage with obvious, literal meaning is interpreted using a point-by-point comparison that brings out a hidden, spiritual meaning not evident in the plain language of the passage. This approach violates the principles of simplicity and plain, natural meaning insinuating that what God said in plain language is not really what he meant. It is also dangerous because there are no boundaries to guide its implementation (limitless different allegories can be drawn from any text—how do we know which one is God’s intended revelation to us?) Basically, the interpreter totally disregards or ignores what the original, biblical author intended to say and forces his own interpretation on the text. However, heretical allegorisation must be distinguished from the linguistic feature called allegory (a figure of speech), which is a deliberate figurative expression placed in the text by the author in order to convey his point with greater clarity and impact. This will be dealt with later in the manual. One example of heretical allegorisation is that of Pope Gregory the Great’s interpretation of the book of Job: “The patriarch’s [Job’s] three friends denote the heretics; his seven sons are the twelve apostles; his seven thousand sheep are God’s faithful people and his three thousand hump-backed camels are the depraved Gentiles.”


A.2.ii The Mystical Approach The mystical approach is so closely associated with the allegorical approach that many scholars view them as the same. The mystical approach presumes that hidden beneath the plain-sense meaning of scripture there lies a multiplicity of meanings (going beyond the allegorical approach which presumes only one hidden meaning). So, any text in Scripture with obvious, literal meaning can be interpreted to have any number of spiritual meanings. This approach has often been called ‘spiritualization’. This approach violates the principles of simplicity and the plain and natural meaning even more so than the allegorical approach by accepting almost any interpretation from a text. As such it has even fewer boundaries in guiding its implementation: any reader can apply almost any interpretation to a text and claim it as God’s authoritative revelation leading to any imaginable heresy. This approach makes the Bible a mindless mystery “wrapped in a riddle and lost in a labyrinth.” A common example of this approach is found in Mk 5:13 where Jesus heals the man with leprosy. It has often been preached out of this passage that God not only wants to heal us of physical sicknesses but also of our “spiritual leprosy,” meaning either our sin, our “unrestored soul,” or our internal torment of whatever nature—which of course is true but cannot be validated by the text under discussion!18 One would need to

18 At this point it important to differentiate between hermeneutics and homiletics. Hermeneutics is concerned with defining what the Bible says and what we believe. Homiletics (preaching) is


find other scriptures which deal more directly with the more spiritual aspects of Christ’s healing in our lives to support the above mentioned truth. This kind of spiritualization usually happens when someone approaches Scripture seeking an application before pausing to first find the correct interpretation.

A.2.iii The Devotional Approach Arising again out of an over-anxious zeal for application of the Scriptures in their own life situation, people who adhere to this approach produce faulty interpretations. Those using devotional approach (knowingly or unknowingly) use the Bible as if it was written exclusively for the personal edification of every believer. They often believe that its personalised, hidden meaning can only be revealed by the shining of a great, inner, spiritual light (1Jn 2:20 is used as a foundational text for this approach). People who read the Bible devotionally search beyond the plain, natural and obvious meaning looking for spiritual meaning applicable to their personal life. The downfalls of this approach to interpretation are first, that the interpreter’s motive is often totally selfish and second, that the true interpretation of the plain sense meaning is totally overlooked in order to get to a personal application. Third, the devotional approach also

about taking what we believe and conveying that truth to an audience in a way that they will remember it. Determining whether using texts out of context (for secondary support of a point that can be clearly proved elsewhere in Scripture using accepted principles of interpretation) in preaching is right or wrong is beyond the scope of this manual. The point is that a text may not be used to create doctrine that it is not teaching.


falls prey to excessive allegorisation, spiritualization and typology19. One example of the misinterpretation that this approach leads to is found in Mt 10:9-10, 19 where Jesus sends out his twelve apostles on their first journey. Some well-meaning Christians have interpreted these verses to mean that when we go on evangelistic outreach we shouldn’t take any material provisions. Further, they say we should not make any preparations concerning what to say or preach when we arrive at the destination!

A.2.iv The Rationalistic Approach The rationalistic approach rises strongly out of the modern “schools of higher criticism”20 that undermine the authority of Scripture. This approach presumes that the Bible is not the authoritative, inspired Word, Message and Revelation of God to mankind and thus interprets Scripture as a purely human document in the light of human reason. This results in an instant rejection of all parts of Scripture that do not line up with human reason and logic, especially the supernatural parts (the decision of what is accepted or rejected is left to the logic of each

19 Typology is actually a technical hermeneutical term referring to certain things in the Old Testament being “parallel” or similar to things in the New Testament. For example, some may say that the Old Testament Temple is a type of Jesus (or, perhaps, Church). There are recognised types and antitypes in the realm of hermeneutics and it is generally agreed that one cannot simply “make up one’s own” types and antitypes. The devotional approach is prone to this. 20 Higher criticism is beyond the scope of this manual. Not all so-called higher criticism is a bad thing but it is often used as a tool to undermine the authority of the Bible.


interpreter). It is also commonly called rationalisation, and is the essence of what is sometimes called liberal theology. This interpretative approach exalts the “god of human reason” above the authority of the word of God, setting the interpreter himself up as the standard of all truth (because he decides what to accept and what not to accept as authoritative). Scripture is thus only of value if it confirms his preconceived ideas. This approach to exegesis has very aptly been called “exit-Jesus” because of the conclusions reached by this method. One of the many examples of this hermeneutical heresy is found in Jn 11: Lazarus is said to have been in a coma (the rationalists claim that the doctors of the time couldn’t tell the difference between coma and death) and that he suddenly snapped out of it when Jesus called him forth thus making it seem like the miracle of resurrection!

A.2.v The Excessively-Rigid, Literal Approach This incorrect approach rises out of the misconception that the true, plain and natural meaning of Scripture is always literal. It effectively seeks to exclude as many figurative linguistic features as possible—even some of the very obvious ones. This approach can also be called “literalism.” The weakness of this approach is that it contradicts the natural laws of the languages in which God’s revelation has come to us (Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek). It is important that we understand that God based his revelation to us on the regular laws governing written linguistic


communication and thereby intending that we use the same laws to interpret it. So, the figurative linguistic features of allegory, typology, parable, metaphor etc. will have a place to be expressed and we will find them as we read. In other words, all people use figurative language all the time so it would be unnatural for the Bible to contain no such language—especially since the authors of the Bible did not even know they were writing the Bible, they were just communicating as normal men to other normal men in normal language!21 An example of excessively-rigid literalism is found in Jn 3. Nicodemus couldn’t understand how it was that Jesus could expect him to re-enter his mother’s womb in order to be “born again”! So, how do we discern between the literal and figurative interpretation of Scripture? The basic answer is that we need to look for the plain, natural and obvious meaning and ask ourselves what the author initially intended to say. Common sense will usually guide us. Consider Ps 80:5, “You have fed them with the bread of tears; you have made them drink tears by the bowlful.” In contrast to the “hermeneutical heresies” discussed above, the plain-and-natural meaning principle stands out as the only sound, safe and sensible approach to the interpretation of Scripture. This is the approach we embrace.

21 Using the phrase “all the time” in this sentence illustrates the point. Obviously people don’t use figurative language “all the time” but this hyperbole makes the point clear—people understand what is meant. If you think about how people speak to you over the next few days you will see just how much figurative language we use when communicating with other people.


A.3. Exercises

Are the following interpretations and applications true or false? Why do you say so? 1. In Ge 6-9 the story of Noah and the flood is merely a mythical warning (without any historical truth) that God will judge the sin of man. 2. Ge 19, Mt 10:15 and Mt 11:24 tell us about God’s judgment on Sodom and Gomorrah. It is an example and a warning of how God will judge those who do not repent of their sin. 3. In Lk 19:1-10 the short Zacchaeus represents fallen mankind who cannot “see” the glory of God (Christ). In order to fulfil their spiritual quest, many have “climbed the trees” of various religions and philosophies to find reality. However, when people encounter Christ, he calls them out of all those things (trees) and comes into their “lives” (homes) and brings true joy. 4. Jn 6:53-59 could mean any one of the following:

• Jesus expected his disciples to kill him and become cannibals in order to get eternal life.

• Upon taking communion, the bread and wine undergo a physical metamorphosis and becomes a small part of the body and a little bit of the blood of Jesus. So, we should suck the bread gently, not chew it.

5. Jn 9:6-7: This text could mean any combination of the following:

• Sinners (the spiritually blind) need to hear the word of God (the washing of the water of the Word in Eph 5:26) in order to be saved and have eternal life (spiritual sight).


• Where believers have “blind spots,” it is the word of God that restores sight and “broadens perspective.”

• When our sins are forgiven by being washed in the blood of Jesus our spiritual sight (our ability to see God for who he really is and to distinguish between good and evil) improves.

6. How would you interpret Rev 7:14? (Robes washed in blood will not come out white!)

B. The Historical Background 22

B.1. Defining the Historical Background Principle

Earlier we saw that the Scriptures, like Jesus during his incarnation, have a dual nature being both divine and human at the same time (this is called “the hypostatic union”). Because the word of God is divine it has eternal relevance and is therefore applicable to all mankind in every age and culture and geographic setting. However, because God used “human instruments” to speak and write in human language in their specific historical contexts, each book in the Bible has a historical particularity and is conditioned and influenced by the language and historical circumstances in which it was written. It is crucial for us as interpreters to hold the tension between on the one hand the eternal relevance of Scripture (due to its divine nature) and on the other hand its original meaning and

22 This is sometimes called the “original sense principle.”


historical particularity (due to its human nature). The principle that guides us can be stated as follows: Correct interpretation of any biblical text requires that we first determine what the text meant in its original setting to its original recipients. Only after this primary meaning has been established can we look at developing principles and applications from the text for us today. Stated differently: The permanent and universal message of any text can be understood only in the light of the circumstances in which it was originally given. This means that in order to understand the text accurately, we need to “get into the world of the text,” and recreate for ourselves the same frame of reference that the author and recipients had. In order to do this, we need to focus on the following main things: 1. The Author (Who?)

• Who wrote the book? • What do we know about his life, his relation

with the recipients and his situation at the time of writing?

• What was his station in society or his office in the Church?

2. The Recipients (To Whom?)

• To whom was the book written? • What was their relation to the author?


• What was their situation at the time? • What knowledge or attributes of the

recipients’ problems or situation would the author assume in his writing (without stating them explicitly)?

3. Date (When?)

• When was the book written? • What historical events would the author

assume that the recipients knew about without explicitly having them stated?

4. Setting (Where?)

• Geographical location could have a great influence on a book since it determines the cultural, philosophical and religious setting into which the author spoke and wrote.

5. Purpose (Why?)

• Knowing the author’s intent generally helps us to unlock all the major themes of a book. Narrative books covering the same historical period can have very different emphasis due to the differing purposes of the authors. Consider Kings and Chronicles (or the Four Gospels): they cover the same general period of history but emphasise different things to make a particular point.

B.2. Invisible Historical Factors

Beyond the above-mentioned basic historical background questions, there are three more issues, questions and principles that need to be kept in mind.


The invisible historical factors are important in understanding the full historical background but the problem is that they are generally left unmentioned in biblical texts because the author assumes that the recipients already have the specific frame of reference. (Remember: the authors did not know their writings would go into a Bible that would be read thousands of years later.) A brief overview of each principle follows:

B.2.i The Covenantal Principle 23 A covenant is a binding agreement between two parties with mutual obligations and the Bible is a “covenantal book,” because God has always related to man according to set covenants and agreements. In these divine covenants (between God and man and not man and man) God took the initiative to approach man with a set agreement with which they could relate (for example, the law of Moses). Man could choose either to accept or reject God’s “proposal” (commands) but could never change it. These covenants are found throughout Scripture and are the basic backdrop of the entire biblical text. Thus the definition of the covenantal principle: The interpretation of a text is determined by a consideration of its covenantal setting. To be aware of this principle will help the interpreter a great deal and, the fuller one’s understanding of the major divine covenants in Scripture is, the easier it will be to deal with the many texts that assume a specific covenantal understanding of the recipients.

23 Recommended reading: The Covenants, Kevin Conner and Ken Malmin.


Neither space nor time allow for even a brief overview of each divine covenant but simply by naming some of them a grid will already begin to form in the student’s mind. Because the authors of Scripture assume an understanding of covenants in the recipients they don’t always clearly name each covenant but we can discern covenants when covenantal language and principles are used. Of all the covenants, the major divine covenants found in Scripture are generally considered to be the following:

• The Everlasting Covenant (Heb 13:20-21)24; • The Edenic Covenant (Ge 1:26-30); • The Adamic Covenant (Ge 3:1-24); • The Noahic Covenant (Ge 8-9); • The Abrahamic Covenant (Ge 12, 15, 17, 22); • The Mosaic (Old) Covenant (Ex 20 - 40); • The Palestinian Covenant (Dt 27-30); • The Davidic Covenant (2Sa 7:4-29; Ps 89);

and • The New Covenant (Mt 26:26-29, Heb 8-9,

Jer 31:31-34). The interpreter also needs to understand that each of these covenants can placed into one of two categories:

• Some are unconditional covenants where God says, “I will .…” Thus God commits to fulfil his promise regardless of man’s contribution of lack thereof.

24 The other covenants are sometimes seen as a progressive expression (or unfolding) of the everlasting covenant.


• Some are conditional covenants where God says, “If ... then .…” Thus God only obligates himself to fulfil his promises as long as man remains obedient to the conditions set forth by him in the covenant.

Understanding the covenantal principle will help us to understand vast portions of Scripture much better (one could consider the Old Testament prophets as “God’s lawyers suing Israel and Judah for breach of the conditions of the mosaic covenant” and warning them that God will fulfil his promise stated in the covenant to punish them.) Consider these examples:

• Ro 16:20 (Adamic covenant: Ge 3:15); • Gal 3.29 (Abrahamic covenant: Ge 12, 15,

17, 22); • Gal 4:10 (Mosaic covenant: Lev 23, 25); • Jer 25:11 (Palestinian covenant: Dt 29:1-29);

and • Jer 31.31 (New Covenant: Mt 26:28).

B.2.ii The Breach Principle The breach principle, very closely associated with the covenantal principle, is applicable whenever a conditional divine covenant has been violated (breached) by man causing God to either break (breach) or delay (temporarily breach) his promise and obligations to the covenant. Examples of this in Scripture are not hard to find:

• The generation of Israel that never entered the Promised Land. In Ex 3:15-17 God


makes it clear to Moses that he wanted to take the people into Canaan (the Promised Land: Ge 15:13-21, 22:16-18, 28:13-15). However, upon arrival at the border of the land, the people rebelled because of unbelief and refused to enter into the land as God had commanded (Nu 13-14). Thus the people rejected the covenantal promise of God causing judgment as well as a temporal breach (or “delay” of 40 years) of the fulfilment of God’s covenantal promise.

• God promised that, upon entering the Promised Land, Israel would enjoy dominion over their enemies (Dt 28:14, 30:10-20). However, this was a conditional promise dependent on Israel’s obedience. Thus we find that from the time of the conquest under Joshua right through the period of the Judges until the reign of Solomon (when the promise of dominion in the land was fulfilled) there are seven breaches of this promise due to the sin of the people. Each time as the people rebel in their sin they are subjected to servitude by their enemies and, as they repent, God brings deliverance and begins to give them dominion according to his promise until they sin again and the cycle is repeated.

• The conditional promise that Israel would remain in the land and have it as an eternal possession (Ge 17:8, 48:4) was broken for about 70 years when God sent them into exile due to their rebellion and breach of covenant (Dt 27-30).


B.2.iii The Ethnic Principle The ethnic principle arises out of the question of who the recipients were. The Bible makes a clear distinction between three ethnic groups, namely, Jews, Gentiles and the Church (see, for example, 1Co 10:32). God relates differently to all three groups because of the different covenants that he made available to each. Now, during the Divided Kingdom Period the Jewish nation was divided into two (the northern part of Israel called “Israel” and the southern part of Israel called “Judah”) thus at this point one could say that there were four main ethnic groups. This is helpful to keep in mind, especially when reading the prophets, since some prophets prophesy to the Northern Kingdom (Israel), some to the Southern Kingdom (Judah) and yet others to Gentile nations. God related to the Jews upon the basis of the Abrahamic25, Mosaic, Palestinian and Davidic covenants until, through faith in Christ, they become participants of the New Covenant. The Gentiles could join the Jews in the various Old Testament covenants upon an initiation rite (such as circumcision) but through faith in Christ both Jews and Gentiles are united as one new spiritual ethnic group, the Church. The ethnic principle then is interpreting a text with consideration of the ethnic group of the recipients and the covenants that they were subject to.

25 Sometimes also called the Abrahamitic covenant.


B.3. Exercises

1. Examine Jer 25:11. Consider the covenantal factors that are involved here. 2. What do you notice about Dt 32:30 and Lev 26:8? 3. How does what you have learned change the way you understand the book of Hebrews? 4. Read 1Jn 4:2-3. Does this mean that we should ask any given spirit in manifestation whether Jesus was incarnated, and if it says “No” then we know that it’s a demon?


III: Interpretation Part Two

A. Self-Interpretation of Scripture

A.1. Defining the Principle of Self-Interpretation

As we saw in the earlier chapters, the Bible, like Jesus during his incarnation, have a dual nature being both divine and human at the same time (hypostatic union). The divine aspect of the Bible is derived from the fact that all of Scripture from beginning to end is inspired and directed by the Holy Spirit and communicates the thoughts of God to man without error. Because God personally inspired the whole Bible, and since God is not confused and would therefore never contradict himself, it follows naturally that different parts of the Bible cannot contradict each other. This is called the principle of harmony. Positively stated we say that “because the whole Bible is inspired by God, the different parts, when put together, form one harmonious whole.” When certain texts seem to contradict each other at a distant glance a closer study will generally reveal that in reality they actually compliment, balance or build on each other. An example of this is the so-called “gospel of grace” that Paul explains in the book of Galatians versus the so-called “gospel of works” found in the epistle


of James.26 An objective study clarifies the confusion: Paul addressed believers who were unnecessarily subjecting themselves to the Old Testament law, therefore he stresses that we are justified, we find grace by faith in Christ alone, not by works done under the Law. James, on the other hand, was writing to believers who were lax in their discipline of their sinful natures and were unconcerned about obvious sin in their lives, therefore he stresses that our lives should display the salvation which we have received by good works (boldness and fruitfulness). In short, Paul is writing into a legalistic context and stresses grace, while James writes into a licentious context and stresses holiness. Stated differently, Paul emphasises that our works do not earn us salvation and James emphasises that if we have been truly saved we should live it out. (Paul says “not salvation by works” while James says “salvation that works”). So, both Paul and James, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, each highlight a different aspect of our salvation which, when brought together, gives us a clear and balanced picture of God’s truth (thus demonstrating the principle of harmony). Based on this principle of harmony, we can now define the principle of self-interpretation as follows:

26 Due to the apparent contradiction between these two epistles, and his own revelation of faith and grace, Martin Luther believed that the inclusion of James in the New Testament canon was a mistake. However, we shall see how this apparent problem is easily solved when studied more fully.


Let Scripture interpret scripture.27 Or, Let the whole Bible interpret parts of the Bible. Or, expanded further, If the meaning of a text seems obscure or difficult to accept then research what the rest of the Bible has to say on that topic and interpret the first text in the light of the whole Bible. Also remember, The total truth about a matter is gained only from reading all the texts that deal with that matter.28 Three applications result:

• The whole clarifies the part; • The plain clarifies the obscure; and • The new clarifies the old. (Revelation is

progressive and accumulative so God’s total perspective—the ideal position—is revealed in the New Testament not the Old).

One example of the principle of self-interpretation follows. In Dt 24:1-4 the Law states that a man may divorce his wife if she becomes displeasing to

27 Remember, Scripture (capital S) generally means the whole Bible while scripture (small S) generally means a portion of the Bible, such as a verse. 28 This is “easier said than done” as the Bible is not a technical reference manual and should not be used as such.


him.29 Does this mean that God doesn’t mind divorce? Certainly not. In Mt 5:31-32 and Mt 19:1-9 Jesus shares more of the heart of God with us about marriage and divorce (progressive revelation).30 In the light of these texts it becomes clear that God only tolerated divorce under the Old Covenant because of the hardness of man’s heart but that his original and ultimate intent is that man and woman should unite through marriage, never to be separated. (This, again, illustrates how the total truth about a matter is gained only from reading all the texts that deal with that matter).

A.2. The Value of Topical Study

Because of the principle of self-interpretation there is great value in gathering all the texts that relate to one topic together in order to see what God’s complete, expressed view on the topic is. This is called a topical study. Here is the process of a topical study: 1. Select the topic (or word) that you desire to study. (Let us use “light” as an example.) 2. List the topic, as well as any synonyms or related words to the topic you chose (such as “brightness,” “shine,” “splendour” and “radiance.”) 3. List all the scripture references that contain the topic or related words. (To do this use an

29 Actually, the point of the text is that a man can’t remarry someone who he divorced if she has married some other man. But the wording seems to endorse divorce when it actually is clarifying remarriage. It says, “When a man …,” not “A man may ….” 30 This problem can also be resolved with the principle of harmony. See Mal 2:16.


exhaustive concordance or computer search engine.31) 4. Read each verse listed in its historical and literary context. (Reading it out of context can result in serious error.) 5. Group texts together that seem to follow similar themes or subtopics (“light and holiness,” “light and salvation” and, say, “light and truth.”) 6. Summarise what Scripture has to say on the chosen topic and its sub-topics in your own words. 7. Embrace the truths learned and store the study away to use as source material for a possible future teaching. Having done a complete topical study we now have much of what God wants us to know on that particular topic—we have the revelation of God on that matter. Based on this revelation God can illumine and re-illumine repeatedly to greater and greater heights of personal comprehension.

A.3. Exercises

1. Read 1Sa 15:1-3. This text seems to teach that God doesn’t mind war and people killing each other. Is this true? 2. Read Ge 13:2. “God wants all his people to be rich.” True or false? Why? 3. Consider: how does God want single guys to go about getting married? Do we use the passive approach of Ge 24 (Isaac did nothing to find Rebekah—she was brought to him) or the aggressive approach of Jdg 21:20-23 (Benjamites 31 Bear in mind that some themes are found in stories that do not necessarily use the word you are searching for. A concordance cannot be a substitute for regular Bible reading.


carried away the dancing girls kicking and screaming to be their wives). As a topical study consider the question, “How do I find a wife or husband?” 4. Does Mt 21:22 teach, “name it and claim it,” “blab it and grab it” and “confess it and possess it.” Does this mean that whatever we ask for will be given to us?

B. Literary Context

B.1. Defining the Principle of Literary Context 32

When we defined the historical background principle we said that because God used human beings to record his revelation to man each book in the Bible has its own historical particularity. Having established this we need to understand that each book was written to convey the heart of the author (and of God) to the recipients, thus each word was carefully chosen, each sentence meticulously constructed and each passage purposefully planned in order to fulfil the author’s purpose for writing the book. Hence we arrive at the definition of the principle of literary context. Any text (or part thereof) finds its true and intended meaning by a consideration of the surrounding text. So, to find the intended meaning of a word we look at the sentence in which it is found. To find the intended meaning of a sentence, we look at the passage in which it is

32 Also called the scriptural content principle.


found. To find the intended meaning of a passage, we look at the whole book for context. And finally, to contextualise the book, we return to the historical background principle. This observation of context is crucially important for sound interpretation, both negatively and positively:

• Negatively, it prevents us from ripping a text out of its context and so misinterpreting it.

• Positively, where the meaning of a text is unclear, this can normally be clarified by observing its context.

A common example of a text taken out of its literary context and thus misinterpreted is found in 1Sa 21:18, “… for the king’s business requires haste.” This has often been interpreted and applied to mean that we must carry a sense of urgency in matters relating to the kingdom of God. However, the passage before this phrase makes it clear that David was actually lying to the priest while fleeing from Saul. Another famous example of a text (in fact, an entire passage) taken out of its context and made to mean something totally different to what was originally intended, is Joel 2:1-11. This famous text about “the army of God” is actually describing the army of locusts that was about to descend upon the crops of Israel as a form of judgement from God as a result of Israel’s disobedience—the literary context makes this clear (Joel 1:1-20).


B.2. The Value of Textual Study

Keeping in mind that the English Bibles which we use today are translations of the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts, and that especially the Greek language of the New Testament is, at times, much richer and more expressive than English, it is often worth the effort to dig beneath the surface of our present-day English translations to access the original languages. This would be called a textual study. In embarking on a textual study there are two areas that could be looked at:

• the richer meanings of the Greek or Hebrew words that are not translated in our Bibles;

• the grammatical construction of a sentence, especially the original tenses that often cannot be sensibly translated into a single English sentence, but often clarifies the author’s intended meaning.

The process of a textual study follows: 1. Select your text. 2. Underline all the key words. 3. Look up the Greek or Hebrew dictionary definitions of the underlined words using either the Strong’s concordance, the Vine’s Expository Dictionary or some other reliable and respected resource. 4. Rewrite the text, filling in with each underlined word, the full original language meaning of the word.


5. Check the grammatical construction of the original language, especially the tense using a Hebrew or Greek Key Study Bible). Having completed our textual study, we have now captured the original thoughts of the author with very little room for “corruption through translations.” Often, using a number of different translations achieves the same goal with less effort.

B.3. Exercises

1. What does Dt 32:30 mean to us today? 2. What does Lev 26:8 mean to us today? 3. Read Ro 11:26. Does this mean that all Jews will go to heaven despite rejecting Jesus? 4. Read 1Jn 3:8. Does this mean that we all belong to the devil? 5. Consider Gal 5:12. Did Paul want people who agitated others (“agitators”) to emasculate themselves? 6. Examine 2Co 10:3-5. Does the text teach praying against demons floating in some spiritual realm or does it teach apostolic ministry as effective and powerful? Consider the context and find what the author was actually saying.

C. Comments on Theological Tools

C.1. Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance

This is the most widely used concordance, mainly because of it’s numbering system linked to Hebrew and Greek dictionaries at the back of the volume. These dictionaries are quite descriptive.


Most Bible commentaries use this number system in their exegeses. It has drawbacks: It is based on the old KJV text so you will have to get a KJV Bible. The print is not good in the older and cheaper versions. This has been improved in the New Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance and is very friendly to the eyes though the print is still very small. Make sure you ask for the exhaustive version of Strong’s as the concise version does not have the number system or the Hebrew and Greek dictionaries.

C.2. Young’s Analytical Concordance of the Bible

This is the other classic concordance, corrected and updated. It’s layout differs from the Strong’s in having the English words split up into the Hebrew and Greek meanings so that you don’t have to go to the back of the volume to find out the Greek or Hebrew word. Unfortunately it is also based on the KJV. The updated version is now cross-referenced to the Strong’s numbering system. Remember that you have to make sure that you have the correct spelling of the Hebrew or Greek word before you can look it up at the back to find the Strong’s number.

C.3. The NIV Exhaustive Concordance

This is the first exhaustive concordance using the NIV text with it’s own numbering system but also converting it into the Strong’s number system at the back. It also gives different English words for the Hebrew or Greek words catalogued in the number system at the back of the volume. The


description of the Hebrew and Greek words is not as enlightening as the Strong’s and the system at the back is somewhat difficult to use and could put people off.

C.4. Vine’s Complete Expository of OT/NT Words

This dictionary is divided into two sections and the Old Testament section is not as in-depth as the New Testament part, which is set out alphabetically in English. As an example, the word “love” will have the different Greek words and meanings underneath it. This too is linked to the Strong’s number system. There is a cheaper version out called the Vine’s Expository Dictionary without the Strong’s system.

C.5. The Hebrew/Greek Key Study Bible

This study Bible is available in the KJV, NASB and NIV versions. It is an excellent aid in studying the “original meaning” of the text. It has major words underlined in the text with the Strong’s number next to it so that you can look it up at the back in the Hebrew or Greek dictionaries and then expand on that by then referring to the lexicon that is also there. Unfortunately it puts across very strongly a dispensational theology (the spiritual gifts are not for today). But as long as you understand what the author’s stance is you can gain much from it. It is also expensive. A significant drawback of this Bible is that not every word that you are necessarily looking for is underlined—which means that sometimes you will still need to revert back to the Strong’s Concordance Dictionary.


C.6. The Amplified Bible

The Amplified Bible inserts the “fuller meaning of Hebrew and Greek words” in the text of the Bible in brackets and parenthesis. This helps one to understand the fuller meaning of texts without going through the laborious process of looking up numbers and words. However, not every word has been amplified—only the pre-selected themes and words of the authors’ choice have been expanded. However, especially when reading the epistles, the inserted meanings can be extremely enlightening.

C.7. Bible Dictionaries

Bible Dictionaries (such as Smith’s Bible Dictionary) help a lot in providing us with clear, comprehensive rundowns of Bible topics covering people, places, idols, plants and trees, animals, instruments, culture, doctrine and so on. This is a valuable tool for any serious Bible student.

C.8. Computer Bible Software

There are many computer software packages available that can be of great help and save hours of searching through books with just a few clicks of a mouse. Many of them are free. Like all resources, however, you need to remember that not everything you read is truth. Many resources contain the authors’ opinions. By using many resources you are able to check the conclusions you are reaching and find more information to fill in the historical gaps that we all face.


IV: Literary Styles

A. Wisdom Literature

Hebrew wisdom is a category of literature that is unfamiliar to most modern Christians. The Old Testament books that are most generally tagged “wisdom” are Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs. It is worth being reminded that a wise, Hebrew person was highly practical, not merely theoretical: a wise person’s life is characterised by the right choices that have helped produce the desired results in life (Jas 3:13-18).

A.1. The Nature of Wisdom

Wisdom, as the Bible defines it, has nothing to do with I.Q.—it is not a matter of cleverness or skill in expression or advancement in age. “Biblical wisdom is a matter of orientation to God out of which comes the ability to please him.”33 The imparting of wisdom in the Bible is mostly in the form of poetry and makes use of most of the literary devices found in “normal” poetic writing of the Old Testament. Key to the Old Testament wisdom writings is the explicit emphasis on the LORD as the origin of wisdom (see, for example, Pr 2:5-6) and the purpose of wisdom being to please God (Pr 3:7). Remember, however, that a skill at wisdom does not guarantee that it will be properly used: Solomon’s great wisdom could not keep him from turning away from the Lord.

33 Fee and Stuart.


As mentioned, Ecclesiastes, Job and Proverbs are generally regarded as the wisdom books of Scripture. Job and Ecclesiastes are easily separated from Proverbs in that there is a single (unique) overall theme to each book. Proverbs on the other hand is a collection of practical attitudes or values and requires more hermeneutical attention.

A.2. Principles for Interpreting Wisdom Literature

A.2.i Ecclesiastes and Job These books are similar in that the bulk of both books contain advice, at times artful and brilliant, that contradict the teaching of the whole of Scripture. Their structures are very different but each demands understanding before correct exegesis can begin. In Ecclesiastes the “Teacher” presents a monologue teaching what we would best understand today to be “modern existentialism” until the final few verses. It is at the end of much “meaninglessness” that the “meaning” of the author is revealed: “Fear God and keep his commandments….” (Ecc 12:13-14). To stop one verse short of chapter 12 verse 13 would he to miss the meaning of Ecclesiastes altogether. Ecclesiastes nicely demonstrates the hermeneutical principle of reading through the entire book in one sitting prior to beginning a meaningful exegesis. The book of Job on the other hand is a combination of dialogues and monologues and is highly structured. However, it is only near the end


of the book that the truth is revealed, as God himself dialogues with Job. Up to this point, various logical, human solutions and arguments are offered for the situation in which Job finds himself. Stopping short of reading the whole book results in stopping short of God revealing “his answer” to the problem at hand. Studying only the sayings of Job’s friends results in error: part of the point of the book is that these arguments are wrong (see Job 42:7).

A.2.ii Proverbs The book of Proverbs contains prudential wisdom, that is, rules and regulations people can use to help themselves make responsible, successful choices in life. In contrast to Ecclesiastes, which uses speculative cynicism, and Job, which uses speculative wisdom about the fairness of life in this world, proverbial wisdom concentrates mostly on practical attitudes. “What Proverbs does say is that, all things being equal, there are basic attitudes and patterns of behaviour that will help a person grow into responsible adulthood.”34 These attitudes or values are conveyed in a brief, particular expression of the truth. The more brief a statement is the less likely it is to be totally precise and universally applicable (unlike a modern legal document). However, proverbs are phrased in a catchy way so as to be learnable by anyone. (Reading in Hebrew would obviously reveal the fullness of rhythm, rhyme, sound repetition and other grammar and vocabulary richness. These are things that aid memorisation of the proverbs.)

34 See Fee and Stuart, Reading the Bible for all its Worth.


Below are some guidelines for understanding proverbial wisdom.

• Proverbs are not legal guarantees from God. Proverbs state a wise way to approach selected practical goals but do so in terms that cannot be treated like a divine warranty of success. For example, Pr 16:3 is not a categorical, always applicable, ironclad promise that the desires of our selfish hearts, when committed to God, will materialise. It is a more general truth teaching that lives committed to God and lived according to his will succeed according to God’s definition of success.

• Proverbs must be read as a collection and in the context of the rest of Scripture. Each proverb must be balanced with the others and understood in comparison with the rest of Scripture—this is especially true when considering Proverbs’ practical concern for material things and the world.

• Proverbs are worded to be memorable not to be theoretically accurate apart from the rest of the Bible. The choice of words and images contained in the book of Proverbs makes it what it is: knowledge that can be retained as opposed to philosophy that will impress a critic. Consider the contemporary idiom “Look before you leap!” We are not told where or how to look, what to look for or how soon to leap after looking! In fact, the advice almost never concerns the act of jumping and leaping. Likewise, Pr 15:19 does not describe the plants to be found growing along certain


lazy peoples’ favourite routes, but points to the principle that diligence is better than sloth.

• Some proverbs need to be completely re-translated into contemporary language to be appreciated. A number of proverbs are bound by the cultural and historical particularity in which Proverbs was written. For example, Pr 25:24 “… live on a corner of the roof …“ might best be translated, “… live in the garage ….”

B. Poetry

B.1. The Nature of Poetry

Much Hebrew literature, inside and outside of the Bible, is written in poetry. Generally, poetry, in contrast to prose, could be described as elevated language expressing elevated ideas, rich in imagery and other devices which heighten meaning, and, possessing a rhythm unknown to prose, adds to the impression on the listener (or reader). The Hebrew language lends itself especially to poetic expression: it has inherent emotional and evocative qualities and communicates abstract ideas in concrete, sensuous images. Add to that the fact that biblical Hebrew poetry is the communication of great and difficult-to-grasp truths and we have a particularly powerful literary genre, free from any artificialities of language or thought. Most biblical Hebrew poetry was originally composed, and delivered, orally. It is thus not surprising that it more often resembles oratory


than modern, written poetry. Like oratory, it employs, amongst other devices, reiteration and rhythm, these combining to make the communication doubly impressing and memorable. (Compare Ps 96:1-2, 7-8 and 11- 13 with Churchill’s “We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets ….”) When reading the Bible it is helpful to remember that Hebrew poetry in the Bible is obviously not confined to the five books that make up the Old Testament poetry division.

B.2. A Note on Parallelism

The most notable feature of Hebrew poetry is parallelism, the structure whereby every stanza or unit of poetry consists of two parallel parts or lines. Every thought is expressed in two parts, the second line repeating (Ps 15:1) or contrasting (Ps 1:6) or heightening (Ps 1:2) or illustrating (Ps 1:1-2 and 4-5) the first line so as to heighten meaning and impact. This allows time for a thought to penetrate and have an effect on the reader or listener before moving on to the next thought. This is clearly important in oral poetry where the listener only hears every line once and does not have the luxury of reading and rereading it on the printed page. The second line acts as an echo of the first, allowing the thought to linger a little before the next thought is introduced. Further, parallelism gives opportunity to present more than one facet of a matter: the second line can complement and enrich the meaning of the first by adding subtle nuances or a different emphasis.


Parallelism causes Hebrew poetry to lose less power and beauty in translation than the poetry of other languages. It is often based on imagery and repetition that can easily survive translation and not on complex metre or special vocabulary or rhymes that don’t survive translation. While the latter exist in Hebrew poetry they are secondary.

B.3. Principles for Interpreting Poetry

Parallelism can be identified in almost any passage of Hebrew poetry. The poetical sections of the Bible thus need almost always to be read with parallelism in mind. We thus need to remember the following:

B.3.i Don’t Extract a Truth from Each Line The poet is simply saying the same thing he said in the previous line—but in a different way. Don’t try to get a new truth from every line of the text.

B.3.ii Do Not Allegorise Seek the one central truth or thought being conveyed in that unit rather than trying to invest each element in the poetry with a meaning.

B.3.iii Be Aware of Compound Parallelism Different types of parallelism may be operating simultaneously (see, for example, Ps 1) although each unit still conveys only one thought.

C. Prophetic Literature

Prophetic literature is undoubtedly the most complex material in the whole Bible when it comes to interpretation. In particular, some of the prophetic books are apocalyptic (that is, they


speak of current and future events in fantasy-like language—it is a style of writing that has not been in use for hundreds of years resulting in it being a more difficult style of writing to interpret by modern readers). Apocalyptic works in the Bible include parts of Daniel and Revelation, of which the interpretations will continue to be hotly debated by top theologians (as they have been for centuries).35 This is not to say that we as novice interpreters cannot derive helpful interpretations from this material but it does act as a caution against being too dogmatic and definitive about our conclusions. The hermeneutical difficulties presented in the prophetic books must lead us to tentative and provisional interpretations since differing interpretations and applications can, from an objective point of view, seem equally correct.

C.1. The Nature of Prophetic Literature

In order to begin to understand prophecy, we need to have a basic background understanding of who the prophets were, how they operated and what their mandate was. The following is a very brief background, simply to contextualise the prophets and aid in interpretation—it is by no means exhaustive. The birth of the prophetic office in Israel came about at Mount Sinai, shortly after the Exodus from Egypt. The Israelites encamped at the mountain to meet with God, but when God spoke to them they were terrified and asked Moses to be

35 The primary interpretations of Daniel and Revelation, based on their historical contexts, are not as much of an issue: these are fairly clear within academic circles. The primary arguments are over application and relevance for today.


the go-between between them and God (Ex 20:18-19). So, the Israelites unwittingly brought the prophetic office into being and later ended up persecuting the very men that they had asked God for. This also brings us to a basic definition of what a prophet of God is: a prophet of God is someone who speaks on God’s behalf, he is a preacher of God’s message (that is, his word). A false prophet is naturally someone who claims to speak on God’s behalf but actually does not. Aaron is even called Moses’ prophet since he spoke on Moses’ behalf due to Moses’ speech impediment and insecurity (Ex 4:10-17, 7:1). The function of prophets in the Old Testament was to speak the heart and mind of God to the kings, rulers and people of Israel—encouraging, directing and unfortunately, often rebuking them for breach of covenant. The rebukes of the prophets were generally directed at three sins:

• idolatry (breaking the ceremonial laws and turning away from true worship God);

• injustice (breaking the civil laws); and • immorality (breaking the moral laws).

C.2. Principles for Interpreting Prophetic Literature

First, from the above, it is clear that the historical context principle as well as the plain meaning principle of interpretation needs to be applied to interpret the primary meaning of prophetic literature before we seek deeper and more complex messianic or predictive interpretations (secondary meanings). We need to remember the historical particularity of the prophet’s life and


remember that he had a very specific primary function—to speak God’s word to his generation. From a closer study of the prophets we will realise that much more of prophecy is simply “forth telling” (speaking God’s now-word to God’s people, that is, preaching real and relevant messages from God and about God) as opposed to foretelling (speaking about future events). Second, we also find a clear trend in biblical history that the prophets seem to preach mostly around crisis points in Israel (for example, at the exile and at the return from exile). So, to gain a fuller understanding of their sermons and messages recorded in the Bible we need to read the historical books of the Bible (as well as other historical sources) that cover the crisis periods in which they prophesied. So, to understand the book of Jeremiah we need to understand who he was preaching to and in what context he was speaking. This is found toward the ends of the books like Kings and Chronicles. In these crisis contexts we see God’s grace, warning his people of impending judgement (in order to avert it through repentance) or encouraging them during difficult times (for example, the period of the rebuilding of the Temple after the return from exile). Another trend in biblical prophecy is that there seems to be a greater amount of foretelling (predictive prophecy) towards the end of the Old Testament era. This is because the prophets begin to look forward to the New Testament era which was ushered in by the arrival of Messiah. Third, in approaching prophetic literature and seeking accurate interpretation, we need to keep


in mind that the prophets mainly focus on the following major historical events (past and future) and issues:

• Their own lifetime; • The first exile; • The second exile; • The first return from exile; • The second return from exile; • The first coming of Christ; • The second coming of Christ; • The gentiles (non-Jewish nations); • “End times” (eschatology); and • The kingdom of God.

In order to accurately interpret prophecy we need to continually ask ourselves which period or event the prophet is referring to, keeping in mind that sometimes various events may overlap with others. This overlapping brings us to one of the most important features of biblical prophecy. Fourth, prophetic double (or multiple) reference is a feature of biblical prophecy where one prophecy may refer to two or more subjects, events or time periods at once or shortly after each other. In the diagram at the end of this section you can see this pictorially. The line is the prophet’s “sight” (what he preached about). The message of the time is relevant for the day in which it was preached but speaks of the Cross, the Church and the Kingdom all at once. In hindsight we are able to see all of this. A good example is the servant songs of Isaiah. Other examples of prophetic multiple-reference include:


• Isaiah’s fiancé’s future pregnancy and Mary

the Mother of Jesus (Isa 7:14); • Isaiah’s prophetic anointing and Jesus’

anointing and the Church’s anointing (Is 61:1-3, Lk 4:18-19);

• The future king of Israel and Jesus’ kingship (Mic 5:1-5);

• The Day of Pentecost and the Church age (Joel 2:28-32); and

• The glory of the rebuilt temple and the glory of the Church (the New Testament temple) (Hag 2:6-9, 2Co 3:7-18).

Though prophetic literature is complex we can comfort ourselves with the knowledge that because we live in an age when many of the prophecies (especially of Christ) have already been fulfilled we understand more than even the prophets themselves understood at the time when they prophesied (see Da 12:8-9 and 1Pe 1:10-12).


D. The Epistles

D.1. Occasional Nature

The Epistles are not homogeneous: there is a difference between Romans and Philemon for example, not only in purpose (the one is more personal than the other) but also in content. There are, however, definite similarities: first, they are all from the first century, and second, in structure, almost all the epistles have a basic outline36:

• The name of writer (for example, Paul); • The name of recipient (for example, the

church of God in Corinth); • The greeting (for example, grace and peace

to you from God our Father); • The prayer or thanksgiving (for example, I

always thank God for you); • The body; and • The final greeting and farewell (for example,

the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you).

There is a further characteristic that is crucial and dominant in reading and interpreting the Epistles: they are all occasional documents (that is, they arise out of, and are intended for, a specific occasion or situation). The occasional nature could, simply speaking, be called “the purpose of the book (letter).” However, the occasional nature 36 Loosely speaking, an epistle is an “open” letter (to a particular person or group) and the epistles of the New Testament have a similar style to the other epistles of their day.


of the Epistles influences the correct interpretation the Epistles far more than, for example, the purposes of King Solomon influence the interpretation of Proverbs. The occasional nature means that they were occasioned (needed to be written) by some special circumstance, either from the readers’ side or from the author’s. Almost all of the New Testament letters were occasioned from the readers’ side (Philemon and perhaps James and Romans are exceptions). Usually the occasion was some kind of behaviour that needed correcting, a doctrinal error that needed setting right, a misunderstanding that needed further light or a questioner seeking a perspective on an issue not experienced before. It is this very nature that creates most of our problems in interpreting the Epistles: we have the answers but we don’t have the questions or even know if there was a question. It is like listening to one side of a telephone conversation (the “problem-solvers” side) and trying to piece together the other speaker’s words and questions. Without the latter it may be difficult to know to what question our passage is an answer. The occasional nature of the Epistles also means that they are not theological treatises: they are not formal literary compositions dealing with technical, theological issues in their entirety (that is, when writing, the apostles were not always trying to summarise a particular theological issue—they were solving a problem and made reference to theology to solve the issue). There is theology implied, but it is what Fee and Stuart call “task theology”: theology written to address the


task at hand. Even the book of Romans, valued as the most systematic (and complete) presentation of Paul’s theology is only some of his theology and arose out of his task as an apostle to the Gentiles. We will go to the Epistles again and again for our theology but must always keep in mind that their origin was not to expound Christian theology but was always theology at the service of a particular need.

D.2. Context Peculiar to the Epistles

D.2.i Rule 1: Use Common Sense Generally, we apply common sense to decide what content of the Epistles must be left in the first century and what must be applied to our lives today. For example, none of us have contemplated flying to Troas to attempt to locate Paul’s cloak with the goal of transporting it from Carpus’s house to his Roman prison (2Ti 4:13). Yet most of us embrace enduring hardship like a good soldier of Christ (2Ti 2:3). But what of 1Ti 5:23’s “use a little wine for your stomach” or 1Co 11:14-15 (on men having short hair and on women having long hair)? What about the treatment of 1Cor 14? Why embrace verses 1-5, 26-33, and 39-40, but leave 33b-35 in the first century? It is obvious that these questions are beyond the realm of baseline common-sense and require further “rules” to increase our consistency in our interpretation of the Epistles.


D.2.ii Rule 2: Check the Original Understanding A text cannot mean what it never meant to its original author or reader. Earlier we dealt with historical background and the need to uncover what the text originally meant to the original readers and hearers. This principle is reinforced here by the rule that “a text cannot mean what it never could have meant to its original author or his readers” (exegesis, the discovery of the original meaning, must always precede application). This rule is especially applicable to the Epistles in their role as one of the primary sources of New Covenant doctrine of the Church. This rule, in itself, doesn’t always reveal what the text means but it does help to set limits on what the text doesn’t mean. For example, 1Co 13:10 is often interpreted as justification for disregarding the instructions about seeking spiritual gifts (1Co 14). The word “perfection” in the text is interpreted to have come in the form of the New Testament Scriptures and therefore the imperfect (prophecy and tongues) have ceased to exist. These interpreters say that since the “complete Bible as we have it today with Old and New Testaments” has come the “perfect” has come, therefore there is no more tongues or prophecy etc.. This is one meaning that this text cannot possibly mean. Paul, let alone his readers, did not know there was going to be a New Testament added to their Bibles and Paul would not have written something totally incomprehensible to them.


D.2.iii Rule 3: Examine Comparable Particulars Comparable particulars mean equal application in the first or twenty-first centuries. Whenever we share comparable particulars (that is, when we have specific life situations in common) with the first century setting then God’s word to us is his word to them. It is still true that “all have sinned” and that “by grace we are saved through faith.” The obvious caution here is that we do our exegesis well and that we are able to be confident that our situation is genuinely comparable to theirs. For example, let’s take 1Co 6:1-11 regarding lawsuits between believers. Both parties are believers, the judge is ungodly and, historical study tells us that the hearing was in the open marketplace in Corinth. Does the situation change if the judge is a Christian and sits in a courthouse? What of a Christian suing a company in present-day South Africa? Here the particulars are not the same (although verse 7, paraphrasing Jesus’ non-retaliation ethic, should be considered). This situation raises the issue of extended application, discussed below.

D.3. Four Areas Requiring Specific Attention

D.3.i Extended Application By this we mean, “Is it taught elsewhere?” Consider this question: When there are comparable particulars and contexts in today’s Church, is it legitimate to extend the application of the original text to our


context (or even to contexts totally foreign to its first-century setting)? For example, 1Co 3:16-17 addresses the local church and presents the principle that what God has set aside for himself by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is sacred and whoever destroys that will come under God’s awful judgement. Can this then be applied to the individual Christian who abuses their body (for example, a smoker) that God will judge them in the same way? A principle derived by extended application can only be legitimate when it is true: it must be clearly stated in another passage where it is the intent of the passage. If that is the case then the question must be asked, “Is what we learn only by extended application truly the word of God?” Traditionally, what is understood by 2Co 6:14: “Do not be yoked together with unbelievers”? Is marriage mentioned in the verse, paragraph or passage? Is “yoke” used regularly to refer to marriage? Why then marriage? Is there not more reason to believe that Paul is reminding them of his advice not to attend the idol feasts (1Co 10:14-22)? (Fortunately, there is enough teaching throughout the breadth of Scripture to sustain the principle that a believer should not marry an unbeliever.)37

37 As discussed earlier, just because within the realm of exegesis we do not use this text to prove that believers should not marry unbelievers, this does not mean a preacher may or may not use the text as such. This issue falls into the realm of homiletics.


D.3.ii Particulars That are Not Comparable By this we mean, “What is the principle?” There are two possible scenarios that fall into this category:

• First-century issues that are without twenty-first-century counterparts; and

• Those texts that deal with problems that could possibly happen but are highly unlikely to do so.

What should we do with these texts? Are they of any relevance to us if we are never going to find ourselves in a comparable situation? The treatment of such texts requires, once again, sound exegesis—but with the view of deriving a principle from the original setting. Of vital importance is the application of that principle: it cannot be applied free of the original context but must only be applied to genuinely comparable situations (consider 1Co 8:11: it doesn’t merely mean “offend” but rather “destroys”).

D.3.iii The Problem of Cultural Relativity This is the question: “Is the principle significant, consistent and inherent?” This is the source of most present day difficulties and is where the complexity of God’s eternal word having been given in historical particularity comes most sharply into focus. Most of us, when reading the Scriptures, translate what we read into new settings without specific guidelines. The result is that the same believer who advocates that “a little wine for your stomach’s sake” should be left in the “culture of the first century” winces when the gay


activist relegates “homophobia” to a first century phenomena not appropriate to the twenty-first. As the first-century culture cannot be labelled divine the problem of cultural relativity needs to be addressed. Principles must be consistently applied to distinguish between items that are culturally relative and those that are not—and therefore transcend their original setting and serve as normative for Christians of all time. The following are among guidelines suggested by Fee and Stuart:

• Distinguish between the central core of the message of the Bible and what is dependant upon, or peripheral to, it. In other words, “Major on the majors and minor on the minors.”

• Distinguish between what the New Testament itself sees as inherently moral and what it does not. The former are absolute and abide for every culture while the latter will be cultural expressions that may change from culture to culture. An example is Paul’s “sin lists” (1Co 6:9-10) compared to foot-washing (Jn 13:2-5).

• Distinguish between what the New Testament treats consistently and where there are “conflicting” treatments of the same subject (because of different situations). Is “love as the basic ethical response” versus “the role of women in the Church” an example?

• Distinguish between a principle and a specific application within the New Testament. What is the principle behind Paul’s instruction that women should cover their heads?


Where the result is a major (or core) message, where it is treated with consistency and where it is inherent to the New Testament we can safely say that we have derived a principle or instruction that transcends culture.

D.3.iv The Problem of Task Theology In other words, “Ask their questions.” The fact that most of the theology in the Epistles is not systematically presented does not mean that the theology derived from statements throughout the breadth of all the Epistles cannot be systematically presented. Conversely, we as believers should constantly, after sound exegesis, be forming or refining our theology in a systematic way. Below are two guidelines in dealing with the task of theology:

• We must acknowledge the limitations sometimes imposed by the occasional nature of the Epistles. Often where a secondary or parallel issue is raised to substantiate or to contrast a point the former is not dealt with comprehensively—and beyond what is stated is, for us, mere speculation. Consider 1Co 6:2-3’s “Christians will someday judge angels.” In Scripture, God has given us all we need to know—not necessarily all we want to know (Dt 29:29).

• Ensure that we are not asking our question of the texts that, by their occasional nature, are answering only their questions. An example is asking Scripture to speak directly to the issue of abortion (our question). This is an important social issue now but not an issue of the first century (unlike, for example,


adultery). The only solution is to bring a biblical world view to the problem.

It is worth restating that all believers should be constantly seeking to refine their theology as well as their development of a biblical worldview. This is achieved through the reading of the Word, the application of sound and consistent hermeneutics and the implementation of the truths into their daily lives. Caution must he given not to over-focus on the Epistles—“all of Scripture is God-breathed”—but at the same time to acknowledge their role as the primary source of doctrine in certain areas, inter alia, the Church and the family.

E. Biblical Narratives

E.1. The Nature of Narratives

Biblical historical narratives are stories that are true, crucially important, often complex and have as their chief aim the glory of God. They show God at work, helping us to understand and appreciate him as well as giving us a picture of his faithfulness and consistency in his desire to provide, protect and to purify his people. All narratives have a plot and characters and, in effect, are being told on three levels:

• the individual narrative (bottom level) is told within;

• the major narrative of Israel’s history (Old Testament);

• in the world (middle level) which is in turn part of


• the ultimate narrative of God’s creation and redemptive plan (top level—which transcends the covenants and testaments). You cannot do justice to an individual narrative without placing it in the context of the other two.

The awareness of this hierarchy should be helpful in applying Old Testament narratives to our lives. When Jesus taught that the Scriptures “… bear witness to my name” (Jn 5:27-29) he was surely referring to the ultimate narrative and not the individual narratives (implying that David’s adultery with Bathsheba bears witness to his name)!

E.2. Old Testament Narratives

The following points are important when interpreting Old Testament narratives:

• Old Testament narratives are not stories about heroic individuals but are, first and foremost, historical accounts of one “hero”—God—and he is the leading character in all narratives.

• They are also not allegories or stories filled with hidden meanings that when discovered provide the source for new revelation or doctrine that is not clearly taught elsewhere in Scripture.

• Old Testament narratives don’t usually teach directly but rather demonstrate the outworking of truths taught clearly elsewhere in Scripture.

• Narratives record what happened not what should have happened so don’t always conclude whether what has been recorded


was morally good or bad—this must be weighed up against the whole of Scripture.

• All narratives are selective and incomplete but what does appear is what the inspired author thought important for us to know (to make some main points).

Our task is to learn God’s word from the narratives and not to try and do everything that was done in the Bible. No Bible narrative was written with you in mind: the Joseph narrative is about Joseph and how God interacted through him. We can learn a great deal from the Joseph account but we are not required to duplicate his lifestyle.

F. Narratives and Biblical Precedents

Whilst the points listed above are true for all narratives, specific attention must be given to those of the New Testament, especially when dealing with the book of Acts. The reason is that most of us do not read Acts the same way as we do Judges: few of us have searched the Old Testament narratives for patterns of church life or Christian behaviour yet most of us read the New Testament narratives looking for such patterns or precedents. The hermeneutical problem of biblical precedent is this: do biblical narratives that describe what happened in the early church also function as norms, intending to teach what must happen in the contemporary church? Is our response to the book of Acts “We must do this,” or “We may do this”? The basic rule here is that unless Scripture explicitly tells us we must do something, what is only narrated or described does not function in a normative way—unless it


can be demonstrated on other grounds that the author intended for it to function in a normative way. It is important to understand the positioning of narrative with regard to doctrine. Generally, there are three categories into which we divide doctrinal statements:

• Christian theology (what we believe); • Christian ethics (how we ought to behave);

and • Christian experience and practice (what we

do).

Within these categories there are two levels of statement, the primary and the secondary. The primary are explicit imperatives (commands) and principles whilst the secondary level is derived by implication (implicit) or precedent. Consider this example: Category Primary Level Secondary Level Theology Prayer How, where, when? Ethics Course speech What constitutes? Practice Assemble together How often, where?

Almost everything derived by way of biblical precedent is in the third category (at the second level). Christians should assemble together (primary). The frequency or day of the week is secondary. The temptation is to elevate narrative to the first level of the first category but for the reasons stated below, this must be resisted. The following principles are helpful in dealing with the hermeneutics of biblical precedent:


• Never use an analogy based on biblical precedent to give sole biblical authority for present-day actions. For example, Gideon’s fleece is used as an analogy for finding God’s will: God graciously condescension to Gideon’s lack of trust does not provide authority or encouragement for us to repeat his actions.

• A biblical precedent justifying present day theology is only acceptable if the action is explicitly taught elsewhere in Scripture where the primary intent was to teach that principle. For example, present day speaking in tongues is based not only on narratives in Acts but also on the explicit teachings in 1Co 12-14.

• Biblical precedents may sometimes be regarded as repeatable patterns and practices—even if they are not understood to be normative. That is, we may be fully justified in repeating early church practices but it is pointless to argue that every church in every setting must repeat the pattern. An example is the role of home groups in present-day churches. Why must all who see our local church as “home,” be integrated into a home group?

• Where the Bible sets a clear pattern and example it should be followed even if there is no clear command to do so. (If we don’t follow the pattern of Scripture then we can get to a point where “anything goes except clear instructions against immorality.”) A discussion of the issue of Kingdom cultures and how they influence us (despite a lack of


clear, verbally-explicit commands to develop a “Kingdom culture” in the Bible) is beyond the scope of this introductory course.

Biblical narrative is an earthly account of the dramatic intervention of God in human history which graphically reveals his character to man. Narrative is a wonderful compliment to the explicit teaching of biblical principles, enabling us to see these principles outworked in practice.

G. The Gospels

G.1. The Nature of the Gospels

It is of importance to note that the Gospels surround one character, Jesus Christ, and to contextualise the Gospel teachings fully it is of necessity to have a thorough understanding of the social setting and people of his time—and, more specifically, his relationship with the different groups (the Sadducees, Samaritans etc.). The form of Jesus’ teaching is as important. Most of us are aware that he was a master of purposeful overstatement (see Mt 5:29-30—this is known as hyperbole) and can probably easily recognise his use thereof. But what of our ability to identify—let alone, “correctly handle”—things like proverbs (Mt 6:21), similes and metaphors (Mt 10:16), poetry (Mt 7:6-8), questions (Mt 17:25), parables (Mt 15:15) and irony (Mt 16:2-3)? The fact that there are three very similar Gospels plus a fourth does have hermeneutical implications. We need to remember to think


“horizontally” when reading the Gospels, that is, look to the parallel accounts in the other Gospels. We don’t do this to “fill in the gaps”—this would elevate the canonical authority of one of the Gospels above the others. Rather, we think horizontally for increased harmony. We should also examine each gospel apart from the others to find the main points emphasised by the author. It is beyond the objective of this course to deal extensively with the nature of the Gospels and therefore we confine the remainder of this section on the Gospels to those genres that by their nature tend to be either inconsistently treated or worse still, misinterpreted.

G.2. The Nature of Parables

Although we cover parables here, under the Gospels, this form of writing is also found elsewhere in Scripture. The nature of a parable is similar to that of a joke in that both call for a response from the listener and, in addition, the listener gets “caught” by the punch line (unexpected turn of events). If the listener doesn’t understand the terms of reference (consider an American hearing “Van der Merwe went to a braai and was watching the Currie Cup when …“) he’s not going to understand the joke. And, having been explained the terms of reference, he might still find the joke amusing, but the “punch” has been lost. Because of this we need to learn to recapture the punch of the parables. It is important to remember that a parable is not an allegory. A true allegory is a story in which each element in the story means something quite foreign to the story itself. (For example, if Lk 7:40-


42 was an allegory there would be special meaning to the five hundred denarii, the fifty denarii, as well as the other details in the story—each thing in the story would represent some other thing in real life.) More importantly, because each of the elements of an allegory have meaning, the result of an allegory is several principles taught through one story. This is not the case with a parable. In a parable the points of reference are exactly that: parts of the story that serve to draw the hearer into, or help the hearer to identify with, some aspect of the story. A parable almost always has a single point, and that is to be found in the intended response (to the punch line) by the listener.

G.3. Principles for Interpreting Parables

It is this nature (of having a single point) of parables that demands the need to interpret (as opposed to taking them “literally”). We lack the immediate points of reference that the original hearers had. The hermeneutics recommended are:

G.3.i What was Originally Understood? What did the original listeners understand by the points of reference? A thorough understanding of the biblical context is essential to fully appreciate the truth of a parable. Without an understanding of the points of reference we will never fully understand the “punch” making the parable of little worth.


G.3.ii What is the Main Point? What is the point, and how is it relevant to me? Having discovered the point (meaning) of the parable we need to translate that same point into our own context.

G.3.iii Examine the Required Response Note the urgency of response Jesus sought in his use of parables. When applying parables to our own contexts we must not lose the urgency of the message that the Kingdom has come and is soon to be consummated. “The hour of fulfilment has come; that is the keynote of them all [Biblical parables]. The strong man is disarmed, the powers of evil have to yield, the physician has come to the sick, the lepers are cleansed, the heavy burden of guilt is removed, the lost sheep is brought home, the door of the Father’s house is opened, the poor and the beggars are summoned to the banquet, a master whose kindness is undeserved pays wages in full, a great joy fills all hearts, God’s acceptable year has come. For there has appeared the one whose veiled majesty shines through every word and every parable—the Saviour.” Joachim Jeremais38

38 Jeremais J, Rediscovering the Parables, 1966.


POSSIBLE ANSWERS Chapter II A.3.1 The context suggests that the author of

the book did not consider the Noah story mythical. (Also, history shows there was probably large flood of some sort in the area a few thousand years ago.) As such, while it may serve as a warning, it does have a historical foundation (myth has no historical foundation).

A.3.2 Again, it does have a historical foundation—but it is also a warning. Consider 1Co 10:11.

A.3.3 No, the Zacchaeus story is narrative and is thus historical. The original author did not intend for it to be used allegorically.

A.3.4 No, Jn 6:53-59 uses a figure of speech (John, the author, clearly likes them as he uses figures of speech often).

A.3.5 No, the text is historical and shows the power of Christ to heal.

A.3.6 The context suggests a figurative or symbolic interpretation. “Blood” is consistently used for “death” so the context suggests that the Old Testament picture of the “144,000” (who are the same people as the New Testament picture of the “great multitude”—all believers) are made righteous by Christ’s work on the cross.

B.3.1 The primary factor here is that Israel has breached (broken) “their side” of their covenant with God. God is fulfilling his


promise to deal with them as their sins deserve. Consider Leviticus 25 and 26.

B.3.2 Dt 32:30 is, in context, using a figure of speech to show how severely Israel will be punished for their sins. It is therefore not to be used to create doctrine about how powerful Christians can be together. Lev 26:8 uses a different figure of speech to show the favour of God in Israel’s battles. It is not teaching ratios of productivity. While one can argue that the basic principles of team apply, this is not a proof text.

B.3.3 Hebrews is a book that is written to people who knew the Old Testament very well. To interpret the book you need to know what was in their minds: the basic outline of Israel’s history and the covenants they had with God.

B.3.4 The apostle’s main point is that any teaching that says that Jesus did not come in the flesh is wrong. His main point is what we are to embrace—taking his language to an literal extreme out of context results in error. When he says, “spirit” he doesn’t mean, “demon inside someone.”

Chapter III A.3.1 This verse must be interpreted in the

context of Israel’s history. Also, God “meets people where they are at.” God has an ideal (as seen in the pictures of heaven), but there is the real (where we


are now, in the so-called real world). Many things that are not part of God’s ideal must happen on earth. In short, it is not endorsing war in general (especially not for the Church, in the sense of Church wars, since the New Testament teaches that we are not fighting for physical land). But the Bible doesn’t say that it is wrong to defend your country with an army if necessary. (This issue is covered in detail in other books and cannot be covered in detail here.)

A.3.2 God prospered Abraham. While Abraham was a model for us in terms of faith, that doesn’t mean every aspect of his life is to be imitated. If we use the text to claim we should be rich then we also need to live a nomadic life like he did (and live where he did, and have as many wives as he did …)! The historical records of great men in the Bible do not set a normative example for us.

A.3.3 As above, history is not normative. We look to the instructions of Jesus and his apostles for how to find a wife. (A number of sermons on how to choose a marriage partner are available from Glenridge.)

A.3.4 The verse must be interpreted in the context of the whole Bible. For example, we are to live like Jesus lived and he would not have asked for constant luxurious and pleasurable living. As such we can’t ask for that (not in faith).


B.3.1 It shows us God is sovereign over history (he decides what nations do what). God does not compromise his nature out of mere compassion.

B.3.2 We can learn that God honours his covenant and word.

B.3.3 No—the context teaches the opposite. The word “Israel” is used in the Bible to mean various things, such as, “God’s people,” “the nation of Israel,” “the land of Israel,” “God’s true people,” as so on. As such the full number of true believers in God, those who trust him for salvation (by trusting in God’s only way of salvation, Jesus) will be saved.

B.3.4 The apostle John’s style of writing needs to be considered. He is highlighting the contrast between those who sin (habitually) and those who do not.

B.3.5 Paul is using a figure of speech to drive home his point: their demand that Christians must be circumcised for salvation is outrageous.

B.3.6 The context supports the view that apostolic ministry is effective.


THE FINAL CHECKLIST Plain Meaning: Consider style. What is the obvious meaning of the text? Historical Background: Who wrote? Why written? Who read? Where written? Where read? What did they know that we don’t know? What was their culture like? Self Interpretation: What does the rest of Scripture say? Literary Context: Consider the meaning of the word, sentence, passage and book within its corresponding context of sentence, passage, book and Bible? Read whole books of the Bible in one sitting.39 Literary Style: Consider:

• Poetry : What’s the mood? • Prophecy : Think past and present and then

future. • Wisdom : Remember attitudes not

guarantees. • Epistles : Considering their context how do

they transcend time? • Narratives : Remember the principle of self-

interpretation, is the event explicitly taught elsewhere as normative?

• Gospels : What’s the point? Consider each gospel individually and also think horizontally.

39 This is often more easily done by using a Bible on CD.