Category Archives: Hermeneutics

19 Rules of Interpretation

Posted on by
2

Text: 2 Timothy 2:15 “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.”

We actually dishonor the Holy Spirit when we are lazy in interpreting the Bible. Here are 19 rules of interpretation, that when implemented, show Him honor.

The testimony of Jesus and of the Bible is that “All Scripture is God breathed” (2 Tim. 3:16). Therefore, when we open up a page in our Bibles, we are treading upon holy ground. The Bible, although a book, is also unlike any other book. It is not simply a book giving facts about God. The Bible is a book written by God. Certainly, human writers were involved, but the text of Scripture is inspired or breathed out by God Himself.

Just having this concept in place would greatly help us in our Bible studies. What do I mean by that? Well, many people view the interpretation of God’s Word as “no big deal” really. To them it is nothing more important than the reading of any other book, at least in their methodology.

The Jews would wash their hands before touching the sacred scrolls, because these scrolls were seen as Divinely inspired. Though we do not need to become superstitious about the physical book called the Bible, so as to wash our hands before picking up or opening the book, the text of the Scripture is the very word of God Himself. We should approach the Word of God humbly, and with the utmost reverence and respect.

And that leads us to talk about how we interpret the Bible. When we recognize that we are handling the very truth of God, we should not be quick to come to conclusions about what it means. That is because if the Bible is God’s holy word, we should seek to gain the correct meaning before we attempt to speak for God.

I can’t think of a more holy assignment that to be called to preach or teach the Word of God to the souls of men. I feel the weight and privilege of this calling immensely. Scripture in fact tells us “Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness.” (James 3:1)

It is actually a scary business, and it is meant to be. Therefore, before someone stands in a pulpit to preach or teach the Word of God, he needs to make sure he has interpreted the text correctly. The preacher’s job is not to merely entertain the crowd or to tell a few stories that will connect with people. Don’t misunderstand me, God gives no prizes to boring preachers who can’t connect with people! But we must always remember that the goal of preaching is the honor and glory of God in accurately proclaiming the word of truth. It is a serious and holy thing to be responsible to proclaim God’s truth and it should never be done lightly, whether heard by thousands, or simply by one precious human soul.

But what is true for the preacher is also true for every Christian. When we sit down and start reading the Bible for ourselves we need to remember that though there may be a thousand applications of Scripture, there is only ONE correct interpretation – the one the Holy Spirit meant when He inspired the sacred words of the Bible. We should be prepared to do some serious study to seek to understand what the Holy Spirit was and is communicating to us.

I agree wholeheartedly with Dr. James White when he writes,
“Remember when you were in school and you had to take a test on a book you were assigned to read? You studied and invested time in learning the background of the author, the context in which he lived and wrote, his purposes in writing, his audience, and the specifics of the text. You did not simply come to class, pop open the book, read a few sentences, and say, “Well, I feel the author here means this.” Yet, for some odd reason, this attitude is prevalent in Christian circles. Whether that feeling results in an interpretation that has anything at all to do with what the original author intended to convey is really not considered an important aspect. Everyone, seemingly, has the right to express their “feelings” about what they “think” the Bible is saying, as if those thoughts actually reflect what God inspired in His Word. While we would never let anyone get away with treating our personal writings in this manner, we seem to think God is not bothered, and what is worse, that our conclusions are somehow authoritative in their representation of His Word.”

To some people it would seem to be “un-spiritual” to invest time in studying the historical backgrounds, the context of a text or passage in Scripture, or the original language… no, many today want to “feel” something about a passage… or better still, just want the Holy Spirit to whisper His interpretation in their ears supernaturally. This tends to become highly subjective… and the hard labor of study of the Scriptures is thrown out of the window. Every impression, vision, prophecy, needs to be subject to Scripture, and we are not permitted to subject the Word of God to our impressions or feelings about it.

It is fine to play marbles with marbles, but not with diamonds. Handling the word of God is a priceless duty and delight, not a trivial passion or pursuit.

We would never consider someone qualified to practice as a medical physician after reading just one paper containing a dozen or so rules on being a good doctor. Though knowing these rules would be helpful, I’m sure we would agree that there’s far more that is needed. Certainly, before a Medical Board would certify a person as competent to practice medicine they would need to know far more than a few rules for good health. In the same way, there’s so much more that could and should be said about how to study the Bible.

Yet, with this qualifier, here are some simple rules of interpretation (hermeneutics) which should at least get us started. May God use these brief words to encourage you as you search out the truths of God’s word, for His glory:

1. Consider the Author – who wrote the book? (what was his background, language, culture, vocation, concerns, education, circumstance, what stage of life?)

2. Consider the Audience (why was the book written? who was the audience? what would these words have meant to its original recipients?)

3. The Meaning of Words (this has become a lot easier in our day with all the information and technology at our disposal. The computer program Bibleworks is especially recommended).

(Your baby is very cute) – the word “cute” has undergone a vast change in meaning in recent decades. A hundred years or so ago, the word “cute” meant “bow legged.” If a doctor told you that your baby is “very cute” it was not good news at all. Perhaps it might even mean extensive surgery was needed on the baby’s legs!

Today, it means no such thing! It is a compliment – meaning “attractive in a pretty or endearing way.” Synonyms: endearing, adorable, lovable, sweet, lovely, appealing, engaging, delightful, dear, darling, winning, winsome, attractive, pretty.

4. Historical Setting (avoid anachronism – trying to understand the past while viewing it wearing 21st century glasses – will not help toward understanding the original meaning of the author). Continue reading →

The New Interprets the Old

Posted on by
Reply

John Fonville:

In his famous statement, “The New is in the Old concealed; the Old is in the New revealed,” Saint Augustine expressed the priority of the New Testament over the Old Testament- the New Testament explains the Old Testament.

My seminary denied this key hermeneutical principle. For example, it is claimed that to make “the New Testament the final authority on the Old Testament denies the perspicuity (“clarity”) of the Old Testament as a perfect revelation in itself.”

This is an incredible (not in the good sense) statement that simply fails to properly recognize the nature of the progressive unfolding story (revelation) of the Old Testament. The Old Testament itself witnesses to the fact that it is a story that doesn’t stand on its own-that it is incomplete and begs for fulfillment. Old Testament scholar, Graeme Goldsworthy (not loved by my seminary), observes that it is impossible from the Old Testament alone to understand the full meaning of God’s acts and promises that it records.

Jesus says that He gives the Old Testament its meaning. Thus, Jesus Himself affirms that we need the Old Testament to understand what He says about Himself. And Jesus drives us back to the Old Testament to read and understand it through “Christian eyes.” He teaches us that the Old Testament leads us to Him (John 5:39, 46).

Thus, Goldsworthy notes that in seeking to understand the Scriptures, we do not start at Genesis 1 and work our way forward until we discover where the story is leading. Instead, we start with Christ-the gospel-and He directs us to read and understand the Old Testament in light of the gospel.

The gospel interprets the Old Testament by showing us its meaning and goal. The Old Testament increases our understanding of the gospel by showing us what Christ fulfills for us.

Perhaps Saint Augustine was right after all?

The Letter Kills But The Spirit Gives Life

Posted on by
Reply

Charles Hodge on 2 Corinthians 3:6:

An Exposition of the Second Epistle to the Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, n.d., 56-58 (Language modernized by Nate Milne where necessary).

For the letter (i.e., the law) kills, but the spirit (i.e., the gospel) gives life. This is the reason why God has made Paul the minister of the Spirit. “God had made us able minsters not of the law but of the gospel, for the law kills, but the gospel gives life.” This passage and the following context present two important questions. First, “In what sense does the law kill?” And second, “How is it that the apostle attributes to the Mosaic system this purely legal character, when he elsewhere so plainly teaches that the gospel was witnessed or taught both in the law and the prophets?”

As to the former of these questions, the answer furnished by the Scriptures is plain. The law demands perfect obedience. It says, “Do this and live” (Rom. 10:5; Gal. 3:12), and “Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things written in the book of the law to do them” (Gal. 3:10). As no man renders this perfect obedience, the law condemns him. It pronounces on him the sentence of death. This is one way in which it kills.

In the second place, it produces the knowledge or consciousness of sin, and of course of guilt, that is, of just exposure to the wrath of God. Thus again it slays. And thirdly, by presenting the perfect standard of duty, which cannot be seen without awakening the sense of obligation to be conformed to it, while it imparts no disposition or power to obey, it exasperates the soul and thus again it brings forth fruit unto death. All these effects of the law are systematically presented by the apostle in Romans 6 & 7, and Galatians 3.

The second question is more difficult. Every reader of the New Testament must be struck with the fact that the apostle often speaks of the Mosaic law as he does of the moral law considered as a covenant of works; this is, presenting the promise of life on the condition of perfect obedience. He represents it saying, “Do this and live;” as requiring works, and not faith, as the condition of acceptance (Rom. 10:5-10; Gal. 3:10-12). He calls it a ministration of death and condemnation. He denies that it can give life (Gal. 3:21). He tells those who are of the law (that is, Judaizers) that they had fallen from grace; that is, had renounced the gratuitous method of salvation, and that Christ should profit them nothing (Gal. 5:2, 4).

In short, when he uses the word law, and says that by the law is the knowledge of sin, that it can only condemn, that by its works no flesh can be justified, he includes the Mosaic law; and in the epistle to the Galatians all these things are said with special reference to the law of Moses.

On the other hand, however, he teaches that the plan of salvation has been the same from the beginning; that Christ was the propitiation for the sins committed under the old covenant; that men were saved then as now by faith in Christ; that this mode of salvation was revealed to Abraham and understood by him, and taught by Moses and the prophets. This view is presented repeatedly in Paul’s epistles, and is argued out in due form in Rom. 3:21-31; Rom. 4; & Gal. 3.

To reconcile these apparently conflicting representations it must be remembered that the Mosaic economy was designed to accomplish different objects, and is therefore presented in Scripture under different aspects. What, therefore, is true of it under one aspect, is not true under another.

1. The law of Moses was, in the first place, a re-enactment of the covenant of works. A covenant is simply a promise suspended upon a condition. The covenant of works, therefore, is nothing more than the promise of life suspended on the condition of perfect obedience. The phrase is used as a concise and convenient expression of the eternal principles of justice on which God deals with rational creatures, and which underlie all dispensations, the Adamic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Christian. Our Lord said to the lawyer who asked what he should do to inherit eternal life, “‘What is written in the law? What do you read?’ And he, answering, said, ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.’ And he said unto him, ‘You have answered rightly, do this and you shall live’” (Luke 10:26-28). This is the covenant of works. It is an immutable principle that where there is no sin there is no condemnation, and where there is sin there is death. This is all that those who reject the gospel have to fall back upon. It is this principle which is rendered so prominent in the Mosaic economy as to give it is character of law. Viewed under this aspect is is the ministration of condemnation and death.

2. The Mosaic economy was also a national covenant; that is, it presented national promises on the condition of national obedience. Under this aspect also it was purely legal.

3. But, as the gospel contains a renewed revelation of the law, so the law of Moses contained a revelation of the gospel. It presented in its priesthood and sacrifices, as types of the office and work of Christ, the gratuitous method of salvation through a Redeemer. This necessarily supposes that faith and not works was the condition of salvation. It was those who trusted, not those free from sin, who were saved. Thus Moses wrote of Christ (John 5:46); and thus the law and the prophets witnessed of a righteousness of faith (Rom. 3:21). When therefore the apostle spoke of the old covenant under its legal aspect, and especially when speaking to those who rejected the gospel and clung to the law of Moses as law, then he says, it kills, or is the ministration of condemnation. But when viewing it, and especially when speaking of those who viewed it as setting forth the great doctrine of redemption through the blood of Christ, the represented it as teaching his own doctrine.

The law, in every form, moral or Mosaic, natural or revealed, kills. In demanding works as the condition of salvation, it must condemn all sinners. But the gospel, whether as revealed in the promise to Adam after his fall, or in the promise to Abraham, or in the writings of Moses, or in its full clearness in the New Testament, gives life. As the old covenant revealed both the law and the gospel, it either killed or gave life, according to the light in which it was viewed. And therefore Paul sometimes says it does the one, and sometimes the other.

But the spirit gives life. The spirit, or the gospel, gives life in a sense correlating to that in which the letter (i.e., the law) kills.

1. By revealing a righteousness adequate to our justification, and thus delivering us from the sentence of death.

2. By producing the assurance of God’s love and the hope of his glory in the place of a dread of his wrath.

3. By becoming, through the agency of the Holy Spirit, an inward principle or power transforming us into the image of God; instead of a mere outward command.