Hermeneutics
That branch of Bible study which seeks to
discover the rules governing the proper interpretation of Scripture is known as
hermeneutics. Among devout Bible students, there has long been consensus as to what these
rules are. The church must now reaffirm and defend them if it wishes to counter the
current threats to sound doctrine, which either ignore these rules or take refuge in new
ones unknown to traditional hermeneutics. The authentic rules of interpretation include
the following five.
The rule of authorial intent
No reader has the right to impose his own ideas
on the text. Scripture itself clearly teaches that the only meaning of a text is what the
Holy Spirit intended when He inspired the human writer (2 Pet. 1:20-1). It follows that
every text has only one correct interpretation. If two readers disagree on what it means,
at least one of them is necessarily wrong. Perhaps both are wrong. How do we discover the
one correct interpretation? We must consult the author Himself, the Holy Spirit. We must
allow Him to teach us.
Violations
- We live in a time when the thinking of many
people is colored by the idea that all truth is relative—that what is true for me may
not be true for you. Thus, when someone prefers a doubtful interpretation of Scripture, he
may justify himself by saying, "Everyone is entitled to his own interpretation,"
as if any interpretation is as good as another. The rule of authorial intent shows this
thinking to be in error. The only correct interpretation is the one faithful to the
author's intent.
- In mainline churches tainted with neo-orthodox
theology, many people use Bible words and concepts only to gain a satisfying religious
experience—to achieve a religious high, as it were. Upon reading a Bible text, they
look for subjective meanings. They ask, "How is this text useful for reinforcing my
own religious ideas and promoting a good religious feeling?" Because they set
subjective meanings in place of intended meanings, they are violating the rule of
authorial intent.
The rule of univocal meaning
The basic sense of a passage is the single
sense evident to any reader who allows the words their ordinary meanings and who expects
the grammar and syntax to shape and combine these meanings in a normal fashion. (This rule
should not be applied indiscriminately, without recognition that Biblical writers may
sometimes propound a riddle or engage in word play. In either instance the words may bear
more than one basic meaning.)
Violations
- Many cults—from Mormonism to Christian
Science, from Jehovah's Witnesses to Seventh-Day Adventists—purport to be based on
the Bible. How can such divergent belief systems find a footing in the same book? The
answer is that every cult foists interpretations on the Bible that distort what the Bible
actually says. Instead of respecting the true single sense of a decisive passage, a cult
changes the sense to suit its own peculiar views.
- Among contemporary evangelicals, an increasing
number have no objection to women preachers or monogamous homosexual unions. They concede
that the Bible appears to forbid both, but they argue that God was merely seeking a good
fit between His Word and ancient culture. Less restriction on a woman's role would have
been too radical for a church grounded in patriarchal Judaism, and condemnations of
homosexuality were useful for combating the homosexual promiscuity that flourished in the
Greco-Roman world, especially in pagan temples. But, in the view of these evangelicals,
God sees modern society as ready for both women preachers and homosexual monogamy, and the
Biblical prohibitions against them are outmoded. But how does anyone know what God thinks
apart from His Word? If His Word says that He opposes something, we cannot conclude that
He favors it without overriding the rule of univocal meaning. To suppose that the Bible
does not give us God's latest views treats Him as if He were a politician who says one
thing at one time and another thing at another time, according to what serves His
advantage.
- We need not seek any significance in the
numerical values of letters, in the physical layout of the original text, in combinations
of separated words or letters, in punctuation, or in any other coincidence. In a recent
best-selling book—Michael Drosnin's The Bible Code (1997)—the author
assembles all the letters occurring at certain intervals and interprets them as
prophecies, finding even a prophecy of Kennedy's assassination. But all this is
sleight-of-hand to impress the naive. The same technique can be used to fabricate any
message whatsoever. Many books of like nature appear on such Web sites as The Prophecy
Club.
The rule of context
The context of a passage may supply clues to
the correct interpretation. Such clues may even clarify a passage that otherwise would be
obscure. An example is the Parable of the Mustard Seed (Matt. 13:31-2). Only by comparing
it with the other parables in the same chapter (especially the first two, the Parable of
the Sower and the Parable of the Wheat and Tares) do we discover that it describes the
future of the church. Its prediction that the church in its final stages would be corrupt
comes to light only if we notice that the growth of the mustard plant parallels the spread
of leaven in the next parable (in Scripture, leaven always represents sin), and only if we
notice that the birds in the first parable of the series, the Parable of the Sower,
represent workers of Satan (vs. 4, 19).
Violations
Many heretical doctrines violate this rule. The
Catholic teaching that Peter was the first pope appeals to Matthew 16:18. But in context,
the rock is not Peter, but Christ.
The rule that Scripture explains itself
How do we know that leaven represents sin? We
draw this conclusion from a comprehensive look at all the references to leaven in
Scripture. In obedience to this fourth rule, we rely on Scripture to explain itself. That
is to say, in the places where leaven is a symbol with obvious meaning, we expect that the
meaning will be the same, and that this meaning will help us interpret the other texts
referring to leaven.
In consequence of this investigation, we find
that Scripture consistently associates leaven with evil. Before celebrating Passover and
the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the people of Israel were required to go through their
houses and remove every trace of leaven (Ex. 12:15). This ritual depicted their need to
remove sin from their lives before they sought fellowship with God. Paul explicitly
identifies leaven as a symbol of malice and wickedness (1 Cor. 5:6-8; Gal. 5:7-9).
In general, the New Testament explains the Old.
Without the New, we could not be confident that the Old contains types and allegories, and
we would scarcely know how to interpret them.
A type is a person or event that pictures a
person or event in the future. The New Testament informs us that Melchizedek is a type of
Christ (Heb. 6:20-7:3). That Joshua the high priest is a symbol of the Branch—that
is, Christ—is made plain even in the Old Testament (Zech. 3:8; "wondered
at" can be translated "of symbol"), but only from the perspective of the
New Testament do we understand the significance of his name, Joshua (that is, Jesus).
Other Old Testament figures who seem to be deliberate types of Christ are Joseph, Joshua
(Moses' successor), and Hosea. Such figures as Pharaoh, Haman, and Antiochus Epiphanes
(foreshadowed in Dan. 11:21-35) appear to be forerunners of the Antichrist. The New
Testament teaches that the rites of Mosaic religion furnish types of Christ's redemptive
work (Heb. 9:8-9).
A story in which each element
represents something beyond itself is a common species of allegory. Israel's escape from
Egypt is an allegory of Christian experience (1 Cor. 10:1-6), and the struggle within
Abraham's family between Hagar and Sarah is an allegory of the conflict between law and
grace (Gal. 4:21-31). Another type of allegory hides spiritual truth in a plain statement
about something else. Paul encourages us to see allegories in minor provisions of the
Mosaic law (1 Cor. 9:9-10).
The question that has always vexed expositors
is this: Just how much liberty do we have to discover allegories? Some church fathers and
many commentators during the Middle Ages carried allegorizing to extremes, even so far as
to neglect the plain meaning of Scripture. To a modern student of the Bible, many of the
allegories that they drew from Scripture seem far-fetched and arbitrary. In reaction
against allegorizing, most Bible-believing expositors since Reformation times decline to
look for any allegories besides those Scripture itself identifies—with one major
exception. The Song of Solomon has traditionally been read as an allegory of Christ's love
for the church.
The rule of literalism.
The Bible is to be taken literally unless it is
using symbols or a figure of speech.
Figures of speech
A figure of speech is an expression implying an
idea other than what is actually stated. Five kinds of figurative language are prevalent
in Scripture.
- Metaphor. The most common kind of figure
in Scripture is the metaphor, backbone of Hebrew poetry. No less than six metaphors occur
in a single verse (Psa., 18:2). A metaphor speaks of an equivalence when there is no more
than a resemblance. God is not a high tower; He merely in some ways resembles one.
- Metonymy. Metonymy is the substitution of
a related concept for the intended concept. We find examples in 1 Thessalonians 5:19
("the Spirit" is substituted for His activity or manifestations), Isaiah 22:22
("key" replaces the broader idea of authority), and Luke 16:29 (Moses and the
prophets stand in place of their writings). In all these cases, the literal meaning is
false or impossible.
- Synecdoche. Synecdoche is another kind of
substitution—in this case, a part for the whole or a whole for the part, as when
Jesus says, "The Son of man hath not where to lay his head" (Matt. 8:20). For
other examples, see Judges 12:7; and Acts 27:37.
- Ellipsis. An ellipsis is an abbreviated
expression that requires the reader to supply the missing words. Taken literally, an
ellipsis might be nonsensical. In 1 Corinthians 3:2, for instance, the writer does not
mean that he refrained from giving them meat to drink. Of similar nature are the
expressions we find in Luke 1:64 and Psalm 74:7 (in the latter case, the translators
supplied the omitted words).
- Hyperbole. Hyperbole is rhetorical
overstatement, a fairly common device in the Bible (Gen. 22:17; Deut. 1:28; 2 Chron. 28:4;
S. of S. 4:4).
Recognizing figures of speech
How can we tell when Scripture is using a
figure of speech? Generally, an expression should be taken figuratively if it falls in one
of three categories.
- The literal meaning is impossible. A
simple example appears in Psalm 5:9. A throat cannot be a sepulchre.
- The literal meaning is possible, but probably
never true. We find a figure of this type in Psalm 25:15. It is not impossible that my
feet would, under peculiar circumstances, become entangled in a net and that the Lord
would deliver me from it. But the psalmist is not talking about a real net. He is
referring to any trap set by an enemy.
- The literal meaning is trivial. A good
example is the metaphor in Isaiah 55:1-2. There is no logical difficulty in supposing that
the prophet is calling people to buy food and drink, but to view the passage in this way
trivializes it and misses the point. The prophet has a spiritual message here. He wants us
to forsake worldly things for the eternal things that yield true satisfaction.
Symbolism
Symbolism presents somewhat thornier problems.
Probably the clearest example of symbolism in Scripture is the mysterious drama in
Revelation 12:1-6. Another clear example is the Parable of the Sower (Matt. 13:1-9,
18-23). From examination of these and other cases, we arrive at some principles governing
Biblical symbolism.
- When the Bible uses symbolism, it alerts the
reader to the nature of what he is reading. Jesus Himself gives a full explanation of
the Parable of the Sower. From His treatment of this parable, we infer that we can treat
other parables in the same manner. Revelation 12 begins by identifying the woman clothed
with the sun as "a great wonder in heaven." "Wonder" is simply the
word "sign," or "symbol."
- In Biblical symbolism, each element
corresponds to something real. In the Parable of the Sower, everything Jesus says has
a meaning. There is no meaningless detail. Likewise in the pageant of Revelation 12, the
woman, the dragon, the stars, the deeds of the actors—all have prophetic
significance.
- The Bible interprets its own symbolism.
Who is the woman clothed with the sun? Her setting in the midst of the sun, the moon, and
twelve stars recalls the dream of Joseph (Gen. 37:9-10), which used similar imagery to
signify the family of Jacob. We conclude that the woman is Israel. Who is the dragon? The
Book of Revelation says he is Satan (Rev. 20:2).
- Biblical symbols are always appropriate. We
said earlier that leaven represents sin. Consider what leaven is. The chemical reactions
that cause a lump of dough to rise are the work of minute vegetable organisms called
yeast, a type of fungus. A distinctive property of all fungi is their lack of chlorophyll.
As nongreen plants, they are incapable of making their own food. They must draw
nourishment from other organisms, whether living or dead. Yeast is a fungus that, in
feeding itself, converts bread sugars into alcohol (which disappears during baking) and
carbon dioxide, a gas. Notice that the leavening effect of the yeast depends on its
destruction of a nourishing and flavorful food substance. As an agent of destruction and
decay, leaven is a fitting symbol for something evil.
Violations
The last rule is an effective weapon against
many false interpretations. Leading evangelicals scholars treat large portions of the
Bible as mere metaphor or symbolism. They especially resist a literal interpretation of
the creation account in Genesis, or of the prophecies in Daniel and Revelation. But if we
use the criteria already stated, we find that metaphorical and symbolic interpretations do
not fit.
- We cannot conclude that they are metaphorical
unless their literal sense is impossible, untrue, or trivial. But God could, if He wanted,
create the world in six days. He could build a city out of gold. The majority of believing
Christians have never found any difficulty in the literal sense of these disputed
passages.
- We cannot conclude that they are symbolic unless
we find meaning in the details. But virtually none of the details in the creation account
have meaning if it is not literally true. It is just a nice story with hardly any
connections to fact. Likewise for Bible prophecy. Either it is literally true, or it has
almost no content with specific meaning.
This information was taken from:
http://www.themoorings.org/life/basics/Bible3.html"
Return to the Bible Study Page
Return to the Perilous Times Main Page