Bible
Study
Chapter
1 On Holy Scripture, section 9: The Formal Sufficiency of Scripture
Section 1.6 of the
The Bible is not some “mysterious” book that is written in such a manner that only those who “read between the lines” or have a “spiritual understanding” can understand. Rather, the Bible was written with ordinary literary devices and grammar so that it could be understood. The Bible was intended to be understood. Otherwise, it would not be “revelation” from God!
How have Christians in the past interpreted the written Word of God? How should we interpret the Word of God? Is there an ultimate standard that one needs to know for certain that an interpretation or understanding of Scripture is correct? These questions will be dealt with in the following study in the Westminster Confession of Faith.
I.
Proposed
Methods of Interpretation
We begin with proposed
Hermeneutical methods of the past. The
word “hermeneutics” comes from the Greek mythological character “Hermes” who
made known the will of the gods to mortals.
Hence, the science of hermeneutic is that method that makes known to us
the meaning of a text. Early
Christianity knew two schools of thought in hermeneutics: the Alexandrian School, which proposed the allegorical method, and the
Of these, the Allegorical method was probably the most popular. An allegory is a literary device that makes use of characters, places, etc…within a story to symbolize some sort of higher or general truth. A modern work that is a good example of an allegory would be John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress. A sample allegorical interpretation of the story of the Good Samaritan would sound something like this:
The traveler represents us on the road of life. Along the way we are beaten down and robbed by Satan, sin and its guilt (the robbers). The priest represents the law which offers us no help in our plight. The Levite represents the sacrificial system which also offers us no help. Good Samaritan represents Christ who has compassion on us. The innkeeper is God the Father and the two denari given to Him are the righteousness of Christ and the atonement for sins, etc….
One can see the appeal such a method. For those who employed such a method, they believed it elevated their minds to a higher plane of thought. Sometimes this methods is warranted in Scripture, as with the parable of the Sower, but other times it is not and one can quickly finding themselves asking, “how far should one go with allegorical interpretation?” For instance, in the story of the Good Samaritan, what does the animal represent that the beaten traveler was placed on? What does it mean that the traveler’s clothes was “stripped”. What does it mean that he was “half-dead”? What is the “bandage” that was placed on him? The oil? The wine? What is the inn? This obviously becomes very tedious, and with no real guide. Essentially, the allegorical method of interpretation can make any text say just about anything one wants it to say with no real basis in the text.
Furthermore, this method of interpretation is not concerned with the historicity of the events being interpreted in the text. For example, in the creation account, the allegorical meaning could simply be that we all originated from God. That understanding is what really matters and is not based on the real existence of Adam and Eve at all. In fact, according to such a method, it makes no difference whether or not the events in the text happened or not; what matters is the higher truth taught by it. The problem of course, is that when this is really pressed, how can you have a higher truth or an application for yourself, if it makes no difference whether Christ really existed or really did die on the Cross? That is, what good is it to talk about the “higher truth” that we are accepted before God if there is no real basis that such an event happened?
The other school of thought was diametrically opposed to the allegorical interpretive method. This view was the “literal sense” view. This method concerned itself with the literal meaning of the text and took into account things like grammar and the historical context. For instance, in interpreting the story of the Good Samaritan, the “literalist” would recognize that the story is in fact a story used by Jesus to convey one message. The Priest and Levite are intended to be understood as fellow countrymen of the traveler who do not offer to help their fellow countryman. The Samaritan is understood as an apparent enemy of the traveler who did help. The story is used by Christ to answer the question, “who is my neighbor?” The story conveys that any person who crosses our path is our neighbor. This is evidently clear from the words of Christ in Luke 10:36-37.
The strength of this method is that it took into account the context in which the words were spoken and it viewed the content of the text as historical. However, when the historical context of the text was taken to an extreme, the Scriptures were left with saying nothing to us and only speaking about what happened in the past.
Later methods by Christians, particular in the medieval age included an appeal to an outside source. The rediscovery of the works of many of the Fathers gave way to the “tradition” of the Church and what was known in the Council of Trent as the “unanimous consent of the Fathers”. Unfortuneately, this appeal to an outside interpreter for Scripture gave way to the cultish pattern of hermeneutics within Christianity.
The idea of
an “outside” interpreter of Scripture, however, was not new when
Today this is the pattern of several Christian sects and cults. For instance, the Roman Catholic Church teaches that the Scriptures are only properly understood and rightly interpreted through the “living tradition” of the Church contained within the Magisterium, especially the Pope. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints believes that the Bible is only truly understood in the light of the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the “latter” revelations of God through the prophets. The problem with all this, of course, is that the authority of the “infallible interpreter” is placed above the Scriptures, and in a sense, above God Himself. Hence, Sola Scriptura is abandoned for something like “Sola Ecclesia” (Church Alone) or something of that nature.
The Bible then becomes like clay in the hands of the one handling it. The Bible speaks of this in several places. II Peter 3:16 mentions how “untaught and unstable men twist the Word of God…” II Corinthians 2:17 speaks of those who “peddle” the Word of God (that is, they use if for unrighteous gain). Also, II Corinthians 4:2 implies the possibility of “handling the word of God deceitfully”.
Do we
mishandle the Word of God? It is a
temptation to do so whenever we don’t understand what is being said. Remember that section 1.7 said that “all the
passages in the Bible are not equally obvious, nor is any individual passage
equally clear to everyone.” So what do
most people do to understand those passages that are difficult? Some use the allegorical method here. Some simply ask themselves how the passage
makes them feel and take that for hermeneutics.
The words of Paul to Timothy are to be heeded in understanding the Word
of God: “Study to show thyself approved”
(II Timothy 2:15). In some instances, as
section 1.8 of the
II.
The true
way of interpretation
So what, if any, is the “infallible interpreter” for the Scriptures? To this, the Westminster Confession says,
“the infallible standard for the interpretation of the Bible is the Bible itself.”
This statement is entirely consistent with the previous propositions that the Scriptures alone possess the sole infallible authority of God Himself. That is, to whom is it given to be able to interpret what God says? Why God Himself through His own word is able to do this. There are several examples of Scripture interpreting Scripture. For instance, in Genesis 22:18 Abraham is told,
“In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice.”
At face value, it would seem to be the case, as Dispensationalists often interpret the verse that the physical descendants of Abraham are to be the vehicle by which God will pour out his blessings on the face of the earth. The Jews themselves thought this way as they believed themselves to be the “seed of Abraham”. However, the New Testament does not share this interpretation of Genesis 22:18. In fact, in Galatians 3:16 we discover exactly who the “Seed of Abraham” is.
“Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, ‘And to your seeds,’ as of many, but as of one, ‘And to your Seed,’ who is Christ.”
Here, we
have a perfect example of the correct interpretation of the promises to
Abraham. Paul reveals from God that the
“Seed of Abraham” was not necessarily
Another example where Scripture interprets Scripture is found in Hebrews 7. This chapter is essentially an exposition, or interpretation of Psalm 110:4 which says,
“The LORD has sworn and will not relent,
You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.”
The author of Hebrews, detailing the priestly ministry of Jesus Christ and its supremacy over the Levitical priesthood, explains from this passage of Scripture that the Psalm was always about Jesus Christ and his unchangeable priesthood (“you are a priest forever”) and, thus, His ability to “save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him” (Heb. 7:25).
Hebrews 1 is also filled with explanations and understandings of many Old Testament Scriptures concerning Christ and ranking above angels, as well as proving the Deity of Jesus Christ. Matthew 5-7, known as the Sermon on the Mount, also gives us the Lord’s exposition of the deeper meanings of the ten commandments.
These, along with many other places of Scripture are proof that the Scriptures interpret the Scriptures. But these are also the more explicit statements of Scripture and explicit interpretations. However, what of those portions of Scripture that are difficult and even seem contradictory?
For instance, within the Bible is clearly taught the doctrine of election, or predestination (cf. Romans 8:29-30; 9:10-24; Eph. 1:-3-5; etc…). The Reformed, or Calvinist, tradition clearly affirms this doctrine while the Evangelical Arminian tradition clearly rejects this notion, even to the point of calling it heresy. For instance, an Arminian – that is, one who rejects the idea of unconditional election from before the foundation of the earth – looks to passages like John 3:16 that says “God so loved the world” and 2 Peter 3:9 which says that “God is not willing that any should perish” or Titus 2:11 which says that the “grace of God has appeared to all men.” How does one handle the doctrine of election in the light of these passages? Are these passages contradictory? Do we merely see who can quote the most Scriptures in support of their doctrine and whoever has the most wins? Do we use one verse (eg. John 3:16) as the lenses in which to view all other passages of Scripture?
Now, we have already discussed the principle of Sola Scriptura in our previous studies, but now we must mention another one in regards to interpreting the Scriptures and that is the principle of Tota Scriptura. That is, when interpreting the Bible, we must take into account what the totality of Scripture says and not merely isolate a passage of Scripture. So, for instance, when interpreting the “universal” passages of Scripture regarding salvation we come to understand that the “all” usually has reference to “all kinds” of people as opposed to the supposed idea that salvation would be only for the Jews. Or we discover that “all” is a summative reference to mean “all of the elect”. Even when one does a study on the meaning of the word “world” in the Scriptures, one would discover that “world” is an equivocal term used in at least twelve different senses in the Bible. For instance, in John 3:16 there is a “world” of those who would believe in the Son of God that God loved and in I John 5:19 there is a “whole world” that lies under the sway of the Satan.
Clearly we must study Scripture to
know what it says. No mere careless
reading or devotional reading will suffice.
We must work to be masters of Scripture and mastered by Scripture as
well. Unfortunately, this is where many
Christians fall short and in some ways, are fresh meat for the “wolves” who are
ready to devour the sheep of the Church (cf. 20:29). Several popular cults are well known for
twisting and distorting the Scriptures quite convincingly to those professing
orthodox Christianity but have no solid foundation in the Scriptures. For instance, consider the following dialogue
between a professing Evangelical Christian and a missionary of the
LDS: Did you know that there is more than one God?
Evangelical: That is crazy! The Bible only speaks of one God! Maybe your other Scriptures speak of more than one God, but I’m pretty sure the Bible says there is just one God.
LDS: I can show you several places in the Bible where more gods are mentioned and even where Jesus acknowledges the LDS belief that we too can become gods like he is!
Evangelical: I’ll bet you can’t!
LDS: First of all in Psalm 82:1 the Bible says, that “God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.” What do you say to that?
Evangelical: hmmmmm….I had never read that before
LDS: Also, in John 10:34-36 Jesus said, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, ye are gods?’ If he called them gods unto whom the word of God came, and the Scriptures cannot be broken; say ye of him, whom the father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, though blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?” Here Jesus clearly says that those to whom the Word of God came were gods!
Evangelical: Well Jesus certainly did say that….the Bible certainly says that he did…
LDS:
One more, if you look in 2 Cor. 4:4 you will see that even Satan is called the
“god of this world”. Now clearly there
are three verses that teach that there is more than one god for God sits
amongst a council of gods, those to whom the word of God came were exalted to
the status of Godhood, and even Satan is called a “god”. The only church that teaches as true what
these verses say is the restored
Evangelical: Well I had never seen those verses before or if I had, I must not have paid much attention to them….thanks for pointing those out to me. What you said seems to make sense.
While this dialogue may be hypothetical, this conversation along with the Scriptures presented above actually takes place on a daily basis. Some even fall prey to such a deceptive use of Scripture and believe that they too will be gods of their own world one day and be worshipped by there own spirit children for all eternity. To be sure, the Bible does not teach that men may become gods. But one may not be able to withstand a deceptive use of Scripture if one is not sufficiently grounded in the teachings of Scriptures. It is the author’s contention that if one is not delved in theological study of some sort, one may be tossed to and fro by any wind and wave of doctrine that can be presented to them in a clear cut manner.
III.
Historico-Grammatical
Method of Interpretation
Previously discussed were the ancient methods of interpretation of the Scriptures. Now, we must focus on the best and most consistent way to interpret the Scriptures. This method is known as the “historico-grammatical” method of interpretation. It his called historical because the method recognizes that the original authors did not write in a vacuum (that is without context) but in a specific time period – a time period that is far removed from where we are at known culturally and intellectually in some ways. Thus there is a “gap” as it were in understanding the author’s culture from as much as 2,000-3,500 years ago. This is sometimes referred to as the “hermeneutical gap”.
One problem with modern “bible study” is that most people tend to just read a passage of Scripture and are asked how that makes them feel OR “what do you think this passage means?” The problem with this approach is that, because of the hermeneutical gap, the one who answers tends to view ancient texts according to their own times. What gets lost here is the original intent of the author as well as the understanding that the original readers would have had. We must understand that Scripture intends to say something specific. It is not up to our own feelings or even to our own thinking to determine what Scriptures says; Scripture speaks but we have to let it speak.
The other part of the
“historico-grammatical” method is the grammar of the text. As mentioned in 1.8 of the
Once we understand issues like this, of which detailing is beyond the scope of this small study we can see that when an prophet or Biblical author wrote, there was always in intention in the writing and one true and proper sense in which the words were meant to be understood. That is, the intentions of penning the Word of God were not to “shotgun spray” multiple meanings at their audience for something that can mean anything really means nothing. Rather, God’s word written is like a sharp sword that has focused meaning to speak to specific matters. Thus, the Westminster notes that the sense of passages of Scripture are, according to the older version of the WCF, “not manifold” – which is to say multiple or many – but “one”. In the larger picture, we can say that all the pieces must necessarily fit together since God is self – consistent with what He says.
Practically speaking we could understand that the passages of Scripture that speak of Christ as being fully human must not be separated from those passages of Scripture that also speak of Him as fully God. We should not interpret passages of Scripture contrary to sense that are plain in other passages of Scripture. The following are some practical tips that one can use to interpret the Bible and come to a sound understanding of what the Scriptures intend to say:
I. Background of the
passage
A. Main theme of the
book?
B. Author’s purpose(s)?
C. Author’s background?
D. Historical setting (political, cultural)?
E. What kind of literature is this? Parable, poetry, apocalyptic, teaching?
F. Reader’s Understanding/Context - To Whom Written?
G. Usage of Other Scriptural Concepts - Quotations?
II. Immediate Context
A. Read passage in at
least three different translations.
B. What immediately precedes and follows the passage?
C. Are any definitions provided by the immediate context?
D. What is the main argument of the entire chapter?
E. What is the main point of the passage itself?
F. What is the consistent understanding of the passage in this context?
III. Broad Context
A. Does my
interpretation make this passage contradictory with:
1. the author himself?
2. other Biblical passages?
3. common sense?
B. Are there other
passages in Scripture bear directly on the issues raised in this passage?
Obviously time fails to mention all the practical tips but there is great literature out there. Also, we must not forget that prayer is essential for understanding Scripture for it is the Holy Spirit who ultimately guides us to the true and full understanding of Scripture. Thus, we must read the Scriptures and pray for the light of the Spirit to illumine our minds to its truth.
Conclusion
The Scriptures are not some mysterious book that we need some sort of magic interpretational tool to understand. Rather, the Scriptures are the clear Word of God penned down and preserved through the ages for all the elect of God. The way to understand what the Scriptures say is through the Scriptures themselves. When there is a passage of Scripture that is difficult to understand or when we want to know about a particular doctrine from Scripture, we turn to those portions of Scripture that shed light on the obscure and that are relevant to the particular doctrines we wish to understand from Scripture. The Bible is not equally understood immediately by all who encounter it though. The Bible itself declares that Jesus had to “explain” the Scriptures (Luke 24:27) to the disciples and the Scriptures were even “opened” to them (Luke 24:32). Likewise, the Ethiopian Eunuch needed someone to “explain” to him the Scriptures (Acts 8:31). This is done primarily through the Scriptures themselves and the many linguistic and grammatical tools that are employed in the Bible by the writers.
In short, the Bible does not require any sort of outside interpreter to let us know what God has spoken in its pages. Any person may come to know what Scripture says. Granted this may sometimes involve the need to appeal to the original languages, however, we should understand that that is not always necessary for correct understanding of the Gospel or what one must do to be saved.
Review Questions