Introduction
“Hermeneutics” is one of those very fancy words that theologians like to use to describe the art and science of biblical interpretation. Whether we like it or not, if we read the Bible at all, we are all interpreters of the Bible. The art and science of biblical interpretation, then, takes on great import for those of us who believe that the Bible is the actual inspired Word of God, inerrant, infallible, and fully authoritative in all things about which it speaks.
If you go to amazon.com and look at the books containing the word “hermeneutics,” you may quickly experience some difficulty. Most folks will have trouble understanding the titles of those books, much less the content and the message were they to purchase them and read them! Now, let me say that this is not because people are not able to understand these concepts. We are surely able to understand them, especially when the concepts are put into language which is more common in our everyday usage.
This is a discipline which is vitally important to the church of Christ Jesus, and it ought not be that it is impossible to grasp for many of us. Indeed, we are commanded clearly by Scripture to rightly divide the Word of truth; that is, to interpret Scripture accurately and properly to glean its eternal truths.
Here, then, is an attempt to put the principles of biblical interpretation into a form, a language, and a format which can be understood easily and readily by those who wish to honor that command. This book is a systematic approach to the subject, giving the reader distinct, compartmentalized, itemized instruction.
The reader will also enjoy an alternative view of the art and science of Biblical interpretation, included by the consent of its author. We thank Bro. Cooper Abrams, III for his kind permission to include his treatise with this work. We have much in common in our approaches, but there are differences between us as well in the way that we might approach certain texts. We believe that the inclusion of his treatise will surely work toward the edification of the reader.
As always, it our sincere desire to glorify God almighty (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost) and to edify His people in this endeavor. May God receive all the glory and praise forever.
Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers. “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.i
Common Hermeneutical Principles
Summary Table
Major Principles of Interpretation:
· Plain Sense: If plain sense makes good sense, why seek another sense? Ruth 2:17, Deuteronomy 34:4, Genesis 1:1
· Consistency: Every text of Scripture must agree with every other text in the Bible. Ex 21:24, Lev 24:20, Deut 19:21 vs. Mt 5:39, Lk 6:29
· Context: A scripture verse without a context is a pretext. John 3:16 in context of John 3:1-21, or John 1:12 only with John 1:13
· Perspicuity: Let the clear things of Scripture dictate the less clear things. B’nai Elohim in Gen 6 interpreted by Job 1:6, 2:1, and 38:7
· Diversity: Texts may possess multiple meaning which are both valid and true. Different meanings are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Rev 7:4, 20:2, “pneuma” (Gr.) in John 3:8
Minor Principles of Interpretation:
· Progressivity: Revelation from God has grown as the Scriptural text has grown through the ages.
· Proximity: How close a clear text is to an unclear one. “genea” (Gr.) = generations; Mt 23-24
· Frequency: How often a theme is expressed is indicative of importance. “Believe on Jesus and be saved” is often found in Scripture; it’s important! (Psalm 119)
· Repetition: Repeated ideas over a short span of text indicates importance. Mark 9:44, 46, 48 with Isaiah 66:24; Their worm dieth not, and fire never quenched. (Psalm 119)
· First Mention: The first mention of a word or idea is usually definitive throughout Scripture. Gen 1:1 “bara” (Heb) = create from nothing instead of fashion out of something else.
· Genre: Different types of literature in the Bible may be interpreted differently. The Bible contains poetry, narrative, wisdom, doctrine, practical theology, apocalyptic passages, etc. etc.
· Temporality: What is not known at one time may be known at a later time; revelation is progressive. Mk 13; The Son knows not the time of His return cf. 1.Thess 5:1-11: Many will know.
· Positivity: Apprehend that which the Scripture teaches either explicitly or by good and necessary inference, and avoid arguments from silence.
· Contrapositivity: Mt 5:9 “Cursed are the warmongers for they shall be called the children of the Devil.” Is this a valid reading? (Take care never to use this to create arguments from silence!)
Chapter One -- Plain Sense
It almost goes without saying that we should consider the plain grammatical sense of Scripture. When we look at a passage or a text in the Bible, we should always ask ourselves, “What does this mean in plain language?”
You have probably heard the adage, “If plain sense makes good sense, seek no other sense.”ii However, we must realize that this is only partly true. If plain sense makes good sense, then accept the plain sense meaning, but the “plain sense” meaning may not be the only true or valid meaning of a text.
Consider Revelation 7:4-8:
And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel. 5 Of the tribe of Juda were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Reuben were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Gad were sealed twelve thousand. 6 Of the tribe of Aser were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Nepthalim were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Manasses were sealed twelve thousand. 7 Of the tribe of Simeon were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Levi were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Issachar were sealed twelve thousand. 8 Of the tribe of Zabulon were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Joseph were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Benjamin were sealed twelve thousand.iii
In this apocalyptic text, we find that there are said by John to be 144,000 sealed of all the children of Israel; 12,000 from each tribe except for Ephraim and Dan, though one might note that the tribe of Ephraim may be represented (though seemingly diminished as the tribe of Manassah is mentioned by his own name) by the inclusion of the tribe of Joseph.
Well, is this a literal 144,000 souls or is this text symbolically describing something else? Does plain sense make good sense? Indeed it does, and so we see that there can be no hermeneutical mandate to discard the literal meaning as invalidly derived, even though we are dealing with literature in the apocalyptic genre. Nevertheless, we are dealing with apocalyptic literature which (as we will discuss later) is rich with symbolism and allegory. Is it then appropriate to discard symbolic meanings which may be embodied in this text? It is not appropriate to discard these potential meanings either; as these meanings may also be valid; that is, logically and reasonably derived.
Many have given some very fanciful explanations concerning the meaning of the 144,000, and many of these must be discarded (i.e., they are invalid) when they oppose clearer texts from other parts of the Bible. However, this is not to say that all symbolism embodied in this text is invalid.
The point is this: Just because a literal “plain sense” meaning is valid and true,iv it does not mean that certain symbolic meanings are not valid and true as well. Literal meanings and symbolic meanings in Scripture are not mutually exclusive, especially in texts written in the apocalyptic genre.
Consider Revelation 20:1-10:
1 And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. 2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years, 3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season. 4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. 5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years. 7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, 8 And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea. 9 And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them. 10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. v
The plain sense of this text speaks of an age commonly called, by evangelical scholars, the millennium. Is this thousand years a literal period of time? If so, is this period of time to be apprehended as a literal thousand years? Does plain sense make good sense? Indeed it does. Should the plain sense be accepted as valid? Of course it should. We have every reason to believe that there will, in the future, come a literal thousand year period of time wherein Christ Jesus will establish His kingdom on the earth, and institute His rule of the nations by the rod of iron. Indeed, the elect of all ages previous shall rule and reign with Him on the earth. vi
It also should be noted here in this example that the plain sense meaning should be accepted, but that this plain sense meaning does not, again, militate in any way against certain symbolism which may also be carried in this text. The one does not necessarily operate to the exclusion of the other. The “1000 years” may have valid symbolic meanings as well. Thus, the literal meaning may be true, and symbolic meanings untrue. The literal meaning may be untrue, and one or more symbolic meanings may be true; or the literal meaning along with certain symbolic meanings may be true. The author leans toward this last possibility as being the most likely, though none of these possibilities should be ignored.
Well, let us consider a text of Scripture where the plain sense meaning may not apply so cleanly. If we consider the allegorical stories and parables told by our Lord Jesus Christ, we must realize that He used these common stories to illustrate larger spiritual truths.
For example, it is not fruitful nor germane to argue about whether or not there existed a real prodigal son who fared less than sumptuously upon literal husks of literal corn fed to literal pigs. These temporal, physical aspects of the story are only told to illustrate allegorically, the much greater spiritual truths with respect to the forgiveness of God to His spiritual family. We should rejoice with our Heavenly Father whenever any lost sinner comes to faith in Christ Jesus and His finished work.
Was there a real historical prodigal son with a real historical family experiencing the real historical events described in the story that Jesus told? Perhaps there was, and perhaps there was not. The possibility that such a family experiencing such events did not conform to literal historical fact does not damage the truth of the story, because that truth is a symbolic truth which does not depend upon the actual historicity of the story. Thus, the plain sense of Scripture is not at issue here.
Consider Psalm 114:4:
4 The mountains skipped like rams, and the little hills like lambs. vii
Indeed, it is apparent that the mountains did not literally skip like rams on the occasion of the Exodus and the events immediately succeeding that time for the children of Israel. This is entirely symbolic, occurring in a text of Hebrew poetry. Here, plain sense does not make good sense, and the plain grammatical sense must be discarded as a possible correct interpretation.
Now let us revisit the Book of Revelation for a moment.
Consider Revelation 10:9-10:
And I went unto the angel, and said unto him, Give me the little book. And he said unto me, Take it, and eat it up; and it shall make thy belly bitter, but it shall be in thy mouth sweet as honey. 10 And I took the little book out of the angel’s hand, and ate it up; and it was in my mouth sweet as honey: and as soon as I had eaten it, my belly was bitter. viii
Here, John seizes upon symbolism found in the Old Testament Book of Ezekiel (cf. Ezekiel 2:8-3:3) which also is partly of the apocalyptic genre. Do you think that John or Ezekiel actually ate a literal scroll? It is most likely that they did not, but that this expression is symbolic and represents their call to incorporate the Word of God intimately so that it is very familiar to them for they are to speak prophecy to the people. Both of these men, John and Ezekiel, were great prophets in their time, and of course, they continue to speak to us today. Much of the prophecy spoken by these men is yet to occur, and of course, their prophetic utterances are closely related to one another. Here, in each case, the eating of the scroll must be apprehended symbolically instead of literally.
The Book of Revelation is replete with such symbolic language. Yet, as we have seen, these symbols do not always negate literal meanings. Numbers in the Book of Revelation may have symbolic meanings, but they may also be literally interpreted with hermeneutical integrity.
Some texts, on the other hand, dare we claim even most texts of Scripture, must be apprehended in their plain grammatical sense; such plain grammatical sense representing the dominant, clearest, and in many cases, exclusive meaning of the text. Roper’s rule (see endnote #2) may be said to be right most of the time.
So many examples exist to confirm this idea that it is difficult to choose among them, but let us pick a text which carries great doctrinal significance for us with respect to the doctrine of salvation.
Consider Ephesians 1:1-2:10:
1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus: 2 Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ. 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: 4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: 5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, 6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. 7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace; 8 Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence; 9 Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself: 10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him: 11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, places, dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: And hath put all things to be the head over all things to the church, body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all. (2)And you , who were dead in trespasses and sins; to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of even as others. his great love wherewith he loved us, Even when we Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) And hath raised us up together, and made us places being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will: 12 That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ. 13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, 14 Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory. 15 Wherefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus, and love unto all the saints, 16 Cease not to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers; 17 That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him: 18 The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints, 19 And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power, 20 Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly 21 Far above all principality, and power, and might, and 22 under his feet, and gave him 23 Which is his 1 hath he quickened2 Wherein in time past ye walked according 3 the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, 4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for 5 were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with 6 sit together in heavenly in Christ Jesus: 7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. ix
Observe that Paul here writes to the Church at Ephesus particularly and to all the faithful in Jesus Christ generally. Observe also what he writes clearly in plain grammatical sense. He tells Christians of all ages that their faith in Christ Jesus is the gift of God. It came not by any merit or work whatsoever on the part of men, but it came subsequent to, and as the direct result of, election by the Father before time as we know it began.
It militates against our human sense of reason to believe that we, as Christians, were predestined all along so to become. We like to think of ourselves as the masters of our own fate, when the Scriptures clearly tell us that we are not. Rather, God is the master. He is the savior. He has chosen His people from before time, and now in this age, He calls them out one by one to come to faith in Christ and His finished work which has effected the sure and certain hope of our salvation that we have.
Now here is an opportunity to explore another aspect of this plain sense hermeneutic. Here, as is so often the case, we must explore the language which underlies our English translation of the Scripture. Indeed, an understanding of New Testament (koine) Greek and Old Testament (Masoretic) Hebrew cannot be overemphasized when we are to seek valid and true interpretations of the Holy Writ.
Here it may be objected against the sovereignty of God in the salvation of men (and women), that words like “predestined” are too strong. They might say that God only has foreknown those who, by free moral agency, would come eventually to Christ. An objection such as this one may only be answered through an examination of the Greek text which underlies terms like “predestination.” What was Paul, by the plenary inspiration of the Holy Ghost, attempting to communicate to the church?
The Greek word (Greek root: prooridzo)which is translated as “predestinated” in this text (Ephesians 1:5, 11) does in fact mean “predestinated,” that is to preordain, to determine before, even to limit in advance. This Greek compound word comes from the Greek component roots, “pro” and “horidzo” (from which we get our English word “horizon”). “Horidzo” means to appoint, decree, specify, declare, limit, ordain, mark out, or bind; and “pro” means before, in front of, above, or ever.x Thus, to be predestined in the biblical sense is to be appointed beforehand, forever decreed, and marked out and ordained in the past. We will discuss this further later as we consider apparent tensions in the Scripture on this point with regard to the sovereignty of God.
Chapter Two -- Perspicuity
Perspicuity simply means clarity. The principle of perspicuity states that we must use texts, words, phrases, and passages of Scripture which are clear to interpret the texts, words, phrases, and passages of Scripture that are not very clear.
To illustrate this idea, let us look at one of the very most controversial texts of Scripture in the Bible. The sixth chapter of Genesis relates strange events and practices which occurred in the late antediluvian age, that is, the time just before the great flood in the days of Noah.
And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, 2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. 3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. 4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. 5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. 7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. 8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD. 9 These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God. xi
Just who are these sons of God? Well, the first thing that we must do to find out is to check the actual words in the original language, which is, in this case, Hebrew. The Hebrew root is b’nai Elohim, which is indeed, very literally translated as “sons of God.”
There have been all manner of speculative and creative explanations to account for this language and to account for the activities mentioned in Scripture to have occurred during those days. Indeed, it is important for us to know about this, for Jesus Himself said that as the days of Noah were, so shall be the days of His second coming.
Well, this text is not very clear, and so we must look for other texts containing this phrase “b’nai Elohim” in the hope that they will provide more light upon the identity of these sons of God. Thus, it is noted that this exact phrase appears exactly three other times in the Hebrew Scriptures; in Job 1:6, 2:1, and 38:7.
Here we can avoid idle speculation about what we think the Scripture ought to have said, and rather focus upon what it does say, using principles that will elucidate that meaning for us. It is not necessary for us to engage in nearly as much idle speculation as we tend to do.
From the three references in the Book of Job, it is clear that, in the Hebrew Scriptures, b’nai Elohim refers to angels. It never refers to a class of men, but always to angels. It is likewise clear from the context in Genesis six, that these angels are fallen angels. This contention is supported by the reference made by Jesus in Matthew 12:25 where He spoke concerning the bodily resurrection of the redeemed dead saying, “For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.” Our Lord specifically identifies the holy angels as being those who do not marry, and omits such comment concerning fallen angels. This identification of the b’nai Elohim as fallen angels is further supported by the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, wherein the phrase b’nai Elohim is correctly rendered by the Greek root, angelos, or, in English, angels.
Now to be sure, no further interpretation or speculation is offered here concerning the nature of the work of those fallen angels in those days to somehow effect the proliferation of the Nephilim. Whether those angels actually cohabitated with human females is not at issue for us in this study.xii The truth of the Bible in that regard may be a literal truth or a symbolic one. However, according to the hermeneutical principle of perspicuity, there can be little doubt that the Hebrew phrase b’nai Elohim refers to fallen angels in this text, and that must be the starting point for any interpretation of this most enigmatic text.
Chapter Three -- Context
The context of a text of Scripture refers to its environment. That environment comes in sundry forms. There is, of course, the narrative context. Narrative context refers to the Scripture that surrounds the text under consideration. It is comprised primarily of all the text which is directly pertinent to the narrative in which the text under consideration is contained. For example, as we shall see shortly, the narrative context of John 3:16 is the story of Nicodemus coming to Jesus by night, as it is contained in the third chapter of the gospel of John, verses 1-21. Indeed, John 3:16 may not be well understood apart from its narrative context. As many have rightly stated, a text without a context is a pretext.
Also, there is a cultural context. To be sure, it is not ever contended herein that the Holy Writ is “culturally contextualized.” However, it is important for us to understand the way that a text of Scripture would have been understood in the day that it was spoken and recorded in writing. The picture of our Lord Jesus Christ as “the Good Shepherd” would be of little value to us today if we did not understand something about shepherds and their sheep during the time of the earthly ministry of Jesus.
Cultural contextualization, as described by the more liberal elements in the church, is different. Moral, ecclesiological, or other precepts given in Scripture have not been altered or eradicated by twenty centuries of changes in civilization. For example, the Bible decries the sin of adultery, and twenty centuries of passing time since Jesus walked the earth has not caused adultery to cease being a sin.
Likewise, the qualifications given in the Bible for elders and deacons are still valid and true; no matter how many denominations today chooses to ignore them by ordaining both women and unqualified men.
Well, let us look at an example. John 3:16 occurs in the narrative context of John 3:1-21, which is as follows:
1 There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews: 2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him. 3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. 4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born? 5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. 8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit. 9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be? 10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things? 11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness. 12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things? 13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. 14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: 15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.
In considering the various contexts of the passage, let us first notice what Nicodemus heard and what his perceptions might reasonably have been that night in the presence of the Lord.
Jesus made several important points to Nicodemus; which ultimately operated to the redemption of his soul. Nicodemus approached Jesus in a fashion which might have been typical of an educated Jew of his day. He paid Jesus the best compliment that he could, saying that He was surely a teacher who had come from God.
Notice that Jesus changed the subject, and tersely and enigmatically stated to Nicodemus that a man must be “born again” to enter the Kingdom of God. Nicodemus, seeking understanding, asks how a man might accomplish rebirth. Jesus responds that a man cannot do it, for the Spirit of God is like the wind, which blows wherever and upon whomever it wants. Notice that the koine Greek word for “wind” is pneuma. The same Greek word may also be translated as “breath” or “spirit.”
Then, Jesus tells Nicodemus something that he would expect from the Messiah of Israel. He says (John 3:15) that those who believe in Him shall not perish. Nicodemus perceives that He speaks of Israel, and He does. This was no surprise to the learned Nicodemus; it was what came out of the mouth of Jesus immediately thereafter that surprised him.
Jesus said in John 3:16 that God so loved the world such that whosoever believed (i.e., came to true faith) in Him would not perish either, but also, like believing Jews, have everlasting life. Nicodemus must have been astonished that Christ Jesus had come, not only to redeem believing Jews, but also those of the world; that is, the Gentile nations; who would believe.
The Jews…often referred to “the world” as being everyone outside the Jewish religion. Often, the world referred to the Gentiles, that is, the nations other than the Jews. In fact, this was the way that Nicodemus would define “the world” in his theological dialogue here with Jesus.…The Jews in that day, believed they were the only ones who could receive redemption. They believed that the Gentile nations were lost, as they had no regard for the one true God or His laws, nor did they have faith that (the) Messiah would come to deliver His chosen people from “the world.” This was a well-founded tradition in their theology.xiii
Many of us have likely read and quoted John 3:16 all our lives in a very “matter of fact” sort of way, never realizing what an astonishing revelation it was to the man who actually heard it spoken by our Lord! To us at first glance, it seems to say the same thing as John 3:15, but that would be a gross understatement. It reveals more, which could not be ascertained without an understanding of both the cultural (or historical) and narrative contexts of the entire passage.
Let us examine one other short example from the gospel of John. Notice John 1:12-13:
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
Curiously, many preachers will quote John 1:12 without reference to John 1:13; even though the latter verse is essential to the narrative context of the passage if the doctrine which is really taught here is to be apprehended.
While it is true that man must receive Christ by faith (i.e., belief), it is equally and inseparably true that this belief does not come by the will of any man, nor of his genealogy or parentage. Rather, this belief, this faith, is entirely and completely the gift of God. To separate these two verses is to take the first one entirely out of context, and therefore, a real misrepresentation of the doctrine of salvation is thereby undertaken.
Chapter Four -- Consistency
Consistency is the only hermeneutical principle which is always true, one hundred percent of the time. All the others are general rules, which offer us valid interpretations of Scripture; and it is believed that such valid interpretations are most often also true. However, consistency is different. The rule of consistency always applies, in every case; and always results in true assertions and affirmations, when rightly applied.
The hermeneutical rule of consistency maintains that all texts of Scripture, rightly apprehended and interpreted, agree totally with all other texts of Scripture. Thus, the diligent and conscientious interpreter of the Bible is not allowed to set one text at odds with another.
This is, of course, commonly done in the church, but it is an error. Observe some examples as follows:
Paul wrote in Romans 3:20 these words: “Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.” He also wrote in Galatians 3:11 these words: “But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.” James, however, wrote in the second chapter of his epistle the following: (James 2:20-26):
But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? 22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? 23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. 24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. 25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? 26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
At first glance, these ideas appear to be very much in conflict. Is man justified by faith, by works, or by both faith and works? Some “theologians” who are confronted with these types of apparent conundrums, respond in ways that do not honor the Scripture as the Word of God. Indeed, they will set one text at odds with the other. Some wish to maintain that man is justified by faith alone in the absence of works, and when these are confronted with the text from James 2 , they immediately quote from Romans 3 or Galatians 3 or some other place which seems to validate their preconceived opinion. The first thing that a bad theologian does is to ignore Scriptural texts which seem to oppose his view.
Good theologians must interpret texts which seem to oppose him, in a way that is consistent with the truth of all other Scripture; indeed, in a way that maintains the truth of all Scripture. Let us be careful not to believe that God was confused in speaking contradictory ideas through different fellows. Worse yet, let us not believe that God somehow changed His mind; and worse yet, may we not believe that God spoke anything other than the truth.
Some, of course, seem all too ready to disqualify portions of the Scripture which they do not particularly like or understand by saying that these texts simply are not the Word of God.xiv Somehow, these “theologians” have acquired such superior capabilities of judgment that they can discern what is or what is not the Word of God in the Bible. Let them be here admonished not to add to nor take away from the Bible, for great is the punishment promised in Scripture itself for them which dare so to do.
Most of these aberrant attitudes toward Scriptural interpretation derive from sheer laziness in study. It is much easier to say that some Scripture must be disqualified as untrue, or that the Bible contradicts itself, than to study and ascertain the real meanings of Biblical texts.
God did not lie; He does not change His mind and say one thing at one time and something contradictory later. All texts may be reconciled to all other texts when we exercise the hermeneutical principle of consistency. This principle, perhaps above all others, is to be cherished by the genuine seeker of Biblical truths.
For the Bible-believing Christian, xv this apparent tension must be resolved. The question is this: How can these teachings given by Paul be reconciled with these other teachings given by James? There can be no conflict. Of all possible interpretations of each text, only the interpretations may be accepted as valid (according to the law of consistency) which bring no conflict in doctrine.
When those valid interpretations are not easily observed, we must search the Scriptures in our effort to shed greater light upon the truth. In the case mentioned here, I believe the Apostle Paul has been used by God to put this relationship between works and faith into perspective for us. In Ephesians 2:9-10, he wrote the following:
“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.”
The kind of works which have a part in our salvation are those works which God has ordained to be done in and through us, The kind of works about which we might be inclined to boast do not effect salvation for us in any way. Paul described at least one category of this latter kind of works as “deeds of the law.” He wrote that no one could be justified by them.. We must conclude then, that James wrote about the kind of works that God does in and through us, like the works referenced in Ephesians 2:10. The very effectual call of God upon the lives of Abraham and Rahab brought about the kind of selfless works written about by James. These were clearly the works of God and these works are salvific, being the infallible accompaniment of faith in Christ. Even regeneration, that first manifestation of salvation observed by man in himself, is the work of God.
There are many such apparent contradictions in the Bible. It must be remembered that, only interpretations which resolve and reconcile these apparent contradictions are possible; no others may be entertained as true. When this straightforward hermeneutical method is applied, most apparent contradictions in Scripture quickly disappear.
This method may be applied to resolve many other controversial and ongoing doctrinal disagreements in the church. It may be applied to the apparent tension between the sovereignty of God and the “free will” of man in coming to faith in Christ (see Appendix 2). It may be applied to the debates over annihilationism and eternal hell. It may be applied to determine the validity of various eschatological constructs circulating in the church today. Where the Scripture speaks on an issue, its consistency can help us to determine what it truly teaches.
Chapter Five -- Diversity
Fifth on our list of principles is diversity. Diversity, with regard to Biblical hermeneutics, simply means that Scriptural texts may possess more than one valid and true meaning.
While not all texts seem to exhibit diversity of legitimate meanings, it is clear that some texts lend themselves to diverse valid interpretations. Indeed, it is often that multiple interpretations may be apprehended as long as they are not mutually exclusive, or unless they run counter to other clear texts (thus violating perspicuity and consistency).
In the seventh chapter of the Book of Revelation, we find the controversial 144,000 sealed children of Israel. Some would maintain that these must be literally 144,000 human beings who are set aside and protected by God during the great tribulation. Others would maintain that this number is purely symbolic; that it is twelve times twelve times ten times ten times ten, and that these numbers have clear symbolic significance, representing the completeness of the plan of God in this age both with regard to that which He has purposed in history and in redemption for His people.
However, consider that these are not mutually exclusive possibilities (and thus there is no need for sincere theologians to argue about which is correct). Both ideas are clearly possible, in that neither is opposed by other texts of Scripture; nor does the one exclude consideration of the other.
Indeed, then, the 144,000 sealed children of Israel may be a literal population of people during the tribulation, and may be symbolic at the same time. This represents a diversity of valid meanings for this text. Both of these meanings are logically and reasonably derived. However, their hermeneutical validity does not attest ultimately to their truth. Indeed, one of the meanings may be true while the other is not; both may be true, or neither. We simply maintain that both are hermeneutically permissible interpretations, without being able to attest to their ultimate truth. This is diversity.
To be sure, apocalyptic literature in the Bible is replete with opportunities to observe this kind of diversity. Consider the thousand year Millennium, or the seven heads and ten horns. Are these numbers symbolic? Yes, it is possible that they carry symbolic meanings. Are these numbers to be taken literally? Again, yes, it is clear that there is nothing to militate against the literal apprehension of these numbers. Must it be the case then, that both literal and symbolic meanings will ultimately prove to be true? No, diversity does not claim that every meaning that is hermeneutically permissible must also prove to be true; simply that neither may be excluded from consideration ahead of time.
Diversity of meaning is often applied as well with respect to particular words in the koine Greek or Hebrew languages which may have multiple and diverse translations into English.
For example, the Greek word “pneuma” may mean wind, breath, or spirit, depending on the context and its usage. Very often, the intended meaning is clear because other meanings might present inconsistencies. However, consider that in the third chapter of the Gospel of John, “pneuma” is used. It is translated as “wind,” but translating it as “breath” and “spirit” would present us with meanings for the text which are diverse and which are not excluded by any other Scripture. Apprehending these diverse possible translations of “pneuma” clearly enhances and expands our understanding of just what it was that Jesus was saying to Nicodemus here, intentionally presenting him with a triple entendre of valid meanings.
The same may be said with regard to the use of the Greek word “genea” in the twenty-third and twenty-fourth chapters of the Gospel of Matthew. “Genea” may be variously translated without injury to the consistency of the truth of the Bible throughout its pages. The Authorized Version (KJB) translates “genea” as “generations,” and this is a legitimate translation which fits the narrative and historical contexts. However, it may be that the translation of “generations” does not capture the complete idea being conveyed by Jesus on that day. To the extent that alternate translations of “genea” pose no conflict, cause no inconsistency, and do not mutually exclude one another, they must be considered to be valid. Again, all valid possibilities may not prove to be true, but all valid possibilities for interpretation should be considered.
While on this subject, it must be said that certain texts clearly do not exhibit diversity as it is herein described. For example, consider Psalm 114:4 in which it is stated that “the mountains skipped like rams.” Clearly, this is not to be apprehended literally. In other texts, like Ruth 2:17, it would be difficult to discover any symbolic meaning. The same may be said for many doctrinal passages and instructional texts, like Ephesians 2:8-10 and Matthew 1:21 respectively.
Many examples could be cited, but these will suffice to illustrate this valuable principle of Biblical interpretation.
Note that these first five principles are considered to be major hermeneutical principles, so called because we have found them to be virtually in constant use in the effort to rightly divide (or interpret) the precious Word of truth.
In subsequent chapters, we will deal with those ideas which we have termed minor hermeneutical principles. They are called “minor,” not because they are more or less important to the interpretation of Scripture wherever they are applicable, but because we have found them to be used less formally than major principles with regard to most texts.
Indeed, we will find these “minor” principles to be very useful in ascertaining much with respect to certain texts of Scripture.
Chapter Six -- Progressivity
Simply stated, progressivity is that principle of hermeneutics which holds that the revelation of God to man is progressive. In other words, Moses had more of the revelation of God at his disposal than did Noah; David had more than Moses; Daniel had more than David. We, in the age of the church, after the first advent of our Lord Jesus Christ, and after the writing of the New Testament, have a more nearly complete revelation than those who have gone before us. The degree of revelation that God has given has always been according to His purpose and His will, and has always been sufficient for His people. Yet, at no time, has His revelation to sinful man been complete. It has always been sufficient; it has always been inerrant and infallible, and it has always been fully authoritative in all things about which it speaks; but at no time has it ever been complete.
Now many in the church bristle at this assertion that the revelation of God to us even today is not complete. They would respond that we are not to add to or take away from this word, and so it must be complete. Indeed we are not to add to the Word of God, and we are not to take away from it, but this does not indicate its completeness.
Some might say that we are told not to add or take away from the Word in Revelation 22:18-19, and indeed this is correct. May it be seen that a very similar instruction was given in Deuteronomy 4:2; and much has been added since Moses wrote that!
The point is this: We may not add to the Word or take away from it, but God may, and He has done so in ages past, and He shall do so again. While I believe that the Canon of Scripture is closed at this time, and that there is no infallible and fully authoritative Word of God except that which is contained in the Bible, I also must assert that the Canon is not to be closed forever.
Consider that our Lord will return bodily to the earth in a day yet future to our time. When this occurs, it is unimaginable that He will be silent! He will speak, and all that He teaches will be the absolute, infallible, and authoritative Word of God who has returned to us bodily. Though His teachings in those coming days will not contradict the revelation that we already have, they will surely add to it! Therefore, the principle of progressivity claims merely these things; that, although infallible revelation from God has ceased temporarily in this age, they could and likely will be reinitiated. xvi
To understand the nature of progressivity, it is necessary to observe its occurrence in Scripture already revealed. It may be easily understood when observing texts having to do with prophecies future to the time of the writer. The unfolding of the plan of God throughout redemptive history may be understood from reading Genesis, but as we read through the Bible, more information is given. For example, the Abrahamic covenant is established in Genesis, but its development and fulfillment are better understood by the end of the Book of Deuteronomy. To Abraham, it foretold of things which would take place in a time future to him, but since the time of Abraham, we have seen it develop, become partially and typologically fulfilled in the Book of Joshua, and now we have an expected fulfillment in a time future to ours.
The coming of the Messiah is foretold in Genesis 3:15. It is more clearly understood as we read through the Old Testament, and the vision of the Messianic expectation became more detailed (cf. Isaiah 53-54, for example), though many ultimately misunderstood. During His earthly ministry, Jesus gave much more information to elucidate and validate His claim to Messiahship. Indeed, the Apostle John wrote the non-synoptic Gospel for the very purpose of showing us that the claims of Jesus to be the Messiah were true, according to the many infallible proofs. He says that he gives this testimony so that people might believe that Jesus was (and is) who He said He was (and is).
John 20: 30-31 is as follows:
30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: 31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
And John 21:24-25:
24 This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true. 25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.
Here we can see the progressivity of revelation God even on the pages of Scripture already written. This hermeneutic of progressivity is particularly useful in the analysis of texts which are found in the apocalyptic genre.
Chapter Seven -- Proximity
When two related texts of Scripture occur in close proximity to each other. One may give clues to the most valid and appropriate interpretations of the other. Likewise (and perhaps more frequently), this occurs with individual words in Scripture in their underlying language (i.e., koine Greek and Hebrew, primarily).
Like all principles except consistency, this does not always hold true, but like the others, it is a good rule to observe and consider.
One of the better examples of this principle which comes immediately to mind, is that Greek word “genea.” As we have discussed, this word appears in Matthew 24, and its meaning is rather obscure. “Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.” (Matthew 24:34).
Now, if it is difficult to understand the meaning of “genea” here, and it is, because “genea” can have many definitions, then we ought to look for more perspicuous texts which contain this word and are related to this subject in narrative context; but also, if possible, we should observe texts which contain “genea” which are in close proximity to the subject occurrence. These texts in close proximity (even written by the same man, if available) should be given more weight and consideration when attempting to discern rightly the meaning of “genea” in our more enigmatic text above.
Does “genea” occur in close proximity to Matthew 24:34 and in a text also written by Matthew? Indeed, it does; consider Matthew 23:27-39.
27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness. 28 Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity. 29 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, 30 And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. 31 Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. 32 Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. 33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? 34 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: 35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. 36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation. 37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! 38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. 39 For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.
Only once in this passage, in Matthew 23:36, does the Greek word “genea” actually occur. In
Matthew 23:33, the related word “gennema” is translated “generations.” This latter Greek word (gennema) literally means that which comes forth or is generated by something else, in the sense of the fruit which comes forth from a vine or tree. It would be used to describe peaches coming forth from a peach tree, or grapes coming from a grape vine. Thus, Jesus speaks of these Pharisees in this manner, that they are the fruit or that which has been “generated” by vipers (i.e., snakes, symbolic of the Devil).
“Genea,” on the other hand, may mean a generation of men as we would understand that today; or it may mean a nation or a race or a particular kind of people or group of people. “Genea” may also carry meanings which have to do with a particular age or epoch or period of time. Indeed, this word “genea” is multifaceted in its possible meanings.
Remember, too, that one meaning (as with “pneuma” in John 3 ) does not necessarily exclude any other, and that it is quite possible for texts, phrases, and individual words in the underlying languages to possess multiple valid meanings which render multiple, valid, and non-exclusive interpretations of Scripture texts (i.e., Diversity).
In Matthew 23:33, then, Jesus rightly asserts prophetically that there would be woe to come upon the “generation” of Pharisees and scribes which existed in that day and time. Jerusalem fell in A.D.70, and much woe did befall the citizenry thereof, Pharisees and scribes included.
However, when we attempt to apply this meaning to the occurrence of “genea” in Matthew 24:34, we encounter some difficulties. The narrative context in Matthew 24 deals with the end of the age and the return of Jesus Christ. The disciples asked, “When shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?” Thus, past partial or typological fulfillments of prophecies certainly do not militate against future partial fulfillments or a future complete fulfillment. Complete fulfillment of Biblical is entirely sure and certain, for God has promised, and He is faithful!
Chapter Eight -- Frequency
Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. (Acts 4:10-12).
I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. (John 14:6).
For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. (Romans 5:19).
These are just three of the many texts of Scripture which indicate to us that Christ Jesus is the Savior, and in fact, the only Savior, the sole means through which men may approach God favorably. There is no other means of salvation. There is no other means of justification before the thrice holy God. We must receive Christ or we shall receive condemnation for our sins. We must trust in His person and finished work upon the cross of Calvary, or we shall stand eternally accountable for our sin, (committed, omitted, and inherited). As depraved men, we have failed to keep all the moral Law of God.
The Good News, the Gospel message, of the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ permeates the Bible, being an especially rich and frequent theme of the New Testament. We could have cited other examples of the principle of frequency, but this one is so very important.
Jesus clearly and frequently teaches us about His own work and identity. The Apostles and other New Testament writers clearly reinforce this teaching. It would be a most amazing thing indeed to read the entire Bible, and fail to apprehend, on an intellectual level at least, that Jesus claimed to be the Messiah; He showed compelling evidence that He is the Messiah. His followers supported His claims in the strongest terms after His crucifixion and resurrection. Indeed, the person and work of Christ Jesus is THE central theme of the entire Scripture, repeated over and over, promised by Godly prophets and symbolized prolifically in the Old Testament, and bluntly stated with glaring frequency in the New Testament.
It is our hope that you are getting the idea here. When God, in His Word, tells us something over and over again; when He causes His prophets to write it over and over in various cultural and temporal contexts; when He states it to us in so many different ways; pay attention because it is very important!
Now do not misunderstand us here. God does not have to reveal something but once for it to be true. He may give us information in His Word in subtle ways. He may use symbols and allegories which seem vague to us while still illustrating an important truth. Truths revealed briefly or vaguely will be no less true!
What we are saying is this: If He says it clearly and often, realize that it must be true and very important for us to apprehend rightly.
Chapter Nine -- Repetition
In my opinion, one of the sundry errors incorporated into many modern translations of the Bible is the failure to include repeated phrases which are present in the original languages.
One example is found in the ninth chapter of the Gospel of Mark:
And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. (Mark 9:43-48).
In this text, we see the identical phrase appearing three times. Some Greek manuscripts and modern translations omit this repetition, citing the phrase “Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched” only once. ixvi This phrase comes from Isaiah 66:24.
Whether this phrase is present three times in the original version of the Gospel of Mark is really not presently our concern. As ought to be obvious to the reader by this time, the author strongly supports the validity of the Textus Receptus, and thus I believe that the majority family (i.e., Antiochan, Byzantine) of textual material is authoritative, and that the minority family (i.e., Alexandrian) are corrupted and ought to be excluded from us by Bible translators. xviii Moreover, this phrase is repeated in majority texts and thus in the Textus Receptus.
However, what is at issue here is really the fact of the repetition itself. When repetition of this nature appears within a brief span of text, it is a signal of heightened importance to the message that God is communicating to us. This is such a clear repetition that it could not be overlooked. However, there are less obvious repetitions in the Scripture which ought not to be overlooked.
One of my very favorite instances of repetition in Scripture occurs in Mark 13 as follows:
Take ye heed, watch and pray: for ye know not when the time is. For the Son of man is as a man taking a far journey, who left his house, and gave authority to his servants, and to every man his work, and commanded the porter to watch. Watch ye therefore: for ye know not when the master of the house cometh, at even, or at midnight, or at the cockcrowing, or in the morning: Lest coming suddenly he find you sleeping. And what I say unto you I say unto all, Watch. (Mark 13:33-37).
Did you catch the “watch-word” of this text? The command to watch for the coming of our Lord is issued four times in this brief run of five verses. Would you get the idea that watching for the return of our Lord is a theme upon which we should put some real emphasis? Indeed, we should. The Lord will come suddenly, but He will not catch the watchful disciple unawares!xix
Although the exact time of His return is unknown to us, we nonetheless have the duty to watch for His return by recognizing the fulfillment of God-given prophecies as they have occurred, do occur, and shall occur. We observe the times and the seasons. We watch for the budding of the fig tree!
We cannot leave the topics of frequency and repetition without mentioning that Psalm 119 is a very wonderful example of both principles. It is an acrostic in which every group of eight verses begins with a different Hebrew letter. The first group begins with the letter aleph and so it continues with subsequent Hebrew letters on through the entire Hebrew alphabet. The same theme, that of loving and obeying the Law of God, is repeated and emphasized in each group. Thus, both frequency and repetition are illustrated.
Chapter Ten -- First Mention
This principle conveys the general idea that the first time that a word or idea in mentioned in Scripture, the preferred meaning is given. Now we have already observed that there are words, ideas, and phrases in Scripture that can have various meanings, so this may be said to be a general rule; not always true. It is a guide for us. For example “genea” (Greek for “generations”) may have various meanings in various contexts. Indeed, this “genea” may have more than one meaning in a single occurrence; a “double entendre” may exist.
Our principle of hermeneutics here simply gives us the first meaning of a word which ought to be considered. The first appearance of the Greek root “genea” occurs in Matthew 1:1, and there it clearly refers to the actual literal genealogy of our Lord Jesus Christ; it is the generations of Christ Jesus.
Thus, when we see this word in Matthew 23 and 24, literal generations ought to be the meaning that we first consider, given the context, the consistency of all Scripture, perspicuity, and plain sense. Does this idea restrict us to this single meaning only in those latter chapters? It does not.
Let us observe a second example. In Hebrew, the root “bara” occurs in Genesis 1:1. Clearly, the word there expresses creation “ex nihilo” (i.e., the ability of God solely to create something out of nothing). In the first chapter of Genesis, God creates all that is, and the word “bara” is used to describe this Divine work.
When God causes something to be formed out of something else, other Hebrew words are used. The most frequent of these is “asah” (usually translated “made” and also “yatsar” usually translated “formed”) but let us not digress as our hermeneutical principle may be illustrated best by restricting our consideration to the use of “bara.”
Well, “bara” occurs elsewhere in the Old Testament. Consider Isaiah 65:17-18.
For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind. But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy. (Isaiah 65:17-18).
The word translated “create” in these verses is none other than “bara.” Now this may be difficult to understand. How can God speak of creating “ex nihilo” at some point in the future to the original times of creation in Genesis? Could it be that He speaks of the effectual calling of His own people to Himself, the performing of the work of regeneration upon the dead spirits of men? Is this actually a work of creation done by God Himself? New Jerusalem can refer to the whole people of God who are ultimately and in all ages redeemed by His work of grace (Note Revelation 21:2).
We do not wish to presume too much upon the text here. Rather, we do wish to illustrate the applicability of the principle of first mention to the text in Isaiah. The primary meaning of “bara” is to create from nothing, and in part, at least, we understand this from that clear meaning indicated in Genesis.
The Prophet Isaiah is referring to an act of creation out of nothing performed by God. Given that meaning of the word, our attempts at exegesis and interpretation ought to be improved.
Having now considered one example from the Greek New Testament and one from the Hebrew Scriptures, it is time to move on, but be assured, there are many other examples where this hermeneutical principle will be required to be used for us to arrive a our best interpretations of Biblical texts.
Chapter Eleven -- Genre
The first thing that we must say concerning genre is that it may be one of the more abused principles of Biblical interpretation observed today. For example, someone will read the Apocalypse of John the Revelator or the Book of Daniel or parts of the Book of Ezekiel, etc. and they will conclude that nothing in these texts may be apprehended in any literal way, because literature in the apocalyptic genre contains many symbols and allegories.
Let the reader by reminded that symbolic meanings and literal meanings are not of necessity mutually exclusive! Daniel 2:35 refers to the stone kingdom which beaks up all those which came before it. It is to become a great mountain and fill all the earth.
Dreams and visions are characteristic of apocalyptic literature, and this section of Daniel is typical of such. All the other kingdoms in the dream of Nebuchadnezzar were literal kingdoms. The other kingdoms were designated by appropriate symbols, and the story of the smashed statue is allegorical, that is, the story that is literally told is representative of a far greater truth.
The stone kingdom, too, is a literal kingdom represented by a symbol (i.e., the great stone). Because the story is told in the apocalyptic genre does not militate against the idea that the kingdoms are literal kingdoms described in a symbolic way.
Is the same not true for other apocalyptic literary constructions? Yes, in the twentieth chapter of the Book of Revelation, the thousand years may be symbolic; but this in no way opposes a more literal apprehension of the text. There may indeed come a literal thousand year long reign of Christ Jesus upon the earth.
There may actually be 144,000 of the tribes of Israel who receive Divine protection during a literal seven year period of great tribulation on the earth. The potential truth of that proposition does not, in any way, prevent those numbers from carrying symbolism.
In addition to the Apocalyptic genre of literature found in the Scripture, there are many other types. Each has its own interpretative nuances. Moreover, many Biblical texts exhibit characteristics of more than one genre, and this must be taken into account as we seek to wring out their meanings. Briefly, the major genre found in the Bible may be classified loosely as follows:
* Apocalypse (Revelation, Parts of Daniel and Ezekiel)
* Poetry (Psalms and Hymns)
* Narrative (Doctrinal, Historical, Biographical) xx
* Wisdom (Proverbs, Ecclesiastes)
* Allegory and Parable Matthew 13)
* Epistle (Romans, Ephesians, Titus, James)
* Hyperbole, Idiom, and Figures of Speech (Psalm 114:4)
* Prophecy (Foretelling and Forthtelling)
Various writers will divide these texts in different ways, but this classification would seem to “cover most of the bases.” (i.e., an idiomatic statement).
As we have stated, apocalypses may carry both literal and symbolic meanings. Some messages may be “hidden” in the text using other literary mechanisms. Apocalypses are most often somewhat mysterious and difficult to interpret. Moreover, they have a prophetic quality, and often relate to events which have not yet occurred, which adds to their difficulty.
Poetry in the Hebrew language is much different from English language poetry. For example, rhyme is not characteristic of Hebrew poetry, but it is, of course, common in English. Hebrew poetry makes extensive use of various types of parallelism. Like English poetry however, Hebrew poetry often utilizes many expressions which are very descriptive, demonstrative, figurative, and even graphic. These characteristics must be considered when interpreting this type of literature in the Scripture. Just as we would not interpret an English poem as we would an English narrative, we likewise ought not to attempt to force Hebrew poetry into such a narrow mold. When the English poet proclaims that his “love is like a red, red rose,” it would be most unwise to apprehend his statement in any rigid wooden sort of way. He does not intend for you to gather that his lady friend displays red petals and green leaves! Rather, he wishes for you to understand that she is physically attractive and desirable, as is a red rose.
Narratives convey information in a much more direct and succinct way. Historical narratives simply tell us what has happened in certain places and at certain times. Thus, we may take them very literally, and this literal grammatical means of interpretation is the primary methodology to be used with all historical narratives. Doctrinal narratives also tell us about the true nature of things. They are given to teach us important truths about God and His nature, and they are largely literal, but may contain within them other literary devices or genre. However, the presence of figures of speech or idioms within the doctrinal narrative texts usually does not throw us for a loop, as these are fairly obvious most of the time. Sermons occurring in narrative texts, such as the Sermon on the Mount spoken by Jesus in Matthew 5-7, may contain illustrations which have obvious symbolism. In Matthew 5:13, it is clear that Jesus does not intend to communicate that those who follow Him are to become literally salt in the earth. Rather, we are to influence the world in a way that is similar to the way that salt influences meat. There are many examples such as these.
Wisdom literature in the Bible contains axiomatic expressions; maxims for living. They indicate to us the way that we ought to live in the world. For example, we ought to train our children properly (Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it. – Proverbs 22:6). However, who really meets this entire obligation as a parent? No one does. Further, even if they did meet it, some children might still turn out badly. Wisdom literature informs us with regard to how we ought to live; morally and uprightly before God and men.
Allegories and parables are stories used to illustrate deeper truths. Jesus taught with parables. Some have asked if there really was an historical prodigal son; that is, they want to know if all the elements of the story told by Jesus are historically accurate. Is this an historically accurate account of events which really happened? The answer is that it does not matter! Although Jesus told a story about a prodigal son, a jealous son, and a forgiving father; the truth that He illustrated went so much deeper than the actual content of the story. It is the underlying truth that is the point, and it is that underlying truth which is really true! Whether or not the story actually happened is irrelevant to the truth that is illustrated and illuminated thereby. Parables, in my view, and allegories differ in one respect. Parables are commonplace stories; they could easily be true on an historical level. Some allegorical stories are not bound by the commonplace. Indeed, they may sometimes take on a mysterious or supernatural character, and they are obviously historically fictitious.
Epistles are letters or correspondences. They are intended for a particular audience, and they deal with particular subjects. The epistles in the Scripture are directed at certain groups of individuals and churches, and they do address specific issues, but noticeably, certain themes reoccur regularly when comparing one epistle to another. Epistles represent some of the most clear and concise doctrinal repositories in the Bible, and thus, they may most often be interpreted in a very straightforward way.
Hyperbole is really a Hebrew poetic device, but it is treated here separately because it does occur in other contexts and genre. Hyperbole is simply exaggeration which is used to make a point, and it is much akin to our use of idioms in Western culture. On a day when it is raining particularly hard, I might remark to my wife that it is “coming a flood.” Well, it is not really coming a flood, but my wife would understand the it is raining briskly. Were I to say that the telephone is “ringing off the wall,” I do not mean it literally. We do not even have a telephone on the wall. I mean that the telephone has rung several times and someone ought to answer it before the caller hangs up! I have exaggerated to make a point. I have not really lied, as lying requires intent. My point was made and understood by the reasonable hearer. The same is true about Hebrew hyperbole. In Psalm 114:4, we know that mountains were not skipping around like lambs; the reasonable hearer understands this. This exaggeration is used simply to emphasize that which the text is attempting to communicate. This device helps us not to miss the point.
Prophetic texts must be handled as a separate genre because they do not conform to the interpretative methods used for other kinds of texts that we have mentioned. The prophetic function may be placed into two clear categories. There are two things that the prophets of God did. They “foretold” events that would come to pass in their future; and they “told forth” admonitions applicable in their own day. In this latter function, they really called the people back to the Law of God in their own day and time. Both of these functions employ much symbolism. One of the classic symbolic texts is the Book of Hosea wherein the story of Hosea and Gomer is told to illustrate the forbearance and patient love that God has for His people. Look through the symbolism, and the commonplace stories and observe what it is that God is really trying to tell His people. Sometimes these things are explained for us, as in the story of the watchman in Ezekiel 33 which “tells forth” concerning a way that we ought to conduct ourselves as the children of God in this mortal life. Ezekiel here tells a story about an appointed watchman, and then he continues to tell us how the story should be applied to our lives. Sometimes, the life application is not so clearly given, but it can be properly apprehended by the prayerful and diligent student of the Word.
Chapter Twelve -- Temporality
Again, we must begin by citing a common interpretive error, in that many today, in the church, would attempt to culturally contextualize the Holy Scripture. This must not be accommodated. The Theological doctrines of the Scripture are not subject to cultural context. For example, the Law given to Moses by God says that idolatry is sinful. It was sinful in that day, and it is still sinful now. This is a Theological matter.
Now here is a fine line. In 1 .Peter 5:14, in the imperative, we are told to greet each other with a kiss of charity. Now were I to meet some of my readers in a motel lobby somewhere, it is unlikely that we would greet each other in this way. We would more likely shake hands! This merely represents a cultural norm of our time which has no Theological import. It does not affect our soteriological, ecclesiological, liturgical, or any other doctrine or practice of the church. The point is that we express our love (Gr. Agape) for each other in the Body of Christ.
Time does not alter doctrine; only the expression of culture and civilization change with time. God has not changed, but He has applied some things differently over the course of time for our benefit. In the antediluvian age, there was no injunction against marriage to siblings or cousins of the opposite sex. What changed over time? We did, and because of our own genetic constitution which had deteriorated, God told us not to marry our close kin. We now know scientifically that which the Bible has told us from ages ago. Marrying our close kin increases the risk of birth defects. Science continues to be busy confirming all that the Scripture teaches about the nature of things!
We ought to accept the fact that the revelation of God to us is progressive. We have more information than did the Old Testament saints, and because of that, by the way, we become more responsible.
Even Jesus, in His humanity, could say truthfully that he did not know the day and the hour that He would return.
But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father. (Mark 13:32).
I strongly suspect that Jesus knows presently the precise moment of His return! The point is that there is temporality that is often involved in the interpretation of the Holy Writ. We cannot assume that Jesus does not now know the hour of His return based upon this text in Mark which would seem, in its plain sense, to indicate such a lack of knowledge. Jesus Christ is God in all His essence, and is therefore omniscient. He knows all things. However, He had veiled His Deity such that, in His human nature, He spoke truthfully in the Gospel of Mark.
Let us be clear also on some other issues which may not be derived out of the hermeneutical principle of temporality. Temporality does not justify any practice which is opposed on any Theological ground whatsoever. xxi
In 1.Timothy 2:12, there is the strict injunction given by the Apostle Paul forbidding women to teach or to exercise authority over men. In 1.Timothy 2:13-14, a substantive Theological reason is given for this injunction. The church today is not at liberty to ignore these injunctions by allowing women to become ordained as bishops, presbyters, or deacons. As an aside, the church is not at liberty to ordain unqualified men to these offices either. These things are commonly done, and they are justified erroneously either by ignorance of the Word of God, by defiance of the Word of God, or by misinterpretation of the Word of God by means of cultural contextualization. The Word is authoritative, and we had better follow its direction in all things about which it speaks.
Chapter Thirteen --¦ Positivity
The principle of positivity compels us to speak authoritatively where the Scripture speaks, and conversely to keep silent where the Scripture is silent. We may conclude doctrines out of reasonable and necessary inference (such as the doctrine of the Trinitarian nature of God), but we may not make arguments from silence. Many theologians who have taken a preterist view of eschatology have needed to show that the Book of Revelation was written prior to the fall of Jerusalem in AD70. Only by ascribing an early date of AD64-AD68 to the Apocalypse can they apprehend the book as foretelling events future to its writing. This is because they see the fall of Jerusalem as the fulfillment of the bulk of the prophecies foretold in the book.
Evidence for this claim of early authorship in the sixties rests upon a classic argument from silence. They rightly observe that John the Revelator never in all the book mentions the destruction of the Jewish Temple in AD70. Further, they contend that the destruction of the city of Jerusalem with its Temple along with the slaughter of so many of the Jewish people of that day there would have been such a noteworthy historical development that it is just inconceivable that John would have failed to comment on it.
Therefore, they contend, Revelation must have been written before the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of its Temple. However, this is faulty logic. The silence of John concerning these catastrophic events does not indicate that they had not already occurred. Indeed, most scholars surmise that John wrote the Book of Revelation between AD90 and AD100; the most likely date being AD95.
Take care then. There are still some mysteries yet to be revealed to us. Be thankful for that which God has been so gracious to reveal to us now in His Word, for some things will not be known until after He arrives here on earth once more. When the Scripture is silent, we ought not to make assumptions to “fill in the gaps” that we think may need to be filled. When they need to be filled in, God will fill them!
Let me use a very touchy subject as an illustration of this. What happens to our little ones who die in infancy? They are surely not able to assent intellectually to the Gospel. Are they condemned to hell then because of original sin which they, like all men, have inherited from Adam?
Some have posited that there is an “age of accountability” such that before one reaches that age, they are not accountable for their sin. This doctrine is based upon silence and thus fails the test of hermeneutical positivity. There is no age of accountability of such a description to be found anywhere in the Bible. I believe the mistake lies in the equating of intellectual assent with true faith in the person and finished work of Christ. We may infer reasonably that both Jeremiah and John the Baptist were called to salvation while still in the wombs of their mothers! They must have been given faith while not possessing intellectual assent.
Further, Jesus said that we must come as little children, and He always seemed gracious toward children in His earthly ministry. David recognized that he would see his young son in the afterlife; but on what grounds did he know this? We simply cannot say; perhaps David, in his prophetic office, had this unique revelation from God on this matter.
We do know that the “age of accountability” is a baseless doctrine which does not conform to the Scripture. It is contrived by men to explain something that the Scripture does not explain fully to us; and as it is contrived by men out of their own fallen reason, it is a dangerous doctrine.
If we were truly to believe such a false doctrine, would we not wish our children to die before they reached that age where they became accountable for their sins; to thus die in their youth so that they would be assured of their place in heaven as they would die without accountability for their sins? How macabre! What a travesty of sound Biblical interpretation!
Now I hope in glory to see every child ever murdered by the abortionist butchers of our day. That truly is my sincere desire and prayer. Yet, such may neither be affirmed nor denied by Scripture.
Chapter Fourteen -- Contrapositivity
It is true in a few instances that where a positive statement is exclusively affirmed, that its opposite may be exclusively affirmed as well. When the Scripture commands positively to call upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved; there exists a mutual exclusivity with the opposite affirmation. That is, do not call upon the Lord Jesus Christ and you will not be saved. The latter statement is equally true, though not explicitly stated in the same local text.
Some theologians have applied this idea to the beatitudes. Here is an example: Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. (Matthew 5:9).
The opposite of this affirmative statement might say, “Cursed are the warmongers, for they shall be called the children of the Devil.”
Take care with this principle, as it does not apply in all cases. Use discernment and test statements of contrapositivity by the Scriptures using other principles of hermeneutics.
Chapter Fifteen -- Conclusion
It is our sincere hope that the use of these straightforward principles will help clear up some problems that you may experience from time to time in your study of the Scriptures. The Bible is precious, and it is truly a gift from God Himself to us. It contains the truth of all ages. It is the only infallible authority that exists in our fallen world. We wish to encourage you to study the Word of God; to love it, to learn it, and to live it! In all you do, do all for the glory of the one true, living and eternal God.
